October 2005

Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement

for the Revision of the 

Resource Management Plans of the 

Western Oregon Bureau of Land 

Management Districts 

of Salem, Eugene, Roseburg, Coos Bay, and 

Medford Districts, and the Klamath Falls Resource 

Area of the Lakeview District

Volume I

Salem, Eugene, Roseburg, Coos Bay, Medford, and Klamath Falls Offices August 2007

BLM
PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300

OFFICIAL BUSINESSPortland, Oregon 97204333 S.W. 1st AvenueOregon State OfficeBureau of Land ManagementUnited States Department of the Interior PRIORITY MAIL

POSTAGE AND FEES PAID

Bureau of Land Management

Permit No. G-76

BLM/OR/WA/PL-07/046+1792


III
IV

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs
V

Table of Contents

Volume I

Preface ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������XXXV

Summary XLI

Introduction�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� XLIII

What is the purpose and need for the action being proposed?������������� XLIV

What alternatives are being proposed? �����������������������������������������������������XLV

What are the environmental consequences of the alternatives? ������������������ L

Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need 1

Introduction����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������3

Purpose and Need for the Plan Revisions��������������������������������������������������������3

Reasons for Revising the RMPs Now �������������������������������������������������������������4

Selecting a Preferred Alternative �����������������������������������������������������������������������7

Background ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������8

Planning Area�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������16

Planning Process ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������18

Collaboration������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������19

Relationship of the RMPs to Other Plans, and Programs ����������������������������22

Chapter 2 – Alternatives 27

Introduction��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������29

Management Common to All Action Alternatives ���������������������������������������29

The Alternatives �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������64

Tables for Areas of Critical Environmental Concern ����������������������������������114

Tables for District-Specific Recreation Management Actions��������������������119

Maps ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������154
VI

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment 179

Introduction������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������181

Ecology ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������192

Socioeconomics ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������216

Timber����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������247

Special Forest Products �����������������������������������������������������������������������������������251

Botany����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������257

Invasive Plants �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������268

Wildlife ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������282

Fish���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������335

Water������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������359

Fire and Fuels ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������392

Air ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������401

Recreation����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������405

Wilderness Characteristics������������������������������������������������������������������������������417

Visual Resources ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������420

National Landscape Conservation System ��������������������������������������������������422

Soils ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������425

Grazing��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������428

Wild Horses ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������433

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern and Research Natural Areas��435

Cultural Resources�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������439

Lands, Realty, Access, and Transportation���������������������������������������������������445

Energy and Minerals ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������454
VII

Volume II

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences 473

Introduction������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������475

Ecology ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������494

Socioeconomics ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������534

Environmental Justice �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������554

Timber����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������557

Special Forest Products �����������������������������������������������������������������������������������590

Botany �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������593

Invasive Plants �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������611

Wildlife �����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������633

Fish���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������723

Water������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������745

Fire and Fuels ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������765

Air ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������773

Recreation �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������775

Wilderness Characteristics �����������������������������������������������������������������������������784

Visual Resources ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������789

National Landscape Conservation System ������������������������������������������������793

Soils �����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������794

Grazing �����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������798

Wild Horses ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������804

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern ����������������������������������������������������807

Cultural Resources ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������811

Energy and Minerals ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������816
VIII

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Chapter 5 – Coordination and Monitoring 819

Introduction������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������821

Public Contact and Scoping����������������������������������������������������������������������������822

Formal Cooperators�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������823

Government-to-Government Coordination�������������������������������������������������825

Consistency with Other Agency Plans and Programs��������������������������������826

Section 7 Consultation under the Endangered Species Act�����������������������829

Preparers �����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������830

Monitoring ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������845

Adaptive Management �����������������������������������������������������������������������������������848

Acronyms 851

Glossary 855

References 867

Index 923

Volume III

Appendix A. Legal Authorities 927

Settlement Agreement�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������929

Major Court Rulings����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������930

Major Legal Authorities ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������933

Appendix B. Ecology 939

Structural Stage Classification �����������������������������������������������������������������������941

Interagency Vegetation Mapping Project Data��������������������������������������������946

Average Historical Conditions and the Historic Range of Variability�����947

FRAGSTATS������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������949
IX

Appendix C. Socioeconomics 953

Analysis of Socioeconomic Effects ����������������������������������������������������������������955

Appendix D. Timber 965

Timber Valuation����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������967

Ten-Year Scenario Quality Check ������������������������������������������������������������������971

Appendix E. Botany 973

Federally Listed and Candidate Plant Species ��������������������������������������������975

Digest of Actions Contained in Individual Recovery Plans for FederallyListed Plant Species �����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������977

Digest of Conservation Plans for Special Status Plants������������������������������980

Habitat Groups�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������984

Appendix F. Invasive Plants 1013

Analytical methods used to determine relative risk to introduce invasive 

plant species between the alternatives. ������������������������������������������������������1015

Appendix G. Wildlife 1023

Management Opportunities on BLM-Administered Lands in the Recovery 

Plans for the Columbia White-tailed Deer (Columbia River population), 

Marbled Murrelet, and Bald Eagle. �������������������������������������������������������������1025

Data in Support of Northern Spotted Owl Analysis ��������������������������������1037

Marbled Murrelet Critical Habitat. �������������������������������������������������������������1060

Special Status Animal Species����������������������������������������������������������������������1065

Appendix H. Fish 1069

Special Status Fish Species in the Planning Area ��������������������������������������1071

Status Summaries and Evolutionary Significant Units for Threatened or 

Endangered Salmonids ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������1073

Intrinsic Potential Model and Large Wood Delivery Model �������������������1082
X

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Appendix I. Water 1093

Water Planning Criteria ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������1095

Source Water Watersheds for Public Water Systems �������������������������������1120

Best Management Practices ��������������������������������������������������������������������������1132

Appendix J. Recreation 1189

Interim Off-highway Vehicle Management Guidelines ���������������������������1191

Planning Frameworks for Special Management Areas ����������������������������1208

Appendix K. Wilderness Characteristics 1255

Wilderness Characteristics Analysis �����������������������������������������������������������1257

Appendix L. Grazing 1261

Standard Procedures and Design Elements for Range Improvements 

within the Klamath Falls Resource Area ����������������������������������������������������1263

Grazing Allotments in the Klamath Falls Resource Area and Medford 

District �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������1270

Standards for Rangeland Health ����������������������������������������������������������������1284

Appendix M. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 1305

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern ��������������������������������������������������1307

Appendix N. Cultural Resources 1351

Federally Recognized Native American Tribes in or with Interests in the 

Planning Area�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������1353

Appendix O. Lands 1359

Land Tenure Adjustment Criteria����������������������������������������������������������������1361

Land Withdrawals and Land Tenure Zone 3 Lands ���������������������������������1363

Inventory of Communication Sites �������������������������������������������������������������1426

Analytical Methods to Determine Legal Public Accessibility of BLM 

Lands in the Planning Area ������������������������������������������������������������������������1430
XI

Appendix P. Energy and Minerals 1435

Reasonably Foreseeable Mineral and Energy Developments �����������������1437

Proposed Restrictions and Requirements on Mineral and Energy 

Exploration and Development Activity �����������������������������������������������������1478

Appendix Q. Vegetation Modeling 1503

Introduction����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������1505

BLM Forest Inventory Data��������������������������������������������������������������������������1506

Use of the Inventory Data in the Modeling �����������������������������������������������1512

GIS – Defining the Land Base & Spatial Projections���������������������������������1534

Forest Growth and Yield Modeling�������������������������������������������������������������1536

OPTIONS Modeling ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������1552

OPTIONS Products����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������1588
XII

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs
XIII

Table 1. Limited comparison of the key features of the four alternatives (for a 

complete comparison of the key features of the four alternatives, see 

the comparison table in Chapter 2) .......................................................................................XLIX

Table 2. Total economic impacts by alternative...................................................................................... LIII

Table 3. First decade revenues and costs and the present net value over 50 years............................. LIII

Table 4. Suitable habitat within the late-successional reserves and the latesuccessional management areas ............................................................................................LIX

Table 5. Acres of suitable habitat outside of the late-successional reserves and 

the late-successional management areas ................................................................................LX

Table 6. Off-highway vehicle designations under the alternatives .......................................................LXIII

Table 7. Acres of wilderness characteristics maintained under the alternatives..................................LXIV

Table 8. Total existing and potential ACECs designated by alternative ................................................LXV

Table 9. Relevant and important value categories that would receive no special 

management attention ...........................................................................................................LXVI

Table 10. The BLM districts and Oregon counties included in the planning area of 

the resource management plan revisions................................................................................. 17

Table 11. Legal status of lands managed by the BLM in western Oregon................................................ 17

Table 12. Formal cooperators ................................................................................................................... 19

Table 13. Recognized tribes within the planning area............................................................................... 20

Table 14. Other plan and resource coordination opportunities ................................................................ 25

Table 15. Areas open or closed to energy and mineral developments ..................................................... 32

Table 16. Allotments not available for livestock grazing in the Klamath Falls Resource Area .................. 36

Table 17. Exclosures or other areas closed to grazing in the Klamath Falls Resource Area.................... 37

Table 18. Allotments not available for livestock grazing in the Medford District........................................ 38

Table 19. Federally listed plants with recovery plans ............................................................................... 46

Table 20. Special status species plants with conservation plans.............................................................. 47

Table 21. Acres of visual resource management (VRM) classes by district ............................................. 55

Table 22. Lands with wilderness characteristics maintained under special management ........................ 59

Table 23. Snag and coarse woody debris (CWD) retention or creation for stands of 

larger trees (stand average diameter of QMD > 14 in.).....................................................69

Table 24. Snag and coarse woody debris (CWD) retention or creation for stands of 

smaller trees (stand average diameter of QMD ≤ 14 in.)...................................................69

Table 25. Criteria established for the riparian management area land use allocation under Alternative 1 70

Table 26. Timber offered for sale from regeneration harvest units............................................................ 71

Table 27. Timber offered for sale from commercial thinning harvest units................................................ 72

Table 28. Snag and coarse woody debris (CWD) retention or creation for stands of 

larger trees (stand average diameter of QMD > 14 in.) ............................................................ 77

Table 29. Snag and coarse woody debris (CWD) retention or creation for stands of 

smaller trees (stand average diameter of QMD ≤ 14 in.).......................................................... 77

Table 30. Snag and coarse woody debris (CWD) retention for salvaging of timber 

after a stand-replacement disturbance ..................................................................................... 78

Table 31. Zones and the zone-specific management actions of the riparian 

management area land use allocation under Alternative 2....................................................... 79

Table 32. Timber offered for sale from regeneration harvest units............................................................ 82

Table 33. Timber offered for sale from commercial thinning harvest units................................................ 82

List of Tables
XIV

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Table 34. Criteria established for the riparian management areas of the lands that 

are adjacent to the Coquille Forest as part of Alternative 2 ...................................................... 85

Table 35. Harvest interval, green tree retention, and snag and coarse woody 

debris (CWD) retention or creation levels per vegetation series for 

regeneration harvests under Alternative 3 ................................................................................ 91

Table 36. Harvest interval, green tree retention, and snag and coarse woody 

debris (CWD) retention or creation levels per vegetation series for 

partial harvests under Alternative 3 .......................................................................................... 92

Table 37. Zones and the zone-specific management actions of the riparian 

management area land use allocation under Alternative 3....................................................... 95

Table 38. Criteria established for the riparian management areas of the lands that 

are adjacent to the Coquille Forest as part of Alternative 3 ...................................................... 98

Table 39. Comparison of the key features of the four alternatives...........................................................110

Table 40. Comparison of the key impacts of the four alternatives ...........................................................112

Table 41. Existing and potential areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs) 

designated by alternative.........................................................................................................114

Table 42. Areas of critical environmental concern under the alternatives................................................114

Table 43. District-specific special recreation management areas........................................................... 120

Table 44. District-specific extensive recreation management areas....................................................... 122

Table 45. District-specific recreation sites .............................................................................................. 123

Table 46. District-specific recreation trails............................................................................................... 126

Table 47. District-specific potential recreation sites ............................................................................... 129

Table 48. District-specific potential recreation trails ............................................................................... 132

Table 49. District-specific backcountry byways....................................................................................... 135

Table 50. District-specific potential backcountry byways ........................................................................ 136

Table 51. District-specific environmental education areas...................................................................... 137

Table 52. District-specific recreation and public purpose leases ............................................................ 138

Table 53. District-specific off-highway vehicle area designations .......................................................... 139

Table 54. District-specific areas closed to off-highway vehicle use ....................................................... 140

Table 55. District-specific off-highway vehicle emphasis areas ............................................................. 143

Table 56. District-specific potential off-highway vehicle emphasis areas ............................................... 144

Table 57. District-specific Oregon State scenic waterways..................................................................... 145

Table 58. District-specific designated wild and scenic rivers and river segments .................................. 146

Table 59. District-specific suitable wild and scenic rivers and river segments ....................................... 147

Table 60. District-specific eligible wild and scenic rivers and river segments ........................................ 148

Table 61. District-specific wilderness areas ............................................................................................ 152

Table 62. District-specific wilderness study and wilderness instant study areas .................................... 153

Table 63. District-specific miscellaneous National Landscape Conservation System designated lands 153

Table 64. Legal status of the lands administered by the BLM within the planning area ........................ 184

Table 65. structural stage subdivisions ................................................................................................... 198

Table 66. Current structural stage abundance on forested lands .......................................................... 207

Table 67. Current mean patch size by structural stage by province ...................................................... 210

Table 68. Current connectance on BLM-administered lands by structural stage by province .........210

Table 69. 2005 county economy indicators ............................................................................................ 219

Table 70. 2005 county economy dependence on Secure Rural Schools and BLM effects..................... 220

Table 71. 2005 county economy grouped income patterns ................................................................... 221

Table 72. Public services that county revenues support ........................................................................ 226

Table 73. Total revenue, discretionary revenue, and O&C funding for fiscal year 2005 ........................ 228
XV

Table 74. BLM payments to counties within the planning area for selected years ($million).................. 231

Table 75. Percent public land in O&C counties....................................................................................... 232

Table 76. 2005 timberland area and inventory within the planning area ................................................ 233

Table 77. 2003 mill study log flows ......................................................................................................... 235

Table 78. Current standing volume and acres of forested land............................................................... 247

Table 79. Historic timber volume estimates ............................................................................................ 248

Table 80. Special forest products by category ....................................................................................... 256

Table 81. Number of documented and suspected plant and fungi special status species ..................... 260

Table 82. Federal status of federally listed plant species within the planning area................................. 262

Table 83. Federally listed plant species with recovery plans .................................................................. 263

Table 84. Plant species with conservation agreements .......................................................................... 264

Table 85. Plant species with conservation strategies.............................................................................. 264

Table 86. Distribution of survey and manage species............................................................................. 265

Table 87. Number of invasive plant and noxious weed species on BLM-administered 

lands within the planning area......................................................................................................268

Table 88. Classification schedule for the habitat of the northern spotted owl ......................................... 287

Table 89. Summary of current northern spotted owl habitat on BLM-administered 

lands within the planning area by province............................................................................. 289

Table 90. Summary of marbled murrelet nesting habitat on BLM-administered 

lands within the planning area ................................................................................................ 302

Table 91. Marbled murrelet population estimates for conservation Zones 3 and 4................................. 304

Table 92. Summary of critical habitat units and marbled murrelet nesting habitat 

on BLM-administered lands within the planning area ............................................................ 307

Table 93. Potential bald eagle nesting habitat within the planning area .................................................311

Table 94. Summary of the 2005 monitoring data for the bald eagle ....................................................... 312

Table 95. Bald eagle management areas within the planning area ....................................................... 312

Table 96. Critical habitat for the Pacific coast populations of the western snowy plover........................ 316

Table 97. Animal special status species in BLM districts within the planning area ................................ 318

Table 98. Documented or suspected federally listed animal species within the 

planning area that are not typically found in forested habitat ................................................. 319

Table 99. Habitat requirements for federally listed animal species within the 

planning area that are not typically found in forested habitat ................................................ 319

Table 100. Bureau sensitive species and bureau assessment species found within 

the planning areas and grouped by habitat requirements to facilitate analysis ...................... 321

Table 101. Available fisher natal and foraging habitat on BLM-administered lands 

with in the planning area......................................................................................................... 326

Table 102. Bird occurrence within the montane and western forest habitat types of 

Oregon and Washington ........................................................................................................ 326

Table 103. Analytical groups of land birds within the planning area ........................................................ 327

Table 104. Deer management areas within the planning area ................................................................. 331

Table 105. Elk management areas within the planning area ................................................................... 333

Table 106. Major risk factors by evolutionary significant unit ................................................................... 337

Table 107. BLM land ownership patterns and representative watersheds................................................ 348

Table 108. Temperature standards for fish species .................................................................................. 357

Table 109. Major river basins within the planning area............................................................................. 361

Table 110. Miles of streams with BLM ownership within the planning area.............................................. 364

Table 111. Stream type descriptions......................................................................................................... 364

Table 112. Miles of BLM streams on the Oregon Department of Environmental 

Quality (ODEQ) 303(d) list...................................................................................................... 365
XVI

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Table 113. Shade zones .......................................................................................................................... 369

Table 114. Basic erosion rates for roads based on the underlying geology.............................................. 374

Table 115. Potential fine sediment delivery from existing roads ............................................................... 377

Table 116. Fine sediment and ODEQ probabilistic stream surveys for third-order or 

less streams from 1994 to 2001.............................................................................................. 382

Table 117. Potential contaminant sources affecting waterbodies within source water watersheds ......... 390

Table 118. Frequencies and severities of the natural fire regimes............................................................ 392

Table 119. Current fire hazard ratings by percent of land within the districts of the planning area........... 398

Table 120. Classification of recreational settings by remoteness ............................................................. 406

Table 121. Classification of recreational settings by naturalness.............................................................. 407

Table 122. Legal public accessibility of BLM lands by district .................................................................. 410

Table 123. Current and projected levels of participation by recreation activity within 

the planning area from 2006 to 2016...................................................................................... 413

Table 124. Distribution of recreational demand by setting for each recreation activity ............................ 415

Table 125. Lands with wilderness characteristics ..................................................................................... 418

Table 126. Acres of each visual resource inventory class by district ....................................................... 421

Table 127. National Landscape Conservation System designated lands by district................................. 422

Table 128. Wild and scenic rivers by district ............................................................................................. 424

Table 129. Livestock grazing authorizations by district............................................................................. 428

Table 130. Rangeland health standards assessment results.................................................................... 430

Table 131. Range Improvements constructed or maintained from 1996 through 2006 ........................... 431

Table 132. Designated and old potential areas of critical environmental concern by district.................... 437

Table 133. New potential areas of critical environmental concern by district............................................ 437

Table 134. Value categories for designated and old potential areas of critical 

environment concern by district .............................................................................................. 438

Table 135. Value categories for new potential areas of critical environmental concern by district............ 438

Table 136. Heritage resources by district.................................................................................................. 439

Table 137. Acres of land tenure zones by district ..................................................................................... 445

Table 138. Road functional classifications by BLM district within the planning area ................................ 451

Table 139. Road standards by BLM district within the planning area ....................................................... 452

Table 140. Road surface type by BLM district .......................................................................................... 453

Table 141. Known and inferred mineral occurrence potential for the Salem District................................. 456

Table 142. Known and inferred mineral occurrence potential for the Eugene District .............................. 457

Table 143. Known and inferred mineral occurrence potential for the Roseburg District ........................... 459

Table 144. Known and inferred mineral occurrence potential for the Coos Bay District ........................... 460

Table 145. Known and inferred mineral occurrence potential for the Medford District.............................. 461

Table 146. Known and inferred mineral occurrence potential for the Klamath Falls 

Resource Area of the Lakeview District .................................................................................. 463

Table 147. Summary of the mineral occurrence potential within the planning area by resource type ..........472

Table 148. Acres of the restrictions that could affect the exploration and 

development of energy and mineral resources....................................................................... 472

Table 149. Estimated annual first decade levels of timber management activity by alternative ............... 493

Table 150. Structural stage abundances by percentage of the BLM-administered 

forested lands by alternative................................................................................................... 496

Table 151. Outcome of existing old forest by 2106 by alternative ............................................................ 509

Table 152. Structural stage abundances of the subalternatives and the reference 

analyses as a percentage of the BLM-administered forested lands by 2106 ......................... 528
XVII

Table 153. Distribution of harvest by harvesting type and percentage of large, 

peeler-grade logs for the first 10 years ................................................................................... 536

Table 154. Estimated annual payments to the counties for the first 10 years........................................... 537

Table 155. Annual payments to the counties for the first 10 years (based on 2005 levels)...................... 538

Table 156. Sources of economic effects by alternative............................................................................. 540

Table 157. Total economic impacts that are associated with BLM timber harvests by alternative............ 541

Table 158. Counties in which the alternatives would compensate for other job losses ........................... 543

Table 159. Counties in which the alternatives would not compensate for other job losses ...................... 544

Table 160. Wood products counties with gains concentrated in sawmills................................................. 545

Table 161. Counties losing more than $10 million per year in Secure Rural Schools (SRS) payments ... 546

Table 162. County plywood output contraction by alternative................................................................... 547

Table 163. BLM budget............................................................................................................................. 550

Table 164. Annual expenditures for silviculture for the first 10 years by district........................................ 550

Table 165. Revenues and costs for the first 10 years and the present net value over 

50 years by alternative ........................................................................................................... 552

Table 166. Current composition of minority and low-income populations of the 

counties within the planning area compared to the state of Oregon....................................... 556

Table 167. Allowable sale quantity by district by alternative ..................................................................... 560

Table 168. Nonharvest land base volume over the next 10 years ............................................................ 568

Table 169. Total annual volume by district over the next 10 years ........................................................... 569

Table 170. Acres harvested by age group compared with the size of the total 

harvest land base under the No Action Alternative ................................................................ 579

Table 171. Acres harvested by age group compared with the size of the total 

harvest land base under Alternative 1 .................................................................................... 580

Table 172. Acres harvested by age group compared with the size of the total 

harvest land base under Alternative 2..................................................................................... 581

Table 173. Acres harvested by age group compared with the size of the total 

harvest land base under Alternative 3 .................................................................................... 582

Table 174. Acres of forest management activity and mature&structurally complex forest 

by alternative in the year 2016.......................................................................................................... 592

Table 175. Federally listed and candidate plant species in the planning area.......................................... 593

Table 176. Habitat groups, physiographic provinces, and land use allocations........................................ 595

Table 177. Forest management activities that affect plant populations over the next 10 years................ 596

Table 178. Projected Populations that would be affected by Forest Management 

over the next 10 Years ............................................................................................................ 609

Table 179. Projected BLM sensitive and assessment species populations and 

occupied habitat by district...................................................................................................... 610

Table 180. Susceptibility comparison for the introduction of invasive plant species 

that are associated with timber harvesting in the fifth-field watersheds 

across the alternatives over the next 10 years ....................................................................... 614

Table 181. Matrix to determine the relative risk for the introduction of invasive plant 

species that are associated with timber harvesting activities over the next 10 years............. 615

Table 182. Risk comparison for the introduction of invasive plant species associated 

with timber harvesting in the fifth-field watersheds across the alternatives 

over the next 10 years..................................................................................................................617

Table 183. Susceptibility comparison for the introduction of invasive plant species 

into riparian habitats that are associated with timber harvesting in the 

fifth-field watersheds over the next 10 years .......................................................................... 620

Table 184. Risk comparison for the introduction of invasive plant species into 

riparian habitats associated with timber harvesting in the fifth-field 

watersheds across the alternatives over the next 10 years .................................................. 623
XVIII

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Table 185. Risk comparison for the introduction of invasive plant species associated 

with new road construction by fifth-field watershed over the next 10 years .......................... 625

Table 186. Northern spotted owl suitable habitat on BLM-administered lands by 

alternative, reference analysis, and subalternative ................................................................ 636

Table 187. Minimum acreage of large blocks of suitable habitat ............................................................. 639

Table 188. Suitable habitat within late-successional reserves/late-successional management areas ..... 642

Table 189. Suitable Habitat within Late-successional reserves/Late-successional 

management areas by District/Province Divisions, as percent of habitat-capable acres........ 644

Table 190. Development of suitable habitat within Alternative 2 large blocks of latesuccessional management areas .......................................................................................... 645

Table 191. Acres of suitable habitat outside of late-successional reserves/latesuccessional management areas ........................................................................................... 655

Table 192. Total dispersal habitat on BLM-administered lands in areas of concern ................................. 667

Table 193. Suitable Habitat on BLM-administered Lands in areas of concern ......................................... 667

Table 194. Year at which the threshold age would be reached under Alternative 3.................................. 675

Table 195. Available marbled murrelet nesting habitat on BLM-administered lands 

within the planning area.......................................................................................................... 676

Table 196. Current road density on BLM-administered lands within deer habitat management units ...... 687

Table 197. Road densities by 2016 for deer habitat management areas ................................................ 688

Table 198. Current road density on BLM-administered lands in elk habitat management units ............. 692

Table 199. Road densities in 2016 for all elk habitat management areas ................................................ 693

Table 200. Available fisher natal and foraging habitat on BLM-administered lands 

within the planning area.......................................................................................................... 698

Table 201. Habitat features and focal bird species of conservation concern in the 

eastside conifer plant group in central, eastside Oregon and Klamath Basin ........................ 703

Table 202. Habitat features and focal bird species of conservation concern in the 

western Oregon conifer forests............................................................................................... 706

Table 203. Comparison of snag and residual tree retention by alternative............................................... 707

Table 204. Sage grouse habitat on the Gerber block, Klamath Falls Resource Area .............................. 709

Table 205. BLM special status animal species known or suspected to occur on 

BLM-administered lands within the planning area .................................................................. 712

Table 206. Federally listed candidate, threatened, and endangered species not 

associated with forested ecosystems ..................................................................................... 718

Table 207. Riparian management areas across all land use allocations under the alternatives .............. 719

Table 208. Forest floor habitat quality rating criteria ................................................................................. 721

Table 209. Harvest levels as percent of forest capable acres under each alternative.............................. 722

Table 210. Relative potential of fish productivity index in 100 years compared to basin-wide maximum.....733

Table 211. Projected acres of stand establishment forests on BLM-administered lands.......................... 745

Table 212. Potential delivery of fine sediment by new roads constructed by 2016 

under the alternatives ............................................................................................................ 760

Table 213. Principles of fire resiliency ...................................................................................................... 767

Table 214. Fire severity, hazard, and resiliency by forest structural stage classifications ........................ 767

Table 215. Probability of mortality by tree diameter in an extreme fire event ........................................... 772

Table 216. Prescribed burning emissions from timber harvesting activities in the 

northern and southern BLM districts within the planning area................................................ 773

Table 217. Acres of remoteness levels by alternative............................................................................... 779

Table 218. Acres of naturalness levels projected for the year 2016 by alternative................................... 781

Table 219. Special management to maintain wilderness characteristics under all action alternatives ..... 784
XIX

Table 220. BLM-administered lands with wilderness characteristics in the harvest 

land base by alternative.......................................................................................................... 785

Table 221. BLM-administered lands with wilderness characteristics in late 

successional management areas and riparian management areas by alternative................. 786

Table 222. BLM-administered lands with wilderness characteristics maintained by alternative ............... 787

Table 223. Visual resource inventory classes and management classes by alternative........................... 789

Table 224. Harvest land base within each visual resource inventory class by alternative........................ 790

Table 225. Percentage of existing visual resource quality maintained by alternative 

within areas inventoried as class II and III .............................................................................. 791

Table 226. Residual detrimental soil disturbance compared to total acres harvested .............................. 795

Table 227. Livestock Grazing Authorizations by District and by Alternative.............................................. 798

Table 228. Range Improvement Construction by District and by Alternative ............................................ 800

Table 229. Changes in Livestock Forage Production by Alternative......................................................... 802

Table 230. Changes in wild horse forage production by alternative.......................................................... 806

Table 231. Total existing and potential ACECs designated by alternative ................................................ 809

Table 232. Existing and potential ACECs not designated by alternative................................................... 809

Table 233. Relevant and important value categories that would receive no special 

management attention ............................................................................................................ 810

Table 234. Existing and potential ACEC value categories by BLM district within the 

124 areas that were further analyzed for designation............................................................. 810

Table 235. Percent of total cultural resource sites damaged under the alternatives over the next 10 years... 814

Table 236. Current claims, notices, and plans of operations within the planning area ............................. 817

Table 237. Key project staff for the Western Oregon Plan Revision ......................................................... 831

Table 238. Comparison of different stand classification schemes and the structural 

stage classification used in this RMP/EIS. A more extensive comparison 

of classification schemes can be found in Franklin et al. 2002....................................................945

Table 239. Federally Listed and Candidate Plant Species........................................................................ 975

Table 240. Special Status Plant Species Habitat Groups ......................................................................... 985

Table 241. Survey and Manage Species Habitat Groups ....................................................................... 1006

Table 242. Susceptibility weights for harvest activity types for introduction of 

invasive species into riparian areas .......................................................................... 1019

Table 243. Roadside susceptibility categories based on invasive plant distribution 

and road densities in fifth field watersheds........................................................................... 1021

Table 244. Matrix to determine the relative risk categories of invasive plant 

introduction from new road construction and related activities ............................................ 1022

Table 245. Aggregate results of all adjusted, suitable habitat (NRF1) acres 

addressed in section 7 consultation (both formal and informal) for 

the northern spotted owl; baseline and summary of effects by State, 

physiographic province and land use function from 1994 to April 12, 

2004 (the first decade of the Northwest Forest Plan) (USFWS pers com. 2006). ................ 1038

Table 246. Change in suitable spotted owl habitat from 1994 to April 12, 2004, 

resulting from Federal management actions (Mgmt) and natural events 

by physiographic province (USFWS pers. com. 2006). ...................................................... 1039

Table 247. Aggregate results of all adjusted, suitable critical habitat acres affected 

by Section 7 Consultation for the Northern spotted owl; baseline and 

summary of effects by state, Physiographic Province and land use 

function from 1994 to July 19, 2005 (USFWS pers. comm. 2006)........................................ 1040

Table 248. Change in northern spotted owl suitable critical habitat from 1994 to 

December 10, 2004, resulting from Federal management actions and 

natural events by physiographic province. (USFWS pers. comm. 2006).............................. 1041
XX

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Table 249. Suitable Habitat within Critical Habitat Units OR-9 – OR-23, by alternative.......................... 1044

Table 250. Suitable Habitat within Critical Habitat Units OR-24 – OR-38, by alternative........................ 1045

Table 251. Suitable Habitat within Critical Habitat Units OR-39 – OR-50, by alternative........................ 1046

Table 252. Suitable Habitat within Critical Habitat Units OR-51 – OR-60, by alternative........................ 1047

Table 253. Suitable Habitat within Critical Habitat Units OR-61 – OR-76, by alternative........................ 1048

Table 254. Marbled murrelet nesting habitat summarized by critical habitat unit and alternative........... 1061

Table 255. Documented and suspected occurrence of Bureau special status animal 

species (as of March 14, 2005) within the planning area of the Western 

Oregon Plan Revision........................................................................................................... 1065

Table 256. Federally Threatened or Endangered Fish Species and Critical Habitat 

Designation within the Planning Area. .................................................................................. 1071

Table 257. Bureau Sensitive and Bureau Assessment Fish Species Present in the Planning Area. ..... 1072

Table 258. Vegetation Hydrologic Maturity Assignment to Land Cover Class. ....................................... 1096

Table 259. Vegetation Hydrologic Maturity Assignment to Land Cover Class. ........................................1101

Table 260. Vegetation hydrologic maturity and snow water equivalent ratios..........................................1102

Table 261. Basic Erosion Rates...............................................................................................................1106

Table 262. Groundcover Correction Factor for Cut and Fill Slopes .........................................................1107

Table 263. Factors for Road Tread Surfacing. .........................................................................................1107

Table 264. Traffic and Precipitation Factor.........................................................................................1107

Table 265. Projected Permanent Roads by Alternative1 ......................................................................... 1111

Table 266. Factor definition table.............................................................................................................1112

Table 267. Potential sediment delivery, by Alternative from roads...........................................................1113

Table 268. Primary Shade Zone Distance of Riparian Trees (In Feet) ....................................................1117

Table 269. Comparison of Alternatives Not Meeting Effective Shade for Perennial Streams..................1119

Table 270. Source water watersheds with BLM-administered lands in the planning area.......................1120

Table 271. Best management practices for roads and landings ..............................................................1135

Table 272. Best management practices for timber harvest activities.......................................................1154

Table 273. Best management practices for silvicultural activities ............................................................1159

Table 274. Best management practices for fire and fuels management..................................................1161

Table 275. Waterbar spacing by gradient and erosion class ...................................................................1166

Table 276. Best management practices for surface source water for drinking water...............................1167

Table 277. Best management practices for recreation.............................................................................1169

Table 278. Best management practices for grazing.................................................................................1173

Table 279. Best management practices for minerals exploration and development................................1175

Table 280. Best management practices for spill prevention and abatement............................................1179

Table 281. Best management practices for restoration............................................................................1181

Table 282. Proposed Klamath Falls Range Improvements by Allotment. ............................................... 1263

Table 283. Klamath Falls Resource Area Grazing Allotments................................................................. 1271

Table 284. Medford Grazing Allotments.................................................................................................. 1279

Table 285. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern. ............................................................................. 1308

Table 286. Existing land withdrawals and recommendations for continuance........................................ 1364

Table 287. Land Tenure Zone 3 Lands. .................................................................................................. 1413

Table 288. Inventory of Communication Sites......................................................................................... 1426

Table 289. Fluid Mineral Development Potential .................................................................................... 1437

Table 290. Saleable Mineral Development Scenario Summary for 2008-2018. ..................................... 1438

Table 291. Locatable Mineral Development Scenario............................................................................. 1438
XXI

Table 292. Mist Gas Field 10-year Production........................................................................................ 1460

Table 293. Isthmus Slough Group near Federal Mineral Rights ............................................................. 1463

Table 294. South Slough Group near Federal Mineral Rights. ............................................................... 1463

Table 295. Lower Coaledo Group near Federal Mineral Rights.............................................................. 1463

Table 296. Riparian modeling rules by alternative .................................................................................. 1564

Table 297. Alt 3 Landscape Areas, Habitat Threshold Ages and Assessment Area Names................... 1570

Table 298. GIS Modeling Data Categories.............................................................................................. 1571

Table 299. Alt 2 Short Rotation Subalternative - Minimum Harvest Ages by Species 

Group and Site (Productivity) Class...................................................................................... 1573

Table 300. Green tree retention percent by land use allocation for the No Action analysis ........................1574

Table 301. Late Successional Management Areas tree retention percent by 

Sustained Yield Unit / Retention Zone. ................................................................................. 1576

Table 302. Regeneration harvest percent volume tree retention for green tree, snag, 

and coarse woody debris creation by species group............................................................ 1577

Table 303. Stand treatment age and retention used to blend yield curves for intermediate harvests. .. 1577

Table 304. Partial Harvest Retention plus Supplemental Retention for Snag and 

Coarse Woody Debris Creation ............................................................................................ 1578

Table 305. Forest Maturity Criteria - Proposed Minimum Harvest Agesat 90% CMAI 

by Species Group and Site (Productivity) Class ................................................................... 1580

Table 306. Alternative 3 Minimum Stand Treatment Ages for Partial and Regeneration Harvests......... 1581

Table 307. Stand treatment age and percent retention used to blend yield curves for 

intermediate harvests. .......................................................................................................... 1584

Table 308. Initial, regeneration and resulting blended yield curves. ....................................................... 1585

Table 309. Northern Spotted Owl Habitat Projections............................................................................. 1591

Table 310. Hierarchy of allocations......................................................................................................... 1603
XXII

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs
XXIII

Figure 1. Land use allocations under the alternatives ...............................................................................XLVIII

Figure 2. BLM projected county payments compared to historic payments.....................................................LII

Figure 3. Percentage of BLM-administered lands in the harvest land base by 

alternative .......................................................................................................................................LIV

Figure 4. Total allowable sale quantity by alternative for the planning area.................................................... LV

Figure 5. Nonharvest land base volume over time.......................................................................................... LV

Figure 6. Northern spotted owl suitable habitat on BLM-administered lands by 

alternative and reference analysis .................................................................................................. LIX

Figure 7. Entire planning area of the resource management plan revisions ...................................................16

Figure 8. Steps in the planning process (highlighted boxes indicate public involvement)................................18

Figure 9. Major ownerships within the planning area ................................................................................... 181

Figure 10. Physiographic provinces within the planning area ........................................................................ 183

Figure 11. BLM surface ownership by legal authority within the planning area .............................................. 184

Figure 12. Sample portion of the intermingled checkerboard of private and BLM-administered lands ..................185

Figure 13. Areas of the Northwest Forest Plan and the planning area ........................................................... 186

Figure 14. Road density across all land ownerships within the planning area ............................................... 187

Figure 15. Example of geospatial data from the Forest Operations Inventory database ............................... 188

Figure 16. Fifth-field watersheds within the planning area ............................................................................. 189

Figure 17. Two example watersheds showing various BLM ownership patterns ........................................... 190

Figure 18. BLM, Forest Service, and private ownership as a percent of the fifth-field 

watersheds within the planning area ............................................................................................. 191

Figure 19. Disturbance map from the Northwest Forest Plan’s Late-Successional Forest Monitoring Report 195

Figure 20. Percent of BLM-administered land within each of the physiographic 

provinces within the planning area ................................................................................................ 197

Figure 21. Physiographic provinces and BLM lands within the planning area ............................................... 197

Figure 22. Stand establishment forest without structural legacies ................................................................. 199

Figure 23. Young forest without structural legacies ........................................................................................ 200

Figure 24. Mature forest with multilayered canopies....................................................................................... 200

Figure 25. Structurally complex forest ............................................................................................................ 201

Figure 26. Oregon population growth by county group ................................................................................... 217

Figure 27. Coos and Washington county wage and salary income as a percent of total income .................. 218

Figure 28. County economies with high wood products sector location quotients (LQ) ................................. 222

Figure 29. Change in the socioeconomic well-being scores from 1990 to 2000 in 

the northern portion of the planning area....................................................................................... 224

Figure 30. Change in the socioeconomic well-being scores from 1990 to 2000 in 

the southern portion of the planning area ..................................................................................... 225

Figure 31. Fiscal year 2005 county expenditures ........................................................................................... 227

Figure 32. Fiscal year 2005 revenues for the O&C counties .......................................................................... 227

Figure 33. Fiscal year 2005 discretionary spending for the O&C counties...................................................... 229

Figure 34. BLM payments to counties for fiscal years 1985 to 2005 .............................................................. 230

Figure 35. Harvest by land owner within the planning area ............................................................................ 233

Figure 36. Willamette Valley Douglas fir delivered log prices and BLM volume and average stumpage........ 234

Figure 37. Log imports from Canada to Washington and Oregon ports.......................................................... 236

Figure 38. Oregon sawmill consumption by diameter class ........................................................................... 237

Figure 39. Log consumption by product in western Oregon ........................................................................... 238

List of Figures
XXIV

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Figure 40. Western Oregon sawmills by capacity .......................................................................................... 238

Figure 41. Lumber production in Oregon and Washington ............................................................................. 239

Figure 42. Western plywood production ......................................................................................................... 240

Figure 43. U.S. panel production .................................................................................................................... 240

Figure 44. Log exports from western United States ports .............................................................................. 241

Figure 45. Employment in Oregon’s forest products sector (2005) ................................................................ 242

Figure 46. Employment in Oregon’s forest products industry (1969 to 2005) ................................................. 243

Figure 47. Western Oregon BLM budget for selected fiscal years ................................................................. 244

Figure 48. BLM budget by district and state office for selected fiscal years.................................................... 245

Figure 49. Full-time equivalent positions by BLM district and state office ...................................................... 245

Figure 50. Number of BLM full-time equivalent positions by county ............................................................... 246

Figure 51. Acres of forested lands within the planning area for 2006 by 10-year age class ........................... 248

Figure 52. Peeler versus sawlog grade of Douglas fir logs by district within the planning area ..................... 249

Figure 53. Percent of BLM lands within the planning area with management history 

that are suitable for sustained timber production .......................................................................... 250

Figure 54. Trend in the total number of permits issued over five years by BLM district ................................. 253

Figure 55. Special status species density shown as hot spots and cold spots .............................................. 259

Figure 56. Populations and occupied habitat of special status species on O&C and 

public domain lands within the planning area ............................................................................... 261

Figure 57. Number of special status species by habitat group........................................................................ 266

Figure 58. Distribution of Canada thistle ........................................................................................................ 270

Figure 59. Distribution of dyer’s woad ............................................................................................................. 271

Figure 60. Distribution of false brome ............................................................................................................. 272

Figure 61. Distribution of Japanese and giant knotweed (left) and the Himalayan knotweed (right) .............. 273

Figure 62. Distribution of leafy spurge ............................................................................................................ 274

Figure 63. Distribution of meadow knapweed ................................................................................................ 275

Figure 64. Distribution of Scotch broom (left) and French (right) brooms ....................................................... 276

Figure 65. Distribution of diffuse knapweed (left) and spotted knapweed (right) ............................................ 277

Figure 66. Distribution of yellow starthistle ..................................................................................................... 278

Figure 67. Reported infestations of representative invasive species within the planning area ...................... 279

Figure 68. Distribution categories of invasive species for the fifth-field watersheds within the planning area 280

Figure 69. Designated critical habitat units for the northern spotted owl within the planning area.................. 286

Figure 70. Areas of concern for the northern spotted owl ............................................................................... 295

Figure 71. Marbled murrelet conservation zones ........................................................................................... 298

Figure 72. Range of the marbled murrelet within the planning area ............................................................... 300

Figure 73. Marbled murrelet population estimates in conservation Zones 3 and 4 ........................................ 304

Figure 74. Critical habitat for the marbled murrelet within the planning area ................................................. 308

Figure 75. Locations of the Pacific coast population of the western snowy plover on 

BLM Lands within the planning area.............................................................................................. 313

Figure 76. North Bank Habitat Management Area in the Roseburg District ................................................... 330

Figure 77. Deer habitat management areas on BLM lands within the planning area ..................................... 332

Figure 78. Elk habitat management areas on BLM lands within the planning area ....................................... 334

Figure 79. Listed fish species and evolutionary significant units within the planning area ............................. 336

Figure 80. Percentage of miles of fish-bearing streams on and off BLM lands within the planning area........ 339

Figure 81. Percentage of miles of high intrinsic potential streams on and off BLM 

land per evolutionary significant unit within the planning area ...................................................... 339

Figure 82. Number of road and stream crossings in the Evans Creek Watershed ........................................ 341
XXV

Figure 83. Example of deep pool and habitat diversity caused by large wood .............................................. 342

Figure 84. Example of a stream with high wood volume ................................................................................ 343

Figure 85. Relative importance and spatial variability of wood recruitment processes ................................... 344

Figure 86. Probability of debris flow from intermittent streams ....................................................................... 345

Figure 87. Current riparian conditions by BLM district..................................................................................... 346

Figure 88. Changes in western Oregon vegetation types .............................................................................. 347

Figure 89. Representative watersheds ........................................................................................................... 348

Figure 90. Current and maximum large wood contribution by ownership ...................................................... 350

Figure 91. Proportion of current large wood contribution compared to maximum potential ............................ 350

Figure 92. Current and maximum potential fish productivity index.................................................................. 352

Figure 93. Proportion of current fish production compared to the maximum potential ................................... 354

Figure 94. Miles of treated anadromous or listed fish streams by the BLM districts within the planning area 355

Figure 95. Normal annual precipitation ........................................................................................................... 360

Figure 96. Contrasting BLM ownership in the Evans Creek and Eagle Creek watersheds ............................ 363

Figure 97. 303(d) listed streams within the planning area .............................................................................. 366

Figure 98. Angular canopy density and buffer widths for small streams within the planning area ................. 367

Figure 99. Angular canopy density and stream shade ................................................................................... 367

Figure 100. Stream shade and change in water temperature .......................................................................... 368

Figure 101. Relationship of primary and secondary shade zones .................................................................... 369

Figure 102. Riparian tree heights by physiographic province and percent of BLM area .................................. 370

Figure 103. Geology within the planning area .................................................................................................. 374

Figure 104. Road distribution in a representative watershed ............................................................................ 376

Figure 105. Watersheds with the highest fine sediment delivery from roads ................................................... 377

Figure 106. Relative landslide susceptibility in a representative watershed ..................................................... 378

Figure 107. Timber productivity capability classification withdrawn areas in a watershed ................................ 379

Figure 108. November 1996 precipitation return period for western Oregon ................................................... 381

Figure 109. Precipitation hydroregions within the planning area ...................................................................... 384

Figure 110. Subwatersheds that are currently susceptible to peak flows in the rain-dominated hydroregion... 385

Figure 111. Subwatersheds currently susceptible to peak flows in the rain-on-snow-dominated hydroregion . 387

Figure 112. Source water watersheds percentage on BLM lands within the planning area ............................. 391

Figure 113. Incidence of forest fires within the planning area between 1994 and 2004 .................................. 395

Figure 114. Ratings of fire hazards within the planning area ............................................................................ 397

Figure 115. Current fire hazard ratings by percent of land within the Salem District ........................................ 398

Figure 116. Current fire hazard ratings by percent of land within the Eugene District ..................................... 398

Figure 117. Current fire hazard ratings by percent of land within the Roseburg District .................................. 399

Figure 118. Current fire hazard ratings by percent of land within the Coos Bay District .................................. 399

Figure 119. Current fire hazard ratings by percent of land within the northern portion of the Medford District 399

Figure 120. Current fire hazard ratings by percent of land within the southern portion of the Medford District 400

Figure 121. Current fire hazard ratings by percent of land within the Klamath Falls 

Resource Area of the Lakeview District ......................................................................................... 400

Figure 122. Air quality management areas within the planning area ................................................................ 402

Figure 123. Remoteness levels for a portion of the Klamath Falls Resource Area of the Lakeview District .... 407

Figure 124. Stand visualizations for each classification of naturalness............................................................. 408

Figure 125. Proportion of BLM lands by district with secured or unsecured legal public access ...................... 410

Figure 126. Secured and unsecured legal public access to a portion of the BLM’s 

land base in the Coos Bay District..................................................................................................411
XXVI

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Figure 127. Current and projected levels of participation by recreation activity within 

the planning area from 2006 to 2016............................................................................................. 414

Figure 128. Proportion of projected recreational demand by activity in the year 2016 ..................................... 414

Figure 129. Distribution of recreational demand by setting for each recreation activity .................................... 416

Figure 130. Mt. Hebo wilderness characteristics .............................................................................................. 419

Figure 131. Acres by visual resource inventory class within the planning area ............................................... 421

Figure 132. Wild and scenic rivers by classification ......................................................................................... 424

Figure 133. Percentage of grazing on BLM and Forest Service lands within the planning area ...................... 428

Figure 134. Change in the number of active allotments between 1996 and 2004 ........................................... 429

Figure 135. Change in active animal unit months (AUMs) between 1996 and 2004 ........................................ 429

Figure 136. Forage production within a stand establishment forest versus a young forest............................... 432

Figure 137. Wild horses in the Pokegama Herd Management Area ................................................................ 433

Figure 138. Distribution of functional classifications for BLM roads ................................................................. 449

Figure 139. Miles of road maintenance ............................................................................................................ 450

Figure 140. Active mineral materials cases on BLM-administered lands by township ..................................... 468

Figure 141. Active mining claim cases on BLM-administered lands by township .......

....................................................................................................................................................... 470

Figure 142. Structural stage abundances on the BLM-administered lands by alternative ............................... 495

Figure 143. Comparison of the BLM-administered forested lands by 2106 with the 

average historic conditions and current conditions by alternative ................................................. 496

Figure 144. The influence of legacy retention on future stand development..................................................... 499

Figure 145. Stand establishment forests with and without structural legacies (e.g., 

retained green trees) by alternative .............................................................................................. 502

Figure 146. Young forests with and without structural legacies (e.g., retained green trees) by alternative....... 503

Figure 147. Mature forest with multilayered canopies or single canopies by alternative .................................. 505

Figure 148. Structural stage abundances on the forested lands in the harvest land base by alternative ......... 512

Figure 149. Structural stage abundances on the forested lands in the nonharvest land base by alternative ... 513

Figure 150. Comparison of the structural stage abundances on the BLMadministered forested lands by 2106 with the current conditions and the 

average historic conditions by alternative by province................................................................... 514

Figure 151. Change in the mean patch size from the current condition by 2106 by 

forest structural stage on the BLM-administered lands ................................................................. 515

Figure 152. Change in the connectance from the current condition by 2106 by forest 

structural stage on the BLM-administered lands ........................................................................... 516

Figure 153. Structural stage abundances on the BLM-administered forested lands in 

the Coast Range province by alternative....................................................................................... 518

Figure 154. Structural stage abundances on the BLM-administered forested lands in 

the Western Cascades province by alternative.............................................................................. 520

Figure 155. Structural stage abundances on the BLM-administered forested lands in 

the Klamath province by alternative............................................................................................... 522

Figure 156. Structural stage abundances on the BLM-administered forested lands in 

the Eastern Cascades province by alternative............................................................................... 524

Figure 157. Structural stage abundances of the subalternatives and the reference 

analyses as a percentage of the BLM-administered forested lands by 2106 ................................ 527

Figure 158. Comparison of all ownerships by 2106 with average historic conditions 

and current conditions by alternative ............................................................................................. 530

Figure 159. Comparison of all ownerships by 2106 with average historic conditions 

and current conditions by province by alternative.......................................................................... 531

Figure 160. Change in the mean patch sizes from the current condition by 2106 by 

the forest structural stages on all ownerships ............................................................................... 533
XXVII

Figure 161. Historic and projected BLM payments to the counties for the first 10 years ................................. 539

Figure 162. Average annual stumpage revenues.............................................................................................. 551

Figure 163. Revenues, costs, and net revenues for the first 10 years ............................................................. 552

Figure 164. Total allowable sale quantity by alternative for the planning area ................................................. 559

Figure 165. Allowable sale quantity by district and alternative.......................................................................... 559

Figure 166. Alternative 1, Subalternative 1: Allow no regeneration harvesting until 

thinning opportunities are exhausted............................................................................................. 560

Figure 167. Alternative 1, Subalternative 2: Allow no harvesting of stands that are 80 years of age and older 561

Figure 168. Alternative 1, Subalternative 3: Allow no harvesting of stands that are 

200 years of age and older............................................................................................................ 562

Figure 169. Alternative 1, Subalternative 4: Increase the size of the latesuccessional management area to include all critical habitat of the northern spotted owl ............ 563

Figure 170. Alternative 2, Subalternative 1: Change the rotation to emulate the 

timber industry’s short rotation....................................................................................................... 564

Figure 171. Reference Analysis: Manage most commercial forest lands for timber production........................ 565

Figure 172. Alternative 3, Subalternative 1: Apply the landscape target of 50% 

in late successional habitat condition to only those areas where the 

government land ownership is half or more of the total ownership................................................ 566

Figure 173. Nonharvest land base volume over time........................................................................................ 567

Figure 174. Total annual volume level by alternative over the next 10 years ................................................... 569

Figure 175. Total harvest volume by decade and alternative ............................................................................ 570

Figure 176. Timber volume harvest by age class under the No Action Alternative over the next 10 years....... 571

Figure 177. Timber volume harvest by age class under Alternative 1 over the next 10 years .......................... 571

Figure 178. Timber volume harvest by age class under Alternative 2 over the next 10 years .......................... 572

Figure 179. Timber volume harvest by age class under Alternative 3 over the next 10 years .......................... 572

Figure 180. Total volume harvested for all four alternatives and subalternatives.............................................. 573

Figure 181. Acres in the harvest land base by alternative................................................................................. 573

Figure 182. Percent volume by structural stage................................................................................................ 574

Figure 183. Volume by structural stage and alternative .................................................................................... 575

Figure 184. Percentage of number 3, peeler-grade and better Douglas fir logs by alternative ........................ 576

Figure 185. Douglas fir log volumes by peeler grade and sawlog grade by alternative .................................... 576

Figure 186. Annual stumpage value by alternative over the next 10 years....................................................... 578

Figure 187. Harvest acres by harvest type over the next 10 years ................................................................... 578

Figure 188. Harvest acres by age class under the No Action Alternative.......................................................... 579

Figure 189. Harvest acres by age class under Alternative 1 ............................................................................. 580

Figure 190. Harvest acres by age class under Alternative 2 ............................................................................. 581

Figure 191. Harvest acres by age class under Alternative 3 ............................................................................. 582

Figure 192. No Action Alternative, average annual harvested acres by harvest type over the next 100 years. 583

Figure 193. Alternative 1, annual average harvested acres by harvest type over the next 100 years.............. 583

Figure 194. Alternative 2, average annual harvested acres by harvest type over the next 100 years.............. 584

Figure 195. Alternative 3, average annual harvested acres by harvest type over the next 100 years.............. 584

Figure 196. Miles of new permanent road construction under each alternative................................................ 585

Figure 197. Acres of new permanent road construction under each alternative .............................................. 585

Figure 198. Inventory on the harvest land base by alternative over the next 100 years ................................. 586

Figure 199. Harvest land base distribution under the No Action Alternative over the next 100 years............... 587

Figure 200. Harvest land base distribution under Alternative 1 over the next 100 years .................................. 588

Figure 201. Harvest land base distribution under Alternative 2 over the next 100 years .................................. 588
XXVIII

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Figure 202. Harvest land base distribution under Alternative 3 over the next 100 years .................................. 589

Figure 203. Distribution of populations of BLM sensitive and assessment botany 

species subject to timber harvest ................................................................................................. 597

Figure 204. Number of populations and occupied habitat acres by province................................................... 605

Figure 205. Species in the conifer habitat group by ownership and number of currently known populations .... 606

Figure 206. Relative susceptibility of fifth-field watersheds to invasive plant species 

introduction as a result of timber harvesting activities over the next 10 years ............................. 613

Figure 207. Susceptibility comparison for the introduction of invasive plant species 

that are associated with timber harvesting activities over the next 10 years ................................ 614

Figure 208. Comparison of the risk by mapped watershed for the introduction 

of invasive plant species that are associated with timber harvesting 

activities over the next 10 years .................................................................................................. 616

Figure 209. Comparison of the risk by watersheds for the introduction of invasive 

plant species associated with timber harvesting activities over the next 10 years ...................... 617

Figure 210. Susceptibility comparison for the introduction of invasive plant species 

into riparian habitats associated with timber harvesting activities over the next 10 years ............ 619

Figure 211. Relative risk of introducing invasive plant species in riparian habitats over the next 10 years ..... 622

Figure 212. Riparian risk category comparison for the introduction of invasive plant 

species over the next 10 years .................................................................................................... 623

Figure 213. Risk comparison for the introduction of invasive plant species associated 

with new road construction over the next 10 years ....................................................................... 625

Figure 214. Relative risk for the introduction of invasive plant species that are 

associated with off-highway vehicle designations ....................................................................... 628

Figure 215. Risk comparison for introduction of invasive plant species that are 

associated with off-highway vehicle use ....................................................................................... 629

Figure 216. Northern spotted owl suitable habitat on BLM-administered lands by 

alternative and reference analysis ................................................................................................. 635

Figure 217. Northern spotted owl suitable habitat on BLM-administered lands by province by alternative .... 638

Figure 218. Suitable Habitat within Alternative 2 large blocks of late-successional 

management areas by province .................................................................................................... 646

Figure 219. Acres of late-successional reserve/late-successional management area allocated by province.. 650

Figure 220. Percentage of late-successional reserve/late-successional management 

area acres allocated by province..............................................................................................................651

Figure 221. Suitable habitat outside of late-successional reserves/late-successional 

management areas, as percentage of habitat-capable acres........................................................ 657

Figure 222. Suitable habitat outside of late-successional reserves/late-successional 

management areas, by district/province divisions, as percentage of habitat-capable acres ....... 658

Figure 223. Dispersal habitat conditions on BLM-administered lands across the planning area by alternative 661

Figure 224. Current condition of dispersal habitat across all land ownerships by sixth-field watershed........... 664

Figure 225. Dispersal habitat by 2106 across all land ownerships by six-field 

watershed for the no harvest reference analysis ........................................................................... 665

Figure 226. South Willamette-North Umpqua area of concern: Total Dispersal 

Habitat across All Ownerships ...................................................................................................... 669

Figure 227. South Willamette-North Umpqua area of concern: suitable habitat across all ownerships* .......... 669

Figure 228. Rogue-Umpqua area of concern: total dispersal habitat across all ownerships............................. 671

Figure 229. Rogue-Umpqua area of concern: suitable habitat across all ownerships.*.................................... 671

Figure 230. Ashland area of concern: total dispersal habitat across all ownerships......................................... 673

Figure 231. Ashland area of concern: suitable habitat across all ownerships* ................................................ 673

Figure 232. Marbled murrelet nesting habitat by the year 2106........................................................................ 676
XXIX

Figure 233. District marbled murrelet nesting habitat fluctuations in Zone 1..................................................... 679

Figure 234. District marbled murrelet nesting habitat fluctuations in Zone 2..................................................... 681

Figure 235. Average summer thermal habitat availability on the deer habitat 

management units in the Coos Bay District.*................................................................................ 684

Figure 236. Percent of foraging habitat availability on the deer habitat management 

units in the Medford District and Klamath Falls Resource Area..................................................... 685

Figure 237. Percent of foraging habitat in Deer Habitat Management Areas on 

eastside management lands in the Klamath Falls Resource Area................................................. 686

Figure 238. Average summer thermal habitat availability on the elk habitat 

management units in the Coos Bay District................................................................................... 690

Figure 239. Average foraging habitat on the elk habitat management units in the Medford District ................. 691

Figure 240. Bald eagle nesting and roosting habitat development under the alternatives................................ 695

Figure 241. Summary of bald eagle nesting and roosting habitat development in the 

west-side of the Klamath Falls Resource Area .............................................................................. 696

Figure 242. A histogram illustrating the abundance and development of bald eagle 

nesting and roosting habitat in bald eagle management areas .................................................... 697

Figure 243. Fisher natal and foraging habitat summarized for BLM-administered 

lands within the planning area ...................................................................................................... 699

Figure 244. Abundance of fisher natal habitat under Alternative 3................................................................... 700

Figure 245. Response of fisher foraging habitat in the Klamath Falls Resource Area ...................................... 701

Figure 246. Klamath Falls Resource Area landbird habitat trends for eastside 

coniferous forests, expressed as a percentage of total forested area in the plant association ..... 703

Figure 247. Westside coniferous forest landbird habitat trends, expressed as a 

percentage of total forested area in the plant association ............................................................. 705

Figure 248. Total number of western snowy plover young fledged along the Oregon Coast from 1990-2006) 708

Figure 249. Historic range of sage grouse within the planning area of the western Oregon plan revision ....... 709

Figure 250. Sage grouse habitat within the Klamath Falls Field Office .......................................................... 710

Figure 251. Forest floor habitat quality summary for each alternative .............................................................. 722

Figure 252. Total large wood contribution and potential coho productivity index for 

the five representative fifth-field watersheds on the BLM-administered lands ........................... 724

Figure 253. Riparian reserve and riparian management area widths and large wood contribution .................. 728

Figure 254. Structural stage abundances in the harvest land base by alternative............................................ 730

Figure 255. Example of riparian management areas under all four alternatives............................................... 731

Figure 256. Percent intermittent streams with highest probability of debris flow to 

fish-bearing stream channels......................................................................................................... 732

Figure 257. Chinook salmon productivity index and steelhead trout productivity index 

for the Upper Smith River representative watershed..................................................................... 734

Figure 258. Maximum large wood contribution to fish-bearing streams........................................................... 735

Figure 259. Wood contribution by source.......................................................................................................... 736

Figure 260. Debris flow probabilities between watersheds ............................................................................... 737

Figure 261. Differences in the number of miles of high intrinsic potential streams 

between watersheds on BLM-administered lands ....................................................................... 739

Figure 262. Distribution of high intrinsic potential streams for chinook salmon, coho 

salmon, and steelhead trout within key watersheds of the planning area ..................................... 740

Figure 263. Susceptible rain-dominated subwatershed .................................................................................... 747

Figure 264. Susceptible rain-on-snow-dominated sixth-field subwatersheds.................................................... 749

Figure 265. Riparian management areas for permanently flowing streams ..................................................... 751

Figure 266. Structural stage classes of the riparian reserves under the No Action Alternative......................... 752

Figure 267. Structural stage classes of the riparian reserves under Alternative 1 ............................................ 754
XXX

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Figure 268. Structural stage classes of the riparian reserves under Alternatives 2 and 3................................. 756

Figure 269. Number of miles along streams that are maintaining 80% effective 

shade within the primary and secondary shade zones.................................................................. 757

Figure 270. Projected new permanent BLM road miles contributing to fine sediment delivery ........................ 759

Figure 271. Timber productivity capability classification withdrawals within the Upper 

Smith River representative watershed .......................................................................................... 762

Figure 272. High fire severity for northern districts by alternative ..................................................................... 768

Figure 273. High fire severity for southern districts by alternative..................................................................... 769

Figure 274. Fire resiliency by district by alternative........................................................................................... 771

Figure 275. Acres of naturalness levels for the year 2016 by alternative.......................................................... 781

Figure 276. Percent change in naturalness settings by the year 2016 under each alternative......................... 782

Figure 277. Acres of BLM-administered lands with wilderness characteristics maintained by alternative........ 787

Figure 278. Visual resource inventory and management classes in acres by alternative................................. 790

Figure 279. Harvest land base acres within visual resource inventory classes by alternative .......................... 791

Figure 280. Visual resource inventory class II areas maintained by alternative................................................ 792

Figure 281. Visual resource inventory class III areas maintained by alternative............................................... 792

Figure 282. Acres available for grazing............................................................................................................. 797

Figure 283. Change in animal unit months by alternative ................................................................................. 799

Figure 284. Change in the number of allotments by alternative........................................................................ 799

Figure 285. Changes in structural stage abundance within lands allocated for grazing .................................. 802

Figure 286. Changes in Forage Production by Alternative ............................................................................... 803

Figure 287. Changes in structural stage abundance within the Pokegama HMA.............................................. 805

Figure 288. Changes in forage production by alternative ................................................................................. 806

Figure 289. Land Use Planning, Monitoring, and Adaptive Management. ........................................................ 849

Figure 290. Northern spotted habitat by District and Province. ...................................................................... 1050

Figure 291. Stand Conditions Resulting from Partial Harvests in Alternative 3 

Compared to Regeneration Harvest in No Action........................................................................ 1057

Figure 292. Comparison of Classification of Mature with Multiple Canopies and 

Structurally Complex Forest with Classification of Suitable Habitat – No Action ......................... 1058

Figure 293. Comparison of Classification of Mature with Multiple Canopies and 

Structurally Complex Forest with Classification of Suitable Habitat – Alternative 3..................... 1059

Figure 294. Historical independent Lower Columbia River Evolutionary Significant 

Unit early and late-fall-run Chinook salmon populations. Source: Myers et al. (2002). .............. 1074

Figure 295. Historical populations of spring-run Chinook salmon in the Upper 

Willamette River Evolutionary Significant Unit. Source: Myers et al. (2002)............................... 1075

Figure 296. Historical populations of the Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast 

Coho Evolutionary Significant Unit............................................................................................... 1076

Figure 297. Tentative historical populations of the Lower Columbia River coho 

salmon Evolutionary Significant Unit. Source: based on work by 

Willamette/Lower Columbia Technical Recovery Team for Chinook 

salmon and steelhead (Myers et al. 2002)................................................................................... 1077

Figure 298. Historical populations of winter-run steelhead in the Lower 

Columbia River steelhead ESU.Source: Myers et al. (2002). ............................................... 1078

Figure 299. Map of historical Upper Willamette River steelhead Evolutionary 

Significant Unit populations.......................................................................................... 1079

Figure 300. Historical chum salmon populations in the Columbia River chum salmon ESU. ......................... 1080

Figure 301. Examples of relationship between values of the three stream attributes 

and the index scores used to calculate intrinsic potential............................................................ 1083
XXXI

Figure 302. Using Digital Elevation Models to delineate stream. For each Digital 

Elevation Model point, all stream-edge segments are found within one tree height.................... 1085

Figure 303. Determining tree fall using DEMs................................................................................................. 1086

Figure 304. Probability that a falling tree at a DEM point hits a stream segment............................................ 1086

Figure 305. Tree fall from riparian areas dependent on: forest cover, hillslope 

gradient, distance to stream channel, and channel planform geometry....................................... 1088

Figure 306. Identification of valley-floor pixels: within a specified elevation of the 

channel; within a specified slope relative to the channel slope; all pixels 

flagged meeting these criteria with the identification of the reach to which they drain. ............... 1089

Figure 307. Debris flow source areas for wood are widely distributed, but most of the 

wood accumulated by debris flows is scoured from low-order channels. .................................... 1090

Figure 308. Debris flow inputs to fish-bearing streams occur at these low-order channel junctions.............. 1091

Figure 309. Angular canopy density (ACD) and buffer widths for small streams in 

western Oregon (Brazier and Brown 1972). It illustrates that a buffer 

strip width of 60 feet will result in an angular canopy density of 65 percent. ................................1115

Figure 310. Angular canopy density (ACD) and stream shade (Park 1991). ...................................................1116

Figure 311. Effective Stream Shade and Change in Stream Temperature ......................................................1116

Figure 312. Solar Pathfinder (43° to 49° N Lat., Boyd 1999). ..........................................................................1117

Figure 313. Reservoir Standards..................................................................................................................... 1266

Figure 314. Fence Standards.......................................................................................................................... 1268

Figure 315. Wire Spacings .............................................................................................................................. 1269

Figure 316. Standards for Rangeland Health.................................................................................................. 1285

Figure 317. Southern Tyee sedimentary basin, from Ryu et al. (1996)........................................................... 1444

Figure 318. Coaledo Formations of the onshore portion of the Coos Basin, from Torrent Energy Inc. (2005) 1445

Figure 319. BLM Oregon Salem District, Surface. Based on Newton (1969), Ferns 

and Huber (1984), Olmstead et al. (1989), and BLM (2007)....................................................... 1452

Figure 320. Salem District BLM, Subsurface. Based on Newton (1969), Ferns and 

Huber (1984), Olmstead et al (1989), and BLM (2007) ............................................................... 1454

Figure 321. Mist Gas Field, 1999 Boundary (DOGAMI 2003)......................................................................... 1458

Figure 322. Identified High Potential Area (this report) and Bacona Geologic Quadrangle (Houston 1997) .. 1459

Figure 323. Mist Gas Field Boundaries-1985 and 1999.................................................................................. 1461

Figure 324. Salem District Mist gas Field Expansion Estimate, 160 acre spacing.......................................... 1466

Figure 325. Coos Basin Acreage in Area of Mutual Interest............................................................................ 1470

Figure 326. Coos Basin Unleased Acreage..................................................................................................... 1471

Figure 327. Coos Basin wells based on 338 acre spacing.............................................................................. 1474

Figure 328. Coos Basin wells based on 160 acre spacing.............................................................................. 1474

Figure 329. Example of FOI Mapping for approximately a three by three mile area....................................... 1507

Figure 330. Example of TPCC Withdrawn lands............................................................................................. 1510

Figure 331. CVS Plot Design............................................................................................................................1511

Figure 332. CVS Plot overlain with Forest Operations Inventory. ...................................................................1511

Figure 333. Western Oregon Age Class Distribution 2006 (Acres). ................................................................ 1513

Figure 334. Species Group by District – Forested Acres................................................................................. 1523

Figure 335. Salem District Site Class Re-Distribution Example (Species Groups 

NCM – Northern Conifer Mixed, NDF – Northern Douglas-Fir, NHM – 

Northern Hardwood Mixed).......................................................................................................... 1527

Figure 336. Organon Variants ......................................................................................................................... 1529

Figure 337. Example of CVS plots and FOI Units with a common existing stand condition............................ 1531

Figure 338. Examples of subplot data imputed into FOI units........................................................................ 1532

Figure 339. Differences between the FOI and LLI themes. ............................................................................ 1534
XXXII

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Figure 340. Graphic example how a resultant layer is created from a number of 

resource layers. Multiple resource layers are overlaid in a GIS process 

to create a single resultant layer for use in OPTIONS................................................................. 1553

Figure 341. OPTIONS trend to normality examples........................................................................................ 1555

Figure 342. Example of a volume growth projection curve and adjustments for thinning treatments. ............ 1556

Figure 343. Landscape level harvest rules example. ...................................................................................... 1557

Figure 344. Green tree retention accounting within the OPTIONS model....................................................... 1575

Figure 345. An example of adjustments utilized for a single alternative and district. ...................................... 1579

Figure 346. Reserve, ASQ, and Total Volume................................................................................................. 1584

Figure 347. A comparison of an initial yield curve, the regenerated (future) yield 

curve and the blended curve........................................................................................................ 1586

Figure 348. Data Flow Diagram for Owl Habitat and Structural Stage Classification. .................................... 1599
XXXIII

MAP 1. Visual resource management classes ...................................................................................... 56

MAP 2. Land use allocations under the No Action Alternative............................................................... 66

MAP 3. Land use allocations under Alternative 1 .................................................................................. 74

MAP 4. Land use allocations under Alternative 2 .................................................................................. 88

MAP 5. Land use allocations under Alternative 3 ................................................................................ 100

MAP 6. Wildland urban interface ......................................................................................................... 155

MAP 7. Lands available for livestock grazing ...................................................................................... 156

MAP 8. Location of proposed range improvements in the Klamath Falls Resource Area ................... 157

MAP 9. Utility corridors ........................................................................................................................ 158

MAP 10. Off-highway vehicle designations ........................................................................................... 159

MAP 11. Off-highway vehicle emphasis areas ...................................................................................... 160

MAP 12. Location of Pokegama Herd Management Area..................................................................... 161

MAP 13. Bald eagle, deer, and elk habitat management areas............................................................. 162

MAP 14. Forest vegetation series.......................................................................................................... 163

MAP 15. Areas of critical environmental concern within the planning area .......................................... 164

MAP 16. BLM management area adjacent to the Coquille Forest......................................................... 165

MAP 17. Location of assessment areas (physiographic provinces within sustained yield units) 

under Alternative 3.................................................................................................................. 166

MAP 18. Recreation management areas............................................................................................... 167

MAP 19. Backcountry byways ............................................................................................................... 168

MAP 20. Designated recreation sites .................................................................................................... 169

MAP 21. Designated recreation trails .................................................................................................... 170

MAP 22. Potential recreation sites......................................................................................................... 171

MAP 23. Potential recreation trails ........................................................................................................ 172

MAP 24. Environmental education sites along with recreation and public purpose lease sites ............ 173

MAP 25. National Landscape Conservation System designated lands................................................. 174

MAP 26. Proposed off-highway vehicle designations............................................................................ 175

MAP 27. Lands with wilderness characteristics..................................................................................... 176

MAP 28. Location of land tenure Zone 3 ............................................................................................... 177

MAP 29. Sustained yield units............................................................................................................... 178

MAP 30. BLM lands within the planning area ....................................................................................... 182

MAP 31. Fire regimes............................................................................................................................ 393

MAP 32. Overlap between Alternative 2 and Alternative 1 late-successional management areas ...... 641

MAP 33. No Action Alternative/Alternative 1 spacing of late-successional reserves/latesuccessional management areas ........................................................................................... 653

MAP 34. Alternative 2 spacing of late-successional management areas.............................................. 654

MAP 35. Federally Listed Plant ............................................................................................................. 976

List of Maps
XXXIV

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs
XXXV

Preface

Preface

Reader’s Guide

This draft environmental impact statement is designed to provide a logical progression 

of information to the reviewer. The summary, five chapters, and appendices explain 

the management purpose and need being addressed, the scope of the issues involved, 

the alternatives designed to address the purpose and need, a description of the current 

biological and physical environment, and an analysis of the anticipated environmental 

consequences resulting from the implementation of any given alternative. 

The progression of information in this document starts with a summary. The Summary

chapter presents a digest of the document. Descriptions of the No Action Alternative 

and each of the three action alternatives are presented in enough detail to explain each 

alternative’s overall management strategy for achieving the purpose and need, and to 

explain its associated land use allocations and management direction. The Summary

also includes a comparison of the major land use and resource allocations and actions 

by alternative. For the purpose of brevity, the summery relies heavily on the use of 

graphics and brief descriptions of rather complex topics. Also for the sake of brevity and 

simplicity, the citations, references, and definitions included in the main text are omitted 

from the Summary. Therefore, the details provided in the five chapters of the document 

are needed to fully understand the alternatives and their effects.

Chapter 1 presents the purpose and need for the revision of the western Oregon resource 

management plans. Central to these plan revisions is the interplay between the laws 

directing or influencing the management of the BLM’s O&C lands in western Oregon 

and the various legal precedents and opinions that guide the implementation of various 

laws. This chapter contains a more detailed discussion of these laws and legal precedents 

than is normally found in an environmental impact statement in order to help the reader 

clearly understand the purpose and need and the five major issues identified for analysis. 

This chapter also describes the planning area, the past management of the O&C lands, 

the planning process, and the involvement of local, state, and other federal agencies that 

are collaborating in the preparation of the plan revisions. Finally, this chapter identifies 

the seven recognized tribes within the planning area that are engaged in government-togovernment relationships with the BLM.

Useful comments regarding Chapter 1 include whether the purpose and need require 

clarification or further explanation.

Chapter 2 presents the three action alternatives. The No Action Alternative would 

continue management under the current resource management plans (refer to the 1995 

resource management plans for the districts of Salem, Eugene, Roseburg, Coos Bay, and 

Medford, and the Klamath Falls Resource Area of the Lakeview District). The action 

alternatives consist of a range of management approaches or strategies that are designed 

to meet the purpose and need and to resolve the planning issues. The alternatives consist 
XXXVI

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

of management objectives, management actions, and land use allocations. Two of the 

action alternatives are based on a network of managed reserves that allow intensive 

timber management outside of the reserves. The other action alternative minimizes land 

use allocations and manages timber across the landscape on a long rotation to provide 

older forest habitats. Certain management objectives and management actions vary by 

alternative, while others are common to all three action alternatives. This chapter also 

describes the six subalternatives (variations of the three action alternatives) that were set 

forth to examine certain questions raised by the public and BLM managers. Finally, this 

chapter describes the alternatives that would not meet the purpose and need and, as a 

result, were not analyzed in detail. 

Useful comments regarding Chapter 2 include:

•	 Are the alternatives adequately and clearly described?

•	 Is it clear why some alternatives were eliminated from detailed study?

•	 Are there alternatives that appear to meet the purpose and need that are not 

included in the detailed study?

Chapter 3 presents the existing condition and trends of the resources and programs within 

the planning area that would be affected by implementing the alternatives. Understanding 

the affected environment serves as a baseline against which to measure the potential 

effects, including the cumulative effects, of implementing an alternative. The description 

of the affected environment also provides the information necessary to understand the 

analysis of the environmental consequences in Chapter 4. 

Chapter 4 presents the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative effects that would result 

from the implementation of individual action alternatives and subalternatives. The effects 

of the alternatives on the various resources are compared and contrasted against each 

other and against the No Action Alternative. This chapter also includes brief discussions 

of the use of models and the assumptions used in analyzing the alternatives. Adverse 

affects that cannot be avoided if the alternatives were to be implemented are disclosed, 

and mitigation is identified. A brief summary of the environmental consequences are 

located in the Summary and in Chapter 2. However, as in any overview or summary, 

detail is sacrificed for brevity; therefore, the information in Chapter 4 needs to be read in 

order to fully understand the effects. 

Useful comments regarding Chapter 4 include:

•	 Are the conclusions clearly stated?

•	 Are the conclusions supported by evidence, analysis, and logic?

•	 Is there information included that appears to be unnecessary and gets in the way 

of understanding?

Chapter 5 presents information on the consultation and coordination that occurred in 

the preparation of this draft environmental impact statement. The public involvement, 

cooperators, and preparers are identified. Reference information and a glossary of 
XXXVII

Preface

words and terms that are not in common usage are included. In addition, future actions, 

such as the consultation on species listed under the Endangered Species Act, adaptive 

management, and plans for monitoring, are discussed.

Commenting

Well-written comments can be the most important contribution from citizens. 

It is the goal of citizen involvement to help the agency make better-informed 

decisions. Comments should be clear, concise, and on point. Comments that are 

solution-oriented and provide specific examples will be more helpful than those 

that simply oppose or support a particular alternative or position. 

Numerous comments that repeat the same basic message of support or opposition 

will typically be responded to collectively. General comments that simply state 

that an action will have significant environmental consequences may not help 

the agency make a better decision unless the relevant causes and environmental 

consequences of concern are explained.

When providing comments, it is most helpful if you:

•	 Reference your comments to a chapter, subheading, or page.

•	 Locate errors in the analysis that had been performed. 

•	 Provide new or missing information that would have a bearing on 

the analysis.

•	 Locate misinformation that may have been used and could affect the 

outcome of the analysis.

•	 Suggest a different way to combine the features from the 

analyzed alternatives.

•	 Suggest a new alternative that meets the purpose and need.

Comments received in response to this draft environmental impact statement, 

including names and addresses, become part of the public record and are 

available for public inspection. Comments, including names and addresses, 

may be published as part of the final environmental impact statement. Before 

including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal 

identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your 

entire comment (including your personal identifying information) may be 

made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to 

withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot 

guarantee that we will be able to do so due to limitations under the Freedom of 

Information Act. 

If you wish to withhold your name or address from public review, or from 

disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), you must state this 

prominently at the beginning of your written comments. Persons requesting such 
XXXVIII

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

confidentiality should be aware that, under FOIA, confidentiality may be granted 

in only very limited circumstances, such as to protect trade secrets. 

Comments can be mailed to: 

Western Oregon Plan Revisions 

P.O. BOX 2965 

Portland, OR 97208 

You can also make comments online at the following website:

http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/wopr/index.php

Your comments must be postmarked before November 9, 2007. 
XXXIX

Preface

Abstract

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Revision of the Resource 

Management Plans of the Western Oregon Bureau of Land Management Districts 

1. Responsible Agency: United States Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Land Management

2. Draft (X) Final ( )

3. Administrative Action (X) Legislative Action ( )

4. Abstract: This draft environmental impact statement has identified three action 

alternatives for managing approximately 2.6 million acres of federal land, which 

is mostly revested California Railroad and Coos Bay Wagon Road Grant Lands 

Act lands (i.e., the O&C lands), within the approximately 22 million acre western 

Oregon planning area. The BLM intends to revise six resource management plans 

with this single draft environmental impact statement.

Public comment played an important role in shaping the alternatives, which are 

described and analyzed in this document. 

•	 The No Action Alternative maintains the decisions in the current resource 

management plans. 

•	 Alternative 1 creates late-successional management areas that are similar 

to the large late-successional reserves in the No Action Alternative, 

applies new criteria for designating the width of riparian management 

areas, and provides for intensive timber management in other areas. 

•	 Alternative 2 designates late-successional management areas based on 

the habitat requirements for the northern spotted owl and the marbled 

murrelet, applies new criteria for designating the width of riparian 

management areas, and provides for intensive timber management in 

other areas. 

•	 Alternative 3 manages most of the land base for timber production under 

long rotations, or uneven-aged management in fire-prone ecosystems, in 

order to provide late-successional habitat across the landscape and also to 

provide for timber production. 

Six subalternatives, which are variations of the three action alternatives, are also 

analyzed in this document.
XL

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

The major resource management plan issues include:

•	 Providing a sustainable supply of wood and other forest products as 

mandated by the O&C Act, while also meeting the requirements of other 

applicable laws.

•	 Providing for the conservation of species that are listed under the 

Endangered Species Act.

•	 Contributing toward meeting the goals of the Clean Water Act and the 

Safe Drinking Water Act.

•	 Reducing the risk of wildfires and integrating fire back into the 

ecosystem. 

•	 Providing for off-highway vehicle management to meet that demand 

while protecting other resources. 

This document acknowledges the primacy of O&C Act in regards to the 

management of timber resources. Therefore, specific changes to the current 

management direction for areas of critical environmental concern and research 

natural areas, scenic values as identified through a visual resource management 

inventory, and sensitive species protection are proposed across the alternatives.

5. Date comments must be received: November 9, 2007

6. For further information contact:

Alan Hoffmeister

Bureau of Land Management

Western Oregon Planning Revision Public Outreach Coordinator

P.O. Box 2965

Portland, OR 97208

Telephone: (503) 808–6629 

E-mail: orwopr@or.blm.gov
XLI

Summary

This Summary provides a synopsis of the information presented in this draft environmental impact 

statement for the proposed revision of the resource management plans of the six western Oregon 

BLM districts that are within the planning area. 

In this chapter:

Introduction ...........................................................................................................................XLIII

What is the purpose and need for the action being proposed?....................................XLIV

What alternatives are being proposed? ............................................................................ XLV

What are the environmental consequences of the alternatives?......................................... L 
XLII

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs
XLIII

Summary

Introduction

Key Points

This draft environmental impact statement has been written because (1) the BLM plan evaluations found that the 

BLM has not been achieving the timber harvest levels directed by the existing plans, (2) there is an opportunity to 

coordinate the BLM management plans with new recovery plans and re-designations of critical habitat currently under 

development and (3) the BLM has re-focused the goal for management to the objectives of its statutory mandate to 

utilize the principles of sustained yield management on the timber lands covered under the O&C Act. There are four 

alternatives—the No Action Alternative and three action alternatives (Alternative 1, Alternative 2, and Alternative 3). 

This draft environmental impact statement is broken up into the following sections:

• Chapter 1, which provides the purpose and need for revising the resource management plans.

• Chapter 2, which details the alternatives found to be reasonable solutions for the purpose and need presented 

in Chapter 1.

• Chapter 3, which details the current condition of the affected environment.

• Chapter 4, which provides the effects on the environment that result from each of the alternatives.

• Chapter 5, which lists those that participated in the development of this draft environmental impact statement.

•	 And an appendix volume and a map packet that each provides details regarding the analyses of the alternatives.

For details about the process up to this point (e.g., the published notice of intent, the scoping effort, and the planning 

criteria) and beyond the public commenting period, go to http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/wopr. 

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers the use of a variety of natural resources 

on approximately 2.6 million acres within an area of approximately 22 million acres, which is 

the western Oregon planning area. Resource management plans (RMPs) define the management 

direction for specified areas of BLM-administered lands (typically, for individual BLM districts 

or BLM resource areas). Resource management plans are typically designed to continue a defined 

management direction for a specified period of time that includes periodic evaluation. Resource 

management plans are formally evaluated periodically to determine whether there is a significant 

cause for amending or revising them.

The primary direction for administrating the approximately 2.2 million acres of what are called 

the O&C lands that lie within the approximately 2.6 million acres of BLM-administered lands in 

western Oregon is derived from the statutory authority of the Oregon and California Railroad and 

Coos Bay Wagon Road Grant Lands Act (O&C Act). The remaining BLM-administered lands 

within the western Oregon planning area are public domain lands, and other statutory authorities 

direct the administration of those lands.

The BLM is proposing to revise existing plans to replace the Northwest Forest Plan land use 

allocations and management direction because (1) the BLM plan evaluations found that the 

BLM has not been achieving the timber harvest levels directed by the existing plans, and the 

BLM now has more detailed and accurate information than was available in 1995 on the effects 

of sustained yield management on other resources, (2) there is an opportunity to coordinate the 

BLM management plans with new recovery plans and re-designations of critical habitat currently 

under development and (3) the BLM has re-focused the goal for management of the BLMadministered lands to the objectives of its statutory mandate to utilize the principles of sustained 

yield management on the timber lands covered under the O&C Act of contributing to the 

economic stability of local communities and industries, and other benefits from such management 

to watersheds, stream flows, and recreation. 
XLIV

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

What is the purpose and need for the 

action being proposed?

The goals for the Northwest Forest Plan were broader than the specific requirements of the 

Endangered Species Act and Clean Water Act and sought to provide consistent management of 

the Forest Service and the BLM-administered lands, by applying National Forest Management 

Act requirements to the BLM-administered lands. The selected alternative for the Northwest 

Forest Plan was selected because it would “maintain the late-successional and old-growth 

forest ecosystem and provide a predictable and sustainable supply of timber, recreational 

opportunities and other resources at the highest level possible.” The purpose and need for this 

plan revision is focused on specific legal requirements and intended benefits of the BLM’s 

unique mandate under the O&C Act, distinct from the mandate to the Forest Service under 

National Forest Management Act.

The purpose and need for this proposed action is to manage the BLM-administered lands for 

permanent forest production in conformity with the principles of sustained yield, consistent with 

the O&C Act.1

 The plans will also comply with all other applicable federal laws including, but 

not limited to, the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, and, to the extent that it is not 

in conflict with the O&C Act, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. In accord with 

the Endangered Species Act, the plans will use the BLM’s authorities for managing the lands it 

administers in the planning area to conserve habitat needed from these lands for the survival and 

recovery of species listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act.2

 

In selecting among the alternatives in this plan revision, BLM will evaluate which alternative or 

combination of alternatives best meets the Purpose and Need. In addition, BLM will consider 

the environmental consequences related to the issues identified during scoping and the cost of 

implementation.

1

 The Ninth Circuit in Headwaters v. BLM, 914 F.2d 1174 (9th Cir. 1990) confirmed that in the O&C Act Congress mandated 

timber production as the dominant use of these BLM-administered lands.

2

 This revision process will satisfy a settlement agreement resolving long-standing litigation of the Northwest Forest Plan (AFRC 

v. Clarke, Civil No. 94-1031-TPJ (D.D.C.)) that alleged the current RMPs violate the O&C Act. The settlement agreement requires BLM to consider revisions to the RMPs by the end of the year 2008, and include at least one alternative that “will provide 

permanent forest production across the O&C lands without reserves except as required to avoid jeopardy under the Endangered 

Species Act.” See Appendix A for a discussion of the Settlement Agreement.
XLV

Summary

What alternatives are being proposed? 

There are three action alternatives, along with the No Action Alternative, being proposed. The 

No Action Alternative would continue the management of the current resource management 

plans, which were approved in 1995 and subsequently amended. The three action alternatives 

consist of a range of management strategies that are designed to meet the purpose and need 

discussed in Chapter 1. These management strategies encompass management objectives, 

management actions, and land use allocations. Some management objectives, management actions, 

and land use allocations are common to all three action alternatives. Examples of management 

objectives, management actions, and land use allocations that are common to the three action 

alternatives are:

•	 Congressionally reserved areas would be retained and managed for the purposes for 

which they were established.

•	 A diversity of developed and dispersed outdoor recreational experiences would be 

maintained. District recreation sites, management areas, facilities, trails, and visitor 

service programs would be carried forward.

•	 The BLM would take actions to reduce fire hazards to communities that are at risk from 

uncharacteristic wildfires.

•	 The BLM would provide for the harvest and collection of special forest products.

Some management objectives, management actions, and land use allocations vary by action 

alternative. These differences would result in a variance in the degree or rate in which each action 

alternative achieves the identified purpose and need for the proposed action. See Table 1 (Limited 

comparison of the key features of the four alternatives). It highlights specific examples of these 

differences between the alternatives. For a complete comparison of the key features of the four 

alternatives, see Table 39 (Comparison of the key features of the four alternatives)in Chapter 2. 

The key differences between the four alternatives include:

•	 the width and management of riparian areas; 

•	 the retention of green trees, snags, and down wood; 

•	 the salvaging after disturbances; and 

•	 the management of habitat for the northern spotted owl and the marbled murrelet.

Following are the key land use allocations that vary by action alternative. 
XLVI

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Alternative 1

The key land use allocations for this alternative are:

•	 Late-successional management areas. These areas are designated to provide 

structurally complex forests. They are similar to the existing late-successional 

reserves under the No Action Alternative. There would be no salvaging after 

disturbances in these areas, except for safety or operational reasons.

•	 Riparian management areas. These areas would maintain or promote the 

development of mature or structurally complex forests, and provide for the 

riparian and aquatic conditions that supply streams with shade, sediment filtering, 

leaf litter and large wood, and root masses that stabilize stream banks. They are 

half the width of the current riparian reserves under the No Action Alternative 

(with the exception of non-fish-bearing perennial streams which remain the same). 

•	 Timber management areas. In these areas, forests would be managed to achieve 

a high level of continuous timber production that could be sustained through a 

balance of growth and harvesting and an allowable sale quantity of timber. The 

rotation age would be approximately 80 to 100 years and there would be no green 

tree retention after regeneration harvesting.

Alternative 2

The key land use allocations for this alternative are:

•	 Late-successional management areas. These areas would provide habitat for 

the northern spotted owl (large, connected blocks of suitable habitat) and the 

marbled murrelet. Salvaging would be allowed to recover economic value from 

the timber harvested after stand-replacement disturbances. These areas are based 

on new recovery planning efforts for the northern spotted owl.

•	 Riparian management areas. These areas would maintain or promote the 

development of mature or structurally complex forests and provide for the 

riparian and aquatic conditions that supply streams with shade, sediment filtering, 

leaf litter and large wood, and root masses that stabilize stream banks.

All streams, except for intermittent non-fish-bearing streams, would have a 

100 foot nonharvesting and shade retention area on each side of the stream. 

Intermittent non-fish-bearing streams that have a high risk of debris flows (a 

source of large wood) would also have a 100 foot nonharvesting and shade 

retention area on each side of the stream. Other intermittent non-fish-bearing 

streams would retain a 25 foot area with noncommercial vegetation on each side 

of the stream and 12 conifer trees per acre. 

•	 Timber management areas. These areas would be managed to achieve a high 

level of continuous timber production that could be sustained through a balance 
XLVII

Summary

of growth and harvesting and an allowable sale quantity of timber. The rotation 

age would be approximately 80 to 100 years and there would be no green tree 

retention after regeneration harvesting.

Alternative 3

The key land use allocations for this alternative are:

•	 General landscape areas. These areas would provide for the habitat conditions 

that are required for late-successional species, would maintain and promote the 

development of mature or structurally complex forests, would provide continuous 

timber production that could be sustained through a balance of growth and 

harvesting, and would offer an allowable sale quantity of timber. The rotation age 

would approximate natural stand-replacement disturbances (generally, 360 years 

north of Grants Pass and 240 years south of Grants Pass). 

There would be a deferral of regeneration harvests until 50% of an assessment 

area is older than the threshold stand age of 90 years north of Grants Pass 

and 140 years south of Grants Pass. In the meantime, partial harvesting and 

commercial thinning would be applied to stands that are at or beyond the partial 

harvest interval age (60 to 120 years, depending on the vegetation series).

There would be 6 to 9 green trees retained after harvesting depending on the 

vegetation series, and salvaging for economic purposes would be allowed after a 

disturbance (with legacy retention requirements).
XLVIII

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

•	 Riparian management areas. These areas would maintain or promote the 

development of mature or structurally complex forests and provide for the 

riparian and aquatic conditions that supply streams with shade, sediment filtering, 

leaf litter and large wood, and root masses that stabilize stream banks. 

All streams, except for intermittent non-fish-bearing streams, would have a 

100 foot nonharvesting and shade retention area on each side of the stream. 

Intermittent non-fish-bearing streams would allow no harvesting within 25 feet of 

the stream. 

Comparing the Alternatives

The areas included within the land use allocations vary significantly under the alternatives. 

See Figure 1 (Land use allocations under the alternatives). Note that Alternative 3 

contains a land use allocation called general landscape area that covers much of the 

landscape and provides habitat for late-successional species as well as timber production.

Figure 1. Land use allocations under the alternatives 
XLIX

Summary

Table 1. Limited comparison of the key features of the four alternatives (for a complete comparison of the key 

features of the four alternatives, see the comparison table in Chapter 2) 

Features No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

LateSuccessional 

Vegetation

•	 Maintains the Northwest 

Forest Plan’s latesuccessional reserves 

(LSRs)

•	 Allows no treatment of 

stands that are older 

than 80 years 

•	 Establishes latesuccessional 

management areas 

(LSMAs)

•	 Treats LSMAs 

to promote the 

development of 

structurally complex 

forests

•	 Establishes latesuccessional 

management areas 

(LSMAs) 

•	 Treats LSMAs 

to promote the 

development of suitable 

habitat

Creates a landscape target 

for regeneration harvesting 

that requires 50% or more of 

the acres in an assessment 

area be of the required 

age for harvesting, which 

is 90 years north of Grants 

Pass and 140 years south of 

Grants Pass

Critical Habitat 

Units (CHUs) 

for the Northern 

Spotted Owl 

and the Marbled 

Murrelet

•	 CHUs for the marbled 

murrelet completely 

match with the LSRs

•	 CHUs for the northern 

spotted owl partially 

match the LSRs

•	 CHUs for the marbled 

murrelet completely 

match with the LSMAs

•	 CHUs for the northern 

spotted owl partially 

match the LSMAs

•	 CHUs for the marbled 

murrelet partially match 

with the LSMAs

•	 CHUs for the northern 

spotted owl partially 

match the LSMAs

No special management

Northern Spotted 

Owl Activity 

Centers 

Retains the owl activity 

centers that were known as 

of January 1994

Retains no owl activity 

centers in the timber 

management areas (TMAs) 

Retains no owl activity 

centers in the timber 

management areas (TMAs) 

•	 Retains 215 acre owl 

activity centers in the 

general landscape areas

•	 Manages the owl 

activity centers until 

the landscape target is 

reached 

Green Tree 

Retention

•	 North of Grants Pass: 

6 to 8 trees per acre 

•	 South of Grants Pass: 

18 to 25 trees per acre 

•	 In connectivity diversity 

blocks: 

12 to 18 trees per acre 

None None 6 to 9 trees per acre 

depending on the vegetation 

series

Snag Retention

1.1 snags per acre •	 In the LSMAs: 

2 to 6 snags per acre 

depending on the 

vegetation series

•	 In the TMAs: 

Noncommercial only

•	 In the LSMAs: 

2 to 6 snags per acre 

depending on the 

vegetation series

•	 In the TMAs: 

Noncommercial only

2 to 4 snags per acre 

depending on the vegetation 

series 

Down Wood

120 to 240 ft./ac. •	 In the LSMAs:

•	 120 to 240 ft./ac. 

for stands with 

QMD > 14 in. 

•	 60 to 120 ft./ac. 

for stands with 

QMD ≤ 14 in. 

•	 In the TMAs: 

Noncommercial only

•	 In the LSMAs:

•	 40 to 240 ft./ac. 

for stands with 

QMD > 14 in.

•	 20 to 120 ft./ac. 

for stands with 

QMD ≤ 14 in.

•	 In the TMAs: 

Noncommercial only

•	 In the western hemlock 

zone: 

240 ft./ac.

•	 In the Douglas fir/true fire 

and tanoak zones: 

120 ft./ac.

Salvaging

•	 Allows salvaging in the 

LSR reserves when a 

disturbance is greater 

then 10 acres 

•	 Allows salvaging in 

the matrix land use 

allocations for economic 

purposes

•	 Allows no salvaging in 

the LSMAs, except to 

reduce hazards in the 

wildland urban interface 

areas 

•	 Allows salvaging in the 

wildland urban interface 

areas to reduce hazards

•	 Allows salvaging in the 

TMAs for economic 

purposes

•	 Allows salvaging in the 

LSMAs for economic 

purposes with retention 

of legacy 

•	 Allows salvaging in the 

wildland urban interface 

areas to reduce hazards

•	 Allows salvaging in the 

TMAs for economic 

purposes

Allows salvaging for 

economic purposes with 

retention of legacy 
L

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Features No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Zones for 

Riparian 

Management 

Areas

For all fish-bearing streams:

2 site potential tree ht.

For all non-fish-bearing 

streams: 

1 site potential tree ht. 

For all but intermittent 

non‐fish-bearing streams:

1 site potential tree ht.

For intermittent non‐fishbearing streams:

1/2 site potential tree ht. 

For all but intermittent 

non‐fish-bearing streams:

•	 0 to 25 ft. no harvest

•	 25 to 60 ft. 80% shade 

retention 

•	 60 to 100 ft. 50% canopy 

retention 

For non-debris-flow prone 

intermittent non-fishbearing streams:

0 to 25 ft. 

noncommercial 

vegetation +12 tpa

For debris-flow prone 

intermittent streams:

•	 0 to 25 ft. no harvest

•	 25 to 100 ft. managing 

for mature or structurally 

complex forests

For all but intermittent 

non‐fish-bearing streams:

•	 0 to 25 ft. no harvest

•	 25 to 60 ft. 80% shade 

retention 

•	 60 to 100 ft. 50% canopy 

retention 

For all intermittent non-fishbearing streams:

0 to 25 ft. no harvest

LSMA (late-successional management area) LSR (late-successional reserve) QMD (quadratic mean diameter) TMA (timber management area)

What are the environmental consequences 

of the alternatives?

The following sections summarize the environmental consequences that are described in detail 

in Chapter 4. The consequences vary between the alternatives for the different resources and 

programs. See Table 40 (Comparison of the key impacts by alternative) in Chapter 2 for which 

resources and programs do and do not vary, and the amount of variance for those that do vary. 

Note that the preciseness of the analyses for this draft environmental impact statement has 

improved due to the increased quality and quantity of the data and the increased sophistication of 

the forest vegetation and habitat modeling that is now available as opposed to when the current 

resource management plans were first analyzed in 1995. 
LI

Summary

Ecology 

Forests are classified in the analysis of this draft environmental impact statement by the 

following four-stage structural classification system: 

•	 Stand establishment. Forests that approximate the early-successional 

conditions that follow disturbances, such as timber harvesting or wildfires. This 

classification is subdivided based on whether or not the stand establishment forest 

includes trees (structural legacies) from the previous forest.

•	 Young. Forests that approximate the small conifer forests that are described in 

the FEMAT Report and Northwest Forest Plan. This classification is subdivided, 

like stand establishment, based on whether or not the young forest includes trees 

(structural legacies) from the previous forest. 

•	 Mature. Forests that are defined similarly to the mature forests that are 

described in the FEMAT Report and Northwest Forest Plan. This classification 

is subdivided based on whether the forest has a single canopy layer or multiple 

canopy layers. 

•	 Structurally complex. Forests that approximate the old-growth forests that are 

described in many analyses (e.g., the medium/large conifer multi-story forests 

of the FEMAT Report and the large, multi-storied older forests of the LateSuccessional Forest Monitoring Report). 

Together, the mature and structurally complex forests approximate the late-successional 

forests that are described in the FEMAT Report, the Northwest Forest Plan, and the 

resource management plans of the six western Oregon BLM districts that are within the 

planning area. 

The abundance and spatial patterns of the forest structural stages (stand establishment, 

young, mature, and structurally complex) that would exist under the alternatives for the 

BLM-administered lands, as well as across all ownerships compared to average historic 

conditions, would be as follows: 

•	 Across all ownerships, the abundance of the structural stages would not return 

to the average historic conditions within 100 years, even if there was no timber 

harvesting on the BLM-administered lands.

•	 The differences in the alternatives would result in only a 1% shift in the structural 

stage abundances across all ownerships within 100 years. 

•	 On BLM-administered lands, only the No Action Alternative would result in a 

structural stage abundance that would be consistent with the average historic 

conditions. However, all four alternatives would decrease the abundance of 

young forests and increase the abundance of mature&structurally complex forests 

from current amounts. 

•	 The retention of structural legacies in regeneration harvested areas, which 

would occur in the No Action Alternative and Alternative 3, would result in 
LII

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

structurally complex forests that develop almost twice as fast after harvesting as 

in Alternatives 1 and 2.

•	 The No Action Alternative would reduce fragmentation in most physiographic 

provinces. Alternatives 1 and 2 would increase fragmentation in most provinces. 

Alternative 3 would increase fragmentation in all provinces.

Socioeconomics 

As shown in Figure 2 (BLM projected county payments compared to historic 

payments), none of the alternatives would produce timber receipts sufficient to bring 

payments to the O&C counties to the level provided by the BLM portion of the Secure 

Rural Schools payments. Alternative 2 would produce the highest payments to the 

counties at 94% of the O&C portion of the 2005 Secure Rural Schools payments, while 

the No Action Alternative would produce the lowest payments at 37% of the O&C 

portion of the 2005 payment. 

Figure 2. BLM projected county payments compared to historic payments

Effects vary widely by county. The BLM plays the greatest role in the Douglas County 

budget, where it accounts for 20% of the total budget and 70% of the discretionary budget.

Alternative 2 would have the most favorable impact on local economies and would result 

in a net increase of 3,442 jobs and $136.5 million of earnings (wages). The No Action 

Alternative would have the least favorable impact on local economies and would result in 

a net decrease of 3,770 jobs and $125.5 million of earnings. Under all four alternatives, 

economic losses would be greatest in southwestern Oregon where the O&C lands are 

concentrated. Table 2 (Total economic impacts by alternative) shows that under all, but 

Alternative 2, the loss of Secure Rural Schools funding, coupled with the reduction in 
LIII

Summary

the plywood industry, would be greater than the increased employment and earnings that 

would be linked to increased BLM harvest levels. 

Table 2. Total economic impacts by alternative

Totals Current 

Condition

O&C County Totals by Alternative 

(change compared to current)

No Action 

Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Jobs (number of) 8,948 -3,770 -516 3,442 -1,275

Earnings ($millions) 319.4 -125.5 -7.3 136.5 -34.7

Present net value is a measure of economic return. Future revenues and costs over a 

50-year period are discounted back to the present using a 5% discount rate. As shown 

in Table 3 (First decade revenues and costs and the present net value over 50 years), 

the present net value of the BLM timber harvest would range from $46.1 million under 

Alternative 3 to $962.3 million under Alternative 2. 

Table 3. First decade revenues and costs and the present net value over 50 years

Alternative

Decade 1 Present Net Value 

(over 50 years)

($ million)

Total Revenues 

($ million)

Total Costs 

($ million)

Net Revenues 

($ million)

No Action 83.9 -78.7 5.2 107.5

Alternative 1 137.5 -117.7 19.8 342.8

Alternative 2 215.8 -166.9 48.9 962.3

Alternative 3 103.3 -103.8 -0.4 46.1

Environmental Justice

No high or adverse human health or environmental consequences have been identified 

for any of the alternatives. The consequences of the alternatives are not expected to fall 

disproportionately on minority or low-income populations.
LIV

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Timber 

As shown in Figure 3 (Percentage of BLM-administered lands in the harvest land base 

by alternative), the harvest land base varies between the alternatives from a high of 

1.4 million acres, which is 65% of the forested acres, under Alternative 3 to a low of 

607,000 acres, which is 27% of the forested acres, under the No Action Alternative. 

Figure 3. Percentage of BLM-administered lands in the harvest land base by alternative
LV

Summary

Figure 4 (Total allowable sale quantity by alternative for the planning area) shows 

that the annual allowable sale quantity would range from a high of 727 mmbf under 

Alternative 2 to a low of 268 mmbf under the No Action Alternative.

Figure 4. Total allowable sale quantity by alternative for the planning area

Figure 5 (Nonharvest land base volume over time) shows that over the next 10 years the 

volume from thinnings in the nonharvest land base would range from a high of 87 mmbf 

under the No Action Alternative to virtually no volume under Alternative 3. Figure 5 also 

shows that the volume from thinnings would gradually decrease over time and would 

cease by the eighth decade.

Figure 5. Nonharvest land base volume over time
LVI

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

The different types of harvesting that occur under the alternatives include thinning, partial 

harvesting, uneven-aged management, and regeneration harvesting. Thinning can occur 

in both the harvest land base and the nonharvest land base. On an annual basis, the timber 

harvest acres of all harvest types would range from approximately 16,000 acres for the 

No Action Alternative to 29,000 acres for Alternative 3. 

Special Forest Products 

The location of specific special forest products moves with the location of management 

activities. As in the past, special forest products would be harvested from common and 

abundant plant and fungi species. 

All four alternatives would maintain similar levels of availability and quantity of special 

forest products. Special forest products would generally be abundant relative to demand 

over the long term for all four alternatives.

Botany 

There are 134 (nonfederally listed) special status plant and fungi species that occur 

on BLM-administered lands within the planning area. These species are not evenly 

distributed or predictable across the landscape, even when good potential habitat exists. 

The risk of population loss varies with the number of populations, the patch size (density 

of known populations) of populations, and the location of management activities. The 

risk of population loss is higher where the patch size per population is smaller, where 

management activity includes regeneration or partial harvesting, and where there would 

be multiple treatments over 10 to 15 years (timber harvest, fuels, and silviculture).

Under the No Action Alternative and on the public domain lands under the three action 

alternatives, there would be little risk of loss of populations and extirpation or extinction 

of bureau sensitive species or bureau assessment species. 

Under the three action alternatives, some populations on O&C lands would be lost 

and the risk of local extirpation or extinction to bureau sensitive species and bureau 

assessment species would increase compared to the No Action Alternative. 

The ranking of the alternatives for the risk of loss is as follows: 

No Action Alterative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Lower Risk moderate Risk
LVII

Summary

The three action alternatives would cause a low-moderate risk of local extirpation or 

extinction for the conifer-related species that are known from 20 or fewer sites on BLMadministered lands. 

There are 13 federally listed species that are found within the planning area. Only five 

of the thirteen federally listed species occur on BLM-administered lands. Under all four 

alternatives, populations of species listed under the Endangered Species Act would be 

maintained and all four alternatives would contribute to the recovery of these species.

Invasive Plants 

The greatest risk for the introduction of invasive plants would be in areas where they are 

abundant and when management activity results in increased light and soil disturbance, 

and when activities are proximate to riparian areas. 

Alternative 2 would have the greatest risk of introduction based on levels of timber 

harvesting and associated roads. Alternative 2 also has the greatest risk of introduction 

into riparian areas based on riparian management widths, prescriptions, and levels of 

timber harvesting activities. The No Action Alternative would have the lowest risk of 

invasive plant introduction. 

The greatest risk for the spread of invasive plants would be when management activities 

are dispersed and proximate to riparian areas.

Alternative 3 would have the highest risk of spread, since harvesting under Alternative 3 

would be the most dispersed and occur on a larger proportion of lands. The No Action 

Alternative would have the lowest risk of spread.

Wildlife 

For special status wildlife species, the habitat needs of aquatic- and riparian-associated 

species would be met for perennial and fish-bearing streams under all four alternatives. 

The habitat needs of aquatic- and riparian-associated species along intermittent streams 

would be met under the No Action Alternative and Alternative 1, but would not be met 

under Alternatives 2 and 3. 

The habitat needs of forest-floor-associated species that are highly endemic to one or 

several locations would be at risk of decline in abundance and distribution under the three 

action alternatives. 
LVIII

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Marbled Murrelet

The nesting habitat for the marbled murrelet on BLM-administered lands would 

increase under all four alternatives within 100 years. There are 891,000 acres 

of BLM-administered lands capable of growing nesting habitat for the marbled 

murrelet. Marbled murrelet habitat exists in stands that are classified as mature 

with multilayered canopies forest or structurally complex forest. By the year 

2106, the habitat would increase from the current condition of 373,000 acres to:

•	 715,000 acres under the No Action Alternative

•	 620,000 acres under Alternative 1

•	 439,000 acres under Alternative 2

•	 493,000 acres under Alternative 3

In the short term (50 years), there would be a 16% decrease from the current 

condition in the quantity of marbled murrelet nesting habitat under Alternative 2 

and a 14% decrease under Alternative 3.

Under the No Action Alternative and Alternative 1 in the Coast Range province, 

and the No Action Alternative in the Klamath province, there would be an 

increase in the mean patch and core area size and an increase in the edge density 

from the current condition. Under Alternatives 2 and 3, there would be a decrease 

in the mean patch and core area size and an increase in the edge density. 

Northern Spotted Owl

For the northern spotted owl, the No Action Alternative and Alternative 1 

would steadily increase the total amount of suitable habitat. Alternative 2 

would maintain approximately the current amount of suitable habitat over time. 

Alternative 3 would maintain approximately the current amount of suitable 

habitat for the first 20 years, and then increase the amount of habitat to more than 

it would under Alternative 1 by 2106. 

As shown in Table 4 (Suitable habitat within the late-successional reserves 

and the late-successional management areas) and Figure 6 (Northern spotted 

owl suitable habitat on BLM-administered lands by alternative and reference 

analysis), the No Action Alternative, Alternative 1, and Alternative 2 would 

contribute to large blocks of suitable habitat to support clusters of reproducing 

owls. However, the BLM contribution to large blocks would require 50 to 

100 years to develop into almost all suitable habitat. Alternative 3 would not 

contribute to large blocks of suitable habitat to support clusters of reproducing 

owls, because it would fragment suitable habitat from the current condition.
LIX

Summary

Figure 6. Northern spotted owl suitable habitat on BLM-administered lands by 

alternative and reference analysis

Table 4. Suitable habitat within the late-successional reserves and the latesuccessional management areas

Alternatives

Total 

HabitatCapable 

Acres

% of Habitat-Capable Acres

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

acres % acres % acres % acres % acres %

No Action Alternative 809,400 458,900 57 490,400 61 535,300 66 693,100 86 797,300 99

Alternative 1 807,400 456,800 57 485,600 60 528,000 65 682,000 84 796,500 99

Alternative 2 521,500 281,300 54 300,400 58 334,800 64 452,400 87 515,000 99

Note: Alternative 3 is not included, because it would not allocate late-successional management areas.

The development of suitable habitat outside of large blocks is important because 

owl populations would need to rely on it until habitat within the blocks is capable 

of supporting clusters of reproducing owls. The development of suitable habitat 

outside of the large blocks would differ widely among the alternatives as a 

result of differing amounts of riparian management area acres and the differing 

management direction within the harvest land base.

As shown in Table 5 (Acres of suitable habitat outside of the late-successional 

reserves and the late-successional management areas), during the first 50 years 

after implementation, while large blocks would be developing into suitable 

habitat, the No Action Alternative would increase the amount of suitable habitat 

outside of the large blocks. Alternative 1 would maintain and Alternative 2 would 

decrease the current amount of suitable habitat.
LX

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Table 5. Acres of suitable habitat outside of the late-successional reserves and the 

late-successional management areas

Alternatives

Total 

HabitatCapable 

Acres 

% of Habitat-Capable Acres

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

acres % acres % acres % acres % acres %

No Action Alternative 1,404,000 661,300 47 706,100 50 755,000 54 854,700 61 877,500 62

Alternative 1 1,406,000 637,900 45 653,200 46 670,400 48 701,700 50 661,400 47

Alternative 2 1,675,000 808,100 48 774,900 46 767,900 46 731,800 44 615,900 37

Alternative 3 2,196,700 1,085,800 49 1,092,000 50 1,119,200 51 1,329,000 60 1,512,000 69

Note: For Alternative 3, this table presents the amount of suitable habitat on all BLM-administered lands, because Alternative 3 

does not allocate late-successional management areas.

Dispersal habitat conditions within and between the large blocks of suitable 

habitat would facilitate owl movement between the blocks. The No Action 

Alternative and Alternative 1 would maintain the current total quantity of 

dispersal habitat and would increase the quality of the dispersal habitat from the 

current condition. Alternative 2 would decrease the total quantity of dispersal 

habitat and would not increase the quality of dispersal habitat. Alternative 3 

would decrease the total quantity of dispersal habitat, but would increase the 

quality of the dispersal habitat over time. 

Fish 

The abundance and survival of salmonids is closely linked to the abundance of 

large woody debris in streams. 

The No Action Alternative would have almost twice the acreage in riparian 

management areas as Alternative 1, four times the acreage as Alternative 2, and 

more than three times the acreage as Alternative 3. Despite this difference in the 

size of the riparian management areas, large wood contributions would increase 

and nearly reach the maximum potential under every alternative; though slightly 

less under Alternatives 2 and 3. 

This is because:

•	 all areas in the watershed (not just the riparian management areas) serve 

as source areas that can deliver large wood to streams; and 

•	 the riparian management areas under all four alternatives incorporate 

some portion of large wood source areas. 

There would be slight differences in the contribution of large wood in three 

of the five representative watersheds that were modeled. The differences 

are greater in the watersheds where a greater amount of debris-flow prone 

channels and fish-bearing streams is coupled with higher land ownership. The 

No Action Alternative and Alternative 1 would have similar levels of large wood 

contribution and Alternatives 2 and 3 would have slightly lower contributions. 
LXI

Summary

The differences among the alternatives, in terms of fish productivity, would be 

less than 3%. 

Increases in fine sediment delivery under all four alternatives would be less than 

1% of the baseline sediment rates, and therefore would not degrade fish habitat 

under any of the alternatives.

None of the alternatives would result in increases in peak flows in fifth-field 

watersheds to a level that would affect fish habitat. 

None of the alternatives would result in increases in stream temperature that 

would affect fish habitat or populations, except that under Alternatives 2 

and 3 there would be some localized increases in stream temperature in the 

management area adjacent to the Coquille Forest land use allocation.

Water 

Timber harvesting influences peak flows where a large proportion of the timber 

has been harvested in a watershed. The magnitude of the effect is affected by the 

type of harvesting (thinning or regeneration harvesting), amount, and distribution 

of harvesting within watersheds. For all four alternatives, there would be four 

sixth-field subwatersheds (out of 1,071) susceptible to increased peak flows from 

timber management. 

Subwatersheds are more sensitive to extremes in environmental conditions 

than alternative variations of harvest levels. Regeneration harvesting under the 

alternatives is not great enough to increase susceptibility to increased peak flows.

Effective shade is the total solar radiation blocked from reaching a stream 

over a 24-hour period. All four alternatives would maintain effective stream 

shade that would limit the increase of stream temperature within the range of 

natural variability. 

Roads near streams are primary sites where mobilization of chronic fine 

sediment would take place. Most new roads would be located outside of a 

stream influence zone where possible, and therefore these miles would mostly 

likely not deliver fine sediment to streams channels. Between 8 and 37 miles of 

permanent new roads with a natural or aggregate surface would be constructed 

within a distance that could deliver sediment to streams over the next 10 years 

under the all four alternatives.

Under all four alternatives over the next 10 years, the increase in the amount 

of fine sediment delivered to streams from new permanent roads would be 

less than three-tenths of 1% of the amount delivered from the existing road 

network. Road improvements and the decommissioning of roads near streams 

would be of greater importance to decreasing fine sediment delivery than the 

effect of new roads. 
LXII

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Under all four alternatives, best management practices would be applied and 

are assumed to maintain or improve water quality. Best management practices 

include methods that limit the delivery of sediment to streams. 

Fire and Fuels 

The analysis of fire and fuels divides the planning area into two areas: 

•	 the Salem, Eugene, Roseburg, and Coos Bay districts (north of Grants 

Pass), which generally have a low-frequency and high-severity fire 

regime; and 

•	 the Medford District and Klamath Falls Resource Area of the Lakeview 

District (south of Grants Pass), which generally have a high-frequency 

and low-severity fire regime. 

Fire severity, hazard, and resiliency can generally be equated to broad 

descriptions of vegetation conditions. Under moderate and extreme conditions, 

the primary source of high-severity fire would be in stand establishment and 

young forests that consist of even-aged stands. 

All four alternatives would reduce fire severity and hazards north of Grants 

Pass, because all four alternatives would reduce the combined abundance 

of stand establishment and young forests. The No Action Alternative and 

Alternative 1 would result in the largest decrease and Alternative 2 would result 

in the smallest decrease.

All four alternatives would reduce fire severity and hazard in the Medford 

District, but the amount of decrease would vary widely among the alternatives. 

The amount of decrease is relative to the reduction in acreage of stand 

establishment and young forests compared to the current condition. The 

No Action Alternative would result in the most decrease and Alternative 2 would 

have the least decrease.

Alternatives 1 and 2 would increase fire severity and hazards in the Klamath 

Fall Resource Area of the Lakeview District while the No Action Alternative 

and Alternative 3 would decrease fire severity and hazards at approximately the 

current levels. 

Alternatives 1 and 2 would decrease the acreage of fire-resilient forests from 

current conditions, because they would create forests without green tree structural 

legacies, which have a lower fire resiliency compared to forests with such 

structural legacies.

In both the Medford District and Klamath Falls Resource Area, the No Action 

Alternative and Alternative 3 would increase the acreage of fire-resilient forests 

from current conditions, because they would create forests with structural legacies. 
LXIII

Summary

Air 

Under all four alternatives, emissions from prescribed burning would occur at the 

local level, but all burning would follow the Oregon Smoke Management Plan. 

This would result in the protection of all air quality, Class 1 visibility areas, and 

air quality maintenance areas.

Recreation 

All four alternatives meet recreational demand and improve the quality of 

visitor experiences.

The off-highway vehicle designations would be the same under the three 

action alternatives. See Table 6 (Off-highway vehicle designations under the 

alternatives). Additionally, in the Medford District, the number of off-highway 

vehicle emphasis areas would vary from 0 to 10 under all four alternatives.

Table 6. Off-highway vehicle designations under the alternatives

Off-highway Vehicle Designation

No Action 

Alternative 

(acres)

All Action 

Alternatives 

(acres)

Open 330,000 77

Closed 84,600 98,800

Limited to Existing Roads and Trails 950,000 0

Limited to Designated Roads and Trails 1,100,000 2,400,000

Under the three action alternatives, the redesignation of off-highway vehicle 

areas, and the designation of 10 new emphasis areas in the Medford District 

(under Alternative 2), would reduce visitor conflicts and increase off-highway 

vehicle opportunities. This would improve public safety and visitor experiences 

compared to the No Action Alternative. 

Harvesting and associated roads can change the remoteness and naturalness of 

an area, which in turn can cause changes in the recreational settings used by the 

public. Remoteness would be little changed under all four alternatives since there 

are relatively few new permanent roads. The naturalness of BLM areas would also 

be little changed overall. The alternatives would maintain a mix of naturalness 

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

Wilderness Characteristics 

The BLM evaluated 146 public wilderness proposals that were received during 

scoping. It was determined that nine of these areas (26,123 acres) contained 

wilderness characteristics. Under the three action alternatives, there would be 

special management (no harvesting) to maintain the wilderness characteristics on 

five of these areas. 
LXIV

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

It was assumed that timber harvesting would not maintain wilderness 

characteristics. Table 7 (Acres of wilderness characteristics maintained under the 

alternatives) shows that each of the four alternatives would maintain 52 to 63% 

of the 26,123 acres that have wilderness characteristics. 

Table 7. Acres of wilderness characteristics maintained under the alternatives

Wilderness 

Characteristics 

Maintained

No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Acres 16,485 15,610 13,637 13,918

Percentage 63 60 52 53

Visual Resources 

Visual resource quality is determined through the visual resource inventory 

process, which is based on a combination of scenic quality, sensitivity levels, 

and distance zones. The results of this inventory process classified all BLM lands 

within the planning area as Class I, II, III, or IV.Class I areas are determined to 

have the highest level of visual resource quality, while Class IV areas have the 

lowest level (see Chapter 3). 

The BLM also designates visual resource management classes through the land 

use planning process. These classes also range from Class I through IV. Class I 

areas are managed to preserve visual resource quality, while Class IV areas 

allow for major modifications. Management classes can vary from the original 

inventory classes to be consistent with the goals and objectives of resource 

management plans. 

Areas inventoried as Class I and IV would be maintained under all four 

alternatives. Regeneration harvests would diminish existing visual resource 

quality within Class II and III areas. Alternative 1 would maintain existing visual 

resource quality on the greatest portion of BLM lands within the planning area 

compared to the other two action alternatives. 

National Landscape Conservation System 

The three action alternatives would continue to protect all National Landscape 

Conservation System designated lands.

Soils 

The same or improved practices would be used to minimize the loss of soil 

productivity under the three action alternatives as under the No Action Alternative. 

Despite some residual detrimental soil disturbance, overall soil productivity 

would be maintained or improved under all four alternatives.
LXV

Summary

Grazing 

Under the three action alternatives, the acres of livestock grazing authorizations 

would decrease from 560,000 acres to 418,500 acres. This decrease is largely in 

the Medford District and Klamath Falls Resource Area of the Lakeview District, 

where the acres are vacant and not currently grazed. 

Under all four alternatives, there would be an increase in forage production in 

the Medford District and the western portion of the Klamath Falls Resource 

Area of the Lakeview District. The highest increase under the three action 

alternatives would occur under Alternative 3. None of the alternatives would 

substantially change the quantity of forage production in the eastern portion of 

the Klamath Falls Resource Area, since little regeneration or partial harvesting 

would occur there. 

Wild Horses 

The Pokegama Herd Management Area is located partially (84%) within the 

planning area. Forage production in support of the herd would be affected by 

changes to vegetation due to management activity. Stand establishment forests, 

where regeneration or partial harvesting would occur, provides the best forage. 

All four alternatives would increase forage production with the highest increase 

being under Alternative 3. All four alternatives would maintain the current 

appropriate herd management level of 30 to 50 head. 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern and Research 

Natural Areas 

During the planning process, the status of 94 existing and 38 proposed 

areas of critical environmental concern were reviewed. There were 124 that 

met the designation criteria and that were carried forward under the three 

action alternatives.

Relevant and important values are the unique values for which an area of 

critical environmental concern is managed. Some land use allocations may 

provide for these values, so there would be no need for designation. Under 

the three action alternatives, areas of critical environmental concern were 

analyzed for designation, and if areas were not viable without O&C lands they 

were not designated. 

See Table 8 (Total existing and potential ACECs designated by alternative) for 

the number of areas of critical environmental concern under the alternatives.

Table 8. Total existing and potential ACECs designated by alternative

Designated No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Number of ACECs 94 92 93 82
LXVI

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

It was assumed that if an area of critical environmental concern was not 

designated due to the loss of O&C lands, the relevant and important values would 

be degraded or lost. See Table 9 (Relevant and important value categories that 

would receive no special management attention) for the action alternatives that 

would not maintain 25 to 35% of the relevant and important values. Note that 

an area of critical environmental concern can have more than one relevant and 

important value. 

Table 9. Relevant and important value categories that would receive no special 

management attention

Value Category

Alternatives

No Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

number % number % number % number %

Cultural, historic, 

and scenic 0 0 5 16 4 13 7 22

Fish and wildlife 0 0 19 34 15 27 24 43

Natural process or 

system 34 28 33 28 43 36

Natural hazard 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Totals 0 0 58 27 52 25 74 35

Note: See Appendix M. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern and Research Natural Areas for information about the specific 

important and relevant values for each area of critical environmental concern.

Cultural Resources 

Impacts to sites would be largely reduced or eliminated due to predisturbance 

site discovery and avoidance or protection measures. However, there would 

be some residual incidental or inadvertent loss of sites. Damage to cultural, 

paleontological, and traditional use sites would vary little between the 

alternatives. For all four alternatives, 2% or less of the number of sites would be 

damaged per decade. 

Energy and Minerals 

All four alternatives would maintain similar levels of availability and quantity of 

energy and mineral resources. Opportunities to explore for energy and mineral 

resources on public land within the planning area would generally be abundant 

relative to the demand under all four alternatives.

Under all four alternatives, those portions of the Coos Bay District that are in the 

Coos geologic basin would be of special interest for exploration and development 

of coal bed natural gas, as an extension of development already under way. 

As many as 77 wells may be drilled on federal land, which would result in 

approximately 525 acres of disturbance.
1

Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

Chapter 1 describes the purpose and need for the action that is proposed, and identifies the factors 

that will be used when choosing among the alternatives at the time of the decision. This chapter 

also describes the boundaries of the planning area, the planning process – including scoping, the 

collaborative efforts the BLM has made with the many agencies and organizations that have an 

interest in BLM-administered lands in western Oregon, and the relationship these revised resource 

management plans have to other plans and programs. 

In this chapter:

Introduction ...................................................................................................................................3

Purpose and Need for the Plan Revisions................................................................................3

Reasons for Revising the RMPs Now .....................................................................................4

Selecting a Preferred Alternative...............................................................................................7

Background ...................................................................................................................................8

Planning Area ..............................................................................................................................16

Planning Process .........................................................................................................................18

Collaboration...............................................................................................................................19

Relationship of the RMPs to Other Plans, and Programs...................................................22
2

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs
3

Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

Introduction

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is revising the resource management plans (RMPs) 

for the Coos Bay District, Eugene District, Medford District, Roseburg District, Salem District, 

and the Klamath Falls Resource Area of the Lakeview District. The Oregon and California 

Railroad and Coos Bay Wagon Road Grant Lands Act (O&C Act) is 

the statutory authority that provides primary direction to the BLM for 

managing most of the lands it administers in western Oregon. 

The existing RMPs are consistent with the 1994 Northwest Forest 

Plan, adopted by the Department of the Interior and the Department of 

Agriculture for federal forests within the range of the northern spotted 

owl as an “ecosystem management plan for managing habitat for latesuccessional and old-growth forest related species.” The proposed action is to revise the RMPs 

with land use allocations and management direction that best meet the purpose and need. 

The BLM is proposing to revise existing plans to replace the Northwest Forest Plan land use 

allocations and management direction because (1) the BLM’s plan evaluations found harvest 

levels have not been achieving the timber harvest levels directed by existing plans, and the BLM 

now has more detailed and accurate information than was available in 1995 on the effects of 

sustained yield management on other resources, (2) there is an opportunity to coordinate the 

BLM management plans with new recovery plans and re-designations of critical habitat currently 

under development and (3) the BLM has re-focused the goal for management of the BLMadministered lands to the objectives of its statutory mandate to utilize the principles of sustained 

yield management on the timber lands covered under the O&C Act of contributing to the 

economic stability of local communities and industries, and other benefits from such management 

to watersheds, stream flows, and recreation.

Purpose and Need for the Plan Revisions

The goals for the Northwest Forest Plan were broader than the specific requirements of the 

Endangered Species Act and Clean Water Act and sought to provide more consistent management 

of federally-managed lands by applying National Forest Management Act requirements to 

BLM-administered lands. The selected alternative for the Northwest Forest Plan was selected 

because it would “maintain the late-successional and old-growth forest ecosystem and provide a 

predictable and sustainable supply of timber, recreational opportunities and other resources at the 

highest level possible.” The purpose and need for this plan revision is focused on specific legal 

requirements and intended benefits of the BLM’s unique mandate under the O&C Act, distinct 

from the mandate to the U.S. Forest Service under National Forest Management Act.

The purpose and need for this proposed action is to manage the BLM-administered lands for 

permanent forest production in conformity with the principles of sustained yield, consistent 

with the O&C Act.1

 The plans will also comply with all other applicable laws including, but 

1

 The Ninth Circuit in Headwaters v. BLM, 914 F.2d 1174 (9th Cir. 1990) confirmed that in the O&C Act Congress mandated 

timber production as the dominant use of these BLM-administered lands.

O&C Act

The lands that are managed 

by the O&C Act include 

the Oregon and California 

Railroad grant lands that were 

revested in 1916 and the Coos 

Bay Wagon Road lands that 

were reconveyed in 1919.
4

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

not limited to, the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, and, to the extent that it is not 

in conflict with the O&C Act, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. In accord with 

the Endangered Species Act, the plans will use the BLM’s authorities for managing the lands it 

administers in the planning area to conserve habitat needed from these lands for the survival and 

recovery of species listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act.2

 

Reasons for Revising the RMPs Now 

Plan evaluations showed the BLM’s timber harvest levels as directed by existing plans were 

not being achieved, and the BLM now has more detailed and accurate information on the 

effects of sustained yield timber management on other resources.

RMP revisions are necessary where monitoring and evaluation findings, new data, new or revised 

policy, or changes in circumstances indicate decisions in a plan (an entire plan or a major portion 

of a plan) no longer serve as a useful guide for resource management (43 CFR 1610.5-6). Failure 

to meet some plan objectives and new information that increases opportunities to improve the 

performance of other plan objectives necessitates revisions to resource management plans.

The BLM completed evaluations for the six western Oregon RMPs in 2004 and found departures 

from objectives, management actions, and assumptions in the timber resources program. The 

BLM determined the annual productive capacity and declared an allowable sale quantity of 211 

million board feet (mmbf) in the 1995 records of decision for the RMPs for western Oregon.3

Except for the Klamath Falls Resource Area of the Lakeview District, evaluations for the other 

districts documented that regeneration harvest was 30 to 60 percent of the levels anticipated. Even 

when thinning volume was added, except for the Klamath Falls Resource Area of the Lakeview 

District, plan evaluations showed that the timber offered from the harvest land base was still only 

40 to 70 percent of the anticipated allowable sale quantity. This failure to meet the harvest levels 

is largely due to unanticipated legal and practical implementation issues involved in managing 

designated critical habitat for the northern spotted owl that was different then the land use 

allocations in the Northwest Forest Plan, and court decisions regarding the survey and manage 

mitigation measure and Aquatic Conservation Strategy. 

2

 This revision process will satisfy a settlement agreement resolving long-standing litigation of the Northwest Forest Plan (AFRC 

v. Clarke, Civil No. 94-1031-TPJ (D.D.C.)) that alleged the current RMPs violate the O&C Act. The settlement agreement requires BLM to consider revisions to the RMPs by the end of the year 2008, and include at least one alternative that “will provide 

permanent forest production across the O&C lands without reserves except as required to avoid jeopardy under the Endangered 

Species Act.” See Appendix A for more discussion. 3

 Currently, due to subsequent adjustments through plan amendments and maintenance, the declared allowable sale quantity for 

the BLM lands in western Oregon is 203 million board feet (mmbf).
5

Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

The departures from the expectations and assumptions of the RMPs regarding the ability of the 

BLM to supply timber at a predictable and sustained level under the Northwest Forest Plan have 

created substantial uncertainty as to whether the objective under the O&C Act (managing O&C 

lands for permanent forest production and contributing to the stability of the local economy 

and industry) can be met in the short or long term. Even though the purpose of the O&C Act in 

providing a stable source of revenue to the county governments has been supplanted in recent 

years through temporary Congressional funding, the source of this revenue in the long term is 

uncertain. To the extent the BLM can provide a substantial stream of revenue to the counties 

through the revenue sharing provisions of the O&C Act, the ability of county governments 

dependent on these revenues to provide services will be improved. Furthermore, the revenue 

sharing provision is primarily in support of the local governments, whereas the intended benefits 

of sustained yield timber management under the O&C Act also include contribution to the local 

economies and industries, not just to governments.

These plan evaluations generally found that other resource programs were functioning as 

anticipated in achieving most goals, but identified potential for improvements. For example, 

the evaluations indicated opportunities to adjust the off highway vehicle designations for some 

districts, to add a new policy (the National Fire Plan) for some districts, to address the latest 

science and more recent listings on threatened and endangered species for all of the districts. 

These items in themselves may not have justified a revision of the current RMPs, but will be 

considered in this revision of the RMPs. 

In 1995, the Northwest Forest Plan analysis used a geographical information database that was 

limited to a resolution of units of 40 acres in size. The current database has a resolution many 

times finer than this: i.e., 10 square meters in resolution rather than 40 acres. Additionally the 

hydrological map data, among others, was incomplete at that time and has now been completed 

and updated. As a consequence, the BLM is now able to perform analysis on such resources 

as aquatic habitat in much finer detail with more precision using analytical models that were 

unavailable in 1993. In part due to the limitations of the available information database, the 

1995 RMPs erred on the side of caution regarding resources used by species considered rare, 

threatened, or endangered. That margin of error is no longer justified. Making this adjustment in 

light of advances in the analytical ability, data, and knowledge of the resources is consistent with 

the principles of adaptive management articulated in the Northwest Forest Plan in 1994. 

There is an opportunity to coordinate the BLM’s management plans with new recovery 

plans and redesignations of critical habitat currently under development.

The National Marine Fisheries Service and Fish and Wildlife Service are currently reviewing, 

revising or drafting recovery plans and critical habitat for some listed species in the planning area. 

These revisions will also allow the BLM to coordinate its RMPs with decisions on the recovery 

plans and any re-designation of critical habitats. 

The late-successional reserves in the Northwest Forest Plan do not coincide completely with the 

critical habitat that was designated for the northern spotted owl by the Fish and Wildlife Service 

in 1992. This resulted in an uncertainty for those matrix lands that are overlain with the critical 

habitat designation, because the matrix land use allocation was where the majority of timber 

harvesting to meet the declared allowable sale quantity was expected to occur.
6

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Some Fish and Wildlife Service biological opinions on timber sales within critical habitat 

have been litigated and found invalid. In the Gifford Pinchot Task Force4

 decision, the Ninth 

Circuit made it clear that effects to critical habitat must be considered regardless of whether the 

Northwest Forest Plan would be expected to recover the species. As a result, the ability of the 

BLM to implement timber sales in the portions of the matrix and adaptive management area that 

are within designated critical habitat is more limited than anticipated in the current RMPs. 

The existing management uncertainty resulting from the differences between the designated 

critical habitat and the reserves established in the Northwest Forest Plan could be reduced by 

harmonizing the BLM RMPs with designated critical habitat. The Fish and Wildlife Service 

is concurrently writing a recovery plan and reexamining the designation of critical habitat 

for the northern spotted owl. Thus, the BLM, at this time, has an opportunity to integrate the 

recovery plans of the Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service, and any 

redesignation of critical habitat, into the revision of the BLM’s resource management plans. 

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

statutory mandates specifically applicable to these lands.

The statutory requirements of the O&C Act, which governs most BLM-administered lands 

in western Oregon, include, but are not limited to, managing the O&C lands for permanent 

forest production by selling, cutting, and removing timber in conformance with the principles 

of sustained yield; determining the annual productive capacity of the lands managed under the 

O&C Act; and offering that determined capacity annually under normal market conditions. The 

statute states that the purpose of sustained yield management of these 

lands is to provide a permanent source of timber, contribute to the 

economic stability of local communities and industries, as well as 

benefit watersheds, regulate stream flows, and provide recreational 

use.5

 The statutory requirements of the O&C Act are limited by 

other statutes providing for the need to conserve listed species and 

the habitat they depend on, not jeopardizing listed species and not 

adversely modifying critical habitat, and the protection of the chemical, biological and physical 

properties of the water of the United States. As long as the requirements of these other statutes 

are met, increasing the level of timber production consistent with the principles of sustained yield 

would further the objectives set by Congress for managing these lands under the O&C Act. 

4 Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 378 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2004) 5 The BLM interprets this language of the O&C Act as explaining the rationale for sustained yield forest management, 

rather than enumerating additional objectives for management.

Land use allocations

For details about the 

Northwest Forest Plan 

and its land use allocation 

designations, search for the 

phrase Northwest Forest Plan 

at htpp://www.blm.gov/search.
7

Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

Selecting a Preferred Alternative

In selecting among the alternatives in this plan revision, the BLM will evaluate which alternative 

or combination of alternatives best meets the Purpose and Need. In addition, the BLM will 

consider the environmental consequences related to the issues identified below and the cost of 

implementation. 
8

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Background 

The following background summarizes the major resource plans, and laws that affect the BLM’s 

management of the O&C lands of western Oregon.

Northwest Forest Plan 

The management direction contained in the 1994 Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) was 

designed to respond to the need for both forest habitat and forest products (NWFP ROD, 

p. 25). In selecting Alternative 9 (which became the NWFP), 

the secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture stated that “[t]

o balance these sometimes conflicting purposes and plan 

for management of ecosystems that cross the administrative 

boundaries ... we adopt the alternative that will both maintain 

the late-successional and old-growth forest ecosystem and 

provide a predictable and sustainable supply of timber” 

(NWFP ROD, p. 26). 

The decision to select Alternative 9 was an attempt to balance the two purposes of 

forest habitat and forest products. The balancing was primarily accomplished through 

land allocations between lands designated as reserved lands (congressionally reserved 

areas, administratively withdrawn, late-successional reserves, and riparian reserves) 

that were declared “incompatible with programmed, sustained timber harvest” (NWFP 

SEIS, p. 3&4-263) and the lands not reserved for conservation purposes were left as 

“matrix” or “adaptive management areas” land allocations on which programmed timber 

harvest could take place. These remaining unreserved lands constituted 23 percent of 

the BLM-administered lands. Timber harvesting on the matrix lands and in the adaptive 

management areas was restricted by the standards and guidelines that were designed to 

achieve conservation objectives on these lands (NWFP ROD, p. 1-2).

The conservation strategy of the Northwest Forest Plan 

addressed not only the Endangered Species Act, but also the 

National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA) and its 

requirement that the United States Forest Service “provide for 

diversity of plant and animal communities ... to meet overall 

multiple-use objectives” (16 U.S.C. §1604). The Northwest 

Forest Plan applied the same criteria for the management 

of habitat on both United States Forest Service and BLMadministered lands. The discussion regarding the legal and 

regulatory compliance of Alternative 9 (as it relates to the National Forest Management 

Act) in the 1994 record of decision for the Northwest Forest Plan states that: 

Northwest Forest Plan

For documents relating to 

the Northwest Forest Plan, 

including the record of decision 

(ROD), visit http://www.blm.gov/

or/plans/nwfpnepa/index.htm or 

http://www.reo.gov/library.

NFMA

The National Forest 

Management Act of 1976 was 

an amendment to the Forest 

and Rangeland Renewable 

Resources Planning Act of 1974 

that reorganized and expanded 

the 1974 act. For the complete 

act and its regulations, search 

for Title 16 and all sections 

starting with Section 1600 at 

http://uscode.house.gov. 
9

Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

Although NFMA regulations apply to lands administered by the Forest 

Service, the fish and wildlife regulation was used as a criterion in 

the development of the alternative we select today, which includes 

direction for management of BLM lands. Use of the regulation’s goals 

in developing alternatives applicable to BLM lands serves the important 

policy goal of protecting the long-term health and sustainability of all of 

the federal forests within the range of the owl and the species that inhabit 

them.” (NWFP ROD, p. 44)

Major Laws Affecting Management of O&C 

Lands

How the various laws affect the management of the O&C lands is discussed in this 

section. In addition to the laws presented here, there are a multitude of other legal 

authorities that affect the management of the O&C lands. For those, see Appendix A.

The O&C Act has been the statutory authority for the management of the O&C lands 

since 1937. Subsequent laws affect the management of the O&C lands to varying 

degrees. Laws, such as the Endangered Species Act and Clean 

Water Act, are directly applicable to how the BLM exercises 

its statutory authorities in managing the O&C lands, but 

none of these laws repealed the underlying primary direction 

and authority for the O&C lands. Thus, the BLM has a duty 

to find a way to concurrently implement all these laws, in a 

manner that harmonizes any seeming conflict between them, 

unless Congress has provided that one law would override 

another law. This is the situation in the Federal Land Policy 

and Management Act where Congress provided that in any conflict between that law and 

the O&C Act, the O&C Act would prevail. Thus, the O&C Act takes precedence over 

FLPMA with regard to timber management and receipts distribution.

Oregon and California Railroad and Coos Bay Wagon Road 

Grant Lands Act (43 U.S.C. §1181a et seq.)

The 1937 Oregon and California Railroad and Coos 

Bay Wagon Road Grant Lands Act (O&C Act) 

provides the legal authority to the Secretary of the 

Interior for the management of the O&C lands. The 

O&C Act was intended to provide forest management 

that would generate revenue to the local counties and 

halt previous practices of clearcutting without reforestation and the “boom and 

bust” cycles caused by logging in excess of the forest’s sustained yield capacity. 

The O&C Act limited timber harvest to a level that could be continued without 

O&C Act

The 1937 act that administers 

the O&C lands is untitled, 

but, through the title given to 

the codified regulations that 

administers the act, it is now 

known as the Oregon and 

California Railroad and Coos 

Bay Wagon Road Grant Lands 

Act (O&C Act). 

O&C Act

For the complete act and 

its regulations, search for 

Title 43 and all sections 

starting with Section 1181a at 

http://uscode.house.gov.
10

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

exceeding the amount of forest growth to avoid depletion of timber resources and 

provide other benefits.6

The O&C Act requires that the O&C lands be managed “for permanent forest 

production, and the timber thereon shall be sold, cut, and removed in conformity 

with the principal of sustained yield for the purpose of providing a permanent 

source of timber supply, protecting watersheds, regulating stream flow, and 

contributing to the economic stability of local communities and industries, and 

providing recreational facilities” (43 U.S.C. §1181a).

The O&C Act goes on to state that “[t]he annual productive capacity for such 

lands shall be determined and declared ... [p]rovided, [t]hat timber from said 

lands ... not less than the annual sustained yield capacity ... shall be sold 

annually, or so much thereof as can be sold at reasonable prices on a normal 

market” (43 U.S.C. §1181a). 

When monetary receipts from the sale of timber from the O&C lands are 

distributed, 50% is distributed to the counties in which the revested lands are 

located. That 50% is distributed to the counties according to their proportion of 

the total assessed value of the revested lands that existed in each of the counties in 

1915. Those percentages range from 0.36% to 25.05% for the 18 O&C counties. 

It does not matter in which counties the timber is harvested. All counties get their 

assigned percentage of whatever receipts are available each year. 

In meeting the various requirements for managing the O&C lands, the Secretary 

of the Interior has discretion under the O&C Act to determine how to manage 

the forest to provide for permanent forest production on a sustained yield basis. 

While the O&C Act does state that “the timber thereon shall be sold, cut, and 

removed in conformity with the principal [sic] of sustained yield,” it does not 

specify the harvest methods, rotation length, or silviculture regimes under which 

these forests would be managed. Nor does it establish a minimum level of harvest 

or a minimum level of receipts.

Federal Land Policy and Management Act 

(43 U.S.C. §1701 et seq.) 

The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 

(FLPMA) provides the legal authority to the Secretary 

of the Interior for the management of public domain 

lands. The act requires, in part, that “the public lands 

be managed in a manner that will protect the quality of 

scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, environmental, 

air and atmospheric, water resource, and archeological values; that, where 

appropriate, will preserve and protect certain public lands in their natural 

condition; that will provide food and habitat for fish and wildlife and domestic 

animals; and that will provide for outdoor recreation and human occupancy and 

6

 H.R. Report, No. 1119, 75th Cong., 1st Sess. 2 (1937).

FLPMA

For the complete act and its 

regulations, search for Title 43 

and all sections starting with 

Section 1701 at http://uscode.

house.gov. 
11

Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

use” (43 U.S.C. §1701 [Sec. 102.a.8]). In addition, the act requires that “the 

public lands be managed in a manner which recognizes the Nation’s need for 

domestic sources of minerals, food, timber, and fiber from the public lands” 

(43 U.S.C. §1701 [Sec. 102.a.12]).

However, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act specifically provides 

that if there is any conflict between its provisions and the O&C Act related 

to the management of timber resources or the disposition of revenues from 

the O&C lands and resources, the O&C Act prevails (i.e., takes precedence) 

(43 U.S.C. §1701). Thus, the multiple-use management direction of this act does 

not apply to the O&C lands that are suitable for timber production. On the other 

hand, the planning process established by this act is applicable to the O&C lands, 

since it is not in conflict with the O&C Act’s management direction for those 

lands. 

Note that the multiple-use management direction of this act does apply to other 

public lands (e.g., the public domain lands) that are managed by the BLM in 

western Oregon. 

Endangered Species Act (as amended) (16 

U.S.C. §1531 et seq.)

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

requires federal agencies to use their legal authorities 

to promote the conservation purposes of the act. This 

section also requires federal agencies to consult with 

the United States Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries 

Service to ensure that actions they authorize, fund, or carry out will not 

jeopardize species listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA or cause 

destruction or adverse modification to designated critical habitat for such species. 

Critical habitat is defined, in part, as geographic areas occupied by the species 

that contain the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of a 

species listed under the act and that may need special management or protection. 

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Program. ESA Basics - 30 

Years of Protecting Endangered Species. May 2006. URL: http://www.fws.gov/

Endangered/pubs/ESA%20BASICS_050806.pdf (accessed October 2006)) 

Clean Water Act (as amended) (33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq.)

The objective of the Clean Water Act is to restore and maintain the chemical, 

physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters. To accomplish this 

objective, the statute requires that: water quality standards consistent with the 

statutory goals of the Clean Water Act be established; water bodies be monitored 

to determine whether the water quality standards are being met; and, if all of 

the water quality standards are being met, then antidegradation policies and 

programs, including ambient monitoring, be employed to keep the water quality 

Endangered Species Act

For the complete act and its 

regulations, search for Title 16 

and all sections starting with 

Section 1531 at http://uscode.

house.gov. 
12

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

at acceptable levels. 

If a water body is not meeting the applicable water quality standards for a 

beneficial use, a strategy for meeting the required 

standards must be developed by the administrating 

agency, typically the state water quality agency. For 

example, section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act directs 

states and tribes to develop a list of waters that fail 

to meet water quality standards and develop total 

maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for the individual pollutants (e.g., sediment, 

bacteria, elevated instream temperature) causing the water quality standards 

violations. TMDLs determine what level of pollutant load would be consistent 

with meeting the water quality standards and allocate acceptable loads among 

sources of the relevant pollutants. Necessary reductions in pollutant loading 

are achieved by implementing strategies that are authorized by the Clean 

Water Act, along with other tools that are available from federal, state, and 

local governments and nongovernmental organizations. (U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Watershed Academy Web. Introduction to the Clean Water 

Act. March 13, 2003. URL: http://www.epa.gov/watertrain/cwa/rightindex.htm 

(accessed October 2006)) 

Sections 303(d) and 319 of the Clean Water Act most directly apply to the 

BLM. Section 303(d) (codified as 33 U.S.C. §1313(d)) directs states and tribes 

to develop a list of waters that fail to meet water quality standards for various 

constituents including, among others, sediment, temperature, and bacteria. 

Section 303(d) requires states and tribes to develop total maximum daily loads 

that apportion a load of pollutants that can be discharged into the waters of 

a state. Section 319 (codified as 33 U.S.C. §1329) established management 

programs to control water pollution from nonpoint sources, such as sediment. 

The BLM’s Application of the O&C Act

Based on the language of the O&C Act, the O&C Act’s legislative history, and the 

decision by the Ninth Circuit in Headwaters v. BLM,( 914 F.2d 1174 (9th Cir. 1990), 

it is clear that the management of timber (including harvesting) is the dominant use of 

the O&C lands in western Oregon. That dominant use, however, must be implemented 

in full compliance with a number of subsequent laws that direct how the BLM 

accomplishes that statutory direction. See Appendix A for a discussion of court rulings 

most relevant to the decisions which must be made in revising the RMPs for the BLM 

lands in western Oregon.

The following sections discuss the laws that affect the management of areas of critical 

environmental concern, wilderness study areas, scenic values, and listed species.

Clean Water Act

For the complete act and its 

regulations, search for Title 33 

and all sections starting with 

Section 1251 at http://uscode.

house.gov.
13

Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

The Federal Land Policy and Management Act provides the authority for 

the designation of areas of critical environmental concern (43 U.S.C. §1712 

[Sec. 202.c.3]). However, the O&C Act prevails over the Federal Land Policy 

and Management Act with regard to the management of timber resources on 

O&C lands. With these two laws, the BLM:

•	 Would manage areas of critical environmental concern to protect their 

relevant and important features on O&C lands where management of the 

area of critical environmental concern would not conflict with sustained 

yield forest management in areas dedicated to timber production .

•	 Would manage areas of critical environmental concern to protect their 

relevant and important features on public domain lands.

•	 Would designate research natural areas, a type of area of critical 

environmental concern, on O&C lands when the scientific value of the 

research is relevant to sustained yield forest management. 

•	 Would not designate other areas of critical environmental concern on 

O&C lands where management of the area of critical environmental 

concern would conflict with sustained yield forest management in areas 

dedicated to timber production. 

Wilderness Study Areas

The Federal Land Policy and Management Act provided the authority for the 

designation of wilderness study areas (43 U.S.C. §1782 [Sec. 603]), but that 

authority expired in 1993. Moreover, the O&C Act prevails over the Federal 

Land Policy and Management Act with regard to the management of timber 

resources on O&C lands. With these two laws, the BLM:

•	 Cannot designate additional wilderness study areas due to the expiration 

of that designation authority under the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act.

•	 Can manage lands outside of the existing wilderness study areas for 

wilderness characteristics on O&C lands where management for 

wilderness characteristics would not conflict with sustained yield forest 

management in areas dedicated to timber production. 

•	 Can manage lands outside of the existing wilderness study areas for 

wilderness characteristics on public domain lands. 
14

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

BLM Manual 6840

For this policy manual, search 

for 6840 at http://www.blm.gov/

search/.

Visual Resources

The Federal Land Policy and Management Act provides the authority for the 

protection of scenic values (43 U.S.C. §1701 [Sec. 102.a.8]). However, the O&C Act 

prevails over the Federal Land Policy and Management Act with regard to the 

management of timber resources on O&C lands. With these two laws, the BLM:

•	 Would protect scenic values as identified through a visual resource 

management inventory where the protection is required as part of the 

management specified by Congress in subsequent legislation, such as the 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.

•	 Can protect scenic values as identified through a visual resource 

management inventory on O&C lands where protection would not conflict 

with sustained yield forest management in areas dedicated to timber 

production.

•	 Can protect scenic values as identified through a visual resource 

management inventory on public domain lands.

Special Status Species

Special status species includes those species that are listed by the Endangered 

Species Act as threatened or endangered (including proposed and candidate 

species), listed by a state as being of special concern, and listed by the BLM 

as sensitive or needing assessment. The BLM Manual 6840 – Special Status 

Species Management provides the direction for the 

management of species that are listed as having 

special status. The Endangered Species Act provides 

the authority for the management of species that are 

listed as threatened or endangered. The Sikes Act 

provides the authority for the management of species 

that are listed by a state as being of special concern. The Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act provides the authority for the management of species that are 

listed by the BLM as sensitive or assessment species. The O&C Act, however, 

prevails over the Federal Land Policy and Management Act with regard to the 

management of timber resources on O&C lands. With these four laws and BLM 

policy, the BLM:

•	 Must, as a federal agency, follow certain procedures to assure that the 

exercise of its authorities would not likely jeopardize a listed species 

or adversely modify the critical habitat of a listed species on all BLMadministered lands. 

•	 Must utilize its authorities to further the purposes of the Endangered 

Species Act by managing BLM-administered lands in a manner that aids 

the recovery of threatened and endangered species.
15

Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

•	 Would accord specific protection to a state listed species under the 

O&C Act where the state and the BLM have entered into a cooperative 

management agreement for a species. 

•	 Would accord specific protection to BLM sensitive or assessment species 

on O&C lands where protection would not conflict with sustained yield 

forest management in areas dedicated to timber production, or where 

such protection is necessary to prevent extinction of a species, even if it 

is not yet listed under the Endangered Species Act.

•	 Would accord specific protection to BLM sensitive or assessment species 

on public domain lands.

Management of the Public Domain Lands in 

Relation to the O&C Lands

Out of the 2,557,800 acres of the BLM lands that are in the planning area, approximately 

394,600 acres are public domain lands. About half of those public domain lands are 

small parcels that are widely scattered and intermingled with the O&C lands. While the 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act requires that the 

public domain lands be managed for a multitude of values, the 

act does not require that every parcel be managed for every 

value. As in previous resource management plans, these public 

domain parcels will be managed in accordance with the 1975 

Public Land Order (PLO) No. 5490, which reserves these 

intermingled public domain lands for multiple-use management, including the sustained 

yield of forest resources in connection with the intermingled revested Oregon and 

California Railroad Grant lands and reconveyed Coos Bay Wagon Road Grant lands. 

PLO No. 5490

For the complete subject 

heading and FR citation, search 

for PLO 5490 at http://blm.gov/

nhp/what/plo.
16

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Planning Area

The entire planning area includes all lands (private, local, state, and federal) in western Oregon 

(Figure 7). The resource management plan revisions will affect the lands that are administered by 

the BLM in the BLM districts and counties of western Oregon that are listed in Table 10. 

Figure 7. Entire planning area of the resource management plan revisions 
17

Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

Table 10. The BLM districts and Oregon counties included in the planning area of the resource 

management plan revisions

BLM Districts Oregon Counties

Coos Bay

Eugene

Lakeview (Klamath Falls Resource Area only)

Medford

Roseburg

Salem

Benton

Clackamas

Columbia

Coos

Curry

Douglas

Jackson

Josephine

Klamath

Lane

Lincoln

Linn

Marion

Multnomah

Polk

Tillamook

Washington

Yamhill

The BLM’s current resource management plans provide the procedures and requirements for 

the management of approximately 2,557,800 acres of federal land within the planning area. 

These acres are the orange blocks in Figure 7. These BLM-managed lands are widely scattered 

and represent only about 11% of the planning area. Of the approximately 2,557,800 acres that 

are managed by the BLM, approximately 2,151,200 acres are managed primarily under the 

O&C Act and are commonly referred to as the O&C lands. The remaining 406,600 acres are 

public domain (394,600 acres) and other (12,000 acres) lands that are managed primarily under 

the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. See Table 11 for the status of all federal lands in 

the planning area per district.

Note: The BLM’s resource management plans also apply to an additional 69,000 acres that are splitestate lands for which the BLM manages only the subsurface mineral estate. 

Table 11. Legal status of lands managed by the BLM in western Oregon

BLM Districts

O&C and Coos Bay 

Wagon Road Lands 

(acres)

Public Domain 

(acres)

Other 

(acres)

Total 

(acres)

Salem 349,300 51,600 2,100 403,000

Eugene 304,200 10,500 400 315,100

Roseburg 406,500 19,800 0 426,300

Coos Bay 279,400 41,800 1,500 322,700

Medford 764,900 96,100 4,800 865,800

Klamath Falls Resource Area 

(Lakeview District) 46,900 174,800 3,200 224,900

Total 2,151,200 394,600 12,000 2,557,800

Much of the O&C lands have retained the checkerboard character of the original railroad 

land grants of the 1800s with the BLM managing the odd-numbered sections. Because of 

this ownership pattern, activities on adjacent private lands have 

implications for the management of the federal lands. The BLM 

typically manages less than half, and often only a small percentage, of 

the land in any particular fifth-field watershed. 

Checkerboard

A land ownership pattern in 

which square-mile sections of 

federal lands are intermixed 

with and surrounded by 

private lands.
18

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Planning Process

Preparing a resource management plan involves a series of explicit steps. See Figure 8. The 

following tasks have been completed as of the release of this draft environmental impact statement:

•	 Scoping was conducted from September through October 2005. The BLM attended 

or hosted about 75 meetings with community groups, special interest groups, elected 

officials, and others. About 3,000 communications were received with public comments 

and suggestions.

•	 Analysis of the management situation was released in October 2005. 

•	 The planning criteria and the scoping report were released in February 2006.

Figure 8. Steps in the planning process (highlighted boxes indicate public involvement)
19

Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

Collaboration

The Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) provide direction regarding the 

coordination and cooperation of federal agencies with other agencies 

and also local and state governments. The Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act specifically emphasizes the need to ensure the 

coordination and consistency of a federal agency’s proposed actions 

with the plans and policies of other relevant jurisdictions. The National Environmental Policy Act 

specifically requires cooperative relationships between lead and cooperating agencies.

Formal Cooperators

Cooperating agency status provides a formal framework for governmental units—

local, state, or federal—to engage in active collaboration with a lead federal agency 

to implement the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. Within the 

constraints of time and resources, cooperating agency staff members are encouraged to 

participate fully with the BLM as members of the planning and environmental impact 

statement team.

For these resource management plan revisions, the BLM has worked with cooperators 

from a multitude of agencies. Cooperators have provided expertise in much of the subject 

matter being analyzed and have provided advice based on experiences with similar 

planning efforts. See Table 12 for a list of the formal cooperators for the western Oregon 

resource management plan revisions. 

Table 12. Formal cooperators

Federal Agencies State Agencies Oregon Counties

United States Forest Service

United States Fish and Wildlife 

Service

National Marine Fisheries 

Service

Environmental Protection 

Agency

Office of the Governor

Department of Forestry

Department of Fish and Wildlife

Department of Environmental Quality

Department of Transportation

Department of Geology and Mineral 

Industries

Department of Agriculture

Department of Parks and Recreation

Department of State Lands

State Marine Board

Water Resources Department

Benton*

Clackamas

Columbia

Coos

Curry

Douglas

Jackson

Josephine

Klamath

Lane

Lincoln

Linn

Marion

Polk

Tillamook

Washington

Yamhill

*Not represented by the Association of O&C Counties.

NEPA

For the complete act and its 

regulations, search for Title 42 

and all sections starting with 

Section 4321 at http://uscode.

house.gov.
20

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Government-to-Government Relationships

There are seven recognized tribes within the planning area. 

Table 13 lists these tribes. All of the tribes have stated that 

they want government-to-government relationships rather 

than cooperator relationships. The Coquille Tribe is directly 

engaged in the planning process because, by law (25 U.S.C. 

§715c), the management of their tribal lands must be 

consistent with the management of the surrounding federal lands. 

Table 13. Recognized tribes within the planning area

Tribes

Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians

Coquille Indian Tribe

Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians 

Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde

Confederated Tribes of Siletz

Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation

The Klamath Tribes

Title V of the Oregon Resource Conservation Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-333) created 

the Coquille Forest. The act states that the Coquille Forest shall be managed “under 

applicable State and Federal forestry and environmental protection laws, and subject 

to critical habitat designations under the Endangered Species Act, and subject to the 

standards and guidelines of Federal forest plans on adjacent or nearby Federal lands, 

now and in the future.” The Coquille Indian Tribe and the BLM are considering entering 

into an agreement to collaborate and coordinate management on the BLM lands that are 

adjacent to the Coquille Forest to further the management described in the act.

Formal Scoping

Scoping is a public involvement process. Its purpose is to identify issues early in 

the planning process that the planning process needs to address and to provide 

opportunities for the public to provide comments. These public comments determine 

the scope of the issues to be addressed and help identify the significant issues related to 

the proposed actions.

Summary of the Scoping Process

The formal scoping period started with the printing of a notice of intent in 

the Federal Register on September 7, 2005 and concluded on October 21, 

2005. The first edition of the BLM planning newsletter (Western Oregon Plan 

Revisions News, Scoping for Issues, Issue No. 1, August 2005) was mailed 

in early September to approximately 11,000 postal addresses. The addresses 

Coquille Restoration Act

For the complete act and its 

regulations, search for Title 25 

and all sections starting with 

Section 715 at http://uscode.

house.gov.
21

Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

were collected from interested parties who had contacted the six BLM districts 

regarding the resource management plan revisions or the 2004 survey and 

manage environmental impact statement. Approximately 75 meetings were 

conducted with interested parties in western Oregon. These public meetings 

included one-on-one meetings with key stakeholders, presentations to organized 

groups and agencies, tours, and advertised public meetings. Several newspaper 

articles reported on the scoping process and advertised the public meetings.

The BLM also requested that an outside organization conduct an independent 

assessment of the interests and concerns of the stakeholders. The Public Policy 

Research Institute at the University of Montana was retained to solicit ideas 

on how to involve the public throughout the planning process. The Institute 

conducted this assessment with the assistance of RESOLVE and the Consensus 

Building Institute, which are two nationally recognized public involvement 

organizations. Their report and recommendations were considered in designing 

the public involvement activities.

About 3,000 communications were received during the scoping period. Comments 

included e-mail messages, written correspondence, face-to-face discussions, and 

meeting notes. The results of the scoping are available in the Western Oregon Plan 

Revisions, Scoping Report, February 2006. This public input greatly assisted the 

BLM in formulating this draft environmental impact statement.

Issues Identified

An issue, in the context of an environmental impact statement, is a matter of 

concern about resource management activities or land use that is well-defined 

or topically discrete. Identification of issues contributes to the development of 

the objectives which any reasonable alternative must achieve and/or factors that 

will be considered in choosing among the reasonable alternatives. The issues 

identified during scoping for these resource management plan revisions were:

• Vegetation. How should the BLM provide a sustainable supply of wood 

and other forest products, as mandated by the O&C Act, while also 

meeting all of the applicable laws and regulations? 

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

should the BLM manage federal lands in a manner that is consistent 

with the Endangered Species Act in order to contribute to the 

conservation of species? 

• Watershed management and water quality. How should the BLM 

manage federal lands to contribute to the goals of the Clean Water Act 

and the Safe Drinking Water Act?

• Wildland fire and fuels. How should the BLM manage federal lands to 

reduce the risk of wildfires and integrate fire back into the ecosystem?
22

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

• Off-highway vehicle management (particularly in the Medford 

District). How should the BLM administer federal lands to meet the 

demand for off-highway vehicle use while protecting other resources?

Relationship of the RMPs to Other Plans, 

and Programs

The April 1994 record of decision for the Northwest Forest Plan, signed jointly by 

the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture, required the BLM to 

incorporate the Northwest Forest Plan’s land use allocations and its standards and 

guidelines into the resource management plans for western Oregon. The resource 

management plans were subsequently amended by the following interagency plan 

amendments: 

• January 2001, Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines for 

Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation 

Measures Standards and Guidelines in Forest Service and Bureau of Land 

Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl 

Note: The survey and manage categorizations for the red tree vole were established 

in this record of decision. The Ninth Circuit Court decision in Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands 

Center v. Boody, 468 F.3d 549 (9th Cir., 2006), found that the changes to those survey 

and manage categorizations for the red tree vole would constitute plan amendments that 

need to be analyzed with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) procedures. The court 

then invalidated the re-categorizations regarding the red tree vole, because the BLM had 

not prepared a NEPA document to “amend” the plans. Whether other re-categorizations 

made through the annual species review process would constitute plan amendments has 

not been addressed in litigation.

• March 2004, Record of Decision to Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage 

Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines in Forest Service and Bureau 

of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern 

Spotted Owl

Note: The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington found this 

record of decision invalid since it relied on a supplemental environmental impact statement 

that the Court found deficient in certain respects. (See Northwest Ecosystem Alliance v. 

Rey, 380 F. Supp. 2d 1175 (W.D. Wash. 2005). The Court issued an order of relief on 

January 9, 2006. That order was later modified by another order dated October 11, 2006, 

which allowed the decision to eliminate the survey and manage requirement to take effect 

for four specified activities. Another supplemental environmental impact statement has 

been prepared to address the deficiencies in the 2004 environmental impact statement 

found by the Court. 
23

Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

• March 2004, Record of Decision, Amending Resource Management Plans 

for Seven Bureau of Land Management 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 

Note: The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington found this 

record of decision invalid since it relied on a supplemental environmental impact statement 

and a biological opinion that the Court found deficient in certain respects. (See Pacific 

Coast Federation of Fishermens’ Associations v. NMFS, No. 04-1299-RSM (W.D. Wash.

March 30, 2007). The Court, as of this writing, has not yet issued an order of relief. 

The Northwest Forest Plan is not a statute or regulation. It was a coordinated, multiagency amendment to then current resource management plans of the BLM and forest 

plans of the Forest Service. The Secretaries and the agencies retained authority provided 

by statutes and regulations to revise these plans in the future. The only provision the 

Northwest Forest Plan made concerning future amendments to these plans was that they 

would be “coordinated” through the “Regional Interagency Executive Committee and 

the Regional Ecosystem Office.” (See NW Forest Plan ROD, p. 58). This plan revision 

does not seek to amend the Northwest Forest Plan, but to replace the Northwest Forest 

Plan land use allocation and management direction through plan revision. Nevertheless, 

the BLM has briefed the Regional Interagency Executive Committee on this plan 

revision. Furthermore, many of the agencies that were signatories to the Memorandum 

of Understanding that created the Regional Interagency Executive Committee and the 

Regional Ecosystem Office are cooperating agencies in this revision. 

Endangered Species Act, Section 7, 

Consultation

Pursuant to the Endangered Species Act, the BLM, as a federal agency, consults with 

NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service and the United States Fish and Wildlife 

Service on all actions that it proposes that may affect listed species. Federal land 

management plans are considered to be equivalent to conservation plans wherever 

habitat is being managed for endangered species and as such, require consultation under 

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. (See Lane County Audubon Society v. Jamison, 

958 F.2d 290 (9th Cir., 1992))

Consultation under the Endangered Species Act for the resource management plans 

will look broadly at the total landscape management approach. Since no specific 

on-the-ground activity is actually proposed in the resource management plans, no 

specific level of incidental take can be identified or exempted in biological opinions 

for the plans. As subsequent actions are proposed to implement approved resource 

management plans, those actions will undergo project-level consultation, either 

formally or informally (as appropriate).
24

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Additionally, species recovery plans and consideration 

of revisions to critical habitat are currently in progress 

for several threatened and endangered species. The BLM 

anticipates that these recovery plans will be completed within 

the current planning period for the western Oregon resource 

management plan revisions. If the recovery plans become 

available before the revisions are completed, they will be 

incorporated into the revisions. 

Water and Air Quality Management 

As part of the revisions for the western Oregon resource management plans, the BLM 

will concurrently coordinate with various agencies on water and air quality management. 

The BLM will coordinate with the Environmental Protection Agency and the Oregon 

Department of Environmental Quality (the federally designated management agency) on 

water quality standards and other requirements of the federally designated management 

agency as authorized by the Clean Water Act. Similarly, the BLM will coordinate with 

the Environmental Protection Agency, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, 

and the United States Forest Service to minimize the impacts of the emissions from 

prescribed burns. 

Other Plans

The BLM collaborates with many other agencies in the development and coordination 

of their plans for areas that are within and surrounding the BLM’s planning area. 

Table 14 identifies the various plans of these other agencies and their resources that are in 

common, dependent, or interdependent with the BLM’s resource management plans.

Recovery planning

For details about the recovery 

planning for the northern 

spotted owl and other 

species that is being led by 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, visit http://www.

fws.gov/pacific/ecoservices/

endangered/recovery/

NSORecoveryPlanning.htm
25

Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

Table 14. Other plan and resource coordination opportunities 

Entity Plan/Program Common Resources or 

Dependencies

County/City

Counties •	 Land use plans

•	 Wildfire plans

Timber, fuels management, 

and payments in lieu of taxes

Cities •	 Land use plans

•	 Community wildfire protection plans

Fuels management and 

communities at risk

State

Office of the 

Governor Statewide planning goals Soil, timber, water, fish, wildlife, and habitat

Department of 

Environmental 

Quality

•	 BLM water quality restoration plans

•	 Water quality management plans

•	 Total maximum daily loads (TMDLs)

•	 Smoke management plans

Streams, watersheds, air 

and water quality standards, 

beneficial uses, and BLM 

water quality restoration plans

Department of 

Forestry

•	 State forest management plans

•	 Fire plans 

•	 Rules of the Oregon Forest Practices Act

Watersheds and timber 

Department of Fish 

and Wildlife

•	 Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation 

Strategy (Oregon Conservation Strategy)

•	 Oregon Plan for Salmon and 

Watersheds

Wildlife, habitat, and 

fisheries

Division of State 

Lands, Natural 

Heritage Program

•	 Rare and Endangered Invertebrate 

Program (Oregon)

•	 Oregon Natural Heritage Program

Special status species and 

natural areas

Department of Human 

Resources Public water system standards Surface water

Department of 

Agriculture

State listed endangered species

Noxious Weed

Botanical species

Noxious weed list and 

control

Department of Parks 

and Recreation Off-highway vehicle (OHV) plans Off-highway vehicle (OHV) trails

Federal

United Sates 

Forest Service Land and resource management plans

Wildlife, fisheries, habitat, 

streams, watersheds, timber, 

fuels management, and 

communities at risk

National Marine 

Fisheries Service

•	 Recovery plans for threatened and 

endangered species

•	 ESA, Section 7 (Consultation)

Threatened and endangered 

fish species and habitat

United States Fish 

and Wildlife Service

•	 Recovery plans for threatened and 

endangered species

•	 ESA, Section 7 (Consultation)

Threatened and endangered 

wildlife species and habitat

Environmental 

Protection Agency Clean Water Act Streams, watersheds, total 

maximum daily loads (TMDLs)

National Resources 

Conservation Service Watershed plans Streams and watersheds

Tribes

Coquille Indian 

Tribe Coquille Forest Soil, timber, water, fish, wildlife, 

and habitat
26

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs
27

Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Chapter 2 of this draft environmental impact statement defines the alternatives that were developed 

for the six resource management plans of the planning area that are being revised. 

In this chapter:

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

Management Common to All Action Alternatives...............................................................29

The Alternatives..........................................................................................................................64

Tables for Areas of Critical Environmental Concern ........................................................114

Tables for District-Specific Recreation Management Actions .........................................119

Maps ............................................................................................................................................154
28

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

28
29

Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Introduction

This chapter describes the No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. The No Action 

Alternative would continue the management of the current resource management plans, which 

were approved in 1995 and subsequently amended. The three action alternatives consist of a 

range of management strategies that are designed to meet the purpose and need discussed in 

Chapter 1. These management strategies encompass management objectives, management 

actions, and land use allocations. 

•	 Management objectives. Descriptions that specifically describe the desired outcomes 

from the management of particular resources, which are usually expressed in terms that 

are quantifiable and measurable. 

• Management actions. Proactive measures that will be applied to activities to achieve the 

management objectives for resources. 

• Land use allocations. Identifiers that designate which activities are allowed, restricted, 

or excluded in all or part of a planning area.

Some management objectives, management actions, and land use allocations are common to all 

three action alternatives and some vary by action alternative. These differences would result in 

a variance in the degree or rate in which they achieve the identified purpose and needs for the 

proposed action.

Management Common to All Action 

Alternatives

This section identifies the management objectives and management actions that would apply 

under the three action alternatives. The next section identifies what is unique between the 

individual alternatives.

Management actions would be used only where and when necessary and practical to achieve 

management objectives. For example, the BLM may decide not to take a management action when:

• Site-specific circumstances would make the application of the management action 

unnecessary to achieve resource management plan objectives.

• Site-specific circumstances would make the application of the management 

action impractical.

• The application of the management action would be inconsistent with other resource 

management plan decisions.

Activities that are not specifically mentioned in the management actions would be permitted if 

they are consistent with management objectives.
30

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Air

Management Objective

Prevent impacts to air quality in areas designated as Class I for air quality and 

nonattainment areas. 

Management Actions

•	 Prescribed burns would be implemented in accordance with the 

Oregon Smoke Management Plan to reduce emissions, to avoid smoke 

intrusions into designated areas, and to avoid degrading the visibility in 

Class I areas.

•	 Dust palliatives would be used, as necessary, during timber hauling 

operations to reduce dust.

Cultural and Paleontological Resources 

including Native American Traditional Uses

Management Objective

Conserve scientific, traditional use, heritage, educational, public, and recreational 

values of cultural and paleontological resource sites.

Management Actions

•	 Ground-disturbing actions would avoid sites that are listed (or eligible 

for listing) on the National Register of Historic Places. If avoidance 

would not be practical, prior to disturbance the sites with scientific 

value would be salvaged through practices such as data recovery, which 

include excavation, relocation, or documentation.

• Cultural properties that are determined to 

be available for consideration as the subject of scientific or historical 

study would be classified as scientific use sites or experimental use sites. 

•	 Unusual cultural properties that are not currently available for scientific 

or historical study, because of scarcity, a research potential that surpasses 

the current state of the art, singular historic importance, cultural 

importance, tribal importance, architectural interest, or comparable 

reasons, would be classified as conservation for future use sites. Sites 

would be selected for the purpose of retaining a representative sample of 

site types from those available in areas where conflicts with other resource 

management activities are not anticipated. These sites would be preserved. 
31

Chapter 2 – Alternatives

•	 Cultural properties that are found to be appropriate for use as interpretive 

exhibits at their original location (i.e., in place) or found to be appropriate 

for related educational and recreational uses would be classified as public 

use sites. Priority locations for these interpretive exhibits would include 

developed recreation sites, recreation corridors, and locations where 

recreation is being promoted. These sites would be preserved.

•	 Cultural properties that are only important for their scientific values and 

whose research potential is effectively exhausted (ones where the salient 

information has been collected and preserved or has been destroyed by 

natural or human activity) would receive no special management. 

•	 Significant cultural resource properties would 

be acquired for public, cultural heritage, and 

scientific purposes when such properties 

are adjacent to or inholdings of BLMadministered land.

•	 Cultural and paleontological resources that are threatened by natural 

processes or human activity would be excavated and the data would be 

recovered where warranted by the scientific importance of the site. 

Energy and Minerals

Management Objective

Maintain existing opportunities and develop new opportunities for the 

exploration and development of locatable, leasable, and saleable energy and 

mineral resources, and for casual mineral prospecting. 

Management Actions

•	 Areas would be available for energy and mineral resource exploration 

and development.

•	 Biomass would be recovered from harvesting actions, silvicultural 

treatments, and forest health and fuels treatments.

•	 New and existing quarry and pit sites would be used to provide 

economical sources of rock and aggregate. Existing quarry and pit sites, 

along with the areas involved in their incremental expansion, would 

be managed as existing facilities and would not be available for other 

management uses. 

See Table 15 (Areas open or closed to energy and mineral developments)

for the areas that would be open or closed to energy and mineral 

developments. See Appendix P. Energy and Minerals for a reasonably 

Use sites

For complete descriptions of the 

use site classifications, search 

for 8110 (BLM Manual H-8110) 

at http://www.blm.gov.
32

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

foreseeable development scenario for the BLM units within the planning 

area and the stipulation that would be applied to the developments.

Table 15. Areas open or closed to energy and mineral developments

Categories Subcategories

Acres by BLM District

Salem Eugene Roseburg Coos Bay Medford Klamath 

Falls

Federal Surface and Mineral Estate 398,100 318,000 425,600 329,600 866,300 212,000

Federal Minerals/Private Surface 27,800 1,300 1,700 12,200 4,700 21,000

Locatable (e.g., metallics and gemstones)

Closed Nondiscretionary 5,900 400 300 1,000 16,800 4,700

Closed Discretionary 16,200 15,300 4,800 11,500 20,800 700

Open Standard Restrictions/

Stipulations

49,200 290,600 366,200 99,500 536,500 191,600

Open Additional Restrictions 326,800 10,000 20,800 217,600 293,400 37,900

Salable (e.g., sand, gravel, stone, clays, pumice)

Closed Nondiscretionary 5,900 100 30 600 -- 300

Closed Discretionary 220,400 9,100 8,400 14,700 -- 14,500

Open Standard Restrictions/

Stipulations

49,200 200 381,700 84,600 864,800 --

Open Additional Restrictions 122,600 307,000 29,200 229,700 -- 222,500

Leasable (e.g., oil, gas, geothermal, coal, chemical minerals)

Closed Nondiscretionary 5,900 100,000 30 1,600 22,000 300

Open Standard Restrictions/

Stipulations

49,200 -- 356,300 101,400 232,500 --

Open Additional Restrictions 122,000 138,000 53,300 56,300 539,700 197,600

Open No Surface Occupancy 221,000 177,000 9,700 170,300 73,300 40,800
33

Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Fire and Fuels Management

Management Objectives

• Promote ecosystem function and resiliency.

• Reduce the fire hazards to communities that are at risk from uncharacteristic 

wildfires.

• Decrease the risk of large wildfires, and reduce the cost and associated hazard of 

fire suppression.

• Reduce the risk of resource damage due to uncharacteristic wildfires. 

Management Actions

•	 Prescribed burns would be used to emulate natural fire occurrences and 

processes.

•	 Ecosystems with the highest risk of uncharacteristic wildfires and the 

greatest potential for risk reduction would receive priority for fuels 

treatments.

•	 Silvicultural treatments would be applied in oak woodlands to create 

open conditions with large fire-resistant oaks.

•	 Silvicultural treatments would treat hazardous fuels, particularly in 

wildland urban interface areas. See Map 6 (Wildland urban interface).

•	 Immediate action to control and suppress all wildfires would be taken in 

all areas, except in the large contiguous blocks of BLM lands, which are 

Galice, Wild Rogue Wilderness, Rogue River Wild and Scenic River in 

the Medford District, and the Gerber Block in the Klamath Falls Field 

Office, where aggressive initial attack and direct control procedures 

would be employed.

•	 Fire-suppression activities in the large contiguous blocks of BLM lands, 

which are Galice, Wild Rogue Wilderness, Rogue River Wild and Scenic 

River in the Medford District, and the Gerber Block in the Klamath 

Falls Field Office, would include direct control, perimeter control, and 

prescription control. See Map 6 (Wildland urban interface).

•	 Fuels treatment would be applied to stands of any age in order to reduce 

the fuel hazards. Fuel treatments would include tree cutting, brush 

cutting, pruning, reducing crown bulk density, treating activity fuels, and 

prescribed burning. 

•	 Vegetation removal would occur around ponds that are constructed for 

fire management for safety or operational reasons. 
34

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Fish

Management Objectives

• Restore stream complexity.

• Restore access to stream channels for all life stages of fish species.

• Prevent livestock from causing trampling disturbances to spawning beds where 

federally listed salmonid fish species occur. 

Management Actions

• Priority for restoration activities would be given to projects in 

streams with a high intrinsic potential for fish and to high-priority fish 

populations that have been defined in recovery plans.

• Stream complexity would be restored through the placement of large 

wood and boulders.

• New and replacement stream-crossing structures on fish-bearing streams 

would be designed to provide access within stream channels for fish.

• For streams with salmonid species listed under the Endangered Species 

Act, livestock would not be released into riparian areas until 30 days 

following the emergence of salmonids from spawning beds. 

Grazing

Management Objective Pertinent Only to the Coos Bay 

District, Medford District, and the Klamath Falls Resource 

Area of the Lakeview District

Provide livestock grazing permits and leases while maintaining or improving 

public rangelands.

Management Actions Pertinent Only to the Medford District and the 

Klamath Falls Resource Area of the Lakeview District

•	 Livestock grazing would be managed 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. See:

– Map 7 (Lands available for livestock grazing)

– Appendix L. Grazing (Grazing Allotments in the Klamath Falls 

Resource Area and the Medford District)
35

Chapter 2 – Alternatives

– Appendix L. Grazing (Standards for Rangeland Health and 

Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management for Oregon 

and Washington) 

•	 Grazing levels and management practices would be maintained for the 

allotments. Adjustments would be made to meet or make progress toward 

meeting the standards for rangeland health for Oregon and Washington. 

See Appendix L. Grazing (Grazing Allotments in the Klamath Falls 

Resource Area and the Medford District)

•	 Areas disturbed by natural and human-induced events, including 

wildland fire, prescribed burns, timber-management treatments, and 

juniper cuts, would be rested from livestock grazing, except where 

grazing would either not impede site recovery or where grazing could be 

used as a tool to aid in achieving recovery objectives. Livestock grazing 

would be resumed after soil and vegetation had sufficiently recovered to 

support livestock grazing. 

•	 Livestock grazing would be authorized through management 

agreements, temporary nonrenewable grazing permits or leases, or 

special-use permits on lands that are not available through the issuance 

of a grazing lease or permit.

•	 Prescribed livestock grazing would be used to control invasive plants, 

reduce fire danger, or accomplish other management objectives.

Management Action Pertinent Only to the Coos Bay District

The authorization of livestock grazing through the issuance of grazing 

leases would be discontinued. However, grazing would be authorized 

through management agreements, temporary nonrenewable grazing 

permits or leases, or special-use permits in a manner that is consistent 

with the grazing regulations.

Management Actions Pertinent Only to the Klamath Falls Resource Area of the 

Lakeview District

•	 The authorization of livestock grazing through the issuance of grazing 

leases would be discontinued, in whole or in part, for the grazing 

allotments identified in Table 16 (Allotments not available for livestock 

grazing in the Klamath Falls Resource Area).

•	 Grazing would not continue to be authorized 

under Section 15 of the Taylor Grazing Act 

(43 U.S.C. §315 et seq.) for the allotments 

listed in Table 16. However, grazing 

would be authorized through management 

agreements, temporary nonrenewable 

Rangeland standards

For the rangeland health 

standards and livestock grazing 

guidelines document, search for 

the document by its complete 

title at http://www.blm.gov.
36

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

grazing permits or leases, or special-use permits in a manner that is 

consistent with the grazing regulations. 

Table 16. Allotments not available for livestock grazing in the Klamath Falls 

Resource Area

Allotment Name Allotment 

Number Acres

Forage 

Allocation 

(AUMs)

Edge Creek* 00102 5,950 ---

Plum Hills 00813 160 20

Totals 6,110 20

*The portion of the Upper Klamath Scenic River within the Edge Creek Allotment would be closed to grazing. This 

portion of the allotment was not allocated any AUMs (animal unit months). The remainder of the allotment would be 

available for grazing as described in Appendix L. Grazing (Grazing Allotments in the Klamath Falls Resource Area and 

the Medford District).

• Exclosures or other areas, as identified on Table 17 (Exclosures or other 

areas closed to grazing in the Klamath Falls Resource Area), would be 

closed to grazing, except as scheduled. 

•	 Range improvements would be developed in the Klamath Falls Resource 

Area as described in Appendix L. Grazing and Map 8 (Location of 

proposed range improvements in the Klamath Falls Resource Area).
37

Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Table 17. Exclosures or other areas closed to grazing in the Klamath Falls 

Resource Area

Allotment Name Allotment 

Number

Areas Closed within 

Allotments

Edge Creek 00102 Hayden Creek Exclosures (2)

Fox Lake Exclosure

Buck Lake 00104 Tunnel Creek Exclosure

Surveyor Campground Exclosure

Dixie 00107 Dixie (Long Prairie Creek) Exclosure

Stukel-O’Neil 00822 Aspen Exclosure

Rodgers 00852 Van Meter Flat Reservoir Exclosure

Yainax 00861 Bull Spring Exclosure

Timothy Spring Exclosure

Bear Valley 00876 Holbrook Spring Exclosure

Bumpheads 00877

Bumpheads Reservoir Outlet 

Exclosure

Antelope Creek Exclosure

Horsefly 00882

Long Branch Exclosure

Caseview Spring Exclosure

Norcross Spring Exclosure (area 

within the spring exclosure fence)

Boundary Spring Exclosure

Barnes Valley Riparian Pasture 

(except as scheduled)

Pankey Basin 00884 Pankey Creek Riparian Exclosure

Dry Prairie 00885 Ben Hall Creek Riparian Pasture 

(except as scheduled)

Horse Camp Rim 00886 21 Reservoir Exclosure

Pitchlog 00887

Pitchlog Creek Exclosure

Willow Spring Exclosure

CCC Spring Exclosure

Willow Valley 00890

East Fork Lost River Exclosure

Duncan Spring/Antelope Creek 

Exclosures (2)

Antelope Riparian Pasture (except 

as scheduled)

Wood River 30855

Entire area excluded from regular 

grazing use, except as a tool to 

support wetland restoration
38

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Management Actions Pertinent Only to the Medford District

•	 The authorization of livestock grazing through the issuance of grazing 

leases would be discontinued, in whole or in part, for the grazing 

allotments identified in Table 18 (Allotments not available for livestock 

grazing in the Medford District).

• Grazing would not be authorized under 

Section 15 of the Taylor Grazing Act 

(43 U.S.C. §315 et seq.) for the allotments 

listed in Table 18. However, grazing could be 

authorized through management agreements, 

temporary nonrenewable grazing permits or leases, or special-use permits 

in a manner that is consistent with the grazing regulations.

•	 Range improvements would be implemented to achieve the Oregon 

standards for rangeland health or other allotment-specific objectives.

Table 18. Allotments not available for livestock grazing in the Medford District

Allotment Name Allotment 

Number Acres

Forage 

Allocation 

(AUMs)

Trail Creek 10003 12,868 113

Longbranch* 10004 10,844 71

Antioch Road 10005 40 4

Roundtop Evans 10006 27,086 110

West Perry Road 10010 75 10

East Perry Road 10011 40 7

Obenchain Mountain 10014 120 12

Nichols Gap 10018 280 18

Eagle Point Canal 10020 465 55

Shady Branch 10025 320 32

Derby Station 10030 540 36

West Derby 10034 1,120 89

Emigrant Creek 10111 40 7

Baldy 10120 798 87

Lost Creek 10123 80 6

Cartwright 10127 40 4

Table continues on the next page.

Taylor Grazing Act

For the complete act and its 

regulations, search for Title 43 

and all sections starting with 

Section 315 at http://uscode.

house.gov.
39

Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Allotment Name Allotment 

Number Acres

Forage 

Allocation 

(AUMs)

Bybee Peak 10144 321 36

Stiehl 10210 175 18

Fielder Creek 10211 40 5

Del Rio 10216 40 5

Sugarloaf/Greensprings 20158 2,926 210

Applegate 20201 25,518 294

Tunnel Ridge 20202 2,183 14

Timber Mountain 20204 1,720 70

Sardine and Galls Creek 20205 3,765 158

Sterling Creek 20207 29,209 190

Spencer Gulch 20208 1,935 150

Quartz Gulch 20209 680 9

Burton Butte 20212 5 2

Chapman Creek 20213 3,309 81

Ecker 20217 40 6

Stage Road 20218 40 4

Lomas Road 20222 635 50

Star 20223 118 24

Pickett Mountain 20302 820 30

Jump Off Joe 20303 80 8

Deer Creek* 20308 278 0

Reeves Creek 20309 1,672 95

Q Bar X 20310 15 3

Esterly Lake 20312 4,457 152

Glade Creek 20315 560 17

Cherry Gulch 20316 40 6

Totals 135,337 2,298

*These portions of the Longbranch and Deer Creek Allotments would be closed to grazing. The remainder of the 

allotments would be available for grazing as described in Appendix L. Grazing. 
40

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Hazardous Materials

Management Objectives

•	 Limit the use of hazardous materials.

•	 Eliminate hazardous wastes.

Management Actions

•	 Response to hazardous material incidents would include cleanup, proper 

notifications, criminal investigations, and site assessments.

•	 Hazardous materials would be stored, treated, and disposed of in 

accordance with applicable laws and regulations.

•	 Employees and the public would be protected from known hazardous 

materials on BLM-administered lands.

Lands, Realty, Access, and Transportation

Management Objectives

•	 Make land tenure adjustments to facilitate the management of resources.

•	 Provide legal access to BLM-administered lands and facilities adequate to 

support resource management programs.

•	 Provide needed right-of-ways for access to nonfederal lands in a manner that is 

consistent with federal, state, and local planning goals and rules.

•	 Provide a road transportation system that serves resource management needs.

•	 Protect lands that have important resource values or substantial levels of 

investment by withdrawing them, where necessary, from the implementation of 

nondiscretionary public land and mineral laws. 
41

Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Management Actions

•	 Lands in Zone 1 would be retained under BLM administration. Lands in 

Zone 1 include:

– National Landscape Conservation System 

designated lands

– areas of critical environmental concern

– research natural areas

– outstanding natural areas

– recreation sites

– critical habitat for threatened or 

endangered species

•	 Lands in Zone 2 would be available for exchange to enhance public 

resource values, improve management capabilities, and reduce the 

potential for land use conflict. Zone 2 lands are not specifically listed. 

They consist of all lands not listed in the description of Zone 1 lands and 

the lands listed in Appendix O. Lands. 

•	 Lands in Zone 3 would be available for disposal. These lands 

would include:

– lands that are not practical or are uneconomical to manage (because 

of their intermingled location and unsuitability for management by 

another federal agency)

– survey hiatuses 

– encroachments

Survey hiatuses and encroachments that are discovered in the future 

would be assigned to Zone 3. See Map 28 (Location of land tenure 

Zone 3).

•	 The acres of O&C lands of all classifications, and the acres of O&C 

and public domain lands that are available for harvesting, would not be 

reduced through disposal, exchange, or purchase. This standard would be 

met by evaluating the total net change in land tenure in the planning area 

at 10‐year intervals. 

•	 Lands would be acquired or disposed of to facilitate resource 

management objectives as opportunities occur. See Appendix O. Lands.

•	 Public domain lands that have been under Section 7 of the Taylor 

Grazing Act would be available for disposal. 

Land Zones

Zone 1: Retain for continuing 

resource development.

Zone 2: Available for exchange 

to facilitate management.

Zone 3: Available for sale 

or exchange to facilitate 

management.

See Table 137 (Acres of 

land tenure zones by 

district) in Chapter 3 and 

Appendix O. Lands.
42

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

•	 Newly acquired lands would be managed for the purpose for which they 

were acquired or in a manner that is consistent with the management 

objectives for adjacent BLM-administered lands. 

•	 Temporary-use permits, as identified under the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act (Section 302), would be issued for a variety of uses, 

such as, but not limited to, stockpile and storage sites and as tools to 

authorize unintentional trespass situations pending final resolution.

•	 No leases or permits would be issued for landfills or other 

disposal facilities.

•	 Land-use authorizations would be used to resolve agricultural or 

occupancy trespasses, where appropriate.

•	 Existing leases and permits would be recognized as valid uses.

•	 Lands would be withdrawn from the operation of public land and mineral 

laws, where appropriate, to avoid the damage that would be caused by 

nondiscretionary activities. See Appendix O. Lands.

•	 Withdrawals would be limited to the area needed and would restrict only 

those activities needed to accomplish the purposes of the withdrawal. 

•	 Lands would be available for right-of-ways.

•	 Class I visual resource management areas, such as wild and scenic rivers 

that are classified as wild, wilderness areas, and wilderness study areas, 

would be right-of-way exclusion areas (i.e., right-of-ways would not be 

granted).

•	 Recreation sites, areas of critical environmental concern, research natural 

areas, wild and scenic rivers that are classified as scenic and recreational 

rivers, and Class II visual resource management areas would be rightof-way avoidance areas (i.e., right-of-ways would be granted where no 

practicable alternative was available).

•	 Existing right-of-ways would be recognized as valid uses.

•	 Access across BLM lands to nonfederal lands would be granted, except 

within the National Landscape Conservation System designated lands.

•	 Utility corridors would be the preferred location for energy transmission 

or distribution facilities. Corridors would generally be 1,000 feet on 

each side of the centerline unless otherwise designated. No development 

or management activities would be permitted that would conflict with 

construction, operation, or maintenance of facilities corresponding to the 

purpose of the utility corridor. See Map 9 (Utility corridors).

•	 Communication facilities would be allowed on existing communication 

sites. See Map 9 (Utility corridors) and Appendix O. Lands.
43

Chapter 2 – Alternatives

•	 Reasonable expansion of existing communication sites and the 

development of new sites would be allowed. The priority for 

accommodating the need for additional capacity would be the use of 

existing sites.

•	 Existing roads would be managed to protect resource values, to provide 

for safety, to protect facility investment, and to provide access for 

management activities. Trees would be removed along roads for safety or 

operational reasons. 

•	 New permanent or temporary roads, and stream-crossing structures, 

would be constructed for the implementation of management actions. 

•	 Roads that are not needed for long-term management would be 

decommissioned. Roads would be temporarily closed or travel would be 

restricted for administrative and resource purposes. 

National Landscape Conservation System

The National Landscape Conservation System designations on BLM lands in western 

Oregon include: 

•	 wild and scenic rivers

•	 wilderness, wilderness study, and wilderness instant study areas

•	 a national monument

•	 a national scenic trail

•	 an outstanding natural area

•	 a scenic corridor

•	 a watershed management unit

Management Objective

Conserve, protect, and restore the identified outstanding cultural, ecological, 

and scientific values of the National Landscape Conservation System 

designated lands. 

Management Actions

Wild and scenic rivers

• Designated wild and scenic river corridors (including those classified 

as wild, scenic, or recreational) would be managed to protect their 

outstandingly remarkable values and to enhance the natural integrity 

of river-related values. 
44

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

See Table 58 (District-specific designated wild and scenic rivers 

and river segments).

• Interim protection would be provided to wild and scenic river 

corridors (including those classified as wild, scenic, or recreational) 

that are suitable for inclusion as components of the National Wild 

and Scenic Rivers System. 

See Table 59 (District-specific suitable wild and scenic rivers 

and river segments).

• Interim protection would be provided to wild and scenic river 

corridors (including those classified as wild, scenic, or recreational) 

that are eligible but have not yet been studied for suitability as 

components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. 

See Table 60 (District-specific eligible wild and scenic rivers and 

river segments).

Wilderness Areas

Wilderness areas would be managed to preserve the undisturbed 

natural integrity of these areas.

See Table 61 (District-specific wilderness areas).

Wilderness Study Areas and Wilderness Instant Study Areas

Wilderness study areas and wilderness instant study areas would 

be managed to maintain wilderness suitability.

See Table 48 (District-specific wilderness study areas and 

wilderness instant study areas).

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument

The Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument (located in the 

Medford District) would be managed to protect the geophysical, 

botanical, and other biological features for which the area was 

designated. 

See Table 63 (District-specific miscellaneous National 

Landscape Conservation System designated lands).

Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail

The portion of the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail that is 

located in the Medford District and the Klamath Falls Resource 

Area of the Lakeview District would be managed for outdoor 

recreational opportunities while conserving its scenic, historic, 

natural, and cultural values. 
45

Chapter 2 – Alternatives

See Table 63 (District-specific miscellaneous National 

Landscape Conservation System designated lands).

Yaquina Head Outstanding Natural Area

The Yaquina Head Outstanding Natural Area (located in the 

Salem District) would be managed to promote the conservation 

of scenic, historic, natural, and cultural values, and for 

educational, scientific, and recreational opportunities.

See Table 63 (District-specific miscellaneous National 

Landscape Conservation System designated lands).

Mt. Hood Corridor

BLM lands within the Mt. Hood Corridor (located in the Salem 

District) would be managed to protect and enhance scenic 

quality. Timber harvesting would be excluded, except to maintain 

safe conditions for the visiting public, to control the continued 

spread of wildfires, and for activities related to the administration 

of the corridor.

See Table 63 (District-specific miscellaneous National 

Landscape Conservation System designated lands).

Note: The Oregon Parks and Recreation Department (Oregon State 

parks), Oregon Department of State Lands, Portland General Electric 

(PGE), and a mixture of county, local, and private owners administer the 

remaining lands in this corridor.

Bull Run Watershed Management Unit

BLM lands within the Bull Run Watershed Management Unit 

(located in the Salem District) would be managed to protect and 

enhance water quality. Timber harvesting would be excluded, 

except, as necessary, to protect or enhance water quality, or 

except, as necessary, for the construction, expansion, protection, 

or maintenance of facilities for either a municipal water supply 

or the transmission of energy. 

See Table 63 (District-specific miscellaneous National 

Landscape Conservation System designated lands).

Note: This watershed is the source of the Portland metropolitan 

area’s domestic water supply and is congressionally designated and 

separate from other watersheds that are administratively designated. 

Also note that the United States Forest Service and the Portland Water 

Bureau administer the greater portion of the lands in this unit.
46

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Plants, Fungi, and Invasive Species

Management Objective

Provide for the conservation of species that are listed or are candidates for listing 

under the Endangered Species Act or state listed species where the BLM have 

entered into a cooperative management agreement for a species. 

Management Action

• Management would be consistent with recovery plans and designated 

critical habitat, including: the protection and restoration of habitat; 

altering the type, timing, and intensity of actions; and other strategies 

designed to recover populations of species.

• Species listed under the state of Oregon Endangered Species Act would 

be managed in accordance with cooperative management agreements.

Plants with recovery plans are listed in Table 19 (Federally listed plants with 

recovery plans). Also see Appendix E. Botany (Digest of Actions Contained in 

Individual Recovery Plans for Plant Species).

Table 19. Federally listed plants with recovery plans 

Common Name Scientific Name

Nelson’s checker-mallow Sidalcea nelsonia

Rough popcorn flower Plagiobothrys hirtus

Gentener’s fritillary Fritillary gentneri

Kincaid’s lupine Lupinus sulphureus spp. kincaidii

Western lily Lilium occidentale

Bradshaw’s lomatium Lomatium bradshawii

McDonald’s rock-cress Arabis mcdonaldiana

Golden paintbrush Castelleja levisecta

Applegate’s milk-vetch Astaragalus applegatei

Water howellia Howellia aquatilis

Management Objective

State listed species where the BLM has not entered into a conservation agreement 

and species listed by the BLM as sensitive or assessment species will be managed 

on public domain lands and on O&C lands where protection does not conflict 

with sustained yield forest management in areas dedicated to timber production. 

This is so that special status designation would no longer be warranted and 

so that actions will not contribute to the need to list the species under the 

Endangered Species Act. Where conflicts with sustained yield management 

occur, protections on O&C lands will only be applied to prevent extinction of a 

species even if it is not yet listed under the Endangered Species Act. 
47

Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Management Actions

•	 Conservation plans for the following plants would be implemented 

and are incorporated by reference. Management would be consistent 

with conservation plans. Plants with conservation plans are listed in 

Table 20 (Special status species plants with conservation plans). Also 

see Appendix E. Botany (Digest of Conservation Plans for Special Status 

Species Plants).

Table 20. Special status species plants with conservation plans

Common Name Scientific Name

Large-flowered rush-lily Hastingsia bracteosa

Purple-flowered rush-lily Hastingsia atropurpurea

Mendocino gentian Gentiana setigera

Oregon willow-herb Epilobium oreganum

Kincaid’s lupine Lupinus sulphureus spp. kincaidii

Western bog violet Viola Primulifolia ssp. occidentalis

Umpqua mariposa lily Calochortus umpquaensis

Green gentian or Umpqua swertia Frasera umpquaensis

Tall bugbane Cimicifuga elata

Gormans’s aster Aster gormanii

Crinite mariposa lily Calochortus coxii

Silvery phacelia Phacelia argentea

Columbia cress Rorippa columbiae

• Special status species plants without conservation plans would be 

managed to maintain or restore populations and habitat.

• Protections measures include altering the type, timing, and intensity of 

actions; and other strategies designed to maintain populations of species.

Management Objective

Support natural species composition and vegetation on noncommercial areas, 

including, noncommercial forests, oak woodlands, shrublands, grasslands, 

cliffs, rock outcrops, talus slopes, meadows, wetlands, springs, fens, ponds, and 

vernal pools.

Management Actions

• Natural processes, native species composition, and vegetation structure 

would be maintained or restored. Management would include the use of 

prescribed burns, the retention of legacy components (e.g., large trees, 

snags, and down logs), and the removal of encroaching vegetation in 

meadows, grasslands, or oak woodlands in a manner that is consistent 

with natural or historic processes and conditions. 
48

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

• Degraded or disturbed areas would be revegetated with species 

appropriate to the native or historic plant communities.

• Road construction, road maintenance, and culvert replacement would be 

designed to retain or reconnect the hydrologic flows to wetlands, springs, 

fens, ponds, and vernal pools.

Management Objective

Avoid the introduction of invasive plants or the spread of invasive plant 

infestations that are preventable.

Management Actions

• Cost-effective measures would be implemented to prevent, detect, and 

rapidly control new invasive plant infestations.

• Manual, mechanical, cultural, chemical, and biological treatments would 

be used to manage invasive plant infestations.

• Invasive plants would be controlled in accordance with the final 

environmental impact statement and record of decisions for the 

Northwest Area Noxious Weed Control Program. These documents are 

incorporated by reference.

Special Forest Products

Management Objective

Provide for the harvest and collection of special forest products.

Management Actions

•	 Special forest product collection would be implemented in a manner that 

limits adverse impacts to other resources. This would be accomplished 

by restricting collection amounts and restricting collection activities. 

•	 Stipulations would be included in permits issued for the collection of 

special forest products to limit adverse impacts to the plant community, 

individual plants, soil, and water.

•	 Areas for the collection of individual special forest products would be 

rotated to maintain the availability of special forest products.
49

Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Recreation

Management Objective

Provide a diversity of developed and dispersed outdoor recreational opportunities 

that contribute to meeting recreational demand and quality visitor experiences.

See the tables and maps at the end of this chapter for district-specific 

recreation information. 

Management Actions

•	 Legal public access would be obtained to BLM lands that have high 

recreational potential.

•	 Special recreation management areas would be managed in accordance 

with their planning frameworks (see Appendix J. Recreation and 

Map 18 (Recreation management areas)). These frameworks describe 

implementation-level actions that would achieve recreational 

management objectives for those areas. 

•	 Lands not designated as special recreation management areas would 

be managed as extensive recreation management areas for dispersed 

recreational opportunities. 

•	 Recreational developments, including sites, trails, and backcountry 

byways, would be maintained. 

•	 Potential recreational developments, including sites, trails, and 

backcountry byways, would be developed in the future depending on 

recreational demand and feasibility. 

•	 Locatable mineral withdrawals would be obtained for recreational 

developments that contain mineral development potential. 

•	 Closed or abandoned logging roads would be developed to provide 

additional trail opportunities.

•	 Service-oriented and outreach programs, including interpretation and 

education, would be provided to visitors.

•	 Environmental education areas would be managed to provide educational 

opportunities for the public. 

•	 Recreation sites authorized under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act 

would be managed according to their lease agreements. 

•	 A 77-acre portion of Heceta Dunes on the Eugene District would be 

designated as open to off-highway vehicle use.

•	 Areas listed in Table 54 (District-specific areas closed to off-highway 

vehicle use) would be designated as closed to off-highway vehicle use. 
50

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

See Map 10 (Off-highway vehicle designations) and Map 26 (Proposed 

Off Highway Vehical designations).

•	 Areas not designated as open or closed would be 

designated as limited to existing roads and trails or 

limited to designated roads and trails. See Table 53 (District-specific 

off-highway vehicle area designations) and Map 10 (Off-highway vehicle 

designations) and Map 26 (Proposed Off Highway Vehical designations). 

•	 Areas listed in Table 55 (District-specific off-highway vehicle emphasis 

areas) would be designated as off-highway vehicle emphasis areas. 

These designations would be located within areas that are limited to 

designated roads and trails where off-highway vehicle use is more 

concentrated and intensively managed. See Map 11 (Off-highway vehicle 

emphasis areas).

•	 Potential off-highway vehicle emphasis areas listed in Table 56 (Districtspecific potential off-highway vehicle emphasis areas) would be 

developed in the future depending recreational demand and feasibility. 

•	 Off-highway vehicle areas and off-highway vehicle emphasis areas 

would be managed according to interim management guidelines until 

subsequent comprehensive travel management plans are completed. See 

Appendix J. Recreation. Detailed maps are available to the public at each 

district office that show proposed off-highway vehicle area designations 

with a preliminary road and trail network.

•	 Lands within state scenic waterway corridors (see Table 57 (Districtspecific Oregon State scenic waterways)), excluding portions that 

occur on O&C lands that are suitable for permanent timber production, 

would be managed to protect and enhance identified scenic, aesthetic, 

recreation, scientific, research, fish, and wildlife qualities. 

Research

Management Objective

Provide for research to support the management of lands and resources 

administered by the BLM in western Oregon. 

Management Action

Ongoing research projects would be continued according to current or 

updated study plans. New research projects would require study plans. 

Management actions on study sites that conflict with research objectives 

would be deferred until the research is complete.
51

Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Soils

Management Objective

Improve or maintain soil productivity.

Management Action

Management activities associated with prescribed burns, wildfire 

suppression, silviculture, timber harvesting, and grazing would be 

consistent with maintaining or improving soil productivity. 

Timber

Management Objective

Assure the survival of planted trees and enhance the growth of desirable trees in 

harvested or disturbed areas.

Management Actions

• Newly harvested and inadequately stocked areas would be prepared for 

the regeneration of desirable tree species.

• Site preparation methods would include mechanical or manual 

procedures, and prescribed burns.

• Adequate reforestation would be achieved as promptly as practical 

following timber harvests, as follows:

– Harvested areas would be planted with indigenous commercial 

tree species.

– Identified root disease centers would be planted with indigenous 

disease-resistant tree species. 

– Genetically selected stock would be used to the extent available. 

• The establishment and survival of coniferous seedlings would be 

promoted through maintenance and protective treatments.

Management Objective

Enhance the health, stability, growth, vigor, and economic value of forest stands 

in the harvest land base.
52

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Management Actions

• Lands currently growing primarily brush or hardwoods would be 

converted to the appropriate conifer species, unless the hardwoods 

would produce a higher net monetary return. 

• Precommercial thinning would be applied to forest stands that exceed 

healthy density levels. 

• Fertilizer would be applied to forest stands that are at suitable 

density levels and where treatment is expected to provide a positive 

economic return.

• Pruning would be applied to enhance timber value in a manner that is 

consistent with fuels and disease management.

• Yarding corridors or new roads would be permitted within riparian 

management areas if no practical alternative exists to access 

adjacent uplands.

• Uneven-aged management would be applied in the eastern portion of the 

Klamath Falls Resource Area.

• Incidental harvest of trees associated with implementing management 

actions would occur from lands that are not in the harvest land base for 

safety or operational reasons.

Visual Resource Management

See Map 1 (Visual resource management classes) and Table 21 (Acres of visual resource 

management classes by district) after the fourth management objective. 

Management Objective

Preserve the existing character of the landscape in Class I visual resource 

management areas.

Management Action

Designated, suitable, and eligible wild and scenic rivers that are 

classified as wild, wilderness areas, wilderness study areas, and 

wilderness instant study areas would be designated as Class I visual 

resource management areas. 

These areas would be managed in accordance with natural ecological 

changes. Some very limited management activities would occur in these 

areas. The level of change to the characteristic landscape would be very 

low and would not attract attention. Changes would repeat the basic 
53

Chapter 2 – Alternatives

elements of form, line, color, texture, and scale found in the predominant 

natural features of the characteristic landscape.

Management Objective

Retain the existing character of the landscape in Class II visual resource 

management areas.

Management Action

Designated, suitable, and eligible wild and scenic rivers that are 

classified as scenic, the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument, 

the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail, the Mt. Hood Corridor, the 

Bull Run Watershed Management Unit, and the Yaquina Outstanding 

Natural Area would be designated as Class II visual resource 

management areas. See Table 63 (District Specific Miscellaneous 

National Landscape Conservation System designated lands).

These areas would be managed for low levels of change to the 

characteristic landscape. Management activities would be seen but would 

not attract the attention of the casual observer. Changes would repeat 

the basic elements of form, line, color, texture, and scale found in the 

predominant natural features of the characteristic landscape.

Management Objective

Partially retain the existing character of the landscape in Class III visual resource 

management areas.

Management Action

Designated, suitable, and eligible wild and scenic rivers that are 

classified as recreational would be designated as Class III visual resource 

management areas.

These areas would be managed for moderate levels of change to the 

characteristic landscape. Management activities would attract attention 

but would not dominate the view of the casual observer. Changes would 

repeat the basic elements of form, line, color, texture, and scale found in 

the predominant natural features of the characteristic landscape.
54

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Management Objective

Allow for major modification of the existing character of the landscape in 

Class IV visual resource management areas.

Management Action

All lands that are not designated as Class I, Class II, or Class III would 

be designated as Class IV visual resource management areas.

These lands would be managed for high levels of change to the 

characteristic landscape. Management activities would dominate the 

view and would be the major focus of viewer attention.
55

Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Table and Map for the Visual Resource Management Classes

Table 21. Acres of visual resource management (VRM) classes by district

Visual Resource Management (VRM) Classes

No Action 

Alternative 

(acres)

All Action 

Alternatives 

(acres)

Salem District

VRM Class I 14,100 7,550

VRM Class II 22,800 7,627

VRM Class III 59,600 16,313

VRM Class IV 301,600 371,705

Eugene District

VRM Class I 0 0

VRM Class II 4,471 0

VRM Class III 33,130 8,183

VRM Class IV 277,499 307,062

Roseburg District

VRM Class I 28 0

VRM Class II 18,045 0

VRM Class III 4,385 6,409

VRM Class IV 396,546 419,952

Coos Bay District

VRM Class I 600 592

VRM Class II 6,600 0

VRM Class III 14,700 1,958

VRM Class IV 307,700 319,700

Medford District

VRM Class I 14,330 51,427

VRM Class II 113,880 51,564

VRM Class III 393,100 27,797

VRM Class IV 337,220 737,370

Klamath Falls Resource Area

VRM Class I 0 340

VRM Class II 33,500 2,961

VRM Class III 81,800 0

VRM Class IV 96,700 221,600

Totals for all western Oregon BLM lands

VRM Class I 29,058 59,909

VRM Class II 199,296 62,152

VRM Class III 586,715 60,660

VRM Class IV 1,717,265 2,377,389
56

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

P

a c i f i c O c e a

n

Portland

Salem

Eugene

Coos Bay

Roseburg

Medford Klamath

Falls

Portland

Salem

Eugene

Coos Bay

Roseburg

Medford Klamath

Falls

Western Oregon Plan Revisions

 Draft Environmental

 Impact Statement

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

Legend

Action Alternatives

 Visual Resource

 Management Area

 Class 1

 Class 2

 Class 3

 Class 4

BLM Administrative

 Boundary

State Boundary

S

E

N

W

Source: Bureau of Land Management Corporate Data

revised for WOPR Analysis. No warranty is made by the

Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy,

reliability, or completeness of these data for individual

or aggregate use with other data.

10 0 10 20 30 40 50 Miles

0 1010 20 30 40 50 Kilometers

Albers Equal Area Projection

North American Datum of 1983

Planning Area

OREGON

M06-12-02

Map 1. Visual resource management classes
57

Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Water

Management Objectives

• Maintain and restore water quality.

• Maintain and restore the proper functioning condition of riparian and wetland areas 

to provide shade, sediment filtering, and surface and stream bank stabilization.

Management Actions

• Priority for restoration, road maintenance, or road decommissioning 

would be given to projects that reduce chronic sediment inputs along 

stream channels and floodplains in source water areas.

• Prescribed burns would be applied in riparian management areas to 

reduce the potential for uncharacteristic wildfires. 

• Best management practices (see Appendix I. Water) would be 

implemented to meet water quality standards.

Riparian Management Area Land Use Allocation for the 

Nonforest Areas of the Medford District and the Klamath 

Falls Resource Area of the Lakeview District

The following management actions are common to all of the alternatives but are 

specific to the nonforest areas of the riparian management areas.

Riparian management areas would be delineated by the water influence zone as 

indicated by hydrophilic vegetation.

Management Objective

Maintain and restore the proper functioning condition of riparian and wetland areas. 

Management Actions

•	 Livestock grazing in riparian management areas would be managed 

at a level that allows the maintenance or development of the proper 

functioning condition of riparian and wetland plant communities. 

Methods would include installing and maintaining livestock exclosures, 

managing season of use and intensity, and implementing other 

appropriate techniques. 

• Perennial and intermittent streams, wetlands, lakes, and natural ponds 

would be managed to maintain, improve, or restore floodplain connectivity.

• Conifer encroachment would be removed in riparian management areas unless 

conifers are an appropriate component of the riparian community type.
58

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Wild Horses

Management Objective

Maintain a healthy population of wild and free-roaming horses in the Pokegama 

Herd Management Area of the Klamath Falls Resource Area of the Lakeview 

District. See Map 12 (Location of Pokegama Herd Management Area).

Management Actions

•	 Horses would be gathered to maintain the established appropriate 

management level of 30 to 50 head, as follows: 

– During gathers, the number of horses would normally be reduced to 

the low end of the appropriate management level, and then allowed 

to increase to the top end of the appropriate management level before 

another gather occurred.

– Horses would be removed from private land at private 

landowner request.

– Horses straying outside the herd management area would be removed 

or returned to the herd management area.

•	 Horses from other herd areas would be periodically introduced to the 

Pokegama herd to maintain the viable genetic diversity of the herd.

•	 Water developments would be maintained or established to provide 

season-long water for wild horses within the herd management area. 

See Appendix L. Grazing and Map 8 (Location of proposed range 

improvements in the Klamath Falls Resource Area). 

• The appropriate management level would be adjusted when:

– Monitoring data identified a change in 

long-term forage availability. 

– Health assessments and evaluations 

determined that wild horse numbers, 

or patterns of grazing use, were a 

contributing factor toward not meeting one or more of the Oregon 

standards for rangeland health.

Rangeland Standards

For the rangeland health 

standards and livestock grazing 

guidelines document, search for 

the document by its complete 

title at http://www.blm.gov.
59

Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Wilderness Characteristics

Management Objective

Maintain wilderness characteristics on designated BLM lands.

 Management Action

Wilderness characteristics would be maintained on the BLM lands that 

are listed in Table 22 (Lands with wilderness characteristics maintained 

under special management) and shown in Map 27 (Lands with 

wilderness characteristics), excluding the portions of those areas that 

occur on O&C lands that are suitable for permanent timber production. 

Table 22. Lands with wilderness characteristics maintained under 

special management

BLM Lands Total 

(acres)

Identified Wilderness Characteristics

Naturalness

Outstanding 

Opportunities 

for Solitude

Outstanding 

Opportunities 

for Primitive, 

Unconfined 

Recreation

Salem District

Bull of the Woods/Opal 

Creek Additions 3,203 X X X

South Fork Clackamas 

River 919 X X

Salmon Huckleberry 

Additions 637 X X X

Mount Hebo 81 X X X

Eugene District

No lands were identified with wilderness characteristics

Roseburg District

Special management would not apply to lands with wilderness characteristics

Coos Bay District

Wasson Creek 3,408 X X X

Medford District

Special management would not apply to lands with wilderness characteristics

Klamath Falls Resource Area

No lands were identified with wilderness characteristics

Total 8,248
60

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Wildlife

Management Objective

Provide for the conservation of species that are listed or are candidates for 

listing under the Endangered Species Act or state listed species where the 

BLM have entered into a cooperative management agreement for a species.

Management Actions

• Management would be consistent with approved recovery plans and 

designated critical habitat, including the protection and restoration of 

habitat and other actions designed to recover populations of species. 

• Species listed under the state of Oregon Endangered Species Act would 

be managed in accordance with cooperative management agreements.

• Wildlife species with approved recovery plans include the marbled 

murrelet, bald eagle, and the Columbia River population of the Columbia 

white-tailed deer. Management would be consistent with these recovery 

plans. See Appendix G. Wildlife.

• For the western snowy plover, the BLM’s contribution to recovery would 

consist of the following actions:

– Public use of nesting areas would be managed during the nesting 

season to reduce activities that would substantially reduce 

nesting success.

– Predator controls would be employed when data demonstrates 

that loss of nests due to predators substantially reduces overall 

nesting success. 

– Control measures would be implemented if invasive plant species are 

creating a loss of suitable nesting habitat.

– Measures would be implemented to support coastal dune processes 

to sustain suitable western snowy plover nesting habitat. 

• Activities would be restricted within threshold distances of active 

northern spotted owl nest sites identified through consultation from 

March 1 through September 30. Restrictions on activities would usually 

not be required for nest sites located near roads or in other areas of 

permanent human activity.

• Bald eagle management areas would be managed to protect current 

suitable nesting and winter roosting habitat and to develop replacement 

habitat for nesting and roosting. Management activities would include 

prescribed burns and other treatments to reduce fuel loading and to 

accelerate growth, such as commercial thinning and density management. 

See Map 13 (Bald eagle, deer, and elk habitat management areas).
61

Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Management Objective

State listed species where the BLM has not entered into a conservation agreement 

and species listed by the BLM as sensitive or assessment species will be managed 

on public domain lands and on O&C lands where protection does not conflict 

with sustained yield forest management in areas dedicated to timber production. 

This is so that special status designation would no longer be warranted and 

so that actions will not contribute to the need to list the species under the 

Endangered Species Act. Where conflicts with sustained yield management 

occur, protections on O&C lands will only be applied to prevent extinction of a 

species even if it is not yet listed under the Endangered Species Act. 

Management Actions

• Management would be consistent with approved conservation plans. See 

Appendix G. Wildlife.

• Protections measures include altering the type, timing, and intensity of 

actions; and other strategies designed to maintain populations of species.

• For the Columbia white-tailed deer, the record of decision for the North 

Bank Habitat Management Area would continue to be implemented. 

The final environmental impact statement and record of decision for the 

North Bank Habitat Management Area are incorporated by reference.

• For the greater sage grouse, the Greater Sage Grouse Conservation 

Assessment and Strategy for Oregon would continue to be implemented. 

It is incorporated by reference.

Management Objective

Assist the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife in meeting big game 

management goals on public domain lands and on O&C lands where the goals 

are consistent with the O&C Act.

Management Actions

• Roads would be closed to motorized vehicles within the designated deer 

and elk winter range to achieve a maximum level of 1.5 miles of open 

road per square mile of federal land between November 1 and April 15. 

Administrative use of all roads would occur, as needed, on a year-round 

basis. See Map 13 (Bald eagle, deer, and elk habitat management areas).

• Roads would be closed to motorized vehicles, except for administrative 

purposes, between November 1 and April 15 in the Klamath Winter 

Range, which includes the deer-season road closure areas of South 

Gerber, Willow Valley, Harpold Ridge, Bryant Mountain, North Bryant, 

Windy Ridge, and Lorella. See Map 13 (Bald eagle, deer, and elk habitat 

management areas). 
62

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

• Visual barriers from 25 to 50 feet wide would be maintained, where 

appropriate, along roads within the designated deer and elk winter range. 

See Map 13 (Bald eagle, deer, and elk habitat management areas).

• Native forage species would be planted along roadsides, skid trails, and 

on landings, or forage plots would be created when forage quality is 

determined to be a limiting factor in achieving the management goals of 

the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.

• Forage would be included when implementing silvicultural treatments or 

habitat management activities.

• Encroaching western juniper would be thinned or removed to maintain 

and improve forage for big game. These treatments would protect old 

juniper and would consider edge effect, escape cover, and forage. 

Administrative Actions

Administrative actions are routine transactions and activities that are required to serve the 

public and to provide optimum management of resources. 

Administrative actions would occur at approximately the same levels as during the past 

10 years. These actions would include:

• competitive and commercial recreation activities

• lands and realty actions (including the issuance of grants, leases, and permits)

• resolution of trespasses

• facility maintenance

• improvements to existing facilities

• road maintenance

• issuance of hauling permits

• recreation site maintenance

• recreation site improvement

• hazardous materials removal

• law enforcement

• surveys to determine legal land or mineral estate ownership

• engineering support to assist in mapping

• designing and implementing projects

• sampling (specifically using the 3P fall, buck, and scale sampling method)

• incidental removal of trees, snags, or logs for safety or operational reasons 
63

Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Administrative Withdrawal Land Use 

Allocation

The administrative withdrawal land use allocation includes lands that are withdrawn from 

the harvest land base for a variety of reasons, including:

• areas dedicated to specific purposes (such as roads, buildings, maintenance yards, 

quarries, and other facilities and infrastructure); 

• areas of critical environmental concern and recreation sites (such as 

campgrounds, trails, and day use areas); and

• areas that are identified through the timber production capability classification 

(TPCC) system as withdrawn from sustained yield timber production or 

identified as nonforest.

Management Objectives and Management Actions

The management objectives and management actions for areas of critical 

environmental concern and recreation sites/facilities are addressed in the 

alternatives under the specific programs. 

Areas identified as withdrawn from the harvest land base through the timber 

production capability classification system do not have specific management 

objectives or management actions. They may be managed similarly to the 

adjacent or surrounding land use allocations, if those uses are not incompatible 

with the reason for which the lands were withdrawn (as identified by the 

timber production capability classification codes). Additional areas would be 

periodically added to those areas withdrawn through updates to the timber 

production capability classification system when on-the-ground examinations 

indicate an area meets the criteria for withdrawal. 

Roads, maintenance yards, buildings, quarries, and other facilities also do not 

have specific management objectives or management actions but would be 

managed for the purpose for which the facilities were constructed.
64

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

The Alternatives

This section describes what is unique between the individual alternatives. The previous section 

identified the land use allocations, management objectives, and management actions that would 

apply to the resources, programs, and land use allocations under the three action alternatives.

Management actions would be used only where and when necessary and practical to achieve 

management objectives. The following would be among the considerations in determining how 

and where to appropriately implement management actions:

• Site-specific circumstances made the application of the management action unnecessary 

to achieve resource management plan objectives.

• Site-specific circumstances made the application of the management action impractical.

• The application of the management action would be inconsistent with other resource 

management plan decisions.

Activities that are not specifically mentioned in management actions would be permitted if they 

are not inconsistent with management objectives.

Preferred Alternative

The preferred alternative is the alternative that best meets the purpose and need (see 

Chapter 1). Based on the analysis in this draft environmental impact statement, the 

BLM identifies Alternative 2 as the preferred alternative. Considering the economic, 

environmental, social, and other selection factors, the BLM believes this alternative 

would best fulfill its statutory mission and responsibilities. Alternative 2 would:

• contribute to the recovery of species listed under the Endangered Species Act,

• maintain or improve water quality,

• reduce fire hazard risks in most districts,

• meet recreational demand with a variety of recreational settings, and

• produce the highest economic return to local communities from a sustained yield 

of timber.

Comments from state and federal agencies, local governments, tribes, and the public on 

this draft environmental impact statement will assist the BLM in preparing the proposed 

resource management plans and the final environmental impact statement. These 

comments can be used by the BLM to modify an action alternative to create a proposed 

decision. Examples of modifications that the BLM will consider in developing the 

proposed resource management plans are:

• Increasing the fire resiliency of forests in the Medford District and the Klamath 

Falls Resource Area of the Lakeview District.
65

Chapter 2 – Alternatives

• Ways to manage the harvest land base that will increase the rate of recovery of 

the northern spotted owl and the marbled murrelet in the short term (less than 

50 years) while suitable habitat develops in the large blocks managed for longterm recovery.

• Speeding the redevelopment of structurally complex forests after 

regeneration harvesting.

No Action Alternative

For details about the No Action Alternative, refer to the 1995 resource management 

plans for the districts of Salem, Eugene, Coos Bay, Roseburg, and Medford, and the 

Klamath Falls Resource Area of the Lakeview District, as amended. The No Action 

Alternative, as analyzed in this environmental impact statement, includes Survey and 

Manage standards and guidelines consistent with the January 2001, Record of Decision 

and Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection 

Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines in Forest Service and 

Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern 

Spotted Owl, but does not include the March 2004, Record of Decision to Remove 

or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines in 

Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the 

Range of the Northern Spotted Owl or the March 2004, Record of Decision, Amending 

Resource Management Plans for Seven Bureau of Land Management 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. The two March 2004 Records of Decision have been the subject 

to litigation, and their implementation is uncertain at this time. Implementation of these 

two plan amendments would change the effects of the No Action Alternative from the 

effects analyzed in this environmental impact statement. However, the effects of such 

a changed No Action Alternative would still be within the range of effects analyzed 

in this environmental impact statement. That is, these amendments to the No Action 

alternative would change the effects of the No Action Alternative to be more similar 

to the action alternatives. For example, an amendment that would remove the Survey 

and Manage standards and guidelines from the No Action Alternative would result in 

effects more like the action alternatives, all of which do not include the Survey and 

Manage standards and guidelines.

Plan maintenance for the 1995 resource management plans is documented in the 

district annual program summary and monitoring reports that were published from 

1996 through 2005. These district annual program summary and monitoring reports are 

incorporated by reference.

See Map 2 (Land use allocations under the No Action Alternative) that follows this 

discussion. Also see the map packet (Maps 1, 5, and 9) for detailed views of the land 

use allocations.
T 20 S

T 21 S T 20 S

T 21 S

R

9

W

R

8

W

R

8

W

R

7

W

R

7

W

R

6

W

R

6

W

R

5

W

Upper Smith River Watershed

Township 20 South, Range 8 West, Section 23

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

Western Oregon Plan Revisions

 Draft Environmental

 Impact Statement

Forest Excluded from

 Harvest Land Base

Forest Included in

 Harvest Land Base

Forested Lands

Planning Area

73%

27%

73%

27%

Source: Bureau of Land Management Corporate Data revised for 

WOPR Analysis. No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land 

Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of 

these data for individual or aggregate use with other data.

1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Miles

0.25 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 Mile

66

Map 2. Land use allocations under the No Action Alternative
Portland

Salem

Eugene

Coos Bay

Roseburg

Medford Klamath Falls

5

5

5

84

205

26

97

20

20

30

26

101

101

199

3%

36%

14% 8%

14%

25%

3%

36%

14% 8%

14%

25%

Land Use Allocations

 Congressionally Withdrawn

 Late-Successional Reserve

 Adaptive Management Area

 Administratively Withdrawn

 Riparian Reserve

 Matrix 

BLM Administrative Boundary

State Boundary

Legend: No Action Alt.

S

E

N

W

10 0 10 20 30 40 50 Miles

0 1010 20 30 40 50 Kilometers

Albers Equal Area Projection

North American Datum of 1983 Planning Area

OREGON

M06-12-02

67
68

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Alternative 1

This action alternative is described in terms of those land use allocations that vary by 

alternative, which include:

•	 late-successional management area

•	 riparian management area

•	 timber management area

•	 areas of critical environmental concern and research natural areas

Late-Successional Management Area

Under Alternative 1, the late-successional management area land use allocation 

would be established as follows:

• In the areas shown on Map 3 (Land use allocations under Alternative 1). 

Also see the map packet (Maps 2, 6, and 10) for detailed views of the 

land use allocations.

• In the areas of contiguous marbled murrelet habitat and recruitment 

habitat (stands capable of becoming habitat for the marbled murrelet 

within 25 years) that are within 0.5 mile of any occupied site. Occupation 

would be determined by the presence of an active nest, a fecal ring, 

eggshell fragments, or birds demonstrating occupying behavior 

(i.e., flying below the forest canopy within or adjacent to a stand). 

Management Objective

Maintain or promote the development of structurally complex forests. 

Management Actions

•	 Thinning would be applied to promote the development of 

structurally complex forests. Timber from thinning would be 

available for sale.

• Snags and coarse woody debris would be retained or created when 

thinning stands of larger trees, which are generally those with a stand 

average diameter of quadratic mean diameter (QMD) greater than 

14 inches. 

See Table 23 (Snag and coarse woody debris (CWD) retention 

or creation for stands of larger trees (stand average diameter of 

QMD > 14 in.)) and Map 14 (Forest vegetation series).
69

Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Table 23. Snag and coarse woody debris (CWD) retention or creation for 

stands of larger trees (stand average diameter of QMD > 14 in.)

Vegetation 

Series

Snag Retention or 

Creation CWD Retention or Creation

Total Component 

Diameters Total Component Diameters

Component 

Lengths

Western hemlock 6 tpa > 14 in. dbh 240 ft./ac. > 14 in. > 20 ft.

Douglas fir and 

true firs 3 tpa > 14 in. dbh 120 ft./ac. > 14 in. > 16 ft.

Tanoak 4 tpa > 14 in. dbh 120 ft./ac. > 14 in. > 16 ft.

dbh (diameter breast height) ft. (linear feet) tpa (trees per acre)

• Snags and coarse woody debris would be retained or created in 

thinning harvests in stands of smaller trees, which are generally those 

with a stand average diameter of quadratic mean diameter (QMD) 

less than or equal to 14 inches. 

See Table 24 (Snag and coarse woody debris (CWD) retention or 

creation for stands of smaller trees (stand average diameter of 

QMD ≤ 14 in.)) and Map 14 (Forest vegetation series). 

Table 24. Snag and coarse woody debris (CWD) retention or creation for 

stands of smaller trees (stand average diameter of QMD ≤ 14 in.)

Vegetation 

Series

Snag Retention or 

Creation CWD Retention or Creation

Total Component 

Diameters Total Component Diameters

Component 

Lengths

Western hemlock 3 tpa > 12 in. dbh 120 ft./ac. > 12 in. > 20 ft.

Douglas fir and 

true firs 2 tpa > 10 in. dbh 60 ft./ac. > 10 in. > 16 ft.

Tanoak 2 tpa > 10 in. dbh 60 ft./ac. > 10 in. > 16 ft.

dbh (diameter breast height) ft. (linear feet) tpa (trees per acre)

• Snag and coarse woody debris retention or creation requirements 

would be met by any combination of new snags and coarse woody 

debris from live conifer trees and the retention of existing levels of 

snags (Class I and Class II) and coarse woody debris (Class I and 

Class II). 

•	 Snag and coarse woody debris retention or creation levels would be 

met at the scale of the harvest unit. Snag and coarse woody debris 

levels per acre would be variable within harvest units.

•	 Salvage would not occur in stands that are disturbed by a fire, 

windstorm, disease, or insect infestations, except to reduce hazards in 

wildland urban interface areas.
70

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Riparian Management Area

Under Alternative 1, the riparian management area land use allocation would 

be established according to Table 25 (Criteria established for the riparian 

management area land use allocation under Alternative 1). For a representation 

of those areas, see Map 3 (Land use allocations under Alternative 1). Also see the 

map packet (Maps 2, 6, and 10) for detailed views of the land use allocations.

Note: The site-potential tree height for the purposes of determining the riparian 

management areas would be based on district averages that are measured at a scale that 

is no finer than the fifth-field watershed.

Table 25. Criteria established for the riparian management area land use allocation 

under Alternative 1

Riparian Management Areas Distance

Perennial and Intermittent FishBearing Streams and Perennial 

Non-Fish-Bearing Streams

One site-potential tree height on each side of a stream 

extending from the edge of an active stream channel and 

including its channel migration zone

Intermittent Non-Fish-Bearing 

Streams

Half of one site-potential tree height on each side of a 

stream extending from the edge of its active stream channel

Natural Wetlands Half of one site-potential tree height extending from a 

body of water or wetland to the outer edge of its riparian 

vegetation or to the extent of seasonally saturated soil, 

whichever is greatest

Natural Lakes and Ponds One site-potential tree height extending from a body of 

water to the outer edge of its riparian vegetation or to the 

extent of seasonally saturated soil, whichever is greatest

Constructed Ponds and 

Wetlands

The body of water and the area to the outer edge of its 

riparian vegetation

Nonforest Ecosystems on the 

East Side of the Klamath Falls 

Resource Area

The extent of the water influence zone as indicated by 

hydrophilic vegetation

Management Objectives

• Maintain or promote the development of mature or structurally 

complex forests.

• Provide for the riparian and aquatic conditions that supply stream 

channels with shade, sediment filtering, leaf litter and large wood, and 

root masses that stabilize stream banks. 

Management Actions

• Thinning and other silvicultural treatments would be applied along 

smaller-order streams (generally, first-, second-, and third-order 

streams) to promote the development of mature forests.

• Thinning and other silvicultural treatments would be applied along 

larger-order streams (generally, fourth-order and larger streams) to 

promote the development of structurally complex forests. 
71

Chapter 2 – Alternatives

• Snags and coarse woody debris would be retained in thinning 

operations, except for safety or operational reasons (e.g., maintaining 

access to roads and facilities).

• Salvage would not occur in stands that are disturbed by a fire, 

windstorm, disease, or insect infestations, except to reduce hazards in 

wildland urban interface areas.

• Timber from thinning and salvage operations would be available for sale.

Timber Management Area

Under Alternative 1, the timber management area land use allocation would be 

established to consist of the commercial forest lands that are not included in the 

following land use allocations:

• lands of the National Landscape Conservation System

• late-successional management areas

• riparian management areas

• administratively withdrawn areas

See Map 3 (Land use allocations under Alternative 1). Also see the map packet 

(Maps 2, 6, and 10) for detailed views of the land use allocations.

Management Objectives

•	 Manage forests to achieve a high level of continuous timber production 

that could be sustained through a balance of growth and harvest.

•	 Offer for sale an annual allowable sale quantity.

Management Actions

•	 Timber would be offered for sale from regeneration harvest units. 

See Table 26 (Timber offered for sale from regeneration harvest 

units) and Map 29 (Sustained yield units).

Table 26. Timber offered for sale from regeneration harvest units

District 10-Year Volume 

(mmbf)

Salem 900

Eugene 1,070

Roseburg 570

Coos Bay 590

Medford 952

Klamath Falls Resource Area 

(Lakeview District) 90
72

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

• Timber would be offered for sale from commercial thinning harvest 

units. See Table 27 (Timber offered for sale from commercial 

thinning harvest units).

Table 27. Timber offered for sale from commercial thinning harvest units

District 10-Year Volume 

(mmbf)

Salem 100

Eugene 100

Roseburg 60

Coos Bay 60

Medford 68

Klamath Falls Resource Area 

(Lakeview District) 0

• Annual offering of the allowable sale quantity would potentially 

vary up to 10% from the declared allowable sale quantity to allow 

for variations in yield from different harvest areas and to allow 

for the preparation and sale of logical, operationally feasible, and 

economically viable sale areas. 

• Cumulative total offering of the allowable sale quantity would be 

maintained within 5% over two or more years by adjusting annual 

offerings within the allowed 10% variation.

• Regeneration harvests would be conducted to remove volume and 

replace slower growing stands with young, rapidly growing stands. 

Generally, regeneration harvests would be scheduled for stands 

to maximize potential growth and yield. Regeneration harvests 

would be applied to younger stands for purposes that include the 

management of age class distribution, the management of diseased 

stands, and the management of overstocked stands with poor vigor 

and low crown ratio. The minimum age of stands that would be 

considered suitable for regeneration harvesting would be 40 years 

of age in the western hemlock and the tanoak vegetation series and 

60 years of age in the Douglas fir and true firs vegetation series. See 

Map 14 (Forest vegetation series).

• No merchantable material would be reserved from removal in 

regeneration harvest units. Noncommercial snags and coarse woody 

debris would be retained, except for safety or operational reasons.

• Commercial thinning would be applied to recover anticipated 

mortality; to adjust stand composition or dominance; to reduce stand 

susceptibility to disturbances such as a fire, windstorm, disease, or 

insect infestation; and to improve merchantability and value.
73

Chapter 2 – Alternatives

• Stand density would be maintained at levels between full occupancy 

and the onset of density-related mortality to the extent practical.

• Stands with a composition of commercially undesirable tree 

species or an inadequate stocking of desirable tree species would be 

converted to stands that are fully stocked with desirable tree species. 

• Trees killed from disturbances, such as a fire, windstorm, disease, 

or insect infestation, would be salvaged to recover volume and 

economic value within the time necessary to avoid loss of value 

through deterioration. 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern and Research 

Natural Areas

Under Alternative 1, 92 areas of critical environmental concern and research 

natural areas would be designated. At the end of this chapter, see Map 15 (Areas 

of critical environmental concern within the planning area) and Table 41 (Areas 

of critical environmental concern under the alternatives). 

Management Objective

Maintain or restore important and relevant values in areas of critical 

environmental concern, which include research natural areas and 

outstanding natural areas.

Management Action

Maintenance or restoration activities would occur to protect 

important and relevant values.
T 20 S

T 21 S T 20 S

T 21 S

R

9

W

R

8

W

R

8

W

R

7

W

R

7

W

R

6

W

R

6

W

R

5

W

Upper Smith River Watershed

Township 20 South, Range 8 West, Section 23

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

Western Oregon Plan Revisions

 Draft Environmental

 Impact Statement

60%

40%

60%

40%

Forest Excluded from

 Harvest Land Base

Forest Included in

 Harvest Land Base

Forested Lands

Planning Area

Source: Bureau of Land Management Corporate Data revised for 

WOPR Analysis. No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land 

Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of 

these data for individual or aggregate use with other data.

1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Miles

0.25 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 Mile

74

Map 3. Land use allocations under Alternative 1
Portland

Salem

Eugene

Coos Bay

Roseburg

Medford Klamath Falls

5

5

5

84

205

26

97

20

20

30

26

101

101

199

7%

19%

28%

9%

37%

7%

19%

28%

9%

37%

Land Use Allocations

 National Land Conservation

 System

 Administratively Withdrawn

 Late-Successional

 Management Area

 Riparian Management Area

 Timber Management Area

BLM Administrative Boundary

State Boundary

Legend: Alternative 1

S

E

N

W

10 0 10 20 30 40 50 Miles

0 1010 20 30 40 50 Kilometers

Albers Equal Area Projection

North American Datum of 1983 Planning Area

OREGON

M06-12-02

75
76

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Alternative 2

This action alternative is described in terms of those land use allocations that vary by 

alternative, which include:

• late-successional management area

• riparian management area

• timber management area

• areas of critical environmental concern and research natural areas

• management area adjacent to the Coquille Forest 

Late-Successional Management Area

Under Alternative 2, the late-successional management area land use allocation 

would be established as follows: 

• In the areas shown on Map 4 (Land use allocations under Alternative 2). 

Also see the map packet (Maps 3, 7, and 11) for detailed views of the 

land use allocations.

• In the areas of contiguous marbled murrelet habitat and recruitment 

habitat (stands capable of becoming habitat for the marbled murrelet 

within 25 years) that are within 0.5 mile of occupied sites identified as 

of the end of the 2005 field season. Occupation would be determined by 

the presence of an active nest, a fecal ring, eggshell fragments, or birds 

demonstrating occupying behavior (i.e., flying below the forest canopy 

within or adjacent to a stand). 

Management Objectives

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

• Promote the development of habitat for the northern spotted owl in 

stands that do not currently meet suitable habitat criteria.

• Recover economic value from timber harvested after a stand-replacement 

disturbance, such as a fire, windstorm, disease, or insect infestation.

Management Actions

•	 Thinning would be applied to promote the development of mature 

or structurally complex forests, and to promote the development of 

suitable habitat for the northern spotted owl. Timber from thinning 

would be offered for sale. 
77

Chapter 2 – Alternatives

•	 Snags and coarse woody debris would be retained or created when 

thinning stands of larger trees, which are generally those with a stand 

average diameter of quadratic mean diameter (QMD) greater than 

14 inches. 

See Table 28 (Snag and coarse woody debris (CWD) retention 

or creation for stands of larger trees (stand average diameter of 

QMD > 14 in.)) and Map 14 (Forest vegetation series). 

Table 28. Snag and coarse woody debris (CWD) retention or creation for 

stands of larger trees (stand average diameter of QMD > 14 in.)

Vegetation 

Series

Snag Retention or 

Creation CWD Retention or Creation

Total Component 

Diameters Total Component Diameters

Component 

Lengths

Western hemlock 6 tpa > 14 in. dbh 240 ft./ac. > 14 in. > 20 ft.

Douglas fir and 

true firs 3 tpa > 14 in. dbh 120 ft./ac. > 14 in. > 16 ft.

Tanoak 4 tpa > 14 in. dbh 120 ft./ac. > 14 in. > 16 ft.

dbh (diameter breast height) ft. (linear feet) tpa (trees per acre)

• Snags and coarse woody debris would be retained or created when 

thinning stands of smaller trees, which are generally those with a 

stand average diameter of quadratic mean diameter (QMD) less than 

or equal to 14 inches. 

See Table 29 (Snag and coarse woody debris (CWD) retention or 

creation for stands of smaller trees (stand average diameter of 

QMD ≤ 14 in.)) and Map 14 (Forest vegetation series).

Table 29. Snag and coarse woody debris (CWD) retention or creation for 

stands of smaller trees (stand average diameter of QMD ≤ 14 in.)

Vegetation 

Series

Snag Retention or 

Creation CWD Retention or Creation

Total Component 

Diameters Total Component Diameters

Component 

Lengths

Western hemlock 3 tpa > 12 in. dbh 120 ft./ac. > 12 in. > 20 ft.

Douglas fir and 

true firs 2 tpa > 10 in. dbh 60 ft./ac. > 10 in. > 16 ft.

Tanoak 2 tpa > 10 in. dbh 60 ft./ac. > 10 in. > 16 ft.

dbh = diameter breast height ft. = linear feet tpa = trees per acre 

•	 Snag and coarse woody debris retention or creation requirements 

would be met by any combination of new snags and coarse woody 

debris from live conifer trees and the retention of existing levels of 

snags (Class I and Class II) and coarse woody debris (Class I and 

Class II). 
78

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

•	 Salvage of timber after a stand-replacement disturbance, such as 

a fire, windstorm, disease, or insect infestation, would occur to 

recover economic value while retaining snags and coarse woody 

debris according to Table 30 (Snag and coarse woody debris 

(CWD) retention for salvaging of timber after a stand-replacement 

disturbance). 

Table 30. Snag and coarse woody debris (CWD) retention for salvaging of 

timber after a stand-replacement disturbance

Vegetation Series

Snag Retention CWD Retention

Total Component 

Diameters Total Component Diameters

Component 

Lengths

Western hemlock 8 tpa > 20 in. dbh 480 ft./ac. > 20 in. > 20 ft.

Douglas fir and 

true firs 4 tpa > 16 in. dbh 240 ft./ac. > 16 in. > 16 ft.

Tanoak 4 tpa > 20 in. dbh 240 ft./ac. > 20 in. > 20 ft.

dbh (diameter breast height) ft. (linear feet) tpa (trees per acre)

• Snag and coarse woody debris retention or creation levels would be 

met at the scale of the harvest unit. Snag and coarse woody debris 

retention would be variable per acre throughout the area salvaged. If 

sufficient snags or coarse woody debris of the minimum sizes were 

not available, an equivalent number of smaller snags or coarse woody 

debris would be retained. Noncommercial snags and coarse woody 

debris would be retained, except for safety or operational reasons.
79

Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Riparian Management Area

Under Alternative 2, the riparian management area land use allocation 

would be established according to Table 31 (Zones and the zone-specific 

management actions of the riparian management area land use allocation 

under Alternative 2). For a representation of those areas, see Map 4 (Land use 

allocations under Alternative 2). Also see the map packet (Maps 3, 7, and 11) for 

detailed views of the land use allocations.

Table 31. Zones and the zone-specific management actions of the riparian 

management area land use allocation under Alternative 2

Zones Zone-Specific Management Actions

Perennial and Intermittent Fish-Bearing Streams and 

Perennial Non-Fish-Bearing Streams

Stream bank zone 

(0 to 25 ft.1

)

•	 Harvesting would not be allowed, except for safety or 

operational reasons

•	 Ground-based harvesting equipment would not be 

allowed

Water influence zone

(25 to 100 ft.)

•	 Harvesting where mature or structurally complex forest 

stands already exist would not be allowed, except for 

safety or operational reasons

•	 80% effective shade or potential shade from 25 to 60 ft., 

whichever is less, would be maintained 

•	 At least 50% canopy closure from 60 to 100 ft. would be 

maintained after harvests

•	 Snag and coarse woody debris would be retained, except 

for safety or operational reasons

•	 Thinning and other silvicultural treatments would be 

applied along smaller-order streams (generally, first-, 

second-, and third-order streams) to promote the 

development of mature forests

•	 Thinning and other silvicultural treatments would be 

applied along larger-order streams (generally, fourthorder and larger streams) to promote the development of 

structurally complex forests

1 Measured from the edge of the channel migration zone.

Debris-Flow Prone2 Intermittent Streams

Stream bank zone 

(0 to 25 ft.)

[extends from the 

unstable area to the 

fish-bearing stream]

•	 Harvesting would not be allowed, except for safety or 

operational reasons

•	 Ground-based harvesting equipment would not be 

allowed

Table continues on the next page.
80

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Zones Zone-Specific Management Actions

Debris-Flow Prone2

 Intermittent Streams (cont.)

Water influence zone 

(25 to 100 ft.) 

[extends from the 

unstable area to the 

fish-bearing stream]

•	 Harvesting where mature or structurally complex forest 

stands already exist would not be allowed, except for 

safety or operational reasons

•	 Snag and coarse woody debris would be retained, except 

for safety or operational reasons

•	 Thinning and other silvicultural treatments would be 

applied along smaller-order streams (generally, first-, 

second-, and third-order streams) to promote the 

development of mature forests

2 Intermittent streams that are below unstable headwalls (as identified by the timber production capability classification (TPCC) 

codes indicating significant instability (i.e., FGNW, FPNW, and FGR2)) that would periodically deliver large wood to fish-bearing 

streams. Intermittent streams that would not deliver large wood to fish-bearing streams because of geomorphic conditions (such as 

stream junction angle and low stream gradient) or roads would not be included. 

Lakes, Natural Ponds, and Wetlands

Greater than 1/4 acre 

(0 to 25 ft.3

)

•	 Harvesting would not be allowed, except for safety or 

operational reasons

•	 Ground-based harvesting equipment would not be allowed

Greater than 1/4 acre 

(25 to 100 ft.2

)

•	 At least 50% of the existing live tree basal area or 

110 sq. ft. of basal area per acre, whichever is greater, 

would be retained

•	 Retention would favor trees greater than 20 in. dbh

Less than 1/4 acre 

(0-50 ft.2

)

•	 At least 50% of the existing live tree basal area or 

110 sq. ft. of basal area per acre, whichever is greater, 

would be retained 

•	 Retention would favor trees greater than 20 in. dbh

3 Measured from the high waterline or wetland boundary, whichever is greater.

Constructed Ponds, Ditches, and Canals

Stream bank zone 

(0 to 25 ft.)

•	 Harvesting would not be allowed, except for safety or 

operational reasons

•	 Ground-based harvesting equipment would not be 

allowed

Intermittent Non-Fish-Bearing Streams

Stream bank zone 

(0 to 25 ft.)

•	 Ground-based harvesting equipment would not be allowed

•	 12 conifer trees per acre would be retained

•	 Shrubs, forbs, and noncommercial trees would be 

retained, except for safety or operational reasons
81

Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Management Objectives

• Maintain or promote the development of mature or structurally 

complex forests.

• Provide for the riparian and aquatic conditions that supply stream 

channels with shade, sediment filtering, leaf litter and large wood, and 

root masses that stabilize stream banks. 

Management Actions Common to All Zones of the Riparian 

Management Areas

• Snags and coarse woody debris would be retained in thinning 

operations, except for safety or operational reasons.

• Salvage would not occur in stands that are disturbed by a fire, 

windstorm, disease, or insect infestations, except to reduce hazards in 

wildland urban interface areas.

• Timber from thinning and salvage operations would be available 

for sale.

Timber Management Area

Under Alternative 2, the timber management area land use allocation would be 

established to consist of the commercial forest lands that are not included in the 

following land use allocations:

• lands of the National Landscape Conservation System

• late-successional management area

• riparian management area

• administratively withdrawn areas 

• management area adjacent to the Coquille Forest

See Map 4 (Land use allocations under Alternative 2). Also see the map packet 

(Maps 3, 7, and 11) for detailed views of the land use allocations.

Management Objectives

• Manage forests to achieve a high level of continuous timber production 

that could be sustained through a balance of growth and harvest.

• Offer for sale an annual allowable sale quantity.
82

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Management Actions

• Timber would be offered for sale from regeneration harvest units. 

See Table 32 (Timber offered for sale from regeneration harvest 

units) and Map 29 (Sustained yield units).

Table 32. Timber offered for sale from regeneration harvest units

District 10-Year Volume 

(mmbf)

Salem 1,610

Eugene 1,520

Roseburg 990

Coos Bay 1,320

Medford 1,296

Klamath Falls Resource Area 

(Lakeview District) 90

• Timber would be offered for sale from commercial thinning harvest 

units. See Table 33 (Timber offered for sale from commercial 

thinning harvest units).

Table 33. Timber offered for sale from commercial thinning harvest units

District 10-Year Volume 

(mmbf)

Salem 110

Eugene 130

Roseburg 80

Coos Bay 110

Medford 14

Klamath Falls Resource Area 

(Lakeview District) 0

• Annual offering of the allowable sale quantity would potentially 

vary up to 10% from the declared allowable sale quantity to allow 

for variations in yield from different harvest areas and to allow 

for the preparation and sale of logical, operationally feasible, and 

economically viable sale areas. 

• Cumulative total offering of the allowable sale quantity would be 

maintained within 5% over two or more years by adjusting annual 

offerings within the allowed 10% variation.

• Regeneration harvests would be conducted to remove volume and 

replace slower-growing stands with young, rapidly growing stands. 

Generally, regeneration harvests would be scheduled for stands 

to maximize potential growth and yield. Regeneration harvests 

would be applied to younger stands for purposes that include the 

management of age class distribution, the management of diseased 

stands, and the management of overstocked stands with poor vigor 

and low crown ratio. The minimum age of stands that would be 

considered suitable for regeneration harvesting would be 40 years 
83

Chapter 2 – Alternatives

of age in the western hemlock and the tanoak vegetation series and 

60 years of age in Douglas fir and true firs vegetation series.

• Commercial thinning would be applied to recover anticipated 

mortality; to adjust stand composition or dominance; to reduce stand 

susceptibility to disturbances such as a fire, windstorm, disease, or 

insect infestation; and to improve merchantability and value.

• Stand density would be maintained at levels between full occupancy 

and the onset of density-related mortality to the extent practical.

• Stands with a composition of commercially undesirable tree 

species or an inadequate stocking of desirable tree species would be 

converted to stands that are fully stocked by desirable tree species. 

• Trees killed from disturbances, such as a fire, windstorm, disease, or insect 

infestation, would be salvaged to recover volume and economic value within 

the time necessary to avoid loss of value through deterioration.

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern and Research 

Natural Areas (Land Use Allocations)

Under Alternative 2, 93 areas of critical environmental concern and research 

natural areas would be designated. At the end of this chapter, see Map 15 

(Areas of critical environmental concern within the planning area) and Table 41 

(Existing and potential areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs) 

designated by alternative). 

Management Objective

Maintain or restore important and relevant values in areas of critical 

environmental concern, which include research natural areas and 

outstanding natural areas.

Management Action

Maintenance or restoration activities would occur to protect 

important and relevant values.
84

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Management Area Adjacent to the Coquille Forest Land Use 

Allocation

Under Alternative 2, a management area adjacent to the Coquille Forest would 

be established. See Map 16 (BLM management area adjacent to the Coquille 

Forest). 

Management Objective

Coordinate the management of the adjacent BLM-administered lands 

with the Coquille Forest lands. 

Management Actions

The Coquille Tribe’s September 2006 Management Direction 

for Tribal Cooperative Management Areas (TCMAs) document 

provides the management direction for the Coquille Forest. The 

management of the 15,000 acres of BLM-administered lands that 

are adjacent to the Coquille Forest would adopt the management 

directions in this tribal plan for managing the comparable 

resources in this adjacent area. Those management directions are 

incorporated by reference. Since the management in this adjacent 

area would be in a manner that is consistent with the tribal plan, 

the tribal plan would be considered by the BLM to conform to 

the BLM’s resource management plans in its entirety. 

See Map 16 (BLM management area adjacent to the 

Coquille Forest). 

Riparian Management Areas

Note: The following management actions would apply only to the 

BLM-administered lands that are adjacent to the Coquille Forest.
85

Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Table 34. Criteria established for the riparian management areas of 

the lands that are adjacent to the Coquille Forest as part of Alternative 2

Perennial and Intermittent Fish-Bearing Streams

0 to 25 ft. • Avoid harvesting, except for restoration 

purposes

• Require full suspension during cable logging

• Leave any trees damaged or felled during 

logging activities

25 to 50 ft. • Manage for mature forest conditions; maintain a 

minimum of 80% effective stream shade

• Retain no less than 50% canopy cover

• Actively manage, where necessary, to achieve 

desired future conditions in a timely manner

• Allow no harvesting where mature forest 

conditions exist or when mature forest is 

achieved

• Require full suspension during cable logging, 

whenever feasible, or else require one-ended 

suspension

• Limit ground-based equipment, when possible

• Retain all dead and downed material that is 

present prior to an operation

50 to 100 ft. • Retain 10 to 45 conifer trees per acre or per 

35 to 157 sq. ft. of basal area, which is 20 to 90 

trees/1,000 ft.

• Retain all snags if safety allows

• Retain all dead and downed material that is 

present prior to an operation

Perennial Non-Fish-Bearing Streams

0 to 25 ft. • Avoid harvesting, except for restoration 

purposes

• Require full suspension during cable logging

• Leave any trees damaged or felled during 

logging activities

Perennial Non-Fish-Bearing Streams (cont.)

25 to 50 ft. • Manage for mature forest conditions; maintain a 

minimum of 80% effective stream shade

• Retain no less than 50% canopy cover

• Actively manage, where necessary, to achieve 

desired future conditions in a timely manner

• Allow no harvesting where mature forest 

conditions exist or when mature forest is 

achieved

• Require full suspension during cable logging, 

whenever feasible 

• Retain all dead and downed material that is 

present prior to an operation

Intermittent Non-Fish-Bearing Streams

•	 Maintain the integrity of the stream channel

•	 Retain 10 to 15 conifer trees per acre or per 35 to 45 sq. ft. of basal 

area, which is 20 to 30 trees/1,000 ft., where operationally feasible 

•	 Retain all snags if safety allows

•	 Retain all dead and downed material that is present prior to 

the operation
86

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Forest Management

Note: The following management actions would apply only to the 

BLM-administered lands that are adjacent to the Coquille Forest.

• A well-distributed pattern of early and mid-seral stands 

would be maintained. 

• A minimum of 120 linear feet of logs per acre in a 

cutting area (comprised of logs that are at least 16 inches 

in diameter at the large end and at least 16 feet in length) 

would be retained. 

• From 0 to 6 green conifer trees would be retained 

after regeneration harvests to provide a source of 

snag recruitment.

• Stands would be managed under an average rotation age 

of 80 years, but regeneration harvests would be allowed 

in stands as young as 60 years of age to develop the 

desired age class distribution across the landscape and to 

provide for some commodity output.

Soils and Water 

Note: This management action would apply only to the BLMadministered lands that are adjacent to the Coquille Forest.

The best management practices set forth in the plan for the 

tribal cooperative management area would be applied during all 

ground and vegetation disturbing activities.

Federally Listed Species under the Endangered Species Act

Note: The following management actions would apply only to the 

BLM-administered lands that are adjacent to the Coquille Forest.

•	 Field surveys would be conducted, according to 

protocols and other established procedures, unless 

surveys are deemed unnecessary through project 

planning and environmental assessment.

•	 Consideration would be given to modifying, relocating, 

or abandoning proposed actions to avoid contributing 

to the need to list a federal candidate species based on 

consultation with the appropriate regulatory agency.
87

Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Roads

Note: The following management actions would apply only to the 

BLM-administered lands that are adjacent to the Coquille Forest.

•	 New stream-crossing structures would be designed to 

accommodate at least a 100 year flood, including the 

associated bedload and debris.

•	 Fish passage would be provided and maintained at all 

road crossings of existing and potential fish-bearing 

streams.
T 20 S

T 21 S T 20 S

T 21 S

R

9

W

R

8

W

R

8

W

R

7

W

R

7

W

R

6

W

R

6

W

R

5

W

Upper Smith River Watershed

Township 20 South, Range 8 West, Section 23

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

Western Oregon Plan Revisions

 Draft Environmental

 Impact Statement

46% 54% 46% 54%

Forest Excluded from

 Harvest Land Base

Forest Included in

 Harvest Land Base

Forested Lands

Planning Area

Source: Bureau of Land Management Corporate Data revised for 

WOPR Analysis. No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land 

Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of 

these data for individual or aggregate use with other data.

1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Miles

0.25 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 Mile

88

Map 4. Land use allocations under Alternative 2
Portland

Salem

Eugene

Coos Bay

Roseburg

Medford Klamath Falls

5

5

5

84

205

26

97

20

20

30

26

101

101

199

1%

7%

19%

19%

6%

48%

7%

19%

19%

6%

48%

Land Use Allocations

 National Land Conservation

 System

 BLM Management Area

 Adjacent to Coquille

 Tribal Forest Land

 Administratively Withdrawn

 Late-Successional

 Management Area

 Riparian Management Area

 Timber Management Area

BLM Administrative Boundary

State Boundary

Legend: Alternative 2

S

E

N

W

10 0 10 20 30 40 50 Miles

0 1010 20 30 40 50 Kilometers

Albers Equal Area Projection

North American Datum of 1983 Planning Area

OREGON

M06-12-02

89
90

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Alternative 3

This action alternative is described in terms of those land use allocations that vary by 

alternative, which include:

• general landscape area

• riparian management area

• areas of critical environmental concern and research natural areas

• management area adjacent to the Coquille Forest

General Landscape Area

Under Alternative 3, the general landscape area land use allocation would consist 

of all lands other than the:

• lands of the National Landscape Conservation System

• riparian management areas

• administratively withdrawn areas

• lands adjacent to the Coquille Forest 

See Map 5 (Land use allocations under Alternative 3). Also see the map packet 

(Maps 4, 8, and 12) for detailed views of the land use allocations.

Management Objectives

• Provide for the habitat conditions that are required for 

late-successional species.

• Maintain or promote the development of mature or structurally 

complex forests. 

• Achieve continuous timber production that could be sustained through a 

balance of growth and harvest.

• Offer for sale an annual allowable sale quantity.

Management Actions

•	 Annual offering of the allowable sale quantity would potentially 

vary up to 10% from the declared allowable sale quantity to allow 

for variations in yield from different harvest areas and to allow 

for the preparation and sale of logical, operationally feasible, and 

economically viable sale areas. 

•	 Cumulative total offering of the allowable sale quantity would be 

maintained within 5% over two or more years by adjusting annual 

offerings within the allowed 10% variation.
91

Chapter 2 – Alternatives

•	 Regeneration harvests would be applied as shown in Table 35 

(Harvest interval, green tree retention, and snag and coarse woody 

debris (CWD) retention or creation levels per vegetation series for 

regeneration harvests under Alternative 3).

Table 35. Harvest interval, green tree retention, and snag and coarse woody debris (CWD) retention or creation 

levels per vegetation series for regeneration harvests under Alternative 3

Vegetation Series

Harvest 

Interval 

(years)

Green Tree 

Retention

Snag Retention or 

Creation CWD Retention or Creation

Total Component 

Diameters Total Component Diameters Total Component Diameters

Component 

Lengths

Western hemlock 360 6 tpa > 20 in. dbh 4 tpa > 20 in. dbh 240 ft./ac. > 20 in. > 20 ft.

Douglas fir and true firs 2409 tpa > 16 in. dbh 2 tpa > 16 in. dbh 120 ft./ac. > 16 in. > 16 ft.

Tanoak 6 tpa > 20 in. dbh 2 tpa > 20 in. dbh 120 ft./ac. > 20 in. > 20 ft.

dbh (diameter breast height) ft. (linear feet) tpa (trees per acre)

• Regeneration harvests would not be applied in the areas that are 

generally south of Grants Pass in the Medford District and in the 

Klamath Falls Resource Area of the Lakeview District.

• Forest stands would be salvaged after disturbances where 

economically feasible within the time necessary to avoid loss of 

value through deterioration. Salvage would emulate a partial harvest 

or a regeneration harvest depending on the nature and extent of the 

disturbance.

• Regeneration harvests would be applied to stands that are at or 

beyond the harvest interval for regeneration harvesting if 50% or 

more of the acres in an assessment area (defined as a physiographic 

province within a sustained yield unit) are older than the following 

threshold stand ages: 

– 90 years of age in the assessment areas of Salem/Coast 

Range, Salem/West Cascades, Eugene/Coast Range, Eugene/

West Cascades, Coos Bay/Coast Range, Coos Bay/Klamath, 

Roseburg/Coast Range, and Roseburg/West Cascades

– 140 years of age in the assessment areas of Roseburg/

Klamath and Medford/West Cascades (outside of the 

uneven-aged management area)

See Map 17 (Location of assessment areas (physiographic 

provinces within sustained yield units) under Alternative 3). Also 

see the map packet (Maps 4, 8, and 12) for detailed views of the 

land use allocations.

• Partial harvests and commercial thinning would be applied to stands 

that are at or beyond the harvest interval for partial harvesting 

if less than 50% of the acres in an assessment area (defined as a 
92

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

physiographic province within a sustained yield unit) are older than 

the following threshold stand ages: 

– 90 years of age in the assessment areas of Salem/Coast 

Range, Salem/West Cascades, Eugene/Coast Range, Eugene/

West Cascades, Coos Bay/Coast Range, Coos Bay/Klamath, 

Roseburg/Coast Range, and Roseburg/West Cascades

– 140 years of age in the assessment areas of Roseburg/

Klamath and Medford/West Cascades (outside of the 

uneven-aged management area) 

See Map 17 (Location of assessment areas (physiographic 

provinces within sustained yield units) under Alternative 3). Also 

see the map packet (Maps 4, 8, and 12) for detailed views of the 

land use allocations.

• Partial harvests would be applied as shown in Table 36 (Harvest 

interval, green tree retention, and snag and coarse woody debris 

(CWD) retention or creation levels per vegetation series for partial 

harvests under Alternative 3).

Table 36. Harvest interval, green tree retention, and snag and coarse woody debris (CWD) retention or creation 

levels per vegetation series for partial harvests under Alternative 3 

Vegetation Series

Harvest 

Interval 

(years)

Green Tree 

Retention

Snag Retention or 

Creation CWD Retention or Creation

Total Component 

Diameters Total Component Diameters Total Component Diameters

Component 

Lengths

Western hemlock 120 30 tpa > 16 in. dbh 4 tpa > 20 in. dbh 240 ft./ac. > 20 in. > 20 ft.

Douglas fir and true firs 80 20 tpa > 12 in. dbh 2 tpa > 12 in. dbh 120 ft./ac. > 12 in. > 12 ft.

Tanoak 60 20 tpa > 16 in. dbh 2 tpa > 16 in. dbh 120 ft./ac. > 16 in. > 16 ft.

dbh (diameter breast height) ft. (linear feet) tpa (trees per acre)

• The harvest intervals for regeneration harvests and partial harvests in 

Table 35 and Table 36 are approximate schedules for harvesting timber 

stands, not minimum ages of trees to be cut. Individual or clumps of 

trees may be harvested for operational reasons. Harvests may occur at 

stand ages above the described harvest intervals because of the current 

age-class distribution as well as operational and planning constraints. 

Regardless of a stand’s age at the time of harvest, the same stand 

would not be harvested again until after the harvest interval.

• Green tree retention levels would be met from conifer trees. 

• Green tree, snag, and coarse woody debris retention or creation 

levels in Table 35 and Table 36 are averages that would be met at the 

scale of the harvest unit, and levels would be highly variable within 

harvest units.
93

Chapter 2 – Alternatives

• Existing snags and coarse woody debris would be supplemented with 

created snags and coarse woody debris to meet the levels in Table 35

and Table 36. 

• Commercial thinning would be applied, as needed, to a stand of any 

age to maintain the growth and vigor of the stand, and to adjust the 

species composition of the stand.

• Trees killed from disturbances, such as a fire, windstorm, disease, 

or insect infestation, would be salvaged to recover volume and 

economic value within the time necessary to avoid loss of value 

through deterioration. 

• When salvaging after disturbances such as a fire, windstorm, 

disease, or insect infestation that approximate a regeneration harvest 

(i.e., the density of surviving trees that is comparable to the green 

tree retention levels given in Table 35), green trees, snags, and 

coarse woody debris would be retained, if they are available, in the 

quantities shown in Table 35 in this chapter. 

• When salvaging after disturbances such as a fire, windstorm, 

disease, or insect infestation that approximate a partial harvest 

(i.e., the density of surviving trees that is comparable to the green 

tree retention levels given in Table 36), green trees, snags, and 

coarse woody debris would be retained, if they are available, in the 

quantities shown in Table 36 in this chapter. 

• Stands with a composition of commercially undesirable tree 

species or an inadequate stocking of desirable tree species would be 

converted to stands that are fully stocked by desirable tree species. In 

converting hardwood stands to the desired conifer species, green tree, 

snag, and coarse woody debris retention or creation requirements 

for stand-replacement harvests would be applied with the following 

exception: hardwood trees may be substituted for conifer trees for 

green tree, snag, and coarse woody debris retention or creation. 

• Owl activity centers of 215 acres of suitable nesting, roosting, and 

foraging habitat would be retained within 5/8 of a mile of each 

known northern spotted owl center of activity as identified in the 

Northern Spotted Owl Database. If 215 acres of habitat are not 

available within 5/8 of a mile of an owl center of activity, no further 

acres would be retained. This habitat would be retained until 50% or 

more of the acres in an assessment area (defined as a physiographic 

province within a sustained yield unit) are older than the following 

threshold stand ages: 

– 90 years of age in the areas that are generally north of Grants 

Pass, which include the assessment areas of Salem/Coast 

Range, Salem/West Cascades, Eugene/Coast Range, Eugene/
94

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

West Cascades, Coos Bay/Coast Range, Coos Bay/Klamath, 

Roseburg/Coast Range, and Roseburg/West Cascades

– 140 years of age in the areas that are generally south 

of Grants Pass, which include the assessment areas of 

Roseburg/Klamath and Medford/West Cascades (outside of 

the uneven-aged management area) 

For the uneven-aged management areas, 215 acres of 

suitable nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat would be 

retained for 5 decades, which is 50 years.

• Contiguous marbled murrelet habitat and recruitment habitat (stands 

capable of becoming habitat for the marbled murrelet within 25 years) 

would be retained within 0.5 mile of any occupied site. Occupation 

would be determined by the presence of an active nest, a fecal ring, 

eggshell fragments, or birds demonstrating occupying behavior 

(i.e., flying below the forest canopy within or adjacent to a stand). 

This habitat would be retained until 50% or more of the acres in 

an assessment area (defined as a physiographic province within a 

sustained yield unit) are older than the following threshold stand ages:

– 90 years of age in the areas that are generally north of Grants 

Pass, which include the assessment areas of Salem/Coast 

Range, Salem/West Cascades, Eugene/Coast Range, Eugene/

West Cascades, Coos Bay/Coast Range, Coos Bay/Klamath, 

Roseburg/Coast Range, and Roseburg/West Cascades

– 140 years of age in the areas that are generally south 

of Grants Pass, which include the assessment areas of 

Roseburg/Klamath and Medford/West Cascades (outside of 

the uneven-aged management area) 
95

Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Riparian Management Area

Under Alternative 3, the riparian management area land use allocation 

would be established according to Table 37 (Zones and the zone-specific 

management actions of the riparian management area land use allocation 

under Alternative 3). For a representation of those areas, see Map 5 (Land use 

allocations under Alternative 3). Also see the map packet (Maps 4, 8, and 12) for 

detailed views of the land use allocations.

Table 37. Zones and the zone-specific management actions of the riparian 

management area land use allocation under Alternative 3

Zones Zone-Specific Management Actions

Perennial and Intermittent Fish-Bearing Streams and 

Perennial Non-Fish-Bearing Streams

Stream bank zone 

(0 to 25 ft.1

)

•	 Harvesting would not be allowed, except for safety or 

operational reasons

•	 Ground-based harvesting equipment would not be 

allowed

Water influence zone

(25 to 100 ft.)

• Harvesting where mature or structurally complex forest 

stands already exist would not be allowed, except for 

safety or operational reasons

•	 80% effective shade or potential shade from 25 to 60 ft., 

whichever is less, would be maintained 

•	 At least 50% canopy closure from 60 to 100 ft. would be 

maintained after harvests

•	 Snag and coarse woody debris would be retained, except 

for safety or operational reasons

•	 Thinning and other silvicultural treatments would be 

applied along smaller-order streams (generally, first-, 

second-, and third-order streams) to promote the 

development of mature forests

•	 Thinning and other silvicultural treatments would be 

applied along larger-order streams (generally, fourthorder and larger streams) to promote the development of 

structurally complex forests

1 Measured from the edge of the channel migration zone.

Lakes, Natural Ponds, and Wetlands

Greater than 1/4 acre 

(0 to 25 ft.2

)

• Harvesting would not be allowed, except for safety or 

operational reasons

• Ground-based harvesting equipment would not be 

allowed

Greater than 1/4 acre 

(25 to 100 ft.2

)

• At least 50% of the existing live tree basal area or 

110 sq. ft. of basal area per acre, whichever is greater, 

would be retained

• Retention would favor trees greater than 20 in. dbh

Lakes, Natural Ponds, and Wetlands (cont.)

Less than 1/4 acre 

(0-50 ft.2

)

• At least 50% of the existing live tree basal area or 

110 sq. ft. of basal area per acre, whichever is greater, 

would be retained 

• Retention would favor trees greater than 20 in. dbh

2 Measured from the high waterline or wetland boundary, whichever is greater.
96

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Zones Zone-Specific Management Actions

Constructed Ponds, Ditches, and Canals

Stream bank zone 

(0 to 25 ft.)

•	 Harvesting would not be allowed, except for safety or 

operational reasons

•	 Ground-based harvesting equipment would not be 

allowed

Intermittent Non-Fish-Bearing Streams

Stream bank zone 

(0 to 25 ft.)

•	 Harvesting would not be allowed, except for safety or 

operational reasons

•	 Ground-based harvesting equipment would not be 

allowed

Management Objectives

• Maintain or promote the development of mature or structurally 

complex forests. 

• Provide for the riparian and aquatic conditions that supply stream 

channels with shade, sediment filtering, leaf litter and large wood, and 

root masses that stabilize stream banks. 

Management Actions

• Snags and coarse woody debris would be retained in thinning 

operations, except for safety or operational reasons.

• Salvage would not occur in stands that are disturbed by a fire, 

windstorm, disease, or insect infestations, except to reduce hazards in 

wildland urban interface areas.

• Timber from thinning and salvage operations would be available 

for sale.

• Prescribed burns would be used in areas of high fuel loadings to 

reduce the potential for uncharacteristic wildfires.

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern and Research 

Natural Areas (Land Use Allocations)

Under Alternative 3, 82 areas of critical environmental concern and research 

natural areas would be designated. At the end of this chapter, see Map 15 (Areas 

of critical environmental concern within the planning area) and Table 41 (Areas 

of critical environmental concern under the alternatives). 

Management Objective

Maintain or restore important and relevant values in areas of critical 

environmental concern, which include research natural areas and 

outstanding natural areas.
97

Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Management Action

Maintenance or restoration activities would occur to protect 

important and relevant values.

Management Area Adjacent to the Coquille Forest Land Use 

Allocation

Under Alternative 3, a management area adjacent to the Coquille Forest would 

be established. See Map 16 (BLM management area adjacent to the Coquille 

Forest).

Management Objective

Coordinate the management of the adjacent BLM-administered lands 

with the Coquille Forest lands. 

Management Actions

The Coquille Tribe’s September 2006 Management Direction 

for Tribal Cooperative Management Areas (TCMAs) document 

provides the management direction for the Coquille Forest. The 

management of the 15,000 acres of BLM-administered lands that 

are adjacent to the Coquille Forest would adopt the management 

directions in this tribal plan for managing the comparable 

resources in this adjacent area. Those management directions are 

incorporated by reference. Since the management in this adjacent 

area would be in a manner that is consistent with the tribal plan, 

the tribal plan would be considered by the BLM to conform to 

the BLM’s resource management plans in its entirety. 

See Map 16 (BLM management area adjacent to the 

Coquille Forest).

Riparian Management Areas

Note: The following management actions would apply only to the 

BLM-administered lands that are adjacent to the Coquille Forest.
98

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Table 38. Criteria established for the riparian management areas of 

the lands that are adjacent to the Coquille Forest as part of Alternative 3

Perennial and Intermittent Fish-Bearing Streams

0 to 25 ft. • Avoid harvesting, except for 

restoration purposes

• Require full suspension during cable logging

• Leave any trees damaged or felled during 

logging activities

25 to 50 ft. • Manage for mature forest conditions; maintain a 

minimum of 80% effective stream shade

• Retain no less than 50% canopy cover

• Actively manage, where necessary, to achieve 

desired future conditions in a timely manner

• Allow no harvesting where mature forest 

conditions exist or when mature forest is achieved

• Require full suspension during cable logging, 

whenever feasible, or else require oneended suspension

• Limit ground-based equipment, when possible

• Retain all dead and downed material that is 

present prior to an operation

50 to 100 ft. • Retain 10 to 45 conifer trees per acre or per 

35 to 157 sq. ft. of basal area, which is 20 to 90 

trees/1,000 ft.

• Retain all snags if safety allows

• Retain all dead and downed material that is 

present prior to an operation

Perennial Non-Fish-Bearing Streams

0 to 25 ft. •	 Avoid harvesting, except for 

restoration purposes

•	 Require full suspension during cable logging

•	 Leave any trees damaged or felled during 

logging activities

Perennial Non-Fish-Bearing Streams (cont.)

25 to 50 ft. •	 Manage for mature forest conditions; maintain a 

minimum of 80% effective stream shade

•	 Retain no less than 50% canopy cover

•	 Actively manage, where necessary, to achieve 

desired future conditions in a timely manner

•	 Allow no harvesting where mature forest conditions 

exist or when mature forest is achieved

•	 Require full suspension during cable logging, 

whenever feasible 

•	 Retain all dead and downed material that is 

present prior to an operation

Intermittent Non-Fish-Bearing Streams

• Maintain the integrity of the stream channel

• Retain 10 to 15 conifer trees per acre or per 35 to 45 sq. ft. of 

basal area, which is 20 to 30 trees/1,000 ft., where 

operationally feasible 

• Retain all snags if safety allows

• Retain all dead and downed material that is present prior to 

the operation
99

Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Forest Management

Note: The following management actions would apply only to the 

BLM-administered lands that are adjacent to the Coquille Forest.

•	 A well-distributed pattern of early and mid-seral stands 

would be maintained. 

•	 A minimum of 120 linear feet of logs per acre in a 

cutting area (comprised of logs that are at least 16 inches 

in diameter at the large end and at least 16 feet in length) 

would be retained. 

•	 From 0 to 6 green conifer trees would be retained after 

regeneration harvests to provide a source of snag recruitment.

•	 Stands would be managed under an average rotation age 

of 80 years, but regeneration harvests would be allowed 

in stands as young as 60 years of age to develop the 

desired age class distribution across the landscape and to 

provide for some commodity output.

Soils and Water 

Note: This management action would apply only to the BLMadministered lands that are adjacent to the Coquille Forest.

The best management practices set forth in the plan for the 

tribal cooperative management area would be applied during all 

ground- and vegetation-disturbing activities.

Federally Listed Species under the Endangered Species Act

Note: The following management actions would apply only to the 

BLM-administered lands that are adjacent to the Coquille Forest.

• Field surveys would be conducted, according to 

protocols and other established procedures, unless 

surveys are deemed unnecessary through project 

planning and environmental assessment.

• Consideration would be given to modifying, relocating, 

or abandoning proposed actions to avoid contributing 

to the need to list a federal candidate species based on 

consultation with the appropriate regulatory agency.

Roads

Note: The following management actions would apply only to the 

BLM-administered lands that are adjacent to the Coquille Forest.

• New stream-crossing structures would be designed to 

accommodate at least a 100 year flood, including the 

associated bedload and debris.

• Fish passage would be provided and maintained at 

all road crossings of existing and potential fishbearing streams.
100

Map 5. Land use allocations under Alternative 3
101
102

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Subalternatives 

Subalternatives are variations of an alternative that add, remove, or modify certain 

management actions. The analysis of subalternatives allows the BLM to examine 

concepts that were contained in the alternatives. These examinations provide the public 

and the responsible official with information that is useful to more fully understand the 

alternatives and to arrive at subsequent decisions. 

The analysis of the subalternatives is focused and limited to the specific analytical 

question that is associated with a subalternative. This is in contrast to the broader analysis 

that is associated with the No Action Alternative and the three action alternatives. Some 

subalternatives, however, may be incorporated into or used in modifying an action 

alternative in the final environmental impact statement analysis.

The following are the subalternatives examined in this draft environmental impact 

statement.

Alternative Subalternatives 

No Action None

Alternative 1 1. Allow no harvesting of stands that are older than 80 years of age.

2. Allow no harvesting of stands that are older than 200 years of age.

3. Allow no regeneration harvesting until thinning opportunities are 

exhausted.

4. Increase the size of the late-successional management area to 

include all critical habitat of the northern spotted owl.

Alternative 2 Change the rotation to emulate the timber industry’s short rotation.

Alternative 3 Apply the landscape target of 50% in late-successional habitat 

condition to only those areas where the government land ownership 

(federal, state, and local) is half or more of the total ownership. 

Subalternatives Analyzed

Subalternatives for Alternative 1

Allow no harvesting of stands that are older than 80 years of age 

and allow no harvesting of those that are older than 200 years of age 

(two analyses)

Analytical Question: What would be the effect on forest structural 

conditions, habitat, and timber harvest levels if no harvesting was 

permitted in older forests? 
103

Chapter 2 – Alternatives

The analysis of these subalternatives is intended to examine the issue 

of the management of old-growth forests. Some members of the public 

commented through the scoping process that all old-growth forests 

should be reserved from timber harvesting. Because there are varied 

opinions as to what constitutes older forests, these subalternatives 

examine the reservation of forest stands that are older than 80 years of 

age and those that are older than 200 years of age. The analysis of these 

subalternatives is limited to forest ecology, wildlife, and timber.

Allow no regeneration harvesting until thinning opportunities 

are exhausted

Analytical Question: Is thinning sustainable for meeting the annual 

allowable sale quantity? 

The analysis of this subalternative examines how long a thinningonly approach to harvesting could sustain the allowable sale quantity 

of the alternative. The analysis will also examine the effect of such a 

harvesting regime on the value of the timber harvested. The analysis of 

this subalternative is in response to comments received during scoping 

that advocated forest management that would use thinning only with no 

regeneration harvesting. The analysis of this subalternative is limited to 

timber and economics.

Increase the size of the late-successional management area to include 

all critical habitat of the northern spotted owl

Analytical Question: How would increasing the size of late-successional 

management areas to include all northern spotted owl critical habitat affect 

timber harvest levels? 

Although Alternative 1 would create large reserves that incorporate much 

of the critical habitat for the northern spotted owl, there would be some 

critical habitat that would not be included in the reserve system. The 

analysis of this subalternative is limited to timber.

Subalternative for Alternative 2

Change the rotation to emulate the timber industry’s short rotation

Analytical Question: What would be the economic gain of using a short 

rotation and how would such management affect habitat? 

This analysis examines what economic benefits would result from 

increased intensive forest management and how compatible the intensive 

forest management would be with wildlife objectives. The analysis of 

this subalternative is limited to timber, economics, and wildlife.
104

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Subalternative for Alternative 3

Apply the landscape target of 50% in late-successional habitat 

condition to only those areas where the government land ownership 

(federal, state, and local) is half or more of the total ownership

Analytical Question: How would applying the landscape target to only 

areas of high government ownership affect harvest levels and habitat? 

The analysis of this subalternative examines the sensitivity of timber 

harvest level and habitat outcomes to the varying of the landscape 

target. The analysis is intended to provide insight into the ability to 

achieve habitat objectives by varying management action in areas of 

high government ownership and low government ownership. This 

analysis has particular relevance to the uneven checkerboard pattern of 

the O&C lands. The analysis of this subalternative is limited to timber 

and wildlife. 

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from 

Detailed Study

An environmental impact statement must rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all 

reasonable alternatives. The range of alternatives is limited by the requirement to fulfill 

the purpose and need, which is the reason or reasons for the agencies to be proposing 

action. See Chapter 1 for the purpose and need.

When an alternative is eliminated from detailed study, it is because it was found to be 

unreasonable in some way. An alternative may be found to be unreasonable when it:

1. Does not meet the purpose and need.

2. Is substantially similar to an alternative being considered in detail or it would have 

substantially similar effects to an alternative being considered in detail. 

3. Would not be feasible or practical to implement. 

4. Would be exorbitant to implement. 

5. Cannot be analyzed for its effects because of its implementation being remote or 

speculative. 

Eliminated Alternatives

These alternatives, which were considered but eliminated from detailed study, 

were the result of proposals received from the public through the scoping 

process or proposed by agency staff during the process of formulating reasonable 

alternatives that would met the purpose and need.
105

Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Vary Management Based on High versus Low Government Ownership 

This alternative would vary management objectives at the landscape 

level and vary management actions based on the checkerboard ownership 

pattern of the BLM lands. 

Landscape-level areas with greater than 50% state and federal ownership 

would be managed primarily to develop habitat for late-successional 

forest-related species. These areas would provide the opportunity for 

creating large blocks of contiguous habitat in the future. 

Where the combined state and federal ownership is below 50%, the 

BLM’s lands would be managed for early and mid-successional forests 

with structural legacies. A majority of the commercial timber harvesting 

activities would occur in these areas. 

This alternative was eliminated from detailed study because it is 

a variation of Alternative 3, which sets landscape objectives for 

the development of late-successional forests. A subalternative of 

Alternative 3 varies these landscape targets in areas relative to a high 

or low government ownership pattern. Analysis of this subalternative 

is intended to provide information regarding the ability of the BLM 

to achieve management objectives given the checkerboard ownership 

pattern of the BLM lands.

Use Historic Variability, Retention of All Mature and Old-Growth Stands, and 

Small Tree Harvesting

This alternative would manage within the historic range of variability, 

would protect mature and old-growth stands, and would harvest only 

small-diameter trees. It would focus on restoration, fuels reduction, and 

maintenance of the protections of the Northwest Forest Plan.

This alternative was eliminated from detailed study because it would not 

meet the purpose and need, which states that the resource management 

plan revisions must meet all applicable laws. One of the applicable 

laws is the O&C Act. The O&C Act requires that the O&C lands that 

are classified as timberlands are to be managed for permanent forest 

production following the principles of sustained yield, which includes the 

selling, cutting, and removing of timber. 

However, the alternatives that were analyzed in detail contain the 

essential elements of this alternative. Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 all provide 

for restoration, the reduction of fuels, and the protection or development 

of mature or structurally complex forests. Therefore, a redundant detailed 

analysis is unnecessary.
106

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Protect All Forests That Are Over 80 Years of Age

This alternative would protect all forests that are over 80 years of 

age and prohibit logging and the building of new roads in all large 

unroaded areas. In stands that are less than 80 years of age, active 

restoration would occur, including thinning, road removal, replacing 

culverts to improve fish passage, trail maintenance, prescribed burns, 

and riparian restoration.

This alternative was eliminated from detailed study because it would not 

meet the purpose and need, which states that the resource management 

plan revisions must meet all applicable laws. One of the laws is the 

O&C Act. This alternative would exclude timber harvesting on large 

acreages of O&C lands and would eventually exclude all harvesting on 

all O&C lands, once their forests reached the age of 80 years. Therefore, 

this alternative would not meet the O&C Act’s requirement to manage 

the O&C lands that are classified as timberlands for permanent forest 

production following the principles of sustained yield, which includes the 

selling, cutting, and removing of timber. Also note that no law exists that 

requires the protection of forests that are over the age of 80 years.

However, a subalternative of Alternative 1 analyzed the effects of not 

allowing the regeneration harvesting of older stands until the appropriate 

thinning of all available younger stands has been accomplished. 

Additionally, two analyses were completed to evaluate the impacts of the 

reservation of older stands (i.e., those that are at ages greater than 80 and 

those that are at ages greater than 200 years). Since these subalternatives 

are substantially similar to this alternative, a redundant detailed analysis 

is unnecessary.

Two-Phased Management Approach

This alternative would focus on the recovery and restoration of habitat 

for threatened and endangered species. After species recover and are 

delisted, this alternative would then focus on harvesting.

This alternative was eliminated from detailed study because it 

would not meet the purpose and need, which states that the resource 

management plan revisions must meet all applicable laws. Two of the 

applicable laws are the O&C Act and the Endangered Species Act. 

The Endangered Species Act does not specifically require that timber 

harvesting be delayed in the entire classification of older stands in 

order to allow for the recovery of any one or combination of species. 

Additionally, it is unknown how long delisting or recovery would take, 

or even if it would occur for some species. This alternative would 

indefinitely postpone timber harvesting. Therefore, this alternative 

would not meet the O&C Act’s requirement to manage the O&C lands 
107

Chapter 2 – Alternatives

that are classified as timberlands for permanent forest production 

following the principles of sustained yield, which includes the selling, 

cutting, and removing of timber.

However, a subalternative of Alternative 1 analyzed the effects of not 

allowing the regeneration harvesting of older stands until the appropriate 

thinning of all available younger stands has been accomplished. Since 

this subalternative is substantially similar to this alternative, a redundant 

detailed analysis is unnecessary.

Harvest Only Naturally Selected Dead and Dying Trees

This alternative would remove only “naturally selected dead and dying 

trees, conditioned upon meeting the needs of other species.” Timber 

harvesting of such trees would be accomplished with small equipment 

from a network of narrow roads. 

This alternative was eliminated from detailed study because it would not 

meet the purpose and need, which states that the resource management 

plan revisions must meet all applicable laws. One of the applicable 

laws is the O&C Act. The O&C Act requires that the O&C lands that 

are classified as timberlands are to be managed for permanent forest 

production following the principles of sustained yield, which includes 

determining and declaring the annual productive capacity of such lands 

with the timber from those lands (not less than the annual sustained yield 

capacity) being sold annually. 

Also, while this management approach may be practical for managing a 

small woodlot on relatively flat terrain, such an approach is impractical 

for managing a landscape of the size and ruggedness that is managed 

by the BLM in western Oregon. The level of roaded access and survey 

efforts that would be necessary to identify and harvest the trees that die 

on BLM lands in western Oregon every year would be prohibitively 

expensive both in financial and environmental terms.

No Old-Growth Harvesting

This alternative would reserve all old-growth stands and focus harvesting 

on small-diameter trees. 

This alternative was eliminated from detailed study because it would not 

meet the purpose and need, which states that the resource management 

plan revisions must meet all applicable laws. One of the applicable laws 

is the O&C Act. In a 1990 opinion by the United States Court of Appeals 

for the Ninth Circuit (Headwaters, Inc. v. BLM), the court ruled that the 

O&C Act was a dominant use act.
108

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

“Nowhere does the legislative history suggest that 

wildlife habitat conservation or conservation of old 

growth is a goal on a par with timber production, or 

indeed that it is a goal of the O&C Act at all.” 

Precluding the harvesting of timber from old-growth stands that are not 

needed to comply with some other law, such as the Endangered Species 

Act, would violate the O&C Act’s requirement to manage the O&C 

lands that are classified as timberlands for permanent forest production 

following the principles of sustained yield, which includes the selling, 

cutting, and removing of timber.

However, a subalternative of Alternative 1 analyzed the effects of not 

allowing the regeneration harvesting of older stands until the appropriate 

thinning of all available younger stands has been accomplished. 

Additionally, two analyses were completed to evaluate the impacts 

of the reservation of older stands by using two variations of what is 

considered an older stand (i.e., 80 years per the Northwest Forest Plan 

for late-successional/old-growth stands and 200 years per the BLM for 

old-growth stands). Since these subalternatives are substantially similar 

to this alternative, a redundant detailed analysis is unnecessary.

No Logging 

This alternative would prohibit all timber harvesting and allow only 

custodial management of the federal forests. 

This alternative was eliminated from detailed study because it would not 

meet the purpose and need, which states that the resource management 

plan revisions must meet all applicable laws. One of the applicable 

laws is the O&C Act. The O&C Act requires that the O&C lands that 

are classified as timberlands are to be managed for permanent forest 

production following the principles of sustained yield, which includes the 

selling, cutting, and removing of timber. 

However, a reference analysis analyzed the effects of not harvesting. 

Since this reference analysis is substantially similar to this alternative, a 

redundant detailed analysis is unnecessary.
109

Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Transfer Forested BLM Lands to the USDA Forest Service

This proposal would transfer all BLM lands in the area of the Northwest 

Forest Plan to the U.S. Forest Service. 

This alternative would not be feasible or practical to implement because 

the BLM does not have the authority to transfer the management of its 

lands. The transfer of lands from one agency of one federal department to 

another requires congressional action; in this case, from the BLM under 

the United States Department of the Interior to the U.S. Forest Service 

under the Department of Agriculture. 

This alternative is also beyond the scope of the resource management 

plan revisions because it would not address any of the elements of the 

purpose and need that are given in Chapter 1. 

Repeal or Change the O&C Act

This alternative would repeal the O&C Act or change it to a multiple-use 

act from a timber dominant-use act.

This alternative would not be feasible for the BLM to implement because 

only Congress can repeal or amend laws.

This alternative is also beyond the scope of the resource management 

plan revisions because it would not address any of the elements of the 

purpose and need that are given in Chapter 1.
110

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Comparison of the Alternatives

Table 39 provides a comparison of the key features of the alternatives, focusing on 

features that vary among the action alternatives. Table 40 provides a comparison of 

the key impacts of the alternatives. For the explicit details, refer to the management 

objectives and management actions that are listed for each alternative.

Table 39. Comparison of the key features of the four alternatives

Features No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Late-Successional 

Vegetation

• Maintains the Northwest 

Forest Plan’s latesuccessional reserve 

(LSR)

• Allows no treatment of 

stands that are older 

than 80 years 

• Establishes a 

late-successional 

management area 

(LSMA)

• Treats LSMA to promote 

the development of 

structurally complex 

forests

• Establishes a 

late-successional 

management area 

(LSMA) 

• Treats LSMA to promote 

the development of 

suitable habitat

Establishes a landscape target 

for regeneration harvesting 

that requires 50% or more of 

the acres in an assessment 

area (physiographic province 

within a sustained yield unit) 

be of the required age for 

harvesting.

Critical Habitat 

Units (CHUs) 

for the Northern 

Spotted Owl 

and the Marbled 

Murrelet

• CHUs for the marbled 

murrelet completely 

match with the LSR

• CHUs for the northern 

spotted owl partially 

match the LSR

• CHUs for the marbled 

murrelet completely 

match with the LSMA

• CHUs for the northern 

spotted owl partially 

match the LSMA

• CHUs for the marbled 

murrelet partially match 

with the LSMA

• CHUs for the northern 

spotted owl partially 

match the LSMA

No special management

Northern Spotted 

Owl Activity 

Centers 

Retains the owl activity 

centers that were known as 

of January 1994

Retains no owl activity 

centers in the timber 

management area (TMA) 

Retains no owl activity 

centers in the timber 

management area (TMA) 

• Retains 215 acre owl 

activity centers in the 

general landscape area

• Manages the owl activity 

centers until the landscape 

target is reached 

Marbled Murrelet 

Sites

Retains sites Retains sites Retains known sites as of 

10/2005

Retains sites until the 

landscape target is reached

Rotation Age for 

Regeneration 

Harvesting

Approximately 80 to 100 

years

Approximately 80 to 100 

years

Approximately 80 to 100 

years

360 years in the Western 

hemlock and Douglas fir 

zones and 240 years in the 

Tanoak zone

Green Tree 

Retention

• North of Grants Pass: 

6 to 8 trees per acre 

• South of Grants Pass: 

18 to 25 trees per acre 

• In connectivity diversity 

blocks: 

12 to 18 trees per acre 

None None 6 to 9 trees per acre 

depending on vegetation 

series

Snag Retention

1.1 snags per acre • In the LSMA: 

2 to 6 snags per acre 

depending on vegetation 

series

• In the TMA: 

Noncommercial only

• In the LSMA: 

2 to 6 snags per acre 

depending on vegetation 

series

• In the TMA: 

Noncommercial only

2 to 4 snags per acre 

depending on vegetation 

series 

Down Wood

(ft./ac. = linear feet per acre)

120 to 240 ft./ac. • In the LSMA:

• 120 to 240 ft./

ac. for stands with 

QMD > 14 in. 

• 60 to 120 ft./ac. 

for stands with 

QMD ≤ 14 in. 

• In the TMA:

Noncommercial only

• In the LSMA:

• 40 to 240 ft./ac. 

for stands with 

QMD > 14 in.

• 20 to 120 ft./ac. 

for stands with 

QMD ≤ 14 in.

• In the TMA:

Noncommercial only

• In the Western hemlock 

zone: 

240 ft./ac.

• In the Douglas fir/true fire 

and Tanoak zones: 

120 ft./ac.
111

Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Features No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Salvaging

• Allows salvaging in the 

LSR reserves when a 

disturbance is greater 

then 10 acres 

• Allows salvaging in 

the matrix land use 

allocations for economic 

purposes

• Allows no salvaging in 

the LSMA, except to 

reduce hazards in the 

wildland urban interface 

areas 

• Allows salvaging in the 

wildland urban interface 

areas to reduce hazards

• Allows salvaging in 

the TMA for economic 

purposes

• Allows salvaging in the 

LSMA for economic 

purposes with retention 

of legacy

• Allows salvaging in the 

wildland urban interface 

areas to reduce hazards

• Allows salvaging in 

the TMA for economic 

purposes

Allows salvaging for 

economic purposes with 

retention of legacy 

Zones for Riparian 

Management 

Areas

For all fish-bearing streams:

2 site potential tree ht.

For all non-fish-bearing 

streams: 

1 site potential tree ht. 

For all but intermittent 

non‐fish-bearing streams:

1 site potential tree ht.

For intermittent non‐fishbearing streams:

1/2 site potential tree ht. 

For all but intermittent 

non‐fish-bearing streams:

• 0 to 25 ft. no harvest

• 25 to 60 ft. 80% shade 

retention 

• 60 to 100 ft. 50% canopy 

retention 

For non-debris-flow prone 

intermittent non-fish-bearing 

streams:

0 to 25 ft. noncommercial 

vegetation + 12 tpa

For debris-flow prone 

intermittent streams:

• 0 to 25 ft. no harvest

• 25 to 100 ft. managing 

for mature or structurally 

complex forests

For all but intermittent 

non‐fish-bearing streams:

• 0 to 25 ft. no harvest

• 25 to 60 ft. 80% shade 

retention 

• 60 to 100 ft. 50% canopy 

retention 

For all intermittent non-fishbearing streams:

0 to 25 ft. no harvest

Timber 

Management 

of Riparian 

Management 

Areas

Manages timber to meet 

Aquatic Conservation 

Strategy objectives 

Manages timber to promote 

the development of mature 

or structurally complex 

forests

Manages timber to promote 

the development of mature 

or structurally complex 

forests

Manages timber to promote 

the development of mature or 

structurally complex forests

Restoration 

Priority Key watersheds

Streams with a high intrinsic 

potential and high-priority 

populations (per recovery 

plans)

Streams with a high intrinsic 

potential and high-priority 

populations (per recovery 

plans)

Streams with a high intrinsic 

potential and high-priority 

populations (per recovery 

plans)

Fire and Fuels

• Suppresses all wildfires 

• Applies treatments to 

reduce fuel hazards

• Suppresses all wildfires 

• Applies treatments to 

reduce fuel hazards

• Suppresses all wildfires 

• Applies treatments to 

reduce fuel hazards

• Suppresses all wildfires

• Applies treatments to 

reduce fuel hazards 

• South of Grants Pass:

applies prescription 

of partial harvest with 

no final regeneration 

harvesting

Areas of Critical 

Environmental 

Concern

94 92 93 82

Subalternatives

None 1. Allows no harvesting 

of stands older than 

80 years 

2. Allows no harvesting 

of stands older than 

200 years of age

3. Allows no regeneration 

harvesting until thinning 

opportunities are 

exhausted

4. Adds all critical habitat of 

the northern spotted owl 

to the LSMA

Changes the rotation to 

emulate the timber industry’s 

practices short rotation

Applies the landscape target 

of 50% to only those areas 

where government land 

ownership (federal, state, and 

local) is half or more of the 

total ownership 

LSMA = late-successional management area LSR = late-successional reserve QMD = quadratic mean diameter TMA = timber management area
112

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Table 40. Comparison of the key impacts of the four alternatives

Resource No Action 

Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Socioeconomics

Change in Cumulative Jobs 

(from 8,948 current) -3,770 -516 3,442 -1,275

Annual County Payment ($ million) 42 69 108 52

(percentage of 2005 payment) (%) 37 60 94 45

BLM Annual Budget ($ million) 180 209 246 199

(increase from 2006 Budget) (%) 17 37 60 29

Present Net Value of Timber 

(in 50 years) ($ million) 108 343 962 46

Timber

Annual Sale Quantity (ASQ) (mmbf) 268 456 727 471

Annual Non ASQ Volume (mmbf) 87 81 40 2

10 Year Revenues ($ billion) 0.84 1.37 2.16 1.03

Special Forest Products

Availability Abundant relative to demand

Invasive Plants

Risk of Introduction or Spread

Lowest risk for 

introduction and 

spread

Highest risk for 

introduction

Highest risk for 

spread

Special Status Species

Botany - Risk of local extirpation of 

conifer associates Low Moderate

Botany – Risk of extinction Low

Wildlife - Risk of local extirpation 

for forest floor highly endemic Low Slight Increase Slight Increase Slight Increase

Wildlife - Risk of local extirpation 

for (riparian associate) Low Low Slight increase Slight increase

Wildlife – Risk of extinction Low

Wildlife

MAMU Habitat 

Creation 

(Coast Range and 

Klamath Provinces)

100 years Increases 

50 years Increase Decrease

NSO Suitable Habitat Creation 

(>50yrs) Creates large blocks No large blocks

Suitable Habitat Outside Blocks 

(<50 Yrs) Increases Maintains Decreases N/A

NSO Dispersal Habitat Quantity Maintains high percentage

NSO Dispersal Habitat Quality Increases Increases Maintains Increases
113

Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Resource No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Fish

Large Wood Contribution Increases to near maximum in long term Slightly less, but increases to near 

maximum in long term

Potential Fish Productivity 

(steelhead, chinook, coho) < 3% change across alternatives

Water

Peak Flows Four sixth-field watersheds susceptible (out of 1,106)

Temperature Maintains or improves shade Maintains or improves shade 

(except Coquille)

Fine Sediment Increases < 1,000 tons/year (358,000 tons/year current)

Fire and Fuels

Hazard and Severity 

(All except Klamath Falls RA Reduces hazard and severity

Hazard and Severity 

(Klamath Falls RA) Decreases Increases Decreases

Resiliency (Medford District 

and Klamath Falls RA) Increases resiliency Reduces 

resiliency

Reduces 

resiliency

Increases 

resiliency

Air

Quality Air quality, Class 1 visibility areas, and air quality maintenance areas protected

Recreation

Demand and Experiences Meets recreational demand and improves quality of visitor experiences

Wilderness Characteristics

Maintained (%) 63 60 52 53

Visual Resource Management

Class II Maintained (%) 73 64 55 46

Class III Maintained (%) 69 57 43 39

Soils

Residual Soil Disturbance in 

2016 (acres) 8,400 10,700 10,800 15,300

Soil Productivity Maintains

Grazing

Authorizations (acres) 560,000

418,500 

(Reduction: Medford/Klamath Falls = inactive permits/

leases; Coos Bay = 16 acres active leases)

Forage Production in 2106 

(in AUMs) 28,950 19,673 19,867 22,805

Wild Horses

Herd Management Level Maintained (and forage increases)

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

Relevant and Important 

Values Maintained 211 (all) 153 159 137

Cultural

Number Damaged ≤ 2% of the number of sites damaged per decade

Energy and Minerals

Availability and Quantity Maintains similar levels of availability and quantity of energy and mineral resources
114

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Tables for Areas of Critical Environmental 

Concern

The tables in this section provide the number and names of areas of critical environmental 

concern that would be designated under the alternatives. See Map 15 (Areas of critical 

environmental concern within the planning area) at the end of this chapter. For additional 

details about the areas of critical environmental concern, see Appendix M. Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern and Research Natural Areas. 

Table 41. Existing and potential areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs) designated by alternative

Designated No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Number of ACECs 94 92 93 82

Table 42. Areas of critical environmental concern under the alternatives

No. on 

Map ACEC Name Status

Total 

Area 

(acres)

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Salem District

1 Beaver Creek Potential 44 no no no

2

Crabtree Complex 

RNA/ONA Existing 1,231 yes yes_without_OC yes_without_OC

3 Elk Creek Existing 784 no yes no

4 Forest Peak RNA Existing 155 yes yes yes

5 Grass Mountain RNA Existing 930 yes yes yes

6

High Peak - Moon 

Creek RNA Existing 1,490 yes yes yes

7 Jackson Bend Existing 15 yes_without_OC yes_without_OC yes_without_OC

8 Little Grass Mountain Existing 80

9

Little North Fork 

Wilson River Potential 1,822 yes yes_without_OC yes

10 Little Sink Existing 81 yes yes yes

11 Lost Prairie Existing 61 yes yes yes

12

Lower Scappoose 

Eagle Potential 179 yes_without_OC no no

13 Marys Peak ONA Existing 353 yes yes no

14 Marys Peak B Potential 75 yes yes yes

15 McCully Mountain Potential 101 no no no

16

Middle Santiam 

Terrace Existing 182 yes yes yes

17 Mill Creek Ridge Potential 114 yes yes no

18 Molalla Meadows Potential 205 yes_without_OC yes_without_OC yes_without_OC

19 Nestucca River Existing 1,163 no yes no

20 North Santiam Existing 15 no no no
115

Chapter 2 – Alternatives

No. on 

Map ACEC Name Status

Total 

Area 

(acres)

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

21 Rickreall Ridge Existing 368 yes yes yes_without_OC

22

Saddleback Mountain 

RNA Existing 300 yes yes yes

23

Sandy River Gorge 

ONA Existing 9,780 yes_without_OC yes_without_OC yes_without_OC

24 Sheridan Peak Existing 310

25 Silt Creek Potential 140 yes_without_OC yes_without_OC yes_without_OC

26 Snow Peak Potential 1,667 no no no

27 Soosap Meadows Existing 343 yes no no

28 The Butte RNA Existing 39 yes yes yes

29

Valley of the Giants 

ONA Existing 1,311 yes yes no

30 Walker Flat Existing 11 yes_without_OC yes_without_OC yes_without_OC

31 Waterloo Potential 9 yes yes yes

32 Wells Island Potential 73 no no no

33 White Rock Fen Existing 55 yes no no

34 Wilhoit Springs Existing 133 no no no

35 Williams Lake Existing 90 no no no

36 Yampo Existing 13 yes yes yes

37 Yaquina Head ONA Existing 91 yes yes yes

Eugene District

38 Camas Swale RNA Existing 308 yes yes yes

39 Coburg Hills RFI Existing 855 no no no

40

Cottage Grove Lake 

RFI Existing 15 no yes no

41

Cottage Grove Old 

Growth Existing 80

42

Cougar Mountain Yew 

Grove Existing 90 no no no

43 Dorena Lake RFI Existing 18 no no no

44 Dorena Prairie Potential 8 yes yes yes

45 Esmond Lake Potential 86 no yes_without_OC yes_without_OC

46 Fox Hollow RNA Existing 159 yes yes yes

47 Grassy Mountain Existing 74 yes_without_OC yes_without_OC yes_without_OC

48

Heceta Sand Dunes 

ONA Existing 210 yes yes yes
116

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

No. on 

Map ACEC Name Status

Total 

Area 

(acres)

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

49

Horse Rock Ridge 

RNA Existing 378 yes yes yes

50 Hult Marsh Existing 177 yes_without_OC yes_without_OC yes_without_OC

51 Lake Creek Falls Existing 54

52

Lorane Ponderosa 

Pine Potential 104 yes_without_OC yes_without_OC yes_without_OC

53

Low Elevation 

Headwaters of the 

McKenzie River Potential 9,765 no no no

54 McGowan Meadow Potential 75 yes_without_OC yes_without_OC yes_without_OC

55 Mohawk RNA Existing 290 yes yes yes

56 Oak Basin Prairies Potential 223 yes_without_OC yes_without_OC yes_without_OC

57 Taylor Creek Potential 155 no no no

58

Upper Elk Meadows 

RNA Existing 217 yes yes yes

59

Willamette Valley 

Prairie/Oak and Pine 

Area Potential 1,486 yes_without_OC yes_without_OC yes_without_OC

Roseburg District

60 Bear Gulch RNA Existing 351 yes yes yes

61 Beatty Creek RNA Existing 864 yes yes yes

62

Bushnell-Irwin Rocks 

RNA Existing 1,085 yes yes yes

63 Callahan Meadows Potential 34 yes yes yes

64 China Ditch Potential 60 no no no

65 Myrtle Island RNA Existing 19 yes yes yes

66 North Bank Existing 6,162 yes yes yes

67

North Myrtle Creek 

RNA Existing 453 yes yes yes

68 North Umpqua River Existing 1,791

69 Red Pond RNA Existing 141 yes yes yes

70 Stouts Creek Potential 64 no no no

71 Tater Hill RNA Existing 303 yes yes yes

72

Umpqua River Wildlife 

Area Existing 855 no no no

Coos Bay District

73 Brownson Ridge Potential 399 no no no

74 Cherry Creek RNA Existing 592 yes yes yes

75 China Wall Existing 302 yes yes yes_without_OC

76 Euphoria Ridge Potential 241 no no no

77 Hunter Creek Bog Existing 721 yes yes yes

78 New River Existing 876 yes yes yes

79 North Fork Chetco Existing 603 yes yes yes
117

Chapter 2 – Alternatives

No. on 

Map ACEC Name Status

Total 

Area 

(acres)

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

80

North Fork Coquille 

River Existing 311 yes yes_without_OC no

81

North Fork Hunter 

Creek Existing 1,757 yes yes yes

82 North Spit Existing 682 yes yes yes

83 Rocky Peak Potential 1,827 yes yes yes

84 Roman Nose Potential 205 yes yes yes_without_OC

85 Steel Creek Potential 1,381 yes_without_OC yes_without_OC no

86 Tioga Creek Existing 42 yes yes no

87 Upper Rock Creek Existing 472 yes no no

88 Wassen Creek Existing 3,394 yes no no

Medford District

89 Baker Cypress Existing 11 no no no

90 Bobby Creek RNA Existing 1,915 yes yes yes

91 Brewer Spruce RNA Existing 1,707 yes yes yes

92 Cobleigh Road Potential 261 yes_without_OC yes_without_OC yes_without_OC

93 Crooks Creek Existing 147 no yes no

94 Dakubetede Wildland Potential 1,796 yes_without_OC yes_without_OC yes_without_OC

95

East Fork Whiskey 

Creek Potential 3,188 no yes no

96 Eight Dollar Mountain Existing 1,249 yes yes yes

97 French Flat Existing 651 yes_without_OC yes_without_OC yes_without_OC

98 Grayback Glades RNA Existing 1,022 yes yes yes

99 Hole-In-The-Rock Existing 63 no no no

100 Holton Creek RNA Existing 421 yes yes yes

101 Hoxie Creek Existing 255 no no no

102 Iron Creek Existing 286

103 Jenny Creek Existing 966

104

King Mountain Rock 

Garden Existing 68 yes_without_OC yes_without_OC yes_without_OC

105 Long Gulch Potential 1,020 no no no

106 Lost Lake RNA Existing 387 yes yes yes

107 Moon Prairie Existing 92 no no no

108

North Fork Silver Creek 

RNA Existing 499 yes yes yes

109 Oregon Gulch RNA Existing 1,051 yes yes yes

110 Pickett Creek Potential 32 yes yes yes

111 Pilot Rock Existing 544

112 Pipe Fork RNA Existing 516 yes yes yes

113 Poverty Flat Existing 29 yes yes yes
118

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

No. on 

Map ACEC Name Status

Total 

Area 

(acres)

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

114 Reeves Creek Potential 117 no no no

115 Rough and Ready Existing 1,189 yes_without_OC yes_without_OC yes_without_OC

116 Round Top Butte RNA Existing 605 yes yes yes

117 Scotch Creek RNA Existing 1,799 yes yes yes

118 Sterling Mine Ditch Existing 143 no no no

119 Table Rocks ONA Existing 1,244 yes yes yes

120 Tin Cup Existing 83 no no no

121 Waldo-Takilma Potential 1,760 yes yes yes

122 Woodcock Bog RNA Existing 265 yes yes yes

Klamath Falls Resource Area of the Lakeview District

123 Bumpheads Potential 112 yes yes yes

124 Four Mile Wetland Potential 1,173 yes yes yes

125 Miller Creek Existing 939 yes yes yes

126 Old Baldy RNA Existing 355 yes yes yes

127 Tunnel Creek Potential 72 yes_without_OC yes_without_OC yes_without_OC

128 Upper Klamath River Existing 5,092 yes_without_OC yes_without_OC yes_without_OC

129

Upper Klamath River 

Addition Potential 910 yes_without_OC yes_without_OC yes_without_OC

130 Wood River Wetland Existing 3,225 yes yes yes

131 Yainax Butte Existing 707 yes yes yes

Note:

• yes_without_OC means that an area would be designated without including the O&C timber harvest base acres.

• The grayed ACECs are those that were not analyzed further for designation under the action alternatives because they did not meet the relevance and 

importance criteria or did not need special management attention. The management direction for these areas would be the management direction in the 

current resource management plans, and would only be applied under the No Action Alternative.
119

Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Tables for District-Specific Recreation 

Management Actions

The tables in this section correspond with individual recreation management actions that were 

presented earlier in this chapter and are organized in this section as follows:

• Recreation

– Special recreation management areas

– Extensive recreation management areas

– Recreation sites

– Recreation trails

– Potential recreation sites

– Potential recreation trails

– Backcountry byways

– Potential backcountry byways

– Environmental education areas

– Recreation and public purpose leases

– Off-highway vehicle area designations

– Areas closed to off-highway vehicle use

– Off-highway vehicle emphasis areas

– Potential off-highway vehicle emphasis areas

– Oregon State scenic waterways

• National Landscape Conservation System designated lands

– Wild and scenic rivers

– Wilderness areas

– Wilderness study areas and wilderness instant study areas

– Miscellaneous National Landscape Conservation System designated lands

The information in these tables is presented in the order of Salem, Eugene, Roseburg, Coos Bay, 

Medford (the five western Oregon BLM districts), and Klamath Falls (one of the resource areas 

of the Lakeview District). See Maps 10, 11, and 19 through 26 at the end of this chapter for the 

location of district-specific recreation areas, sites, and trails.

Note: Some of the names in some of the tables have numbers to their left. These numbers correspond to 

numbers that are on specified maps that locate the named designations. Only those designations that are 

common to all of the action alternatives are included on the maps.
120

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Recreation

Special Recreation Management Areas 

For the planning frameworks of those special recreation management 

areas that would be carried forward under all of the action alternatives, see 

Appendix J. Recreation.

Table 43. District-specific special recreation management areas

Special Recreation 

Management Areas

No Action Alternative 

(acres)

All Action Alternatives 

(acres)

Salem District

1 Alsea Falls N/A 13,270

2 Fishermen’s Bend 177 178

3 Little North Santiam River 3,282 3,282

Marys Peak (potential) N/A --

Mill Creek (potential) N/A --

4 Molalla River/Table Rock 11,875 11,875

Mt. Hood Corridor 2,681 --

5 Nestucca River 1,074 1,074

North Fork Siletz (potential) N/A --

Sandy River 756 --

6 Sandy River/Mt. Hood Corridor N/A 11,568

7 Yaquina Head 100 100

8 Yellowstone 38,257 38,261

Subtotals 57,445 79,608

Eugene District

Gilkey Creek (potential) N/A --

9 Lower Lake Creek 1,873 1,873

10 McKenzie River 1,525 1,226

11 Row River Trail 15,115 171

12 Shotgun Creek 278 413

Siuslaw River (potential) N/A --

13 Upper Lake Creek 12,675 12,676

Subtotals 31,446 16,359

Roseburg District

14 Cow Creek 1,809 1,809

15 North Umpqua 1,903 8,512

16 Umpqua 2,240 457

Subtotals 5,952 10,778
121

Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Special Recreation 

Management Areas

No Action Alternative 

(acres)

All Action Alternatives 

(acres)

Coos Bay District

17 Coos Bay Shorelands 1,754 1,754

18 Dean Creek Elk Viewing Area 1,136 1,136

Gregory Point (potential) N/A --

19 Loon Lake 126 126

20 New River 1,133 1,133

21 Sixes River 161 161

22 Tioga N/A 34,013

Subtotals 4,310 38,324

Medford District

Galesville Lake (potential) N/A --

23 Hyatt Lake/Howard Prairie Lake 17,765 17,765

Lost Creek Lake (potential) N/A --

24 Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail 7,088 7,088

25 Rogue National Wild and Scenic River 11,510 11,510

Subtotals 36,362 36,362

Klamath Falls Resource Area

26 Gerber N/A 104,421

27 Hamaker Mountain 1,286 1,286

28 Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail 500 500

29 Stukel Mountain 11,853 11,853

30 Upper Klamath River 5,766 6,144

31 Wood River Wetland N/A 3,122

Subtotals 22,526 127,326

Totals 158,041 308,757

Notes:

• N/A denotes that acres or miles for a designated or potential site, trail, area, or byway were not identified under the No Action Alternative.

• Two dashes (--) denote that a designated or potential site, trail, area, or byway either was not identified under the No Action 

Alternative or would not be carried forward under the action alternatives.
122

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Extensive Recreation Management Areas 

Table 44. District-specific extensive recreation management areas

Extensive Recreation 

Management Areas

No Action Alternative 

(acres)

All Action Alternatives 

(acres)

Salem District

Cascades 113,640 105,509

Marys Peak 115,543 115,126

Tillamook 102,987 102,988

Subtotals 332,170 323,623

Eugene District

Siuslaw 147,969 147,969

Upper Willamette 137,305 150,888

Subtotals 285,274 298,857

Roseburg District

South River 201,120 201,119

Swiftwater 221,027 214,419

Subtotals 422,147 415,538

Coos Bay District

Myrtlewood 122,103 110,763

Umpqua 195,764 173,089

Subtotals 317,867 283,852

Medford District

Ashland 213,977 213,977

Butte Falls 203,761 203,761

Glendale 186,499 186,499

Grants Pass 227,627 227,627

Subtotals 831,864 831,864

Klamath Falls Resource Area

Klamath Falls 208,138 97,571

Subtotals 208,138 97,571

Totals 2,397,460 2,251,305
123

Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Recreation Sites

Table 45. District-specific recreation sites 

Recreation Sites

No Action 

Alternative 

(acres)

All Action 

Alternatives 

(acres)

Salem District

1 Alder Glen Campground and Day-Use Area 3 3

2 Alsea Falls Campground and Day-Use Area 25 25

3 Canyon Creek Day-Use Area 4 4

4 Dogwood Day-Use Area 11 11

5 Dovre Campground and Day-Use Area 3 3

6 Elk Bend Campground and Day-Use Area 3 3

7 Elk Flat OHV Staging Area 1 1

8 Elkhorn Valley Campground and Day-Use Area 78 78

9 Fan Creek Campground and Day-Use Area 1 1

10 Fishermen’s Bend Campground and Day-Use Area 177 177

11 Grassy Flat OHV Staging Area 1 1

12 Hardy Creek Trail Head 3 3

13 Mill Creek Day-Use Area 5 5

14 Missouri Bend Day-Use Area 2 2

15 Old Miner’s Meadow Group Use Area 2 2

16 Sheridan Peak Day-Use Area 1 1

17 Whipup OHV Staging Area 1 1

18 Wildwood Day-Use Area 556 556

19 Yaquina Head Day-Use Area 90 90

20 Yellowbottom Campground and Day-Use Area 13 13

Subtotals 980 980

Eugene District

21 Clay Creek Campground 48 48

22 Culp Creek Trailhead 1 1

23 Lake Creek Falls Day Use Area 2 2

24 Lake Creek Falls Trailhead 1 1

25 Marten Rapids Day-Use Area 18 18

26 Mosby Creek Trailhead 6 6

27 Rennie Landing 1 1

28 Sharps Creek Campground 27 27

29 Shotgun Creek Day-Use Area 278 278

30 Silver Creek Landing Day Use Area 2 2

31 Taylor Landing Day-Use Area 4 4

32 Whitewater Day-Use Area 10 10

33 Whittaker Creek Campground 16 16

Subtotals 414 414
124

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Recreation Sites

No Action 

Alternative 

(acres)

All Action 

Alternatives 

(acres)

Roseburg District

34 Cavitt Creek Falls 16 16

35 Cow Creek BCBW Kiosk 1 1

36 Cow Creek Recreational Gold Panning Area 19 19

37 Cow Creek Salmonid WWS 1 1

38 Eagleview Group Campground 11 11

E-Mile Recreation Site 15 --

39 Hill Creek Wayside 1 1

40 Island Creek Day-Use Area 40 40

41 Lone Pine Group Campground 23 23

42 Lone Rock Drift Boat Launch 1 1

43 Millpond 33 33

44 Miner-Wolf Watchable Wildlife Site 5 5

45 North Bank Ranch, Jackson Creek Day-Use Area 2 2

46 North Bank Ranch, West Entrance 1 1

47 Osprey Boat Ramp 4 4

48 Rock Creek 21 21

49 Scaredman 13 13

50 Susan Creek Campground 27 27

51 Susan Creek Day-Use Area 19 19

52 Swiftwater Day-Use Area 5 5

53 Swiftwater Trailhead 8 8

54 Tyee 13 13

55 Wolf Creek Falls Trailhead 3 3

Subtotals 282 267

Coos Bay District

56 Bear Creek Campground 80 80

Big Tree Recreation Site 18 --

57 Burnt Mountain Campground 38 38

58 Cape Blanco Lighthouse 

(under permit from the US Coast Guard) 35 35

59 Dean Creek Elk Viewing Area 1,136 1,136

60 East Shore Campground 52 52

61 Edson Creek Campground 46 46

62 Fawn Creek Campground 5 5

63 Loon Lake Campground 76 76

64 North Spit Boat Ramp 24 24

Palmer Butte 40 --

65 Park Creek Campground 58 58

66 Sixes River Campground 162 162

67 Smith River Falls Campground 47 47

68 Storm Ranch Day-Use Area 240 240

69 Vincent Creek Campground 4 4

Subtotals 2,061 2,003
125

Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Recreation Sites

No Action 

Alternative 

(acres)

All Action 

Alternatives 

(acres)

Medford District

70 Burma Pond Campground 15 15

71 Eight Dollar Mountain Wayside and Campground 20 20

72 Elderberry Flat Campground and Day-Use Area 80 80

73 Gold Nugget 53 53

74 Hyatt Lake Campground and Day-Use Area 

(partially within the Cascade Siskiyou National Monument) 745 745

75 Kenney Meadows 40 40

76 Little Hyatt Lake Day-Use Area 2 2

77 Mt. Bolivar Trailhead 2 2

78 Skull Creek Campground and Day-Use Area 5 5

79 Table Mountain Winter Play Area 10 10

80 Tucker Flat Campground and Day-Use Area 20 20

81 Woodrat Mountain Day-Use Area 20 20

Subtotals 1,012 1,012

Klamath Falls Resource Area

82 Antelope Reservoir Day Use 2 2

83 Barnes Valley Boat Ramp 6 6

84 Basin Camp 11 11

85 Frain Ranch Campsites 310 310

86 Gerber Potholes Campsite 112 112

87 Gerber Recreation Site 496 496

88 Kilgore Reservoir Day Use 2 2

89 Klamath River Campground 33 33

90 Klamath River Spring Island Boat Launch Site 6 6

91 Lower Klamath Hills Day-Use Area 2 2

92 Miller Creek Campsite 9 9

93 Miller Creek Day Use 2 2

94 Pitchlog Creek Campsite 10 10

95 Rock Creek Campsite 1 1

96 Round Valley Day Use 2 2

97 Stan H. Spring Campsite 19 19

98 Stateline Boat Takeout 13 13

99 Surveyor Recreation Site 9 9

100 Topsy Campground 14 14

101 Twenty-One Reservoir Day Use 2 2

102 Upper Midway Campsite 12 12

103 Wildhorse Campsite 7 7

104 Willow Valley Reservoir Boat Ramp 27 27

105 Wood River Wetland Day-Use Area 3,200 3,200

Subtotals 4,307 4,307

Totals 9,056 8,983

Note: Two dashes (--) denote that a designated or potential site, trail, area, or byway either was not identified under the No Action 

Alternative or would not be carried forward under the action alternatives.
126

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Recreation Trails

Table 46. District-specific recreation trails

Recreation Trails

No Action 

Alternative 

(miles)

All Action 

Alternatives 

(miles)

Salem District

1 Alsea Falls Trail 4.0 4.0

2 Baty Butte/Silver King Trail 3.4 3.4

3 Boulder Ridge Trail 0.2 0.2

4 Eagle Creek Trail 0.5 0.5

5 McIntyre Ridge Trail 0.7 0.7

6 Molalla River Trails 24.6 24.6

7 Nasty Rock Trail 0.9 0.9

8 Table Rock Wilderness Trails 20.4 20.4

9 Upper Nestucca OHV Trail System 25.0 25.0

10 Valley-of-the-Giants Trail 0.8 0.8

Subtotals 80.5 80.5

Eugene District

11 Clay Creek Trail 0.6 0.6

12 Eagles’ Rest Trail 0.2 0.2

13 Lake Creek Falls Trail 0.2 0.2

14 Row River Trail 13.5 13.5

15 Shotgun Creek Trails 6.2 6.2

16 Shotgun (OHV) Trails 23.2 23.2

17 Tyrrell Forest Succession Trail 1.0 1.0

18 Whittaker Creek Old Growth National Recreation Trail 1.0 1.0

Subtotals 45.9 45.9

Roseburg District

19 China Ditch Trail 0.4 0.4

20 Miner-Wolf Creek WW Trail 0.2 0.2

21 North Umpqua Trail 12.3 12.3

22 Sawmill Trail 1.2 1.2

23 Susan Creek Complex Trails 0.8 0.8

24 Susan Creek Day-Use Trail 0.8 0.8

25 Susan Creek Falls Trail 0.8 0.8

26 Susan Creek Indian Mounts Trail 0.3 0.3

27 Wolf Creek Falls Trail 1.2 1.2

Subtotals 18.0 18.0

Table continues on the next page.
127

Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Recreation Trails

No Action 

Alternative 

(miles)

All Action 

Alternatives 

(miles)

Coos Bay District

28 Blue Ridge 10 10

29 Doerner Fir 0.5 0.5

30 Euphoria Ridge 4 4

31 Floras Lake 1 1

32 Fourmile Creek 0.3 0.3

33 Loon Lake Waterfall 0.5 0.5

34 Lost Lake 1 1

35 New River/Storm Ranch 2 2

36 New River Water Trail 5 5

37 North Fork Hunter Creek 2 2

38 North Spit 9 9

Subtotals 35.3 35.3

Medford District

39 Armstrong Gulch 1 1

40 Buck Prairie Cross Country Ski/Snowmobile Trails 17 17

41 Grayback Mountain 6.5 6.5

42 Grizzly Peak 5 5

43 Hidden Creek 1 1

44 Jacksonville Historic Landmark 5 5

45 Kelsey Pack 3 3

46 Kerby Peak 8 8

47 Listening Tree 1 1

48 London Peak Accessible 1 1

49 Lower London Peak Trail 2 2

50 Lower Table Rock 2 2

51 Mt. Bolivar 1.5 1.5

52 Mule Creek 3 3

53 Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail 40 40

54 Sterling Mine Ditch 10 10

55 Tunnel Ridge 41 41

56 Upper Table Rock 2 2

57 Wolf Gap 4 4

Subtotals 154 154

Table continues on the next page.
128

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Recreation Trails

No Action 

Alternative 

(miles)

All Action 

Alternatives 

(miles)

Klamath Falls Resource Area

58 Gerber-Miller Creek-Potholes Trail 13 13

59 Keno Spencer Snowmobile Trail 6 6

60 Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail 1 1

61 Pederson Snowmobile Trail 7 7

62 Rock Slide Loop Snowmobile Trail 5 5

63 Surveyor Peak Snowmobile Trail 3 3

64 Wood River Wetland Trail 1 1

Subtotals 35 35

Totals 368.7 368.7
129

Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Potential Recreation Sites

Table 47. District-specific potential recreation sites 

Potential Recreation Sites

No Action 

Alternative 

(acres)

All Action 

Alternatives 

(acres)

Salem District

1 Alder Glen Expansion -- 1

2 Alsea Falls Expansion -- 96

3 Barlow -- 115

Bear Creek N/A --

Dick’s Ridge N/A --

4 Marmot -- 155

5 Molalla River -- 86

Parker Creek N/A --

Quartzville Creek N/A --

Valley of the Giants Trailhead N/A --

Subtotals N/A 453

Eugene District

6 Deer Creek -- 10

Doe Creek N/A --

Edwards Creek N/A --

Esmond Lake N/A --

Fall Creek N/A --

Fall Creek Reservoir N/A --

Frying Pan N/A --

Haight Creek N/A --

7 Heceta Sand Dunes Day-Use Area N/A 1

Homestead N/A --

8 Hult Pond Campground N/A 11

9 Hult Pond Day-Use Area N/A 2

10 Lower Lake Creek Day-Use Area N/A 3

North Fork Gate Creek N/A --

11 Old Rennie Homestead -- 12

Overland Trailhead N/A --

Oxbow N/A --

Red Bridge Trailhead N/A --

Saleratus N/A --

Sidog N/A --

Siuslaw Bend N/A --

Wolf Creek Falls N/A --

Subtotals N/A 39

Table continues on the next page.
130

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Potential Recreation Sites

No Action 

Alternative 

(acres)

All Action 

Alternatives 

(acres)

Roseburg District

Brickyard Pond N/A --

Chimney Rock Pond N/A --

12 Chimney Rock Viewpoint Wayside -- 2 

13 Doc’s Landing Day-Use Area and Boat Ramp -- 11

Hardscrabble N/A --

14 Hubbard Creek OHV Staging Area -- 10

15 Iron Mountain Gold Panning Site -- 40

Lavadoure Boat Ramp N/A --

Michigan Springs N/A --

16 North Umpqua Trail Primitive Campsite -- 4

Olalla-Thompson Creek N/A --

17 Pickett Bridge -- 10

Red Top Pond N/A --

18 South River OHV Trailhead -- 5

19 Susan Creek Group Campground -- 10

20 Swiftwater OHV Trailhead -- 5

21 Tioga Bridge / Wayside / Trailhead -- 25

22 Upper Susan Creek Falls Trailhead -- 6

Weaver Road Pond N/A --

Subtotals N/A 128

Coos Bay District

23 Big Bend N/A 200

East Fairview Boat Ramp N/A --

24 Fawn Creek Boat Ramp N/A 11

25 McKinley Camp N/A 10

Smith River Falls Boat Ramp N/A --

26 Smith River Log Dump N/A 5

South Sisters Rock N/A --

27 Spruce Reach Island Day Use Area -- 15

28 Tioga Basin N/A 30

Umpqua Lighthouse N/A --

Vincent Creek Boat Ramp N/A --

Subtotals N/A 271

Table continues on the next page.
131

Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Potential Recreation Sites

No Action 

Alternative 

(acres)

All Action 

Alternatives 

(acres)

Medford District

29 Cold Springs N/A 10

30 Galesville Reservoir N/A 40

31 Illinois River Extension N/A 40

32 Little Applegate Day-Use Area -- 20

33 North Fork Big Butte Creek N/A 20

34 Riffle Creek N/A 5

35 Sensinig Falls N/A 40

36 Shady Branch N/A 40

37 Skookum Creek Wayside N/A 5

Subtotals N/A 220

Klamath Falls Resource Area

38 Alkali Springs Day Use -- 2

39 Bryant Mountain Horse Camp 2 2

40 Captain Jack Lake Camp 3 2

41 Clover Creek Day Use 30 2

42 Dog Hollow Reservoir Day Use 2 2

Greensprings Highway Day Use 20 --

43 Hamaker Mountain Snow Park Day Use 30 2

44 Harpold Reservoir Camp 2 2

45 Hogback Mountain Day Use 10 1

46 Horton Rim Trailhead -- 2

47 Klamath River Bypass Reach Fishing Access # 5 

and # 6 Day Use -- 4

48 Klamath River Powerhouse Shed Fishing Site Day Use -- 2

49 Malone Dam Day Use -- 2

50 Old Foundations Area Day Use 5 4

51 Smith Reservoir Camp 3 2

52 South Gerber Boat Ramp Day Use -- 1

53 Spencer Creek Day Use 20 1

54 Stukel Mountain Aspen Grove Camp 10 2

55 Stukel Mountain Glider Launch Day Use 5 2

56 Stukel Mountain Target Practice Day Use 20 2

57 Swan Lake Rim Trail Access 5 2

58 Van Meter Reservoir Camp 10 2

Subtotals 177 43

Totals N/A 1,154

Notes:

•	 N/A denotes that acres or miles for a designated or potential site, trail, area, or byway were not identified under the No Action 

Alternative.

•	 Two dashes (--) denote that a designated or potential site, trail, area, or byway either was not identified under the No Action 

Alternative or would not be carried forward under the action alternatives.
132

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Potential Recreation Trails

Table 48. District-specific potential recreation trails 

Potential Recreation Trails

No Action 

Alternative 

(miles)

All Action 

Alternatives 

(miles)

Salem District

1 Baty Butte/Silver King Trail Expansion -- 8.2

2 Corvallis-to-Sea Trail -- 1.6

3 Crabtree Mountain -- 12.8

4 CZ Mainline Linear Trail -- 1.0

5 Dovre Trail -- 0.1

Elkhorn Creek Trails N/A --

6 Equestrian Trail -- 5.3

Harry Mountain Trail N/A --

7 Jane Creek Trail -- 2.8

Marys Peak Trail N/A --

8 Molalla Trails Expansion -- 2.5

9 Nestucca River Trail -- 7.8

North Fork Alsea River Trail N/A --

10 Robb Mill Trail -- 3.1

11 Wilhoit Springs Trails -- 2.6

Subtotals N/A 47.8

Eugene District

12 Blue Mountain N/A 0.8

13 Blue Mountain Trail -- 0.8

14 Hult Pond Equestrian Trails N/A 7.2

15 Shotgun OHV Additions N/A 3.1

Siuslaw River Trail N/A --

16 South Bank McKenzie N/A 5.1

17 Whittaker Creek Falls N/A 1.5

Subtotals N/A 18.5

Table continues on the next page.
133

Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Potential Recreation Trails

No Action 

Alternative 

(miles)

All Action 

Alternatives 

(miles)

Roseburg District

Alexander Butte Trail N/A --

Ben Irving Reservoir Trail N/A --

Bushnell-Irwin Rocks Trail N/A --

Cougar Creek Trail N/A --

Cow Creek Bluffs Trail N/A --

Deadman Mountain Trail N/A --

18 Eagleview to Tyee Trail -- 1

19 Millpond to Rock Creek Trail -- 2

Red Top Pond Trail N/A --

Salt Creek Trail N/A --

Tyee Mountain Trail N/A --

20 Upper Susan Creek Falls Trail -- 1

Wolf Creek Falls Tr. Extension N/A --

Subtotals N/A 4

Coos Bay District

21 Bear Creek Extension -- 3

22 Brummit Creek Trail System -- 10

23 Coos Head N/A 3

24 Coos Head Trail System -- 3

25 Doerner Fir Extension -- 1

26 Hunter Creek Bog N/A 1 

27 McKinley Camp N/A 1

28 Rocky Peak Trail -- 6

29 Roman Nose/Kentucky Creek N/A 6

30 Upper Rock Creek N/A 2

31 Wassen Creek N/A 5

Subtotals N/A 41

Table continues on the next page.
134

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Potential Recreation Trails

No Action 

Alternative 

(miles)

All Action 

Alternatives 

(miles)

Medford District

32 Bald Ridge N/A 2.5

33 Buck Rock-Berry Rock Loop N/A 10

34 Galesville N/A 8

35 Green top Loop N/A 10

36 Kelsey Pack Trail Extension N/A 2.5

37 King Mountain N/A 1

38 Lake Selmac Loop N/A 11

39 London Peak-Grave Creek N/A 3

40 Medco Railroad (Eagle Point-Butte Falls) N/A 50

41 Round Top Mountain N/A 5

42 Upper Mule Creek N/A 2

Subtotals N/A 105

Klamath Falls Resource Area

43 Applegate National Historic Trail 2 0.7

Barnes Valley Creek 3 --

44 Bryant Mountain 16 10.4

45 Chase Mountain 13 6.1

Clover Creek 0.5 --

46 Gerber-O.C.E. Trail -- 1.7

Gerber Point 2.5 --

47 Gerber Potholes 4.5 5.4

48 Gerber Reservoir Loop Trail -- 18.2

49 Hamaker Mountain 5 5.1

50 Hogback Mountain Loop Trail -- 8.0

51 Horton Rim Trail -- 16.5

52 J.C. Boyle Reservoir-Keno Trail -- 0.2

Klamath River Edge Trail 2.5 --

53 Lower Klamath Hills Trail -- 5.0

54 Old Baldy Trail 3.5 2.3

55 Spencer Creek 2 3.4

56 Stukel Mountain -- 6.1

57 Stukel Mountain OHV Trail 9 12.9

58 Surveyor Mountain/Johnson Creek 3 1.4

59 Swan Lake Rim 14 18.2

60 Upper Klamath River Trail (north side) 8.5 1.0

61 Upper Klamath River Trail (south side) 10 14.8

Subtotals 99 137.4

Totals N/A 353.7

Notes:

•	 N/A denotes that acres or miles for a designated or potential site, trail, area, or byway were not identified under the No Action Alternative.

•	 Two dashes (--) denote that a designated or potential site, trail, area, or byway either was not identified under the No Action 

Alternative or would not be carried forward under the action alternatives.
135

Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Backcountry Byways

Table 49. District-specific backcountry byways

Backcountry Byways

No Action 

Alternative 

(miles)

All Action 

Alternatives 

(miles)

Salem District

1 Nestucca River 29 29

2 Quartzville 12.5 12.5

3 South Fork Alsea River 11 11

Subtotals 52.5 52.5

Eugene District

No backcountry byways

Roseburg District

4 Cow Creek 20 20

5 North Umpqua National Scenic Byway 8.4 8.4

Subtotals 28.4 28.4

Coos Bay District

No backcountry byways

Medford District

6 Galice-Hellgate 15 15

7 Grave Creek-Marial 33 33

Subtotals 48 48

Klamath Falls Resource Area

No backcountry byways

Totals 128.9 128.9
136

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Potential Backcountry Byways

Table 50. District-specific potential backcountry byways

Potential Backcountry Byways

No Action 

Alternative 

(miles)

All Action 

Alternatives 

(miles)

Salem District

No potential backcountry byways

Eugene District

Alsea N/A --

Blue Mountain N/A --

8 Calapooya Divide 28.0 28.0

9 Coburg Hills 43.4 43.4

10 Lost Creek 19.7 19.7

11 Mill Pond 10.7 10.7

Oxbow N/A --

12 Siuslaw River 25.3 25.3

Whittaker Creek Area N/A --

Subtotals 127.1 127.1

Roseburg District

Coos Bay Wagon Road N/A --

Loon Lake N/A --

Smith River N/A --

Subtotals N/A 0

Coos Bay District

Coos Bay Wagon Road N/A --

Mill Creek/Loon Lake/Tyee N/A --

Myrtlepoint to Sitkum Road N/A --

Smith River Road N/A --

South Sisters-Oxbow Access Road N/A --

Subtotals N/A 0

Medford District

13 Cow Creek-West Fork Evans Creek Road N/A 40

14 Hyatt Lake-Howard Prairie Lake N/A 10

15 Lower Cow Creek Road N/A 18

16 McKee Bridge-Anderson Butte N/A 16

17 Shale City N/A 10

18 West Fork Cow Creek-Eden Valley N/A 23

19 Williams-Selma N/A 20

Subtotals N/A 137

Table continues on the next page.
137

Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Potential Backcountry Byways

No Action 

Alternative 

(miles)

All Action 

Alternatives 

(miles)

Klamath Falls Resource Area

* Gerber Area Watchable Wildlife Tour/Modoc Trail 30 28.8

* Topsy Road 15 5.9

Subtotals 45 34.7

Totals 172.1 298.8

Notes:

•	 N/A denotes that acres or miles for a designated or potential site, trail, area, or byway were not identified under the No Action Alternative.

•	 Two dashes (--) denote that a designated or potential site, trail, area, or byway either was not identified under the No Action 

Alternative or would not be carried forward under the action alternatives.

•	 Asterisk (*) denotes that these potential backcountry byways are not included on the map due to missing GIS spatial data.

Environmental Education Areas

Table 51. District-specific environmental education areas

Environmental Education Areas

No Action 

Alternative 

(acres)

All Action 

Alternatives 

(acres)

Salem District

Aquila Vista 178 178

Larch Mountain 183 183

Subtotals 361 361

Eugene District

Cottage Grove Old Growth 437 437

McGowan Creek 79 79

Subtotals 516 516

Roseburg District

No environmental education areas

Coos Bay District

Dean Creek Elk Viewing Area -- 1,136

New River ACEC -- 1,356

Powers 70 70

Subtotals 70 2,562

Medford District

Eight Dollar Mountain 20 20

Upper and Lower Table Rocks 80 80

Subtotals 100 100

Klamath Falls Resource Area

Clover Creek 6 6

Surveyor Forest 192 192

Subtotals 198 198

Totals 1,245 3,737

Note: Two dashes (--) denote that a designated or potential site, trail, area, or byway either was not identified under the No Action 

Alternative or would not be carried forward under the action alternatives.
138

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Recreation and Public Purpose Leases

Table 52. District-specific recreation and public purpose leases

R&PP Leases

No Action 

Alternative 

(acres)

All Action 

Alternatives 

(acres)

Salem District

JJ Collins Memorial Park (Columbia County) 2 2

Little North Fork (Marion County) 11 11

Oxbow (Multnomah County) 279 279

Scaponia (Columbia County) 5 5

Silver Falls State Park (State of Oregon) 230 230

Wells Island (Polk County) 73 73

Subtotals 600 600

Eugene District

McKercher Park (Linn County) 2 2

Willamette River Greenway (Oregon State Parks) 3 3

Subtotals 5 5

Roseburg District

E-Mile County Park (Douglas County) NA 15

Richard Baker County Park (Douglas County) 7.5 7.5

Subtotals 7.5 22.5

Coos Bay* District

Frona Park (Coos County) 80 80

Judge Hamilton Park (Coos County) 88 88

Laverne County Park (Coos County) 120 120

Middle Creek Park (Coos County) 78 78

Rock Prairie Park (Coos County) 160 160

Subtotals 526 526

*Recreational leases with Coos County were established prior to the R&PP Act as congressional withdrawals to Coos County for 

recreational purposes and are termed congressionally designated recreation withdrawals. 

Medford District

Cantrall-Buckley Park (Jackson County) 12.1 12.1

Cathedral Hills (Josephine County) 400 400

Gold Ray Dam (Jackson County) 4.2 4.2

Illinois River Park (Oregon Department of Transportation) 80 80

Pinehurst School (Jackson County School District 94) 11.2 11.2

Subtotals 507.5 507.5

Klamath Falls Resource Area

No R&PP leases

Totals 1,646 1,661

Note: N/A denotes that acres or miles for a designated or potential site, trail, area, or byway were not identified under the No Action 

Alternative.
139

Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Off-Highway Vehicle Area Designations 

Table 53. District-specific off-highway vehicle area designations 

Off-Highway Vehicle Area Designations

No Action 

Alternative 

(acres)

All Action 

Alternatives 

(acres)

Salem District

Open 160,614 0

Limited to existing roads and trails 48,771 0

Limited to existing roads and designated trails 87,144 0

Limited to designated roads and trails 16,192 291,969

Limited to designated roads 69,508 85,165

Closed 17,197 26,208

Eugene District

Open (portion of Heceta Dunes) 0 77

Limited to existing roads and trails 320,883 0

Limited to designated roads and trails 0 308,595

Closed 3,547 5,187

Roseburg District

Open 0 0

Limited to existing roads and trails 416,560 0

Limited to designated roads and trails 6,731 415,658

Closed 3,283 10,643

Coos Bay District

Open 0 0

Limited to designated roads and trails 318,676 318,674

Closed 3,489 3,489

Medford District

Open 139,878 0

Limited to existing roads and trails 26,514 0

Limited to designated roads and trails 661,357 825,188

Closed 46,371 42,298

Klamath Falls Resource Area

Open 29,902 0

Limited to existing roads and trails 137,154 0

Limited to designated roads and trails 47,222 213,747

Closed 10,702 10,970

All Western Oregon BLM Lands

Open 330,394 77

Limited to existing roads and trails 949,882 0

Limited to existing roads and designated trails 87,144 0

Limited to designated roads and trails 1,050,178 2,373,831

Limited to designated roads 69,508 85,165

Closed 84,589 98,795
140

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Areas Closed to Off-Highway Vehicle Use 

Table 54. District-specific areas closed to off-highway vehicle use 

Closed (areas closed to off-highway vehicle use)

No Action 

Alternative 

(acres)

All Action 

Alternatives 

(acres)

Salem District

Alsea Falls East Elk Emphasis Areas 0 520

Bummer Ridge Elk Emphasis Areas 0 3,566

Carolyn’s Crown ACEC/RNA 229 229

Elk Creek ACEC 1,936 0

Forest Peak ACEC 142 142

Grass Mountain ACEC 698 705

Hunter/Church Creek Area 0 2,267

Larch Mountain EEA 183 0

Little Grass Mountain ACEC 44 44

Little Sink ACEC 80 80

Lost Prairie ACEC 61 0

Middle Santiam ACEC/ONA 94 96

Miscellaneous Recreation Sites (Alter Glen, Dove 

Creek, and Fan Creek) 7 0

Molalla River Non-Motorized Trail System 3,132 2,692

Moon Creek ACEC 1,582 1,493

Mt. Hood Corridor and Bull Run Watershed Management Unit 0 2,660

North Santiam ACEC 45 15

Pacific City 75 75

Progeny Test Sites 211 793

Raymond Creek Bald Eagle Roost Area 278 0

Rickreall Ridge ACEC 178 179

Saddleback Mountain ACEC 0 153

Sandy River Gorge ACEC/RNA 392 392

Skunk Creek Elk Emphasis Areas 660 690

Soosap Meadows ACEC 343 343

Table Rock Wilderness 6,351 6,613

The Butte ACEC 40 40

Valley of the Giants ACEC 153 55

Valsetz-Luckiamute CTMA Elk Emphasis Areas 0 1,981

White Rock Fen 51 51

Wilhoit Springs ACEC 132 132

Willamette River Parcels 0 89

Williams Lake ACEC 100 100

Yampo ACEC 0 13

Subtotals 17,197 26,208

Table continues on the next page.
141

Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Closed (areas closed to off-highway vehicle use)

No Action 

Alternative 

(acres)

All Action 

Alternatives 

(acres)

Eugene District

Camas Swale ACEC/RNA 313 0

Cannery Dune 36 40

Coburg Hills Relic Forest Island ACEC 803 857

Collard Dune 40 36

Cottage Grove Lake ACEC 54 16

Cottage Grove Old Growth EEA (portion) 76 0

Cougar Mountain Yew Grove ACEC 90 90

Dorena Lake ACEC 19 19

Dorena Prairie ACEC 8 8

Esmond Lake ACEC 0 86

Fox Hollow RNA 161 161

Grassy Mountain ACEC 74 74

Heceta Sand Dunes ACEC (portion) 210 133

Horse Rock Ridge RNA 378 378

Hult Marsh ACEC 167 177

Lorane Ponderosa Pine ACEC 105 105

McGowan Creek EEA 79 79

McGowan Meadow ACEC 0 75

Mohawk RNA 290 290

Oak Basin ACEC 0 226

Row River Trail 143 0

Shotgun Creek SRMA 278 414

Taylor Creek ACEC 0 157

Upper Elk Meadows RNA 223 223

Willamette Valley Prairie, Oak, and Pine Proposed ACEC 0 1,543

Subtotals 3,547 5,187

Roseburg District

Bear Gulch ACEC 347 347

Beatty Creek ACEC 172 865

Bushnell-Irwin Rocks ACEC 1,086 1,086

Myrtle Island ACEC 27 27

North Bank Habitat Management Area 0 6,608

North Myrtle Creek ACEC 453 453

Miscellaneous Recreation Trails (North Umpqua, Rock 

Creek, Susan Creek, and Wolf Creek Falls) 19 19

Progeny Test Sites 729 0

Red Ponds ACEC 146 146

Tater Hill ACEC 303 303

Umpqua River Wildlife Area

(Brad’s Creek, Cougar Creek, Golden Bar, Lost Creek, Marin Creek, 

Woodruff Mountain)

0 789

Subtotals 3,282 10,643

Table continues on the next page.
142

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Closed (areas closed to off-highway vehicle use)

No Action 

Alternative 

(acres)

All Action 

Alternatives 

(acres)

Coos Bay District

Cherry Creek RNA & ISA 564 564

China Wall ACEC 204 204

Dean Creek Elk Viewing Area (portion) 1,084 1,084

New River ACEC (portion) 897 897

North Spit Snowy Plover Habitat Restoration Areas 68 68

Powers Environmental Education Area 69 69

Progeny Test Sites & Seed Orchards 565 565

Tioga Creek ACEC (portion) 38 38

Subtotals 3,489 3,489

Medford District

Bobby Creek RNA 1,915 1,915

Brewer Spruce Wilderness Instant Study Area 1,705 1,705

Eight Dollar Mountain EEA 43 43

Grayback Glades RNA 1,019 1,019

Holton Creek RNA 421 421

Lost Lake RNA 0 387

North Fork Silver Creek RNA 499 499

Old Baldy RNA 29 919

Oregon Gulch RNA 1,051 1,051

Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail Corridor 3,199 2,310

Pilot Rock ACEC 320 320

Pipe Fork RNA 517 517

Rogue Wild and Scenic River Corridor 

(wild and recreational sections) 15,951 11,502

Round Top Butte RNA 606 606

Scotch Creek RNA 1,800 1,800

Soda Mountain Wilderness Study Area 6,107 6,106

Sterling Mine Ditch Trail Corridor 143 143

Table Mountain Winter Snow Play Area 11 11

Table Rocks ACEC 1,244 1,244

Table Rocks EEA 40 40

Wetland areas 880 880

Wild Rogue Wilderness Area 8,607 8,596

Woodcock Bog RNA 264 264

Subtotals 46,371 42,298

Klamath Falls Resource Area

Clover Creek 27 27

Gerber Reservoir (Barnes Valley, Ben Hall, and Pitch Log creeks) 3,859 3,943

Klamath Hills Wildlife Area 1,636 1,636

Miller Creek ACEC 792 792

Old Baldy RNA/Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail 526 526

Spencer Creek 80 264

Willow Valley/Antelope Creek 582 582
143

Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Closed (areas closed to off-highway vehicle use)

No Action 

Alternative 

(acres)

All Action 

Alternatives 

(acres)

Wood River Wetland 3,200 3,200

Subtotals 10,702 10,970

Totals 84,588 98,795

Notes: Some of the areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs) listed in the table actually vary by alternative. Only those 

areas carried forward under the selected alternative would be closed to off-highway vehicle use. For those that are not carried 

forward, off-highway vehicle use would be limited to designated roads and trails.

Off-Highway Vehicle Emphasis Areas 

Table 55. District-specific off-highway vehicle emphasis areas 

Off-Highway Vehicle 

Emphasis Areas

No Action 

Alternative 

(acres)

Alt. 1 

(acres)

Alt. 2 

(acres)

Alt. 3 

(acres)

Salem District

1 Upper Nestucca 13,500 9,579 9,579 9,579

Eugene District

2 Shotgun Creek 6,874 8,090 8,090 8,090

Roseburg District

3 Hubbard Creek 12,041 12,041 12,041 12,041

Coos Bay District

4 Blue Ridge -- 1,609 1,609 1,609

Medford District

5 Anderson Butte -- -- 11,742 --

6 Coyote Creek -- -- 14,597 --

7 East Howard -- -- 6,812 --

8 Elderberry Flats -- -- 3,393 --

9 Elliot Creek -- -- 3,931 --

10 Ferris Gulch 2,200 -- 2,222 --

11 Illinois Valley -- -- 4,681 --

12 Lake Creek -- -- 8,561 --

13 Quartz Creek 7,120 -- 6,867 --

14 Salt Creek -- -- 4,692 --

15 Spencer Creek -- -- 7,468 --

16 Timber Mountain/ 

Johns Peak 16,250 -- 16,375 --

17 Worthington Road/

Obenchain -- -- 9,410 --

Klamath Falls Resource Area

No off-highway vehicle emphasis areas

Totals 57,985 31,319 137,070 31,319

Note: Two dashes (--) denote that a designated or potential site, trail, area, or byway either was not identified under the No Action 

Alternative or would not be carried forward under the action alternatives.
144

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Potential Off-Highway Vehicle Emphasis Areas

Table 56. District-specific potential off-highway vehicle emphasis areas 

Potential Off-Highway Vehicle Emphasis Areas

No Action 

Alternative 

(acres)

All Action 

Alternatives 

(acres)

Salem District

Crooked Finger -- 454

Flat Mountain -- 6,892

Tillamook 6,852 6,852

Eugene District

No potential off-highway vehicle emphasis areas

Roseburg District

No potential off-highway vehicle emphasis areas

Coos Bay District

No potential off-highway vehicle emphasis areas

Medford District

No potential off-highway vehicle emphasis areas

Klamath Falls Resource Area

No potential off-highway vehicle emphasis areas

Totals 6,852 14,198

Note: Two dashes (--) denote that a designated or potential site, trail, area, or byway either was not identified under the No Action 

Alternative or would not be carried forward under the action alternatives.
145

Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Oregon State Scenic Waterways

Table 57. District-specific Oregon State scenic waterways

State Scenic Waterways Segment Description Total Miles

Salem District

Clackamas 

River*

Recreational segment: Olallie Lake Scenic Area Boundary to North 

Fork Reservoir 54

Clackamas 

River Recreational segment: River Mill Dam to Baker’s Bridge at Carver 12

Nestucca River* Recreational segment: McGuire Dam to the confluence with Ginger Creek

Scenic segment: Ginger Creek to East Creek near Blaine 23

North Fork 

Clackamas River Scenic segment: From source to North Fork Reservoir 12

Sandy River* Natural segment: Dodge Park (Bull Run River) to Indian John Island

Scenic segment: Indian John Island to Dabney Park 12.5

South Fork 

Clackamas River

Scenic segment: River mile four to confluence with mainstem of 

Clackamas River 4

Walker Creek Recreational segment: Source to confluence with Nestucca River 3

*These river segments have joint state and federal management plans in place.

Eugene District

No Oregon State scenic waterways

Roseburg District

No Oregon State scenic waterways

Coos Bay District

No Oregon State scenic waterways

Medford District

No Oregon State scenic waterways

Klamath Falls Resource Area

Klamath River Scenic segment: J. C. Boyle Powerhouse to the Oregon/California 

State line 11

This river segment has a cooperative management agreement between the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department and the 

BLM.

Total 131.5
146

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

National Landscape Conservation System 

Designated Lands

Wild and Scenic Rivers

Designated Wild and Scenic Rivers and River Segments

Table 58. District-specific designated wild and scenic rivers and river segments 

Designated Classification Outstandingly 

Remarkable Values

Total 

Miles

Acres (BLM 

lands only)

Salem District

Clackamas 

(Segment 6)

Recreational Fish, Recreation 1 143

Elkhorn Creek 

(Segment 1)

Wild Scenery, Wildlife 5.8 142

Elkhorn Creek 

(Segment 2)

Scenic Scenery, Wildlife 0.6 225

Quartzville Creek Recreational Recreation, Scenery 9.7 2,083

Salmon River 

(Segment 4)

Recreational Botany, Ecology, Fish, 

Hydrology, Recreation, 

Scenery, Wildlife 

3.2 0

Salmon River 

(Segment 5)

Scenic Botany, Ecology, Fish, 

Hydrology, Recreation, 

Scenery, Wildlife

4.8 728

Sandy River 

(Segment 1)

Scenic Culture, Fish, Recreation 3.8 445

Sandy River 

(Segment 2)

Recreational Culture, Fish, Recreation, 

Scenery

8.7 279

Subtotals 37.6 4,045

Eugene District

No designated wild and scenic rivers or river segments

Roseburg District

North Umpqua River Recreational Culture, Fish, Hydrology, 

Recreation, Scenery

8.4 2,142

Subtotals 8.4 2,142

Coos Bay District

No designated wild and scenic rivers or river segments

Medford District

Rogue River 

(Applegate River 

to Grave Creek)

Recreational Fish, Recreation, Scenery 27 4,911

Rogue River 

(Grave Creek to Mule 

Creek)

Wild Fish, Recreation, Scenery 20 6,602

Subtotals 47 11,513

Table continues on the next page.
147

Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Designated Classification Outstandingly 

Remarkable Values

Total 

Miles

Acres (BLM 

lands only)

Klamath Falls Resource Area

Upper Klamath River Scenic Fish, History, Prehistory, 

Recreation, Scenery, 

Wildlife

11 2,780

Subtotals 11 2,780

Totals 104 20,480

Note: Mileage calculations include both BLM-administered and non-BLM-administered lands. Acreage calculations are for BLMadministered lands only and based on the amount of BLM-administered lands that are located within a half mile wide river corridor.

Suitable Wild and Scenic Rivers and River Segments

Table 59. District-specific suitable wild and scenic rivers and river segments 

Suitable Potential 

Classification

Outstandingly 

Remarkable Values

Total 

Miles

Acres (BLM 

lands only)

Salem District

Molalla River 

(Segment B)

Recreational Geology, Recreation, 

Scenery

13.2 2,988

Nestucca River 

(Segment A)

Recreational Fish, Recreation, 

Scenery, Wildlife

15.5 3,016

Subtotals 28.7 6,004

Eugene District

McKenzie River 

(Segment A)

Recreational Fish, Recreation, 

Scenery

11 962

Siuslaw River 

(Segment B)

Recreational Fish, Wildlife 46 4,518

Siuslaw River 

(Segment C)

Recreational Recreation, Wildlife 13 1,211

Subtotals 70 6,691

Roseburg District

No suitable wild and scenic rivers or river segments

Coos Bay District

No suitable wild and scenic rivers or river segments

Medford District

Big Windy Creek Wild Recreation, Scenery 6.8 1,928

Dulog Creek Wild Recreation, Scenery 1.8 480

East Fork Big Windy Creek Wild Recreation, Scenery 3.6 923

Howard Creek Wild Fish, Recreation, 

Scenery

7.0 1,752

Subtotals 19.2 5,083

Klamath Falls Resource Area

No suitable wild and scenic rivers or river segments

Totals 117.9 17,778

Note: Mileage calculations include both BLM-administered and non-BLM-administered lands. Acreage calculations are for BLMadministered lands only and based on the amount of BLM-administered lands that are located within a half mile wide river corridor.
148

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Eligible Wild and Scenic Rivers and River Segments

Table 60. District-specific eligible wild and scenic rivers and river segments 

Eligible Potential 

Classification

Outstandingly 

Remarkable Values

Total 

Miles

Acres (BLM 

lands only)

Salem District

Alsea River Recreational Fish, Recreation 16.5 312

Clackamas River Recreational Recreation, Scenery 15.4 44

Drift Creek 

(Segments A and B)

Recreational Fish 30.1 112

Fall Creek Recreational Fish 11.7 642

Kilchis River Recreational Fish, Recreation, 

Wildlife 

14.6 56

Little Luckiamute River Recreational Ecology 27.1 40

Little North Santiam River Recreational Fish, Recreation, 

Scenery

17.2 1,203

Lobster Creek 

(Segment B)

Recreational Fish 16.6 305

Luckiamute River Recreational Ecology 61.2 553

Middle Santiam River Recreational Culture, Ecology 7.9 175

Nehalem River Recreational Recreation, Fish and 

Wildlife

122.0 36

Nestucca River 

(Segment B)

Recreational Fish, Recreation, 

Scenery, Wildlife 

8.0 216

North Fork Clackamas River Scenic Fish 14.4 358

North Fork Siletz River Scenic Ecology, Fish, Wildlife 10.6 826

North Fork Trask River Recreational None identified 11.9 732

North Santiam River 

(Segment A)

Scenic Fish, Recreation, 

Scenery

19.1 217

North Santiam River 

(Segment B)

Recreational Fish, Recreation 27.9 132

Sandy River 

(Segment A)

Recreational Culture, Fish, 

Recreation

15.0 627

Sandy River 

(Segment B)

Recreational Culture, Fish, 

Recreation, Scenery

11.8 872

Siletz River Recreational Fish, Recreation, 

Scenery 

68.8 38

South Fork Trask River Recreational Fish, Wildlife 9.3 30

South Yamhill River Recreational Culture, Ecology 62.5 0

Table Rock Fork Molalla 

River

Recreational Culture 13.4 1,385

Trask River Recreational Fish, Recreation, 

Wildlife 

19.5 333

Table continues on the next page.
149

Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Eligible Potential 

Classification

Outstandingly 

Remarkable Values

Total 

Miles

Acres (BLM 

lands only)

Salem District (cont.)

Tualatin River Recreational Culture 80.6 312

Willamette River Recreational Culture, Ecology, Fish, 

Recreation, Wildlife

164.4 88

Wilson River Recreational Fish, Recreation, 

Wildlife

29.8 79

Yaquina River Recreational Fish 44.6 238

Subtotals 951.9 9,961

Eugene District

Fall Creek Recreational Recreation 6.0 1,126

Lake Creek 

(Segment B)

Recreational Fish, Recreation 18.3 482

McKenzie River 

(Segment B)

Recreational Fish, Recreation, 

Scenery, Wildlife

40.0 55

Nelson Creek Recreational Fish 7.0 542

North Fork Gate Creek Recreational Fish 7.9 201

South Fork Gate Creek Recreational Fish 8.9 106

Subtotals 88.1 2,512

Roseburg District

Cow Creek 

(West Fork to South 

Umpqua)

Recreational Culture, Fish, History, 

Wildlife

26 744

South Umpqua 

(Tiller to North Umpqua)

Recreational Culture, Fish, History, 

Wildlife 

73 746

Umpqua 

(River Forks to Elkton)

Recreational Culture, Fish, History, 

Recreation, Scenery

57 1,891

Subtotals 156 3,381

Coos Bay District

Sixes Recreational Fish, History 28 271

South Fork Coos Recreational Fish, Recreation 37 503

South Fork Coquille Recreational Fish, Prehistory 35 139

Umpqua 

(Mouth to Kellogg)

Recreational Ecology, Fish, 

Geology, History, 

Prehistory, Recreation, 

Scenery

70 1,045

Subtotals 170 1,958

Table continues on the next page.
150

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Eligible Potential 

Classification

Outstandingly 

Remarkable Values

Total 

Miles

Acres (BLM 

lands only)

Medford District

Alder Creek Wild Recreation, Scenery 1 259

Anna Creek Wild Recreation, Scenery 1.7 915

Antelope Creek Recreational Fish 1 662

Applegate River Recreational Fish 46.3 629

Ash Creek Wild Recreation, Scenery 2.6 545

Bailey Creek Wild Recreation, Scenery 2.7 761

Big Butte Creek 

(including the south fork of Big 

Butte Creek)

Recreational Fish 21.1 579

Booze Creek Wild Recreation, Scenery 0.9 328

Bronco Creek Wild Recreation, Scenery 1.5 383

Bunker Creek Wild Recreation, Scenery 6.4 1,619

Centennial Gulch Wild Recreation, Scenery 1.8 421

Cheney Creek Recreational Fish 4.2 651

Copsey Creek Wild Recreation, Scenery 1.1 346

Cow Creek Recreational Fish 30 1,219

Cowley Creek Wild Recreation, Scenery 0.8 164

Ditch Creek Wild Recreation, Scenery 2.1 423

East Fork Elk Valley Creek Recreational Fish 2.3 446

East Fork Whisky Creek Wild Recreation, Scenery 3.7 1,061

Elk Valley Creek Recreational Fish 5.0 370

Grave Creek Recreational Fish 10.9 3,402

Hewett Creek Wild Recreation, Scenery 2.2 568

Jenny Creek Ashland Scenic Fish, History 17.6 2,846

Jenny Creek Grants Pass Wild Recreation, Scenery 4.4 1,363

Kelsey Creek Wild Fish, Recreation, 

Scenery

4.8 2,162

Left Fork Foots Creek Recreational Fish 1.5 138

Table continues on the next page.
151

Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Eligible Potential 

Classification

Outstandingly 

Remarkable Values

Total 

Miles

Acres (BLM 

lands only)

Medford District (cont.)

Little Applegate River Recreational Fish 10 1,203

Little Windy Creek Wild Recreation, Scenery 2.5 783

Long Gulch Creek Wild Recreation, Scenery 2 494

Lost Creek Wild Scenery 0.9 1,191

Meadow Creek Wild Recreation, Scenery 3.8 1,043

Missouri Creek Wild Recreation, Scenery 4.4 1,077

Montgomery Creek Wild Recreation, Scenery 1.3 419

Mule Creek Wild Fish, Recreation, 

Scenery 

7.6 3,053

Ninemile Creek Recreational Fish 1.6 836

North Fork Big Butte Creek Recreational Fish 13.4 1,741

North Fork Deer Creek Recreational Fish 2.9 615

North Fork Galice Creek Recreational Recreation, Scenery 5.5 1,557

North Fork Silver Creek Recreational Fish, Recreation, 

Scenery

6 1,707

Powell Creek Recreational Fish, Recreation, 

Scenery

7.7 1,446

Quail Creek Wild Recreation, Scenery 1.8 379

Quartz Creek Wild Recreation, Scenery 2.4 790

Quines Creek Recreational Fish 4.5 750

Riffle Creek Recreational Fish 3.6 651

Rock Creek Recreational Fish 6.0 351

Rogue River 

(Segment 1)

Recreational Fish, Recreation 12.5 1

Rogue River 

(Segment 2)

Recreational Fish, Recreation 18 227

Rogue River 

(Segment 3)

Recreational Fish, Recreation 18 395

Rum Creek Wild Recreation, Scenery 3.2 978

Russian Creek Wild Recreation, Scenery 1.9 653

Sams Creek Recreational Fish 5.5 427

Slide Creek Wild Recreation, Scenery 1 220

Soda Creek Recreational Fish 3.8 705

South Fork Little Butte 

Creek

Recreational Fish 16.3 419

Stanley Creek Recreational Fish 1.5 226

Star Gulch Creek Recreational Fish 8.1 2,321

Table continues on the next page.
152

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Eligible Potential 

Classification

Outstandingly 

Remarkable Values

Total 

Miles

Acres (BLM 

lands only)

Medford District (cont.)

West Fork Illinois River Scenic Scenery 19 1,018

West Fork Whisky Creek Wild Recreation, Scenery 6 1,256

Whisky Creek 

(to east and west forks)

Wild History, Recreation, 

Scenery 

2.4 374

Whitehorse Creek Recreational Fish 3.5 600

Wildcat Creek Wild Recreation, Scenery 1.7 340

Subtotals 387.9 52,506

Klamath Falls Resource Area

No eligible wild and scenic rivers or river segments

Totals 1,753.9 70,318

Note: Mileage calculations include both BLM-administered and non-BLM-administered lands. Acreage calculations are for BLMadministered lands only and based on the amount of BLM-administered lands that are located within a half mile wide river corridor.

Wilderness Areas

Table 61. District-specific wilderness areas

Wilderness Areas

Administered 

by the BLM 

(acres)

Salem District

Table Rock 5,706

Managed according to the 1987 Table Rock Wilderness Management Plan to preserve the area’s undisturbed natural integrity. 

Eugene District

No wilderness areas

Roseburg District

No wilderness areas

Coos Bay District

No wilderness areas

Medford District

Wild Rogue 8,629

This wilderness spans across both BLM and United States Forest Service (USFS) lands. Under a memorandum of understanding, the 

USFS administers the BLM’s portion of this wilderness (the acres stated here).

Klamath Falls Resource Area

No wilderness areas

Total 14,335
153

Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Wilderness Study Areas and Wilderness Instant Study Areas

Table 62. District-specific wilderness study and wilderness instant study areas

Wilderness Study and 

Wilderness Instant Study Areas Classification

Administered 

by the BLM 

(acres)

Salem District

Little Sink Instant Study 80

Eugene District

No wilderness study or wilderness instant study areas

Roseburg District

No wilderness study or wilderness instant study areas

Coos Bay District

Cherry Creek/Douglas fir Instant Study 570

Medford District

Brewer Spruce Instant Study 1,705

Soda Mountain Study 6,107

Klamath Falls Resource Area

Mountain Lakes Study 340

Total 8,802

Miscellaneous National Landscape Conservation System 

Designated Lands

Table 63. District-specific miscellaneous National Landscape Conservation System 

designated lands

Miscellaneous National Landscape Conservation System 

Designated Lands

Administered 

by the BLM

(acres) (miles)

Salem District

Bull Run Watershed Management Unit 658

Mt. Hood Corridor 4,644

Yaquina Head Outstanding Natural Area 102

Eugene District

No other miscellaneous National Landscape Conservation System designated lands

Roseburg District

No other miscellaneous National Landscape Conservation System designated lands

Coos Bay District

No other miscellaneous National Landscape Conservation System designated lands

Medford District

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument 52,947

Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail 40

Klamath Falls Resource Area

Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail 1

Total 58,351 41
154

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Maps

This section provides the resource and program maps referred to in this chapter.
155

Chapter 2 – Alternatives

P

a c i f i c O c e a n

Western Oregon Plan Revisions

 Draft Environmental

 Impact Statement

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

Legend

Gerber Block

Rogue Block (includes

 Wild Rogue Wilderness,

 Rogue WSR, East Rogue

 WSR, and Galice Block)

Wildland Urban Interface

BLM Administrative

 Boundary

State Boundary

BLM Administered Land

S

E

N

W

Source: Bureau of Land Management Corporate Data

revised for WOPR Analysis. No warranty is made by the

Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy,

reliability, or completeness of these data for individual

or aggregate use with other data.

10 0 10 20 30 40 50 Miles

0 1010 20 30 40 50 Kilometers

Albers Equal Area Projection

North American Datum of 1983

Planning Area

OREGON

M06-12-02

Portland

Salem

Eugene

Coos Bay

Roseburg

Medford Klamath

Falls

Portland

Salem

Eugene

Coos Bay

Roseburg

Medford Klamath

Falls

Map 6. Wildland urban interface
156

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Map 7. Lands available for livestock grazing

Grazing Allotments

 Proposed Closed

 Proposed Open 

Klamath Falls

Resource Area

Medford

District
157

Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Map 8. Location of proposed range improvements in the Klamath Falls Resource Area

Medford District

Klamath Falls Resource Area

Oregon

California

0104

0103

0107 0102 0846

0807

0826

0835

0802 0851

0822

0852

0842

0836

0892

0865 0839

0861

0847

0823

0881

0803

0879

0884

0876

0888

0147

0102 0846

0807

0829

0838

0802

0851

0827

0852

0860

0836

0883

0865

0821 0823

0885

0884

0876

0889

Potential Water Development

 Fence

 Fence Number

 Water Hole

 Water Hole Number

BLM Administered Land 

0846

0861

OREGON

Planning

Area

Map

Area

S

E

N

W

5 0 5 10 15 Miles

5 0 5 10 15 Kilometers

Albers Equal Area Projection

North American Datum of 1983

M06-12-02
158

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

P

a c i f i c O c e a n

Portland

Salem

Eugene

Coos

Bay

Roseburg

Medford Klamath

Falls

Portland

Salem

Eugene

Coos

Bay

Roseburg

Medford Klamath

Falls

Western Oregon Plan Revisions

 Draft Environmental

 Impact Statement

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

Legend

Communication Site

Utility Corridor

Pacific Connector

 Gas Pipeline

BLM Administrative

 Boundary

State Boundary

BLM Administered

 Land

S

E

N

W

Source: Bureau of Land Management Corporate Data

revised for WOPR Analysis. No warranty is made by the

Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy,

reliability, or completeness of these data for individual

or aggregate use with other data.

10 0 10 20 30 40 50 Miles

0 1010 20 30 40 50 Kilometers

Albers Equal Area Projection

North American Datum of 1983

Planning Area

OREGON

M06-12-02

Map 9. Utility corridors
159

Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Map 10. Off-highway vehicle designations

P

a c i f i c O c e a n

Portland

Salem

Eugene

Coos Bay

Roseburg

Medford Klamath

Falls

Western Oregon Plan Revisions

 Draft Environmental

 Impact Statement

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

Legend

Off-Highway Vehicle

 Designation

 See Table 35

 Open

 Limited

 Closed

BLM Administrative

 Boundary

State Boundary

21%

76%

3%

21%

76%

3%

S

E

N

W

Source: Bureau of Land Management Corporate Data

revised for WOPR Analysis. No warranty is made by the

Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy,

reliability, or completeness of these data for individual

or aggregate use with other data.

10 0 10 20 30 40 50 Miles

0 1010 20 30 40 50 Kilometers

Albers Equal Area Projection

North American Datum of 1983

Planning Area

OREGON

M06-12-02
160

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Map 11. Off-highway vehicle emphasis areas

P

a c i f i c O c e a n

Upper Nestucca

Motorcycle Area

Tillamook

Crooked Finger

Blue

Ridge

Ferris

Gulch Anderson Butte

Flat Mountain

Shotgun Creek

Quartz

Creek

Elliot

Creek

Spencer

Creek

Timber Mountain/

Johns Peak

Illinois

Valley

Coyote

Creek

Hubbard Creek

Elderberry Flats

East Howard

Salt

Creek

Lake

Creek

Worthington Road/Obenchain

Western Oregon Plan Revisions

 Draft Environmental

 Impact Statement

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

Legend

Emphasis Areas

 Designated

 See Table 36

 Potential

 See Table 37

BLM Administrative

 Boundary

State Boundary

S

E

N

W

Source: Bureau of Land Management Corporate Data

revised for WOPR Analysis. No warranty is made by the

Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy,

reliability, or completeness of these data for individual

or aggregate use with other data.

10 0 10 20 30 40 50 Miles

0 1010 20 30 40 50 Kilometers

Albers Equal Area Projection

North American Datum of 1983

Planning Area

OREGON

M06-12-02

Portland

Salem

Eugene

Coos Bay

Roseburg

Medford

Klamath Falls
161

Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Map 12. Location of Pokegama Herd Management Area

MEDFORD DISTRICT

KLAMATH FALLS RESOURCE AREA

OREGON 

CALIFORNIA 

POKEGAMA HERD

MANAGEMENT AREA

Planning

Area

Map

Area
162

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Map 13. Bald eagle, deer, and elk habitat management areas

Portland

Salem

Eugene

Coos Bay

Roseburg

Medford Klamath

Falls

Western Oregon Plan Revisions

 Draft Environmental

 Impact Statement

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

Legend

Habitat Management

 Areas

 Bald Eagle

 Elk

 Deer

 Elk and Deer

BLM Administrative

 Boundary

State Boundary

S

E

N

W

Source: Bureau of Land Management 

Corporate Data revised for WOPR 

Analysis. No warranty is made by the 

Bureau of Land Management as to the 

accuracy, reliability, or completeness of 

these data for individual or aggregate 

use with other data.

10 0 10 20 30 40 50 Miles

0 1010 20 30 40 50 Kilometers

Albers Equal Area Projection

North American Datum of 1983

Planning Area

OREGON

M06-12-02
163

Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Map 14. Forest vegetation series

BLM Administrative Boundary

Forest Vegitation Series

 Douglas-fir and True Firs

 Tanoak

 Western Hemlock 
164

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

10

11

13 16

19

20

21

22

23

24

27

28

29

30

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

46

47

48

49

50

51 55

58

60 61

62

65

66

67

68

69

71

72

74

75

77

78

79

80

81

82

86

87

88

89

90

91

93

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

106 107

108

111 109

112

113

115

116

117

118

119

122 120 125 126

128

130

131

1

9

12

14

15

17

18

25

26

31

32

44

45 52

53

54

56

57

59

63

64

70

73

76

83

84

85

92

94

95

105

110

114

121

123

124

127

129

P

a c i f i c O c e a n

Salem

Eugene

Coos Bay

Roseburg

Medford

Klamath Falls

Portland

Western Oregon Plan Revisions

 Draft Environmental

 Impact Statement

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

Legend

ACEC Location

Potential ACEC Location

ACEC Identifier

 See preceding table.

BLM Administrative

 Boundary

State Boundary

BLM Administered

 Land

14

S

E

N

W

Source: Bureau of Land Management Corporate Data

revised for WOPR Analysis. No warranty is made by the

Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy,

reliability, or completeness of these data for individual

or aggregate use with other data.

10 0 10 20 30 40 50 Miles

0 1010 20 30 40 50 Kilometers

Albers Equal Area Projection

North American Datum of 1983

Planning Area

OREGON

M06-12-02

Map 15. Areas of critical environmental concern within the planning area 
165

Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Map 16. BLM management area adjacent to the Coquille Forest

OREGON

Planning

Area

BLM Administered Land

Coquille Tribal Forest Land

BLM Management Area

 Adjacent to Coquille

 Tribal Forest Land

T

30

S

T

29

S

T

28

S

R 12 W R 11 W R 10 W
166

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Map 17. Location of assessment areas (physiographic provinces within sustained yield units) under Alternative 3

Salem

Coast

Salem

Cascades

Medford

Klamath

Medford

Cascades

Eugene

Cascades

Roseburg

Cascades

Klamath

Falls

Eugene

Coast

Coos Bay

Coast

Roseburg

Coast

Roseburg

Klamath

Coos Bay

Klamath
167

Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Map 18. Recreation management areas

1

17

14

18

19

2

28 27

24 29

3

20

9 10

4

5

21

15

25

26

11

6

12

22

23

16

30

13

31

7

8

Tillamook

Cascades

Siuslaw

Umpqua

Myrtlewood

Swiftwater

South River

Glendale

Ashland

Butte

Falls

Klamath

Falls

Grants

Pass

Marys

Peak

Upper

Willamette

P

a c i f i c O c e a n

Western Oregon Plan Revisions

 Draft Environmental

 Impact Statement

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

Legend

Extensive Recreation

 Management Area

Special Recreation

 Management Area

SRMA Identifier

 See Table 23

14

S

E

N

W

Source: Bureau of Land Management Corporate Data

revised for WOPR Analysis. No warranty is made by the

Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy,

reliability, or completeness of these data for individual

or aggregate use with other data.

10 0 10 20 30 40 50 Miles

0 1010 20 30 40 50 Kilometers

Albers Equal Area Projection

North American Datum of 1983

Planning Area

OREGON

M06-12-02

Portland

Salem

Eugene

Coos Bay

Roseburg

Medford Klamath

Falls

167
168

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

P

a c i f i c O c e a n

5

5

5

84

205

26

97

20

20

30

26

101

101

199

Portland

Salem

Eugene

Coos Bay

Roseburg

Medford

Klamath Falls

Western Oregon Plan Revisions

 Draft Environmental

 Impact Statement

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

Legend

Back Country Byway

Back Country Byway

 Identifier See Table 31

Potential Back Country

 Byway

Potential Back Country

 Byway Identifier

 See Table 32

Interstate Highway

US Highway

BLM Administrative

 Boundary

State Boundary

BLM Administered

 Land

5

101

3

15

S

E

N

W

Source: Bureau of Land Management Corporate Data

revised for WOPR Analysis. No warranty is made by the

Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy,

reliability, or completeness of these data for individual

or aggregate use with other data.

10 0 10 20 30 40 50 Miles

0 1010 20 30 40 50 Kilometers

Albers Equal Area Projection

North American Datum of 1983

Planning Area

OREGON

M06-12-02

Map 19. Backcountry byways
169

Chapter 2 – Alternatives

1

2

3

4

5 6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41,43

42

44

46 45

47 48 49

50,51

52,53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74 75 76

77 78

79

80

81

82

83

84

103

102

85

86 87

88 89 90 91

92,93 94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

104

105

P

a c i f i c O c e a n

Western Oregon Plan Revisions

 Draft Environmental

 Impact Statement

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

Legend

Recreation Site Location

Recreation Site Identifier

 See Table 27

BLM Administrative

 Boundary

State Boundary

BLM Administered

 Land

28

S

E

N

W

Source: Bureau of Land Management Corporate Data

revised for WOPR Analysis. No warranty is made by the

Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy,

reliability, or completeness of these data for individual

or aggregate use with other data.

10 0 10 20 30 40 50 Miles

0 1010 20 30 40 50 Kilometers

Albers Equal Area Projection

North American Datum of 1983

Planning Area

OREGON

M06-12-02

Portland

Salem

Eugene

Coos Bay

Roseburg

Medford Klamath

Falls

Map 20. Designated recreation sites
170

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

7

8

9

11

10

12

13

15

24 25

29

26

32

34

44

43

38 35

36

40 45

42

46

52

51 50 49

47

48

37

41

39

33

27

31

28,30

23

18 16

17

19-22

14

1

2

3

4

6 5

P

a c i f i c O c e a n

Portland

Salem

Eugene

Coos Bay

Roseburg

Medford Klamath

Falls

Western Oregon Plan Revisions

 Draft Environmental

 Impact Statement

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

Legend

Recreation Trail Location

Recreation Trail Identifier

 See Table 28

BLM Administrative

 Boundary

State Boundary

BLM Administered

 Land

16

S

E

N

W

Source: Bureau of Land Management Corporate Data

revised for WOPR Analysis. No warranty is made by the

Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy,

reliability, or completeness of these data for individual

or aggregate use with other data.

10 0 10 20 30 40 50 Miles

0 1010 20 30 40 50 Kilometers

Albers Equal Area Projection

North American Datum of 1983

Planning Area

OREGON

M06-12-02

Map 21. Designated recreation trails
171

Chapter 2 – Alternatives

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8,9

10 11

12 13

14,20

15

16

17

18

19,21

22

23 24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31 32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39 40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48,50 49

51

53 52

54

55

56

57

58

P

a c i f i c O c e a n

Salem

Eugene

Coos Bay

Roseburg

Medford Klamath

Falls

Portland

Western Oregon Plan Revisions

 Draft Environmental

 Impact Statement

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

Legend

Potential Recreation Site

 Location

Potential Recreation Site

 Identifier

 See Table 29

BLM Administrative

 Boundary

State Boundary

BLM Administered

 Land

13

S

E

N

W

Source: Bureau of Land Management Corporate Data

revised for WOPR Analysis. No warranty is made by the

Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy,

reliability, or completeness of these data for individual

or aggregate use with other data.

10 0 10 20 30 40 50 Miles

0 1010 20 30 40 50 Kilometers

Albers Equal Area Projection

North American Datum of 1983

Planning Area

OREGON

M06-12-02

Map 22. Potential recreation sites
172

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

8 1

2

12

17

22

34 26

29

25

45

42

39 40

38

43

48

49

27

32

52 53

35

36

51

46

50

47

44 37

41

31

30

33

28

24

18

20

19 16

14

13

15

21

23

6

10

4

5

9 7

3

11

P

a c i f i c O c e a n

Portland

Salem

Eugene

Coos Bay

Roseburg

Medford Klamath

Falls

Western Oregon Plan Revisions

 Draft Environmental

 Impact Statement

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

Legend

Potential Recreation Trail

 Location

Potential Recreation Trail

 Identifier See Table 30

BLM Administrative

 Boundary

State Boundary

BLM Administered

 Land

34

S

E

N

W

Source: Bureau of Land Management Corporate Data

revised for WOPR Analysis. No warranty is made by the

Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy,

reliability, or completeness of these data for individual

or aggregate use with other data.

10 0 10 20 30 40 50 Miles

0 1010 20 30 40 50 Kilometers

Albers Equal Area Projection

North American Datum of 1983

Planning Area

OREGON

M06-12-02

Map 23. Potential recreation trails
173

Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Aquila Vista

Larch

Mountain

McGowan Creek

New River

ACEC Powers

Dean Creek

Elk Viewing Area

Eight Dollar

Mountain

Clover

Creek

Surveyor

Forest

Upper Table

Rock

Lower Table Rock

Gold

Ray Dam

Cantrall-Buckley

Park

Pinehurst School

Cathedral

Hills

Frona Park

Illinois River

Park

Judge Hamilton

Park

Laverne County Park

McKercher Park

Willamette River Greenway

Richard Baker County Park

E-Mile County Park

Middle Creek Park

Wells Island North Fork

Oxbow

Rock Prairie Park

Scaponia

JJ Collins

Memorial Park

Silver Falls

State Park

P

a c i f i c O c e a n

Western Oregon Plan Revisions

 Draft Environmental

 Impact Statement

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

Legend

Environmental Education

 Site See Table 33

Recreation and Public

 Purpose Lease Site

 See Table 34

BLM Administrative

 Boundary

State Boundary

BLM Administered

 Land

S

E

N

W

Source: Bureau of Land Management Corporate Data

revised for WOPR Analysis. No warranty is made by the

Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy,

reliability, or completeness of these data for individual

or aggregate use with other data.

10 0 10 20 30 40 50 Miles

0 1010 20 30 40 50 Kilometers

Albers Equal Area Projection

North American Datum of 1983

Planning Area

OREGON

M06-12-02

Portland

Salem

Eugene

Coos Bay

Roseburg

Medford Klamath Falls

Map 24. Environmental education sites along with recreation and public purpose lease sites
174

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Map 25. National Landscape Conservation System designated lands

Bull Run

WMU

Yaquina

Head ONA

Mountain

Lakes WSA

CascadeSiskiyou NM

West Eugene

Wetlands

Brewer

Spruce

ISA

Cherry Creek /

Douglas Fir ISA

Wild

Rogue

Wilderness

Table Rock

Wilderness

Mt. Hood

Corridor

Bull Run

WMU

Little Sink

ISA

Soda Mountain WSA

P

a c i f i c O c e a n

Portland

Salem

Eugene

Coos Bay

Roseburg

Medford

Klamath Falls

Western Oregon Plan Revisions

 Draft Environmental

 Impact Statement

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

Legend

Outstanding Natural Area

Instant Study Area

Wilderness Study Area

Existing or Eligible

 Wild and Scenic River

 Recreational

 Scenic

 Wild

Pacific Crest National

 Scenic Trail

Other Conservation Area

BLM Administrative

 Boundary

State Boundary

S

E

N

W

Source: Bureau of Land Management Corporate Data

revised for WOPR Analysis. No warranty is made by the

Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy,

reliability, or completeness of these data for individual

or aggregate use with other data.

10 0 10 20 30 40 50 Miles

0 1010 20 30 40 50 Kilometers

Albers Equal Area Projection

North American Datum of 1983

Planning Area

OREGON

M06-12-02
175

Chapter 2 – Alternatives

P

a

c i f i c

O c e a

n

Portland

Salem

Eugene

Coos Bay

Roseburg

Medford Klamath

Falls

Western Oregon Plan Revisions

 Draft Environmental

 Impact Statement

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

Legend

Off-Highway Vehicle

 Designation

 See Table 35

 Open

 Limited

 Closed

BLM Administrative

 Boundary

State Boundary

96%

4%

S

E

N

W

Source: Bureau of Land Management Corporate Data

revised for WOPR Analysis. No warranty is made by the

Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy,

reliability, or completeness of these data for individual

or aggregate use with other data.

10 0 10 20 30 40 50 Miles

0 1010 20 30 40 50 Kilometers

Albers Equal Area Projection

North American Datum of 1983

Planning Area

OREGON

M06-12-02

Map 26. Proposed off-highway vehicle designations
176

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Western Oregon Plan Revisions

 Draft Environmental

 Impact Statement

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

Legend

Land with Wilderness Characteristics

 BLM Administered Land

 Other

OREGON

Salmon-Huckleberry Additions

Bull of the Woods Opal Creek Additions

Mount

Hebo

Williams Creek

Whiskey

Creek

Wellington Mountain

Berry Creek

Wasson

Creek

South Fork Clackamas River (Memaloose Creek)

Salmon-Huckleberry Additions

Bull of the Woods Opal Creek Additions

Mount

Hebo

Williams Creek

Whiskey

Creek

Wellington Mountain

Berry Creek

Wasson

Creek

South Fork Clackamas River (Memaloose Creek)

S

E

N

W

Source: Bureau of Land Management 

Corporate Data revised for WOPR Analysis. 

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land 

Management as to the accuracy, reliability, 

or completeness of these data for individual 

or aggregate use with other data.

5 0 5 10 15 Miles

M06-12-02

Map 27. Lands with wilderness characteristics
177

Chapter 2 – Alternatives

84-86

87-98,111-117

101-104,124-134

99

100

105-109,142

110

118

119

120

121

122

123

4

397

145

146-

148

136,137,139

153

154,156-159,175

155

18

19,39,40

20

164-166

167,168

169

170-171

172-174,176

177-182 149-152

183

21 35,36 26 22

37,44-47,49

38 41

42,43,48,50

1-3,5-17,23-25,27-34

51 52

53

54 55 56

57 59 58

60

61

62

63

64 65

66 67

68

69

70

72

73

74

76

77

79 78

81 82

83

185 184 186 187

188 189

190

191

192

193 194 195,196

199 197,198 200

202 201

203 204

205-214,228 215

216-221 222

223

224-226

227 229-232

233

234

235-237 238 239 240 241

242 243

244

245,246

75

71

247

248 249 250

251 252

253 254

255 256

257 258

259 260 261 262

263 264

265

266

267 268

269

270

272 273 271

274

275

276

80

278,281,282,293 277

315-318,321,

322,331-334

279,280

284 283

285

287 286 288 289

290 291

292

294 295,296

298-305 297

319 320

323-325

326

327 328 330 329

335

336-340,342-347

341

348 350 349

394

398,399

400

401

402

405

409 410

411 413

414

415-416

417

419

420

396 395

404

406 407,408

412

418

403

351-357

360-364 366

367

371 365

359

368 369

370

372-374

381-389

377-379

375 376 380 390

391 392 393

358

306 309 307,308

310 311

312

313,314

P

a c i f i c O c e a n

Western Oregon Plan Revisions

 Draft Environmental

 Impact Statement

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

Legend

Land Tenure Zone 3

 Location

Land Tenure Zone 3

 Identifier

 See Appendix XX

BLM Administrative

 Boundary

State Boundary

BLM Administered

 Land

81

S

E

N

W

Source: Bureau of Land Management Corporate Data

revised for WOPR Analysis. No warranty is made by the

Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy,

reliability, or completeness of these data for individual

or aggregate use with other data.

10 0 10 20 30 40 50 Miles

0 1010 20 30 40 50 Kilometers

Albers Equal Area Projection

North American Datum of 1983

Planning Area

OREGON

M06-12-02

Map 28. Location of land tenure Zone 3
178

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Map 29. Sustained yield units

Salem

Klamath

Eugene

Roseburg

Medford

Coos

Bay
179

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Chapter 3 of this draft environmental impact statement describes the affected environment for the six 

resource management plans of the planning area that are being revised.

In this chapter:

Introduction ...............................................................................................................................181

Ecology........................................................................................................................................192

Socioeconomics .........................................................................................................................216

Timber.........................................................................................................................................247

Special Forest Products ............................................................................................................251

Botany..........................................................................................................................................257

Invasive Plants...........................................................................................................................268

Wildlife .......................................................................................................................................282

Fish...............................................................................................................................................335

Water............................................................................................................................................359

Fire and Fuels.............................................................................................................................392

Air ................................................................................................................................................401
180

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Recreation...................................................................................................................................405

Wilderness Characteristics......................................................................................................417

Visual Resources .......................................................................................................................420

National Landscape Conservation System ..........................................................................422

Soils .............................................................................................................................................425

Grazing........................................................................................................................................428

Wild Horses................................................................................................................................433

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern and Research Natural Areas ........................435

Cultural Resources....................................................................................................................439

Lands, Realty, Access, and Transportation..........................................................................445

Energy and Minerals ................................................................................................................454
181

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Introduction

Chapter 3 describes the affected environment. The description of the affected environment 

is designed to support and facilitate the understanding of the analysis of the environmental 

consequences that are presented in Chapter 4. The amount of information provided in this chapter 

is proportionate to the importance, scope, and sensitivity of the environmental consequences and 

is no longer than necessary to understand the analysis. 

Planning Area

The planning area for the six resource management plans that are being revised includes 

the public lands and resources that are administered by the Salem, Eugene, Roseburg, 

Coos Bay, and Medford districts, and the Klamath Falls Resource Area of the Lakeview 

District. See Map 30 (BLM lands within the planning area). 

The entire planning area includes approximately 22 million acres, but only approximately 

2.5 million acres are public lands that are administered by the BLM. The BLMadministered lands, therefore, represent only about 11% of the planning area. The 

majority of the lands within the planning area are owned and managed by private 

landowners and other government agencies. See Figure 9 (Major ownerships within the 

planning area).

Figure 9. Major ownerships within the planning area 

BLM Forest ServOther Fed State/Loca Private/Other

2557.7 6734.8 270.4 799.7 11883.1

11%

30%

4% 1%

54%

BLM Forest Service Other Fed State/Local Private/Other
182

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Map 30. BLM lands within the planning area 
183

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

There are five physiographic provinces within the planning area. See Figure 10 

(Physiographic provinces within the planning area). Physiographic provinces vary by the 

type and structure of their vegetation and the differences in their hydrology, geology, and 

other processes (e.g., fire-return intervals) (FEMAT 1993). 

Figure 10. Physiographic provinces within the planning area 

Land Ownerships within the planning area

The public lands in Oregon include the O&C lands, public domain lands, and other public 

lands. See Table 64 (Legal status of the lands administered by the BLM within planning 

area). The O&C lands in western Oregon are managed differently than the other public 

and public domain lands of Oregon, which are located mostly in eastern Oregon. The 

O&C lands are mostly scattered and intermingled with private, industrial forest lands. 

The public domain lands are about half scattered and intermingled with O&C lands and 

about half existing as larger blocks in the Salem, Coos Bay, and Lakeview districts (with 

the majority being concentrated in the Klamath Falls Resource Area of the Lakeview 

District). See Figure 11 (BLM surface ownership by legal authority within the planning 

area) for the amount of BLM surface ownership by source of administrative authority 

within the planning area. 
184

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Table 64. Legal status of the lands administered by the BLM within the planning area 

BLM Districts O&C Lands 

(acres)

Public 

Domain 

Lands 

(acres)

Other 

Public 

Lands* 

(acres)

Total 

(acres)

Salem 349,300 51,600 2,100 403,000

Eugene 304,200 10,500 400 315,100

Roseburg 406,500 19,800 0 426,300

Coos Bay 279,400 41,800 1,500 322,700

Medford 764,900 96,100 4,800 865,800

Klamath Falls Resource Area 

(Lakeview District) 46,900 174,800 3,200 224,900

Total 2,151,200 394,600 12,000 2,557,800

*Federal lands acquired by purchase or donation under an authorization other than the Federal Land Policy and Management Act.

Figure 11. BLM surface ownership by legal authority within the planning area 

The O&C land pattern has a checkerboard character that results from the grid of the 

Public Land Survey System. O&C land is generally located in the odd-numbered sections 

with the intermingled private lands being located in the 

even-numbered sections. A section in the checkerboard is 

normally one mile on a side and encloses approximately 

640 acres. The BLM administers approximately 2.5 million 

acres of these checkerboard parcels of public land within the 

approximately 22 million acres that comprise the planning 

area. The management of the intermingled private lands 

usually differs from that of the BLM-administered lands. See Figure 12 (Sample portion 

of the intermingled checkerboard of private and BLM-administered lands).

District O&C 

Public 

Domain Other Total 

Salem 349,300 51,600 2,100 404,516

Eugene 304,200 10,500 400 316,593

Coos Bay 279,400 41,800 1,500 329,124

Roseburg 406,500 19,800 0 423,928

Medford 764,900 96,100 4,800 866,278

Klamath 

Falls 46,900 174,800 3,200 212,000

Total 2,151,200 394,600 12,000 2,557,800

O&C Public Domain

2,151,200 406,600

84%

16%

O&C Public Domain

Public Land Survey System

For details about this system 

of subdividing and identifying 

public domain lands, see http://

nationalatlas.gov/articles/

boundaries/a_plss.html. 
185

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Figure 12. Sample portion of the intermingled checkerboard of private and BLM-administered lands 

Figure 12 illustrates the intermingled checkerboard pattern of the BLM and private land 

ownerships. The BLM-administered lands in the figure are within the squares that contain 

the small polygons. Note that many parcels of BLM-administered lands are smaller than 

a square mile and are disconnected and isolated from other BLM-administered lands. 

The dark green areas in the image are older forests while the brown areas are recently 

harvested units. 

Land Management

The existing land management plans for the individual national forests and BLM districts 

(including the six districts within the planning area) that are west of the Cascade Range 

in Washington, Oregon, and northern California have incorporated the management 

direction that is contained in the Northwest Forest Plan. Most, but not all, of the planning 

area falls within the Northwest Forest Plan area. See Figure 13 (Areas of the Northwest 

Forest Plan and the planning area). 
186

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Figure 13. Areas of the Northwest Forest Plan and the planning area 

The current vegetation condition of the private, state, and federal lands within the 

planning area has been calculated using the 1996 satellite data from the Interagency 

Vegetation Mapping Project. This data includes the major fire and regeneration harvesting 

data that is available as of 2002. The vegetative condition of non-BLM lands varies from 

nonforest to the four forest structural stage classifications (stand establishment, young (or 

recently harvested), mature, and structurally complex). 

The intensity of the land management activities across all ownerships within the 

planning area is partly indicated by the number of miles of roads that exist per square 

mile (i.e., road density). See Figure 14 (Road density across all land ownerships within 

the planning area).
187

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Figure 14. Road density across all land ownerships within the planning area 

The BLM has also developed a geospatial database of the lands and resources it 

administers. This geographic information system contains data regarding various 

resources, such as forests, streams, roads, recreation, and wildlife. This information was 

captured from on-the-ground surveys and aerial and satellite photography. See Figure 15 

(Example of geospatial data from the Forest Operations Inventory database).
188

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Figure 15. Example of geospatial data from the Forest Operations Inventory database 

Figure 15 shows aggregated sections within individual forest stands. Non-BLM lands 

are not mapped. The areas mapped in the figure represent a somewhat typical BLM 

landscape, which is a mixture of older stands and younger stands that that have been 

harvested and replanted. These stands are intermixed on a larger landscape of private 

timber management, agriculture, and urbanization. The BLM manages over 80,000 

mapped individual stands. 

Watersheds are also useful as a unit of measure for summarizing certain natural resources. 

There are 260 fifth-field watersheds, which average 87,000 acres in size, located all or 

partially within the planning area. For a discussion of 

watersheds, see Water in Chapter 3. See Figure 16 (Fifth-field 

watersheds within the planning area) for the size and 

distribution of these watersheds within the planning area.

Watersheds

To learn more about watersheds 

in our area, see http://www.epa.

gov/owow/watershed/whatis.

html and http://cfpub.epa.gov/

surf/
189

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Figure 16. Fifth-field watersheds within the planning area 

The BLM in western Oregon is rarely the predominant landowner within a fifth-field 

watershed. See Figure 17 (Two example watersheds showing various BLM ownership 

patterns). Figure 17 shows that BLM ownership at the fifth-field watershed level ranges 

from a few scattered parcels to large areas. Therefore, activities on adjacent lands have 

implications for the management of BLM lands. The BLM’s ability to influence resource 

outcomes often depends upon the amount and location of its land ownership in relation to 

a particular resource. 
190

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Figure 17. Two example watersheds showing various BLM ownership patterns 
191

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Over half of BLM lands are located within fifth-field watersheds where the BLMadministered lands comprise less than one-third of the watershed. By contrast, most of 

the lands managed by the Forest Service are in large, contiguous blocks. See Figure 18 

(BLM, Forest Service, and private ownership as a percent of the fifth-field watersheds 

within the planning area), which illustrates the comparative proportion of land ownership 

at the fifth-field watershed scale for the BLM, Forest Service, and private land owners. 

In only 8 of the 260 fifth-field watersheds within the planning area does the BLMadministrated lands comprise the majority of the watershed.

Figure 18. BLM, Forest Service, and private ownership as a percent of the fifth-field watersheds 

within the planning area 
192

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Ecology

Key Points

• The abundance of stand establishment forests is above the average for historic conditions. 

• Stand establishment forests that are created by timber harvesting usually lack the habitat complexity and legacy 

components that are typical of stand establishment forests following natural disturbances. 

• Stand establishment forests have declined on federally managed forests over the past decade and are becoming 

restricted to nonfederal lands. 

• The abundance of young forests is above the average for historic conditions. 

• Young forests on BLM-administered lands are predominately high-density, even-aged stands that are developing 

along a trajectory that is fundamentally different from that experienced by most of the existing structurally 

complex forests on BLM-administered lands.

• The abundance of mature and structurally complex forests within the planning area is below the average for 

historic conditions. 

• The growth of forests into a mature and structurally complex forested condition has far outpaced the loss of mature 

and structurally complex forests from harvesting and wildfires within the planning area over the past 10 years. 

This section of Chapter 3 analyzes the ecological condition of conifer forests. Forest stands can 

be described by their structure, composition, and function. This analysis will focus on forest 

structure, because structure is the most easily analyzed, responds most predictably and apparently 

to management actions, and is closely related to many of the issues for analysis. 

The structural development of conifer stands in the Pacific Northwest is a complex and 

continuous process. Pacific Northwest conifer forests are notable for the potential longevity and 

massive size of live trees, and enormous accumulations of coarse woody debris. Forest structure 

in the Pacific Northwest continues to develop for tremendously long time spans, perhaps even 

a millennium in the absence of stand-replacing disturbances (Spies 2004; Franklin et al. 2002). 

Therefore, there is more complexity in classifying the later stages of structural development in the 

conifer forests of the Pacific Northwest than in most forested regions.

The report titled Forest Ecosystem Management: An Ecological, Economic, and Social 

Assessment (FEMAT 1993) described ecological conditions throughout 

the range of the northern spotted owl. The FEMAT report described the 

history of forest management in the region (p. II-2, II-3), the terrestrial 

forest ecosystems with an overview of biological communities and 

ownership patterns (p. IV-3 to IV-8), and the current forest conditions 

with an emphasis on the structure, composition, and processes of 

late-successional forests (p. IV-8 to IV-12, IV-27 to IV-31). Those 

descriptions are incorporated by reference and the following 

paragraphs summarize them. 

The final supplemental environmental impact statement (USDA, USDI 1994) for the Northwest 

Forest Plan FEIS also analyzed the ecological conditions within the range of the northern spotted 

owl. The Northwest Forest Plan FSEIS relied partly on the FEMAT report, which was included 

as an appendix to the Northwest Forest Plan FSEIS. The Northwest Forest Plan FSEIS provided 

some additional discussion within each of the descriptions incorporated below, and those analyses 

are incorporated by reference (p. 3&4-11 to 3&4-29). 

FEMAT 

(Forest Ecosystem Management 

Assessment Team)

The 1993 presidentially 

assigned team of scientists, 

researchers, and technicians 

from seven federal agencies 

that created the report that 

was used as the basis for the 

Northwest Forest Plan.
193

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

The FEMAT report and the Northwest Forest Plan focused on “late-successional and old-growth 

forest” (FSEIS, I-4 to I-6). As defined in the FEMAT report and the Northwest Forest Plan, the 

concept of late-successional forest included both mature and old-growth forests (FEMAT, IX-19; 

FSEIS, Glossary 9). The FEMAT report and the Northwest Forest Plan developed a management 

plan that was “based on returning the federal landscape toward an extent of old-growth forest 

more in line with what was here before widespread logging on federal lands. The historical 

extent was assumed to be adequate to sustain the native biological diversity associated with older 

forest.” (Spies 2006, 83).

Late-successional forests are heterogeneous in structure and diverse in composition and function 

(FEMAT, IV-28 to IV-31). Since the publication of the FEMAT report in 1993, research has 

continued to refine scientific understanding of the development of existing late-successional 

forests. There are multiple developmental pathways to late-successional forest structure and 

composition across the region (Franklin and Van Pelt 2004; Spies 2004; Franklin et al. 2002). 

Research reconstructing the stand development of late-successional forests on BLM-administered 

lands in western Oregon suggests that large, old-growth trees generally developed under low 

stand densities (Spies 2006; Poage and Tappeiner 2002; Sensenig 2002; Tappeiner et al. 1997). 

In contrast, research by Winter et al. (2002), reconstructing a late-successional stand in western 

Washington, concluded that the stand initiated under high-density conditions (Winter et al. 2002). 

Although the research by Winter et al. (2002) represents only a single stand, its contrasting 

finding to the above research suggests that there may be strong regional differences in the 

development of late-successional forest conditions. The large data set from BLM-administered 

lands within the planning area make the conclusions from Poage and Tappeiner and Tappeiner et 

al. more relevant to this analysis. 

The FEMAT report and the Northwest Forest Plan FSEIS described the role of silviculture, 

including the use of stand thinning, to accelerate the development of late-successional forest 

structural characteristics and to reduce the risk of stand-replacing fire (FEMAT, IV-33 to IV36; FSEIS, 3&4-45, 3&4-47, 3&4-49). The Northwest Forest Plan FSEIS observed that latesuccessional forest development in young, managed stands may be retarded, or not occur at all, 

without silvicultural treatment (FSEIS, 3&4-49). Research in the last decade has reinforced the 

potential roles of silviculture and has provided a more detailed understanding of the effects of 

thinning on forest resources (Franklin et al. 2006; Spies 2006; Hayes et al. 2003; Muir et al. 2002; 

Carey 2000). The monitoring report titled Northwest Forest Plan–The First Ten Years (1994-

2003): A Synthesis of Monitoring and Research Results (commonly known as the Monitoring 

Synthesis Report) affirmed the conclusions in the FEMAT report and the Northwest Forest Plan 

that thinning would restore ecological diversity and reduce the potential for loss from highseverity fires (Spies 2006, 110‐111).
194

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Ecological Conditions at the Regional Scale

The analysis in this section of Chapter 3 (Ecology) will not provide a new analysis of 

forest conditions at the scale of the Northwest Forest Plan, which is the range of the 

northern spotted owl. The discussions below will summarize 

previous analyses and monitoring results and provide the 

context for this analysis, which is conducted at the scale of the 

planning area and physiographic provinces. The discussions 

below at the regional scale use the forest stage terminology 

(e.g., late-successional forest) of the original analyses rather 

than the structural stage classification terminology that was 

developed in this analysis.

The Northwest Forest Plan FSEIS evaluated the abundance of late-successional forest by 

comparing abundance under each alternative to estimates of historic conditions (FSEIS, 

3&4-36, 3&4-37): 

•	 a “long-term average” of 65% of the region in late-successional forest, and 

•	 a “long-term average low” of 40% of the region in late-successional forest. 

The Northwest Forest Plan FSEIS estimated that there were 8.55 million acres of latesuccessional forest (described as medium and large conifer), which is approximately 

35% of the 24.5 million acres of federally managed lands within the range of the 

northern spotted owl in 1994 (p. 3&4-27). The monitoring report titled Northwest 

Forest Plan–The First Ten Years (1994-2003): Status and Trend of Late-Successional 

and Old-Growth Forest (commonly known as the Late-Successional Forest Monitoring 

Report), using a similar definition but a remotely sensed data source, concluded that 

there were 7.87 million acres of late-successional forest on federally managed lands 

in 1994, and concluded that the plan was founded on valid assumptions about the 

extent of the remaining older forests (Moeur et al. 2005). The Late-Successional Forest 

Monitoring Report contains detailed descriptions of the abundance and distribution of 

late-successional forest by different measures, and those descriptions are incorporated by 

reference (Moeur et al. 2005, 44-110). 

Since 1994, there has been a net increase of late-successional forest approximately 

twice the increase anticipated in the Northwest Forest Plan FSEIS. Growth of forests 

into the lower size range of late-successional forests has far outpaced losses of latesuccessional forest from harvesting and wildfire. Harvesting of late-successional forest 

has been far below the amount anticipated in the Northwest Forest Plan FSEIS. Loss of 

late-successional forest from wildfire in total has been approximately consistent with the 

amount anticipated in the Northwest Forest Plan FSEIS, though losses have been higher 

in the fire-prone forests of the Klamath province. See Figure 19 (Disturbance map from 

the Northwest Forest Plan’s Late-Successional Forest Monitoring Report) (Spies 2006; 

Moeur et al. 2005, 39, 85-100, 104-106; FSEIS, 3&4-42). 

Physiographic province

A region of the landscape 

with distinctive geographical 

features. There are five within 

the planning area:

•	 Coast Range

•	 Eastern Cascades

•	 Klamath

•	 Western Cascades

•	 Willamette Valley
195

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Figure 19. Disturbance map from the Northwest Forest Plan’s Late-Successional Forest 

Monitoring Report

At least 1.7 million acres of existing late-successional forests are in fire-adapted 

vegetation types that are characterized by high fire frequency and low fire severity 

in the Eastern Cascades and Klamath provinces, and up to 1 million acres are in dry 

mixed conifer types in the Western Cascades province. The Late-Successional Forest 

Monitoring Report and the Monitoring Synthesis Report identified that this large acreage 

of late-successional forest that is susceptible to catastrophic wildfire may be a concern, 
196

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

and concluded that the possibility of major losses of late-successional forest in fire-prone 

ecosystems cannot be ignored (Spies 2006; Moeur et al. 2005, 100-102, 107-108).

Nonfederal forests within the range of the northern spotted owl are predominately young, 

even-aged, managed stands, and provide mostly early and mid-successional forest habitat. 

The Northwest Forest Plan FSEIS characterized typical management on nonfederal forest 

lands as including timber harvesting in a stand’s fifth or sixth decade (FSEIS, 3&4-5 to 

3&4-8). Since 1994, harvest rotations on forest industry lands have generally shortened 

(Nonaka and Spies 2005; Kennedy 2005, 110-117; Alig et al. 2000, 9). The Northwest 

Forest Plan assumed that nonfederal forests would contribute little to late-successional 

goals, but the Monitoring Synthesis Report acknowledged that this assumption may not 

have been correct, and that nonfederal lands, especially state lands, provide substantial 

late-successional forest (Spies 2006, 108).

The implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan reduced harvest levels on federally 

managed forests from recent historic levels. The vast majority of harvests and subsequent 

creation of early successional habitat is now occurring on nonfederal lands. The 

Monitoring Synthesis Report acknowledged that the Northwest Forest Plan did not 

explicitly provide for the biological diversity that is associated with early successional 

habitats. The Monitoring Synthesis Report observed that nonfederal lands cannot be 

assumed to provide for these elements of biological diversity because of the lack of 

diverse, early successional habitat with structural legacies on nonfederal lands (Spies 

2006, 109).

The FEMAT report and the Northwest Forest Plan FSEIS provided a brief, qualitative 

evaluation of the existing spatial patterns of late-successional forests. Those analyses 

stated that what little late-successional forest remained on private and state lands occurred 

in small, isolated patches, and that most late-successional forests on federal forests are 

highly fragmented by harvested areas and young stands (FEMAT, IV-12; FSEIS, 3&4-

29). The Northwest Forest Plan FSEIS evaluated the spatial patterns of alternatives by 

the connectivity of late-successional forest—measuring the distances between latesuccessional forested patches (FSEIS, 3&4-38 to 3&4-40). The Northwest Forest Plan 

FSEIS concluded that implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan would likely result in 

“moderate to strong” connectivity among late-successional forests (Spies 2006; FSEIS, 

3&4-44, 3&4-46). However, that analysis did not project the retention or development of 

late-successional forests within the harvest land base unless explicitly reserved through 

the standards and guidelines (FSEIS, 3&4-42, 3&4-43). 
197

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Ecological Conditions at the Planning Area Scale

The ecological conditions at the scale of the planning area are discussed in terms of the 

structural stages of forests and physiographic provinces. See Figure 20 (Percent of BLMadministered land within each of the physiographic provinces within the planning area)

and Figure 21 (Physiographic provinces and BLM lands within the planning area).

Figure 20. Percent of BLM-administered land within each of the physiographic provinces within 

the planning area 

Figure 21. Physiographic provinces and BLM lands within the planning area 

West 

Cascades

27%

East 

Cascades 

9%

Willamette 

Valley

1%

Coast 

Range

31%

Klamath 

Mountains

32%
198

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Forests are classified in this analysis by four structural stage classifications: 

•	 stand establishment

•	 young 

•	 mature

•	 structurally complex.

These four structural classes are further subdivided by additional structural descriptors 

See Table 65 (Structural stage subdivisions). Most discussions in this section will 

only use the four classes described above. The subdivisions are applied only to BLMadministered lands and are used in this section only where needed to address specific 

analytical questions. A detailed description of the structural classifications is provided in 

Appendix B. Ecology. 

Table 65. structural stage subdivisions

Structural Stages Subdivisions Descriptions

Stand Establishment

Stand Establishment without 

Structural Legacies

Very young forest (< 50 ft. tall) 

without larger trees

Stand Establishment with 

Structural Legacies

Very young forest (< 50 ft. tall) with 

some larger trees

Young

Young without 

Structural Legacies

Taller than stand establishment, but 

still small (< 20 in. dbh) and without 

larger trees

Young with Structural Legacies

Taller than stand establishment, but 

still small (< 20 in. dbh) and with 

some larger trees

Mature

Mature with Single-Layered 

Canopy

Larger trees (> 20 in. dbh) with little 

variation in tree size

Mature with Multilayered 

Canopy

Larger trees (> 20 in. dbh) with more 

than one canopy layer

Structurally Complex

Existing Old Forestab Stands currently 200 years or older

Developed Structurally 

Complexc

Larger trees (> 20 in. dbh) with some 

very large trees (> 40 in. dbh) and 

more than one canopy layer

Notes:

a

Stands identified in the current inventory as 200 years or older remain in this subdivision in the future unless harvested.

b

A subset of this subdivision (Existing Very Old Forest, which represents stands that are 400 years or older) is also identified based on current 

inventory. The assignment of ages to these unmanaged stands is imprecise, but represents the only available data across BLM-administered 

lands within the planning area.

c

Forests are classified in this subdivision if they have the structural attributes identified but are not 200 years or older in the current inventory. 

It includes stands that currently have the attributes of structurally complex stands and those stands that develop the attributes of structurally 

complex stands in the future.
199

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

This classification uses only measures of live trees. The dynamics of coarse woody 

debris and snags are integral to ecological definitions of late-successional forests, and 

there is increasing understanding of the importance of dead wood in early-successional 

forests (Franklin et al. 2002; Spies and Franklin 1988). However, this classification 

does not include measures of dead wood because of inadequate inventory of dead wood 

(Spies 2006), the high variability of dead wood levels in unmanaged forests (Spies and 

Franklin 1991), and the difficulty in modeling future creation of dead wood from such 

disturbances as fire or wind (Kennedy 2005, 97-160).

The stand establishment structural stage describes the early-successional conditions of a 

forest following such disturbances as timber harvesting or wildfires. This classification is 

comparable to the cohort establishment stage in Franklin et al. (2002). This classification 

is subdivided based on whether the new forest includes trees from the previous forest 

(with or without structural legacies). See Figure 22 (Stand establishment forest without 

structural legacies). Natural disturbances within the planning area typically do not kill all 

trees within a stand, and surviving trees have important influences on stand development 

(Franklin et al. 2002; Aber et al. 2000).

Figure 22. Stand establishment forest without structural legacies 

Young forests approximate small conifer forests as used in the FEMAT report and the 

Northwest Forest Plan. This classification is subdivided, like stand establishment, based 

on whether the young forest includes trees from the previous forest. See Figure 23 (Young 

forest without structural legacies). Young forests with structural legacies develop from 

stand establishment forests that have structural legacies. Young forests with structural 

legacies typically develop directly into mature forests with multilayered canopies, 

whereas young forests without structural legacies typically develop into mature forests 

with a single-layered canopy. 
200

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Figure 23. Young forest without structural legacies 

Mature forests are defined similarly to mature forests as described in the FEMAT report 

and the Northwest Forest Plan (although the definition in this analysis uses a lower 

threshold for the density of large trees in the southern portion of the planning area 

to reflect the generally lower site quality). This classification is subdivided based on 

whether the forest has a single-layered or multilayered canopy. See Figure 24 (Mature 

forest with multilayered canopies). The development of multiple canopy layers may 

arise from the development of a new cohort of shade-tolerant trees below an older 

overstory or from prolonged or continuous tree regeneration in open young forests. This 

classification uses the diversity of tree diameters as a surrogate for direct modeling of 

tree crowns. (Development of continuous tree canopies may also arise from canopy trees 

re-establishing lower branches as the stand becomes more open. This process would not 

be detected by the subdivision in this classification. However, this process is typically 

associated with later stages of stand development, and therefore is part of the structurally 

complex structural stage in this classification scheme).

Figure 24. Mature forest with multilayered canopies

Mature forests with single-layered canopies typically must develop into mature forests 

with multilayered canopies first, before developing into structurally complex forests. 

This is because one of the defining characteristics of structurally complex forests is 

multiple canopy layers. Mature forests with multilayered canopies provide the precursors 
201

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

to structurally complex forests, ensuring a replacement of structurally complex forests 

that are removed by timber harvesting or natural disturbances. Mature forests with 

multilayered canopies would provide more of the functions that are associated with 

structural complex forests, such as habitat for species that are associated with latesuccessional forests, than would mature forests with single-layered canopies (Spies 2006, 

93; Washington State Department of Natural Resources 2005, 9-10). 

Together, mature and structurally complex forests approximate what is termed latesuccessional forest in the FEMAT report, the Northwest Forest Plan, and the district 

resource management plans. 

Structurally complex forests approximate what is termed:

•	 old-growth forests in many analyses (e.g., district resource management plans 

and environmental impact statements);

•	 medium and large conifer multistory forests in the FEMAT report; and 

•	 large, multistoried older forest in the Late-Successional Forest Monitoring 

Report (Moeur et al. 2005). 

See Figure 25 (Structurally complex forest).

Figure 25. Structurally complex forest 

The structural development of structurally complex forests is a continuous and variable 

process, and the structure and composition of very old stands is not equivalent to those 

of the younger, less developed forests that are classified as structurally complex (Spies 

2006; Washington State Department of Natural Resources 2005; Franklin and Van Pelt 

2004; Spies 2004; Franklin et al. 2002). The structural complexity of forests continues 

to develop for many centuries after meeting the minimum criteria for a structurally 

complex forest (Franklin et al. 2002). The older, more complex forests provide 

superior habitat for some species, such as Nephroma occultum and Pseudocyphellaria 
202

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

rainierensis, that are slow to colonize habitats, are highly sensitive to disturbance, 

or prefer highly complex canopy structure (USDA, USDI 2004a). However, there is 

inadequate information to evaluate whether older structurally complex forests would 

provide superior habitat to younger structurally complex forests for most species that 

are related to late-successional forests. 

This analysis does not classify forests by age alone (though some parts of the analysis use 

stand age), because stand age alone does not reliably describe the structural conditions 

of stands (Franklin et al. 2006; Spies 2006; Moeur et al. 2005; Spies and Franklin 

1991; Spies and Franklin 1988). The rate of development of several forest structural 

characteristics that are relevant to the issues in this analysis, such as large individual 

trees and multiple canopy layers, is dependent partly on the forest management actions 

that would differ among the alternatives. This differential rate of structural development 

would be masked by classifying the forest solely by age. Furthermore, classifying stands 

by age is problematic in mixed-aged stands. Stand age is used here to distinguish between 

existing old forest and existing very old forest within the broader classification of 

structurally complex forests.

There is inadequate information on existing stands to distinguish among levels of 

complexity among structurally complex forests. Current structurally complex forests are 

mostly or exclusively unmanaged stands, and the BLM has less stand-level inventory 

information regarding these stands than for managed stands. Therefore, this classification 

describes a subdivision of structurally complex forest as existing old forest (stands 

identified in the current inventory as 200 years or older), and a further subset of this 

subdivision of existing very old forest (stands identified in the current inventory as 

400 years or older). The assignment of ages to these unmanaged stands is imprecise and 

was usually made based on qualitative and subjective evaluation, but this represents the 

only available data on stand age across the BLM-administered lands within the planning 

area. The existing old forest subdivision and existing very old forest subset labels do 

not directly describe structurally complex stands with the greatest structural complexity. 

However, without more detailed stand structural information, these forests are most likely 

to have the most developed structure and the longest time since a disturbance of the 

structurally complex forests.

Some analyses have evaluated forest structural complexity using an index approach 

rather than discrete thresholds for classifications (e.g., Washington State Department of 

Natural Resources 2005; Spies and Franklin 1991; Spies and Franklin 1988). An index 

approach can be effective and informative when used to classify existing conditions at the 

stand level, if there is an abundance of stand-level data (e.g., Spies and Franklin 1991). 

However, an index approach would produce an analysis of bewildering complexity if 

used to analyze multiple alternatives modeled into the future.

The structural stages for all lands other than the BLM-administered lands are classified 

using data from the Interagency Vegetation Mapping Project (IVMP), which uses satellite 

imagery to classify attributes of forest vegetation. See Appendix B. Ecology. Moeur 

et al. (2005) discuss the accuracy of mapping forest vegetation from IVMP data and 

conclude that it provides the best practice for classifying forest vegetation across all 
203

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

ownerships in a region (Moeur et al. 2005, 18-30, 108-109, 123-128). Those discussions 

are incorporated by reference. The BLM-administered lands are classified for both the 

current and future conditions based on OPTIONS model outputs rather than IVMP data. 

For analyses across all ownerships, the four classes of structural stages that are defined 

above are reduced to three classes—combining structurally complex and mature, which 

is equivalent to late-successional forest in other analyses. IVMP data cannot reliably 

distinguish between mature and structurally complex forests (Spies 2006; Moeur et al. 

2005, 103-104). This analysis will refer to this combined class as mature&structurally 

complex forest.

Average Historic Conditions

This analysis compares the abundance and spatial patterns of the structural stages 

to average historical conditions, as did the FEMAT report and the Northwest 

Forest Plan FSEIS. 

The FEMAT report estimated that 60 to 70% of the region was historically 

in mature&structurally complex forests (FEMAT, IV-51). At the scale 

of the physiographic provinces (e.g., the Coast Range), the amount of 

mature&structurally complex forests probably fluctuated between approximately 

50 to 85% of the landscape (Spies 2006; Nonaka and Spies 2005; Wimberly 

2002; Wimberly et al. 2000; Rasmussen and Ripple 1998).1

 The FEMAT report 

(with its focus on late-successional forest) did not characterize the abundance or 

spatial patterns of forest conditions other than for late-successional forests. 

This analysis uses the descriptions of average historic conditions from Nonaka 

and Spies (2005) and the draft Rapid Assessment Reference Condition Model 

(USDA, USDI 2005a). Historic landscape conditions were dynamic, and the 

abundance of structural stages varied over time. Spies (2006) noted further 

that “no single point or short period can realistically be used to characterize 

this dynamic system.” However, comparing effects over time under multiple 

alternatives to a range of conditions would have the following problems.

•	 There are no existing characterizations of the range of historic conditions 

that match the geographic scale of the planning area.

•	 The magnitude of the range of historic conditions is highly dependent 

upon the spatial scale of analysis, and the range is so wide at fine scales 

as to be uninformative (Wimberly et al. 2000). 

•	 A comparison to a range of conditions would not provide for a clear 

comparison of the alternatives. 

1

 Note that these studies modeled the historic range of variability for the Coast Range. Descriptions of the reference conditions 

vary for the other provinces (USDA, USDI 2005a), but these results are consistent with the region-wide estimates in the FEMAT report.
204

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

See Appendix B. Ecology for the average historical conditions and the historic 

range of variability). Therefore, this analysis uses average historic conditions 

rather than a historic range of variability as a benchmark for comparing the 

effects of the alternatives. 

For the entire planning area, this analysis uses average structural stage abundance 

and spatial patterns from Nonaka and Spies (2005), which modeled historic 

conditions in the Coast Range. Although this research was conducted on only a 

portion of the planning area, it presents the only available description of historic 

spatial patterns at a broad scale, and the abundance results are consistent with 

the region-wide estimates of late-successional forest in the FEMAT report. The 

age classes in Nonaka and Spies were combined for comparison to the structural 

stages in this analysis. Average historic conditions adapted from Nonaka and 

Spies approximately correlate to 5% stand establishment, 15% young, 25% 

mature, and 55% structurally complex. 

Wimberly (2002) also modeled historical ranges of variability in the Coast Range 

and found slightly different median average values, which would correlate to 

17% stand establishment; 21% young; 16% mature; 42% structurally complex. 

Forest classes were defined differently in Wimberly. Notably, Wimberly defined 

the early successional forests, which correlate to stand establishment forests 

here, more broadly than Nonaka and Spies. Also, Wimberly assumed that both 

high-severity and moderate-severity fires reestablished early successional forests, 

whereas Nonaka and Spies assumed that only high-severity fires reestablished 

early successional forests (Nonaka and Spies 2005, 1737). Finally, comparison 

of mean averages from one model to median averages from another model is 

inherently problematic. Neither of these characterizations of average historic 

conditions is definitive, and the analysis here is attempting to make use of 

average values rather than a range describing the variability of a dynamic system. 

Using the average historic conditions from Wimberly as a benchmark for the 

comparison of alternatives would necessarily yield different conclusions about 

the absolute relationship of the effects of a specific alternative to average historic 

conditions. However, using a different benchmark for average historic conditions 

would not alter conclusions about the relative effects of the alternatives.

For individual physiographic provinces, this analysis uses the description 

of structural stage abundance from the draft Rapid Assessment Reference 

Condition Model (USDA, USDI 2005a). These models derive historic 

abundances by modeling disturbance probabilities that are generated from 

mean fire-return intervals combined with the probabilities of other disturbances 

(such as wind, insect, and pathogens). These models describe the average 

amount of the landscape that would be expected in each of the broad vegetation 

classes, which are roughly equivalent to the structural stages used in this 

analysis. The Coast Range and Western Cascades provinces are compared to 
205

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

the Douglas fir hemlock wet-mesic model.2 The Klamath province is compared 

to the mixed conifer-southwest Oregon model. The Eastern Cascades province 

is compared to the dry ponderosa pine-mesic model. These reference condition 

models provide representative descriptions of common conditions in each 

province. However, the provinces include other models, some of which 

describe other patterns of abundance. For example, the Coast Range and 

Western Cascades provinces include the Douglas fir Willamette Valley foothills 

model, which describes more stand establishment and young forest (15% and 

25%, respectively). The Klamath province includes the Oregon coastal tanoak 

model, which describes more young forest (60%).

Abundance of Structural Stages

Stand establishment forests currently comprise 48% of the forested lands within 

the planning area across all ownerships. See Table 66 (Current structural stage 

abundance on forested lands).

3

 Stand establishment forests have declined on 

BLM-administered and Forest Service lands and are becoming restricted to 

nonfederal lands. Despite the decline on federal forests, stand establishment 

forests across all ownerships are still above average historical conditions. 

Intensive forest management practices on forest industry lands (including site 

preparation, rapid and dense replanting, and herbicide application) simplify the 

structure and composition of stand establishment habitat and shorten the time 

until canopy closure. As a result, stand establishment forests created by timber 

harvesting lack the habitat complexity and legacy components typical of stand 

establishment forests following natural disturbances (Spies 2006; Ohmann et al. 

2005; Cohen et al. 2002; Franklin et al. 2002; Aber et al. 2000; Perry 1998). 

On BLM-administered lands, stand establishment forests currently comprise 7% 

of forest-capable lands, which is close to average historical conditions. These 

forests are predominately (79%) stand establishment forests without structural 

legacies, resulting from regeneration harvesting before the Northwest Forest 

Plan.

Young forests currently comprise 17% of the forested lands within the planning 

area across all ownerships. See Table 66 (Current structural stage abundance on 

forested lands), which is above average historical conditions. Young forests on 

BLM-administered lands are predominately high-density, even-aged managed 

2 Analysis of structural stage abundance by physiographic province splits the small acreage of BLM-administered lands in the 

Willamette Valley province at Interstate 5 and combines the resultant portions with the Coast Range and West Cascades provinces.

3 Current condition structural stage abundance differs slightly among the alternatives because of differences in how the inventory information is assembled for modeling under each alternative. The structural stage classification is made based on the 

Organon growth and yield curve attributes. The assignment of groupings of stands to specific yield curves varies among the 

alternatives, which results in slightly different current conditions. In addition, the classification for Alternatives 2 and 3 improved the identification of open water as non forest. Therefore, the following descriptions of current conditions use the 2006 

data from Alternative 3. 
206

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

stands. Most of these stands were established following timber harvesting and 

intensive site preparation practices. This management history has created stands 

with a homogeneous structure, uniform tree composition, and high tree density. 

These young forests are developing along a trajectory that is fundamentally 

different from that experienced by most of the existing structurally complex 

forests on BLM-administered lands (Muir et al. 2002; Poage and Tappeiner 2002; 

Sensenig 2002; Tappeiner et al. 1997). 

On BLM-administered lands, young forests currently comprise 42% of forestcapable lands. These are predominately (78%) young forests without structural 

legacies. 

Mature&structurally complex forests currently comprise 35% of forested lands 

within the planning area across all ownerships. See Table 66 (Current structural 

stage abundance on forested lands). The abundance of mature&structurally 

complex forests within the planning area is well below the average historical 

condition of 80%. 

On BLM-administered lands, mature&structurally complex forests together 

currently comprise 51% of forest-capable lands. Mature forests comprise 28% 

and structurally complex forests comprise 23% of forest-capable lands. Mature 

forests are predominately (82%) mature forests with multilayered canopies. 

Structurally complex forests are predominately existing old forest (60%) with a 

smaller amount of developed structurally complex (37%) (i.e., stands that meet 

the defining attributes of structurally complex but are identified as less than 

200 years old in the current inventory), and only a very small amount of existing 

very old forest (3%). While establishing accurate stand ages for unmanaged 

stands is problematic, as described above, structurally complex forests on BLMadministered lands are dominated by stands that are less than 400 years old. This 

is in contrast to the extensive acreage of structurally complex forest in national 

forests in the Western Cascades province (most of which is 400 to 500 years old) 

(Weisberg and Swanson 2003).
207

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Table 66. Current structural stage abundance on forested lands 

Hardwood stands are typically dominated by red alder or big leaf maple in the 

Coast Range and Western Cascades provinces, by madrone and oaks in the 

Klamath province, and by tanoak in the coastal portion of the Klamath province. 

Hardwood stands provide many ecological functions that are distinct from 

conifer stands and are hotspots for biological diversity (Kennedy and Spies 

2005). Red alder stands are particularly noted for nitrogen fixation and highnitrogen litter (Harrington 2006; Compton et al. 2003). The nitrogen levels in 

alder stands generally contribute to high growth rates for trees, but nitrogen 

inputs by alder stands on sites that are already nitrogen rich may lead to nutrient 

imbalances, which may predispose coastal Douglas fir stands to intensification of 

Swiss needle cast disease (Perakis et al. 2006; Compton et al. 2003; Maguire et 

al. 2000). Other hardwood stands, especially dry upland sites dominated by oaks, 

madrone, or tanoak, are characterized by a lower soil fertility and have nitrogen 

levels that are more limited. 

Physiographic Provinces Structural Stage 

Abundance Acres 

Coast Range Western 

Cascades Klamath Eastern Cascades 

Totals per 

Stage 

All ownerships 3,393,000 2,362,000 1,812,000 209,000 7,776,000 Stand Establishment 

BLM only 34,000 48,000 68,000 5,000 155,000 

All ownerships 790,000 1,295,000 441,000 159,000 2,685,000 

Young BLM only 340,000 274,000 278,000 11,000 902,000 

Mature&Structurally All ownerships 1,487,000 2,694,000 1,225,000 211,000 5,617,000 

Complex BLM only 370,000 311,000 427,000 32,000 1,140,000 

Totals per All ownerships 5,670,000 6,352,000 3,478,000 578,000 16,078,000 

Province BLM only 743,000 633,000 773,000 49,000 2,197,000 

All ownerships 

Current Condition 

BLM only 

Historical Average Condition of 

Forested Lands 

(USDA, USDI 2005a)
208

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

It is not possible to quantify the abundance or map the location of hardwood 

stands at this scale of analysis. Hardwood stands are often interspersed with 

conifer stands throughout the planning area. For example, red alder-dominated 

riparian stands are typically classified together with the adjacent upland conifer 

stand. In southwestern Oregon, oak, madrone, or tanoak stands are typically 

finely interspersed with conifer stands without discrete boundaries. Both cases 

generally result in classifying the stand as mixed or conifer-dominated in 

forest inventories. In the Coast Range province, Ohmann et al. (2005) modeled 

hardwood stand abundance as approximately 7% of the landscape across all 

ownerships. Hardwood abundance is likely lower in the Western Cascades and 

Eastern Cascades provinces, and higher in the Klamath province. 

Spatial Patterns of Structural Stages

The spatial arrangement of forest structural stages influences fundamental 

ecosystem processes, such as the flows of energy, materials, and organisms 

(Nonaka and Spies 2005; Forman 1995). In addition to the abundance of 

structural stages, this analysis describes the spatial patterns of structural stages to 

evaluate forest fragmentation and connectivity.

Fragmentation is the breaking up of large habitat areas into smaller patches. 

Fragmentation is often coupled with habitat loss. The two processes together 

have a cumulative effect that can result in an overall reduction in biological 

diversity. The populations of species that are associated with mature&structurally 

complex forests are more likely to decline in a fragmented landscape because of 

the smaller patches of suitable habitat and the greater isolation from neighboring 

populations (Jules 1998; Forman 1995; FSEIS, 3&4-29 to 3&4-31). As habitat 

is fragmented, the connectivity of the habitat decreases. Beyond some threshold, 

fragmentation disrupts connectivity of the habitat and contributes to population 

declines. Such thresholds are poorly understood for most species and depend on 

the scale at which a species interacts with its habitat (With and Crist 1995). 

Larger habitat patches can support greater species diversity. For many species 

that are associated with mature&structurally complex forests, patches below a 

certain size are no longer suitable habitat. However, these minimum patch sizes 

are highly species-specific (to the limited extent they have been quantified). For 

example, Carey et al. (1992) suggest that a breeding pair of northern spotted 

owls requires a mature&structurally complex forest patch of about 2,000 acres 

in mixed conifer forests, whereas marbled murrelets use much smaller patches 

for nesting (ranging from 7 to 368 acres) (Ralph et al. 1995). Smaller patch size 

leads to increased amounts of edge habitat and decreased amounts of interior 

forest habitat. Edge habitats are created where contrasting habitat types abut. 

Edges between mature&structurally complex forests and stand establishment or 

young forests are characterized by altered microclimate and altered biological 

interactions (Forman 1995, 412-415). The depth of edge habitat varies for 

specific biophysical characteristics and ecological processes, and is strongly 
209

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

influenced by the degree of contrast between habitat types and such physical 

conditions as slope and aspect. 

This analysis examines spatial patterns of the forested landscape using 

FRAGSTATS, a spatial patterns analysis program for categorical maps. See 

Appendix B. Ecology. FRAGSTATS quantifies the aerial extent and spatial 

configuration of patches within a landscape. The user defines and scales the 

landscape (including the extent and grain of the landscape) and the scheme 

upon which patches are classified and delineated. For a given landscape mosaic, 

FRAGSTATS computes several metrics for: 

•	 each patch in the mosaic; 

•	 each patch type (class) in the mosaic; and 

•	 the landscape mosaic as a whole. 

For this analysis, patches are delineated as stand establishment, young, or 

mature&structurally complex forest. As noted above, the IVMP data used to 

classify non-BLM-administered lands cannot reliably distinguish between 

mature and structurally complex forest, and therefore these structural stages are 

combined for this portion of the analysis. Additionally, the contrast between 

mature and structurally complex forest patches is too low to constitute an edge 

for many important ecological processes (such as the habitat for the northern 

spotted owls). Nonforest is not included in the spatial analysis. 

FRAGSTATS produces a wealth of metrics, many of which are highly correlated. 

For any given analysis of spatial patterns, many of the metrics do not reveal clear 

patterns. The analysis here uses the following metrics:

•	 mean patch size (mean average of the distribution of patch sizes); and

•	 connectance index (number of functional joinings between patches of the 

same structural stage; this analysis defines patches as functionally joined 

if they are within 1,969 feet (600 m)).

Results for additional metrics are included in the Appendix B. Ecology.

Spatial patterns are analyzed by province for BLM-administered lands, because 

the entire planning area comprises too large a database for computing many of 

the metrics. For all ownerships, even the province comprises too large a database 

for computing most metrics, including connectance. Therefore, only mean patch 

size is computed for all ownerships at the province scale. See Table 67 (Current 

mean patch size by structural stage by province).
210

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Table 67. Current mean patch size by structural stage by province 

Structural Stages

Current 

Mean Patch 

Size (acres)

Physiographic Provinces

Coast 

Range

Western 

Cascades Klamath Eastern 

Cascades

Stand Establishment All ownerships 25.5 29.2 30.2 44.4

BLM only 44.3 21.5 41.9 14.5

Young All ownerships 104.4 82.1 65.0 49.3

BLM only 5.8 8.0 6.2 11.1

Mature&Structurally 

Complex 

All ownerships 110.8 106.6 137.3 182.8

BLM only 15.3 28.4 28.8 28.2

Note: Because the 2006 data differs slightly for the alternatives (as explained above), the spatial configuration differs among the 

alternatives. As with the abundance data above, the spatial pattern results for 2006 use data from Alternative 3.

The changes in spatial patterns over time from this analysis can be compared to 

the measures of spatial patterns from other studies or estimates of average historic 

conditions of spatial patterns to provide a qualitative evaluation of overall trends. 

However, a direct comparison of the absolute values of the spatial pattern measures 

should be made with caution. Measures of spatial patterns are highly dependent 

on the spatial extent of the analysis, the resolution of the data (i.e., the grain size), 

and the classification scheme (in this analysis, the structural stage classification). 

As these factors differ, the absolute values in the results will differ. For example, 

connectance is higher in the Eastern Cascades province than in other provinces 

for all structural stages partly because the spatial extent of this province is much 

smaller than the other provinces. See Table 68 (Current connectance on BLMadministered lands by structural stage by province). The spatial extent, grain size, 

and classification scheme in this analysis differ from studies of historic spatial 

patterns within the planning area (Nonaka and Spies 2005; Wimberly 2002). 

Therefore, the results here should be compared to the results from those studies 

only to evaluate relative trends in spatial patterns, not to make a direct comparison 

of the absolute values of the specific spatial pattern measures. 

Table 68. Current connectance on BLM-administered lands by structural stage 

by province 

Structural Stages

Physiographic Provinces

Coast Range Western 

Cascades Klamath Eastern 

Cascades

Stand Establishment 0.13 0.13 0.10 2.42

Young 0.09 0.10 0.08 1.22

Mature & Structurally 

Complex 0.09 0.11 0.10 1.64
211

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Ecological Conditions at the Province Scale

The FEMAT report and the Northwest Forest Plan FSEIS provide general descriptions 

of the existing conditions at the province scale (FEMAT, IV-6 to IV-11; FSEIS, 3&4-16 

to 3&4-28), but did not explicitly analyze the effects of the alternatives at the province 

scale. The six resource management plans and environmental impact statements (RMPs/

EISs) for the six districts within the planning area described the vegetation communities, 

the characteristics of the stages of forest development, and the biological diversity 

and ecological health of the forest ecosystems within each BLM district. Each district 

analysis concluded, consistent with the FEMAT report and Northwest Forest Plan FSEIS, 

that late-successional forests have been reduced in abundance and highly fragmented by 

past timber harvesting and other land management activities (USDI, BLM 1994a, 3-23 to 

3-39; USDI, BLM 1994b, 3-34 to 3-46; USDI, BLM 1994c, 3-18 to 3-45; USDI, BLM 

1994d, 3-30 to 3-57; USDI, BLM 1994e, 3-17 to 3-42; USDI, BLM 1994f, 3-21 to 3-41, 

3-63 to 3-66, 3-79 to 3-82). Those analyses are incorporated by reference.

Current conditions across in the Coast Range, Western Cascades, and Klamath provinces 

generally reflect the structural stage abundance and spatial patterns described for the 

planning area as a whole. The Eastern Cascades province differs from the other provinces 

in many measures of structural stage abundance and spatial patterns partly because of 

its differing ecological conditions and management history. However, these different 

patterns have little effect on the overall pattern for the planning area, because the Eastern 

Cascades province makes up only 2% of the BLM-administered forest lands modeled 

within the planning area. 

Coast Range

The natural disturbance regime in much of the Coast Range province is 

characterized by infrequent, high-intensity fires and windstorms. Average historic 

forest conditions were 79% mature&structurally complex forests, 16% young 

forests, and 5% stand establishment forests (USDA, USDI 2005a). 

Currently, the Coast Range province has more stand establishment forests and 

less mature&structurally complex forests than it did historically. The Coast 

Range province has little remaining mature&structurally complex forests, most 

of which are mature forests with highly fragmented patches of structurally 

complex forests, primarily on BLM-administered lands (FSEIS, 3&4-21, 3&4-

25, 3&4-27). The mature&structurally complex forests currently comprise 26% 

of all forest lands in the province (50% of BLM-administered lands). Stand 

establishment forests currently comprise 60% of all forest lands in the province 

(5% of BLM-administered lands). See Table 66 (Current structural stage 

abundance on forested lands). 
212

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

The spatial patterns of structural stages in the Coast Range province has been 

strongly altered from historic conditions (Nonaka and Spies 2005; Wimberly 

2002). Current spatial patterns in the Coast Range are characterized by small, 

scattered patches of mature&structurally complex forest set in a matrix of 

young and stand establishment forests. Mean patch size and connectance of 

mature&structurally complex forest is lower than average historic conditions 

(Nonaka and Spies 2005). 

On BLM-administered lands, stand establishment forests are in fewer and smaller 

patches than young or mature&structurally complex forest, which is consistent 

with the overall abundance of structural stages.

Red alder stands in the Coast Range have increased in abundance since the 

1930s (Wimberly and Ohmann 2004), but it is unknown how current hardwood 

abundance compares with the historical range of variability (Ohmann et al. 2005; 

Long et al.1998). The current distribution and abundance of red alder stands in 

the Coast Range has been considered by some to be an unnatural artifact of past 

timber harvesting practices (FEMAT, V-25). The increase in red alder stands is 

not continuing throughout the Coast Range. The abundance of red alder stands in 

the central Coast Range has been declining in recent decades, in contrast to the 

southern Coast Range (Kennedy and Spies 2005; Wimberley and Ohmann 2004). 

Forest management practices will likely reduce the abundance of red alder stands 

within the planning area (Spies 2006; Alig et al. 2000). 

Swiss needle cast, caused by the native fungus, Phaeocryptopus gaeumannii,

has recently caused substantial growth loss of Douglas fir, primarily in young 

plantations within 30 miles of the coast (Kanaskie et al. 2005; Maguire et al. 

2000; USDI, BLM 1994a, 3-27). Possible reasons for the increased effects of 

Swiss needle cast include shifting plantation composition to pure Douglas fir 

on sites that previously supported Sitka spruce, western red-cedar, and western 

hemlock; past planting of off-site Douglas fir; climate changes; and soil nutrition 

changes (Perakis et al. 2006; Campbell and Liegel 1996). 

Western Cascades

The natural disturbance regime in the Western Cascades is complex with 

moderate or highly variable fire frequencies and intensities. Average historical 

conditions are similar to the Coast Range (USDA, USDI 2005a). 

Like the Coast Range and Klamath provinces, the Western Cascades province 

currently has more stand establishment forest and less mature&structurally 

complex forest than average historical conditions. Nevertheless, the Western 

Cascades province currently has greater amounts of mature&structurally complex 

forests than other provinces, especially on Forest Service lands (FSEIS, 3&4-

19, 3&4-20, 3&4-25, 3&4-27). Mature&structurally complex forests currently 

comprise 43% of all forest lands in the province (49% of BLM-administered 

lands). Stand establishment forests currently comprise 37% of all forest lands in 
213

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

the province (8% of BLM-administered lands). See Table 66 (Current structural 

stage abundance on forested lands). 

There are no studies modeling the historic spatial patterns in the Western 

Cascades comparable to those done in the Coast Range, which approximated 

a range of historic patch sizes (Cissel et al. 1999). The overall comparison to 

current conditions is likely similar to the Coast Range with a current mean patch 

size and connectance of mature&structurally complex forest that is lower than 

average historic conditions. 

As in the Coast Range, stand establishment forests on BLM-administered lands 

are in fewer and smaller patches than young or mature&structurally complex 

forest, which is consistent with the overall abundance of structural stages.

Klamath

The natural disturbance regime in much of the Klamath province is characterized 

by frequent, low-intensity fires. Forests in the Klamath province are highly 

fragmented by natural factors, and past cutting has resulted in many mixed-age 

stands (FSEIS, 3&4-22, 3&4-25, 3&4-27). Average historic forest conditions in 

most of the province were 70% mature&structurally complex forests, 15% young 

forests, and 15% stand establishment forests (mixed conifer southwest Oregon 

reference condition model; USDA, USDI 2005a). Other reference condition 

models are applicable in smaller portions of the province. For example, the 

Oregon coastal tanoak model, applicable to the coastal portions of the province, 

describes average historical forest conditions as 30% mature&structurally 

complex forests, 60% young forests, and 10% stand establishment forests 

(USDA, USDI 2005a). The dry ponderosa pine-mesic model, applicable to the 

dry sites in the eastern portion of the province, describes average historical forest 

conditions as 45% mature&structurally complex forests, 45% Young forests, and 

10% Stand Establishment forests (USDA, USDI 2005a). 

Like the Coast Range and Western Cascades, the Klamath province currently has 

more stand establishment forests and less mature&structurally complex forests 

than it did historically. Mature&structurally complex forests currently comprise 

35% of all forest lands in the province (55% of BLM-administered lands). Stand 

establishment forests currently comprise 52% of all forest lands in the Klamath 

province (9% of BLM-administered lands). See Table 66 (Current structural 

stage abundance on forested lands). 

There are no studies modeling the historic spatial patterns in the Klamath 

province comparable to those done in the Coast Range. Historic spatial patterns 

were likely more variable and difficult to characterize, because of the complex 

interaction of highly variable geology and climate with the highly variable 

disturbance regimes. Therefore, comparisons to the historic spatial patterns for 

the province would be speculative.
214

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

As in the Coast Range and Western Cascades provinces, stand establishment 

forests on BLM-administered lands are in fewer and smaller patches than 

young or mature&structurally complex forests. The disparity in the patch size 

between stand establishment forests and young forests is less. The patch size of 

mature&structurally complex forests is larger than in the Coast Range or Western 

Cascades, which is consistent with the overall abundance of structural stages. 

In the coastal Klamath province, Port-Orford cedar root rot, caused by the 

introduced pathogen, Phytophthora lateralis, has been killing Port-Orford cedar 

(Chamaecyparis lawsoniana). The supplemental environmental impact statement 

for management of Port-Orford cedar in southwest Oregon (USDA, USDI 2004b) 

described the ecological role of Port-Orford cedar, the spread of the disease, and 

the effects of different management actions to control the disease. That analysis 

concluded that the rate of the spread of the disease is decreasing, and that PortOrford-cedar is not in danger of extirpation (USDA, USDI 2004b, 3&4-19 to 

3&4-52). That analysis is incorporated by reference.

In the Klamath province, fire suppression has shifted fuel loads and tree species 

composition, which has made these stands more susceptible to drought-induced 

mortality, insect and disease mortality, and high-intensity, stand-replacing fires 

(Taylor and Skinner 2003; Frost and Sweeney 2000; FSEIS, 3&4-22; USDI, 

BLM 1994e, 3-24 to 3-26). 

Eastern Cascades

Forests in the Eastern Cascades are highly fragmented by natural factors. The 

natural disturbance regime in much of the region is characterized by frequent, lowintensity fires. (FSEIS, 3&4-20, 3&4-21, 3&4-25, 3&4-27). The average historic 

forest conditions in the province were 45% mature&structurally complex forests, 

45% young forests, and 10% stand establishment forests (USDA, USDI 2005a). 

The Eastern Cascades province currently has slightly less mature&structurally 

complex forests, less young forests, and more stand establishment forests than 

it did historically. The mature&structurally complex forests currently comprise 

36% of all forest lands in the province (66% of BLM-administered lands). Young 

forests currently comprise 27% of all forest lands in the province (23% of BLMadministered lands). Stand establishment forests currently comprise 37% of all 

forest lands in the province (11% of BLM-administered lands). See Table 66 

(Current structural stage abundance on forested lands). 
215

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

The classification of structural stages in the Eastern Cascades province and 

the characterization of average historic conditions is more challenging than 

in any other province. The prevailing frequent, low-intensity fire regime 

produced stands that are difficult to classify. Most descriptions of the average 

historic abundance, including the estimates used above, would estimate 

greater abundance of stand establishment forest if all stands that were partially 

disturbed (such as by moderate- or low-severity fires) were classified as stand 

establishment forest. 

There are no studies that are modeling the historic spatial patterns in the Eastern 

Cascades province comparable to those that were done in the Coast Range. The 

historic spatial patterns were likely very different from the Coast Range, because 

the frequent, low-intensity fire regime in the Eastern Cascades province would 

have produced a more fine-grained mosaic of structural stages.

The total acreage of the Eastern Cascades province within the planning area is 

far less than in the other provinces, which complicates the direct comparison of 

the measures of spatial patterns with other provinces. The extent of the landscape 

analyzed alters the absolute values of spatial pattern metrics, as explained above. 

As in the other provinces, stand establishment forests on BLM-administered 

lands in the Eastern Cascades province are in fewer and smaller patches than 

mature&structurally complex forests. However, unlike other provinces, the 

spatial patterns of young forests are similar to stand establishment forests, which 

is consistent with overall abundance. The Eastern Cascades has the lowest 

percentage of Young forest on BLM-administered lands of all the provinces 

within the planning area. 

In the Eastern Cascades province, as in the Klamath province, fire suppression 

has shifted fuel loads and tree species composition, which has made these stands 

more susceptible to drought-induced mortality, insect and disease mortality, 

and high-intensity, stand-replacing fires (FSEIS, 3&4-20, 3&4-21; USDI, BLM 

1994f, 3-24, 3-63 to 3-66, 3-79 to 3-82). 
216

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Socioeconomics

Key Points

•	 A comprehensive measure of community health and resiliency does not exist. 

•	 The Oregon primary wood products sector employs 51,900 workers that earn $1.9 billion annually, which is about 

3.2% of Oregon’s total wages.

•	 In total, the counties rely on BLM-associated revenues for about 2.7% of their budgets. BLM revenues, 

however, account for 9.2% of their discretionary revenue ranging from less than 1% for larger metropolitan 

counties to up to 70% for rural counties.

•	 Without funding under the Secure Rural Schools Act, BLM payments to counties would fall about 90%.

•	 There is currently a strong market for wood products in western Oregon. There is adequate capacity to process 

larger logs that would come from BLM lands. 

The management of BLM-administered lands contributes to the economic activity in western 

Oregon communities and can be measured. For example, timber harvesting and manufacture 

of wood products creates jobs and income in these sectors, which in turn stimulates economic 

activity in other sectors of local and regional economies. BLM employees, and BLM management 

expenditures also contribute to local economies. Approximately 50% of revenues received from 

timber harvesting on O&C lands, furthermore, flow directly to the county governments and is 

used to fund a variety of social services and investments. 

Receipts from such nontimber sources as special forest products (approximately $300,000 

annually) and grazing receipts ($30,000 to $40,000 annually) is relatively minor and would not 

vary between the alternatives. The nonmarket values (e.g., wildlife, recreation, and water quality) 

are not included in this analysis.

Oregon is a growth state with a history of relatively steady in-migration. The 2006 state 

population of 3.7 million has slightly more than doubled (109%) since 1960. In western Oregon, 

population growth is spatially concentrated and rates vary considerably by the nature of the 

economic base. See Figure 26 (Oregon population growth by county group). Portland’s metro 

counties (Clackamas, Columbia, and Washington, excluding Multnomah) started from a relatively 

low base but grew three times more rapidly (302%) during the same era. The central Willamette 

Valley counties (Benton, Marion, Polk, and Yamhill) grew 151%. Counties that are focused on 

wood products (Douglas, Jackson, Josephine, Klamath, Lane, and Linn) kept pace with state 

growth (103%). Only the coastal county group (Coos, Curry, Lincoln, and Tillamook) had 

significantly below average population growth (37%).
217

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Figure 26. Oregon population growth by county group

County economies typically had a resource-based history (agriculture and wood products). A 

dominance of public land ownership gave federal forest policy shifts large influences over the 

evolution of those economies. Through most of the twentieth century, increasing federal harvests 

expanded local wood products industries. Since World War II, technological progress gradually 

decreased worker/output ratios. During the 1990s, federal harvest reductions under the Northwest 

Forest Plan led to a reduction in wood products sector jobs, wages, and salaries in most of the 

county economies.

Changes in county economies vary by county. There are differences in timber substitution 

capacity, contemporary economic diversity, and opportunities for alternative economic 

development. See Figure 27 (Coos and Washington county wage and salary income as a percent 

of total income). Both counties experienced declining wage and salary income from the wood 

products sector but differed in the nature of income replacement. In Coos County, the percentage 

of income attributable to wages and salaries declined continuously due to decreasing wood 

products manufacturing and an increasing share of unearned income derived from retirement. 

Growth in the diversified Washington County economy, on the other hand, replaced resource 

sector incomes with increased wages in other developing sectors. The figure’s comparison is in 

proportional terms to normalize the fact that the Washington County economy is 25 times larger.

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

900,000

1,000,000

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2006

Number of 

Individuals

 Coastal Counties Wood Product Oriented Counties

Central Willamette Counties Portland Metro Counties
218

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Figure 27. Coos and Washington county wage and salary income as a percent of total income 

In most cases, these new trajectories become permanent redirections. As returning these 

economies to their historic structures is unlikely, this analysis considers the 2005 base year 

structure as a stable reference point for evaluating any new economic changes. 

The economies of the O&C counties vary in the magnitude, type, and diversity of economic 

activity. These differences affect the patterns of how each economy might be changed by new 

external effects. The initial size of each county economy can be profiled with three primary 

indicators. These are industrial output, total employment, and earnings. See Table 69 (2005 

county economy indicators). 

These measures show a wide range of differences between the county economies. Curry County is a 

small economy with the region’s lowest output, employment, and earnings. Washington County, on 

the other hand, has 49 times more industrial output, 25 times more employment, and 45 times more 

earnings. More detailed indicators (not shown) reveal quality-of-life implications as well. Curry 

County’s average annual wage is $26,200 compared to $46,400 for Washington County. 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

1970 1973 1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003

% County 

Income Coos Co. Washington Co.
219

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Table 69. 2005 county economy indicators 

County

Industrial 

Output 

($1,000)

Employment 

(total jobs)

Earnings 

($1,000)

Benton 4,208,367 37,603 1,416,139

Clackamas 19,046,826 197,405 6,994,767

Columbia 1,708,099 14,182 390,413

Coos 2,171,795 28,792 797,151

Curry 762,355 10,726 281,937

Douglas 4,732,462 52,770 1,469,009

Jackson 8,364,619 103,612 3,247,024

Josephine 2,676,289 37,253 1,033,446

Klamath 2,719,816 34,179 1,024,239

Lane 15,445,518 178,924 5,729,986

Lincoln 1,797,597 21,560 606,118

Linn 5,010,081 50,568 1,619,544

Marion 14,249,826 157,199 5,782,895

Polk 1,682,760 22,499 624,709

Tillamook 1,170,965 10,985 306,070

Washington 37,563,913 272,210 12,626,678

Yamhill 3,492,580 37,928 1,129,303

Region Total 126,803,868 1,268,395 45,079,428

The economic impact analysis (see Chapter 4) estimates the implications of three large 

external effects on each county economy between the base reference year of 2005 and the 

impact year of 2009. 

These large external effects on each county are (Adams and Latta 2007): 

•	 loss of Secure Rural School payments to counties,

•	 BLM’s selection and implementation of one of the management alternatives in the plan 

revision, and

•	 structural changes in the plywood industry projected by the WOR model. 

By artificially isolating the first two policy-driven effects, the county-level input-output models 

can estimate the roles of each effect in these county economies. Table 70 (2005 county economy 

dependence on Secure Rural Schools and BLM effects) shows the relative influence of combined 

Secure Rural School payments and current BLM harvest levels as of 2005. Using current 

employment as an indicator of impact, Table 70 also shows that the Secure Rural School funding 

and BLM expenditures account for a very small portion of the jobs in Washington County and 

up to 4.18% of the jobs in Douglas County. Counties with small portions of their economies 

dependent on Secure Rural School and BLM activities (less than 0.5%) would likely experience 

little overall impact from projected changes. 
220

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Table 70. 2005 county economy dependence on Secure Rural Schools and BLM effects

County Industrial Output 

(%)

Employment 

(%)

Earnings 

(%)

Benton 0.23% 0.31% 0.28%

Clackamas 0.18% 0.13% 0.16%

Columbia 0.29% 0.37% 0.46%

Coos 1.63% 1.42% 1.80%

Curry 1.83% 2.19% 2.39%

Douglas 4.33% 4.18% 4.70%

Jackson 1.69% 1.56% 1.70%

Josephine 1.40% 1.26% 1.57%

Klamath 2.12% 1.67% 2.13%

Lane 1.18% 1.11% 1.35%

Lincoln 0.50% 0.66% 0.70%

Linn 0.84% 0.78% 0.99%

Marion 0.20% 0.17% 0.23%

Polk 0.24% 0.24% 0.30%

Tillamook 0.49% 0.72% 0.81%

Washington 0.01% 0.01% 0.01%

Yamhill 0.23% 0.16% 0.21%

Region Total 0.65% 0.71% 0.71%

Higher percentages in Table 70 typically reflect a higher dependence on Secure Rural Schools 

funding, an economic concentration in woods products industries, and the location of BLM 

administrative units. Even though influence percentages appear small, their effects would be 

concentrated in specific sectors, which could concentrate the effects of any changes.

Together, the three external effects are expected to cause somewhat countervailing impacts 

spread to different sectors. The loss of the Secure Rural School payments would reduce jobs and 

income in county government. Increased BLM timber harvesting would increase wood products 

employment, but industrial contractions in the plywood sector would reduce jobs there. As a 

result, the economic response in any county depends as much on the internal economic structure 

of the county as well as its overall size. Table 71 (2005 county economy grouped income patterns)

classifies each county into one of four indicative types defined by their general economic 

structure and diversity. Each type would react to changes differently. 
221

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Table 71. 2005 county economy grouped income patterns 

Counties by 

Indicative Type

Sources of Income

Wage and 

Salary

Business 

Profits

Unearned 

DIR

Unearned 

Transfers Commuting Seasonal Homes

Coastal Counties

Coos 46% 13% 16% 22% 1% 2%

Curry 26% 9% 31% 27% 5% 3%

Lincoln 31% 11% 17% 30% 2% 10%

Tillamook 38% 13% 16% 16% 3% 14%

Wood Products

Douglas 49% 17% 7% 22% 4% 1%

Jackson 53% 13% 16% 16% 2% 0%

Josephine 45% 13% 14% 22% 5% 1%

Klamath 39% 10% 19% 28% 2% 2%

Lane 53% 16% 14% 15% 3% 1%

Linn 44% 13% 10% 16% 17% 0%

Central Willamette

Benton 47% 17% 18% 8% 8% 0%

Marion 53% 13% 11% 13% 10% 0%

Polk 30% 7% 16% 13% 33% 0%

Yamhill 40% 12% 12% 12% 23% 0%

Portland Metro

Clackamas 41% 14% 12% 8% 25% 0%

Columbia 22% 10% 19% 23% 25% 0%

Washington 48% 26% 8% 6% 11% 0%

The indicative types that the counties fit into are described as follows:

• Coastal. Counties on the coast have a relatively small percent of income derived from 

wage and salary employment. Seasonal home spending is proportionately larger than 

the rest of Oregon, particularly nearer Portland on the northern coast. Curry County has 

relatively larger property income (DIR) and transfers indicating retirees with higher 

incomes.4

• Wood Products. Counties that are based on wood products combine the highest 

proportions of wage and salary income with lower property incomes. Linn County is a bit 

of anomaly because of its high commuting rates--presumably to high wage jobs in Salem, 

Corvallis, and Eugene.

4 DIR is the aggregate total of a category of unearned (or property) income “dividend, interest and rents”. High DIR is typically 

associated with a retirement services economy. 
222

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

• Central. Counties in the central Willamette Valley have significantly more commuting 

and earned income proportions (wage and salary income plus commuting). Earned 

income accounts for more than 60% of total income in these counties. These counties 

have the lowest overall percent of retirees and the lowest proportion of social security 

income. 

• Portland Metro. Counties surrounding the Portland metropolitan area have very high 

commuting. Washington County has the lowest commuting, because its high tech jobs 

cluster is itself a job magnet. Retirement income (transfers) tends to be low except for 

Columbia County which contains a significant retiree population. 

Another way of describing the county economic structures is through location quotients. This 

index measures how the economic concentration for one economic sector in a county compares 

to the national average concentration for that same sector. A location quotient much larger than 

1.0 in the wood products sector, for example, indicates that the county has a higher than average 

concentration in that sector, and may reflect a relatively specialized economic base that is more 

sensitive to changes.

Location quotients reveal that western Oregon is still a wood products region. County wood 

products cluster location quotients are very large for 15 of the 17 counties. See Figure 28 

(County economies with high wood products sector location quotients (LQ)). The large number 

of high location quotients indicate how sensitive those county economies might be to BLM 

harvest changes. 

Figure 28. County economies with high wood products sector location quotients (LQ) 

Although several measures of socioeconomic well-being, community capacity, and community 

resiliency have been developed, no universally accepted measures exist. Community capacity 

and community resiliency are fundamentally about dynamic processes that involve the actions of 

community leaders and residents. Leadership, social cohesion, and decision making are important 

to how a community adapts to change and betters the lives of its residents, but they are not 

attributes that can be easily measured. 

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0

Columbia

Douglas

Lincoln

Tillamoo

Linn

Coos

Yamhill

Curry

Klamath

Lane

Jackson

Polk

Benton

Clackam

Marion

Location Quotient > 1.0
223

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Causality between changes in forest management policy and some community socioeconomic 

conditions is difficult to demonstrate. The social and economic well-being index and scores 

for western Oregon communities were developed as part of the Northwest Forest Plan 

Socioeconomic Economic Monitoring report (USDA, U.S. Forest Service 2006a). The index 

consists of six indicators: 

•	 diversity of employment by industry 

•	 percentage of population that is 25 years and older with a bachelor’s degree or higher 

•	 percentage unemployed 

•	 percentage of persons living below the poverty level 

•	 household income inequality 

•	 average travel time to work

Many communities in western Oregon either increased or decreased in their social and economic 

well-being score between 1990 and 2000. See Figure 29 (Change in socioeconomic well-being 

scores from 1990 to 2000 in the northern portion of the planning area) and Figure 30 (Change in 

the socioeconomic well-being scores from 1990 to 2000 in the southern portion of the planning 

area) for a summary of the direction and magnitude of change in this index. The communities 

were examined by population size class; small, medium, and large communities. The smaller 

community size classes of 501 to 2,000 people had proportionately more communities with 

relatively lower social and economic well-being scores, whereas the larger population size classes 

of 2,001 to 5,000 people and 5,001 to 50,000 people had proportionately more communities 

with higher scores. Recent regional social assessments suggested that the higher the population 

in a rural community, the greater the infrastructure and the higher the socioeconomic resilience 

(Harris et al. 2000).
224

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Figure 29. Change in the socioeconomic well-being scores from 1990 to 2000 in the northern portion of the 

planning area

Source: USDA 2006
225

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Figure 30. Change in the socioeconomic well-being scores from 1990 to 2000 in the southern portion of the 

planning area 

Source: USDA 2006
226

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

O&C Revenues and County Budgets

The O&C Act specifies that counties with O&C lands will receive 75% of the revenue 

generated from these lands. In 1953, the O&C counties agreed to receive 50% of the 

revenue and that the other 25% would be used by the BLM for roads, reforestation and 

silvicultural treatments, recreation sites, fire protection, and other forest management. 

Historically, the bulk of the revenue generated from the BLM has been and continues to 

be associated with timber harvesting and is the focus of this discussion. 

County governments provide a variety of public services. A survey of the O&C counties 

was conducted to understand the source and use of county revenues. See Appendix C. 

Socioeconomics. See Table 72 (Public services that county revenues support) for a list of 

service categories and the services within each category. Also see Figure 31 (Fiscal year 

2005 county expenditures) for a summary of the $3.9 billion spent in fiscal year 2005 by 

the O&C counties. 

Table 72. Public services that county revenues support 

Service Categories Types of Services

Health and Community 

Services

Aging services

Alcohol and drug addiction services

Services for children and families

Developmentally disabled

Mental health services

Oregon health plan services

Veterans services

Public health services

Environmental health services

Housing services

Medical examiner

Solid waste disposal/recycling

Public Safety

Trial courts

District attorney

County jail

911/emergency communications

Emergency management

Homeland security

Community corrections

Court security

Juvenile services

County law library

Sheriff patrol

Animal control

Economic Development, 

Natural Resources and 

Recreation

Oregon plan implementation

State forest management

Federal land policy

Extension services

Telecommunications

County fair

Watermaster

County forests

County library

County parks

County museums

Transportation and Land Use

Highway and road systems

Land use planning and coordination

Senior and disabled transportation

Development services

Engineering

Building permitting and inspections

Surveying

Capital projects

Other Community Services

Management and administration

Elections

Assessment and taxation

Human resources and employee 

relations

Property and facilities management

Procurement

Recording public documents
227

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Figure 31. Fiscal year 2005 county expenditures 

County governments are funded from sources such as local taxes, transfers from federal 

and state governments, and fees and charges for services. In addition, the O&C counties 

receive 50% of the revenue generated by the sale of timber and other goods and services 

produced from the O&C lands. See Figure 32 (Fiscal year 2005 revenues for the O&C 

counties) for the source of the $4.2 billion in revenues received by the O&C counties in 

the 2005 fiscal year.

Figure 32. Fiscal year 2005 revenues for the O&C counties 

23%

22%

3% 4%

19%

19%

4% 1% 5%

Health & Community Services Public Safety

Economic Dev., Natural Res. & Recreation Education

Reserves, etc. Transportation & Land Use

Other Community Services Debt Service

Other

19.8%

14.7%

16.7%

2.0%

0.6%0.5%

13.2%

14.3%

2.4% 2.5%

4.7%

8.7%

State Transfers & Reimbursements Property Taxes

Other Taxes Safety Net Payments:O&C Lands

Safety Net Payments: USFS Lands Other Grants and Payments

Fees, Charges for Services Reserves

Reimbursements Interest Earnings

Bonding or other borrowing Other
228

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

In fiscal year 2005, O&C-related revenues accounted for about $114 million (or about 

2.7% of the total funds available to the O&C counties5

).The importance of O&C revenues 

varies by county. See Table 73 (Total revenue, discretionary revenue, and O&C funding). 

O&C revenues account for more than 20% of the Douglas County revenue but only 0.1% 

of the metropolitan Multnomah and Washington county revenues. 

The counties also reported receiving about $99 million of Secure Rural Schools funding 

that was associated with land that is managed by the U.S. Forest Service. The U.S. 

Forest Service reports a distribution of $123.3 million for western Oregon counties. (The 

difference could be related to the fact that U.S. Forest Service funding is distributed 

through the state rather than directly to the counties.) The U.S. Forest Service funds are 

typically not considered discretionary in that they are earmarked for schools and roads.

Table 73. Total revenue, discretionary revenue, and O&C funding for fiscal year 2005 

County

Revenue O&C Revenue as % 

All Sources BLM of

Total Discretionary Total O&C Total 

(%)

Discretionary 

(%)

Rural Counties

Benton 72,288,316 24,114,009 2,920,490 4.0 12.1

Columbia 47,303,696 9,881,991 2,250,622 4.8 22.8

Coos 45,315,118 13,113,030 6,537,510 14.4 49.9

Curry 54,959,478 6,920,829 3,424,000 6.2 49.5

Douglas 136,784,970 39,942,546 28,105,526 20.5 70.4

Jackson 290,614,408 77,040,445 15,145,237 5.2 19.7

Josephine 109,802,550 29,278,099 12,092,595 11.0 41.3

Klamath 160,315,525 15,522,030 2,206,000 1.4 14.2

Lane 466,328,935 56,786,868 14,583,629 3.1 25.7

Lincoln 74,031,888 32,218,773 388,968 0.5 1.2

Linn 83,070,524 25,287,488 2,518,846 3.0 10.0

Marion 314,833,911 70,333,962 1,360,000 0.4 1.9

Polk 60,207,240 13,956,261 2,385,000 4.0 17.1

Tillamook 57,560,514 14,622,039 730,820 1.3 5.0

Yamhill 82,504,377 13,211,916 807,500 1.0 6.1

Rural Subtotals 2,055,921,450 442,230,286 95,456,743 4.6 21.6

Metropolitan Counties

Clackamas 406,647,713 82,829,267 5,890,071 1.4 7.1

Multnomah 1,092,793,083 409,015,566 1,000,000 0.1 0.2

Washington 607,731,836 121,402,176 707,861 0.1 0.6

Metro Subtotals 2,107,172,632 613,247,009 7,597,932 0.4 1.2

Totals (all counties) 4,163,094,082 1,055,477,295 103,054,675 2.5 9.8

5

 In the survey, the counties reported receiving $103 million from the BLM, whereas the BLM reports total payments of 

$114 million. Most of that difference is accounted for as Title II funds, which are expended by the agency under the direction of 

the county-level resource advisory committees but do not go directly through the county budgets. 
229

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Much of the funding received by county governments is directed to specific programs. 

For fiscal year 2005, the O&C Counties reported that only about 25% of total 

revenue received was discretionary—the rest of the revenue received by the county 

governments is earmarked for specific programs. Counties consider most the BLM 

revenue as discretionary in that it can be used for whatever purpose the county 

commissioners deem suitable. 

See Figure 33 (Fiscal year 2005 discretionary spending for the O&C counties) for how the 

O&C counties spent the funds considered discretionary. About 43% of the discretionary 

budget is spent on public safety. The next largest category is for other community services, 

which includes such services as management, administration, and elections. 

Figure 33. Fiscal year 2005 discretionary spending for the O&C counties

Table 73 (Total revenue, discretionary revenue, and O&C funding for fiscal year 

2005) shows that across the O&C counties, O&C revenues accounted for 9.8% of the 

discretionary funding. Some counties, however, rely on O&C revenues much more 

to fund discretionary programs than others. Over 70% of the discretionary funding in 

Douglas County, for example, is based on O&C revenues. A number of counties rely on 

O&C revenues for more than 20% of discretionary funding. O&C revenues make up only 

a small portion of the discretionary funding for the larger metropolitan counties. 

Timber harvesting from O&C lands began dropping in the 1990s as a result of the listing 

of the northern spotted owl and the adoption of the Northwest Forest Plan. In response, 

Congress established safety net payments for 72 counties in Oregon, Washington, and 

California through the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993. This provided 

a stabilized income flow to timber-dependent communities through the remainder of 

the 1990s.

In 2000, Congress repealed the safety net payments and passed the Secure Rural School 

and Community Self Determination Act (P.L. 106-393). This law established a stable 

level of payments to counties at an amount equal to the average of their three highest 

13%

43% 26%

1% 7%

6% 0%2%2%

Health & Community Services Public Safety

Economic Dev., Natural Res. & Recreation Education

Reserves, etc. Transportation & Land Use

Other Community Services Debt Service

Other
230

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

timber receipts from 1986 through 1999. Under the Act, counties elect the percentage of 

payment (80 to 85%) to be distributed directly to the county (Title I), and the percentage 

(15 to 20%) to be allocated between Title II projects and Title III projects.

• Title I. These are funds that are distributed to the county and may be used for any 

purpose the previous 50% revenue sharing funds were used for, as a supplement 

to other county funds. Typically, these revenues go to county general fund 

budgets.

• Title II. These are funds that are used to support cooperative projects under 

the guidance of a resource advisory committee to restore healthy conditions on 

public lands or on private lands for the benefit of public land resources. Such 

projects include wildfire hazard reduction, stream and watershed restoration, 

forest road maintenance, road decommissioning or obliteration, control of 

noxious weeds, and improvement of fish and wildlife habitat. 

• Title III. Under Title III of the Act, counties may use funds for search, rescue, 

and emergency services; community service work camps; purchase of easements 

for recreation or conservation; forest related educational programs; and fire 

prevention activities.

See Figure 34 (BLM payments to counties for fiscal years 1985 to 2005) for the trend in 

BLM payments to counties since 1985. In fiscal year 2005, BLM payments to counties 

totaled about $115 million. 

Figure 34. BLM payments to counties for fiscal years 1985 to 2005 

Historically, payments authorized under the O&C Act account for the bulk of the total 

BLM payments to counties. Counties do, however, receive revenue associated with other 

BLM funding sources. Douglas and Coos Counties receive payments from the Coos Bay 

Wagon Road grant fund. There are 15 counties that receive payments in lieu of taxes 

(PILT) from public domain lands that are located within their county. A few counties also 

$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

198519861987198819891990199119921993199419951996199719981999200020012002200320042005

Dollars

(millions)
231

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

receive grazing and mineral lease income. Altogether, these other sources of payments 

averaged just over $1.0 million annually over the last five years.

Table 74 (BLM payments to counties within the planning area for selected years 

($million)) summarizes the total payments to counties from western Oregon BLM 

lands including timber receipts, safety net payments, and Secure Rural Schools Self 

Determination Act payments under Title I, II and III, Coos Bay Wagon Road grants, 

payments in lieu of taxes, and mineral and grazing income. The average annual BLM 

payment to all counties since implementation of the Secure Rural Schools legislation has 

been $112 million. 

Table 74. BLM payments to counties within the planning area for selected years ($million)

County 1985 1990 1995 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Benton 1.7 2.9 2.1 1.7 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.2 3.2

Clackamas 3.4 5.8 4.2 3.4 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.2 6.3

Columbia 1.3 2.1 1.6 1.3 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3

Coos 4.0 6.8 5.0 4.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6

Curry 2.2 3.8 2.8 2.3 4.0 4.0 4.1 4.1 4.2

Douglas 15.4 26.0 19.1 15.6 27.4 27.6 27.9 28.3 28.7

Jackson 9.6 16.2 11.9 9.7 17.0 17.2 17.4 17.6 17.8

Josephine 7.4 12.5 9.2 7.5 13.1 13.2 13.4 13.6 13.8

Klamath 1.5 2.4 1.8 1.5 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.7 2.7

Lane 9.3 15.8 11.6 9.5 16.6 16.7 16.9 17.2 17.4

Lincoln 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4

Linn 1.6 2.7 2.0 1.6 2.9 2.9 2.9 3.0 3.0

Marion 0.9 1.5 1.1 0.9 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.7

Multnomah 0.7 1.1 0.8 0.7 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2

Polk 1.3 2.2 1.6 1.3 2.3 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.5

Tillamook 0.3 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6

Washington 0.4 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7

Yamhill 0.4 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8

Totals 61.7 104.2 76.5 62.5 109.8 110.6 112.0 113.4 114.9

The O&C revenue is allocated between counties based on an acre-weighted proration 

formula. The largest recipients of payments from western Oregon BLM lands are 

Douglas, Jackson, Lane, and Josephine counties, which together received 68% of total 

payments in 2005.

The Secure Rural Schools legislation was not reauthorized for 2007. Absent a 

reauthorization or new legislation, the size of the BLM payment to counties will be 

highly dependent on the amount and price of timber sold from O&C lands. For example, 

without the Secure Rural Schools legislation the fiscal year 2005 BLM payment to 

counties would have totaled about $12.2 million, which is a reduction of about 90% from 

the total with the legislation. 

In addition, many of the O&C counties would also lose Secure Rural School funding 

attributable to land that is managed by the U.S. Forest Service. For fiscal year 2005, such 

funding totaled $123.3 million. 
232

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

O&C counties have a limited ability to replace BLM revenues with other sources of 

revenue. Oregon income taxes are paid to the state, not the counties. As a result of several 

ballot measures, Oregon counties are not able to raise tax rates and the growth in taxable 

property value is capped at 3% a year. The federal government, furthermore, owns a 

large portion of the land in some of the O&C counties. See Table 75 (Percent public land 

in O&C counties). These lands are not on the tax rolls. The O&C Counties believe that 

neither economic growth nor tourism can be reasonably expected to offset a shortfall in 

O&C-related revenues (Davis 2006). See Appendix C. Socioeconomics. 

Table 75. Percent public land in O&C counties

O&C County Total 

(acres)

BLM 

(acres)

BLM 

(%)

Government 

(acres)

Government 

(%)

Benton 433,500 58,100 13.4% 106,300 24.5%

Clackamas 1,205,000 75,400 6.3% 632,200 52.5%

Columbia 440,800 10,800 2.5% 32,100 7.3%

Coos 1,041,000 162,900 15.6% 261,100 25.1%

Curry 1,047,100 67,600 6.5% 688,700 65.8%

Douglas 3,244,500 655,100 20.2% 1,670,500 51.5%

Jackson 1,792,700 449,700 25.1% 914,200 51.0%

Josephine 1,050,200 299,800 28.5% 714,900 68.1%

Klamath 3,137,900 224,900 7.2% 1,651,300 52.6%

Lane 2,957,900 288,100 9.7% 1,740,400 58.8%

Lincoln 635,600 20,200 3.2% 216,800 34.1%

Linn 1,477,000 87,200 5.9% 581,400 39.4%

Marion 762,600 20,900 2.7% 258,800 33.9%

Multnomah 297,500 4,200 1.4% 88,400 29.7%

Polk 476,000 40,200 8.4% 53,100 11.2%

Tillamook 719,500 48,500 6.7% 450,200 62.6%

Washington 465,000 11,500 2.5% 67,700 14.6%

Yamhill 459,700 32,600 7.1% 65,100 14.2%

Totals 21,643,500 2,557,700 11.8% 10,193,200 47.1%

The economics of BLM timber harvesting are directly linked to western Oregon’s timber 

economy and market. 

The counties in western Oregon comprise the relevant market area for this analysis. 

Although some of the BLM timber may be shipped outside of this area for primary 

processing, the most recent information about log flow suggests that it is likely that the 

bulk of the BLM timber will be processed within the market area. As shown below, 

western Oregon is a net importer of logs—more timber is processed than harvested in 

the area.

There are 413 bbf of sawtimber on 16.3 million acres of timberland6

 within the planning 

area of western Oregon (Miles et al. 2006). See Table 76 (2005 timberland area and 

inventory within the planning area). The BLM administers about 13% of the timberland 

and 16% of the sawtimber in western Oregon.

6

 Not all of the 2.5 million BLM acres within the planning area are classified as timberland.
233

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Table 76. 2005 timberland area and inventory within the planning area 

Ownership Class

Timberland 

Area 

(acres)

Sawtimber Inventory 

(bbf)

National Forest 5,937,000 210

Bureau of Land Mgmt 2,068,000 66

Other federal 27,000 1

State 839,000 29

County and Municipal 116,000 2

Other local government 10,000 -

Private 7,323,000 105

Totals 16,320,000 413

See Figure 35 (Harvest by land owner within the planning area) for the western Oregon 

harvest by owner. Since 2000, western Oregon harvests have averaged about 3.4 bbf7

—a 

47% reduction from the average 6.4 bbf average harvest prior to the 1990 listing of the 

northern spotted owl. Most of the reduction came from federal timberlands (U.S. Forest 

Service and BLM). 

Figure 35. Harvest by land owner within the planning area 

During the 1970s, BLM harvests averaged 1.05 bbf, which is about 16% of the total.8

BLM harvests averaged 0.87 bbf in the 1980s, which is about 15% of the total. Under 

the Northwest Forest Plan (since 1994), BLM harvests have averaged about 0.11 bbf 

annually, which is about 3.4% of the total harvest.

7

 bbf – billion board feet, Scribner log scale.

8

 In this discussion, BLM timber volumes have been converted from the 16 foot log scale used by the BLM, to the 32 foot log 

scale used by other western landowners. The conversion factor varies with timber species and log size. Generally, a factor of 0.80 

can be used to convert BLM 16 foot log volumes to 32 foot log volumes.

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

1962196419661968197019721974197619781980198219841986198819901992199419961998200020022004

MMbf

Forest Industry Other Private State Forest Service BLM Tribal Lands Other Government
234

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Harvests from private lands trended down slightly through the 1990s (3.08 bbf in the 

1970s, 2.79 bbf in the 1980s, and 2.61 bbf in the 1990s). Private harvests have been 

trending up since 1995 and have averaged 2.89 bbf since 2000. Currently, private lands 

provide about 85% of the harvest within the planning area. 

See Figure 36 (Willamette Valley Douglas fir delivered log prices and BLM volume 

and average stumpage) for log price trends since 1989 (Log Lines 1989-2006)9

. Log 

prices rose dramatically in the early 1990s, due primarily to a reduction in federal 

harvests during a time of strong demand for lumber and wood products. High log prices 

and increased penetration of U.S. markets by Canadian lumber manufacturers led to a 

reduction in mill capacity in western Oregon. Log prices declined through the 1990s. Log 

prices began trending up again in 2003 as housing markets strengthened. Western Oregon 

mills added capacity with the sawmills still operating in 2005 and producing about 37% 

more wood in 2005 than they did in 2001 (Ehinger 2006a). In Western Washington, 

mills have added about 1.0 bbf in net capacity over the last five years. This has further 

strengthened log prices (Ehinger 2006b.) 

Figure 36. Willamette Valley Douglas fir delivered log prices and BLM volume and 

average stumpage

Source: Log Lines Log Price Reporting Service 2006

Figure 36 (Willamette Valley Douglas fir delivered log prices and BLM volume and 

average stumpage) also shows that the premium for higher grade logs has been 

shrinking (2S and 3S logs10 sell for about the same price and 3P log margins are 

narrowing). This reflects recent investment in smaller log mills and the ongoing shift 

toward dimension lumber.

9

 Log Lines is a log price reporting service that began reporting log prices in 1988. 10 3P, 2S and 3S are log grades reflecting size and quality.

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

$1,600

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

$/Mbf, 32'

 log scale

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

MMbf sold

BLM volume sold(FY) BLM Stumpage (FY)

DF 2S DF 3S

DF 3P

Source: Log Lines Reports, 1989-2006
235

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Figure 36 also shows the total volume and average stumpage price of the BLM timber 

sold in western Oregon.11 Note that since 1995, when the BLM began selling smaller 

timber under the Northwest Forest Plan, stumpage prices have followed a trend similar to 

the current market for 2S and 3S logs.

Logs harvested in one area are often manufactured into wood products in another area. 

Understanding how logs flow helps to establish the geographic extent of the market 

area. Predicting future log flows, furthermore, is important to establishing impact at the 

county level. 

See Table 77 (2003 mill study log flows) for a summary of log flows reported in 

the 2003 mill study (Brandt et al. 2003; USDA, U.S. Forest Service 2006a). About 

3.757 bbf was consumed by western Oregon mills in 2003. About 8% of the total was 

imported into western Oregon from outside the state and another 4% was imported 

from eastern Oregon. 

Table 77 (2003 mill study log flows) also suggests that the difference between local log 

supply and local log demand is greatest in southwest Oregon. These mills imported 

412 mmbf from northwest Oregon, whereas only 58 mmbf went from southern Oregon to 

northwest Oregon. 

Table 77. 2003 mill study log flows

Destination

Log Volume 

(mmbf)

Total 

Utilization

Source

Northwest 

Oregon

Southwest 

Oregon

Eastern 

Oregon

Other 

States

Northwest Oregon 1,667 1,378 58 0 231

Southwest Oregon 2,090 412 1,460 158 60

Total Western Oregon 3,757 1,790 1,518 158 291

Current estimates are that log imports into western Oregon have increased since the 2003 

mill study. Figure 37 (Log imports from Canada to Washington and Oregon ports) shows 

that Canadian logs imported into western ports exceeded 500 mmbf in 2005 and is on a 

similar track in 2006. Oregon log buyers expect that about 500 mmbf is currently flowing 

into Oregon from Washington and Canada. Many consider the Canadian volume to be 

subject to intense competition by more favorably located mills in Washington, or by new 

in ventures in Canada (Rasmussen, personal communication 25 August 2006).

11 Stumpage is the price paid for timber on the stump. A BLM timber purchaser pays stumpage to the BLM and then incurs the 

costs of logging and hauling the logs to the mill.
236

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Figure 37. Log imports from Canada to Washington and Oregon ports

Source: Warren 2006

The log market in western Oregon is competitive. In 2005, for example, only 28% of the 

timber used by Oregon’s sawmills was fee timber (timber owned by the manufacturing 

company). The rest of the timber harvested was purchased by manufacturers from 

timberland owners (Western Wood Products Association 2006). Much of this timber is 

sold in an open, competitive market to the highest bidder. BLM timber is appraised and 

sold at auction to the highest qualified bidder, which ensures that the agency receives fair 

market value. 

Mills are typically optimized to process certain species and sizes of logs. The log market 

allocates logs to the mills that can most efficiently and effectively process particular 

types of logs. Prior to the Northwest Forest Plan, the U.S. Forest Service and the BLM 

were key suppliers of large, high-quality logs. Decisions made in the Northwest Forest 

Plan substantially reduced the volume of large logs available to Oregon mills. Much of 

the recent investment made in Oregon mills focused on more efficient processing of the 

smaller logs harvested from private lands. Figure 38 (Oregon sawmill consumption by 

diameter class) shows that logs that are less than 9 inches DIB (diameter inside the bark 

at the small end of the log) being processed by Oregon mills has doubled from 632 mmbf 

in 1994 to 1,230 mmbf in 2003.

-

100

200

300

400

500

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2Q06

MMbf

Sources: Warren, Debra D. 2006. Production, Prices, Employment, and Trade in 

Northwest Forest Industries, all quarters of 2004, Portland, OR

U.S. International Trade Commission. [http://www.usitc.gov/]
237

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Figure 38. Oregon sawmill consumption by diameter class 

Even with the investment in smaller log processing, there remains in Oregon a sizeable 

capacity for the larger logs that could be harvested from BLM land. 

•	 Figure 38 (Oregon sawmill consumption by diameter class) shows that about 

300 mmbf of logs greater than 21 inches DIB were processed in 1994 and 1998. 

The 2003 study changed the classification—179 mmbf of logs greater than 

24 inches DIB were processed in that year. 

•	 Ehinger (2006) defines large logs as those over 48 inches DIB, lists eleven mills 

that process large logs, and reports that 10% of western Oregon mill capacity 

is capable of handling large logs (about 450 mmbf), and that more large log 

capacity is being added. 

•	 An Oregon State University study defined large logs as those over 30 inches DIB 

and found 18 mills that handle large logs (Wagner et al. 2003).

The primary wood products manufacturing sector is a large contributor to the Oregon 

economy. In 2003, 249 firms used 4.3 billion board feet of wood to produce $6.7 billion 

of annual sales (Brandt et al. 2006). While this sector accounts for less than 0.1% of 

Oregon firms, it produces 14.6% of annual manufacturers’ shipments (U.S. Census 

Bureau 2000-2004). This estimate does not include substantial secondary wood products 

sectors such as furniture and cabinetry.

The Oregon primary wood products sector employs 51,900 workers that earn $1.9 billion 

annually (OLMIS12 2006), which is about 3.2% of total Oregon wages. Using a 

conservative employment multiplier of 2.5, the primary wood products sector accounts 

for about 130,000 nonfarm Oregon jobs, which is about 7.6% of the total.

Periodic surveys of wood product manufacturers show how the wood products 

manufacturing sector has changed (Brandt 2006). This information, coupled with annual 

production data, suggests that the current manufacturing sector could absorb additional 

timber from BLM lands. 

12 Oregon Labor Market Information System

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

1994 1998 2003

MMBF 

(Scribner) 0-9 10-20 21+ 10-24 24+
238

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Since the early 1990s, western Oregon’s wood products manufacturing capacity has 

been shifting toward lumber production. See Figure 39 (Log consumption by product 

in western Oregon). Lumber mills now account for about 75% of the wood consumed 

in western Oregon mills. Oregon’s plywood and veneer mills were heavily dependent 

on larger logs, much of which came from federal forests. With the reduction in federal 

timber harvests, larger logs became more expensive at the same time that manufacturers 

in the Midwest and southern United States added lower cost panel capacity to oriented 

strand board mills. Very few logs are exported from Oregon’s ports.

Figure 39. Log consumption by product in western Oregon 

New investments in lumber mills have been concentrated in larger mills. Figure 40 

(Western Oregon sawmills by capacity) shows that most of the remaining mills are larger 

mills, which produce over 120 mbf per shift. The average production per mill for this 

largest class, in fact, is now over twice what it was in 1976. The apparent increase in the 

number of small mills in 2003 is due to a difference in survey techniques. 

Figure 40. Western Oregon sawmills by capacity 

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

1976 1982 1985 1988 1992 1994 1998 2003

MMBF Lumber Veneer Export Other

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1976 1982 1985 1988 1992 1994 1998 2003

Number of 

Sawmills

Class A Class B Class C Class D

A = 120+; B = 80-119; C = 40-79; Class D mills = < 40 mbf capacity per 8-hour shift 
239

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Figure 41 (Lumber production in Oregon and Washington) shows lumber production in 

Oregon and Washington (Western Wood Products Association 2006). Lumber production 

in western Oregon fell by about 45% between 1989 and 1995, primarily due to reduced 

federal log supplies. Production began increasing as mills invested in more equipment 

that could process smaller timber. A softening log export market, furthermore, resulted in 

a greater portion of the harvest becoming available to domestic mills. 

Figure 41. Lumber production in Oregon and Washington 

Washington production trends are important as western Oregon mills currently compete 

for Washington logs. Lumber production in western Washington did not fall off as sharply 

as it did in Oregon, primarily because much of the western Washington timber was 

exported as logs rather than sawn into lumber. The reduction in log exports made more 

timber available to sawmills in both states. Since 1999, western Washington mills have 

added 1.0 bbf of net new lumber production capacity (Ehinger 2006) and production has 

been increasing steadily. 

Western plywood production began a downward trend in the early 1990s. See Figure 42 

(Western plywood production). At 3.04 billion square feet for 2005, Oregon plywood is 

about 58% below the 1970 to 1990 average. 

-

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

1975197719791981198319851987198919911993199519971999200120032005

MMBF Oregon Washington
240

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Figure 42. Western plywood production 

The reduction in federal timber harvest, which is a source of large, clear veneer logs, 

created upward pressure on plywood prices. At the same time, panel manufactures in the 

Midwest, the southern United States, and Canada were adding capacity to produce less 

expensive oriented strand board (OSB) panels from low cost timber. U.S. Forest Service 

projections suggest that plywood will lose additional market share to OSB. Figure 43 

(U.S. panel production) shows US plywood production at just half of current levels 

by 2020.

Figure 43. U.S. panel production 

0.0 

2.0 

4.0 

6.0 

8.0 

10.0 

12.0 

14.0 

197019721974197619781980198219841986198819901992199419961998200020022004

BSF, 3/8" 

basis

Oregon Washington Montana Idaho California

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1933193719411945194919531957196119651969197319771981198519891993199720012005

Billion 

Sq. Ft. 

3/8" Basis

Plywood OSB

Projected
241

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Figure 44 (Log exports from western United States ports) shows the volume and price 

of logs exported from western United States ports. Currently, about 800 mmbf of logs 

are exported, which is down 80% from the 4.4 bbf peak in 1989. The Asian financial 

crisis, the weakening of the Yen against the United States dollar, a shift toward Asian log 

suppliers, and stronger US domestic log markets account for most of the change. 

Figure 44. Log exports from western United States ports 

The BLM conducted an information gathering meeting with log buyers and timber 

industry representatives. There was a common concern that current western Oregon 

wood product production levels cannot be maintained without additional timber supplies. 

Current production relies on log imports from Canada and western Washington. Both 

those sources of supply are vulnerable to competition from the new mills in Washington 

and to export restrictions in Canada. (Rasmussen, pers. comm. 25 August 2006)

Changes in the level of employment in Oregon’s forest product industry are indicated by 

U.S. Department of Commerce employment statistics, which tally forest products sector 

jobs into four sectors: 

•	 forestry and logging (NAICS 113)

•	 forestry support activities (NAICS 1153)

•	 wood products manufacturing (NAICS 321)

•	 paper manufacturing (NAICS 322)

These sectors include both primary and secondary manufacturers along with the 

infrastructure (forestry workers, loggers, etc.) required to manage the growing and 

harvesting of timber crops.13

13 The previous discussion of the economy of the wood products sector in western Oregon is based on research conducted for 

this DEIS, and resulted in adjustments to the U.S. Department of Commerce figures. Such adjustments are not available for 

previous periods, however. The U.S. Department of Commerce data, therefore, are used for the purpose of analyzing historic 

employment trends.

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

197619781980198219841986198819901992199419961998200020022004

MMbf

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

MMbf $/Mbf $/Mbf
242

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Primary manufacturing includes logging, processing of logs into lumber and other wood 

products, processing wood residues from timber-processing plants into such outputs 

as paper or electricity, and private sector forest management services. The secondary 

industry includes firms processing outputs from the primary industry. These outputs 

may come from mills in Oregon or elsewhere. Secondary products include prefabricated 

buildings, molding, millwork and cut stock, doors, windows, laminated veneer lumber, 

and other products (Brandt et al. 2006). 

Employment in Oregon in these four sectors totaled nearly 63,400 workers in 2005 (U.S. 

Department of Commerce 2006). Wood products manufacturing represents the largest 

sector, which comprise 61% of the jobs. See Figure 45 (Employment in Oregon’s forest 

products sector (2005)).

Figure 45. Employment in Oregon’s forest products sector (2005) 

Source: USDC 2006 

Employment in 2005 was down 37% from peak employment of more than 

100,700 workers in 1979. See Figure 46 (Employment in Oregon’s forest products 

industry (1969 to 2005)). The decline in forest sector employment is due to the reduction 

in total timber harvest and technological change (Brandt et al. 2006; USDA, U.S. Forest 

Service 2006a). Oregon’s forest sector job loss might have been greater, but was offset 

to some degree by a concurrent decrease in log exports, an increase in log imports from 

surrounding states, and an expansion of secondary wood products manufacturing (Brandt 

et al. 2006).

Wood 

Products 

Manufacturing

35,580 

Paper 

Manufacturing 

6,586 

Forestry 

Support 

Activities,

 9,134 

Forestry & 

Logging, 

12,136 
243

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Figure 46. Employment in Oregon’s forest products industry (1969 to 2005)

Source: Adapted and updated from Brandt et al. 2006

Forest industry employment trends for the coastal Pacific Northwest were recently 

studied as part of a 10-year review of the implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan. 

Across the region included in the Northwest Forest Plan—western Oregon, western 

Washington, and northern California—it has been estimated that 45,000 direct, indirect, 

and induced jobs were affected by reduced timber harvesting between 1990 and 2000. Of 

that, 30,000 were direct jobs including 7,500 in the logging industry and 22,500 in other 

primary wood industries. 

About 19,000 jobs were lost in the region between 1990 and 1994 as the volume of 

timber harvested but not exported fell from 10.1 bbf to 7.4 bbf. An additional 11,000 

direct job losses occurred between 1994 and 2000, even though the volume of wood 

available for manufacture stabilized and even rose slightly. These latter job loses are 

attributable largely to additional industry restructuring and changes in technology 

(USDA, U.S. Forest Service 2006a).

Technological change has also impacted employment in the logging industry. In Oregon, 

for example, increased mechanization of harvest operations has increased annual 

productivity per worker from 544,000 board feet harvested per worker in 1990 to 

592,000 board feet per worker in 2004, which is an 8% increase (Rooney 2006).

Oregon employment in the solid-wood industry was hit disproportionately hard compared 

to Washington and California. Oregon represented approximately 50% of solid-wood 

employment in the region. However, about 61% of the decline in jobs occurred in 

Oregon. The reverse is true of paper manufacturing—Oregon represented 30% of primary 

pulp and paper industry employment during the 1990’s but only 21% of the job losses in 

that sector (USDA, U.S. Forest Service 2006a).

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

1969197119731975197719791981198319851987198919911993199519971999200120032005

Number of 

Individuals

Total Paper Manufacturing Forestry, Logging & Wood Products
244

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

In addition to timber harvest, the western Oregon BLM budget contributes to local 

economic activity. The western Oregon BLM budget for 1995 to 2005 is summarized 

in Figure 47 (Western Oregon BLM budget for selected fiscal years). The largest 

expenditure of funds, representing 64% of the current budget, is for the O&C land grants 

and management of lands and resources programs. These programs provide for forest 

management, reforestation and forest development, rangeland, recreation, soil, water 

and air, and wildlife and fish habitat on the O&C grant lands and public domain lands in 

western Oregon.

Figure 47. Western Oregon BLM budget for selected fiscal years 

The wildland fire management program, which is 18% of the current budget, provides 

for fire preparedness, fire suppression operations, and other operations. Funding for 

hazardous fuels reduction and burned area rehabilitation is included in the latter category. 

Other appropriations represent another 18% of the total budget. This includes funding for 

acquisitions, construction projects, and other needs.

Over the past few years, the BLM budget for western Oregon has been relatively constant 

(averaging about $141 million annually). See Figure 48 (BLM budget by district and state 

office for selected fiscal years).

$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

$140

$160

1985 1990 1995 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Dollars

(millions)

Mgt. of Lands & Resources Wildland Fire Mgt.

O & C Grant Lands Other Appropriations
245

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Figure 48. BLM budget by district and state office for selected fiscal years

In addition to employment in the forest products industry, the management of the BLMadministered lands in western Oregon requires the employment of a staff of natural 

resource specialists, managers, and administrative personnel. Figure 49 (Full-time 

equivalent positions by BLM district and state office) shows that BLM staffing has been 

relatively constant. The state office in Portland provides administrative oversight and 

support for all BLM lands in Oregon and Washington. The full-time employee data 

shown includes all positions at this office.

Figure 49. Full-time equivalent positions by BLM district and state office 

$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

$140

$160

1985 1990 1995 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Dollars 

(millions)

State Office Salem Eugene

Roseburg Coos Bay Medford

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1985 1990 1995 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Number 

of FTE

State Office Salem Eugene Roseburg

Coos Bay Medford Klamath Falls
246

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Figure 50 (Number of BLM full-time equivalent positions by county) shows the number 

of BLM full-time equivalent positions by the county in which the position is based for the 

fiscal year 2004. The jobs shown for Multnomah County are in the state office. 

Figure 50. Number of BLM full-time equivalent positions by county 

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Clackamas

Coos

Douglas

Jackson

Klamath

Lane

Lincoln

Marion

Multnomah

Tillamook

Number of Individuals
247

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Timber

Key Points

•	 Recent inventories have indicated an increase in the standing inventory on BLM lands. 

•	 The BLM lands contain a substantial amount of large, high-grade logs in older stands (i.e., mature and structurally 

complex forests).

•	 The majority of the younger stands (i.e., stand establishment and young forests) within the planning area have 

resulted from harvesting and the application of intensive forestry practices on the reforested acres.

•	 Stands with a management history comprise approximately 46% of the BLM forested lands, which are classified 

as suitable for a sustained harvest of timber.

The forests on BLM-administered lands can be characterized by their standing volume and their 

acres of existing age classes. The current standing volume is shown in Table 78 (Current standing 

volume and acres of forested lands). 

Table 78. Current standing volume and acres of forested land

BLM Districts Forested Landsa

(acres)

Standing Volume 

(bbfb)

Salem 365,000 16.8

Eugene 296,000 13.4

Roseburg 399,000 15.5

Coos Bay 302,000 12.8

Medford 788,000 14.8

Klamath Falls Resource Area of the Lakeview District (west) 47,000 --c

Totals 2,197,000 73.3

Notes:

a

See Chapter 4 for definition.

b

Billion board feet.

c

Included in the Medford District inventory.

The volume figures in Table 78 are based on current vegetative survey plots. See Appendix Q. 

Vegetation Modeling for further information on the continuous vegetative survey inventory 

system. The Klamath Falls Resource Area is not included in the above inventory and acres are 

rounded to nearest thousands

See Table 79 (Historic timber volume estimates) for the previous estimates of the volumes on 

portions of the BLM-administered lands. These figures are the best estimate of merchantable 

volume for the acreage and include the definitions of use at the time period indicated. Note that 

the definitions of use did change over time. Although these inventories were conducted using 

different inventory systems, different assumptions, and different portions of the BLM lands, they 

provide the basis for broad comparisons and general trends. These inventories also show that 

overall growth on the BLM lands has kept pace with harvesting, and that there is no evidence that 

cutting has exceeded growth.
248

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Table 79. Historic timber volume estimates

Historic Estimates 1940b 1960c 1970d 1980e 1990e

Timber volume (mbfa) 46,000,000 49,059,900 50,308,000 46,856,721 49,865,870

Acres 2,165,900 2,145,072 2,391,172 1,771,657 1,794,420

Diameter at breast height (dbh) ≥ 16 in. ≥ 11 in ≥ 11 in. ≥ 7 in. ≥ 7 in.

Notes:

a

Thousand board feet.

b

Andrews and Colvin 1940

c

USDI, BLM 1960

d

USDI, BLM 1970

e

USDI, BLM 1991

In addition to the total standing volume, the forest can be characterized by the acres of existing 

age classes. The age class distribution is shown in Figure 51 (Acres of forested lands within the 

planning area for 2006 by 10-year age class). 

Figure 51. Acres of forested lands within the planning area for 2006 by 10-year age class

The above figure does not include the eastern management lands of the Klamath Falls Resource 

Area (of the Lakeview District) since no starting age class was assigned to these acres. The 

Salem, Eugene, Roseburg, Coos Bay, and Medford districts contain predominately Douglas fir 

by volume. Historical volume harvested by species shows that for most districts, forest stands 

average about 80% of their volume harvested from Douglas fir. See Appendix D. Timber. The 

Klamath Falls Resource Area of the Lakeview District has white fir as the primary commercial 

species along with ponderosa pine. 

The inventory systems that the BLM maintains are not designed to record log quality by level of 

expected size and grades. Therefore, only general information is available. Log sizes and grades 

are highly variable depending on the stand type that is harvested. This is particularly true in 

older stands where substantial peeler grade logs might be expected. Some general information 

can be derived from examining the historical level of peeler versus sawlogs as a percent of 

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

0

102030405060708090

100110120130140150160170180190

200+

10 Year Age Class

Acres
249

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

volume in past harvesting actions. This historic information can then be used to predict the 

future levels from different types of stands using the structural stage of stands as a classification 

with anticipated levels of peeler grade for each structural stage. See Appendix D. Timber. See 

Figure 52 (Peeler versus sawlog grade of Douglas fir logs by district within the planning area)

for the level of anticipated peeler grades of Douglas fir on the BLM lands that are suitable for 

timber harvesting and not part of the National Landscape Conservation System.

Figure 52. Peeler versus sawlog grade of Douglas fir logs by district within the planning area 

Existing stand condition is a codified classification system for inventory that separates stands into 

classes with similar management histories and conditions. This system is used to predict future 

growth and development trajectories of stands. As follows, past management history and current 

stand density can affect the future growth that is anticipated from stands: 

•	 Managed stands are expected to have considerably higher volumes of timber per acre 

than natural stands of similar age due to the more consistent spacing, the changes in 

species composition, and the use of improved genetic stock during reforestation. 

•	 Young stands resulting from regeneration harvesting where a component of the original 

stand is left as a legacy often have lower growth rates for the understory component of 

those stands. 

See Figure 53 (Percent of BLM lands within the planning area with management history that are 

suitable for sustained timber production) for the percentage of BLM lands within the planning 

area with management history that are suitable for sustained timber production. In general, 

the BLM lands have had a substantial amount of past management from either regeneration 

harvesting or thinning. 

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Salem Eugene Roseburg Coos Bay Medford Klamath

BBF Sawlog 3 Peeler and better
250

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Figure 53. Percent of BLM lands within the planning area with management history that are suitable for 

sustained timber production 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Salem Eugene Roseburg Coos Bay Medford Klamath

Falls

E. Mgt.

Lands (K.

Falls)

All District

Average

Percent of

 Forested Acres

Percent with Management History 
251

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Special Forest Products

Key Points

•	 There are 84 forest products in 10 categories that were harvested or collected over the past five years on BLM lands. 

•	 Wood products (including firewood), mushrooms, and floral and greenery are consistently the highest three special 

forest product categories by the number of permits sold and by revenue.

•	 Collectors normally focus their harvesting efforts in areas where the commercial forest product is abundant and is 

easy and economical to harvest.

Special forest products are plant and fungi resources that are harvested, gathered, or collected, 

and have social, economical, or spiritual value. Common examples include conifer boughs, 

Christmas trees, mushrooms, edibles and medicinals, floral and greenery, mosses and lichens, 

ornamentals, seed and cones, tree burls, transplants and wood products including posts, poles, 

firewood, shakes, and rails. The types of special forest products are continually expanding as 

entrepreneurs develop new products and create new markets.

Most special forest products are common, widespread, and generalists (i.e., tolerant of a broad 

range of environmental conditions), while some require a specific community or habitat, or even a 

specific host. The demand for special forest products varies as markets conditions change. These 

changes can be seasonal variable or cyclical from year to year depending upon economic factors 

and environmental conditions. The availability of road access, particularly roads to harvest areas, 

and land use restrictions influences the type and amount of forest products available for harvest.

Although most commercial harvesters in the Pacific Northwest do not rely on special forest 

products for their sole source of income, these products do provide important supplemental or 

seasonal sources of income that contribute to household economies (Charnley 2006).

Special forest products are generally harvested from common plants and fungi that are associated with 

vegetative communities on BLM managed lands that include conifer forests, grasslands, shrublands, 

and hardwood communities. The 84 special forest products are grouped into 10 special forest product 

categories based on a retrospective analysis of BLM permit data over the past five years. 

Following is a list of the special forest product categories and the number of products included in 

each category.

•	 boughs (coniferous) (12)

•	 burls and miscellaneous (2)

•	 Christmas trees (4)

•	 edibles and medicinals (8)

•	 floral and greenery (8)

•	 mosses (bryophytes) (3)

•	 mushrooms (fungi) (12) 

•	 seeds and seed cones (5)

•	 transplants (13)

•	 wood products (17)
252

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

A general description of the common special forest products is provided below. See Table 80 

(Special forest products by category) for a complete list of the special forest products. 

Boughs. The typical species from which boughs are collected are western red cedar and incense 

cedars, true firs, pines, juniper, and Douglas fir. Conifer boughs are used by individuals and the 

floral industry primarily during the Christmas season for seasonal decorations. Boughs are generally 

collected from young or mature forest stands. Western red cedars occur in riparian zones.

Burls. Burls are used for woodcrafting in the manufacture of specialty items, such as clocks, 

tables, veneers, and other decorative items. Burls are found on either the bole (cluster burls) or 

on the stumps (stump burls) of trees. Burls are harvested from hardwood trees in mature and 

structurally complex forest stands of hardwood and mixed conifer and hardwoods forest types.

Christmas trees. Christmas trees are sold as seasonal decorations for personal or commercial 

use. Christmas trees are harvested from stand establishment conifer plantations.

Floral and greenery. Floral and greenery is collected and used as decorative arrangements. 

Common plants include salal, evergreen huckleberry, sword fern, and beargrass that generally 

occur in the understory of conifer forests. Floral and greenery are harvested from upland areas in 

conifer forest types in mature and structurally complex forests stands. Manzanita is harvested for 

decorative greens and bird perches and occurs in woodland and shrubland communities, mostly in 

southern Oregon.

Medicinals. Cascara and yew bark is peeled from the bole of trees and used to make laxatives 

and tonics. The majority of Cascara and yew occur along streams or seasonally wet areas. Harvest 

areas are limited because they occur in riparian zones.

Mushrooms. Mushrooms that are commonly harvested include golden chanterelle, winter 

chanterelle (yellow foot), morels, matsutake, shaggy parasols, coral mushrooms, truffles, and 

hedgehogs. Each mushroom is associated with one or more specific hosts in forested conifer or 

mixed hardwood stands. Mushrooms are generally harvested from hardwood and conifer forest 

communities of mature and structurally complex forests stands. Morels are harvested immediately 

after a wildfire.

Seeds and cones. Cones are collected commercially for seed or harvested for ornamental 

purposes from mature and structurally complex forests. 

Transplants. Transplants include various native ground covers or shrubs, forbs, and tree species 

including root stock for medicinal purposes. These plant species are found in riparian and upland 

areas in all vegetation communities.
253

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Wood products. Wood products include firewood, posts and poles, rails, cedar shake bolts, 

biomass, or pulp wood. Poles can be any length, but no more than 6 inches in diameter on the 

large end. Wood products are harvested from young, mature, and structurally complex forests. 

Wood products also includes ornamental wood species that include red alder, big leaf maple, 

madrone, vine maple, and willows. These are used to construct furniture and cabinetry, veneers, 

and bow staves. Ornamental wood species also include cut sticks, which are generally red 

alder or other hardwood species that measure less than 4 inches in diameter at the large end. 

Ornamental wood species are harvested from all forest communities, but generally from mature 

and structurally complex forests.

Permits for special forest products include restrictions to help meet renewable resource standards 

and to protect other sensitive resource values. Permits may restrict the type of species, the 

quantity harvested, the harvest or collection method, the location, access, and the season. 

The types and abundance of special forest products vary across the planning area. The 

location of the commercial harvesting sites and the product and site conditions may change 

from year to year. These differences are reflected in the forest product permits issued by 

BLM district. See Figure 54 (Trend in the total number of permits issued over five years by 

BLM district). The overall trend is mixed with a slight increase by three districts and a slight 

decrease by three districts. 

Figure 54. Trend in the total number of permits issued over five years by BLM district 

Many special forest products, such as firewood, Christmas trees, evergreen boughs, huckleberries, 

and mushrooms are broadly distributed throughout the planning area. Other special forest products 

are limited to a particular plant community, special environments, or narrow geographic area. 

Overharvesting is not known to occur across the range of a species or to the extent that it creates 

concern for the sustainability of the product or species, except in a few local situations. When 

these situations are discovered, harvesting permits are discontinued or issued in other areas.

Natural disturbances, such as wildfire, storms, and floods, shape the types and productivity of 

special forest products over time. Wildfires change vegetative and structural components of the 

Number of Permits

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Salem 588 505 470 283 268

Eugene 799 1127 1082 1311 942

Roseburg 680 441 527 698 758

Coos Bay 1276 826 904 1307 1055

Medford 1546 832 898 566 749

Klamath Fa 181 169 326 397 255

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

Salem Eugene Roseburg Coos Bay Medford Klamath Falls

Number of 

Permits

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
254

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

landscape by consuming biomass, but can promote productive responses of some special forest 

products. For example, morel mushrooms respond quickly after wildfires. Wildfires can create 

conditions suitable for other vegetative products in subsequent years, such as willow whips, 

beargrass and other floral and greenery products, and medicinal forbs. Wildfires char and degrade 

the value of such special forest wood products as boughs, Christmas trees, firewood, and poles.

Floods alter vegetation and the special forest products found in riparian plant communities. 

Although initially floods may appear to destroy the existing riparian vegetation, the changed 

conditions provide vigor to the resprouting and reseeding shrubs and forbs, and within a few 

years provide a new potential crop of alder and willow products along streams and wetland areas.

Timber harvesting changes the forest condition and increases or decreases opportunities and 

quality depending on the product. Species composition, age, distribution of age classes, growth 

rate, and density of forest stands influence the type and productivity of special forest products.

Timber harvesting and associated fuels reduction treatments routinely alter stand structure 

and forest floor conditions, and combined, modify forest conditions on more acres than all 

other planned activities. The method of timber harvesting particularly influences special 

forest products. Ground-based harvesting operations disturb more area and at heavier levels 

of disturbance on the understory vegetation (and associated special forest products, such as 

mushrooms and floral and greenery) than cable operations. Helicopter harvesting has even less 

disturbance. Timber management activities, however, do provide road access to harvest areas that 

would otherwise not be available. 

Regeneration harvesting reduces suitable conditions for numerous special forest products, while 

at the same time providing abundant biomass, fiber, and firewood as commercial by-products. 

For example, chanterelles do not fruit for the first 15 years after a regeneration harvest and 

matsutakes rarely fruit in stands under 40 years of age (Vance et al. 2001). Many commercial 

floral and greenery products, as well as boughs, may be lost from the harvest units. Huckleberries 

for greenery and moss products may be lost for decades. Commercial thinning generally provides 

conditions where understory greenery products can persist and the commercial value may even 

improve within a short period of time due to an increase in the light to the understory vegetation. 

Silviculture treatments in regeneration harvest units generally cut evergreen vegetation and 

hardwoods that would reduce the amount and commercial quality of other forest products. 

Understory greenery products can increase within a short period of time due to an increase in the 

light to the understory vegetation during thinning harvests. 

Silviculture treatments in regeneration harvest units generally cut evergreen vegetation and 

hardwoods that reduces the amount and commercial quality of other forest products.

Fuels treatments target the pole component of forest stands as well as the hardwood and shrub 

understory. Fuels treatments include broadcast burning, hand, and mechanical treatments. 

Broadcast burning disposes logging slash and other forest floor fuels, burns wood products, and 

degrades quality. Manual treatments have less impact to understory vegetation and the forest floor 

duff layer and associated special forest products than mechanical treatments (such as slash-buster 

operations) due to the size of the equipment. Opportunistic situations occur where pole harvesting 

is coordinated with fuels projects. Flora and greenery products and mushrooms respond quicker 

to manual operations than mechanical operations. 
255

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

The available data regarding the quantities and value of special forest products is limited to a 

basic comparison over time (trend) by the number of permits sold by category, units sold, and 

revenue. The number of units sold of special forest products has declined slightly for wood 

products, boughs, and floral and greenery over the last five years. Mushrooms is the only category 

that has increased.

The total number of special forest product permits varies by approximately 20% between 

any two-year interval. Each forest product group varies based on relevant market and 

environmental conditions. 

Permit sales have averaged over $200,000 per year and totaled over $1,100,000 over the 

past five years. In the last two years, revenue from wood products, floral and greenery, and 

boughs has declined, while mushroom revenue has increased during the last three years. 

Wood product revenue has varied more than other special forest products due to pole sale 

fluctuations in Medford.

Field inventories of special forest products, harvest areas, and actual harvest data on BLM 

lands is not available. Detailed studies and analysis have been conducted where concerns for 

overharvesting and long-term sustainability existed in the past, such as moss harvesting in Eugene 

(Muir 2004) and yew wood harvesting (USDA, USDI 1993a).

See Table 80 (Special forest products by category) for the 10 categories of 84 specific forest 

products that are found on BLM-administered land within the planning area. 
256

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Table 80. Special forest products by category 

Category Special Forest Products

Boughs (coniferous) Douglas fir

Grand fir

Incense cedar

Juniper

Noble fir

Pacific silver fir

Port Orford cedar

Shasta red fir

Sugar pine

Western hemlock

Western red cedar

White fir

Burls and miscellaneous Big leaf maple

Pacific madrone

Christmas trees Douglas fir

Grand fir

Noble fir

Shasta red fir

Edibles and medicinals Bay leaves

Cascara bark

Elderberries

Oregon grape root

Pacific yew bark

Pacific yew boughs

Prince’s pine

St. John’s wart

Floral and greenery Beargrass

Bracken fern

Cactus species

Huckleberry

Manzanita

Oregon grape

Salal sp.

Sword fern

Mosses (bryophytes) Lichen sp.

Sheet moss

Tree moss

Mushrooms (fungi) Black picoa

Cauliflower

Coral tooth

Golden chanterelle

Horn of plenty

King bolete

Matsutake sp.

Morel sp.

Shaggy parasol

Spreading hedgehog

White chanterelle

Yellowfoot mushroom

Seeds and seed cones Douglas fir

Noble fir

Ponderosa pine

Sugar pine

Western hemlock

Transplants Bleeding heart

Douglas fir

Huckleberry

Incense cedar

Mountain mahogany

Oregon grape

Rhododendron

Sword fern

Vine maple

Western hemlock

Western red cedar

Wild iris

Willow sp.

Wood products Alder stick (large)

Bolts and shakes

Corral poles

Fence stays

Fuelwood

Hobby wood

Large poles

Marginal logs

Pitchwood

Posts (corner)

Posts (line)

Pulpwood

Rails (split)

Round wood

Small poles

Tepee poles (4 in. x 

16 ft.)

Whip stock (misc.)
257

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Botany

Key Points

•	 Rare plants and fungi are not evenly distributed or predictable across the landscape, even when good potential 

habitat exists. 

•	 There are 134 plant and fungi species that are listed as bureau special status species that exist on approximately 

4,000 acres of BLM-administered lands and that consist of approximately 5,000 known populations.

•	 Of the 134 bureau special status species, 32 occur only on BLM-administered lands.

The BLM administers diverse ecosystems across the planning area. These lands include habitat 

and populations of some of the rarest plant and fungi species in the Pacific Northwest, including:

•	 134 species that occur on BLM-administered lands within the planning area (not 

including the West Eugene Wetlands or the Cascades-Siskiyou National Monument);

•	 59 species that have 20 or fewer populations;

•	 32 species that occur only on BLM-administered lands; and 

•	 21 species that have five or fewer populations. 

Since the landscape and the habitats of the planning area are extraordinarily diverse, they include 

a unique combination of geology, climate, and topography and these contribute to the presence 

of many rare and locally endemic plant and fungi species. Southwest Oregon and northern 

California have some of the highest rates of plant endemism in the United States (Della Salla et 

al. 1999). These rare species, also called bureau special status species, are distributed throughout 

the planning area and are found in nearly every habitat type. 

Over 4,500 plant species are found in Oregon and the majority of the species occur within the 

planning area. Most of these plant species are considered common and are of no conservation 

concern from the standpoint of being threatened with, or trending toward, extinction. However, 

approximately 7% (324) of these species are considered bureau special status species and are of 

conservation concern due to the small number of known populations, loss of habitat, or the threats 

to their existence that are posed by human activity or other biological factors.

Habitats

The flora in Oregon is shaped by geologic history, topography, regional climatic factors, 

and natural disturbances. The geographic extent of the planning area is so broad that 

a wide range of conditions shape the diversity of plant communities and habitats. For 

example, rare plant and fungi species are known to occur on BLM-administered lands in 

the following physiographic provinces in the stated numbers:

•	 38 within the Coast Range province 

•	 13 species within the Eastern Cascades and Willamette Valley provinces

•	 59 within the Western Cascades province 
258

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

In the planning area, over 250 plant species are endemic to serpentine soils with about 

10% being considered rare (Kruckeberg 1984). Crinite mariposa-lily (Calochortus 

coxii) and Howell’s mariposa-lily (Calochortus howellii) are examples of rare, narrow 

endemics found only on soils influenced by a serpentine substrate. Approximately 88 rare 

plant species and nearly two-thirds of the total known populations that occur on BLMadministered lands occur in the Klamath province.

Many plants are associated with the unusual habitat types that are generally shaped 

by the unusual features, climate, and hydrologic influences that exist throughout the 

planning area. The innumerous unusual habitats within the planning area range from 

rock substrates and outcrops of different origins with variable soil types and conditions 

(including sand dunes) to seasonal and permanent wetlands, vernal pools, fens, bogs, 

and marshes. The range of unusual habitats also includes the forest communities of 

conifer and mixed hardwoods and the communities of steppe juniper and sage. These 

habitats include a wide range of conditions and, because they have persisted over time, 

have become refuges for unusual plant communities (Franklin and Dyrness 1973). Many 

uncommon and rare species have adapted to these unique conditions over time and 

generally occur infrequently on associated habitat types.

Rare plant and fungi species are generally not evenly distributed or predictable across 

the landscape, even when good potential habitat exists. Some species are generally 

associated with a specific plant series, habitat type, or an ecological feature that narrows 

their potential habitat. However, other rare species are associated with broader and less 

defined habitat types. Kaye et al. (1997) describes types of rarity, patterns, distribution, 

and threats to rare plant species in Oregon. 

Biological factors (e.g., reproductive strategies, inbreeding depression, pollinators and 

pollination, consumption by herbivores, weed invasion, habitat connectivity, disease, 

predation, habitat change, and global climate change) play important roles in determining 

the distribution and abundance of a species. Some rare Oregon species appear to be 

lingering remnant populations from historic plant communities at the edge of their range 

with few remaining populations (e.g., Baker Cypress). Others are narrow endemics adapted 

over long periods of time to specific habitats or substrates, such as the serpentine endemic 

group. Other rare species may be isolated populations that are diverging morphologically 

from metapopulations, or may be the result of cross-pollination between two or more 

species (e.g., Gentner’s fritillary (Fritillaria gentneri)). Other rare species of lichen and 

bryophytes appear to be more mobile within widespread ranges (e.g., Usnea longissima), 

but adapted to narrow environmental conditions. Other species in Oregon are rare because 

of a loss of habitat due to an expanding human population and the introduction and spread 

of invasive plants (USDA, USFWS 2003a; USDA, USFWS 1998a).

Searches for rare plants have occurred on more than 433,000 acres in the past six years 

and resulted in the discovery of more than 1,600 new populations in the past three years 

alone. Over 85% of all populations (and the greatest increase in new populations over the 

past three years), occurs in the Medford District, which includes the Klamath Mountains. 

At the opposite end of the range, approximately 1% of all populations occur in the 

Lakeview District in the Klamath Falls Resource Area.
259

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Areas of high special status species richness (the number of different species in an area) 

and density (the number of one species in an area) can be mapped across the landscape 

as hot spots (greater richness and density) and cold spots (lesser richness and density). 

Hot spots occur at fine spatial scales (such as special habitat features—like meadows, 

wetlands, rock outcrops) and at larger geographic regions, which are helpful for largescale planning. Areas of high levels of endemism at the broader landscape level, such as 

the Klamath- Siskiyou region or the Eugene Wetlands area, are easily identified. Cold 

spots result from low occurrence levels of rare species and populations, or areas where 

survey intensity is lower. See Figure 55 (Special status species density shown as hot spots 

and cold spots).

Figure 55. Special status species density shown as hot spots and cold spots 

Natural disturbances (wildfires, storms, and floods) occur frequently and change plant 

community and habitat conditions for rare plant and fungi species. Many factors 

determine whether a population will survive the disturbance, such as: 

•	 the type, duration, and intensity of the disturbance;

•	 the season;

•	 the species habit and life-cycle requirements; and 

•	 the adaptability of a species to a changed environment.
260

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Some rare plant species (e.g., Bradshaw’s desert parsley (Lomatium Bradshawii)) 

are adapted to frequent, low-intensity fires and respond positively (Kaye et al. 2001). 

Such species as Gentner’s fritillaria, Kincaid’s lupine, and coral seeded allocarya 

(plagiobothrys sp.) can respond positively to the increased light and moisture from the 

loss of overtopping and competing vegetation, and the increase in nutrients that are 

available after a wildfire. On the other hand, many rare lichen, bryophytes, and fungi, 

along with some vascular plants, are consumed in a fire and these populations can be lost, 

along with their habitat and hosts, unless they are protected in a niche or island where the 

fire was absent or less severe (S. Copeland, unpublished data). 

Floods and debris flows can alter riparian and aquatic plant communities and can also 

alter the rare plant populations that occur in the disturbed areas. These types of events 

are very dynamic with some rare plant populations benefiting and others being lost. 

Although, initially, floods may appear to destroy the existing riparian and aquatic 

vegetation, they also deposit sediment, distribute seed, and reduce excess and nonnative 

vegetation, which provides vigor to resprouting and reseeding shrubs, perennial and 

annual grasses, and forbs. For example, many populations of rare species of juncus and 

sedges, along with popcorn flowers (plagiobothrys), are associated with streams and 

wetlands and adapted to periodic floods with their prolific seed production. 

Special Status Species

Some species are both state and federally listed species. Special status species are rare 

plant and fungi species that include all federally listed, Oregon state-listed, proposed, 

and candidate species, as well as, bureau sensitive species, bureau assessment species, 

and bureau tracking species. Bureau tracking species have no management associated 

with them and are not further discussed in this draft environmental impact statement. 

The special status species list is based on federal listings, state listings, and the Oregon 

Natural Heritage Information Center rankings of species. 

There are currently 324 plant and fungi species that occur in the planning area that are 

on the special status species list. However, only 134 species (41%) have documented 

populations on BLM-administered lands. The remaining 190 species (59%) are suspected 

or likely to occur on BLM lands because known sites occur nearby, their range coincides 

with the planning area, or suitable habitat exists on BLM-administered lands. Only 95 of 

230 vascular plants (14 of which are federally listed and candidate species) are known on 

BLM-administered lands, as well as, 14 of 47 mosses and liverworts (i.e., bryophytes), 15 

of 26 lichens, and 10 of 21 fungi.

Table 81. Number of documented and suspected plant and fungi special status species 

Special Status 

Plants and 

Fungi Species

Total 

Species

Vascular 

Plants Bryophytes Lichens Fungi

Suspect 324 230 47 26 21

Documented 134 95 14 15 10
261

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Special status species occupy approximately 4,000 acres of the approximately 2.5 million 

acres of BLM-administered lands within the planning area, which is itself approximately 

22 million acres. Those 4,000 acres have approximately 5,000 populations of the 134 

documented special status species, along with five additional species that occur in the 

West Eugene Wetlands and the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument.

Approximately 74% of the occupied habitat (the 4,000 acres that are occupied by special 

status species) and 76% of the populations (the 5,000 populations of the documented 

special status species) occur on O&C lands, while 26% of the occupied habitat and 

24% of the populations occur on public domain lands. See Figure 56 (Populations and 

occupied habitat of bureau special status species on O&C and public domain lands 

within the planning area).

Figure 56. Populations and occupied habitat of special status species on O&C and public 

domain lands within the planning area 

Federally Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species

There are 13 species that are listed under the federal Endangered Species Act that 

occur within the planning area, along with one federal candidate species—for a 

total of 14 federally listed and candidate species. Only 5 of the 13 federally listed 

species occur on BLM-administered lands, along with the one federal candidate 

species. There are eight species that are not documented on BLM-administered 

lands or do not occur on lands where management activities are proposed, but 

they are suspected and included because the range of the species overlaps public 

lands and suitable habitat exists. See Table 82 (Federal status of federally listed 

plant species within the planning area). Also see Appendix E. Botany. 

O&C LandsPublic Domain Lands

 Population 3773 1193

Occupied 0 H 2913 1026

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

O&C Lands Public Domain Lands

 Populations (Number) Occupied Habitat (Acres)
262

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Table 82. Federal status of federally listed plant species within the planning area

Federal 

Status

Federally Listed Plant Species

Scientific Name Common Name

FTO Castilleja levisecta Golden paintbrush

FTO Howellia aquatilis Water howellia

FTO Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii Kincaid’s lupine

FTO Sidalcea nelsoniana Nelson’s checker-mallow

FEO Arabis mcdonaldiana McDonald’s rock-cress

FEO Astragalus applegate Applegate’s milk-vetch

FEO Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens Willamette valley daisy

FEO Fritillaria gentneri Gentner’s fritillary

FEO Lilium occidentale Western lily

FEO Limnanthes floccosa ssp. grandiflora Large-flowered wooly meadowfoam

FEO Lomatium bradshawii Bradshaw’s desert parsley

FEO Lomatium cookii Cook’s lomatium

FEO Plagiobothrys hirtus Rough popcorn flower

FCO Calochortus persistens Siskiyou mariposa-lily

FTO (federally threatened Oregon) FEO (federally endangered Oregon) FCO (federal candidate Oregon)

The federally listed and candidate species are vascular plants and they occur in 

every BLM district within the planning area. In general, federally listed plant 

species are adapted to special habitats within narrow geographic ranges, although 

some are broader and wider ranging. Individual population sizes are generally 

small and the area of occupied habitat is small. See Appendix E. Botany for a list 

of federally listed species, the number of known sites, the area occupied in acres, 

and the general habitat descriptions. 

Oregon State Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species

The BLM policy for special status species applies to state-listed species that 

are under the authority of the Sikes Act. Species listed by the state of Oregon 

occur in every BLM district within the planning area and all are vascular plants. 

There are 29 plant species, along with 50 candidate species, that are listed under 

the Oregon Endangered Species Act. Of the Oregon listed species, 11 are also 

federally listed. In general, most of these species are narrow endemics that occur 

within restricted geographic areas or unique habitats. The populations of statelisted species are few and normally small in size. See Appendix E. Botany.

Bureau Sensitive Species and Bureau Assessment Species

Bureau sensitive species receive the same level of protection as federal 

candidate species under the BLM’s special status species policy. Bureau 

assessment species are species of concern in Oregon, and impacts to 

populations and individual species are considered along with other resource 

considerations on a case-by-case basis.
263

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

There are 116 bureau sensitive species (of which are 19 state-listed species) and 

194 bureau assessment species within the planning area. Of those 310 species, 

216 are vascular plants (not including the 14 species that are federally listed and 

candidate species), 47 are mosses or liverworts (bryophytes), 26 are lichens, and 

21 are fungi. 

The vascular plants occur in a variety of habitat types and substrates including 

aquatic, riparian, and terrestrial. Bryophytes and lichen are associated with a 

variety of habitats (including rock, soils, and riparian, although primarily conifer 

and hardwood communities). Fungi are mycorrhizal and associated with host 

species in conifer and hardwood forest communities. The habitat groups (listed 

in the last section of this Botany section) delineate species by habitat types. 

Additional habitat descriptions can be found in Appendix E. Botany. 

Conservation Plans

The following sections outline the recovery plans, conservation agreements, and 

conservation strategies that exist for rare plant species.

Recovery Plans for Federally Listed Plant Species

Recovery plans have been written for nine species within the planning area that 

are listed under the federal Endangered Species Act. Some recovery plans were 

written more than 15 years ago. The content, style, and vocabulary varies greatly 

between earlier and later plans. The primary conservation components of each 

recovery plan that applies to land management activities have been extracted and 

listed in Appendix E. Botany. 

Table 83. Federally listed plant species with recovery plans

Scientific Name Common Name

Arabis mcdonaldiana McDonald’s rock-cress 

Astragalus applegatei Applegate’s milk-vetch 

Castelleja levisecta Golden paintbrush 

Fritillaria gentneri Gentner’s fritillary 

Howellia aquatilis Water howellia 

Lilium occidentale Western lily 

Lomatium bradshawii Bradshaw’s desert parsley 

Lupinus sulphureus sp. kincaidii Kincaid’s lupine 

Plagiobothrys hirtus Rough popcorn flower 

Sidalcea nelsoniana Nelson’s checker-mallow 
264

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Conservation Agreements

Conservation agreements outline mutual conservation goals that are necessary 

to reduce, eliminate, or mitigate specific threats to species that are at risk. 

They provide general guidance for the management of species. There are four 

interagency conservation agreements between the BLM and other agencies 

(usually involving the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) for species within the 

planning area. See Table 84 (Plant species with conservation agreements). Three 

of the agreements are single-species agreements and one agreement covers a suite 

of rare species that occur in serpentine Darlingtonia wetlands and fens.

Table 84. Plant species with conservation agreements

Scientific Name Common Name

Single-species agreements

Calochortus coxii Crinite mariposa lily (Oregon State listed as endangered)

Calochortus umpquensis Umpqua mariposa lily (Oregon State listed as endangered)

Lupinus sulphureus sp. kincaidi Kincaid’s lupine (federally listed as threatened)

Multispecies agreement for the serpentine Darlingtonia wetlands and fens of 

southwestern Oregon and northwestern California

Epilobium oreganum Oregon willow-herb

Gentiana setigera Mendocino gentian

Hastingsia bracteosa Large-flowered rushlily (Oregon State listed as threatened)

H. atropurpurea Purple-flowered rushlily

Viola primulifolia sp. occidentalis Western bog violet

Conservation Strategies 

Conservation strategies are more detailed than conservation agreements. They not 

only contain the information that is included in a conservation assessment, but 

they also provide specific details on species populations and habitat management. 

Conservation strategies have been written for five species within the planning 

area. See Table 85 (Plant species with conservation strategies).

Table 85. Plant species with conservation strategies

Scientific Name Common Name

Aster gormanii Gorman’s aster

Cimicifuga elata Tall bugbane

Frasera umpquaensis Umpqua gentian

Phacelia argentea Silvery phacelia (Oregon State listed as threatened)

Rorippa columbiae Columbia cress

See Appendix E. Botany for a complete list of conservation strategies and 

conservation agreements, which includes species, key conservation components 

that apply to land management actions, participating agencies, and field units. 
265

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Survey and Manage

Survey and manage is a mitigation measure for little known or rare species that was 

adopted as a set of standards and guidelines in the 1995 resource management plans of 

the districts within the planning area to direct management. 

For comprehensive information regarding the species, refer to the:

• January 2004 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement To Remove 

or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines; 

and the

• January 2007 Supplement to the July 2006 Draft Supplement to the 2004 Final 

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement To Remove or Modify the Survey 

and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines.

For the management direction, refer to the:

• January 2001 Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines for Amendments 

to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures 

Standards and Guidelines in Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management 

Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl.

The information in these environmental impact statements is incorporated by reference. 

See Table 86 (Distribution of survey and manage species) for the total number of survey 

and manage species within the area of the Northwest Forest plan (NWFP), the number 

that occur on BLM-administered lands, the number that are also bureau sensitive species 

(BSS), the number that are also bureau assessment species (BAS), and the number that 

have been removed from the survey and manage list in Oregon. 

Table 86. Distribution of survey and manage species

Survey and 

Manage Species

Total 

Survey and 

Manage

Vascular 

Plants Bryophytes Lichens Fungi

Number that occur 

within the area of the 

NWFP

254 10 17 40 187

Number that occur on 

BLM lands 246 10 13 39 184

Number that are also 

BSS 20 3 0 2 15

Number that are also 

BAS 21 3 8 10 0

Number that have 

been removed from 

Oregon listing

8 2 2 1 3
266

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Habitat Groups and Rare Plant and Fungi 

Species

One method of grouping rare plant and fungi species is by the habitat associations that are 

based on biotic and abiotic features. See Figure 57 (Number of special status species by 

habitat group). There are 324 special status plant and fungi species within the planning 

area from approximately 14 life-forms (e.g., forb, grass, tree, lichen, and fungi) that are 

found in numerous habitat-specific substrates, plant communities, and environments. 

There are nine habitat groups that were formed based on aggregating together similar 

habitat types that exist throughout the planning area. Each of the 324 species was placed 

into one or more groups. Each species was included in the broadest number of habit 

groups based on the variety of habitats and conditions that are associated with the species. 

See Appendix E. Botany.

Figure 57. Number of special status species by habitat group

The habitat groups used in this analysis include:

•	 conifer and mixed evergreen forests (CF) 

•	 maritime zone (MZ)

•	 oak and hardwood woodlands (OHW)

•	 riparian and aquatic (RI)

•	 rocky areas, outcrops, and scree (RK)

•	 seasonal wetlands, fens, and vernal pools (SW)

•	 serpentine areas (SE)

•	 shrub communities (SC)

•	 upland meadows and grasslands (MG)

52

103

30

24

69

86

57

16

55

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Upland Meadows/Grasslands (MG)

Maritime Zone (MZ)

Shrub Communities (SC)

Conifer/Mixed Evergreen Forests (CF)

 Oak/Hardwood Woodlands (OHW)

Serpentine Areas (SE)

Rocky Areas/Outcrops/Scree (RK)

Riparian/Aquatic (RI)

Seasonal Wetlands/Fens/Vernal Pools (SW)

Number of Species
267

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

The above habitat groups relate to biotic and abiotic conditions as follows:

•	 Four habitat groups (CF, MG, OHW, and SC) relate to broad vegetative 

community types. 

•	 Two habitat groups (RI and SW) relate to hydrologic and aquatic dependencies.

•	 Two habitat groups (RK and SE) relate to parent material substrates (one 

specifically to serpentine areas). 

•	 One habitat groups (MZ) relates to wind and rain and is defined as taxa that is 

normally associated with coastal conditions within approximately 10 miles of 

the coast.
268

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Invasive Plants

Key Points

•	 Invasive plant infestations are numerous and many are well-distributed on BLM-administered lands within the 

planning area. 

•	 Invasive species are introduced and spread through a variety of mechanisms, including land management activities.

Invasive plants are alien plant species whose introduction causes economic or environmental 

harm, or harm to human health. Noxious weeds are a subset of invasive plant species. Noxious 

weeds are plant species that are designated by federal or state law, and generally possess one or 

more of the following characteristics: 

•	 aggressive and difficult to manage

•	 parasitic

•	 carrier (or host) of serious insects or disease

•	 nonnative, new to, or not common to the United States

Invasive plants have been introduced into the planning area by various means. Some 

introductions were intentional—to make use of ornamental or erosion-control species. Examples 

include Scotch broom and purple loosestrife. Other species were introduced unintentionally—by 

air, water, or transportation routes. Frequently, invasive plants are introduced by the movement 

of contaminated seed, agricultural materials, or animals; the use of contaminated equipment; the 

spreading of infested gravel, road fill, and topsoil; and the sale of invasive species for ornamental 

purposes (USDI, BLM 1996). 

Once introduced, these invasive species are spread primarily by vehicles, human activities, water, 

and wildlife. The initial infestations are often along roads and trails, landings, campgrounds, and 

other areas of high disturbance (Hansen and Clevenger 2005). Occasionally, infestations are also 

introduced into relatively undisturbed areas (USDI, BLM 2005a, 3-39). 

More than 130 invasive plant species have been documented within the planning area. Of these, 

61 are also listed as noxious weeds in Oregon. See Table 87 (Number of invasive plant and 

noxious weed species on BLM-administered lands within the planning area). Several of the other 

identified invasive plants are also listed as noxious weeds in other states. 

Table 87. Number of invasive plant and noxious weed species on BLM-administered lands within the 

planning area

Plant 

Category

Planning 

Area

BLM Districts

Salem Eugene Roseburg Coos 

Bay Medford Klamath Falls

Invasive Plants 136 74 64 81 51 50 50

Noxious Weeds 61 26 28 28 29 36 28
269

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

An accurate accounting of the total acreage and distribution of invasive plant infestations and 

treatments is unavailable for the following reasons: 

•	 No central source exists for compiling invasive plant infestation and treatment 

information within Oregon. 

•	 There is no requirement for county, private, or corporate land owners to report invasive 

plant information. 

Despite the limited reporting on weed locations, a good picture of 

the distribution of noxious weed species is available on a species-byspecies basis by WeedMapper (a website). 

The condition of invasive plant infestations on BLM-administered 

lands within the planning area can be characterized by analyzing a 

few invasive species. The following representative list of invasive 

species is used to describe the condition of invasive plants on BLMadministered lands within the planning area.

•	 Canada thistle 

•	 dyer’s woad

•	 false brome

•	 knotweeds

•	 leafy spurge

•	 meadow knapweed

•	 Scotch and French brooms

•	 spotted and diffuse knapweeds

•	 yellow starthistle

Each of these species or species groups has a unique distribution pattern and strategy for 

spreading and resisting different treatment methods. Many of the identified invasive species are 

well-distributed across the planning area. Some are limited in distribution and others have very 

few sites on BLM-administered lands. Although each species is unique, these sample invasive 

species represent a range of life histories and methods of introduction and spread sufficient to 

describe the condition of invasive species on BLM-administered lands within the planning area.

Canada Thistle

Canada thistle, a perennial with an extensive root system, occurs in a wide variety of 

open, moist, disturbed habitats including roadsides, streambanks, pastures, meadows, 

waste areas, campgrounds, clear-cuts, roads, fires, and landslides (Hansen 2005; Turner 

1999; Titus 1998; Jensen 1991; Schoenberger 1982; Neiland 1958). Canada thistle is 

rarely found in undisturbed forests (Heckman 1999; Bailey 1998; Hutchison 1992; Chen 

1996; Dewey 1991; Parendes 2000; Young 1967). A study at Yellowstone National Park 

revealed that Canada thistle was found in habitats with varying levels of disturbance and 

that there is a direct relationship with species abundance and the level of disturbance 

(Allen 1999; Turner 1997). 

Canada thistle spreads sexually by seed and vegetatively by root and stem fragments. 

Most seeds are spread by animals, hay, contaminated crop seed, machinery, and irrigation 

water. Fewer are dispersed by wind (Nuzzo 2000). The majority of the seeds germinate 

WeedMapper

An interagency cooperative 

effort with Oregon State 

University to collect spatial 

information on the distribution 

of noxious weeds in the 

state of Oregon. See www.

weedmapper.org. 
270

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

the year they are produced. Seeds are generally viable for less than 5 years, but could 

remain viable for up to 20 years in soil (Nuzzo 2000; Donald 1994). 

Once germinated, Canada thistle seedlings require space to grow and relatively high 

levels of light (Nuzzo 2000; Donald 1994). Once established, Canada thistle spreads 

rapidly by vegetative growth in the root and underground stems systems. Within 

one season a plant can grow up to 20 feet horizontally in good growing conditions 

(Magnusson 1987). 

Canada thistle may establish in natural areas as part of the initial plant community after 

logging (Jensen 1991; Kellman 1969; Chen 1996; Young 1967), fire ( Schoenberger 

1982), grazing, and road building (Meier 1997). 

A study in northern Idaho documented the establishment of Canada thistle following 

clear-cutting activities with varying levels of soil displacement. Timber harvesting 

activities with high levels of soil disturbance favor the establishment of forbs, including 

Canada thistle, to the detriment of tree seedling establishment (Jensen 1991). Canada 

thistle establishment may take two or more seasons after disturbance events (Doyle 1998; 

Willard 1995; Jensen 1991).

Canada thistle is well-distributed across the state and is present on BLM lands in 

every district within the planning area. See Figure 58 (Distribution of Canada thistle)

(WeedMapper 2004a).

Figure 58. Distribution of Canada thistle 

Source: WeedMapper 2004a
271

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Dyer’s Woad

Dyer’s woad is an invader of rangelands and pastures. Dyer’s woad behaves as a winter 

annual, biennial, or short-lived perennial. It is a prolific seed producer. The seeds are 

toxic to other plants and may remain viable in the soil for several years. This species only 

reproduces by seed (Kadrmas 2002; Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team Update 

Team. Spring 1997).

Dyer’s woad is spread by the transport of contaminated livestock, machinery, and soil; the 

sowing of contaminated seed; and the feeding of contaminated hay. Natural movements 

of wind and water also contribute to the spread of dyer’s woad (Kadrmas 2002). 

The apparent distribution of dyer’s woad in western Oregon is limited to the southeastern 

portion of the planning area. Dyer’s woad infestations are reported from the Klamath 

Falls Resource Area of the Lakeview District and the Medford District. See Figure 59 

(Distribution of dyer’s woad) (WeedMapper 2004a).

Figure 59. Distribution of dyer’s woad

Source: WeedMapper 2004a
272

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

False Brome

False brome, a perennial grass, reproduces by producing large quantities of seed. The 

seeds are dispersed by water, gravity, animals, and are often spread long distances by 

vehicles, off-highway vehicles, people, and road construction and maintenance equipment 

(Kaye 2003; False-brome Working Group Newsletter 2004).

False brome is shade tolerant but can be easily crowded out by other shrubs and forbs. 

It grows in a wide variety of habitats including dry meadows and along streams, roads, 

trails, and under forest canopies. Infestations spread along roads, trails, and down streams 

(Kaye 2003; False-brome Working Group Newsletter 2004). 

False brome has been reported on BLM lands in the Eugene, Salem, and Medford 

districts, and is also known to occur on nonfederal lands in southwestern Oregon and just 

over the crest of the Cascade Mountains in Jefferson County. See Figure 60 (Distribution 

of false brome) (WeedMapper 2004a). 

Figure 60. Distribution of false brome 

Source: WeedMapper 2004a
273

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Knotweeds

The knotweeds are long-lived perennials that create dense infestations in disturbed areas, 

like stream banks, roads, and in waste areas. Roots and rhizomes can reach depths of 

7 feet and distances of more than 20 feet from the parent plant. These infestations become 

dense and outcompete most native plant communities (Soll 2007; Seiger 1991). 

Knotweeds favor habitats that are mostly light, but can persist in areas of partial shade, 

particularly where the overstory is dominated by broadleaf tree species. Knotweed 

infestations spread downstream during flood events, and are introduced along roads and 

waste areas as a result of human activity (Soll 2007; Seiger 1991). 

Knotweeds are present on the BLM-administered lands in all of the planning area, except 

the Klamath Falls Resource Area of the Lakeview District. See Figure 61 (Distribution 

of Japanese and giant knotwood and the Himalayan knotweed) (WeedMapper 2004a). 

These figures only reflects the sites that have been reported. Considerable effort has gone 

into inventorying the invasive knotweed species in some watersheds. It is likely that these 

figures underrepresent the actual distribution of knotweeds within the planning area. 

Figure 61. Distribution of Japanese and giant knotweed (left) and the Himalayan knotweed (right)

Source: WeedMapper 2004a

Japanese and giant knotweed Himalayan knotweed
274

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Leafy Spurge

Leafy spurge is known to occur in a wide variety of habitats including agricultural, urban 

areas, grasslands, shrublands, and forests. This species is most vigorous in full sunlight 

and dry habitats but can also inhabit woodlands, prairies, and other habitats. The root 

system of leafy spurge is extensive and can reach depths beyond 12 feet into the soil 

profile and reach more than 30 feet from side to side. Infestations tend to grow into dense 

stands, easily outcompeting native plant communities (WeedMapper 2004b; Global 

Invasive Species Database 2005).

Leafy spurge can be introduced to new locations by accidentally including seeds in 

agricultural seed mixes and may be used as an ornamental in landscapes. Infestations can 

grow from a single established plant at a rate of 4 feet per year (Global Invasive Species 

Database 2005).

The distribution of leafy spurge in Oregon is primarily east of the crest of the Cascade 

Mountains and has been reported on BLM lands in both the Medford District and 

Klamath Falls Resource Area of the Lakeview District. See Figure 62 (Distribution of 

leafy spurge) (WeedMapper 2004a). 

Figure 62. Distribution of leafy spurge 

Source: WeedMapper 2004a
275

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Meadow Knapweed

Meadow knapweed was introduced into Oregon as a forage plant and today invades a 

variety of habitats within the planning area including roadsides, pastures, meadows, 

native prairies, oak savannahs, and forest openings. In western Oregon, meadow 

knapweed is becoming more common in clear-cuts (Coombs et al. 2004). This species 

outcompetes native plant communities—reproducing by seed and spreading by both 

natural processes and human activity (WeedMapper 2004). 

The reported distribution of meadow knapweed in Oregon is primarily west of the 

crest of the Cascade Mountains and has been documented on BLM lands in every 

district within the planning area. See Figure 63 (Distribution of meadow knapweed)

(WeedMapper 2004a).

Figure 63. Distribution of meadow knapweed 

Source: WeedMapper 2004a
276

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Scotch and French Brooms

Scotch and French brooms are pioneer species known to displace native plant species 

and increase the costs of timber production. They readily invade disturbed sites in natural 

areas, dunes, recreational areas, dry riverbeds, utility right-of-ways, open habitats, and 

forest lands. Scotch broom is shade intolerant but, given a chance, it invades areas soon 

after logging, clearing, and burning (Coombs et al. 2004). French broom has similar 

characteristics (Oregon Department of Agriculture 2007; Hoshovsky 1986). 

Scotch and French brooms reproduce primarily by long-lived and hard-coated seeds. 

Mature plants produce a multitude of seeds that can remain viable in the soil for more 

than 50 years (Soll 2007; Coombs et al. 2004 160-161). The seeds are transported in 

soils, down streams, on machinery, and sometimes by birds and other animals that carry 

the seeds to new isolated areas (Watterson 2006; Hoshovsky 1986).

Scotch broom infestations are present across Oregon, except in the southeastern 

portion of the state. In western Oregon, the species is well-distributed north to south 

and is reported on BLM lands in every district within the planning area. French broom 

infestations are currently limited to western Oregon and are reported to occur on 

BLM lands in the Coos Bay, Eugene, Medford, and Roseburg districts. See Figure 64 

(Distribution of French and Scotch brooms) (WeedMapper 2004a).

Figure 64. Distribution of Scotch broom (left) and French (right) brooms

Source: WeedMapper 2004a

Scotch broom French broom
277

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Spotted and Diffuse Knapweeds

Spotted and diffuse knapweeds are tap-rooted biennials or short-lived perennials that are 

successful in outcompeting desirable species and native plant communities by growing 

into dense infestations in open habitats (WeedMapper Team 2004c, 2004d). 

Spotted and diffuse knapweed seeds are often spread by being carried along on vehicle 

frames and shoes to new roadside or trail environments (Sheley et al. 1998). In British 

Columbia, logging trucks, off-highway vehicles, and trail bikes are documented sources of 

knapweed spreaders. These knapweeds are also spread along waterways in crop seed and in 

hay (Strang et al. 1979). Undisturbed infestations spread their seed by wind and water. The 

seeds can persist in the soil for more than five years (Coombs et al. 2004 198-199). 

Transportation corridors, water ways, gravel pits, and industrial areas are common sites 

for diffuse knapweed infestations (Coombs et al. 2004 198-199; Roche and Roche 1988). 

Diffuse knapweed is also known to invade well-managed rangelands (Sheley et al. 1998). 

Diffuse and spotted knapweeds have similar distribution patterns within the planning 

area but diffuse knapweed is reported less frequently. See Figure 65 (Distribution of 

diffuse knapweed and spotted knapweed) (WeedMapper 2004a). Both species are spread 

throughout the state. Diffuse knapweed has been documented on BLM lands in all of the 

districts within the planning area, except for Coos Bay and Medford. Spotted knapweed 

occurs in all of the districts within the planning area, except for Eugene and Roseburg.

Figure 65. Distribution of diffuse knapweed (left) and spotted knapweed (right) 

Source: WeedMapper 2004a

Diffuse knapweed Spotted knapweed
278

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Yellow Starthistle

Yellow starthistle is an invasive winter annual or, rarely, a biennial or short-lived 

perennial forb, which grows best in full light and dry conditions and is almost always 

found in disturbed areas or open grasslands that are dominated by annuals. 

Yellow starthistle infestations can reach more than 6 million plants per acre (Callihan 

1993). At this density, yellow starthistle effectively displaces native plants; reduces 

wildlife habitats, species diversity, and land values; and limits access to recreational 

areas.

Seeds of yellow starthistle are dispersed short distances by wind and longer distances 

by animals and people. Yellow starthistle seeds may remain viable for up to 10 years 

(Callihan 1993). Seeds are most often distributed long distances by such human activities 

as the movement of livestock, the movement of seeds on the undercarriage of vehicles 

and on road maintenance equipment, and the use of contaminated hay and crop seed 

(Healy 2000; DiTomaso 2001). Yellow starthistle infestations have also been spread from 

gravel out of infested gravel pits to roadsides and other management activity sites (Roche 

1988).

The yellow starthistle distribution pattern in Oregon is clustered in the northeast and 

southwest but is present in every physiographic province in the state. See Figure 66 

(Distribution of yellow starthistle) (WeedMapper 2004a). Infestations of yellow starthistle 

are reported on BLM lands in all of the districts within the planning area, except Salem.

Figure 66. Distribution of yellow starthistle 

Source: WeedMapper 2004a
279

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Infestations of Invasive Species

Reported weed sites for the invasive species that are described above show high densities 

of reported invasive plant sites in portions of all of the planning area. See Figure 67 

(Reported infestations of representative invasive species within the planning area) and 

Figure 68 (Distribution categories of invasive species for the fifth-field watersheds within 

the planning area). 

Figure 67. Reported infestations of representative invasive species within the planning area 
280

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Figure 68. Distribution categories of invasive species for the fifth-field watersheds within the 

planning area 

The highest density fifth-field watersheds (shown in black) are those that have reported 

infestations in more than 25% of the square miles within them. The lightest gray areas 

represent fifth-field watersheds with reported infestations in 1% or fewer of the square 

miles within them, and the white areas show fifth-field watersheds with no reported 

infestations. The most expansive high-density invasive plant area is located in the 

Medford District and extends north into the Roseburg and Coos Bay districts. 

Roads, trails, high recreation use areas, urban areas, and gravel sources can serve as 

the primary source locations for many invasive plant species (USDA, U.S. Forest 

Service 2005, 3-18). These source locations are present on both BLM- and non-BLMadministered lands throughout the planning area. 

Common methods of introduction (USDI, BLM 1996a) include the movement of:

• contaminated seed, feed grain, other plant materials;

• contaminated equipment across uncontaminated lands;

• wildlife;

• livestock;

• gravel, road fill, and topsoil; and 

• the selling and trading of plants and seeds as ornamentals.
281

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Once introduced, invasive plants are spread primarily by vehicles, humans, livestock, 

wind, water, and wildlife. Disturbed sites, like trailheads, landings, recreation areas, 

logging sites, and roads regularly support infestations (Watterson 2006; USDA, U.S. 

Forest Service 2005, 3-39). 

Invasive plants are generally introduced and spread by human and management activities 

that result in ground disturbances and increased light levels. Examples are:

•	 Knotweed infestations are introduced along roads and waste areas as a result 

of human activity and then spread downstream during flood events (Hutchison 

1992; Seiger 1991). 

•	 False brome, knapweeds, Scotch broom, and other species also spread 

downstream once they are introduced into stream systems (Watterson 2006). 

•	 Logging trucks, off-highway vehicles, and trail bikes have been documented 

sources of spreading knapweed (Strang 1979). 

•	 Transportation corridors, waterways, gravel pits, and industrial areas are common 

sites for diffuse knapweed infestations (Roche 1988). 

The association between disturbance and increased light levels, created by management 

activities (like logging and road maintenance activities), and the vigor of infestations are 

well-documented (Allen 1999; Turner 1997). The likelihood of successful invasions is 

increasingly high with more extensive ground disturbance activities. The factors that are 

associated with timber harvesting activities that increase the chances of invasion include 

(Nuzzo 2000; Parendes 2000; Heckman 1999; Bailey 1998; Doyle 1998; Titus 1998; 

Outcalt 1981; Chen 1996; Donald 1994; Kellman 1969; Nieland 1958): 

•	 increased light levels reaching the forest floor; 

•	 increased soil temperatures; and

•	 soil disturbances, which can increase the germination rates of seeds in a seed 

bank or create seed beds. 

Harvesting methods and the size of logging units increases the susceptibility to invasive 

plant introductions. Timber harvesting activities and methods that disturb more soil and 

leave less postharvest shade would be more susceptible to invasive plant introduction and 

spread (USDA, U.S. Forest Service 2005, 3-14, 3-5). 

Knotweeds, false brome, and Scotch broom tolerate moderate levels of shade. Spotted 

and meadow knapweeds, Canada thistle, dyer’s woad, and yellow starthistle can be 

described as being fairly shade intolerant.

Infestations are introduced and spread readily in areas with frequent human activity, such 

as wildland urban interface and high recreational use areas (USDA, U.S. Forest Service 

2005, 3-23, 3-25). These areas have more intensive disturbance activities occurring in 

higher concentrations than do areas with less human activity. 

Invasive plants are more likely to spread throughout a landscape where disturbance 

activities are evenly distributed than in landscapes where the disturbance activities are 

spatially confined (USDA, U.S. Forest Service 2005, 3-14, 3-15, Appendix D 7-17). 
282

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Wildlife

Key Points

•	 The populations for the northern spotted owl in the Roseburg, Coos Bay, and Medford districts, and the Klamath 

Falls Resource Area of the Lakeview District, have been stable since 1985, while populations have declined in the 

Salem and Eugene districts. 

•	 The habitat for the northern spotted owl within the planning area has increased since 1995, while the habitat for 

the marbled murrelet has remained relatively unchanged.

•	 The populations for the marbled murrelet in Oregon have declined approximately 50% from 1992 to 1995 and 

have experienced no change from 1997 to 2006.

Within the planning area, the BLM manages habitats that range from coastal beaches to montane 

forests and great basin sagebrush. There are several thousand vertebrate and invertebrate species 

that occur in the western and montane forests of Oregon. There are 11 species that are protected 

under the federal Endangered Species Act. A subset of individual species is specifically addressed 

in this draft environmental impact statement because of their importance in the analysis of the 

alternatives, the consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or high public interest.

Northern Spotted Owl

The northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) was federally listed as threatened 

by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in June 1990 (Federal Register 1990, 26114-

26194). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued a recovery plan as a draft in 1992, 

but did not issue a final recovery plan (USFWS 1992). A new recovery planning effort is 

currently underway and the final recovery plan is scheduled for completion in November 

2007. Critical habitat was designated for the northern spotted owl in January 1992 and 

includes 3,257,000 acres of federal lands in Oregon, including 1,009,000 acres of land 

that is administered by the BLM (Federal Register 1992a, 1796-1838). A draft rule for the 

redesignation of critical habitat is expected in the summer of 2007.

The northern spotted owl was listed as threatened throughout its range “due to loss and 

adverse modification of suitable habitat as a result of timber harvesting and exacerbated 

by catastrophic events such as fire, volcanic eruption, and wind storms” (Anderson et 

al. 1990). More specifically, significant threats to the northern spotted owl included the 

following (Federal Register 1992a, 1796-1835): 

•	 low or declining populations 

•	 limited or declining habitat 

•	 distribution of habitat or populations

•	 isolation of provinces 

•	 predation and competition

•	 lack of coordinated conservation measures 

•	 vulnerability to natural disturbance 
283

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

These threats were characterized for each province within the range of the northern 

spotted owl as severe, moderate, low, or unknown. The following were identified as a 

severe or moderate threats to the northern spotted owl in all or most of the provinces, and 

represent the greatest concern to the conservation of the northern spotted owl:

•	 declining habitat in all 12 provinces

•	 isolation of provinces in 11 provinces 

•	 declining populations in 10 provinces 

The following were identified as severe or moderate threats to the northern spotted owl in 

many of the provinces, which suggests a concern throughout the majority of its range:

•	 limited habitat in nine provinces 

•	 low populations in eight provinces 

Vulnerability to natural disturbances was rated as low in five provinces. Since the listing 

of the northern spotted owl, new information suggests that hybridization with the barred 

owl is less of a threat (Kelly and Forsman 2004) and competition with the barred owl is a 

greater threat than previously anticipated, as detailed below (Courtney et al. 2004). 

The following recent documents summarize the condition of the northern spotted owl 

across its range and are incorporated by reference:

•	 Status and Trends in Demography of Northern Spotted Owls, 1985-2003 

(Anthony et al. 2006)

•	 Scientific Evaluation of the Status of the Northern Spotted Owl (Courtney et al. 

2004)

•	 Northern Spotted Owl Five-year Review: Summary and Evaluation (USDI, 

USFWS 2004a)

•	 Status and Trends of Northern Spotted Owl Population and Habitat (Lint 2005)

Anthony et al. (2006) analyzed information gathered from 14 demographic study areas 

across the range of the northern spotted owl—11 include federal lands, 1 is located on 

private timberlands, and 2 are on tribal forest lands. The primary objectives of Anthony’s 

analysis were:

•	 Estimate the age-specific survival and fecundity rates and their sampling 

variances for territorial owls on individual study areas. 

•	 Determine if there were any trends in the apparent survival or fecundity rates 

among study areas. 

•	 Estimate the annual rates of population change and the sampling variances for 

individual study areas and across study areas. 

•	 Compare the demographic performance of the northern spotted owls on the eight 

areas that are the basis of the monitoring plan for the Northwest Forest Plan (Lint 

et al. 1999) to that of owls on other areas. 
284

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Courtney et al. (2004) was contracted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to “produce 

a report on the status of the northern spotted owl, summarizing and evaluating new 

information available since its listing, and any new understanding for information that 

existed at the time of listing” (USDI, USFWS 2004a). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

used the Courtney et al. (2004) report to conduct their five-year status review of the 

northern spotted owl as required under section 4(c) of the Endangered Species Act. The 

status review sought to answer three questions (USDI, USFWS 2004a): 

1. Is the northern spotted owl a valid subspecies under the Endangered Species Act?

2. Is there new information about the threats or population status of the northern 

spotted owl?

3. If so, does the new information suggest that a change in listing status may be warranted?

In 2004, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determined that the listing of the northern 

spotted owl as a threatened species was still warranted (USDI, USFWS 2004a). Even 

though some risk factors had declined (e.g., habitat loss due to timber harvesting and 

existing regulations), other factors had continued unchecked (e.g., habitat loss due 

to wildfire and population decline) and new risk factors with uncertain effects had 

developed since 1990 (e.g., the barred owl (Strix varia), West Nile virus, and sudden oak 

death) (USDI, USFWS 2004a).

Lint et al. (2005) was one component of the effectiveness monitoring strategy of the 

Northwest Forest Plan and reports on the effects of the first 10 years of implementing 

the plan on the population and habitat of the northern spotted owl. The report established 

baselines for 1994 and then reported on the change from the subsequent 10 years of 

Northwest Forest Plan implementation. A summary of the findings in the report includes:

•	 The estimated decline of the northern spotted owl population varied from 

0 to 10% across the study areas in the Northwest Forest Plan area. The presence 

of barred owls (Strix varia), weather, past and present harvesting of habitat, and 

wildlife and insect infestations that alter habitat are all possible contributors to 

these declines.

•	 Approximately 74% of the federal lands within the range of the northern spotted 

owl are capable of providing suitable habitat. Approximately 50% of the habitatcapable area was providing suitable owl habitat.

•	 Precipitation, owl age, and habitat influence the survival and productivity of the 

northern spotted owl.

•	 The barred owl is present throughout the range of the northern spotted owl, so the 

likelihood of competitive interactions between the species raises concerns as to 

the future of the northern spotted owl.

•	 Barred owls, West Nile virus, and the management of suitable habitat for the 

northern spotted owl in fire-prone areas are likely to be future management 

concerns.
285

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

The Endangered Species Act requires the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to designate 

critical habitat to the maximum extent prudent and determinable concurrently with listing 

a species as endangered or threatened. Critical habitat units have been identified based 

on the need to protect current primary constituent elements, as well as to provide for the 

future development of primary constituent elements necessary for the conservation of the 

northern spotted owl. See Figure 69 (Designated critical habitat units for the northern 

spotted owl within the planning area). These elements include nesting, roosting, foraging, 

and dispersal habitat designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 1992 (Federal 

Register 1992a, 1797). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service designated 1,009,000 acres 

of northern spotted owl critical habitat on BLM-administered lands (see Appendix G. 

Wildlife). The land use allocations under the current resource management plans are 

not aligned with designated northern spotted owl critical habitat, and the resource 

management plans do not include management direction specific to critical habitat units.
286

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Figure 69. Designated critical habitat units for the northern spotted owl within the planning area
287

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Northern spotted owl suitable habitat is the common term for those forest stands that 

provide for foraging, roosting, and nesting for the northern spotted owl. Thomas et 

al. (1990, 164) described it as a “multi-layered, multispecies canopy dominated by 

large (greater than 30 inches diameter at breast height) conifer overstory trees, and an 

understory of shade-tolerant conifers or hardwoods; a moderate to high (60 to 80%) 

canopy closure; substantial decadence in the form of large, live conifer trees with 

deformities—such as cavities, broken tops, and dwarf mistletoe infections; numerous 

large snags; ground cover characterized by large accumulations of logs and other woody 

debris; and a canopy that is open enough to allow owls to fly within and beneath it.” 

The habitat classifications that are used for the analysis of effects for the planning area is 

based on five habitat criteria: 

•	 quadratic mean diameter

•	 canopy cover

•	 presence of snags 

•	 presence of down wood

•	 multilayered or single-layered canopies

See Table 88 (Classification schedule for the habitat of the northern spotted owl). 

In this analysis, northern spotted owl habitat is classified and mapped as:

•	 nonhabitat; 

•	 dispersal habitat only (habitat capable of providing for the dispersal needs of the 

owl, but not nesting, roosting, and foraging); or

•	 suitable habitat (nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat).

Table 88. Classification schedule for the habitat of the northern spotted owl

Quadratic 

Mean 

Diameter

Canopy 

Cover 

(%)

Presences 

of Snagsa

Presence of 

Down Woody 

Debris (dwd)b

Single-Layered 

or Multilayered 

Canopy

Habitat 

Category

11-20 0-40 absent absent n/ac non

11-20 0-40 present absent n/a non

11-20 0-40 absent present n/a non

11-20 0-40 present present n/a non

0-11 0-100 n/a n/a m/a non

20-30 0-40 absent absent single non

20-30 0-40 present absent single non

20-30 0-40 absent absent multiple non

20-30 0-40 present absent multiple non

20-30 0-40 absent present single non

20-30 0-40 present present single non

20-30 0-40 absent present multiple non

20-30 0-40 present present multiple non

30-100 0-40 absent absent single non

30-100 0-40 present absent single non

30-100 0-40 absent absent multiple non

30-100 0-40 present absent multiple non
288

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Quadratic 

Mean 

Diameter

Canopy 

Cover 

(%)

Presences 

of Snagsa

Presence of 

Down Woody 

Debris (dwd)b

Single-Layered 

or Multilayered 

Canopy

Habitat 

Category

30-100 0-40 absent present single non

30-100 0-40 present present single non

30-100 0-40 absent present multiple non

30-100 0-40 present present multiple non

11-20 40-60 absent absent n/a dispersal

11-20 40-60 present absent n/a dispersal

11-20 40-60 absent present n/a dispersal

11-20 60-100 absent absent n/a dispersal

11-20 60-100 present absent n/a dispersal

20-30 40-60 absent absent single dispersal

20-30 40-60 present absent single dispersal

20-30 40-60 absent absent multiple dispersal

20-30 40-60 absent present single dispersal

20-30 60-100 absent absent single dispersal

20-30 60-100 absent absent multiple dispersal

30-100 40-60 absent absent single dispersal

30-100 40-60 present absent single dispersal

30-100 40-60 absent absent multiple dispersal

30-100 40-60 present absent multiple dispersal

30-100 60-100 absent absent single dispersal

30-100 60-100 absent absent multiple dispersal

11-20 40-60 present present n/a dispersal

11-20 60-100 absent present n/a suitable

11-20 60-100 present present n/a suitable

20-30 40-60 present absent multiple dispersal

20-30 40-60 present present single dispersal

20-30 40-60 absent present multiple dispersal

20-30 60-100 present absent single suitable

20-30 60-100 present absent multiple suitable

20-30 60-100 absent present single suitable

20-30 60-100 present present single suitable

30-100 40-60 absent present single dispersal

30-100 40-60 present present single dispersal

30-100 60-100 present absent single suitable

30-100 60-100 absent present single suitable

20-30 40-60 present present multiple suitable

20-30 60-100 absent present multiple suitable

20-30 60-100 present present multiple suitable

30-100 40-60 absent present multiple suitable

30-100 40-60 present present multiple suitable

30-100 60-100 present absent multiple suitable

30-100 60-100 present present single suitable

30-100 60-100 absent present multiple suitable

30-100 60-100 present present multiple suitable

a

 Snag presence (4 snags per acre that are greater than 10 in.) b

 dwd presence (2% ground cover)

c

 n/a (has no bearing on habitat category)
289

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Suitable habitat currently comprises 49% of habitat-capable acres on BLM-administered 

lands within the planning area. See Table 89 (Summary of current northern spotted owl 

habitat on BLM-administered lands within the planning area by province).

Table 89. Summary of current northern spotted owl habitat on BLM-administered lands within 

the planning area by province

Province Habitat-Capable 

(acres)

Suitable Habitat Total Dispersal Habitat

(acres) (%) (acres) (%)

Coast Range 742,500 315,200 42 641,800 86

West Cascades 634,500 308,300 49 543,800 86

Klamath 773,000 431,600 56 681,800 88

East Cascades 46,700 30,700 66 39,400 84

Totals 2,196,700 1,085,800 49 1,906,800 87

In 1994, about 7.4 million acres of suitable northern spotted owl habitat were estimated 

to exist on federal lands managed under the Northwest Forest Plan. See Appendix G. 

Wildlife for details. As of April 12, 2004, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had consulted 

on the proposed removal of 575,447 of these acres (7.8% of 7.4 million acres) as a result 

of all management activities. Of the total acres consulted on for removal, approximately 

190,429 acres (2.6% of 7.4 million acres) occurred on federal lands. Of the total federal 

acres consulted on for removal, approximately 167,134 acres (2.3% of 7.4 million acres) 

were removed as a result of timber harvesting. 

From 1994 through April 12, 2004, habitat lost due to natural events was estimated 

at approximately 186,931 acres. See Appendix G. Wildlife for details. About twothirds of this loss was attributed to the 2002 Biscuit Fire, which burned more than 

500,000 acres in southwest Oregon (Rogue River basin) and northern California. This 

fire resulted in a loss of approximately 113,451 acres of northern spotted owl habitat, 

including habitat within five late-successional reserves. Approximately 18,630 acres 

of northern spotted owl habitat were lost due to the B&B Complex and Davis fires in 

the Eastern Cascades province. 

From 1994 through July 19, 2005, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has consulted on the 

removal or downgrading of 46,945 acres (1.49 %) of critical habitat due to managementrelated activities. The majority of these acres (33,008 acres) have been concentrated in 

the Western Cascades and Klamath provinces. In addition, natural events (including fire 

and insect outbreaks) have resulted in the removal or downgrading of 42,679 acres. See 

Appendix G. Wildlife for details. In general, fires have had more of an impact to northern 

spotted owl critical habitat in the interior provinces of Washington and California and 

the southern and interior provinces of Oregon than the coastal provinces. At the time 

of listing there was recognition that large-scale wildfire posed a threat to the northern 

spotted owl and its habitat (Anderson et al. 1990). New information suggests fire may be 

more of a threat than previously thought (Lint 2005; Moeur et al. 2005).
290

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Moeur et al. 2005 estimated an increase of approximately 1.25 to 1.5 million acres of 

medium and large older forest (greater than 20 inches diameter at breast height, single 

and multilayered canopies) on federal lands in the Northwest Forest Plan area between 

1994 and 2003. The increase occurred primarily in the lower end of the diameter range 

for older forest. In the higher end of the diameter range (greater than 30 inches diameter 

at breast height) the area increased from 102,000 to 127,000 acres. 

The estimates of changes in habitat were based on change-detection data for losses due 

to harvesting and fires, and remeasured inventory plot data for increases due to ingrowth. 

Transition into and out of medium and large older forest over the 10-year period was 

extrapolated from inventory plot data based on a subpopulation of U.S. Forest Service 

land types and applied to all federal lands. Because size class and general canopy layer 

descriptions do not necessarily account for the complex forest structure that is often 

associated with northern spotted owl habitat, the significance of these increases in acres 

to northern spotted owl conservation remains unknown.

The types of forest that are used by the northern spotted owl have been studied recently 

and study results show the following: 

•	 “Studies consistently showed that mature/old forest patch area was an important 

predictor of forest occupancy by northern spotted owls. While a fragmentation 

index was negatively associated with site occupancy in some studies, a trade-off 

between large patches of mature/old forest and juxtaposition of land cover types 

appear to benefit Spotted Owls in other studies”(Courtney et al. 2004, 5-13). 

•	 Studies in the Klamath province in southern Oregon reinforce Courtney et al. 

(2004) finding that the apparent survival and reproductive rate of owl territories 

are positively associated with older forest types closer to the activity center 

(Dugger et al. 2005). 

•	 Olson et al. (2004) found that survival in the Oregon Coast Range had a quadratic 

relationship with the amount of late- and mid-seral forest near nesting centers. 

Reproductive rates fluctuated biennially and were positively related to the amount 

of edge between late- and mid-seral forests and other habitat classes. Olson et al. 

(2004) conclude that their result indicates that while mid- and late-seral forests are 

important to owls, a mixture of these forest types with younger forest and nonforest 

may be best for owl survival and reproduction in their study area. 

•	 Survival decreased dramatically when the amount of nonhabitat exceeded 

approximately 50% (Dugger et al. 2005). Northern spotted owl territories with 

habitat fitness potentials (i.e., expressed as a lambda estimate for the territory) 

of less than 1.0 were generally characterized by less than 40 to 50% old-forest 

habitat near the territory center (Dugger et al. 2005). The authors conclude 

that they found no support for either a positive or negative direct effect of 

intermediate-aged forest on either the survival or reproduction of the northern 

spotted owl. 

There have been 1,333 known northern spotted owl sites located on BLM-administered 

lands since 1984. Surveys are currently being conducted primarily where they are 
291

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

required for timber sale clearances and within the demography study areas (Coast Range, 

Tyee, Klamath, and South Cascades) that overlap BLM-administered lands. There are 645 

sites (48%) that have survey data indicating occupancy between 2000 and 2004.

Numerous studies, summarized in Courtney et al. (2004), illustrate that the northern 

spotted owl feeds predominantly on small mammals. Northern flying squirrels and 

woodrats are usually the predominant prey both in biomass and frequency (Barrows 

1980; Forsman et al. 1984; Ward 1990; Bevis et al. 1997; Forsman et al. 2001, 2004) with 

a clear geographic pattern of diet, paralleling differences in habitat (Thomas et al. 1990). 

•	 Northern flying squirrels are generally the predominant prey item in the more 

mesic Douglas fir and western hemlock forests characteristic of the northern 

portion of the range, whereas woodrats are generally the predominant prey item 

in the drier mixed conifer and mixed evergreen forests typically found in the 

southern portion of the range (Forsman et al. 1984; Thomas et al. 1990; Ward 

et al. 1998; reviewed by Courtney et al. 2004). These prey items were found to 

be codominant in the southwest interior of Oregon (Forsman et al. 2001, 2004). 

Zabel et al. (1995) showed that northern spotted owl home ranges are larger 

where flying squirrels (Glaucomys sabrinus) are the predominant prey and are 

smaller where woodrats (Neotoma sp.) are the predominant prey.

•	 Other prey species, such as the red tree vole (Arborimus longicaudus), redbacked voles (Clethrionomys gapperi), mice, rabbits and hares, birds, and insects, 

may be seasonally or locally important (reviewed by Courtney et al. 2004). For 

example, Rosenberg et al. (2003) showed a strong correlation between the annual 

reproductive success of northern spotted owls (number of young per territory) 

and abundance of deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus), despite the fact that they 

only made up 1.6% ±0.5% of the biomass consumed. However, it is unclear if 

the causative factor behind this correlation was prey abundance or a synergistic 

response to weather (Rosenberg et al. 2003). The secondary species play 

important roles locally and seasonally. 

•	 Forest heterogeneity and structure effect prey species occurrence and abundance. 

Ward (1990) found that northern spotted owls foraged in areas that had lower 

variance in prey densities (prey were more predictable in occurrence) within 

older forests and near ecotones of old forest and brush seral stages. Habitat 

components such as snags, down wood, shrub and herbaceous components, and 

edge are all important to prey species and therefore the northern spotted owl 

(Courtney et al. 2004). Where woodrats are the predominant prey in southwestern 

Oregon, studies suggest that some amount of forest heterogeneity may benefit 

owls as a result of increased prey abundance (Franklin and Gutierrez 2002; Ward 

et al. 1998).

Sudden oak death presents a potential influence on northern spotted owl habitat, but there 

is inadequate information to analyze the affects on habitat. Sudden oak death is a recently 

recognized disease that is killing tanoak (Lithocarpus densiflorus), oaks (Quercus sp.), 

and other plant species in California. The disease has been confirmed in one location in 
292

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Curry County in southwestern Oregon (Kanaskie et al. 2006). The disease is caused by 

the introduced pathogen, Phytophthora ramorum. Widespread infections could affect 

suitable northern spotted owl habitat in southwestern Oregon through the removal 

of subdominant canopy and shrub species; impacting habitat structure and prey base 

numbers. However, there is inadequate information on the potential spread and influence 

on forest structure and northern spotted owl prey species to analyze effects (see the 

Incomplete and Inadequate Information section in Chapter 4).

The conservation needs of the northern spotted owl include: 

•	 providing large blocks of suitable habitat that is distributed across a variety of 

ecological conditions and is spaced so as to facilitate owl movement between 

the blocks; 

•	 providing dispersal habitat within and between large blocks; and 

•	 providing habitat within areas of concern for genetic interchange between owl 

populations (Raphael 2006; Lint 2005; Courtney et al. 2004; USFWS 1992; 

Thomas et al, 1990). 

Northern spotted owl conservation is predicated on providing blocks of suitable habitat that 

support clusters of owls. A cluster is at least 20 breeding pairs of owls that support each 

other demographically and thereby maintain a stable population (Thomas et al. 1990, 24). 

The Interagency Scientific Committee strategy (Thomas et al. 1990), 1992 draft northern 

spotted owl recovery plan (USDI, USFWS 1992), northern spotted owl critical habitat 

designation (Federal Register 1992a, 1796), and the Northwest Forest Plan (USDA, USDI 

1994b) used this principle in developing systems of large blocks of habitat. 

Several studies have suggested that some amount of forest heterogeneity or intermingling 

of forest types may improve foraging habitat, especially where woodrats are the 

predominant prey as described above. However, there is a strong association of nesting 

and roosting habitat with older, structurally complex forests (Olson 2004; Ward et al. 

1998). As noted by Raphael (2006, 128): “no new evidence suggests that large blocks of 

habitat are not critical to the persistence of the owl.” Therefore, large blocks of suitable 

habitat remain a fundamental conservation need of northern spotted owls throughout the 

planning area (Courtney et al. 2004, 5-9 to 5-12, 9-11). 

In addition to large blocks of suitable habitat, owl conservation requires habitat within 

and between blocks that supports roosting, protection from predators, and foraging to 

allow for successful dispersal among blocks (FSEIS, Appendix G 16, G-9; Thomas et al. 

1990). Owls not only leave their territories and move across the landscape as juveniles 

dispersing from their natal territories but also as single adults seeking mates or new 

territories (Forsman et al. 2002). As owls fly across the landscape, they require stands that 

have room beneath the branches to provide:

•	 protection from predators and weather;

•	 foraging opportunities, including prey base and hunting perches; and 

•	 potential nesting sites. 
293

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Data on the movements of 1475 adult and juvenile northern spotted owls found that the 

median movement distance was between 22.9 to 24.5 km for females and 13.5 to 14.6 km 

for males; only 8.9% of juveniles dispersed distances greater that 50 km (Forsman et al. 

2002). Northern spotted owls have not been shown to disperse across the types of large 

nonforested lowlands found within the planning area, including the Willamette Valley, 

Umpqua Valley, and Rogue Valley (Forsman et al. 2002). In a study on habitat use by 

dispersing juvenile northern spotted owls in the Coast Range, Klamath, and Western 

Cascades provinces (Miller et al. 1997), mature and old-growth forest were used slightly 

more than expected based on availability during the transient phase and nearly twice its 

availability during the colonization phase. Closed pole-sapling-sawtimber habitat was 

used roughly in proportion to availability in both phases; open sapling and clear-cuts 

were used less than expected based on availability during colonization.

Dispersal habitat is comprised of both suitable habitat and additional habitat that supports 

only owl dispersal. The quality of dispersal quality increases with the portion of that 

habitat that is comprised of suitable habitat. Thomas et al. (1990) noted that “[h]abitats 

between blocks function better to allow owls to move (disperse) through them the more 

nearly they resemble suitable habitat ...” (p. 23).

The science on the northern spotted owl does not provide a specific threshold for the 

quantity, quality, and distribution of dispersal habitat against which this analysis could 

evaluate the effect of alternatives. Thomas et al. (1990, 27, 327) suggested that if 50% 

of the land base in a regulated forest supported forest stands with a minimum 11-inch 

average diameter at breast height and 40% canopy cover, then that land base would 

support owl dispersal (the so-called 50-11-40 rule). The 50-11-40 rule as presented 

in Thomas et al. (1990) was measured at the quarter-township scale (approximately 

5,760 acres). The 50-11-40 rule does not present a definitive threshold for evaluating 

dispersal habitat, because it does not reflect dispersal quality (NWFP FSEIS, Appendix 

G, 18, G-24), and because its application to the scattered federal land ownership is 

problematic. 

In the Northwest Forest Plan FSEIS, the 50-11-40 rule was incorporated into several 

alternatives, although not the selected alternative. However, in contrast to the 

recommendation of Thomas et al. (1990), the Northwest Forest Plan alternatives applied 

the 50-11-40 rule as “50% of the federal forest landscape” (NWFP FSEIS, 2-27, emphasis 

added), instead of 50% of the entire landscape. In the current analysis, applying the 

50-11-40 rule to the planning area as “50% of the federal forest landscape” would have 

dramatically different results than applying the rule as “50% of the forest landscape” 

on all ownerships, because BLM-administered lands are typically interspersed among 

nonfederal lands. 

Forsman et al. (2002) demonstrated the importance of forested bridges linking the Coast 

Range, West Cascades, and Klamath provinces. These bridges have been identified 

by one term or another since 1988 (USDA, U.S. Forest Service 1988). The movement 

records provide evidence that northern spotted owls are currently dispersing across the 

landscape and genetic or demographic isolation of local populations is not likely because 

dispersal between reserves is likely to be a common occurrence even if the landscapes 
294

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

between these reserves consists of highly fragmented forests (Lint 2005; Forsman et al. 

2002). Forsman et al. (2002) pointed out three areas through which dispersing northern 

spotted owls moved between the provinces:

•	 between Cottage Grove and Drain, Oregon (South Willamette-North Umpqua); 

•	 between Canyonville and Grants Pass, Oregon (Rogue-Umpqua); and

•	 south of Ashland, Oregon (Ashland).

These three areas of concern were identified but not specifically delineated by the 

USDA (1988), the USDA (1991), Anderson et al. (1991), Tweten (1992), and the USDI 

(1992) because of “poor distribution and quality of existing habitat in some areas; high 

level of natural and man-made fragmentation; and localized deficiencies in habitat 

connectivity” (USDA 1991, 3&4:27). These three areas of concern were not mapped or 

described in detail prior to this analysis, but they have been identified and discussed in 

ESA (Endangered Species Act) consultation documents between the BLM and the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. The areas of concern are mapped here for the purposes of 

this analysis.
295

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Figure 70. Areas of concern for the northern spotted owl
296

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Northern spotted owl populations are currently being affected by other factors besides 

habitat, especially competition with barred owls, and may be affected in the future by 

West Nile virus.

Barred owls compete with northern spotted owls through a variety of mechanisms 

including prey overlap (Hamer et al. 2001), habitat overlap (Hamer et al. 1989; Dunbar 

et al. 1991; Herter and Hicks 2000; Pearson and Livezey 2003), and agonistic encounters 

(Leskiw and Gutiérrez 1998; Pearson and Livezey 2003). New information on encounters 

between barred owls and northern spotted owls comes primarily from anecdotal reports 

that corroborate the initial observations that barred owls react more aggressively towards 

northern spotted owls than the reverse (Courtney et al. 2004). The evidence of barred owl 

predation on northern spotted owls, however, is limited and circumstantial (Leskiw and 

Gutiérrez 1998; Johnston 2002). Information collected to date indicates that encounters 

between these two species tend to be agonistic in nature, and that the outcome is unlikely 

to favor the northern spotted owl (Courtney et al. 2004). 

Kelly et al. (2003) also found that in northern spotted owl territories where barred owls 

were detected, northern spotted owl occupancy was significantly lower (P < 0.001) 

after barred owls were detected within 0.8 km of the territory center. Occupancy was 

only marginally lower (P = 0.06) if barred owls were located more than 0.8 km (0.5 mi) 

from northern spotted owl territory centers. In a Roseburg, Oregon study area, 46% of 

northern spotted owls moved more than 0.8 km (0.5 mi), and 39% of northern spotted 

owls had not relocated again in at least two years after barred owls were detected within 

0.8 km (0.5 mi) of the territory center. Observations provided by Gremel (2000) from the 

Olympic National Park are consistent with those of Kelly et al. (2003). He documented 

significant displacement of northern spotted owls following barred owl detections 

“coupled with elevational changes of northern spotted owl sites on the east side of the 

park” (Courtney et al. 2004). Pearson and Livezey (2003) reported similar findings on 

the Gifford Pinchot National Forest where unoccupied northern spotted owl sites were 

characterized by significantly more barred owl sites within 0.8 km, 1.6 km, and 2.9 km 

(0.5, 1.0, and 1.8 miles) from the territory center than in occupied northern spotted owl 

sites. Since barred owl presence is increasing within the range of northern spotted owls, 

Olson et al. (2005) suggests that further declines in the proportion of sites occupied by 

northern spotted owls are likely.

Olson et al. (2005) showed that barred owl presence had a negative effect on northern 

spotted owl detection probabilities, and it had either a positive effect on local extinction 

probabilities (at the territory scale) or a negative effect on colonization probabilities 

for three study areas in Oregon. Olson et al. (2005) conclude that future analyses of 

northern spotted owls must account for imperfect and variable detectability and barred 

owl presence to properly interpret results. Thus, some proportion of seemingly vacant 

territories may be an artifact of reduced detection probabilities. Nonetheless, previously 

occupied territories that were apparently vacant of both northern spotted owls and barred 

owls suggests that factors other than barred owls alone are contributing to declines in 

northern spotted owl abundance and territorial occupancy (Courtney et al. 2004).
297

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Although the barred owl currently constitutes a significantly greater threat to the northern 

spotted owl than originally thought at the time of listing (Courtney et al. 2004), at present 

it is unclear whether forest management influences the outcome of interactions between 

barred and northern spotted owls (Courtney et al. 2004; summarized by Lint 2005). 

Gutierrez et al. (2004) identified three clearly plausible outcomes:

•	 Barred owls will replace the northern spotted owl throughout its range. 

•	 Barred owls will replace the northern spotted owl in the northern, more mesic 

portion of its ranges. 

•	 Barred and northern spotted owl populations will reach equilibrium in most but 

not all of the present northern spotted owl range. 

West Nile virus is known to be fatal to many species of birds, including the northern 

spotted owl, and has been documented in wild bird populations in Oregon. There is no 

known connection between forest management and West Nile virus. The future impacts 

of West Nile virus are unknown and if the northern spotted owl is especially susceptible, 

it could cause widespread mortality (Courtney et al. 2004).

Marbled Murrelet

The marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) was federally listed as threatened 

by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in October 1992 (Federal Register 1992b, 45328-

45337). A recovery plan was finalized in 1997 (USDI, USFWS 1997). The recovery plan 

outlines the conservation strategy for the species. A draft rule for the revision of critical 

habitat was published in September 2006.

The short-term actions that are necessary to stabilize the population include: 

•	 maintain occupied habitat 

•	 maintain large blocks of suitable habitat 

•	 maintain and enhance buffer habitat 

•	 decrease risks of nesting habitat loss due to fire and windthrow 

•	 reduce predation 

•	 minimize disturbance

The long-term conservation needs include:

•	 increase productivity (abundance, the ratio of juveniles to adults, and nest 

success) and population size 

•	 increase the amount (stand size and number of stands), quality, and distribution 

of suitable nesting habitat 

•	 protect and improve the quality of the marine environment 

•	 reduce or eliminate threats to survivorship by reducing predation in the terrestrial 

environment and anthropogenic sources of mortality at sea 
298

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI, USFWS 1997) estimates recovery of the 

marbled murrelet will require at least 50 years.

Six conservation zones were designated in the marbled murrelet recovery plan (USDI, 

USFWS 1997). The recovery objectives for the marbled murrelet are measured in each 

conservation zone with the objective of ensuring a well-dispersed population of marbled 

murrelets. Recovery Zone 3 (in its entirety) and the northern half of conservation 

Zone 4 overlay the planning area. See Figure 71 (Marbled murrelet conservation zones)

(USDI, USFWS 1997). Conservation Zone 3 extends from the Columbia River, south 

to North Bend, Oregon; extending 1.2 miles out to sea and approximately 35 miles 

inland (coinciding with conservation Zone 1, as designated by the Northwest Forest 

Plan (USDA, USDI 1994)). Conservation Zone 4 extends from North Bend, Oregon 

to the southern end of Humbolt County, California; extending 1.2 miles out to sea and 

approximately 35 miles inland (coinciding with conservation Zone 1, as designated by 

the Northwest Forest Plan (USDA, USDI 1994)).

Figure 71. Marbled murrelet conservation zones 
299

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

The following recent documents summarize the condition of the marbled murrelet across 

its range and are incorporated by reference:

•	 the evaluation report for the five-year status review of the marbled murrelet in 

Washington, Oregon, and California (McShane et al. 2004);

•	 the marbled murrelet five-year review (USDI, USFWS 2004b); and 

•	 the status and trends of populations and nesting habitat for the marbled murrelet 

(Huff et al. 2006).

A panel of scientific experts was convened by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to 

evaluate, synthesize, and interpret the information pertaining to the relevant scientific 

issue concerning the marbled murrelet. The threats to marbled murrelets and any changes 

since the 1992 listing were also evaluated. The report was used in the five-year status 

review (USDI, USFWS 2004b) of the marbled murrelet. The status review sought to 

answer the following questions: 

•	 Does the currently listed distinct population segment meet the criteria established 

in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1996 Distinct Vertebrate Species Policy?

•	 Is there new information about the threats or population status of the 

marbled murrelet?

•	 If so, does the new information suggest that a change in listing status may 

be warranted?

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determined:

•	 The Washington, Oregon, and California populations do not constitute a discrete 

population from the remainder of the species and therefore does not constitute a 

distinct population segment. 

•	 All of the threats to the species identified in the listing are still relevant, new 

information confirms the importance of predation in limiting nesting success, and 

new gill-netting regulations in California and Washington may reduce impacts to 

the species. 

The marbled murrelet remains listed as a threatened species at this time (USDI, 

USFWS 2004b).

The Northwest Forest Plan established two management zones for the marbled murrelet. 

Zone 1 extended from the coast to approximately 35 miles inland. Zone 2 extended 

from the eastern boundary of Zone 1 to approximately 50 miles inland from the coast. 

Combined, these zones include 14,825 square miles. See Figure 72 (Range of the 

marbled murrelet within the planning area). 
300

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Figure 72. Range of the marbled murrelet within the planning area 

Systematic surveys in the Klamath province have indicated that marbled murrelets are 

likely confined to the hemlock-tanoak vegetation zone (USDA, USDI 2002). The portion 

formally considered part of the range of the marbled murrelet in the Medford District is 

highlighted in Figure 72.

The range of the marbled murrelet for this management plan increases approximately 

6,010,000 acres in Zone 1 and 2,553,000 acres in Zone 2, and incorporates portions of the 

Salem, Eugene, Roseburg, and Medford districts, and incorporates the Coos Bay District 

in its entirety. 

A report by Huff et al. (2006) regarding the effects of the first 10 years after the 

implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan on the population and habitat of the marbled 

murrelet was completed as part of the Northwest Forest Plan’s 10-year effectiveness 

monitoring effort. The team reported: 

•	 An estimated marbled murrelet population of 22,000 birds for coastal waters 

adjacent to the Northwest Forest Plan area. 

•	 The available sampling effort was insufficient to detect significant population 

change.

•	 The highest densities of marbled murrelets occurred along the Oregon and 

northern Californian coasts.

•	 The lowest densities of marbled murrelets occurred from the Mendocino and 

Humboldt county line south to San Francisco Bay.
301

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

•	 Habitat models predicted that marbled murrelet nesting habitat is more likely at 

sites that:

– are closer to the sea;

– are on relatively flat terrain;

– are topographically cooler;

– have relatively fewer conifers that are greater than or equal to 10 inches 

(diameter at breast height);

– have great base areas of trees that are greater than or equal to 10 inches 

(diameter at breast height); or 

– have greater basal areas of trees that are greater than or equal to 

30 inches (diameter at breast height).

•	 Inland management Zone 2 (furthest from the coast) accounted for less than two 

percent of the estimated high-quality habitat on federally administered lands. 

•	 Only 13% of the federal lands provide more than medium-quality nesting habitat 

for the marbled murrelet. 

Nelson et al. (2006) completed a recent review of marbled murrelet biology and nesting 

habitat. The results included: 

•	 Marbled murrelet are secretive, noncolonial nesters, who forage at sea and 

nest inland. 

•	 The majority of marbled murrelets nest within 37 miles of the coast, although 

nests have been documented up to 52 miles inland in Washington and 47 miles 

inland in Oregon (Espinosa, pers. comm. 2007). 

•	 The most important component in the nesting habitat for the marbled murrelet 

is the presence of large platforms—limbs or other structures that are at least 

4 inches in diameter with a substrate capable of forming a nest cup (moss or 

other duff). 

•	 Other important factors include vertical and horizontal cover location with 

respect to forest openings or edge, and height of platform. Platforms should be 

high enough to provide for jump-off departures and open enough to provide for 

stall landings, while still providing protection from predators and the weather. 

•	 Nest trees documented in the Northwest Forest Plan area are greater than 

19 inches (diameter at breast height) and greater than 98 feet tall. Nest trees are 

typically taller than the average nonnest tree. 

•	 Vertical cover (cover above the nest) is typically above 70%.

Nest stands typically possess a high density of large trees with platforms, have multiple 

canopy layers, and are typically older. Studies summarized for Oregon indicate that the 

density of trees with platforms and the number of platforms in general were the most 

important variable in predicting marbled murrelet nesting habitat at the stand level. 
302

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Actual nests and behaviors indicate that marbled murrelets select old-growth forests for 

nesting. The proportion of older forest (mature and old growth) on the landscape and size 

of the forest patch were greater in occupied sites than unoccupied. Marbled murrelets 

nest in landscapes with larger stands with less edge, farther from logged areas than 

random watersheds. Habitat modeling efforts have shown that distance from the coast 

is an important factor in determining marbled murrelet occurrence. Patches of suitable 

nesting trees of only a few acres and with only a few suitable nesting trees are thought to 

be capable of supporting marbled murrelet nesting. The resolution and attributes of the 

vegetation maps used in this planning effort limited the identification of small stands with 

only a few suitable nesting trees.

For this plan revision, marbled murrelet nesting habitat was modeled as those stands 

in the mature (with multilayered canopy) and structurally complex structural stages of 

forest within the range described in Figure 72 (Range of the marbled murrelet within the 

planning area).

Mature stands in the western hemlock and tanoak retention zones are those that contain 

more than 23 trees per acres with a diameter at breast height greater than or equal to 

20 inches. In the Douglas fir zone, mature stands are those with more than 11 trees per 

acre with a diameter at breast height greater than or equal to 20 inches. 

There are approximately 373,000 acres of marbled murrelet nesting habitat within the 

planning area. See Table 90 (Summary of marbled murrelet nesting habitat on BLMadministered lands within the planning area).

Table 90. Summary of marbled murrelet nesting habitat on BLM-administered lands within the 

planning area

BLM Districts Habitat-Capable 

(acres)

Nesting Habitat

(acres) (%)

Salem 215,000 77,000 36

Eugene 147,000 49,000 33

Roseburg 179,000 99,000 55

Coos Bay 302,000 123,000 41

Medford 47,000 25,000 53

Totals 890,000 373,000 42

Studies to determine the characteristics of marbled murrelet nesting habitat at the 

landscape scale include:

•	 McShane et al. (2004, 4-103) reported that “[a]t the landscape level, areas with 

evidence of occupancy tended to have higher proportions of large, old-growth 

forest, larger stands and greater habitat complexity, but distance to the ocean (up 

to about 37 miles [60 km]) did not seem important.” 

•	 Elevation had a negative association in some studies with marbled murrelet 

habitat occupancy (Burger 2002). Hamer and Nelson (1995) sampled 45 nesting 

trees in British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, and California and found the 

mean elevation to be 1,089 feet (332 m).
303

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

•	 Multiple radar studies (Burger 2001; Cullen 2002; Raphael et al. 2002; Steventon 

and Holmes 2002) in British Columbia and Washington have shown radar counts 

of marbled murrelets to be positively associated with total watershed area, 

increasing amounts of late-seral forests, and with increasing age and height class 

of associated forests. 

•	 The radar counts of marbled murrelets are also negatively associated with increasing 

forest edge and areas of logged and immature forests (McShane et al. 2004). 

•	 There are also several studies concluding marbled murrelets do not pack into 

higher densities within remaining habitat when nesting habitat is removed 

(Burger 2001; Manley et al. 2001; Cullen 2002).

Studies about the relationship between the proximity of human-modified habitat and an 

increased abundance of avian predators and increased predation on marbled murrelet 

nests include: 

•	 Luginbuhl et al. (2001, 565) reported in a study, which used simulated marbled 

murrelet nests, that “[c]orvid numbers were poorly correlated with the rate of 

predation within each forested plot.” Luginbuhl et al. (2001, 569), conclude, 

“that using measurements of corvid abundance to assess nest predation risk is not 

possible at the typical scale of homogenous plots (0.5 to 1.0 km2

 in our study) 

[0.19 to 0.39 mi2

]. Rather this approach should be considered useful only at a 

broader, landscape scale on the order of 5 to 50 km2

 [1.93 to 19.31 mi2] (based on 

the scale of our fragmentation and human-use measures)”.

•	 Artificial marbled murrelet nest depredation rates were found to be highest in 

western conifer forests where stand edges were close to human development (De 

Santo and Willson 2001; Luginbuhl et al. 2001).

•	 Bradley (2002) found increased corvid densities within 3 miles of an 

urban interface (probably due to supplemental feeding opportunities from 

anthropogenic activities). 

•	 Golightly et al. (2002) found extremely low reproductive success for marbled 

murrelets nesting in large old-growth blocks of redwoods in the California 

Redwoods National and State Parks. Artificially high corvid densities from 

adjacent urbanization and park campgrounds are suspected to be a direct cause 

of the high nesting failure rates for marbled murrelets in the redwood parks 

(Golightly et al. 2002).

•	 If the surrounding landscape has been permanently modified to change the 

predators’ numbers or densities due to agriculture, urbanization, or recreation, 

and predators are causing unnaturally high nest failures, then reproductive 

success of the marbled murrelet may remain depressed. Because corvids account 

for the majority of depredations on marbled murrelet nests and corvid density 

can increase with human development, corvid predation on marbled murrelet 

habitat is a primary impact consideration. The threat of predation on marbled 

murrelet populations (both nests and adults) appears to be greater than previously 

anticipated (McShane et al. 2004).
304

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

The present population estimates for the marbled murrelet include 9,500 (± 3,000) in 

Oregon and 23,700 (± 5,200) within the conterminous United States (Huff et al. 2003; 

Strong 2003a; Strong 2003b). Spiech and Wahl (1995) concluded that marbled murrelet 

populations in Puget Sound are lower now than they were at the beginning of this century, 

and total estimates for Washington are still about 9,800 marbled murrelets (Huff et al. 

2003). Ralph and Miller (1995) estimated the California population to be approximately 

6,500 birds, and this estimate remains within the statistical confidence interval (Strong 

2003a and Strong 2003b).

The estimates of marbled murrelet populations that are based on monitoring data have 

fluctuated between approximately 5,800 and 7,800 birds in conservation Zone 3 and 

between approximately 3,600 and 4,900 birds in conservation Zone 4. See Table 91 

(Marbled murrelet population estimates for conservation Zones 3 and 4) and Figure 73 

(Marbled murrelet population estimates in conservation Zones 3 and 4). Conservation 

Zones 3 and 4 overlay the planning area. See Figure 71 (Marbled murrelet conservation 

zones) (USDI, USFWS 1997). Estimates are based on at-sea monitoring (USFWS, pers. 

comm. 2006).

Table 91. Marbled murrelet population estimates for conservation Zones 3 and 4

Year

Conservation Zones

Zone 3 Zone 4

Density* Number of 

Birds Density* Number of Birds

2000 10.9 6,724 10.9 4,880

2001 12.2 7,538 8.6 3,851

2002 10.2 6,271 10.8 4,816

2003 9.5 5,866 10.0 4,495

2004 12.6 7,781 9.3 4,169

2005 9.5 5,843 8.1 3,642

2006 10.3 6,375 8.9 3,968

*Density equals the number of birds per square mile.

Figure 73. Marbled murrelet population estimates in conservation Zones 3 and 4 

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Number

Zone 3 Zone 4
305

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Studies on the demographic trends of the marbled murrelet include:

•	 Beissinger (1995) constructed a demographic model of the marbled murrelet 

and concluded that the population may be declining at rates of 4 to 6% per year, 

but this estimate is hampered by the possibility that the age-ratio data used in 

the model are reflective of a relatively temporary decline due to unusual ocean 

conditions (Ralph et al. 1995). 

•	 Boulanger et al. (1999) found that change in adult survivorship is the single most 

important factor when projecting demographic trends for marbled murrelets. 

•	 Similarly, Strong and Carten (2000) suggest that there may have been a 50% 

decline from 1992 to 1996 in the Oregon population, but the population appears 

to have stabilized since then (Strong 2003a; Strong 2003b). 

•	 Ralph et al. (1995) summarized some of the reasons for variability in population 

estimates among researchers, including differences in methodology, assumptions, 

spatial coverage, and survey and model errors. 

•	 Lank et al. (2003) states that “[r]egardless of the approaches taken to estimate 

[(sic) vital rate] parameter values, the output from the Leslie Matrix models 

representing survivorship and fecundity values for all populations in Washington, 

Oregon and California (Beissinger and Nur 1997) suggest negative population 

growth rates.” Present at-sea surveys for effectiveness monitoring have a 95% 

chance of detecting annual population changes of ± 20% or greater.

McShane et al. (2004) produced a demographic model of marbled murrelet populations 

in Washington, Oregon, and California by each of the six conservation zones. Similar to 

previous studies, they found that populations in all conservation zones are in decline with 

mean annual rates of decline between 2.1% and 6.2%. The highest rates of decline were 

in Zone 6 at the southern extent of the range. Furthermore, they conclude it is likely that 

populations in Zone 5 and 6 could become nonviable in the near future.

At the conservation zone scale, marbled murrelet abundance is positively correlated with 

the estimated amount of inland habitat (McShane et al. 2004). The precise number of 

acres of nesting habitat in Washington, Oregon, and California is unknown. However, 

suitable habitat for the marbled murrelet on federal lands is estimated at 2,223,048 acres 

of which 154,838 acres (7%) are classified as remnant habitat within the listed range of 

this species (McShane et al. 2004). Approximately 93% of the suitable habitat occurs 

on federal lands. The BLM in Oregon manages approximately 249,000 acres of nesting 

habitat. See Table 92 (Summary of critical habitat units and marbled murrelet nesting 

habitat on BLM-administered lands within the planning area). There are 177 known 

occupied marbled murrelet sites on BLM-administered lands. Surveys are currently being 

conducted in conjunction with timber sales. 

The recovery plan identified the primary threats to the species as: 

•	 predation 

•	 loss of nesting habitat 

•	 by-catch in gill nets 

•	 oil pollution both chronic and from major spills 
306

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

More recently, McShane et al. (2004) has concluded that all of these threats are still 

present, although loss of nesting habitat, particularly on federal lands, has declined, and 

the new gill-netting regulations in northern California and Washington have reduced 

the threat from by-catch in gill nets. The threat from oil pollution continues to be 

unpredictable and effects are variable. New information on predation indicates a high 

threat level due to limiting marbled murrelet nesting success (Hebert and Golightly 2003; 

Peery et al. 2004; Luginbuhl et al. 2001; Marzluff and Restani 1999). 

Marbled murrelets, adult and chicks, appear to be fairly tolerant of disturbance, both 

visual and auditory. Several studies noted changes in adult feeding behaviors, but not 

nest abandonment. Chicks appear to be very tolerant of visual and auditory disturbance, 

habituating very quickly. The predominant response of marbled murrelet chicks to 

disturbances is to freeze or flatten out in the nest cup. Noise disturbance to nest sites is 

thought to be minimal, although much is unknown (Nelson et al. 2006).

The recovery plan states that four of the six zones must be functional in order to 

effectively recover the marbled murrelet in the short- and long-term (e.g., to maintain 

viable populations that are well-distributed). However, based on the newest population 

estimates, it appears only three of the zones contain relatively robust numbers of 

marbled murrelets (Zones 1, 3, and 4). Zones 1 and 4 contain the largest number of 

marbled murrelets compared to the other four zones, but areas of concern remain. Of the 

population in Zone 4, 10% was killed in oil spills in 1997 (Bentivoglio et al. 2002; Ford 

et al. 2002).

Marbled murrelets in conservation Zones 3, 5, and 6 are also experiencing significant 

declines in reproduction, numbers, and distribution, resulting in reduced population 

viability. Marbled murrelets have suffered variously from past oil spills, which killed 

a large number of birds (Zone 3) (Ford et al. 2002), extremely small population 

sizes (Zones 5 and 6), and alarmingly low reproductive rates (Zone 6) (Peery et al. 

2002). In at least two of these four zones (Zones 5 and 6), these factors taken singly 

or in combination have brought the status of the species to a point where recovery 

in Conservation Zones 5 and 6 may be precluded (Beissinger 2002). The poor status 

of marbled murrelet populations in the southern zones emphasizes the importance of 

supporting marbled murrelet populations in Zones 1 and 2 in order to achieve marbled 

murrelet recovery objectives.

Critical habitat was designated for the marbled murrelet in January 1996 and 

encompasses 1,515,300 acres of land in Oregon; 1,338,200 acres of federal land (Federal 

Register 1996a, 26256-26320). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is currently reviewing 

the critical habitat designation. Critical habitat includes those lands that may be needed 

for a species’ eventual recovery and delisting. Critical habitat units were identified based 

upon the need to protect current and provide for future development of the primary 

constituent elements necessary for the conservation of the marbled murrelet. The primary 

constituent elements include individual trees with potential nesting platforms and forested 

areas within 0.5 miles that possess a canopy height of at least one-half the site-potential 

tree height (Federal Register 1996a, 26264). Approximately 463,000 acres of critical 

habitat occur on Bureau of Land Management managed lands. See Table 92 (Summary of 
307

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

critical habitat units and marbled murrelet nesting habitat on BLM-administered lands 

within the planning area) and Figure 74 (Critical habitat for the marbled murrelet within 

the planning area).

Table 92. Summary of critical habitat units and marbled murrelet nesting habitat on BLMadministered lands within the planning area 

Critical 

Habitat Unit

HabitatCapable 

(acres)

Nesting Habitat

(acres) (%)

CA-01-e 14 10 71

OR-01-b 1 1 100

OR-01-c 7,217 5,025 70

OR-02-a -- -- --

OR-02-b 11 1 9

OR-02-c 3,526 1,898 54

OR-02-d 25,937 6,731 26

OR-02-e 38,666 20,858 54

OR-03-a 41 41 100

OR-03-c 8,530 4,012 47

OR-04-a 1,300 802 62

OR-04-b 1,084 940 87

OR-04-c 13,388 8,012 60

OR-04-d 20,073 11,097 55

OR-04-e 50,534 27,656 55

OR-04-f 20,109 12,220 61

OR-04-g 15,368 8,354 54

OR-04-i 79,983 40,807 51

OR-04-j 56,450 30,882 55

OR-04-k 25,919 16,083 62

OR-06-a 39 26 67

OR-06-b 49,904 28,609 57

OR-06-c 4,608 3,524 76

OR-06-d 16,178 8,792 54

OR-07-a 2,366 1,252 53

OR-07-b 2,171 990 46

OR-07-d 1,840 845 46

OR-07-f 15,611 8,616 55

OR-07-g 2,086 984 47

Totals 462,953 249,069
308

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Figure 74. Critical habitat for the marbled murrelet within the planning area 
309

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Sage Grouse

Sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) were once found throughout most of the 

sagebrush (Artemisia sp.) habitat of eastern Oregon (Hagan 2005). There are currently no 

known populations within the planning area. However, there is currently suitable habitat 

and the potential to restore additional lands to a suitable condition within the planning 

area (specifically, the Klamath Falls Resource Area of the Lakeview District). There are 

currently 28,000 acres of sage grouse habitat and four historic leks within the Klamath 

Falls Resource Area.

The major threat to the species is habitat modification and its resultant effects on 

reproductive capacity and predation (Holloran and Anderson 2005; Gregg et al. 1994; 

Hagen 2005). Within Oregon, since the 1940s, the sage grouse population has exhibited 

an overall decline (Hagan 2005; Gregg et al. 1994). Population indices in the last decade 

have shown a stable to slightly increasing population (Hagan 2005).

From 2002 until 2004, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service received multiple petitions to 

list one or more sage grouse populations. In 2005, they came out with a combined finding 

that the petitions were not warranted (Federal Register 2005a, 2244). Concurrent with the 

status reviews, there was an assessment of the nationwide condition of the sage grouse. 

Connelly et al. (2004) compiled a comprehensive review of the status of the sage grouse 

and sagebrush habitats entitled Conservation Assessment of Greater Sage-grouse and 

Sagebrush Habitats. 

The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, in conjunction with the BLM and other 

land management organizations, produced the Greater sage-grouse conservation 

assessment and strategy for Oregon: a plan to maintain and enhance populations and 

habitat (Hagan 2005). The information contained within the Oregon conservation 

assessment regarding natural history and habitat condition is incorporated by reference. 

The following is a brief synopsis:

•	 Sage grouse are a sagebrush obligate species. Sagebrush provides important 

habitat components necessary for their nesting and diet. There are three main 

habitat requirements for the sage grouse: breeding (lekking and nesting), brood 

rearing, and over-wintering habitat. 

•	 Males attract females by displaying (strutting) on open sites called leks. Leks are 

used annually. Leks are typically devoid of or contain short vegetation. Adjacent 

sagebrush provides escape cover. 

•	 Females use areas rich in forbs to facilitate egg development. Nesting habitat 

consists of a sagebrush community containing sagebrush and a herbaceous 

understory of grasses and forbs. Nests are typically located under sagebrush plants. 

•	 Cover, both overhead and vertical, are critical to nesting success. Good habitat 

provides concealment from predators, herbaceous forage for prelaying and 

nesting females, and insect forage for chicks.
310

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

•	 Once broods move off the nest, they move to a more open sagebrush habitat—a 

habitat that still maintains a rich growth of grasses and forbs, and at least 15% 

canopy closure. Chicks feed on forbs and invertebrates. Later in the summer 

broods move to moister habitats were succulent vegetation is still available.

•	 Winter diets consist mainly of sagebrush. Sage grouse may congregate in areas of 

higher canopy closure and taller big sagebrush. 

•	 Oregon sagebrush habitats have been reduced 21% from the late 1800s. The lack 

of connectivity (contiguity) between patches compounds the loss of habitat. High 

viability patches are those that have greater than 2,500 acres of contiguous habitat. 

•	 The greater loss of sagebrush habitat in eastern Oregon has been due to the 

conversion of such habitat to agricultural and grazing uses. Fire and seeding with 

nonnative species continue play a significant role in converting sagebrush habitat to 

grasslands. Roads and utility corridors play an additional role in habitat degradation 

by providing corridors and perches for predators, spreading nonnative vegetation, 

and introducing disturbances. Human disturbances, both low-keyed bird-watching 

and intense off-highway vehicle use, may cause lek and nest abandonment. 

Bald Eagle

The bald eagle of North America (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is listed under the 

Endangered Species Act as threatened in Oregon. Breeding and wintering populations 

occur throughout the planning area and are addressed in the Pacific States Bald Eagle 

Recovery Plan (USDI, USFWS 1986). In 1999, the bald eagle was proposed for delisting 

in the contiguous 48 states. A recovery plan was completed in 1986 (USDI, USFWS 

1986). The planning area includes portions of six bald eagle management zones (10, 11, 

12, 13, 22, and 23) (USDI, USFWS 1986, 29). 

Bald eagles in the Pacific Northwest nest predominantly in conifer stands adjacent to 

or near large rivers or other large bodies of water (USDI, USFWS 1986; Anthony et al. 

1982; Buehler 2000; Federal Register 2006a, 71 FR 8239). 

•	 Distances to water bodies from nests varies but could extend up to 1,378 yards 

in portions of the planning area (USDI, USFWS 1986; Buehler 2000; Anthony 

et al. 1982). Vessely et al. (2001) modeled potential nesting habitat up to 3 km 

(1.9 miles) away from water. 

•	 Nesting habitat can encompass a wide range of stand types but they all can be 

described has having a variety of canopy layers and some component of large 

diameter or old-growth trees. Anthony et al. (1982) found that the diameter of 

nesting trees vary by forest types, but, invariably, they were some of the largest 

trees in the stand. The average diameters of nesting trees varied between:

– 41 inches (diameter at breast height) in Oregon mixed conifer stands

– 46 inches in ponderosa pine forests

– 69 inches in Douglas fir forests. 
311

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

•	 Douglas fir is the dominant species for nesting trees west of the Cascade 

Mountains, while ponderosa pine is dominant east of the Cascade Mountains 

(Anthony et al. 1982). 

Fish, waterfowl, jackrabbits, and carrion provide the most common source of food 

for eagles in the Pacific Northwest (USDI, USFWS 1986). Nesting sites, roosts, and 

wintering areas tend to be associated with sources of food (Anthony et al. 1982; USDI, 

USFWS 1986; Buehler 2000; Federal Register 2006a, 8242), although overwintering 

area locations may also be driven by remoteness (Federal Register 2006a, 8239; USDI, 

USFWS 1986).

There are 3,600 miles of stream and 291,000 acres of ponds and lakes that provide 

foraging habitat for the bald eagle. There are approximately 1,630,000 acres of BLM 

lands that are capable of growing eagle nesting and roosting habitat in the planning area 

(those forest-capable lands within 4 miles of foraging waters) and approximately half 

of those are currently providing bald eagle nesting and roosting habitat. See Table 93 

(Potential bald eagle nesting habitat within the planning area).

Table 93. Potential bald eagle nesting habitat within the planning area 

BLM Districts

HabitatCapable 

(acres)

Nesting Habitat

(acres) (%)

Salem 377,379 192,786 51

Eugene 169,928 71,399 42

Roseburg 264,901 134,901 51

Coos Bay 231,863 97,106 42

Medford 536,924 279,736 52

Klamath Falls 166,179 50,761 31

Totals 1,747,174 826,689 50

Communal roosts are selected for and favor those stands that have a high degree of 

stratification (Anthony et al. 1982). Roost trees are the largest trees in the stand or have 

open branching patterns, provide visibility, and may be close to a consistent food source 

(Anthony et al. 1982; Buehler 2000). 

There are 149 bald eagle nesting trees located on BLM lands within the planning area. 

These nests are contained within 89 known territories (Isaacs and Anthony. 2005). 

Monitoring data indicates that bald eagle numbers have increased steadily since 1973 

(Isaacs and Anthony 2005). The bald eagle was proposed for delisting in 1999 (Federal 

Register 1996b, 36454). See Table 94 (Summary of the 2005 monitoring data for the bald 

eagle) for the current population data for the management zones that overlap the planning 

area (Isaacs and Anthony 2005). 
312

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Table 94. Summary of the 2005 monitoring data for the bald eagle

Bald Eagle 

Conservation Zones

Breeding Areas Surveyed 

(number)

Breeding Areas Occupieda

(number)

Occupied Breeding Areas 

with Known Outcomes

Successful Breeding Areasb 

(%)

5-year Average of 

Successful Breeding Areas 

(%)

Young/Breeding Areas 

(number)

5-Year Average of Young/

Breeding Areas 

(number)

Young/Successful 

Breeding Pairs 

(number)

10 – Columbia River (OR) 12 11 71 70.0 63.8 1.00 1.04 1.43

11 – High Cascades 69 64 63 61.9 65.7 0.94 1.01 1.51

12 – Willamette Basin 63 61 55 70.9 68.8 1.15 1.17 1.62

13 – Oregon Coast 93 91 90 72.2 70.0 1.11 1.10 1.54

22 – Klamath Basin 134 129 119 60.5 62.2 0.87 0.96 1.43

23 – CA/OR Coast 25 22 20 70.0 67.3 1.05 1.05 1.50

a

Where one or two adults and a nest were observed.

b

Breeding areas where 1 or more nestlings or fledglings were observed.

There are 161 bald eagle management areas designated on BLM lands within the 

planning area. They range in size from 4 to 960 acres and total 16,220 acres. See Table 95 

(Bald eagle management areas within the planning area). Bald eagle management areas 

were carried forward from the previous plan and were created for sites found since 1994. 

Bald eagle management areas are designed to protect existing nest sites, winter and 

communal roosting areas, and potential nesting habitat.

Table 95. Bald eagle management areas within the planning area 

BLM District Number of Areas Acres

Salem 10 2,227 

Eugene 73 8,266

Roseburg 25 3,682

Coos Bay 26 769

Medford 21 1,091

Klamath Falls 22 1,931

Totals 177 17,966
313

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Western Snowy Plover

The Pacific Coast population of the western snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus

nivosus), hereafter referred to as the snowy plover, is listed as threatened under the 

federal Endangered Species Act (Federal Register 1993,12864) and by the state of 

Oregon (ODFW 2006). The primary threats to the snowy plover were identified as the 

loss and degradation of habitat from human activities (Federal Register 1993, 12864). 

The snowy plover occurs along the Pacific Coast from British Columbia, Canada to 

Baja California, Mexico; and at interior areas in Oregon, California, Nevada, Utah, New 

Mexico, Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, and north-central Texas (Federal Register 1993, 

12864; Page et al. 1995). The coastal population is genetically distinct from the interior 

population (Federal Register 1993, 12864; Federal Register 2006b, 20607). 

The coastal population occurs within the geographic boundaries of the Salem, Eugene, 

and Coos Bay districts. The BLM manages snowy plover nesting and wintering habitat 

only on the Coos Bay District. The Coos Bay District manages 436 acres of snowy 

plover nesting and overwintering habitat, which is located on the Coos Bay North Spit 

(138 acres) and the New River Area of Critical Environmental Concern (298 acres). See 

Figure 75 (Locations of the Pacific coast population of the western snowy plover on BLM 

lands within the planning area).

Figure 75. Locations of the Pacific coast population of the western snowy plover on BLM Lands 

within the planning area
314

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Snowy plovers nest above the high tide line on “wide-open sandy beaches, river mouths, 

or dredge spoils, often with scattered driftwood or vegetation. Driftwood, wrack, and 

native dune plants often harbor snowy plover food sources, and provide cover for 

chicks hiding from predators” (OPRD 2004, 42-43) Much open sand habitat was lost in 

Oregon when European beachgrass was introduced in the early to mid 1900s. European 

beachgrass created extensive vegetated foredunes that narrowed beaches and provided 

thick cover for predators. 

The Coos Bay North Spit has been the most productive snowy plover breeding area since 

intensive monitoring began in the early 1990s. Unique to Oregon, snowy plover habitat 

on the Coos Bay North Spit is found along the beach as well as inland of the ocean 

foredune on old dredge material deposits and restored open sand habitat. Through time 

much of this habitat was lost or degraded due to beachgrass encroachment. Most of the 

BLM-administered lands in this area are designated as an area of critical environmental 

concern. The North Spit Plan (USDI, BLM 2005a) contains direction for plover 

management. The management measures were developed in cooperation with the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service and Oregon State agencies. Management measures include 

recreational restrictions, predator control, outreach activities, and habitat restoration.

In cooperation with the Army Corps of Engineers, the Oregon Department of Fish and 

Wildlife, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the BLM has restored and maintained 

approximately 76 acres of habitat inland of the ocean foredune. A variety of methods 

have been used to remove European beachgrass and other invasive plant species from 

these habitat restoration areas (including heavy equipment, saltwater treatments, hand 

pulling, and herbicides). In addition to the habitat restoration areas, snowy plovers also 

nest on the adjacent ocean beach.

Snowy plover numbers have increased on the Coos Bay North Spit since active 

management measures and monitoring began in the early 1990s. The total number of 

fledglings has risen from a low of 3 in 1990 to a high of 35 in 2004 (Lauten et al. 2006). 

Plover reproductive success is measured by the number of chicks fledged per male and 

is currently estimated of 1.57 fledglings per male at the Coos Bay North Spit, which 

is approximately 10% below the 15-year average of 1.71 fledglings per male (Lauten 

et al. 2006). 

Snowy plovers also use a long, relatively isolated stretch of beach from the southern 

portion of Bandon’s beaches to Floras Lake. This approximately 16 mile length of beach 

is managed under several jurisdictions (including 5.75 miles that are included in the BLM 

New River Area of Critical Environmental Concern). The New River Area of Critical 

Environmental Concern Management Plan (USDI, BLM 2004a) contains direction for 

plover management. Management measures were developed in cooperation with the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service and Oregon State agencies. Management measures include 

recreation restrictions, predator control, outreach activities, and habitat restoration.

Approximately 120 acres of habitat (nearly 2.75 miles in length) have been restored 

and maintained using heavy equipment, burning, and hand pulling to remove European 

beachgrass and other invasive plant species. In addition, the BLM cooperatively 
315

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

manages approximately 1 mile of ocean beach and inland snowy plover habitat north of 

Floras Lake. 

Over the past several years, locations of snowy plover activity have varied in the New 

River area. In general, numbers have increased on the New River spit, including the area 

of critical environmental concern since active management measures and monitoring 

began in the early 1990s. The total number of fledglings associated with the New River 

spit has risen from a low of zero in 1993 to a high of 21 in 2004 (Lauten et al. 2006). 

Snowy plover reproductive success is measured by the number of chicks fledged per 

male. This fledgling rate has increased through time and is currently at 1.33 chicks per 

male at New River, which is 49% higher than the 15-year average of 0.89 fledglings 

per male (Lauten et al. 2006). Predation is a greater problem at this location than other 

Oregon snowy plover sites (Lauten et al. 2006). The New River area is the only location 

with nonnative red fox present in the area. The beaches also abut extensive ranch lands 

with sheep and cattle operations. 

The final rule for listing the snowy plover (Federal Register 1993, 12864) and the draft 

recovery plan (Federal Register 2001a) provides comprehensive discussions of the 

following threats to the snowy plover:

•	 loss or degradation of habitat through

•	 over utilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes

•	 disease and predation

•	 inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanism 

•	 other natural or manmade factors affecting their continued existence

The state of Oregon describes threats to the snowy plover as habitat degradation, 

introduction of nonnative vegetation, beach development, resource extraction, human 

disturbance, and predation (OPRD 2004). 

Beaches are unstable habitats—they change with each winter storm event and are 

constantly broken down and renewed. Human activities (building jetties and seawalls, 

and stabilizing dunes) modify or eliminate these natural destabilizing cycles (OPRD 

2004). The introduction of European beachgrass (Ammophila arenaria) has stabilized 

foredunes and prevented the replenishment of the open sand areas thus diminishing 

the availability of snowy plover habitat and changing the natural vegetative and sand 

dynamics (OPRD 2004; Federal Register 2001a). Beachgrass also provides cover for 

predators, which benefit from its dense growing habit.

Nest losses due to predation at some sites on the Oregon coast have been as high as 

68% (Sterns et al. 1990 and Hogan 1991; Federal Register 1993, 12871). Predator 

numbers are thought to increase with increased human presence for a number of reasons. 

Trash near nesting areas attracts such predators as crows, ravens and rats; European 

beachgrass, and the subsequent vegetation changes to dune plant communities results in 

increased hiding cover; and greater human presence may lead to an increase in human 

disturbance, which flushes adult and snowy plover chicks from nests and increases their 

vulnerability to predation. 
316

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Human activity has been documented as a major threat to the breeding success of the 

snowy plover (OPRD 2004). Human disturbance, either on foot or in off-highway 

vehicles, may flush birds from nests, resulting in nest abandonment or lengthening of the 

incubation period, as birds stay off of the eggs for extended periods of time; may result in 

trampled or crushed birds or eggs; and may separate broods from adults.

Critical habitat was designated for the Pacific coast population of the snowy plover 

in 2005 (Federal Register 2005b, 26970). The primary constituent elements for the 

designated critical habitat units are: 

•	 sparsely vegetated areas above daily high tides that are relatively undisturbed by 

the presence of humans, pets, vehicles, or human–attracted predators; 

•	 sparsely vegetated sandy beach, mud flats, gravel bars, or artificial salt ponds that 

are subject to daily tidal inundation, but not currently under water, that support 

such small invertebrates as crabs, worms, flies, beetles, sand hoppers, clams, and 

ostracods; and 

•	 surf or tide cast organic debris (such as seaweed or driftwood) located on open 

substrates (such as those mentioned above) (Federal Register 2005b, 56994). 

The latter provide essential habitat for invertebrate food sources, and provide shelter from 

predators and inclement weather. Two critical habitat units contain BLM lands—OR 9 

and OR 10—which overlay BLM-administered lands in the Coos Bay District. See 

Table 96 (Critical habitat for the Pacific coast populations of the western snowy plover)

and Figure 75 (Locations of the Pacific coast population of the western snowy plover on 

BLM lands within the planning area).

Table 96. Critical habitat for the Pacific coast populations of the western snowy plover

Critical Habitat Units

Total 

Area 

(acres)

Federal 

Area 

(acres)

BLM 

Area 

(acres)

Habitat Capability 

(number of breeding birds)

OR 9 (Coos Bay North Spit) 278 278 138 54

OR 10A (Bandon to Floras 

Creek) 632 304 178 54

Special Status Species

BLM special status species are those species that include federal- and state-listed species, 

proposed and candidate species, and BLM sensitive and assessment species. Some 

species are both state and federally listed.

The primary objectives of the BLM special status species policy are:

•	 to conserve listed species and the ecosystems on which they depend;

•	 to ensure that actions requiring authorization and approval by the BLM are 

consistent with the conservation needs of special status species and do not 
317

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

contribute to the need to list any special status species under the provisions of the 

Endangered Species Act; and

•	 to use all methods and procedures necessary to improve the condition of special 

status species and their habitats to a point where their special status recognition is 

no longer warranted.

There are two categories of BLM-designated special status species:

•	 Sensitive Species. In Oregon and Washington, BLM sensitive species are those 

taxa that are eligible for listing as federal-listed, federal-candidate, state-listed or 

state-candidate (plant) status. 

•	 Assessment Species. Plant and vertebrate species that are not included as federal 

threatened, federal endangered, federal proposed, federal candidate, state listed, 

or BLM sensitive, and are on List 2 of the Oregon Natural Heritage Database.

As of March 14, 2005, 117 special status animal species (amphibians, reptiles, birds, 

invertebrates, and mammals) are documented or suspected to occur within the planning 

area. See Appendix G. Wildlife. The numbers vary, but between 28 and 57 species occur 

in each district. See Table 97 (Animal special status species in BLM districts within the 

planning area).
318

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Table 97. Animal special status species in BLM districts within the planning area 

Status*

District

Salem Eugene Roseburg Coos Bay Medford Klamath 

Falls

Amphibians and Reptiles

FE 0 0 0 0 0 0

FT 0 0 0 0 0 0

FC 0 0 0 0 1 1

BS 4 3 1 1 2 1

BA 4 2 1 2 2 1

Totals 8 5 2 3 5 3

Birds

FE 0 1 0 1 1 0

FT 3 3 3 4 3 2

FC 0 1 0 1 1 0

BS 10 11 5 14 12 10

BA 4 4 3 8 4 5

Totals 17 20 11 28 21 17

Invertebrates

FE 1 1 0 0 0 0

FT 1 0 0 0 1 0

FC 1 2 0 1 1 0

BS 17 12 8 14 14 9

BA 0 0 0 0 0 0

Totals 20 15 8 15 16 9

Mammals

FE 1 0 0 3 0 0

FT 0 0 0 1 0 0

FC 0 1 0 1 1 1

BS 2 1 2 1 1 1

BA 4 4 5 5 4 5

Totals 7 6 7 11 6 7

Total All 52 46 28 57 48 36

*Status Codes: 

FE (federally listed as endangered); FT (federally listed as threatened); FC (candidate for federal listing); BS (bureau sensitive species); 

BA (bureau assessment species)

The federally listed threatened and endangered animal species addressed individually 

inhabit significant portions of the planning areas. There are other threatened and 

endangered animal species that either occur on the periphery of the planning area (i.e., in 

the ocean) or inhabit habitats that constitute a very small portion of the planning area. See 

Table 98 (Documented or suspected federally listed animal species within the planning 

area that are not typically found in forested habitat) and Table 99 (Habitat requirements 

for federally listed animal species within the planning area that are not typically found in 

forested habitat).
319

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Table 98. Documented or suspected federally listed animal species within the planning area 

that are not typically found in forested habitat

Status* Scientific Name Common Name

FC Eremophila alpestris strigata Streaked horned lark 

FC Euphydryas editha taylori Whulge checkerspot (butterfly)

FC Polites mardon Mardon skipper (butterfly)

FC Rana pretiosa Oregon spotted frog

FT Branchinecta lynchi Vernal pool fairy shrimp

FT Eumetopias jubatus Steller sea lion

FT Speyeria zerene hippolyta Oregon silverspot butterfly

FE Balaenoptera musculus Blue whale

FE Eschrichtius robustus Gray whale

FE Icaricia icarioides fenderi Fender’s blue butterfly

FE Megaptera novaeangliae Humpback whale

FE Pelecanus occidentalis californicus California brown pelican

*Status Codes:

FC (federal candidate for listing); FT (federally listed as threatened); FE (federally listed as endangered)

Table 99. Habitat requirements for federally listed animal species within the planning area that 

are not typically found in forested habitat 

Common Name Habitat Conditions

Streaked horned lark

•	 Found in the Willamette Valley 

•	 Nesting habitat included native prairies and a wide range of 

agricultural fields (Marshall et al. 2003)

Whulge checkerspot 

(butterfly)

•	 Low-elevation upland prairies

•	 Host plant is narrow-leaved plantain (Plantago lanceolata) 

(ODFW 2006)

Mardon skipper (butterfly) •	 Meadow habitats

•	 Host plants are native fescues (ODFW 2006)

Oregon spotted frog

•	 Permanent ponds, marshes and meandering streams through 

meadows

•	 Bottom of dead and decaying vegetation

•	 Springs and other slow moving water (ODFW 2006)

Vernal pool fairy shrimp

•	 Small, cooler ephemeral pools (ODFW 2006)

•	 Found on BLM lands in the Medford District

•	 Recovery plan (USDI, USFWS 2005) and designated critical 

habitat (Federal Register 2006c, 7118-7166) available 

Steller sea lion

•	 Marine habitats include coastal waters near shore and over the 

continental slope

•	 Sometimes rivers are ascended in pursuit of prey 

•	 Terrestrial habitats include beaches that are commonly used as 

rookeries and haulouts (NatureServe 2006)
320

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Common Name Habitat Conditions

Oregon silverspot butterfly

•	 Salt spray meadows

•	 Host plants early blue and western blue violets (Viola sp.) 

(ODFW 2006)

•	 Recovery plan (USDI, USFWS 2001b) and designated critical 

habitat (Federal Register 1980, 44935-44938) available

Blue whale •	 Mainly pelagic

•	 Generally prefers cold waters and open seas (NatureServe 2006)

Gray whale •	 Mostly in coastal and shallow shelf waters

•	 Young are born in lagoons and bays (NatureServe 2006)

Fender’s blue butterfly

•	 Seasonally wet native prairies

•	 Host plant is Kincaid’s lupine (Lupinus sulphureus kincaidii) 

(ODFW 2006)

•	 Draft critical habitat (Federal Register 2005c, 66492-66540) 

available

Humpback whale

•	 Pelagic and coastal waters

•	 Sometimes frequenting inshore areas such as bays 

(NatureServe 2006)

California brown pelican

•	 A coastal marine species rarely found inland

•	 Roosts on sandy shores and offshore rocks

•	 Nests on islands and offshore rocks (Marshall et al. 2003)

Bureau sensitive and assessment species have been grouped according to habitat 

requirements to facilitate effects analysis. See Table 100 (Bureau sensitive species and 

bureau assessment species found within the planning areas and grouped by habitat 

requirements to facilitate analysis) and Appendix G. Wildlife. For many groups, habitat 

requirements are similar to those of species receiving individual analysis. Therefore, any 

additional analysis for those groups would be redundant.
321

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Table 100. Bureau sensitive species and bureau assessment species found within the planning 

areas and grouped by habitat requirements to facilitate analysis

Habitat Association or Group Common Name

Species effects that are common 

to all alternatives. Includes species 

that are associated with special 

habitats or features. Also includes 

accidental or occasional migrants 

where impacts are unlikely.

Yellow rail

American peregrine falcon

Rhinoceros auklet

Cassin’s auklet

Tufted puffin

Upland sandpiper

Fork-tailed storm petrel

Aleutian Canada goose

Dusky Canada goose

American white pelican.

Red-necked grebe

Trumpeter swan

Ferruginous hawk 

Common nighthawk ( Willamette Valley population)

Tule goose

Merlin 

White-tailed kite

Insular blue (butterfly)

Hoary elfin (butterfly)

Newcomb’s littorine snail

Larch mountain salamander

American grass bug

Siskiyou short-horned grasshopper

Diminutive pebblesnail

Fall creek pebblesnail

Keene creek pebblesnail

Klamath pebblesnail

Nerite pebblesnail

Crater lake tightcoil (snail)

Montane pea clam

Evening fieldslug

Crowned tightcoil (snail)

Robust walker

Pacific walker

Toothed pebblesnail

Townsend’s big-eared bat

Spotted bat

Fringed myotis*

Pallid bat (Pacific Pallid and Pallid considered the same)
322

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Habitat Association or Group Common Name

Neotropical Birds Purple martin 

Yellow breasted chat 

White-headed woodpecker

Three-toed woodpecker 

Black-backed woodpecker

Grasshopper sparrow

Tricolored blackbird 

Burrowing owl

Flammulated owl

Lewis woodpecker

Oregon vesper sparrow 

Western meadowlark 

Streaked horned lark 

Snag Dependent Fringed myotis

Pallid bat (Pacific Pallid and Pallid considered the same)

Older Forest Associates Red tree vole

Northern goshawk

Johnson’s hairstreak (butterfly)

Survey and manage species

Aquatic and Riparian Associates Haddock’s rhyacophilan caddis fly

Cope’s giant salamander

Scott’s apatanian caddis fly

Cascade torrent salamander

Columbia torrent salamander

Willamette floater (mussel)

Harlequin duck

Foothill yellow-legged frog

Oregon spotted frog

Scale lanx (snail)

Rotund lanx (snail)

Northwestern pond turtle

Painted turtle
323

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Habitat Association or Group Common Name

Forest Floor Associates Puget Oregonian

Tillamook westernslug

Salamander slug

Spotted tail-dropper

Bald hesperian

Oak springs hesperian

Oregon giant earthworm

Roth’s blind ground beetle

Oregon slender salamander

Traveling sideband (snail)

Klamath taildropper

Modoc sideband (snail)

Siskiyou hesperian

Chase sideband (snail)

California slender salamander

Oregon shoulderband (snail)

Black salamander

Siskiyou mountains salamander

Sisters hesperian

Green sideband (snail)

Gophers Pistol river pocket gopher

Gold beach pocket gopher

Fisher

The west coast population of the fisher (Martes pennanti) was petitioned for listing under 

the federal Endangered Species Act in 2000. In 2004, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

found that listing was “warranted but precluded” by higher priority actions (Federal 

Register 2004, 18770). Subsequently, the fisher was added to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service’s candidate species list (Federal Register 2004, 18770). Within the planning area, 

the fisher has been documented to occur in two districts and suspected to occur in two 

others. See Appendix G. Wildlife.

Fisher historically occurred throughout the Cascades, Coast Range, and the Siskiyou and 

Blue mountains of Oregon (Bailey 1936). They have declined since the late 1800s and 

early 1900s as a result of overtrapping, loss of habitat, and predator control programs 

(Aubry and Lewis 2003). Aubry and Lewis (2003) recognized two disjunct populations 

of fisher within the planning area—one in the southern Cascade Range and another in the 

northern Siskiyou Mountains. The southern Cascade fisher population is separated from 

the northern Siskiyou Mountains population by Interstate 5, large expanses of nonhabitat 

(nonforested and agricultural lands), and the populated Rogue River Valley. 

Genetic studies found the population in the southern Cascades originated from animals 

that were introduced from British Columbia and Minnesota at various times from 
324

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

the 1960s through the early 1980s (Aubrey and Lewis 2003). Genetic analysis has 

determined that “[t]he high degree of relatedness among fishers in the southern Cascade 

Range (R-.56) is consistent with the hypothesis that this population is small and isolated” 

(Aubry et al. 2003). 

Small population sizes and isolation make the “Oregon populations vulnerable to 

extirpation” (Federal Register 2004, 18789). Recent survey efforts in southwestern 

Oregon have detected fisher in the landscape between the southern Cascade and other 

northern Siskiyou Mountains population centers, but the extent of connectivity between 

the two populations is still believed to be limited (Aubrey et al. 2004; Aubrey and Lewis 

2003; Federal Register 2004, 18771). 

Forest structure and associated prey are thought to be the critical features of habitat 

requirements for the fisher (Buskirk and Powell 1994). Powell (1993) (as cited in Federal 

Register 2004, 18773) stated “that forest type is probably not as important to fishers as 

the vegetative and structural aspects that lead to abundant prey populations and reduced 

fisher vulnerability to predation, and they may select forest that have low and closed 

canopies.” The fisher uses different forest structures for the various stages of life: 

•	 natal sites (where young are born and weaned) 

•	 maternal habitat (where young are raised) 

•	 resting sites

•	 foraging habitat

Aubry and Raley (2002) found that female fishers use trees (alive or dead) with 

hollows created by heart rot for natal sites. Natal den trees ranged from 61 to 138 cm 

(24 to 54 inches) in diameter (average 93 cm (37 inches)) (Aubry and Raley 2002). 

Elsewhere along the Pacific coast, natal dens are typically located in the largest diameter 

trees. Weir and Harestad (2003) reported natal dens in cottonwoods that were averaging 

103 cm (40 inches) in diameter. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Federal Register 

2004, 18774) cited studies in northern California reporting average diameters of natal 

den trees of 62.5 to 295 cm (24 to 116 inches). Maternal dens were located in cavities 

in live trees and snags between the bole and sloughing bark on mistletoe brooms, on a 

rodent nest, and in large hollow logs that were greater than 50 cm (20 inches) in diameter 

(Aubry and Raley 2002). Approximately 56% of natal and maternal den sites in the 

southern Cascade study were located in unmanaged forests, 38% in managed forests 

(some evidence of past harvest activities), and 6% in second growth forests (Aubry and 

Raley 2002).

Rest sites occur predominantly in live trees. Aubry and Raley (2002) found that mistletoe 

brooms were used more than any other platform or microsite. Snags and down logs were 

also used for resting sites (Aubry and Raley 2002; Zielinski et al. 2004; Yeager 2005). In 

the southern Cascades, resting sites were found in unmanaged forests 63% of the time, 

25% in managed second growth, and 22% in managed forest (Aubry and Raley 2002). 

In the Klamath province of northern California, Yeager (2005) determined that rest sites 

were located in trees significantly larger diameter at breast height than the four largest 

tree on a plot (0.4 ha) (1 acre) centered on the rest site structure.
325

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Trees providing rest sites in the Shasta-Trinity National Forest and the Hoopa Valley 

Indian Reservation averaged from 87 to 124 cm (34 to 40 inches) in diameter at breast 

height (Yeager 2005). Rest sites in the north coast study area (northern California) 

averaged approximately 118 cm (46 inches) in diameter (Zielinski et al. 2004). Resting 

structures need to be sufficiently large in diameter to provide resting substrates that can 

accommodate the large-bodied fishers. Trees must be old enough for ecological processes 

to form cavities of sufficient size to be of use to fishers (Zielinski et al. 2004). Zielinski 

et al. (2004) described resting locations in their coast study areas (northern California) 

as being best distinguished from random locations by having large trees, dense canopies, 

and large diameter snags. 

Foraging habitat is a function of coarse woody debris and stand structural complexity, 

which translates into a diverse prey base (Weir and Harestad 2003; Buskirk and Powell 

1994). The fisher is a predator of small- to medium-sized mammals and birds. They also 

feed on a variety of vegetable matter, including berries and nuts (Powell and Zielinski 

1994). Fungal spores found in fisher scats indicate that fishers may also directly consume 

fungi (Zielinski et al. 1999). Throughout their range, fishers commonly feed on ungulate 

carrion (e.g., deer, elk, moose, and cattle), especially in the winter, when other prey 

species are less available. 

Fishers may select prey based upon their availability (Banci 1989). Fishers tend to occur 

in habitat that provides both prey numbers and the opportunity to capture them (Powell 

1993, as cited in Federal Register 2004, 18772; Weir and Harestad 2003). 

Literature reviews have shown that home ranges for fishers vary up to 122 km2 for 

males and 53 km2

 for females (Banci 1989; Powell and Zielinski 1994). Zielinski et 

al. (2003) found that home ranges averaged 5,806 ha (14,350 acres) for males and 

1,498 ha (3,700 acres) for female fisher in their coastal study area (northern California). 

Approximately 76% of the home range was composed of mature and older Douglas fir 

and true fir habitat types (Zielinski et al. 2004). Fishers avoid habitats without overstory 

or shrub cover (Weir and Harestad 2003; Federal Register 2004, 18773).

Approximately 2.2 million acres of BLM-administered lands are commercial forest 

lands capable of growing into fisher natal (including denning) and foraging habitat. 

See Table 101 (Available fisher natal and foraging habitat on BLM-administered lands 

with in the planning area). Within the planning area, fisher natal habitat comprises 

from 13 to 39% of the BLM forest lands. Foraging habit constitutes 61% of the BLM 

forest lands, which varies from 45% in the Eugene District to 81% in the Klamath Falls 

Resource Area of the Lakeview District. The Medford District contains the most fisher 

foraging habitat at approximately 605,000 acres. 
326

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Table 101. Available fisher natal and foraging habitat on BLM-administered lands with in the 

planning area

BLM Districts

HabitatCapable 

(acres)

Natal Habitat Foraging Habitat

(acres) (%) (acres) (%)

Salem 365,000 48,428 13 204,866 54

Eugene 296,000 51,052 17 135,093 45

Roseburg 399,000 154,948 39 226,978 57

Coos Bay 302,000 84,035 28 143,933 48

Medford 788,000 213,342 27 604,753 77

Klamath 47,000 7,840 17 38,484 81

Totals 2,197,000 559,646 25 1,354,107 61

In their finding on the petition to list the fisher, the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service 

concluded that habitat loss and fragmentation appeared to be significant threats to the 

fisher (Federal Register 2004, 18780). Timber harvesting is a primary threat (Powell 

1993) by reducing the amount of suitable habitat, fragmenting the remaining landscape, 

and changing the forest structure. Timber management activities tend to simplify stands 

by reducing species diversity, removing snags and down wood, and creating simple 

canopy structures (Federal Register 2004, 18778-18779).

Land Birds

“The temperate rain forests of the Pacific Northwest support the highest abundance 

of birds of any coniferous forest system in North America” (Altman 1999). There are 

potentially 164 species of birds that could occur within the planning area. See Table 102 

(Bird occurrence within the montane and western forest habitat types of Oregon and 

Washington) (Olsen et al. 2001).

Table 102. Bird occurrence within the montane and western forest habitat types of Oregon 

and Washington 

Total number 

of bird 

species

Bird Occurrence

Montane 

Mixed 

Conifer

Southwest 

Oregon Mixed 

ConiferHardwood

Westside 

Oak and Dry 

Douglas fir and 

Woodlands

Westside Lowlands 

and ConiferHardwoods

164 107 161 119 120

Detailed descriptions of the habitat needs and conservation concerns land birds are 

detailed in Birds of Oregon (Marshall et al. 2003) and Wildlife-Habitat Relationships 

in Oregon and Washington (Johnson and O’Neil 2001), and in the numerous species 

accounts contained within the The Birds of North America (Poole and Gill 2002).

Threats facing land birds include loss of habitat, habitat fragmentation, declining 

populations, and forest simplification (Altman 1999; Marshal et al. 2003; Rich et 

al. 2004; Pashley et al. 2000). Past management practices (including clear-cutting, 
327

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

commercial thinning, fire suppression, salvage, slash burning, and herbicide use) has 

tended to simplify the forest habitat (Altman 1999). More recent management has begun 

to improve habitat structure and diversity by recognizing the need to provide for diverse 

forest structures (including legacy trees, snags, down wood, multiple canopy layers, and 

variable densities of tree retentions). 

The Oregon/Washington Partners in Flight has developed a tiered scheme of segregating 

species into management groups based on forest condition and habitat attribute. Focal 

species are then identified for each group (Altman 1999, 2000a, 2000b). “By managing 

for a group of species representative of important components in a functioning...forest 

ecosystem, many other species and elements of biodiversity also will be conserved” 

(Altman 1999). 

Data is not available to analyze all the combination groups of forest conditions and 

habitat attributes. Habitat analysis will be conducted based on the four structural stages of 

forests and plant group combinations. See Table 103 (Analytical groups of land birds with 

the planning area) (Altman 1999, 2000a, 2000b). Eastside conifer forests are composed 

of the true fir, Douglas fir, conifer/hardwood, and mixed conifer plant groups in the 

Klamath Falls Resource Area of the Lakeview District. Westside conifers are comprised 

of all plant groups with the exception of junipers and hardwoods. 

Table 103. Analytical groups of land birds within the planning area 

Plant Group Habitat Feature or 

Conservation Focus Focal Land Bird Species

Structurally Complex Forests

Eastside conifer

Large trees Brown creeper

Large snags Williamson’s sapsucker

Multi-layered dense 

canopy

Hermit thrush

Westside conifer

Large snags Vaux’s swift

Large trees Brown creeper

Conifer cones Red crossbill

Mature Forests with Multilayered Canopies

Westside Conifer

Large snags Pileated woodpecker

Large trees Brown creeper

Conifer cones Red crossbill

Closed canopy Hermit warbler

Deciduous canopy trees Pacific-slope flycatcher

Mid-story tree layers Varied thrush

Open mid-story Hammond’s flycatcher

Deciduous understory Wilson’s warbler

Forest floor complexity Winter wren
328

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Plant Group Habitat Feature or 

Conservation Focus Focal Land Bird Species

Young Forests 

(young stand initiation and pole stem exclusion*)

Westside Conifer

Closed canopy Hermit warbles

Deciduous canopy trees Pacific-slope flycatcher

Open mid-story Hammond’s flycatcher

Deciduous canopy trees Black-throated gray warbler

Deciduous understory Wilson’s warbler

Forest floor complexity Winter wren

Deciduous subcanopy and 

understory Hutton’s vireo

Stand Establishment Forests

Westside conifer

Residual canopy trees Olive-sided flycatcher

Snags Western bluebird

Deciduous vegetation Orange-crowned warbler

Nectar-producing plants Rufous hummingbird

*Altman’s seral stages (Altman 1999).

Habitat objectives from the land bird conservation strategies of the Oregon/Washing 

Partners in-Flight for the eastern Oregon forests include (Altman 2000a):

•	 “no net loss” of habitat; 

•	 maintenance of existing large diameter trees; and

•	 maintain existing structurally complex forests. 

Habitat objectives from the land bird conservation strategies of the Oregon/Washing 

Partners in-Flight for the western Oregon forests include (Altman 1999):

•	 retain existing old-growth forest;

•	 manage for more than 15% of the landscape to be comprised of old-growth 

forest;

•	 manage mature forests in the same manner as the landscape targets; 

•	 maintain 20 to 40% of the landscape in a combination of pole and young forest 

structures; 

•	 maintain 20 to 40% of the landscape in an early successional stage.

These objectives provide “benchmarks for measuring the success of management 

actions” in providing for land birds (Altman 1999).
329

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Deer and Elk

Deer (Odocoileus sp.) and elk (Cervus elaphus) occur across the planning area. Two 

species of deer (Columbian white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus leucurus) and 

mule and black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus)) occur within the planning area. 

This includes two subspecies of Odocoileus hemonius. Columbian black-tailed deer 

(Odocoileus hemionus columbianus) occur west of the crest of the Cascades and mule 

deer (Odocoileus hemionus) occur east of the Cascades (ODFW 2003a; Verts and 

Carraway 1998). Two subspecies of elk are found within the planning area. Roosevelt 

elk (Cervus elaphus roosevelti) occurs west of the Cascades and Rocky Mountain elk 

(Cervus elaphus nelsoni) are found east of the Cascades (ODFW 2003b; Verts and 

Carraway 1998). For management purposes, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 

divides the range of the two subspecies along State Highway 97 (ODFW 2003b). 

There are two populations of Columbian white-tailed deer in Oregon—one along the 

Columbia River in the Clatsop, Columbia, and Multnomah counties, and a second 

population in Douglas County (Verts and Carraway 1998; Federal Register 2003, 54647; 

USDI, USFWS 1983). These populations were one of the first species listed under the 

Endangered Species Act. In 2003, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determined that 

(Federal Register 2003, 43658):

•	 the Columbia River and Douglas County populations were “distinct population 

segments,” and 

•	 the Douglas County population had reached recovery goals and no longer 

warranted listing. 

The Columbia River population is still listed as a federally endangered species (Federal 

Register 2003, 43658).

All subspecies of elk and of mule and black-tailed deer are classified as game animals by 

the state of Oregon.

Columbian White-tailed Deer

White-tailed deer inhabit more mesic habitats (Smith 1987; Verts and Carraway 1998). 

White-tailed deer in the Columbia River population are found on the islands of the 

Columbia River and on the bottomlands that are adjacent to the river (USDI, USFWS 

1983). Preferred habitats are plant communities that provide both forage and cover, 

including the park forest community (Suring 1975; Suring and Vohs 1979; USDI, 

USFWS 1983). White-tailed deer in Douglas County are found in habitats that are 

associated with riparian areas (Ricca 1999; Ricca 2003; Smith 1987; USDI, USFWS 

1983). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1983) suggests that the oak woodland/

grassland ecotone is very important to white-tailed deer in Douglas County. Open areas, 

oak savannah, and grasslands are important for feeding (Ricca 1999, 2003).
330

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

White-tailed deer in both populations consume a variety of forbs, shrubs, grasses, and 

other plants (in order of preference) (Federal Register 2003, 43647; Whitney 2002).

The BLM manages 6,100 acres of Columbian white-tailed deer habitat on the North 

Bank Habitat Management Area, in the Roseburg District. See Figure 76 (North Bank 

Habitat Management Area in the Roseburg District) (USDI, BLM 2001a). This area was 

acquired in 1994 with the expressed purpose of providing secure habitat (habitat managed 

primarily for the Columbian white-tailed deer).

Figure 76. North Bank Habitat Management Area in the Roseburg District 

Mule/Black-tailed Deer

Mule deer occur across a broad range of habitat types from the Coast Range and Cascade 

Mountains to the desert shrublands, generally occupying open habitat types (Verts and 

Carraway 1998; ODFW 2003a). Black-tailed deer prefer dense communities early in the 

forest sere (Verts and Carraway 1998; Brown 1961; Bender et al. 2004). Hanley (1984) 

found that where black-tailed deer overlapped elk, they preferred the more xeric habitat. 

During summer, both mule and black-tailed deer may be found at higher elevations—

migrating to lower elevations in the fall and winter (McCullough 1960 (Verts and Carraway 

1998); ODFW 2003a). In the Coast Range, where winters are less severe, seasonal 

migration does not occur. Cover is an important habitat component for each subspecies and 

is found in stands of dense vegetation (Kremsater and Bunnell 1992; ODFW 2003a). 

Both subspecies are characterized as browsers, which forage in the younger seral stages 
331

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

(Hanley 1984; Verts and Carraway 1998; Anderson and Wallmo 1984). Forbs are an 

important component of the summer diets of mule deer. In winter, sagebrush (Artemisia

sp.), bitter-brush (Purshia tridentata), rabbit-brush (Chrysothamnus sp.), juniper 

(Juniperus sp.), mountain- mahogany (Cercocarpus sp.), and winterfat (Eurotia lanata) 

are common components (Verts and Carraway 1998).

Winter range and associated forage are important components for those mule and blacktailed deer herds that migrate (ODFW 2003a). The BLM has identified 193,000 acres of 

winter range to be managed with consideration for deer. See Table 104 (Deer management 

areas within the planning area) and Figure 77 (Deer habitat management areas on BLM 

lands within the planning area). Threats to deer include loss of forage habitat, loss of cover, 

and unregulated road use. Unregulated road use also causes an increase in deer vulnerability 

during hunting seasons, increases the potential for illegal kills, and provides opportunities 

for other disturbances to foraging, fawning, breeding, and resting habitat.

Table 104. Deer management areas within the planning area 

BLM Districts Deer Habitat Management Areas Season of 

Concern

Gross 

Area 

(acres)

BLM 

(acres)

Coos Bay

Camp Creek Summer 12,554 12,518

Edson Butte Summer 4,113 4,079

Millicoma Tree Farm N Edge Summer 607 601

Millicoma Tree Farm NE Edge Summer 6,112 6,095

Rock Creek Summer 6,865 6,834

Klamath Falls 

Resource Area 

(Lakeview 

District)

Bly Winter 17,461 4,513

Bly Mt Winter 46,008 6,311

Hogback Winter 17,998 2,311

Horton Windy Winter 24,973 7,952

Keno Worden Winter 8,393 557

Lorella Winter 14,585 4,070

South Bryant Winter 7,768 2,718

South Gerber Winter 41,370 4,893

Stukel Winter 12,506 1,812

Swan Lake Winter 20,789 6,549

Topsy Pokegama Winter 30,578 13,485

Medford

DHMA Ash Deer Winter Little Applegate Winter 14,244 11,094

DHMA Ash Deer Winter Little Butte Creek 

South3 Winter 83,911 25,662

DHMA BFRA Burnt Peak Winter 3,602 1,771

DHMA BFRA Elk Creek Winter 43,036 19,039

DHMA BFRA Salt Creek Winter 40,813 17,487

DHMA BFRA Shady Cove West Winter 17,239 7,673

DHMA Camel Hump Winter 14,107 8,892

DHMA -GP-Williams-Important Deer Area Winter 55,341 29,188

DHMA Monument East Winter 16,605 10,355

DHMA Monument West Winter 6,460 6,422

Totals 568,038 222,880
332

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Figure 77. Deer habitat management areas on BLM lands within the planning area 

Elk

Elk are found across a wide range of habitats within the planning area. The dominant 

factors for elk occurrence are the availability of forage and access to cover (Harper et al. 

1987; Verts and Carraway 1998). Early seral habitat provides important foraging habitat 

(Verts and Carraway 1998; Witmer and Wisdom 1986; Hanley 1984). Like deer, elk will 

migrate from high elevation summer habitat to low elevation winter range in areas with 

harsh winter conditions. However, elk in the Coast Range do not display this migratory 

behavior (Verts and Carraway 1998; ODFW 2003b).

Elk forage on grasses, forbs, shrubs, and trees (ODFW 2003b; Hanley 1984; Verts and 

Carrawy 1998; Findholt et al. 2004). Forage value decreases with distance from cover 

(Witmer and Wisdom 1986; ODFW 2003b). Cover was originally thought to provide both 

a hiding function and to ameliorate the effect of harsh weather (ODFW 2003b). Recent 

work in northeastern Oregon has shown that this is not the case (Cook et al. 1998). No 

positive effects of thermal cover were demonstrated. In fact, possible negative effects 

may occur (Cook et al. 1998). Cook et al. (2004) reviewed three other studies that looked 

at the effects of thermal cover and all studies failed to find any benefits.
333

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Threats to elk include loss of forage habitat, loss of cover, and unregulated road access. 

Unregulated roads also cause an increase in elk vulnerability during hunting seasons, 

increases the potential for illegal kills, provides opportunities for other disturbances 

during critical calving periods and winter, and causes elk to move away from available 

forage (ODFW 2003b; Rowland et al. 2000; Wisdom et al. 2004; Rowland et al. 2004; 

Cole 1996; Cole et al. 1997). 

The BLM has identified 118,000 acres of winter range to be managed with consideration 

for deer and elk. See Table 105 (Elk management areas within the planning area) and 

Figure 78 (Elk habitat management areas on BLM lands within the planning area).

Table 105. Elk management areas within the planning area 

BLM Districts Elk Habitat Management Areas Season of 

Concern

Gross 

Area 

(acres)

BLM 

(acres)

Salem Bummer Ridge Elk Emphasis Area General 3,647 3,641

Luckiamute Elk Emphasis Area General 1,977 1,968

Coos Bay

Camp Creek Summer 12,554 12,518

Edson Butte Summer 4,113 4,079

Millicoma Tree Farm N Edge Summer 607 601

Millicoma Tree Farm Ne Edge Summer 6,112 6,095

Rock Creek Summer 6,865 6,834

Medford

Ehma Bfra Burnt Peak Winter 3,602 1,771

Ehma Bfra Camel Hump Winter 14,107 8,892

Ehma Bfra Elk Creek Winter 43,036 19,039

Ehma Bfra Salt Creek Winter 41,593 17,479

Ehma Bfra Shady Cove West Winter 17,239 7,673

Ehma Glendale Mule Creek 

Important Elk Area Winter 20,882 19,372

Ehma-Gp-Far Out-Important Elk Area Winter 9,323 8,869

Ehma-Gp-Peavine-Important Elk Area Winter 27,447 26,303

Glendale Elk Valley 

Important Elk Area Winter 24,220 14,266

Totals 237,325 159,400
334

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Figure 78. Elk habitat management areas on BLM lands within the planning area 
335

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Fish

Key Points

•	 There are eight anadromous fish populations and two resident fish population segments that occur on BLMadministered lands within the planning area that are listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered 

Species Act. Habitat degradation is a factor of decline for most of these populations, and is a major risk factor that 

continues to threaten all of the population segments. 

•	 Large wood, stream temperature, sediment, and water flow have the greatest influence on the ability of aquatic 

habitat to support fish populations.

•	 The abundance and survival of salmonids is often closely linked to the abundance of large woody debris in 

stream channels. The current amount of large woody debris in streams is low and is hindering the recovery of 

salmonid populations.

•	 The fine sediments that are in the streams on BLM-administered lands are generally at levels that would not 

reduce the availability of fish-spawning habitat.

•	 The past land use practices that most severely degraded fish habitat—splash damming and stream cleaning—no 

longer occur. Additionally, improvements in road construction and grazing practices have reduced or eliminated 

adverse affects to fish habitat on BLM-administered lands.

Aquatic ecosystems within the planning area include (USDA, USDI 1994):

•	 large river systems (e.g., the Rogue, Umpqua, and Columbia rivers) 

•	 small headwater streams originating from glaciers in the Cascade Range

•	 coastal rain-influenced streams

•	 lakes and ponds

•	 wetlands 

Past management activities have degraded aquatic and riparian conditions and contributed 

to declines in fish populations. Improvements have been made, but additional opportunities 

exist across the landscape to continue improving conditions and further contribute to restoring 

the impaired ecological processes. The BLM’s ability to contribute to reducing the threats to 

fish species and improving habitat conditions varies with the amount and location of BLM 

land ownership. The BLM is rarely the predominant landowner within a fifth-field watershed. 

Therefore, threats to listed species may continue regardless of the BLM’s contribution to 

improving habitat trends because of the other influences on the populations and their habitat.

The analysis in this section focuses on the current condition of listed fish species. There are also 

several nonlisted fish species that are identified by the BLM as special status species (the Oregon 

coast coho salmon, Columbia River/Southwest Washington coastal cutthroat trout, Jenny Creek 

sucker, and Jenny Creek redband trout). Habitat for these special status fish species is affected 

by the same processes that affect the listed fish species. Therefore, the description of current 

conditions for listed fish species provides a sufficient description of conditions for the special 

status fish species. (There is also some specific discussion and data presented related to Oregon 

coast coho because of the wealth of information available on this species.)
336

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Within the planning area, there are eight anadromous fish population segments that are listed as 

threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. There is less than one stream mile 

with bull trout on BLM-administered land. There are two resident fish 

populations that are listed as threatened or endangered under the 

Endangered Species Act that are unique to the Klamath Basin (the Lost 

River sucker and the shortnose sucker). The Oregon chub is a resident 

species that is listed as threatened or endangered and occurs within the 

planning area, but it occurs only on private land. 

See Figure 79(Listed fish populations and evolutionary significant 

units within the planning area) for the evolutionary significant unit boundaries within the 

planning area. See Appendix H. Fish. 

Figure 79. Listed fish species and evolutionary significant units within the planning area 

Fish populations are cyclic by nature and trends can be driven by a variety of factors. Those fish 

species within the planning area that have been listed as threatened or endangered have been 

listed as a result of the following factors (Good et al. 2005): 

•	 habitat degradation and loss, 

•	 hydropower development,

•	 overharvest, and

•	 hatchery propagation.

Currently, the shortnose sucker and the Lost River sucker occupy only a fraction of their historic 

range and are restricted to a few areas in the Upper Klamath Basin (i.e., the drainages of the 

Evolutionary significant unit

A population of an organism 

that is considered distinct for the 

purposes of conservation under 

the Endangered Species Act. 

Such a distinct population can be 

a species, subspecies, variety, 

geographic race, or population. 
337

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Upper Klamath, Tule, and Clear lakes). Poor water quality, reduced suitable habitat for all sizes 

and ages, and the impacts of nonnative fishes continue to threaten remaining shortnose sucker 

and Lost River sucker populations (USDI, USFWS 2003d). Although a number of factors have 

contributed to the decline of these species, habitat degradation is considered the primary cause. 

Streams, rivers, and lakes have been modified by channelization and dams. Grazing in the riparian 

zone has eliminated streambank vegetation, and has added nutrients and sediment to river systems 

(USDI, USFWS 2003d).

A biological review team, consisting of scientists from the National Marine Fisheries Service and 

the Southwest Fisheries Science Centers, updated biological information for the listed salmon and 

steelhead evolutionary significant units and made conclusions regarding the current and future 

major risk factors for each evolutionary significant unit. See Table 106 (Major risk factors by 

evolutionary significant unit).

Table 106. Major risk factors by evolutionary significant unit 

Evolutionary Significant Unit (species) Major Risk Factors

Bull trout

•	 Barriers

•	 Habitat degradation

Lower Columbia River chinook salmon

•	 Habitat degradation

•	 High hatchery production

Lower Columbia River chum Unknown

Lower Columbia River coho

•	 Habitat degradation

•	 High hatchery production

Lower Columbia River steelhead

•	 Dams

•	 Habitat degradation

•	 High hatchery production

Shortnose and Lost River suckers Freshwater habitat degradation

Southern Oregon and northern California coho Freshwater habitat degradation

Upper Willamette River chinook salmon

•	 Dams

•	 Habitat degradation

•	 High hatchery production

Upper Willamette River steelhead

•	 Dams

•	 Habitat degradation

Habitat degradation is a factor of decline for all the listed fish species and is a major risk factor 

that continues to threaten fish populations.

Recovery plans have been established for populations of the bull trout (draft recovery plan), 

the Lost River sucker, and the shortnose sucker. Recovery plans are in progress for the other 

population segments. 
338

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Critical habitat is designated for the following fish species within the planning area (Federal 

Register 2005d):

•	 Lower Columbia River Chinook salmon (threatened) 

•	 Lower Columbia River steelhead (threatened) 

•	 Columbia River chum salmon (threatened) 

•	 Upper Willamette River Chinook salmon (threatened) 

•	 Upper Willamette River steelhead (threatened) 

•	 Southern Oregon and northern California coast coho salmon (threatened)

This analysis determines the effect of each alternative on fish habitat using current fish 

distribution data. The fish distribution is greater than the critical habitat distribution; therefore, the 

designated critical habitat is included for this analysis. 

The BLM can contribute to improving fish habitat, but the BLM within the planning area is rarely 

the predominant landowner in a fifth-field watershed. Therefore, limiting factors (habitat and 

nonhabitat) for listed species may continue regardless of the BLM’s contribution to improving 

habitat trends because of the other influences on the populations and their habitat. 

Survival traits of fish (Reeves et al. 1995) include:

•	 straying of adults

•	 multiple life histories

•	 high fecundity

•	 mobility of juveniles

The BLM can contribute to the survival of anadromous salmonids. For example, replacing 

culverts can increase fish distribution by improving mobility. 

Some streams have a higher potential than others to provide high-quality habitat for salmonids. 

High intrinsic potential is a scientific, topographical approach used to determine the potential 

of a stream to provide high-quality habitat for salmonids. See Appendix H. Fish. The Coastal 

Landscape Analysis and Modeling Study developed intrinsic potentials to prioritize stream 

reaches throughout the Coast Range province for restoration and protection (Coastal Landscape 

Analysis and Modeling Study). Using attributes of topography and flow, streams are ranked 

by their intrinsic potential to provide habitat for chinook, coho salmon, and steelhead. High 

intrinsic potential streams have not been determined for bull trout, Lost River suckers, or 

shortnose suckers.

The BLM’s ability to influence aquatic habitat and fish populations depends not only on the 

overall amount of land ownership in a watershed, but also on the location of the ownership 

relevant to areas that can influence high intrinsic potential streams. See Figure 80 (Percentage 

of miles of fish-bearing streams on and off BLM lands within the planning area) and Figure 81 

(Percentage of miles of high intrinsic potential streams on and off BLM land per evolutionary 

significant unit within the planning area). Analysis from the Coastal Landscape Analysis and 
339

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Modeling Study also revealed that high-quality steelhead streams are located primarily on 

federally managed lands (Forest Service and BLM), whereas the majority of the best potential 

habitat for coho salmon is on private lands that are managed for such uses as agriculture and 

urbanization (Burnett et al. 2007). 

Figure 80. Percentage of miles of fish-bearing streams on and off BLM lands within the planning area

Figure 81. Percentage of miles of high intrinsic potential streams on and off BLM land per evolutionary 

significant unit within the planning area 

Aquatic ecosystems are dynamic environments and change over time from natural disturbances. 

The recognition that such dynamic processes as periodic large disturbances can have large 

impacts on aquatic ecosystems represents a relatively new perspective (Naiman et al. 1992). This 

perspective implies that aquatic ecosystems and their conditions vary because of such periodic 

events as wildfires and large storms, and the subsequent floods, hillslope failures, landslides, 

and debris flows (Haynes et al. 2006). This analysis focuses on the key ecological processes that 

shape fish habitat over time, rather than static conditions at one point in time. 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Lower

Columbia

Chinook

Lower

Columbia

Coho

Lower

Columbia

Steelhead

Upper

Willamette

Steelhead

Upper

Willamette

Chinook

Southern

OR/Northern

CA Coho

Lostriver

Sucker

Shortnose

Sucker

Oregon

Coast Coho

Fish Bearing Streams Fish Bearing Streams on BLM

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Lower

Columbia

Chinook

Lower

Columbia

Coho

Lower

Columbia

Steelhead

Upper

Willamette

Steelhead

Upper

Willamette

Chinook

Southern

OR/Northern

CA Coho

Oregon

Coast Coho

High Intrinsic Miles High Intrinsic Miles on BLM
340

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

The following are examples of key ecological processes that shape aquatic and riparian habitat in 

the planning area:

•	 tree growth and mortality, which affect stream shade and large wood delivery 

•	 hydrology (water flow and temperature)

•	 sediment routing

Large wood, stream temperature, sediment, and flow have the greatest influence on the ability of 

aquatic habitat to support fish populations (Meehan 1991; OWEB 1999). In forested landscapes, 

the important delivery mechanisms of large wood and sediment to stream channels are landslides, 

debris flows, and floods. In nonforested landscapes, the important processes are water flow, water 

temperature, and sediment routing. 

Large Wood

Past management practices throughout the Pacific Northwest have reduced the abundance 

of large woody debris in channels throughout the region. Historically, large wood source 

areas did not produce large wood all the time, but rather fluctuated both spatially and 

temporally. Natural disturbances like fires, wind, and floods do not affect all of the 

landscape equally. Because of the dynamic spatial effects of natural disturbance regimes, 

large wood loading and stream habitat features across natural landscapes vary greatly. 

At any one time, some stream channels may have large amounts of large wood and 

highly complex habitats, but other channels, even in the same watershed, may lack wood 

and have simplified habitats (Reeves et al. 1995). Prior to the twentieth century, large 

channels and large rivers, like the Willamette River as described by Sedell and Froggatt 

(1984), were full of wood or blocked by wood jams and accumulations.

Wood loading in large Pacific Northwest rivers has generally declined to 1/100th of 

historical amounts (Sedell and Froggatt 1984). Rivers were cleared of large wood 

during settlement to improve access for transportation. Large wood was later removed 

from rivers and streams as a stream-cleaning regime, because log jams were believed 

to obstruct fish migration. Smaller streams were cleared through a splash-damming 

process in which a dam-break flood was induced to transport trees. These torrents scoured 

sediment and wood from streambeds and banks and left many channels scoured to 

bedrock (Sedell and Luchessa 1984; Montgomery et al. 2003). 

The decline in beaver populations from trapping also reduced the large wood found in 

streams and consequently reduced the complexity of aquatic habitats. Dam building 

by beavers provides accumulations of large wood and pools, which are an important 

component of high-quality habitat for fish species (ODFW 2005b; Pollock et al. 2003; 

Nickelson et al. 1992). By 1900, trapping had nearly extirpated beaver in the Pacific 

Northwest (Naiman et al. 1998). The decline in beaver populations resulted in incised 

channels, loss of riparian and wetland areas, and loss of channel complexity, which is 

important to fish and invertebrate production. For example, the greatest reduction in the 

productive capacity of coho smolt has been associated with the extensive loss of beaver 

ponds (ODFW 2005b). A 94% reduction in smolt production potential in a western 
341

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Washington basin is attributed to the loss of beaver pond habitat (ODFW 2005b). 

In the twentieth century, mining, urbanization, agriculture, and logging began to change 

the physical and biological characteristics of streams by removing trees from upland 

and streamside areas, which increased sedimentation from ground disturbances and 

road construction and directly altered stream channels. Large fires and the subsequent 

salvage logging, such as the Tillamook Burn, removed both upland and riparian forests, 

which reduced stream shading, reduced future sources of large wood, and increased 

sedimentation.

Roads were often constructed along stream channels in the past. See Figure 82 (Number 

of road and stream crossings in the Evans Creek Watershed). 

Figure 82. Number of road and stream crossings in the Evans Creek Watershed 

Large wood is an important component of aquatic habitats from headwater channels to 

estuaries in forested ecosystems (Dolloff and Warren 2003). Large wood accumulation 

within stream channels is necessary for many functions including:

•	 providing cover for fish

•	 sediment storage for food supply and spawning grounds

•	 nutrient retention

•	 pool formation

•	 formation of off-channel habitat 
342

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Woody material of all sizes from tiny fragments to intact trees plays a role in stream 

systems. Because decay rate and probability of displacement are a function of size, larger 

pieces have a greater influence on habitat and physical processes in stream channels 

than small pieces (Dolloff and Warren 2003). In general, pieces greater than 24 inches in 

diameter and 50 feet in length are considered large wood west of the Cascade Mountains, 

while pieces greater than 12 inches in diameter and 35 feet in length are considered large 

wood east of the Cascade Mountains (Foster et al. 1999; USDC, NOAA, NMFS 1996). 

For this analysis, trees greater than 20 inches in diameter are considered large wood 

because the structural stage classification of forests uses the density of trees greater than 

20 inches in diameter as a threshold for the definition of mature&structurally complex 

forests (see the Ecology section of Chapter 3). 

For many aquatic organisms, particularly fish, large wood is an important factor in 

creating and maintaining deep water or pool habitat. See Figure 83 (Example of deep 

pool and habitat diversity caused by large wood) and Figure 84 (Example of a stream 

with high wood volume). Salmonids inhabit pools as refuges from high water velocities. 

Juvenile salmonids use pools and side channels created by wood as overwintering habitat. 

Large wood can capture and store sediment, which provides spawning habitat (Dolloff 

and Warren 2003). Large wood is also an important source of cover, which makes fish 

harder for predators to see. Stream complexity is important for many fish, particularly 

aggressive species like salmonids, which do not tolerate close proximity to each other. 

Wood partitions the habitat and visually isolates fish, which allows more fish per unit of 

available space (Dolloff 1986). 

Figure 83. Example of deep pool and habitat diversity caused by large wood 

Source: Roger Peters, USFWS
343

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Figure 84. Example of a stream with high wood volume 

Source: Gallo et al. 2005

One of the most important factors that can influence fish populations is the quantity 

of high-quality habitat (Nickelson 2001). The abundance and survival of salmonids is 

often closely linked to the abundance of large woody debris, particularly during winter 

(Meehan 1991). In general, streams with high amounts of large wood and complex 

habitats tend to have more fish species and higher populations than those lacking 

complexity (Dolloff and Warren 2003). It is generally accepted that improved habitat 

complexity correlates to improved fish survival and production (Hartman et al. 1996, 

237, 243, 248; Reeves et al. 1993, 314; Bustard and Narver 1975, 684, 686; Tschaplinski 

and Hartman 1983, 452; Murphy et al. 1986, 1526; Hartman and Brown 1987, 262). 

Researchers have documented an increase in the density of salmon following the addition 

of wood to stream reaches. Roni (2000) reported a 180% increase during summer and 

332% increase during winter in the density of juvenile coho following the addition 

of wood to 30 streams in Washington and Oregon. Similarly, Cederholm et al. (1997) 

showed a twentyfold increase in juvenile coho during winter in response to the addition 

of wood. Reeves et al. (1997) found that the number of steelhead did not increase in 

response to wood additions but that smolts were significantly larger.

Large wood is delivered to stream channels through a variety of complex ecosystem 

processes (Benda et al. 2003). The amount of large wood in stream channels is dependant 

on the amount of trees available on the landscape that can be delivered to a stream 

channel. Not all areas across the landscape have the potential to deliver trees to stream 

channels. Large wood source areas are defined as those areas on the landscape that are 

capable of delivering wood to stream channels, such as:

•	 streamside areas within a distance of one site potential tree height from the channel, 

•	 valley floors and floodplains as streams migrate, and 

•	 landslide and debris-flow prone intermittent channels.

Wood delivered from forests to stream channels occurs from both chronic and episodic 

events (Naiman et al. 2000). 
344

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

• Chronic events. Events that occur frequently, such as tree mortality along 

stream banks. Trees eventually fall over, and, if they are close enough to a stream 

channel, land in the channel (McDade et al. 1990). Trees along stream edges are 

also undercut as a result of bank erosion and eventually fall into the stream. The 

majority of wood that falls into stream channels from adjacent forests occurs 

within a distance of one tree height away from the channel (FEMAT 1993, V‐27).

• Episodic events. Events that typically occur sporadically and infrequently, such 

as landslides, debris flows, and floods. Although these events occur infrequently, 

they can deliver large amounts of wood to stream channels (Bilby and Bisson 

1998; Benda et al. 2003; Naiman et al. 2000). 

The relative importance of each delivery process varies by province, stream channel, 

riparian vegetation, position in the landscape, and time (Bilby and Ward 1989). Episodic 

processes deliver large amounts of wood during infrequent events (windstorms or 

mass movements), while chronic processes (suppression mortality and bank erosion) 

consistently provide small amounts of wood over extended time periods. Wind throw, 

debris flows, landslides, and avalanches are the primary delivery mechanisms in steep 

headwater channels (Bilby and Bisson 1998). Bank erosion and delivery from upstream 

sources contributes the majority of large woody debris in larger unconfined channels 

(Murphy and Koski 1989). See Figure 85 (Relative importance and spatial variability of 

wood recruitment processes) for the relative rates of wood recruitment from each process 

in the Coast Range province (Reeves et al. 2006). 

Figure 85. Relative importance and spatial variability of wood recruitment processes

Source: Benda et al. 2003
345

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Headwater streams differ in susceptibility to debris flows. See Figure 86 (Probability of 

debris flow from intermittent streams) for an illustration of intermittent channels that are 

more likely to deliver large wood to fish-bearing stream channels.

Figure 86. Probability of debris flow from intermittent streams 

Analysis from the Coastal Landscape Analysis and Modeling Study indicates that a small 

portion of the headwater stream network is important in producing landslides and debris 

flows that can provide large wood to streams (Miller and Burnett, in press). 

Despite the high variability in the natural levels of large wood in streams, the amount 

of large wood in rivers and streams within the planning area is currently far outside the 

historic range and is hindering the recovery of wild salmonids (IMST 1999). Watershed 

monitoring completed within 55 watersheds in the area of the Northwest Forest Plan in 

2004 concluded that large wood levels are below benchmark values in nearly 70% of the 

sample (Gallo et al. 2005). 

Most riparian areas have been harvested at least once over the last 150 years (Dolloff 

and Warren 2003), and the trees in the resultant second-growth forests are generally too 

small to provide large wood to streams. The stand establishment and young structural 

stage classes generally have few trees greater than 20 inches in diameter. Trees in 

the mature&structurally complex structural stage class contain trees that are large 

enough to provide large wood. See Figure 87 (Current riparian conditions by BLM 

district) for the current riparian condition on BLM lands within the planning area. 

Within the riparian reserves that are allocated under the No Action alternative, 52% 

are in a mature&structurally complex structural stage class and 48% are in the stand 

establishment and young structural stage classes. 

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

%

25 50 75% 100

Percent of Intermittent Streams

Probability of Debris Flow 
346

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Figure 87. Current riparian conditions by BLM district

Red alder is an important source of nutrients for macroinvertebrates, and, subsequently, 

for fish (Romero et al. 2005). However, red alder stands in the Coast Range have 

increased in abundance since the 1930s (see the Ecology section in Chapter 3). Large 

conifer trees must also be available in the stream channel to trap and store the nutrients 

from the alder input (Findlae et al. 1973). During the same time period that alder have 

increased in the Coast Range, the amount of large conifers in stream channels and the 

amount available from riparian areas have declined. A lack of conifers along streams 

can contribute to simplified aquatic habitat, which is a limiting factor for many listed 

salmonids. Red alder cannot provide large, persistent stream structure as well as conifers 

can. Red alder that fall into streams are more likely to be broken down and transported 

out of the streams than are conifers (Hyatt and Naiman 2001). See Figure 88 (Changes in 

western Oregon vegetation types) for the difference in the abundance of hardwoods in the 

Coast Range from the 1930s to 1993. 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Salem Eugene Roseburg Coos Bay Medford Klamath

Falls

Stand Establishment Young Mature and Structurally Complex
347

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Figure 88. Changes in western Oregon vegetation types 

The BLM is rarely the predominant landowner within a fifth-field watershed within 

the planning area, and therefore the potential for large wood contribution from BLMadministered lands is generally less than from other land owners. To show the typical 

large wood contribution from BLM and non-BLM-administered lands, fifth-field 

watersheds were selected that represent a range of BLM ownership patterns and 

physiographic provinces. Of the 260 fifth-field watersheds within the planning area, 

84 have no BLM-administered land. See Table 107 (BLM land ownership patterns and 

representative watersheds) and Figure 89 (Representative watersheds) for the range 

of BLM ownership in the watersheds that have some BLM-administered land and the 

representative watershed selected for that range.
348

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Table 107. BLM land ownership patterns and representative watersheds

Land Ownership 

Categories

Watersheds 

(number)

Representative Watershed 

(actual percentage of BLM ownership) Province BLM 

District

Less than 1/3 BLM 

(0 to 33%) 138 Eagle Creek (6%) Western 

Cascades Salem

1/3 to 2/3 BLM 

(34 to 66%) 30

Applegate-McKee Bridge (34%) Klamath Medford

Evans Creek (41%) Klamath Medford

Upper Smith River (59%) Coast 

Range Coos Bay

Greater than 2/3 BLM 

(67 to 100%) 3 Rogue-Horseshoe Bend (93%) Klamath Medford

Figure 89. Representative watersheds 

This analysis uses a large wood model to determine the maximum potential large wood 

contribution to fish-bearing streams from BLM-administered lands in the representative 

watersheds. The model uses topographic characteristics from the 10 meter digital 

elevation models to identify all debris-flow initiation points across the landscape (Benda 

and Miller 2003; Miller and Burnett, in press). See Appendix H. Fish for a complete 

description of the large wood model. 
349

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

The model ranks all initiation points by their probability of initiating and transporting a 

debris flow to a fish-bearing channel. The model calculates a mean annual large wood 

contribution, which can be used to compare alternatives and can be compared against 

a maximum potential large wood contribution. The maximum potential large wood 

contribution is the maximum biological potential of the watershed to provide large wood 

to streams. It is calculated as the number of pieces of large wood per year that could be 

delivered to a fish-bearing stream in a fifth-field watershed if all forested acres in the 

watershed were capable of delivering large wood. 

The maximum potential large wood contribution reflects a maximum biological potential, 

and does not necessarily reflect average historic conditions. The average historic 

conditions at the province scale ranged from 79% in a mature&structurally complex 

structural stage class in the Coast Range and Western Cascades provinces to 45% in a 

mature&structurally complex structural stage class in the Eastern Cascades province (see 

the Ecology section in Chapter 3). 

However, at the scale of an individual fifth-field watershed, the variability in historic 

amounts of mature&structurally complex structural stage class would have been 

extremely high, likely with long periods of time in which the watershed was nearly 

all in the mature&structurally complex structural stage class (Wimberley et al. 

2000). These periods of time in which a fifth-field watershed would be nearly all in 

the mature&structurally complex structural stage class, which would correspond to 

the maximum large wood contribution calculated in the model, would represent the 

maximum potential for large wood delivery. 

Periodic large disturbance events, such as wildfires, large storms, and the subsequent 

floods, hillslope failures, landslides, and debris flows, would deliver large wood to stream 

channels and alter the structural stage abundance of the forest. Delivery from disturbance 

events when the watershed would be nearly all in the mature&structurally complex 

structural stage class would provide accumulations of large wood in streams that would 

last longer than it would take the watershed to return to the mature&structurally complex 

structural stage class after the disturbance.

The model output of mean annual large wood contribution is not a prediction of actual 

instream conditions at a specific point in time. The mean annual large wood contribution 

cannot be directly compared to large wood benchmarks that have been developed by 

the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. The mean annual large wood contribution 

represents a potential contribution to instream wood based on forest conditions over 

time, whereas the large wood benchmarks are based on actual reference instream 

conditions. The model cannot predict actual instream conditions, because large wood 

input is episodic (delivery events are stochastic and unpredictable) and cumulative (large 

wood accrues over time). Therefore, this analysis summarizes large wood contribution 

in terms of the proportion of the maximum potential large wood contribution instead of 

a comparison with large wood benchmarks. See Figure 90 (Current and maximum large 

wood contribution by ownership) for the current mean annual large wood contribution 

and the maximum potential large wood contribution. 
350

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Figure 90. Current and maximum large wood contribution by ownership 

In all representative watersheds, the current large wood contribution is lower than the 

maximum potential, because not all forests that are capable of delivery to streams are 

currently in the mature&structurally complex structural stage class. See Figure 91 (Proportion 

of current large wood contribution compared to maximum potential). The proportion of 

current large wood contribution from BLM-administered land compared to the maximum 

potential from BLM-administered land varies widely (e.g., from 37% in Upper Smith River 

to 85% in Eagle Creek). In each watershed, the proportion of current large wood contribution 

of the maximum potential is higher on BLM-administered lands than non BLM-administered 

lands, which varies from 1% in Upper Smith River to 57% in Eagle Creek. 

Figure 91. Proportion of current large wood contribution compared to maximum potential

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

2006

Maximum

2006

Maximum

2006

Maximum

2006

Maximum

2006

Maximum

Eagle Creek Upper Smith

River

Evans Creek Applegate Rogue

Horseshoe

Bend

Number Pieces 

per Year per 

Watershed

BLM Non-BLM

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2006 2006 2006 2006 2006

Eagle Creek Upper Smith

River

Evans Creek Applegate Rogue

Horseshoe

Bend

BLM Non-BLM
351

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

In order to determine how the large wood contribution effects fish productivity, a fish 

productivity index approach was developed for this analysis. The analysis uses the mean 

annual large wood contribution to determine fish productivity using a population model 

developed for coho salmon by Lawson et al. (2004). This modified model provides 

the best information to evaluate the effects of large wood on fish productivity in the 

absence of species-specific population models. The linkage of mean annual large wood 

contribution with the fish population model allows for comparative analysis of the 

effects of the alternatives. However, it is an index and is not a prediction of the absolute 

population numbers and should be interpreted with caution, because other limiting factors 

for listed species, such as ocean conditions, fish harvesting, and hatcheries, continue to 

influence populations. 

For this analysis, the fish population model is modified to be dependant on large 

wood contribution. For each watershed, the fish productivity index is estimated based 

on the surface area of the available stream habitat weighted by the intrinsic habitat 

potential value. The intrinsic habitat potential is based on topographical attributes 

of each stream reach including valley width, channel width, and channel gradient. 

This provides a comparison of potential fish production between BLM and other 

ownerships. As the proportion of the large wood contribution changes compared to 

the maximum potential large wood contribution, the fish productivity index would 

be modified based on the proportion. See Figure 92 (Current and maximum potential 

fish productivity index) for the current potential fish productivity from BLMadministered lands and non-BLM-administered lands compared to the maximum 

potential fish productivity for each watershed.
352

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Figure 92. Current and maximum potential fish productivity index

 Steelhead 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2006 Maximum 2006 Maximum 2006 Maximum 2006 Maximum 2006 Maximum

Eagle Creek Upper Smith River Evans Creek Applegate Rogue Horeshoe Bend

Proportion of 

Maximum 

Productivity BLM Non-BLM

 Chinook 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2006 Maximum 2006 Maximum 2006 Maximum 2006 Maximum 2006 Maximum

Eagle Creek Upper Smith River Evans Creek Applegate Rogue Horeshoe

Bend

Proportion of 

Maximum 

Productivity

BLM Non-BLM

 Coho 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2006 Maximum 2006 Maximum 2006 Maximum 2006 Maximum 2006 Maximum

Eagle Creek Upper Smith River Evans Creek Applegate Rogue Horeshoe

Bend

Proportion of 

Maximum 

Productivity BLM Non-BLM
353

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

In all of the representative watersheds, the current potential fish production is below the 

maximum potential fish production. See Figure 93 (Proportion of current fish production 

compared to the maximum potential). Unlike the mean annual large wood contribution, 

the current fish production on non-BLM-administered lands is higher than on BLMadministered lands in Eagle Creek partly because non-BLM-administered lands include 

most of the high intrinsic potential streams in the watershed.
354

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Figure 93. Proportion of current fish production compared to the maximum potential 

 Steelhead 

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Eagle Creek Upper Smith

River

Evans Creek Applegate Rogue

Horeshoe

Bend

BLM Non-BLM

 Chinook 

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Eagle Creek Upper Smith

River

Evans Creek Applegate Rogue

Horeshoe

Bend

BLM Non-BLM

Coho 

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Eagle Creek Upper Smith

River

Evans Creek Applegate Rogue

Horeshoe

Bend

BLM Non-BLM
355

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Since 1995, the BLM has implemented instream habitat projects on 110 miles of streams 

with anadromous and listed fish within the planning area to improve stream complexity. 

See Figure 94 (Miles of treated anadromous or listed fish streams by the BLM districts 

within the planning area) for the total stream miles that have been treated by the BLM 

districts within the planning area and the percent treated of the total miles of anadromous 

or listed fish-bearing streams. 

Figure 94. Miles of treated anadromous or listed fish streams by the BLM districts within the 

planning area

 * Percentages are based on total “known” anadromous and/or listed fish stream miles that need in-stream treatment

Sediment

Streamside vegetation provides organic matter to stream channels when leaves, needles, 

and woody debris fall into the stream channel. The supply of organic material determines 

the amount of food produced for fish species in forested ecosystems. The effectiveness of 

riparian forests to deliver leaf and other particulate organic matter declines at distances 

that are greater than approximately one-half a tree height (59 to 112 feet) away from 

the stream channel (FEMAT 1993, V-27). The input and processing of organic material 

is better served by a heterogeneous landscape with varying amounts of forest cover, 

species composition, and age classes than by the creation of a single forest type across the 

landscape (IMST 1999). It is unknown what is the current condition and thresholds for 

the amount of organic input that would be adequate to maintain food supplies for fish.

There are 27 miles of stream listed by the Oregon Department of Environmental 

Quality as turbidity impaired that occur on BLM-administered lands. Fine sediment was 

measured in 55 sample stream channels as part of the watershed monitoring that was 

completed for the Northwest Forest Plan 10-year review in 2004. Sediment levels in 

nearly 64% of the sampled reaches were considered low (less than 11% embeddedness) 

and were not reducing fish-spawning or rearing habitat. 
356

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Fine sediments (sand, silt, and clay at less than 2 mm) enter and leave river 

channels naturally, but increased suspended sediment (turbidity) and sedimentation 

(embeddedness) can adversely affect fish (Anderson et al. 1996). 

Increased concentrations of suspended sediment can have direct effects on fish behavior, 

physiology, and growth (Anderson et al. 1996). Sigler et al. (1984) found that turbidities 

of 25 nephelometric turbidity units caused a reduction in juvenile steelhead and coho 

growth. Fish may avoid high concentrations of suspended sediment and at lower 

concentrations cease feeding (Hicks et al. 1991). Bisson and Bilby (1982) found that 

juvenile coho salmon avoided water with turbidities that exceeded 70 nephelometric 

turbidity units. 

Increases in sedimentation or embeddedness can reduce fish-spawning and rearing 

habitat, fish egg and fry survival, and food availability (Chamberlin et al. 1991; Hicks 

et al. 1991). Infiltration of fine sediment can reduce fish emergence from spawning 

beds. Generally, fine sediment levels that exceed 20% of the stream bed are considered 

detrimental to fish species (Everest et al. 1987; USDC, NOAA, NMFS 1997; Shelton and 

Pollock 1966; Cooper 1977). Cederholm et al. (1981) documented up to a 3.4% decrease 

in fish survival for each 1% increase in fine sediment. 

The timing of the sediment inputs relative to the biological vulnerability of each fish 

species is more important than the absolute quantity of sediment. In most streams, there 

are periods when the water is relatively turbid, and this sediment is generally mobilized 

during large storms (Everest et al. 1987). Larger juvenile and adult salmonids and trout 

species appear to be little affected by ephemerally high concentrations of suspended 

sediments that occur during most storms (Cordone and Kelley 1961; Sorenson et al. 

1977). If sediment is introduced to streams in the absence of a runoff event, then sediment 

deposition may create localized adverse impacts (Everest et al. 1987). The tolerances of 

fish species to sediment vary seasonally. For example, Noggle (1978) demonstrated that 

the tolerance of juvenile coho salmon to suspended sediment was highest in the fall when 

increased suspended sediment normally occurs in streams. 

There is no model that can predict the exact mechanism of sediment delivery and 

instream routing. Therefore, it is not possible to quantify or accurately predict the affects 

that sediment delivery has on fish species. Fish species have the ability to cope with some 

level of sediment at various life stages. However, thresholds beyond which impairment 

occurs in the field have not been established, despite scientific efforts to quantify the 

relationship between fine sediment and fish species. This analysis assumes that a 3.4% 

decrease in fish survival could potentially occur for every 1% increase in fine sediment 

from management activities. This may be an overestimate of the actual effects to fish 

species, because:

•	 Fine sediment can be cleaned from the stream bottom gravel by scouring 

during peak flows. High velocity flows tend to carry sediment rapidly out of 

the drainages, particularly in the Coast Range province. Within the planning 

area, the amount of fine sediment stored and routed through stream channels is 

highly variable, and some aquatic systems may function with high background 
357

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

levels of fine sediment. For example, in Evans Creek, a tributary to the Rogue 

River, a viable salmonid population exists even though the stream has a high 

sediment load.

•	 Spawning salmonids can improve their chances of reproductive success through 

behavioral adaptations (Everest et al. 1987). During redd construction (e.g., 

digging nests in the stream bottom) fish can remove large amounts of fine 

sediments from the gravel (Everest et al. 1987). Everest, Meehan, and Lotspeich 

found that chinook salmon in Evans Creek reduced fine sediments from 30% 

prior to spawning to 7.2% after spawning. Secondly, when a female salmonid 

has completed spawning and burying eggs, the redd is left with a large pit on its 

upstream perimeter and a mounded tailspill downstream that contains the eggs. 

The pit acts as a natural settling basin for fine sediments and may capture up to 

0.25 cubic meters of sediment before they reach the tailspill where the eggs are 

buried (Everest et al. 1987). 

Temperature

The water temperature in streams can affect the biological cycles of fish. See Table 108 

(Temperature standards for fish species) for the temperature standards for several species 

within the planning area (ODEQ 2004).

Table 108. Temperature standards for fish species

Species

7-Day Average Maximum 

Temperature Standard 

(degrees Fahrenheit (°F))

Bull trout spawning and juvenile rearing 53.6

Lahontan cutthroat trout or redband trout 68.0

Salmon and steelhead spawning 55.4

Salmon and trout rearing and migration, 

shortnose and Lost River suckers 64.4

When stream temperatures rise above these levels fish become stressed. Food availability 

can decrease and the ability of fish to absorb oxygen decreases. There are currently 569 

stream miles on BLM-administered lands (4% of all listed stream miles in Oregon) that 

are listed by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality for temperature.
358

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Stream Flow

Stream flow is an important element of fish habitat. Stream flow is highly variable in 

mountainous areas within the planning area and is strongly influenced by the form of 

precipitation (e.g., rain, snowmelt, or rain on snow) (Naiman and Bilby 1998). For fish 

species, flow affects many components of the aquatic system including:

•	 migration 

•	 rearing

•	 sediment routing and deposition

The 2-year, 24-hour peak flow is typically the channel-forming flow for streams in 

mountainous areas within the planning area (Lisle 1981). When 5-year flows begin to 

occur at the 2-year, 24-hour interval, stream channels become unstable and streambank 

erosion increases (Harr 1992).
359

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Water

Key Points

•	 Watersheds and subwatersheds (10 to 200 square miles) are the most relevant scale to include in the range of 

stream development and to describe hydrologic processes and the cumulative effects of forest management. 

•	 The BLM typically manages only a small percentage of the land and streams within any particular fifth-field 

watershed.

•	 Streams that occur on BLM lands are mostly smaller, headwater streams that are important to determining the 

condition of larger streams and rivers.

•	 Stream temperature is the most common 303(d) water quality listing on BLM lands.

•	 Landsliding and road runoff are the primary routes of sediment delivery to stream channels.

•	 Changes to peak flows may occur through the removal of forest vegetation and the changes to infiltration and 

runoff caused by forest roads. Current studies indicate that forest management and road building interactions are 

complex, but generally have little to do with enhancing peak flows at a fifth-field watershed scale.

There are 143,044 miles of streams and rivers within the planning area. See Table 110 (Miles of 

streams with BLM ownership within the planning area). They occur in a variety of landscapes 

from coastal rain-influenced streams to snowmelt-influenced streams in the Cascades Mountains 

and in eastern Oregon near Klamath Falls. Within this distribution, there are 20,407 miles of 

streams and rivers and 218,199 acres of lakes, ponds, and wetlands on BLM land. These water 

features support aquatic ecosystems under varying conditions according to past disturbance, 

topography, geomorphology, elevation, and physiographic province. 

Large river basins are a mosaic of smaller watersheds linked by stream, riparian, and subsurface 

networks. Within basins, links among headwater tributaries and downstream channels are 

important paths for water, sediment, and disturbances. 

The causes of changes to hydrologic processes include the removal of forest vegetation and changes 

to infiltration and the flow of surface and subsurface water. Changes in hydrologic processes are 

manifested in such water quality parameters as temperature, sediment, and water quantity.

Hydrologic features, including stream patterns, stream density, stream relief, stream bed and 

bank characteristics, and natural streamflow response, vary by physiographic province (FEMAT 

1993, Appendix V-G). Riparian vegetation community types also reflect differences in geology, 

landforms, aspect, soil mineralogy and development, and influencing hillslope processes. 

Climate factors, such as precipitation and temperature, interact with physiography to provide the 

setting for hydrologic processes and disturbance events.

There is great variation in the precipitation and temperature regimes within the planning 

area. See Figure 95 (Normal annual precipitation). Typically, moisture-laden maritime fronts 

move onshore from the west. As these fronts move east they drop moisture as they encounter 

mountains. Temperatures vary with proximity to the ocean, changes in elevation, and latitude.
360

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

•	 The Coast Range provide intense rapid lift and receive annual precipitation depths 

varying from 40 to greater than 180 inches. Heavy precipitation amounts, combined with 

steep landforms, concave headwalls, thin soils, weak bedding planes, and weathering 

contribute to high landslide frequency. Snowfall seldom occurs in the Coast Range but, 

when it does, it is usually transitory and above 2,000 feet of elevation. 

•	 The Willamette Valley has less precipitation because storm fronts have dropped much of 

their moisture as they moved over the Coast range. The mildness of the Willamette Valley 

and other western Oregon inland valleys causes snow to be rare even though moisture is 

relatively abundant.

•	 The western Cascades Mountains and eastern Cascade Mountains see an increase in 

precipitation as fronts gain moisture because they move over the valley. In the Cascade 

Mountains, temperatures are lower and moisture is still abundant, so snow is more 

frequent. Intermittent snow accumulation occurs in the western Cascade Mountains 

between 1,500 to 3,500 feet in the north and 2,000 to 4,500 feet in the south. Winter snow 

pack occurs in the eastern Cascade Mountains.

•	 Once over the Cascade Mountains, precipitation diminishes rapidly to less than 

15 inches on the eastern edge of the planning area near Klamath Falls. Eastern Oregon 

receives a significant percentage of its winter precipitation in the form of snow, 

although the lower annual precipitation makes the actual snowfall amounts much lower 

than in the Cascade Mountains. 

Figure 95. Normal annual precipitation 
361

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

A drainage basin is an area of land that catches precipitation that falls within its perimeter, and 

moves the precipitation down slope as surface or subsurface flow under the influence of gravity to 

a creek, stream, or river, until the water drains into an ocean. 

Hydrologic units (HUC) are a way of classifying drainage basins (Seaber et al. 2007) so as to nest 

them into a multilevel hierarchical drainage system. 

•	 The largest hydrologic unit of classification divides the nation into 21 major geographic 

regions with an average size of 177,000 square miles. These geographic areas contain 

either the drainage area of a major river or the combined drainage areas of a series of 

rivers. 

•	 The smallest hydrologic unit is called a subwatershed with a size range of 10 to 40 square 

miles in size. 

•	 An intermediate unit is called a watershed. They are generally 20 to 200 square milesin 

size. There are 260 watersheds in the plan area. Of these, 176 watersheds contain BLM 

ownership. 

See Table 109 (Major river basins within the planning area) for the major river basins within the 

planning area and the number of BLM watersheds within each basin province.

Table 109. Major river basins within the planning area

Hydrologic 

Unit Code 

(HUC)

River Basin

Total Area 

(square 

miles)

Proportion 

within the 

Planning 

Area

Number of 

Watersheds

170800

Lower Columbia: 

The drainage into the Pacific Ocean 

including downstream tributaries including 

the Sandy River (Oregon)

6,250 22% 24

170900 Willamette 11,400 12% 48

171002

Northern Oregon Coastal: 

The drainage into the Pacific Ocean from 

the Columbia River Basin boundary to the 

Umpqua River Basin boundary

4,312 100% 34

171003

Southern Oregon Coastal: 

The drainage into the Pacific Ocean from 

and including the Umpqua and Rogue 

River basins to the Smith River Basin 

boundary (California and Oregon)

12,582 100% 72

180102

Klamath: 

The Klamath River Basin (California and 

Oregon)

15,500 32% 23
362

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Dunne et al. (2001) have proposed that watersheds and subwatersheds are the most relevant for 

describing hydrologic processes and the effects for cumulative watershed effects analysis. 

•	 Geographic areas must be large enough to capture an assemblage of small source areas 

within mountainous terrain with varying forest environments. These headwater source 

areas contribute to a range of stream channels from juvenile steep gradient channels 

that are confined by hillslopes to more well-developed, low-gradient alluvial types with 

associated floodplains (Montgomery and Buffington 1997). Typically, the watershed scale 

is necessary to typify the complexity of stream development. 

•	 In mountainous areas, streams gain size in a downstream direction and become perennial 

at a high enough watershed area and difference in relief where the water table stays above 

the surface. 

•	 Downstream mainstem streams at the lower end of watersheds are normally low gradient, 

except for geologic disconformities, and are the receptors of the combination of nonpoint source 

pollution (e.g., temperature and sediment) that are associated with management activities. 

Typically, within the planning area, these mainstem streams involve less than 40% of the total 

stream network and are in areas where a cumulative effect upon water would occur.

The BLM typically manages only a small percentage of the land and stream miles within any 

particular watershed. See Figure 96 (Contrasting BLM ownership in the Evans Creek and Eagle 

Creek watersheds). The combined actions across all ownerships determine the total impacts to 

the physical, chemical, and biological condition of downstream rivers. The intermingled land 

ownership pattern within the planning area can also make it difficult to separate out the amount of 

impact caused by any particular owner. 
363

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Figure 96. Contrasting BLM ownership in the Evans Creek and Eagle Creek watersheds 
364

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Stream type and size are important because:

•	 BLM lands are more heavily concentrated in headwaters, typified by small, typically 

steep gradient high-energy streams.

•	 Forest roads cross small streams more frequently, which are potential sediment 

delivery points.

•	 Many small streams on BLM lands do not flow continuously by late summer.

•	 Small streams are important in determining the condition of larger streams and rivers.

•	 Floodplains are associated with larger streams.

•	 The BLM often manages a small percentage of the riparian areas along larger streams.

See Table 110 (Miles of streams with BLM ownership within the planning area) for the miles of 

streams within the planning area by stream periodicity. See Table 111 (Stream type descriptions)

for the primary stream type descriptions and their relative proportion within the planning area. 

Table 110. Miles of streams with BLM ownership within the planning area

Stream Periodicity Planning Area Streams 

(miles)

BLM Streams 

(miles)

BLM Stream Miles 

(%)

Perenniala 57,626 6,728 12

Intermittentb 85,418 13,679 16

Totals 143,044 20,407 14

a

Perennial streams have varying but continuous discharge year round. Their base level is at or below the water table.

b

Intermittent streams have a dry period, which is normally for three months or more. Their base level is above the water table.

Table 111. Stream type descriptions

Primary Stream 

Types

Gradient 

(feet/feet) Confinement Valley Bottom Type

Relative 

Proportion within 

the planning area

Cascade > 20% Confined None

60%*

Steep 4 to 20% Confined None

Step-pool 2 to 3.9% Moderately 

confined

None or narrow ,and 

occasional floodplain 

feature

Pool-riffle < 2% Unconfined 40%

Narrow to wide and 

floodplains present

Braided < 4% Unconfined Wide and floodplains 

present

Flat < 2% Confined Narrow to wide

*ODEQ estimates 85% in this category for 1 to 3 order streams (ODEQ 2004b).
365

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Water Quality

High-quality water is essential for consumptive use and survival, growth, reproduction, 

and the migration of individuals that comprise aquatic and riparian communities (FEMAT 

1993, V-14). This includes an abundance of cool (generally, less than 68°F), welloxygenated water that is present at all times of the year, and is also free of excessive 

amounts of suspended sediments (Sullivan et al.1987) and other pollutants (Cordone and 

Kelley 1961; Lloyd et al. 1987).

The Clean Water Act (§ 101(a)) was intended to restore and maintain the physical, 

chemical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters. The Oregon Department 

of Environmental Quality is responsible for developing water quality standards and 

determining where there is impairment of Oregon’s streams and lakes as outlined in 

DEQ’s 2004/2006 integrated report. By agreement with the Oregon Department of 

Environmental Quality, the BLM is recognized as a designated management agency 

for implementing the federal Clean Water Act (as amended by the Water Quality 

Act of 1987) on BLM-administered lands in Oregon. This includes the selection of 

appropriate best management practices to maintain water quality for the variety of 

ongoing forest activities.

Of the 143,044 miles of streams and rivers within the planning area, there are 

10,611 miles of streams within the planning area that are listed as impaired (303(d) listed) 

for at least one water quality measure. Of these, 704 miles (7%) occur in watersheds 

with BLM ownership. See Table 112 (Miles of BLM streams on the Oregon Department 

of Environmental Quality 303(d) list) and Figure 97 (303(d) Listed Streams in the Plan 

Area). The most common listing on BLM lands is for water temperature. 

Table 112. Miles of BLM streams on the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 

(ODEQ) 303(d) list

ODEQ 303(d) Listing

Stream Impairment Identified

on BLM Streams 

(miles)

Affected BLM Fifth-Field 

Watersheds 

(number)

Temperature 569 81

Dissolved Oxygen 65 23

Bacteria 35 17

Sediment 27 5

Heavy Metals 8 2

Note: Based on ODEQ’s 2002 303(d) list.
366

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Figure 97. 303(d) listed streams within the planning area 

Stream Temperature

Highly shaded streams often experience cooler stream temperatures due to the 

reduced input of solar energy (Brown 1969; Beschta et al. 1987; Holaday 1992; 

Lee et al. 2004). Increased stream temperatures can result from the removal of 

shade-producing riparian vegetation along fish-bearing streams and along smaller 

tributary streams that supply cold water to the fish-bearing streams (Beschta et al. 

1987; Bisson et al. 1987). 

The key factors that produce highly shaded streams include:

•	 The trees that are closest to a stream channel, including overhanging 

branches, provide the most shade. 

•	 Narrower riparian areas with closely spaced trees have nearly the same 

shading effect as wider riparian areas with broadly spaced trees.

•	 There is little shade gained from trees that are more than 100 feet away 

from a stream’s edge.

•	 The majority of riparian forests that are along perennial streams on BLM 

land are 40 to 150 years of age, and so are tall enough to offer shade.

Stream morphology, flow, climate, and geographic location also influence 

stream temperature.

Solar radiation is the most important source of radiant energy affecting stream 

temperature (Brown 1969; Beschta 1997). Effectiveness of streamside vegetation 

to provide shade varies with geomorphology, topography, orientation, extent of 

canopy opening above the channel, and forest structure (USDA, USDI 2005b). 

Forest trees near stream channels and dense stands can block solar radiation 

and cast shadows across the stream. Angular canopy density is the measure of 

canopy closure as projected in a straight line from the stream surface to the sun, 

BLM Other

Temperatu 569.3 4877

Dissolved O 64.8 816

Bacteria 34.8 1449

Sedimentat 27.2 230

Heavy Meta 7.9 788

35

27

8

230

65

569

788

816

4,877

1,449

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000

Temperature

Dissolved Oxygen

Bacteria

Sedimentation

Heavy Metals

Miles

BLM Other
367

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

as it varies through the day. The angular canopy density value for a given buffer 

depends on the spacing of forest crowns. As vegetation becomes more open 

through wider spacing, more width of vegetation is needed to achieve the same 

angular canopy density for the similar vegetation with closer spacing. Higher 

angular canopy density is achieved with lower sun angles and higher canopy 

density. See Figure 98 (Angular canopy density and buffer widths for small 

streams within the planning area) (Brazier and Brown 1972) for how angular 

canopy density varies with riparian area width.

Figure 98. Angular canopy density and buffer widths for small streams within the 

planning area 

Angular canopy density is also related to the effective stream shade. See 

Figure 99 (Angular canopy density and stream shade) (Park 1991).

Figure 99. Angular canopy density and stream shade 
368

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Effective shade is the total solar radiation blocked from reaching the stream over 

a 24-hour period (USDA, USDI 2005b). 

Effective shade is defined as:

Total Solar Radiation – Total Solar Radiation Reaching the Stream

Total Solar Radiation

Effective shade is influenced by slope steepness, vegetation species composition, 

tree height vegetation density, tree distance from the stream bank, and stream 

width. Thus, although riparian vegetation is a physical barrier between the stream 

and incoming solar radiation, only a portion of the riparian canopy contributes 

to effective shade (USDA, USDI 2005b). The relationship and interplay of the 

variables that affect effective shade can be simplified, to some degree, using 

geometry and computer models that simulate shade (Boyd 1996; Park 1993). 

See Figure 100 (Stream shade and change in water temperature) for an 

illustration of the results of modeling to represent the downstream change in 

water temperature relative to effective shade (USDA, USDI 2005b). The figure 

illustrates that as effective shade increases beyond 40% there is a corresponding 

reduction in stream temperature to a point (e.g., approximately 80%) beyond 

which further reduction in stream temperature as a function of shade is not 

measurable (Boyd 1996). Furthermore, as was shown in Figure 100, for this 

80% effective shade level, there is marginal improvement in shade for riparian 

areas wider than 100 feet, because the variables of total solar radiation reaching a 

stream is diminished by the blocking ability of a tree’s canopy. 

Figure 100. Stream shade and change in water temperature 

One way these riparian management areas can be described is by assigning 

average primary and secondary shade zone distances. See Table 113 (Shade 

zones) for the primary and secondary shade zone distances of riparian trees as a 

function of tree height and slope steepness.
369

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

The period of greatest solar heating occurs between 10 am and 2 pm. Vegetation 

that intercepts solar radiation between these hours is critical for providing stream 

shade (USDA, USDI 2005b). This vegetation constitutes the primary shade zone. 

During the morning and afternoon hours, trees outside the primary shade zone can 

also provide stream shade (USDA, USDI 2005b). This area is referred to as the 

secondary shade zone. See Figure 101 (Relationship of primary and secondary 

shade zones) for an illustration of these two shade zones (USDA, USDI 2005b).

Figure 101. Relationship of primary and secondary shade zones 

Table 113. Shade zones 

Shade 

Zones

Height of 

Riparian Tree

Shade Zone Distance from Edge of Stream

Slope < 30% Slope 30 to 

60% Slope > 60%

Primary < 20 ft. 12 ft. 14 ft. 15 ft.

20 to 60 ft. 28 ft. 33 ft. 55 ft.

Secondary > 60 to 100 ft. 50 ft. 55 ft. 60 ft.

Source: USDA, USDI 2005b

Site potential tree heights vary among tree species with mature conifers being 

substantially taller than mature hardwoods. Soil quality, aspect, elevation, and 

physiographic province are also important in determining site potential tree 

height capability. See Figure 102 (Riparian tree heights by physiographic 

province and percent of BLM area) for the range of tree heights for site potential 

conifers by each physiographic province within the planning area.

Both the young and mature structural stage classes of forests have tree heights 

and crown areas that provide effective shading. This is because the tree heights 

are tall enough to cast shadows from 20 to 100 feet and the stand density 

is normally higher than in older forests. Higher density leads to greater sun 

blocking ability and greater shade quality. Forests provide the most shade when 

tree crowns grow closed and somewhat less shade through stand competition and 

individual tree mortality as the trees mature over time. 

10AM to 2PM 6 AM to 10AM

2PM to 6PM

Primary Shade 

Tree Distance

Secondary Shade

Tree Distance
370

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Figure 102. Riparian tree heights by physiographic province and percent of BLM area 

Disturbance plays an important role in the ecology of riparian forests. Climate 

variation, windstorms, landslides, floods, and insect and disease infestations 

are normal disturbance agents within the planning area. Natural fire has been 

suppressed during the last century and human-caused (prescribed) fire interacts 

with the landscape in different ways. These small and large disturbances over 

time have influenced the trajectory of forest stands. The historical percentage of 

old growth forest at a given time within the planning area ranged from 35 to 80% 

(Agee 1993). 

The composition and pattern of riparian forestland varies within the planning 

area. In prelogged riparian forests in the Coast Range, less than 45% of riparian 

areas were in old forests (Ripple et al. 2000). Sample plots show that historic 

crown closure was greater than 70% with stands consisting of:

•	 49% conifer,

•	 30% conifer-dominated mixed stands,

•	 19% hardwood-dominated and mixed stands, and 

•	 2% nonforest. 

Nierenberg and Hibbs (2000) found that 52% of riparian areas on streamside 

terraces had no trees. This suggests that the floods and depositional materials 

control the dominance and the seral stage of vegetation close to the stream. 

With increasing distance from streams, the amount of hardwoods and nonforest 

decreases. This is evidence that hardwoods and shrubs are the largest contributing 

limiting factor to conifer growth in or near stream areas.

Although infrequent, large-scale natural disturbances do occur within riparian 

areas. From the sampled plots in the Coast Range, five disturbances occurred in 

the last 100 years for each mile of stream since a stand replacing fire (Nierenberg 

and Hibbs 2000).

Harvesting practices during the forest development period from the 1950s to 

1980s often removed much of the standing marketable timber from riparian areas 

Riparian Tree Heights by Physiograpic Province Percent of BLM Area

1%

29%

2%

35% 33%

Coast Range 167-225 feet Willamette Valley 151-214 feet 

Cascades 136-210 feet Cascades East 118-159 feet

Klamath Mountians 139-192 feet
371

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

along larger streams. This is because transportation systems were first developed 

along ridge tops and valley bottoms before more difficult midslope roads were 

attempted. During the 1970s, there was a large salvage program within riparian 

areas because the breaking up of debris jams was thought to be beneficial to fish 

migration. This thinking was reversed by the early 1980s, but much of the longlasting stream structural forming large wood, such as western red cedar and Port 

Orford cedar, had been removed.

The Northwest Forest Plan 10-year monitoring report titled Northwest Forest 

Plan – The First 10 Years (1994-2003): Synthesis of Monitoring and Research 

Results (Haynes et al. 2006) reported that condition scores for 161 of the 250 

sampled watersheds improved from 1994 to 2003. The change in watershed 

condition scores was attributed primarily to changes in the riparian vegetation; 

specifically, the number of large trees in the riparian areas. The number of large 

trees increased an estimated 2 to 4% during this time, which was most likely 

the result of tree growth into the greater than 20 inch diameter at breast height 

category (Gallo et al. 2005).

Shade in the riparian areas along perennial streams on BLM lands continues to 

improve, because there has been no regeneration harvesting (other than limited 

species conversion) in riparian areas in the last 20 to 30 years. The majority 

of thinning treatments along perennial streams in the past 10 years have left 

retention areas adjacent to waterbodies. This area beyond 100 feet has little effect 

on the increased shading of streams—particularly when a thinned forest stand is 

left to provide additional tree shading.

Dissolved Oxygen 

High loading of fine organic matter, such as tree branches and needles, when 

combined with sediment and increased water temperature can deplete dissolved 

oxygen in small mountain streams (Wringler and Hall 1975). However, these 

streams are often steep with high turbulence, which quickly replenishes the 

dissolved oxygen (Ice 1978). A review of the oxygen requirements of aquatic 

organisms does not attribute changes in intergravel dissolved oxygen to 

management activities in the Pacific Northwest (Chapman and Mcleod 1987). 

The growth and respiration of attached algae cause day and night fluctuations 

in dissolved oxygen concentrations. Algae photosynthesis releases oxygen 

into the water during the day and respiration consumes oxygen at night, which 

contributes to a dissolved oxygen depression. This cyclic process is limited to 

low-gradient river systems where nutrient inputs have caused extensive algae 

growth on the stream bottoms. It is most apparent during low flows, which may 

be aggravated by organic inputs and higher stream temperatures. 
372

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Bacteria

In forested and rangeland settings, the total coliform and fecal coliform bacteria 

are monitored depending on the extent of human and animal use. Many coliform 

bacteria include an array of aerobic and anaerobic bacteria, many of which are 

nonpathogenic or associated with human waste. Fecal coliform are bacteria that 

are found in the gut of warm-blooded animals. A variety of diseases may be 

spread by these bacteria. The presence of coliform bacteria in the water on BLM 

lands is associated with wild animals, concentrated livestock use, or poor waste 

disposal by recreation users. Dispersing activities away from water normally 

solves bacteria concentrations, because soils act as a filtering system.

Sediment

On-site soil loss is a natural weathering process. Fragmental rock, soil, and 

organic material that are detached can be redistributed by gravity, wind, 

and water. When this material arrives at, is eroded from, or is transported 

in a waterbody, it is known as sediment. Sediment moves in water when 

water velocities are great enough to cause suspension and entrainment (i.e., 

mobilization). Sediment moves as a suspended load in a water column or as 

larger particles rolling along the stream bottom. Sediment is freely transported 

through high-gradient stream reaches, and is deposited on bars and channel 

margins in low-gradient streams. Natural rates of sediment yield vary with rock 

and soil resistance to weathering, landslope and shape, ameliorating effects of 

vegetation, soil surface organic matter, and roughness. Seasonal climatology, 

particularly large storms, may trigger landsliding—the largest portion of the 

annual sediment budget. 

Natural rates of sediment yields within the planning area vary greatly depending 

on physiographic area, topography, vegetation, and climate. The high annual 

variability of sediment yields extends to watersheds. For example, Flynn Creek 

Experimental Watershed, which served as a control in the Alsea study in the 

Coast Range, reported annual sediment yields of 59 to 1,237 tons per square mile 

per year (Brown and Krygier 1971).

Various studies show that average annual sediment yield from natural and 

anthropogenic sources in the Coast Range province vary from 200 to 800 tons 

per square mile per year compared to the Western Cascades province, which vary 

from 100 to 500 tons per square mile per year (Swanson et al. 1982; Stallman et 

al. 2005). In one study, sediment input from roads accounted for 67% of the total 

annual sediment budget (Swanson et al. 1982).

Forest management activities, including road building and timber harvesting, 

can lead to accelerated rates of erosion and sediment yield (FEMAT 1993, V-16). 

Fine sediment (particle sizes less than 2 mm) is of most interest, because it is 

more easily mobilized and capable of traveling the distances necessary to reach a 

water body. 
373

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

As follows, road networks physically alter hill slopes as well as change the 

surface and subsurface flow of water: 

•	 Flood flows and debris can plug culverts causing fill failures. 

•	 Road construction on steep and unstable ground can also lead to 

accelerated rates of erosion in a watershed (Swanston and Swanson 

1976; Reid and Dunne 1984), and are the most important source of 

management-accelerated delivery of sediment to anadromous fish 

habitats within the planning area (Ice 1985; Swanson et al. 1985). 

•	 Road segments that have stream connection pathways, such as roadside 

ditches, have potential to deliver surface eroded sediment to streams 

(Wemple 1998; Jones et al. 2000).

•	 Road segments that are not connected to streams by ditch lines or 

gullies, or have more than 25 to 100 feet of filtering forest floor duff 

and vegetation (depending on the slope, soil properties, and surface 

roughness) between them and a stream, are usually not at risk of 

delivering sediment to streams. Rashin et al. (2006) found that when 

erosion features are further than 33 feet from streams, sediment delivery 

is unlikely unless sediment is routed by concentrated drainage water.

Road runoff and landsliding are the primary routes of sediment delivery to 

stream channels. Road parent material, location, design, use, and density can be 

important in affecting the extent and magnitude of road-related sediment impacts 

(Reiter et al. 1995). 

Roads differ in their inherent erodibility, or erosion potential, due to the geology 

of a parent material on which they are constructed. See Figure 103 (Geology 

within the planning area) (Walker and King 1969) and Table 114 (Basic erosion 

rates for roads based on the underlying geology). Sediment yields by erosion 

from older roads with undisturbed ditches are much smaller than sediment yields 

from newer roads or roads with disturbed ditches. Frequent road maintenance of 

ditchlines can increase sediment yields.
374

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Figure 103. Geology within the planning area 

Table 114. Basic erosion rates for roads based on the underlying geology

Erosion Category Geologic Parent Material

Erosion Rates 

(tons/acre/year)

New Roads 

(0 to 2 years)

Old Roads 

(> 2 years)

High

•	 Mica schist

•	 Volcanic ash

•	 Highly weathered 

sedimentary rock

110 60

High/Moderate •	 Quartzite

•	 Course-grained granite

110 30

Moderate

•	 Fine-grained granite 

•	 Moderately weathered 

rock 

•	 Sedimentary rocks

60 30

Low

•	 Competent granite

•	 Basalt

•	 Metamorphic rocks

•	 Relatively unweathered 

rocks

20 10

Note: Basic erosion rates (tons per acre per year) are an estimate of erodibility, which is based on the geologic parent material. 

This rate is for bare ground and is further reduced depending on road surface type, vegetation of cut and fillslopes, and traffic level.

Sources: Kochendorfer and Helvey 1984; Hayden et al. 1991; Megahan and Kidd 1972; Reid and Dunne 1984; Sullivan and 

Duncan
375

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Primary road sediment sources include:

•	 Exposed surfaces, including the road tread (particularly native road 

surfaces), along with cuts and fills. Erosion may result by overland 

flow from rainwater or snowmelt, or concentrated flow in ditches. The 

BLM controls approximately 14,000 miles of road within the planning 

area. Less than 7% of these road miles are native surface roads. Much 

of the road network is on ridgetops or traversed areas well away from 

stream channels. See Figure 104 (Road distribution in a representative 

watershed). 

•	 Inadequate ditch relief culverts, resulting in elevated ditch flow that can 

mobilize sediment.

•	 Stream crossings that have undersized pipes or that traverse debris-flow 

streams.

•	 Roads in upland areas cross small seasonal streams more frequently, and 

so incur the greatest risk for failure. 

•	 Road fill failures; particularly if they are within the slide out range of a 

stream channel. 

•	 Midslope roads, with steep and unstable road cuts and deep fills, pose the 

highest risk for landslides. 

•	 Older roads that were sidecast constructed, built on fills with organic 

material, or crossed slide prone ground that have not yet failed are also 

at higher risk. In the Western Cascades province, road fill failures were 

found to represent the most frequent cause of debris flow initiation 

(Swanson et al. 1982). 
376

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Figure 104. Road distribution in a representative watershed

Modeling was used to determine the effects of the alternatives on fine sediment 

delivery within the stream influence zone. The model was based on the concept 

of using reference roads. (Refer to Appendix B – Surface Erosion of the 1997 4.0 

version of the Washington Department of Natural Resources Forest Practices 

Watershed Analysis Manual.)

Although there are 260 fifth-field watersheds within the planning area, only the 

185 watersheds with BLM-administered lands were included in the analysis. 

A 200 foot sediment delivery buffer was created around all stream channels in 

all ownerships. The BLM roads data layer, which includes roads on all lands, 

was clipped with the sediment delivery buffer data layer. Road segments that 

crossed streams were selected since they are most likely to deliver fine sediment 

to streams. The amount of potential fine sediment delivery was calculated for 

thousands of these road segments. Factors used to estimate the amount of fine 

sediment included road erodibility, road surfacing, and vegetation on road cut 

and fill slopes. Traffic level was assumed to be moderate. The effect of road 

maintenance was not evaluated. 

See Table 115 (Potential fine sediment delivery from existing roads) for the 

potential fine sediment delivery for the existing condition. Approximately 36% 

of all roads on BLM-administered lands are within the likely sediment delivery 

distance (5,096 miles out of 14,273 total BLM miles). When considering all 

roads, the highest yield is from natural surface roads, which average 9.61 tons 

per square mile per year. The lowest yield is from paved roads, which average 

1.58 tons per square mile per year. 
377

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Table 115. Potential fine sediment delivery from existing roads

Existing 

Roadsa

Roads Within Fine 

Sediment Delivery 

Distance 

(miles)b

Potential Fine 

Sediment Delivery 

(tons/year)c

Watershed Potential Fine 

Sediment Delivery 

(tons/mile2/year)c

BLM Other BLM Other BLM Other

Natural 1,738 15,874 23,050 233,054 0.86 8.75

Aggregate 2,590 22,938 28,938 30,765 1.09 1.15

Paved 767 2,436 8,277 33,807 0.31 1.27

Totals 5,096 21,249 60,265 297,626 2.26 11.17

a

Includes BLM-controlled roads and private roads within the planning area from BLM GIS GTRN (roads) coverage.

b

Includes road segments within 200 feet of a stream channel where ditch flow carrying fine sediment could enter streams.

c

Planning criteria estimate in which calculations are calculated by surface type for each fifth-field watershed and summed for the 

planning area.

See Figure 105 (Watersheds with the highest fine sediment delivery from 

roads) for the highest (25%) fine sediment delivery watersheds that contain 

BLM-administered lands. Sediment delivery to stream channels within these 

watersheds range from 34 to 77 tons per mile per year and averages 43 tons 

per mile per year. Elsewhere, sediment delivery to stream channels range 

from 0 to 43 tons per mile per year and averages 17 tons per mile per year. 

The Klamath and Coast Range provinces contain the highest number of these 

sensitive watersheds. This is likely due to underlying geology and landforms. 

Figure 105. Watersheds with the highest fine sediment delivery from roads 
378

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Timber harvesting activities can result in shallow colluvial landsliding, mass 

failures, and debris torrents depending on harvest location, type of harvest, 

design, and operation. 

Miller (2003) and Miller and Benda (2005) have developed a GIS-based 

mass wasting hazard model for western Oregon to estimate the susceptibility 

to shallow colluvial landsliding. The model was calibrated using landslide 

inventories from the Coast Range, Western Cascades, and Klamath provinces. 

Landslide density was determined for topographic attributes from the 

1996 storms. Of particular importance is the steepness of slope, watershed 

convergence, and source area. The density of landsliding for a set of stochastic 

events (1996 storms) was determined by calibration and set onto the landscape 

by topographic indicators. See Figure 106 (Relative landslide susceptibility in a 

representative watershed) for the relative landslide susceptibility mapping for a 

representative watershed. 

Figure 106. Relative landslide susceptibility in a representative watershed 

The BLM uses the timber productivity capability classification (TPCC) to 

screen for low forest productivity timberlands and landslide prone areas, and 

withdraws them from general forest management. This classification is done 

by silviculture and soil specialists from the interpretation of aerial photography 

and ground review. Over 89,937 acres of BLM-administeral lands (3.5% 

of BLM administered lands) is withdrawn due to forest capability or land 

stability concerns. See Figure 107 (Timber productivity capability classification 

withdrawn areas in a watershed) for an example of a representative watershed 

with these withdrawals.
379

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Figure 107. Timber productivity capability classification withdrawn areas in a watershed

Most landsliding occurs during severe storms when soils are fully saturated. 

Landsliding factors include:

•	 steepness of slope 

•	 soil depth and texture

•	 underlying rock bedding planes

•	 forest cover

•	 water runoff pathways 

In western Oregon, the highest hazard for landslides occurs on steep slopes over 

70 to 80% (ODF 1999). Basal area retention of forest trees can be important in 

preventing landslides on unstable terrain. Retention trees transpire water and 

live roots increase soil strength, both of which increase stability. Weaver and 

Hagans (1996) found that 71% of observed landslides in western Oregon from 

the February 1996 storms were initiated from recent regeneration harvests, while 

no slides were reported from partial cuts. For the same storm, landslide densities 

and size in the Coast Range were the highest for regeneration harvests that were 

0 to 9 years old, lower for mature forests, and lowest for forested areas between 

10 to 100 years (ODF 1999). 

Streamside forested areas protect the integrity of streambanks, provide excellent 

filtration, and capture of disturbed sediments. Riparian areas normally include 

higher vegetative cover, root masses that bind soils, and decomposing organic 

material that protects the soil surface. As follows, filter strip widths that prevent 

chronic sediment delivery within the planning area vary by physiographic 

province and geologic parent material:
380

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

•	 Swift (1986) measured travel distances through forest litter on 47% 

slopes. The maximum travel distance was 314 feet and the average 

distance was 65 feet. On a burned forest floor at a 42% slope, the 

maximum travel distance was 198 feet and the average was 96 feet. 

•	 On basalt derived soils, Packer (1967) reported protective strip 

widths needed to contain 83.5% of the number of flows ranged from 

35 to 127 feet depending on herbaceous vegetation and spacing 

between obstructions. 

•	 On soils derived from gneiss and schist, Burroughs and King (1989) 

found that sediment flows below road fill slopes traveled less than 

88 feet. 

•	 In a recent study in the Pacific Northwest, filter strips have been found 

to be 95% effective at 33 feet in width (does not include burned areas) 

without the application of any other best management practice (Rashin et 

al. 2006). 

Postfire sediment yields vary, depending on fire severity, frequency, climate, 

vegetation, and geomorphic factors such as topography, geology, and soils 

(Swanson 1981). Soil erosion after fires can vary from 0.4 to 2.6 tons per acre per 

year in prescribed burns, while more intense wildfires can create soil erosion that 

is an order of magnitude higher (Megahan and Molitor 1975). Recovery rate is 

rapid as grass, forbs, and shrubs occupy the site.

Many older roads on poor locations (i.e., with inadequate design and 

maintenance) pose high risks of erosion and sedimentation to stream channels 

and habitats from mass failure (FEMAT 1993, V-16). 

The three largest floods in the last 50 years are the 1953 flood, the 1964 flood 

(both long-duration, high-intensity rain-on-snow events), and the February and 

November 1996 floods (separate long- and short-duration, high-intensity rain 

events). See Figure 108 (November 1996 precipitation return period for western 

Oregon) for the return period for daily precipitation for western Oregon for the 

November 1996 storm. 
381

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Figure 108. November 1996 precipitation return period for western Oregon 

Observed landslides from an aerial reconnaissance survey of 83 watersheds in 

the Coast Range and Western Cascades provinces from the February 1996 storm 

revealed that 36% of the observed landslides were associated with roads, and 

65% of all landslides resulted in stream torrents (Weaver and Hagans 1996). 

Based on samples in wildland Forest Service watersheds, failed stream crossings 

from the 1996 floods depended on the size of the storm events with more debris 

torrents occurring during the larger February 1996 event (Furniss et al. 1997). In 

the Furniss study, the most common failure mechanism in the Western Cascades 

was debris torrents, while sediment slugs were the most common failure 

mechanism in the Coast Range. Woody debris obstructions and culvert capacity 

exceedance were also important failure mechanisms. 

Currently roads damaged from flooding, where rebuilt, are designed to higher 

standards than in the past. For example, the BLM abandoned sidecasting of waste 

material in the 1980’s and planned lower fill heights over culverts at stream 

crossings. A road inventory in Washington found that roads constructed in the 

last 15 years had minimal damage rates from large storms compared to roads 

constructed earlier (Toth 1991). The Oregon Department of Forestry observed 

for the 1996 storms that road-related landslides were fewer and smaller than in 

previous studies and concluded that current improved road management practices 

were responsible (ODF 1996). 

With the development of road networks in the early twentieth century, valley 

bottom roads along streams were constructed to salvage riparian timber and 
382

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

access upper watershed areas. There was often little regard for riparian areas. 

Streams were sometimes straightened and protected with boulders so that roads 

could use floodplain terraces. Many of these arterial roads still remain and most 

are surfaced with few stream crossings. Road systems associated with forest 

management have been constructed on ridges and across middle slopes (between 

valley bottoms and ridge tops). There are many more road crossings in these 

upper watershed areas. There are minimal miles of roads within riparian areas 

along streams in these upper watershed areas. 

Approximately 3,800 miles (25%) of the BLM road system are maintained in 

a given year. See Figure 139 (Miles of road maintenance) in the Lands, Realty, 

Access, and Transportation section of Chapter 3. Maintenance reduces sediment 

delivery by road surface grading and replacement, pavement maintenance and 

replacement, slough and slide removal, and culvert clearing and replacement.

Road closure and decommissioning has led to a net decrease of 700 miles (5%) 

of roads on BLM lands within the planning area since 1994. These road closure 

segments were scattered with most being outside of the riparian reserves. 

The Northwest Forest Plan 10-year monitoring effort regarding watershed 

condition found that the condition scores of watersheds as influenced by roads 

generally did not change significantly since the Northwest Forest Plan was 

implemented (Gallo et al. 2005). The amounts of roads removed from any 

given watershed may have been relatively small and insufficient to change 

the watershed condition. There were 3,324 miles of roads decommissioned 

from 1995 to 2002 on U.S. Forest Service and BLM lands while there were an 

estimated 354 miles of new roads constructed during the same period (Baker et 

al., in press).

Using a random survey design across the region, ODEQ assessed four western 

Oregon physiographic provinces for fine sediment (Willamette Valley, Coast 

Range, Western Cascades, and Klamath). See Table 116 (Fine sediment and 

ODEQ probabilistic stream surveys for third-order or less streams from 1994 to 

2001) for the assessment results. Because of the mix of land uses (forestry and 

agricultural) and different land management practices under different regulatory 

authorities within the watersheds, it is unclear how these survey results apply to 

BLM lands.

Table 116. Fine sediment and ODEQ probabilistic stream surveys for third-order or less 

streams from 1994 to 2001

Physiographic 

Province

Good 

Condition 

(%)

Fair 

Condition 

(%)

Poor 

Condition 

(%)

Confidence

Coast Range 42 17 41 ± 7

Willamette Valley 7 3 90 ± 22

Cascades 71 18 11 ± 11

Klamath 65 14 22 ± 19

Source: ODEQ 2004b
383

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Heavy Metals

Heavy metals in streams and rivers in forested and rangeland areas are normally 

associated with natural sources, agricultural runoff and mine drainage. Natural 

sources may be increased by land erosion rates. Urban and industrial point sources, 

such as manufacturing, storm water runoff and landfills, provide additional inputs. 

Heavy metals may assimilate near the point source or in large rivers outside the 

majority of BLM ownership. Mercury is the most common heavy metal of concern. 

Water Quantity

Aquatic organisms require adequate flows during migration, spawning, and rearing 

to satisfy the requirements of various life stages (FEMAT 1993, V-19). The timing, 

magnitude, duration, and spatial distribution of peak flows must be sufficient to create 

and sustain riparian and aquatic system habitat, and to retain the patterns of sediment, 

nutrient, and wood routing (FEMAT 1993, V-19). 

Timber harvesting and associated activities in maritime mountainous watersheds alter the 

amount and timing of peak flows by changing site-level hydrologic processes (Keppeler 

and Ziemer 1990; LaMarche and Lettemmaier 1998; Wemple and Jones 2003; Wright 

et al. 1990). These hydrologic processes include changes in the amount of snow and 

snowmelt rates, roads intercepting surface and subsurface flow, and changes in soils 

infiltration rates and soil structure.

Changes in hydrologic processes affecting peak flows can be grouped by the following 

primary forest management actions: 

•	 Reduction in forest vegetation through harvesting. 

•	 Construction of forest access roads.

Reduction of forest vegetation through harvesting can affect processes that control snow 

accumulation in tree canopies and on the ground. Snowmelt can be accelerated where 

wind with warm air temperatures cross forest openings.

Low intensity winter precipitation of various durations is common within the planning 

area. Some of this precipitation falls as rain or snow, depending on the prevailing storm 

air temperature and watershed elevation. Snow acts as stored water within the 

mountainous watersheds. Lower valleys are below the snow line, except for extreme cold 

fronts. Snow comes and goes within the intermediate 

elevations, while higher elevations have a winter permanent 

snowpack. These precipitation zones are displayed as 

hydroregions. See Figure 109 (Precipitation hydroregions 

within the planning area). The use of hydroregions helps to 

distinguish how peak flows would be affected by differentsized openings in areas that mimic regeneration harvested and 

stand establishment conditions.

Hydroregions

Hydroregions are a means 

for classifying the dominant 

precipitation type of a region 

as either rain or snow. With 

regards to snow, hydroregions 

also distinguish the depth of 

winter snow and the longevity of 

accumulated snow.
384

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Figure 109. Precipitation hydroregions within the planning area 

A spatial analysis to determine susceptibility to peak flow increase from vegetative 

management was developed for the planning area for both rain-dominated and rain-onsnow-dominated areas. The analysis uses sixth-field subwatersheds (a USGS hydrologic 

unit), because they are small enough areas to capture the patterns of BLM forest lands 

and because tributary streams are more sensitive to vegetation and runoff-related changes. 

Subwatersheds are generally 10,000 to 40,000 acres in size and have a single outlet. 

There are 1,192 subwatersheds within the planning area. When separated by hydroregion, 

635 subwatersheds are rain-dominated, 471 subwatersheds are rain-on-snow-dominated, 

and 86 watersheds are snow-dominated. Snow-dominated watersheds involve higher 

elevation, which is important for sustaining spring flows, but have minor contributions to 

the elevation of winter peak flows. 

Within the rain-dominated hydroregion, the effect of increased peak flow is proportional 

to the area cut with the detection of effects set at 40% for small catchments and 

considerably higher for watersheds (Grant et al. 2007, in review). Patch size or 

arrangement is not a factor in explaining greater flow volume or timing. Ziemer (1981, 

1995) found a nonstatistical (4%) increase in peak flow for 80 year old conifer stands that 

were harvested where 50% of the basal area was retained.

The analysis of the affect of the alternatives on peak flows used the vegetation 

projections derived from the OPTIONS modeling for the existing condition on the BLMadministered lands. The stand establishment structural stage (without legacy) was used as 

a surrogate for the removal of basal area. On other lands, vegetative crown closure was 
385

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

classified using satellite imagery from the 1996 Interagency Vegetation Mapping Project. 

Areas of less than 10% crown closure were used as a surrogate for the removal of basal 

area. A basal area of 40% removed was set as a sixth-field watershed response level.

There is currently one sixth-field subwatershed (out of 635) that is susceptible to peak 

flow increase. See Figure 110 (Subwatersheds that are currently susceptible to peak flows 

in the rain-dominated hydroregion). Two additional sixth-field subwatersheds would be 

susceptible when considering the management activity on all lands. 

Figure 110. Subwatersheds that are currently susceptible to peak flows in the raindominated hydroregion

A rain-on-snow storm involves prolonged rainfall under warm and windy conditions. 

Rain-on-snow events are of particular interest because the melt of shallow snow packs can 

enhance storm runoff, and has been associated with landsliding and downstream flooding. 

Large openings in a forest canopy (commonly in regeneration harvests or forest stand 

conversions) affect precipitation and snow interception and melt. The ablation of snow 

in large openings may occur before rain-on-snow storms in contrast to increased snow 

accumulation and melt during winter storms; when the freezing levels are initially low 

but subsequently rise. 

Snowmelt can provide extra water for runoff. Regeneration harvests or forest conversions 

with large open areas will provide additional melt contributions under rain-on-snow 
386

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

conditions (Harr 1981; Storck 1997). This is primarily due to more snow accumulation in 

the openings and increased wind speeds. In contrast, research suggests that forest thinning 

treatments maintain patterns of snow accumulation that are similar to mature forests and 

reduce turbulent air near the ground. Furthermore, it is concluded that thinning treatments 

have little effect on snowmelt rates during rain-on-snow events (Poggi et al. 2004).

A rain-on-snow empirical analytical technique was used to identify susceptible 

subwatersheds to peak flow increase within the rain-on-snow hydroregion. The procedure 

was patterned after the Washington State Department of Natural Resources’ hydrologic 

change watershed analysis methodology (1997). This screening technique (with 

modifications) was converted to GIS spatial analysis. See Appendix I. Water.

An appropriate method of describing the peak flows of various exceedance probabilities 

for unregulated streams in ungauged watersheds is to use the basin characteristics 

regression analysis with gauged watersheds that have long-term records. The Harris and 

Hubbard (1979) flood frequency equations were chosen as reference points—because 

they cover the various hydrologic regions within the planning area and have long-term 

records (10 to 70 years). The base period of streamflow data for use in the analysis was 

collected prior to the maximum forest conversion in many watersheds (with much of the 

streamflow data being gathered before 1960). The base period data set may include some 

chance rain-on-snow events, but with considerably fewer forest openings. Rain-on-snow 

occurrences of interest correspond to a streamflow return period of 2 to 8 years where 

research has shown prelogging and postlogging regressions were significantly different 

(Harr 1992). The 2-year, 24-hour and the 5-year, 24-hour streamflows were calculated 

for each sixth-field subwatershed with these equations and serve as reference points for a 

rain-on-snow watershed response level.

Rain-on-snow areas, where shallow snow accumulations can come and go, have been 

reported by Harr (1981, 1992) to be in the elevation range of 1,200 to 3,600 feet in western 

Oregon and from 2,500 to 5,000 feet in the southern Cascades (Lindell, pers. comm.). Forest 

openings commonly receive greater snow accumulation (two to three times more snow water 

equivalent) than adjacent forests (Harr 1992). These openings also receive greater wind 

speeds and twice the amount of heat during rain-on-snow events, which provides greater melt 

compared to a mature forest (Harr 1981, 1992; Storck 1997). For BLM-administered lands, 

acres of stand establishment were taken from the OPTIONS model vegetation modeling for 

each alternative. Satellite imagery from the 1996 Interagency Vegetation Mapping Project was 

used to determine the forest cover on other lands. 

Published regression equations were used to generate a winter snowpack (Greenburg 

and Welch 1998) that relate to snow accumulation by elevation using the snow telemetry 

(SNOWTEL) data from the National Resources Conservation Service for January 1 snow 

accumulation. Large forest openings within the rain-on-snow hydroregion receive greater 

snow accumulation (two to three times more snow water equivalent) than adjacent forests 

(Harr 1992). Further adjustments for regeneration harvest areas (Brunengo, unpublished 

data) were used to estimate snow cover in openings.

Snowmelt equations from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE 1956, 1998) 

were used to melt snow in the rain-on-snow elevation to approximate a 2-year, 24-
387

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

hour storm using average environmental conditions. The water from snowmelt for all 

vegetation cover types for each sixth-field subwatershed was averaged for the watershed 

and added to the precipitation for the 2-year, 24-hour storm. The water available 

for runoff (precipitation plus snowmelt) was rerun in the 2-year, 24-hour peak flow 

basin characteristics runoff equations. Water available for runoff was substituted as 

precipitation. The 2-year, 24-hour peak streamflow was then compared with a 5-year, 

24‐hour peak streamflow. Where it exceeded the 5-year, 24-hour peak streamflow, the 

watershed was considered susceptible to peak flow increase.

There are currently three sixth-field subwatersheds (out of 471) that are susceptible to 

peak flow increase in the rain-on-snow hydroregion on BLM-administered lands. See 

Figure 111 (Subwatersheds currently susceptible to peak flows in the rain-on-snowdominated hydroregion). No additional sixth-field subwatersheds would be susceptible 

when considering management activity on all lands. 

Figure 111. Subwatersheds currently susceptible to peak flows in the rain-on-snowdominated hydroregion

Shown is the peak flow susceptibility for sixth-field watersheds where the 2-year, 24-hour bankfull channel forming peak flow is greater than the 

5‐year, 24-hour peak flow. Includes the current rate of harvest on private land from 1996 IVMP imagery.
388

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

The largest floods in the world are caused by sustained rates of rainfall or dam-break 

floods (Naiman and Bilby 1998). Within the planning area, warm subtropical air from 

winter storms with sustained rates of rainfall combine with snow on the ground to 

produce the largest floods. For example, the largest floods on record (1861, 1890, and 

1964) were rain-on-snow events. Harr (1981) concluded that 23 of 25 of the largest 

annual peak flows of the Willamette River at Salem, Oregon between 1814 and 1977 

were caused by rapid snowmelt during rainfall. Harr also concluded that the effect of 

these wet mantle floods overwhelmed the peak flow response to forest management. 

Forest roads and landings change the infiltration of soil and the flow of surface and 

subsurface water in watersheds. These compacted areas are relatively impermeable and 

are a source of overland flow. The road and its cutslope can advance the timing of surface 

runoff, compared to slower, subsurface flow routes (Harr et al. 1975, 1979; Megahan et 

al. 1981, 1992; Wemple et al. 1996). During large storm events, roads intercept larger 

contributions of subsurface flow and route it to drainage ditches. This additional runoff 

contributes to rising flows where drainage ditches connect to streams. (Megahan 1972; 

LaMarche and Lettenmaier 2001; Luce 2002; Wemple and Jones 2003).

There are approximately 14,000 miles of BLM roads within the planning area. Many of 

these roads are crowned or insloped with a drainage ditch between the road shoulder and 

the backslope. This drainage ditch and stream connectivity effectively extends the stream 

channel network at stream crossings. However, where road drainage intersects ditch relief 

culverts, stream extension is appreciably reduced. Any remaining extension is short and 

is often terminated at the point of the first ditch relief culvert. Some surface runoff and 

interception of subsurface flow could enter stream channels below this juncture. 

There has long been debate regarding the magnitude of floods caused by timber 

harvesting and road building. 

Research from primary hydrologic study sites in the Cascades, Coast Range, and in 

northern California since the late 1950s show that a peak flow change from clear-cut 

harvesting is detectable at the catchment scale (less than 1,000 acres). 

The greatest response is from the first stream flow peaks in the fall that can be increased 

up to 100%, or more, after logging (Harr 1976; Ziemer 1981). These early fall storms 

produce small peaks, which had little, if any, consequence on channel form because 

stream flow is very low at this time (Grant et al. 2007). This effect of logging at peak flow 

through the winter storm season is thought to diminish with each subsequent storm by a 

variable representing the percentage of the area logged divided by the sequential storm 

number (Ziemer 1981).

For peak flows from clear-cutting with no roads, where the return interval was less than 

1 year, there was a significant increase in peak flows, but this diminished within 5 years 

(Jones and Grant 1996). 

Large peak flows (those with return intervals of greater than 5 years) were not 

significantly affected by clear-cut logging in either the H. J. Andrews (Rothacher 1973) 
389

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

or Alsea (Harr 1976) studies. These are the flows that can scour stream channels, modify 

floodplains, and carry tremendous quantities of sediment. 

Ziemer (1981, 1995) found a nonstatistically significant increase (4%) in peak flow for 

80 year old conifer stands that were harvested where 50% of the basal area was retained. 

For roads, Jones and Grant (1996) found no statistical increase in peak flow for 

catchments that contained roads but no clear-cuts. They found peak flows increased 50% 

for all event sizes with 25% of the area in clear-cuts and roads. Increases in peak flow 

were found when roads and other impermeable areas occupied more than 12% of the 

catchment scale watershed (Harr et al. 1975; Harr 1976).

A recent literature review in which all northwest studies were arranged by hydroregion 

has concluded for watersheds with roads and large openings that within the rain 

dominated hydroregion there is no data supporting any increase in peak flow below 

40% of a harvested watershed area. For basins within the rain-on-snow hydroregion, the 

detection threshold is 20% of a harvested watershed area (Grant et al. 2007).

Jones and Grant (1996) reported that peak discharges with a return interval of less 

than one year or greater have increased by as much as 100% in fifth- and sixth-field 

watersheds in the last 50 years. However, the data set was skewed toward smaller peak 

flows. Greater than 75% of the data set had a return period of less than one year and 

gauged areas were small catchments, which were not representative of the watershedsize basins. Further analysis of the same data set by others (Beschta 1997; Thomas and 

Megahan 1988) either could not detect any changes for the fifth- or sixth-field watersheds 

or were inconclusive. 

Source Water Protection 

The 1996 Safe Water Drinking Act amendments require the identification and 

management of source water protection areas for public water systems. States are 

required to develop source water assessments for public drinking water supply systems 

that include surface water and groundwater sources. The assessments include mapping of 

the surface or groundwater area, an inventory of the potential sources of contamination, 

and an evaluation of watershed sensitivity. See Table 117 (Potential contaminant sources 

affecting waterbodies within source water watersheds) for the activities on BLM lands 

that could affect drinking water supplies.
390

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Table 117. Potential contaminant sources affecting waterbodies within source water watersheds 

Contaminant Activity Causal Mechanism

Temperature Harvesting within riparian zones 

on perennial streams

Decrease in stream shade affected 

by canopy removal

Sediment

• Existing road network

• New road construction

Sediment delivery near stream 

crossings of roads

• Harvest areas

• Recent burns

• Cattle grazing

• Landslides and debris torrents

• Erosion and dry ravel

• Concentrated animal grazing in 

riparian areas leading to erosion 

or streambank collapse

Bacteria

• Recreation at campgrounds

• Dispersed sites 

• Failing sewage systems

• Improper waste disposal

Cattle grazing

• Cattle holding areas within 

riparian areas

• On-stream watering

Nutrients

Forest fertilization Fertilizer entering watercourses

Recent burns Mobilization from adjacent areas 

to streams

Pesticides Forest pesticide application Application to nontargeted areas 

by drift or runoff

Petroleum products • Refueling of equipment

• Transportation and fuel storage Spills

See Figure 112 (Source water watersheds percentage on BLM lands within the planning 

area). These watersheds are primarily in rural settings and do not involve industrialized 

contaminant sources. See Appendix I. Water for descriptions of specific community public 

water systems using surface water, population served, and land area affected for each district.
391

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Figure 112. Source water watersheds percentage on BLM lands within the planning area 

With the settlement of the Pacific Northwest in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth 

centuries, along with increasing populations, concerns arose about the quality of drinking 

water. Early focus centered on the characterization of disease-causing microbes in public 

water supplies and methods to immobilize or remove them. 

As a matter of necessity, small cities in rural areas set up points of diversion from surface 

waters from federal lands. They generally enjoyed excellent water quality during most 

of the year with minimal treatment. During the 1950s and 1960s, timber harvesting and 

range activities increased. A water system survey conducted by the Public Health Service 

in 1969 showed that only 60% of the public water systems surveyed delivered water that 

met Public Health Service standards (EPA 2000). Small systems, such as those found 

in rural communities, were the most at risk. Deficiencies related more to water system 

equipment, including filtration, disinfection, and a safe distribution system, rather than 

surface water quality. 

The height of road construction, harvesting, and rangeland use on BLM lands occurred 

in the 1950s through the 1980s. Watersheds have been generally on an improving trend 

during the last 15 years. 
392

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Fire and Fuels

Key Points

•	 The natural disturbance agent of fire differs in severity and frequency between the northern and southern 

BLM districts.

•	 Fire exclusion has increased the risk of high-severity fires in the Medford District and Klamath Falls Resource 

Area of the Lakeview District.

•	 Fire exclusion and vegetative ingrowth is a threat to fire resiliency in the Medford District and Klamath Falls 

Resource Area of the Lakeview District. 

Fire Regimes

Fire is a natural disturbance agent that has played a major role in shaping the forests within 

the planning area. A natural fire regime is a general classification of how fire would behave 

in the absence of human intervention. See Table 118 (Frequencies and severities of the 

natural fire regimes) for the frequencies and severities of natural fire behavior. 

Table 118. Frequencies and severities of the natural fire regimes

Natural Fire 

Regime

Frequency 

(years) Severity

Fire Regime I 0 to 35 low to mixed (surface fires are the most common)

Fire Regime II 0 to 35 high (stand replacement fires)

Fire Regime III 35 to 100+ mixed

Fire Regime IV 35 to 100+ high (stand replacement fires)

Fire Regime V 200+ high (stand replacement fires)

Generally, the BLM districts within the planning area fall into the following fire regimes:

•	 Eugene and Salem fall mostly into Fire Regime IV and Fire Regime V. 

•	 Roseburg is a transition zone of weather and the natural fire regimes. 

•	 Coos Bay has a variety of fire regimes. 

•	 Medford falls into Fire Regime I. 

•	 Klamath Falls (a resource area in the Lakeview District) is a complex mix of fire 

regimes; however, all are dry site (i.e., xeric). 

See Map 31 (Fire regimes). 
393

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Map 31. Fire regimes

The northern districts historically have had less frequent high-severity fire regimes. The 

southern districts, particularly the Medford District and the Klamath Falls Resource 

Area, have had less severe but more frequent fire regimes. These frequent low-severity 

fire events contribute to the fire resiliency of the forests of southern Oregon by removing 

understory vegetation, reducing ground and surface fuels, and reducing tree density.

There appears to be an emerging trend toward higher severity fires in the southern portion 

of the planning area (USDA, USDI 2004d). In the dry Douglas fir forests of southern 

Oregon, forests that currently would burn at a high severity 

level compose 50% of the landscape compared to 20% 

historically. This is a result of fire exclusion and harvesting 

practices that have fundamentally changed the historic fuel 

conditions (Peterson et al. 2005). These changes to the historic 

fuel conditions include:

•	 An increase in shade tolerant species, which are less fire resistant. Frequent, lowintensity fires control the establishment of fire intolerant species, which are more 

susceptible to mortality from bowl scorch and have increased the risk of crown 

fires due to lower canopy base heights.

•	 The lower height to live crown ratio of shade tolerant species increases 

ladder fuels. 

Fire resilient forest

A forest that has 

characteristics that limit fire 

severity and increase the 

resistance of the forest to 

mortality (Brown et al. 2004).
394

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

•	 Increased tree stocking levels. Frequent, low-intensity fires maintained a higher 

proportion of low-density stands. Surface fuels accumulate over time as smaller 

trees crowd out and die.

•	 A decrease in canopy base height. Frequent, low-intensity fires pruned the lower 

limbs of the trees that survived and reduced the threat of crown fires. 

•	 Ground fuels build up as duff and large woody material accumulate and 

decompose. This is a long-term process that occurs over decades. These fuels will 

not contribute to spread rates but will contribute heavily to fire severity.

The following management practices have increased the potential for 

uncharacteristic wildfires:

•	 Fire exclusion has created thickets of ladder fuels and increased fuel loadings.

•	 A lack of thinning and slash treatments has created higher density stands, 

understory vegetation, and fuels that favor large, high-severity fires.

•	 Harvesting practices have removed the more fire-resilient larger trees.

•	 Excluding areas (such as reserved areas) from the practices of thinning, 

prescribed burns, or fuel reduction activities makes them susceptible to wildfires 

of uncharacteristically high intensity and severity. This exclusion also makes 

them less fire resilient.

Fire exclusion is not a significant factor in fire severity in the northern portion of the 

planning area, which has a low return, high fire severity. The existing fuel loadings are 

likely consistent with the fire regime. In general, fires in the northern portion of the 

planning area are scattered and tend to be small. In the southern portion of the planning 

area, however, fire exclusion and harvesting practices have reduced fire resiliency. 

Research suggests that fire-resilient stands have the following characteristics:

•	 Reduced surface fuel loading (Cram et al. 2006; Brown et al. 2004; Peterson et 

al. 2005)

•	 Lower density and basal area (Cram et al. 2006; Brown et al. 2004) 

•	 Maintain large trees of fire-resistant species (Brown et al. 2004; Cram et al. 2006; 

Noss et al. 2006)

•	 Increased diameter increases the probability of the survival of green trees (Brown 

et al. 2004) 

•	 Increased height to live crown creates multistoried canopies with gaps (Brown et 

al. 2004; Peterson et al. 2005)

Legacy trees increase fire resiliency within a forest. Currently, 27% of the stand 

establishment and young stands in the Medford District contain legacy trees and 19% of 

the stand establishment and young stands in the Klamath Falls Resource Area contain 

legacy trees. 
395

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

The Klamath province and the southern portion of the Western Cascades province have 

a greater abundance of fires. There are more large fires in those province areas. See 

Figure 113 (Incidence of forest fires within the planning area between 1994 and 2004). 

Figure 113. Incidence of forest fires within the planning area between 1994 and 2004 
396

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Fire Hazards

Weather plays a major role in assessing fire hazard. Weather can increase the number of 

days per season that fuels are capable of producing a significant wildfire. 

Thunder storms are common in July and August, and more than half cause fires (Agee 

1996). The area in western Oregon south of the Rogue-Umpqua divide generally has 

more severe and frequent thunderstorms with little precipitation. Storms tend to track up 

the crest and east side of the Cascade Range (Agee 1996).

The primary cause of large wildfire ignitions within the planning area is lightning. The 

secondary cause is humans. Lightning often produces multiple fire starts that overwhelm 

available suppression forces. 

What is called the wildland urban interface encompasses a large portion of BLMadministered lands within the planning area. A wildland urban interface is an area where 

structures and other human development meet or intermingle with undeveloped wildland. 

As wildland urban interface areas continue to develop infrastructure, the sources of 

wildfire ignition increases also. In southwest Oregon, the primary ignition source of fires 

is now humans. 

The complexity and difficulty of fire management is increased by the checkerboard 

land ownership pattern of the BLM lands within the planning area. These BLM 

lands are interspersed with a variety of other lands (including intensively managed 

private, industrial forests and residential areas where residents may not want active 

forest management). While the goal of rapid fire suppression may be common to all 

landowners, it is often difficult to proactively treat fuel loadings in mixed ownership 

situations. Rural residents are concerned about smoke and the potential for fire to escape 

from the prescribed burns that are designed to treat fuel loadings. Industrial landowners 

are more tolerant of smoke, but, they are also concerned about fire that may escape 

from prescribed burns. Therefore, the ability to do, and thus the effectiveness of, fuels 

treatments is often reduced by mixed land ownership. 

Ground fuels that consume large amounts of woody fuels and organic soil horizons would 

produce disproportionately large amounts of smoke compared to fires that are generated 

from other types of fuels. Ground fires reduce the accumulation of organic material and 

carbon storage, and contribute to smoke production long after the flaming front of a fire 

has passed (Graham et al. 2004). Under drought conditions, these fires also damage and 

kill large trees by killing or damaging their roots and lower stem cambium (Graham et 

al. 2004). Because of the long duration of ground fires, they may result in greater heating 

than surface and crown fires with the potential for reducing organic material, volatizing 

nutrients, and creating a hydrophobic layer that contributes to soil erosion (Graham et al. 

2004). Crown fires have the largest immediate and long-term ecological effects and the 

greatest potential to threaten wildland urban interfaces (Graham et al. 2004).

Fire hazard ratings consider slope, aspect, climate, elevation, fuel type, and crown fire 

characteristics. A fire hazard and risk assessment was completed in 2006 by the Oregon 

Department of Forestry. See Figure 114 (Ratings of fire hazards within the planning 
397

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

area) for the district-specific breakdown for the ratings of the fire hazards within the 

planning area.

Figure 114. Ratings of fire hazards within the planning area

As follows, the general trend for the fire hazard ratings is for them to be lower in the 

northern portion of the planning area and higher in the southern portion of the 

planning area: 

•	 About 92% of the lands in the northern districts (Salem through Coos Bay) have 

a moderate fire hazard rating. The exception is Roseburg where the percentage of 

lands in the moderate category drops to about 55%. 

•	 About 48% of the lands in the southern portion of the planning area (the Medford 

District) have a high fire hazard rating along with very high ratings (17% and 

33%) that are much higher than in the northern districts (0.1 to 9%).

•	 The exception to the general north to south trend is the Klamath Falls Resource 

Area in which the bulk of the lands have a moderate rating. The issue in this area 

is fire frequency with dry pine sites that are highly susceptible to fire exclusion.
398

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

See Table 119 (Current fire hazard ratings by percent of land within the districts of the 

planning area) and Figure 115 (Current fire hazard ratings by percent of land within the 

Salem District) through Figure 121 (Current fire hazard ratings by percent of land within 

the Klamath Falls Resource Area of the Lakeview District) for an illustration of these 

trends across the districts within the planning area.

Table 119. Current fire hazard ratings by percent of land within the districts of the planning area

BLM Districts

Fire Hazard Ratings 

(by % of land)

Very Low/

Low Moderate High Very High

Salem 2.4 92.9 4.6 0.1

Eugene 0.9 91.5 7.4 0.1

Roseburg 0.1 55.6 35.4 8.8

Coos Bay 5.8 91.0 3.1 0.1

Medford (northern portion) 0.2 35.9 47.1 16.9

Medford (southern portion) 0.2 18.6 48.6 32.6

Klamath Falls Resource Area 

(Lakeview District) 2.0 73.0 13.0 12.0

Figure 115. Current fire hazard ratings by percent of land within the Salem District 

Figure 116. Current fire hazard ratings by percent of land within the Eugene District 
399

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Figure 117. Current fire hazard ratings by percent of land within the Roseburg District 

Figure 118. Current fire hazard ratings by percent of land within the Coos Bay District 

Figure 119. Current fire hazard ratings by percent of land within the northern portion of the 

Medford District 
400

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Figure 120. Current fire hazard ratings by percent of land within the southern portion of the 

Medford District

Figure 121. Current fire hazard ratings by percent of land within the Klamath Falls Resource Area 

of the Lakeview District
401

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Air

Key Points

•	 Wildfires contribute large amounts of air pollutants in episodic events that often exceed air quality standards 

over vast areas.

•	 Prescribed burns contribute negligible amounts of air pollutants in smaller, controlled events that exceed air 

quality standards over smaller, controlled areas. 

The standards for air quality are set by the Environmental Protection Agency under the 

authority of the Clean Air Act. There are two primary concerns regarding air quality—health 

standards and visibility. 

Western Oregon has a history of air quality issues due to weather patterns and topography. 

Weather patterns are dominated in western Oregon by the Pacific high pressure system. This 

weather pattern creates inversions during the summer and late-winter months that causes air 

stagnation by trapping pollutants at the lower elevations for extended 

periods of time. Topography compounds this issue by forming 

topographic bowls with the valleys in western Oregon and Klamath 

County that create the need for moderately intense storms to move the 

inversions and to mix the air layers. Most prescribed burning is 

conducted in the spring and fall when the atmosphere is generally 

unstable, which allows the mixing of air and the transport of pollutants off-site. All prescribed 

burning in western Oregon is conducted under the Oregon Smoke Management Plan, which 

requires dispersion, dilution, and avoidance techniques to minimize smoke impacts on local 

communities and to direct smoke away from designated areas. 

There are four types of classifications used in Oregon for the designation of air quality areas. 

• Attainment. Areas that meet air quality standards.

• Class I visibility areas. Areas that have very clean air and are subject to the tightest 

restrictions on how much additional pollution can be added to their airshed.

• Nonattainment areas. Areas that have consistently not met the national ambient air 

quality standards.

• Maintenance areas. Areas that have had a history of nonattainment but are now 

consistently meeting the national ambient air quality standards.

See Figure 122 (Air quality management areas within the planning area).

Inversion

A layer of warm air that 

prevents the rise of cool air and 

traps pollutants beneath it.
402

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Figure 122. Air quality management areas within the planning area 
403

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

In Class I visibility areas, the primary concern is the protection of visibility. These areas are 

protected under the Oregon State Implementation Plan, which governs regional haze. The 

following sites in western Oregon and Klamath County are designated as Class I visibility areas: 

•	 Mount Hood Wilderness

•	 Mt. Jefferson Wilderness

•	 Mt. Washington Wilderness

•	 Three Sisters Wilderness

•	 Diamond Peak Wilderness

•	 Crater Lake National Park

•	 Kalmiopsis Wilderness

•	 Mountain Lakes Wilderness

•	 Gearhart Mountain Wilderness 

Particulate matter is measured by two diameter classes—10 micron (PM10) and 2.5 microns 

(PM2.5). Both classes contribute to regional haze and reduced visibility. Data from air monitoring 

stations has shown that wildfire has not been a predominant long-term source of visibility 

impairment in any Class I area, although emissions from fire are an important episodic contributor 

to visibility aerosols (Sandberg 2002). 

There are currently six nonattainment areas in Oregon. Five are within the planning area.

•	 Eugene/Springfield Urban Growth Boundary (PM10 nonattainment) 

•	 Lakeview (PM10 nonattainment; redesignation to attainment is pending EPA approval)

•	 Medford/Ashland (PM10 nonattainment; redesignation to attainment is pending EPA 

approval)

•	 Oakridge Urban Growth Boundary (PM10 nonattainment) 

•	 Salem Keizer (carbon monoxide and ozone nonattainment) 

There are currently six maintenance areas within the planning area that have been redesignated 

from nonattainment areas.

•	 Portland Air Quality Maintenance Area (ozone and carbon monoxide)

•	 Eugene/Springfield (carbon monoxide)

•	 Grants Pass Business District (carbon monoxide)

•	 Grants Pass Urban Growth Boundary (PM10)

•	 Klamath Falls Urban Growth Boundary (carbon monoxide and PM10)

•	 Medford Urban Growth Boundary (carbon monoxide)

Smoke from wildfires and smoke from hazardous fuels treatments are similar in composition; 

however, the amount of emissions from wildfire is roughly double that from fuels treatments 

(Huff et al. 1995). 
404

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

In general, particulate matter from the smoke of wildfires and hazardous fuels treatments is the 

major pollutant of concern to health. Particulate is a general term for a mixture of solid particles 

and liquid droplets found in the air. Particulate from smoke tends to be very small (less than 

1 micron in diameter) and, as a result, is more of a health concern than the coarser particles 

that typically make up road dust. Particulate matter from wood smoke has a size range near the 

wavelength of visible light (0.4-0.7 micron). This makes the particles excellent at scattering light 

and, therefore, excellent at reducing visibility. 

Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless gas that is produced from incomplete combustion. 

It is produced in the largest amounts during the smoldering stages of a fire. Carbon monoxide is 

potentially one of the most dangerous components of smoke. Concentrations drop rapidly as the 

proximity to a fire decreases and are usually of concern only to firefighters. 

Hazardous air pollutants, such as acrolein, benzene, and formaldehyde, are present in smoke, but 

in far less concentrations than particulates and carbon monoxide. Nitrogen oxides and volatile 

organic gasses combine to form ozone. Although not confirmed, there appears to be an indirect 

link between the large smoke plumes from wildfires and increased ozone levels. The data used to 

compile the totals of emissions in this document show that approximately 62% of total emissions 

are 2.5 microns or smaller in diameter.
405

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Recreation

Key Points

•	 BLM management actions can affect the recreational setting of an area, which, in turn, influence the level and 

distribution of visitor use. 

•	 The growing popularity of off-highway vehicle use has resulted in a trend towards increased demand for this type 

of activity on BLM lands in western Oregon.

Recreation activities that take place in different settings produce different experiences for visitors. 

Certain settings are more conducive to certain types of activities and preferred by visitors who 

engage in them. This relationship between recreation activities and setting preferences can, 

in turn, influence visitor use patterns and levels across the landscape. If a management action 

changes the recreational setting of an area, it can cause corresponding changes in the public use 

of that area.

The recreational setting classification system is based on a combination of physical, 

administrative, and social setting characteristics. The combination of these characteristics 

determines the overall recreational setting for a particular area. These settings include: 

•	 primitive

•	 backcountry

•	 middle country

•	 front country

•	 rural 

Physical Setting Characteristics

Physical setting characteristics are directly affected by timber management activities. 

These features include: 

•	 remoteness (i.e., proximity to roads and road types)

•	 naturalness (i.e., landscape quality, level of disturbance, forest structural 

complexity, and age)

•	 recreational developments (e.g., campgrounds, day-use areas, trails, and other 

facilities)

The remoteness and naturalness are best suited for measuring the affects of timber 

management on the recreational setting. Management actions that require road building 

or decommissioning directly affect the level of remoteness of an area. Those actions that 

affect forest stand structure and age directly influence an area’s level of naturalness. 

Recreational developments are also considered characteristics of the physical setting. 

Timber management actions generally do not directly affect these areas. However, 

recreational developments directly influence the level and distribution of visitor use. 
406

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

The BLM’s functional road classification system is used to assign road types within 

middle country, front country, and rural settings in order to determine levels of 

remoteness. The system is based on traffic volume, vehicle speed, trip distance, travel 

mobility, and property access. Road types consist of arterial, collector, local, and 

resource roads (USDI, BLM 1996b, updated 2002). Primitive and backcountry settings 

are assigned to areas based on their proximity away from all of these road types. See 

Table 120 (Classification of recreational settings by remoteness) for the classification of 

recreational settings from primitive to rural by levels of remoteness.

Table 120. Classification of recreational settings by remoteness

Recreational 

Setting 

Classifications

Level of Remoteness

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

permanently closed or decommissioned

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

closed or decommissioned

Middle country Within 0.25 mile of local* or resource* roads

Front country Within 0.25 mile of collector* roads

Rural Within 0.25 mile of arterial roads or highways

Note: Collector, local, and resource are functional classifications of roads in the BLM road system. For details, see Transportation in Chapter 3

under Lands, Realty, Access, and Transportation.

See Figure 123 (Remoteness levels for a portion of the Klamath Falls Resource Area of 

the Lakeview District) for the remoteness levels that exist across a portion of the BLM’s 

land base in the Klamath Falls Resource Area of the Lakeview District.
407

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Figure 123. Remoteness levels for a portion of the Klamath Falls Resource Area of the 

Lakeview District 

Forest structural stage classifications describe the development of forest stands over time. 

These structural stage classes are used to classify naturalness levels for each recreational 

setting. See Table 121 (Classification of recreational settings by naturalness) for the 

classification of recreational settings from primitive to rural by levels of naturalness.

Table 121. Classification of recreational settings by naturalness

Recreational Setting 

Classifications Level of Naturalness

Primitive • Undisturbed natural landscape

• Structurally complex forest with existing old or very old forest

Backcountry

• Natural appearing landscape having modifications not readily 

noticeable

• Mature forest with a single or multiple canopies

Middle country

• Natural appearing landscape having modifications that do not 

overpower natural features 

• Young, high-density forest with structural legacies; or, young, lowdensity forest with or without structural legacies

Front country • Partially modified landscape with more noticeable modifications

• Young, high-density forest without structural legacies

Rural • Substantially modified natural landscape

• Stand establishment forest with or without structural legacies
408

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

See Figure 124 (Stand visualizations for each classification of naturalness) for the 

naturalness levels for each recreational setting using a series of forest stand visualizations.

Figure 124. Stand visualizations for each classification of naturalness

 Primitive Backcountry 

 Middle Country Front Country 

 Rural 
409

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Administrative Setting Characteristics

The BLM provides a wide range of recreational opportunities for the public across 

western Oregon. These opportunities are supported by a network of recreational 

developments that include: 

•	 campgrounds

•	 day-use areas

•	 trail systems

•	 backcountry byways

•	 environmental education areas

•	 recreation and public purpose leases to local governments

Included within these areas are numerous wildlife viewing areas, visitor centers, picnic 

areas, boat ramps, waysides, and other amenities. 

See the tables at the end of Chapter 2 for listings of all recreational developments 

by district.

Administrative setting characteristics include: 

•	 management controls and constraints (e.g., legal access, regulatory signing, and 

law enforcement presence)

•	 motorized use restrictions (e.g. off-highway vehicle area designations)

•	 visitor services (e.g., interpretive exhibits, environmental education programs, 

and on-site personnel) 

Timber management actions typically do not directly affect these administrative setting 

characteristics. However, certain aspects of these administrative setting characteristics are 

important to understanding the recreation program: 

•	 Legal public access is necessary for visitors seeking to recreate on public lands.

•	 Recreation management areas set the stage for most aspects of the 

administrative setting.

•	 Off-highway vehicle area designations directly influence the distribution of 

visitor use.

Since a majority of BLM lands in western Oregon are intermingled with private lands, 

public access can vary greatly. Reciprocal right-of-way agreements, easements, and 

unsecured access rights across adjacent private lands all have a determining affect on 

public access, which, in turn, influence visitor use.

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

every distinct management unit of BLM land throughout western Oregon. 

Secured legal public access includes public access rights that have been secured by the 

United States. Public access rights are generally included in the acquisition of exclusive 
410

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

or access road easements where the United States has acquired control of the right-ofway. Physical access must be present and available via roads or trails.

Unsecured legal public access includes public access rights that have not been secured 

by the United States. Administrative access may be legally and physically available to 

the BLM, although the right-of-way agreements or easements do not include legal access 

rights for the public. 

There are 1.9 million acres (77%) of BLM lands that are legally accessible to the public 

and 600,000 acres (23%) that are legally inaccessible to the public. See Table 122 (Legal 

public accessibility of BLM lands by district) and Figure 125 (Proportion of BLM lands 

by district with secured or unsecured legal public access) for these results by district. 

Table 122. Legal public accessibility of BLM lands by district 

District

Secured Legal Public 

Access

Unsecured Legal Public 

Access

Acres Percentage Acres Percentage

Salem 293,337 73% 109,887 27%

Eugene 196,740 62% 118,475 38%

Roseburg 284,484 67% 141,832 33%

Coos Bay 259,578 81% 62,647 29%

Medford 736,424 85% 131,804 15%

Klamath Falls Resource Area 

(Lakeview District) 192,190 85% 32,711 15%

Totals 1,962,754 77% 597,356 23%

Figure 125. Proportion of BLM lands by district with secured or unsecured legal public access

See Figure 126 (Secured and unsecured legal public access to a portion of the BLM’s 

land base in the Coos Bay District) for an example of secured and unsecured legal public 

access to a portion of BLM lands in the Coos Bay District. A complete set of legal public 

accessibility maps are available to the public for review at the district offices.

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

900,000

Acres

Medford Roseburg Salem Coos Bay Eugene Klamath

Falls

Unsecured Legal Public Access

Secured Legal Public Access
411

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Figure 126. Secured and unsecured legal public access to a portion of the BLM’s land base in the 

Coos Bay District

All BLM lands are classified as either special or extensive recreation management areas: 

•	 A special recreation management area is a unit of public land identified to 

provide specific recreational opportunities (i.e., activities, experiences, and 

benefits). The BLM manages 27 special recreation management areas in western 

Oregon that total 151,150 acres. See the tables at the end of Chapter 2.

•	 Extensive recreation management areas include all other BLM lands that are not 

classified as special recreation management areas. Recreation management is 

generally custodial in nature and used to address dispersed recreational demand. 

Management is designed to ensure visitor safety, limit resource impacts, and limit 

visitor conflicts. Extensive recreation management areas total 2.2 million acres 

across the planning area. See the tables at the end of Chapter 2.

All BLM lands are required to be designated as open, limited, or closed to motorized 

vehicles. Designations are based on the protection of natural and cultural resources, 

public safety, and limiting visitor conflicts.

• Open areas. Areas where off-highway vehicle use is unlimited since there are no 

issues regarding resources, visitor conflicts, or public safety to warrant limiting 

cross-country travel. 

• Limited areas. Areas where off-highway vehicle use is restricted in order to 

meet recreational and resource management objectives. Restrictions may include: 
412

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

the number or types of vehicles; the time or season of use; permitted or licensed 

use only; and limiting use to existing or designated roads and trails. 

• Closed areas. Areas that are closed to all motorized vehicle use to protect 

resources, ensure visitor safety, or reduce visitor conflicts.

The BLM also establishes subarea designations for making distinctions within larger 

off-highway vehicle areas. An off-highway vehicle emphasis area is an example of a 

subarea designation where off-highway vehicle use is more concentrated and intensively 

managed. These areas do not allow or prevent off-highway vehicle use. That is only 

determined through the broader designations of open, limited, and closed. The BLM 

currently manages six off-highway vehicles emphasis areas within the planning area 

(totaling 58,000 acres). 

The combination of these area and sub-area designations affects the administrative 

setting, which can in turn influence the level and distribution of recreational demand 

across the landscape. See the tables at the end of Chapter 2 for the current off-highway 

vehicle area and emphasis area designations by district.

Social Setting Characteristics

Social setting characteristics include: visitor contacts (number of encounters with other 

visitors), the distribution of visitors (number of visitors per area), and evidence of 

visitors (signs of past visitor use). Evaluating the level and distribution of visitors across 

the range of physical settings aids in understanding how timber management affects 

recreation use.

Recreation on BLM lands occurs within the larger context of overall recreational demand 

in western Oregon. When comparing the BLM’s most recent visitor use data (USDI, 

BLM 2006b) with the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department’s most recent outdoor 

recreation survey data (OPRD 2003), an estimated 17% of the total recreational demand 

throughout the planning area occurs on BLM lands.

Recreational demand is measured in two ways: (1) the total number of visitors per year, 

and (2) the total number of participants by 13 primary recreation activity categories. 

Since one visitor can participate in more than one activity, the number of participants is 

typically higher than the number of actual visitors.

Overall recreational demand is increasing at a rate of 1.9% each year in western Oregon 

(OPRD 2003). If this rate remains constant over the next 10 years, total visitation on 

BLM lands within the planning area is expected to increase from 5.1 to 6.2 million 

visitors by the year 2016. 

This rate of increase is not the same for all recreation activities, nor does the rate of 

change for individual activities proportionally affect overall changes in recreational 

demand. For example, nonmotorized boating is expected to increase 7% annually; 

however, this activity accounts for less than 1% of the total public use on western Oregon 
413

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

BLM lands. On the other hand, camping and picnicking is projected to increase at a rate 

of 1% each year, but it accounts for 9% of total visitation. 

See Table 123 (Current and projected levels of participation by recreation activity within 

the planning area from 2006 to 2016) for the current level of participation for 13 primary 

recreation activities on western Oregon BLM lands, the annual rate of change for each 

activity (based on statewide trends), and their projected levels by the year 2016. See 

Figure 127 (Current and projected levels of participation by recreation activity within the 

planning area from 2006 to 2016) for an illustration of these trends by activity.

Table 123. Current and projected levels of participation by recreation activity within the planning 

area from 2006 to 2016

Recreation Activity

Current 

Level 

(2006)

Annual Rate 

of Change

Projected 

Level 

(2016)

Nonmotorized winter activities 112,153 1.6% 136,827

Snowmobile and other motorized winter activities 151,061 5.0% 255,897

Motorized boating 161,763 1.0% 183,439

Nonmotorized boating 181,822 7.0% 360,917

Swimming and other water-based activities 277,203 -0.8% 246,156

Motorized off-highway vehicle travel 634,823 2.3% 835,427

Fishing 514,091 5.8% 930,505

Hunting (big game, upland game, and migratory 

game birds) 1,014,102 1.1% 1,163,175

Nonmotorized travel (hiking, biking, and horseback 

riding) 1,057,134 2.2% 1,380,617

Camping and picnicking 1,181,868 1.2% 1,373,331

Specialized nonmotorized activities and events 1,297,771 3.1% 1,861,004

Driving for pleasure (along designated BLM 

roadways) 1,530,294 1.1% 1,764,429

Wildlife viewing, interpretation, and nature study 2,748,317 5.2% 4,738,099
414

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Figure 127. Current and projected levels of participation by recreation activity within the planning 

area from 2006 to 2016

See Figure 128 (Proportion of projected recreational demand by activity in the year 

2016). The proportions are based on the current levels and annual rates of change for 

each activity.

Figure 128. Proportion of projected recreational demand by activity in the year 2016 

Projected Change by Recreation Activity

0 1,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 4,000,000 5,000,000

Non-motorized winter activities

Snowmobile/motorized winter activities

Motorized boating

Non-motorized boating

Swimming/other water-based activities

Fishing 

Motorized OHV travel

Hunting

Non-motorized travel 

Camping and picnicking

Specialized non-motorized activities/events 

Driving for pleasure 

Wildlife viewing, interpretation, nature study 

Number of Visitors

2006 2016

1% 2% 2% 6%

5%

8%

9%

9% 12%

12%

31%

1% 2%

Non-motorized winter activities Snowmobile/motorized winter activities

Motorized boating Non-motorized boating

Swimming/other water-based activities Fishing 

Motorized OHV travel Hunting

Non-motorized travel Camping and picnicking

Specialized non-motorized activities/events Driving for pleasure 

Wildlife viewing, interpretation, nature study 
415

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

The setting preferences of visitors are used to determine the distribution of recreational 

demand, which has been adapted from statewide survey data collected for Oregon’s 

Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (OPRD 2003)14. It is assumed that the 

distribution of recreational demand on BLM lands within the planning area would mimic 

these statewide results. See Table 124 (Distribution of recreational demand by setting for 

each recreation activity) and Figure 129 (Distribution of recreational demand by setting 

for each recreation activity) for the distribution of recreational demand by setting for 

each recreation activity. 

Table 124. Distribution of recreational demand by setting for each recreation activity 

Recreational Demand

Distribution of Recreational Demand by Setting 

(% of visitor use)

Primitive Backcountry

Middle 

Country

Front 

Country Rural

Totals 

by 

Demand

Wildlife viewing, 

interpretation, and 

nature study

9 19 42 11 19 100

Driving for pleasure 0 0 67 15 18 100

Specialized activities 

and events 4 9 22 17 48 100

Camping and picnicking 6 13 49 20 12 100

Nonmotorized travel 15 23 36 9 17 100

Hunting 22 26 27 19 6 100

Motorized off-highway 

vehicle travel 0 27 42 10 21 100

Fishing 21 15 38 13 13 100

Swimming and other 

water-based activities 6 17 47 9 21 100

Nonmotorized boating 17 17 27 11 28 100

Motorized boating 0 0 41 17 42 100

Snowmobile and other 

motorized winter activities 0 0 11 28 61 100

Nonmotorized winter 

activities 9 9 9 23 50 100

14 In some cases, visitor preferences may be constrained by the administrative setting. For example, off-highway vehicle riders 

may prefer the primitive setting. These areas, however, are restricted to nonmotorized activities (e.g., wilderness areas). These 

management constraints were taken into account when developing Table 124 to avoid such conflicts with BLM policy.
416

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Figure 129. Distribution of recreational demand by setting for each recreation activity

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Wildlife viewing, interpretation, nature study

Driving for pleasure

Specialized activities and events

Camping and picnicking

Non-motorized travel

Hunting

Motorized OHV travel

Fishing

Swimming/water based activities

Non-motorized boating

Motorized boating

Snowmobile/ motorized winter activities

Non-motorized winter activities

Percent of Visitor Use

Primitive Back Country Middle Country Front Country Rural
417

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Wilderness Characteristics

Key Points

There are 26,123 acres of BLM-administered lands in western Oregon that have been found to contain 

wilderness characteristics. 

The BLM’s authority to conduct wilderness reviews, including the establishment of new 

wilderness study areas, expired on October 21, 1993 pursuant to Section 603 of the Federal Land 

Policy and Management Act. However, the BLM has retained the authority under Section 201 

of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act to inventory wilderness characteristics and to 

consider such information during land use planning. 

Managing for wilderness characteristics may include protecting certain lands of sufficient size 

in their natural condition and providing opportunities for solitude or recreation that is primitive 

and unconfined.

To be of sufficient size, an area must be without roads and at least 5,000 acres. An exception 

may be made to this acreage requirement when a smaller area is considered large enough to 

provide for the preservation and use in an unimpaired condition because of its topography, 

vegetative screening, or other similar features. Another exception is when a BLM area with less 

than 5,000 acres adjoins an administrative boundary of the United States Forest Service and the 

combined acreage of the two roadless areas is a minimum 5,000 acres.

During the scoping for the western Oregon resource management plan revisions, 146 public 

wilderness proposals were received. Thirteen of these areas are located off BLM lands or outside 

of the western Oregon planning area. Those 13 proposals were not included in the evaluation 

process. The remaining 133 public wilderness proposals were evaluated to determine if they 

contain wilderness characteristics. Of these, nine areas were found to contain wilderness 

characteristics. The remaining 124 areas do not contain wilderness characteristics and, therefore, 

were not analyzed further.

Six of the nine areas with wilderness characteristics are smaller than 5,000 acres but meet the 

sufficient size criteria because they are contiguous with United States Forest Service roadless 

areas. Only the portions of these proposed areas that occur on BLM lands were evaluated and 

considered during this land use planning process. 

None of the proposed areas that are located on BLM lands are currently designated as wilderness 

areas or wilderness study areas. See Table 125 (Lands with wilderness characteristics) for the 

proposed areas that were found to contain wilderness characteristics. Refer to Table22 (Lands 

with wilderness characteristics maintained under special management) in Chapter 2 for those 

areas that would receive special management. See Appendix K. Wilderness Characteristics for the 

evaluation process used to identify lands with wilderness characteristics.
418

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Table 125. Lands with wilderness characteristics

BLM Lands Total 

(acres)

Identified Wilderness Characteristics

Naturalness

Outstanding 

Opportunities 

for Solitude

Outstanding 

Opportunities 

for Primitive, 

Unconfined 

Recreation

Salem District

Bull of the Woods/Opal Creek 

Additions 3,203 X X X

South Fork Clackamas River 919 X X

Salmon Huckleberry Additions 637 X X X

Mount Hebo 81 X X X

Eugene District

No lands were identified with wilderness characteristics

Roseburg District

Williams Creek 116 X X

Coos Bay District

Wasson Creek 3,408 X X X

Medford District

Berry Creek 6,433 X X X

Wellington Mountain 5,659 X X

Whiskey Creek 5,667 X X X

Klamath Falls Resource Area

No lands were identified with wilderness characteristics

Total 26,123

Figure 130 (Mt. Hebo wilderness characteristics) shows an example of a small unit of BLM land 

with wilderness characteristics abutting a USFS roadless area. 
419

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Figure 130. Mt. Hebo wilderness characteristics 
420

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Visual Resources

Key Points

Visual resource inventory classes provide a mechanism to assess the visual impacts of management actions. 

Visual resource management is a system for minimizing the visual impacts of surface-disturbing 

activities and for maintaining scenic values. The BLM’s visual resource management system 

consists of two distinct components: 

•	 visual resource inventory classes (one set of classes—Class I through Class IV)

•	 visual resource management classes (another set of classes—Class I through Class IV)

Visual resource inventory classes portray the relative quality of visual resources. Inventory 

classes do not establish management direction and are not used as a basis for constraining or 

limiting surface-disturbing activities, except for the Class I visual resource inventory class. There 

are four inventory classes that are assigned to BLM lands through the inventory process:

•	 Visual resource inventory Class I. This class is assigned to areas where a management 

decision has been made to preserve a natural landscape. This includes areas such as 

wilderness areas, wilderness study areas, wild and scenic rivers classified as wild, and 

other congressionally and administratively designated areas.

•	 Visual resource inventory Class II, Class III, and Class IV. These classes 

are assigned to areas based on a combination of scenic qualities, sensitivity levels, and 

distance zones. 

Class II visual resource inventory areas have a higher visual resource quality than do 

Class IV visual resource inventory areas. 

Visual resource management classes are designated through a resource management plan. These 

class designations can vary from the inventory class designations, except for the Class I visual 

resource management class. Refer to Chapter 2 for a description of the management objectives 

and the allocation of visual resource management classes. 

See Table 126 (Acres of each visual resource inventory class by district) and Figure 131 (Acres by 

visual resource inventory class within the planning area).
421

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Table 126. Acres of each visual resource inventory class by district 

BLM District

Visual Resource Inventory Classes 

(acres)

Class I Class II Class III Class IV

Salem 19,593 56,996 56,612 253,869

Eugene 1,187 4,739 34,606 272,836

Roseburg 0 92,354 23,582 307,895

Coos Bay 592 13,455 61,974 245,108

Medford 57,093 266,248 317,049 223,447

Klamath Falls Resource Area 

(Lakeview District) 340 42,824 79,578 100,876

Totals 78,805 476,616 573,401 1,404,031

Figure 131. Acres by visual resource inventory class within the planning area 

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

1,600,000

Class I Class II Class III Class IV

Acres
422

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

National Landscape Conservation System

Key Points

The BLM manages a variety of National Landscape Conservation System designations within the planning area. 

The National Landscape Conservation System, established in June 2000, is designed to conserve, 

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

and scientific values. The establishment of the system does not create new legal protections. It 

does, however, provide the administrative structure, staff, and budget that allows the BLM to 

better manage these areas.

All National Landscape Conservation System designated lands are withdrawn from timber 

harvesting with the exception of designated, suitable, and eligible wild and scenic rivers that 

are classified as scenic or recreational. These two classifications allow for limited timber 

harvesting in a manner that does not impair their free-flowing character, classification, or 

identified outstandingly remarkable values. Because of this variation in management, only wild 

and scenic rivers are described in detail below. All National Landscape Conservation System 

designated lands are summarized in Table 127 (National Landscape Conservation System 

designated lands by district).

Table 127. National Landscape Conservation System designated lands by district

Designation Type Name BLM District Acres

National monument Cascade-Siskiyou Medford 53,000

Wilderness areas

Table Rock Salem 5,700

Wild Rogue Medford 8,700

National scenic trail Pacific Crest

Medford 488

Klamath Falls 12

Wilderness study areas

Soda Mountain Medford 6,107

Brewer Spruce Medford 1,705

Little Sink Salem 80

Cherry Creek Coos Bay 570

Mountain Lakes Klamath Falls 340

Outstanding natural area Yaquina Head Salem 100

Other congressional designations

Mount Hood Corridor Salem 4,700

Bull Run Watershed 

Management Unit Salem 660

Wild and scenic rivers See Table 128 below All districts 109,533

Total 191,695

Notes:

•	 Acreages for the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail are based on a 100-foot wide corridor with one linear trail mile being equal to 12 acres. 

•	 Acreage for the wild and scenic rivers is based on a half-mile wide corridor with one linear river mile being equal to 320 acres.
423

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Most rivers are added to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System through federal legislation 

after a study of the river’s eligibility and suitability for designation. The result of the study 

process is a decision on whether to recommend the designation of a river to Congress (USDA, 

USDI 1999). There are a number of river segments that are at various stages of this process 

because of the high concentration of free-flowing rivers within the planning area and the in-depth 

nature of the study process. 

Of the 122 designated, suitable, and eligible wild and scenic river segments:

•	 12 are designated; 

•	 9 are suitable for recommendation to congress; and 

•	 101 are eligible but have not yet been studied for suitability. 

The BLM must provide permanent protection of designated wild and scenic rivers. Interim 

protection is required for eligible and suitable river segments, until either:

1. An eligible river segment has been determined to be unsuitable for inclusion as a wild and 

scenic river after completing a suitability study. 

2. A determination is made by Congress to include or remove a suitable river segment from the 

National Wild and Scenic River System.

All designated, suitable, and eligible wild and scenic river segments must be classified as wild, 

scenic, or recreational. These classifications are defined as follows.

•	 Wild river segments. River segments that are free of impoundments and generally 

inaccessible, except by trail. Their watersheds or shorelines are essentially primitive 

and their waters unpolluted. These represent vestiges of primitive America. No timber 

harvesting is allowed.

•	 Scenic river segments. River segments that are free of impoundments, their shorelines or 

watersheds are largely primitive and undeveloped, but their shorelines are accessible in 

places by roads. Limited timber harvesting is allowed.

•	 Recreational river segments. River segments that are readily accessible by road 

or railroad, they may have some development along their shorelines, and they 

may have undergone some impoundment or diversion in the past. Limited timber 

harvesting is allowed.

In addition to meeting one of the above criteria, all designated, suitable, and eligible rivers 

must possess one or more outstandingly remarkable value. These include: scenic, recreational, 

geological, fish, wildlife, historic, prehistoric, or other similar values.

See Table 128 (Wild and scenic rivers by district) for a summary of the wild and scenic river 

segments that occur on BLM lands within the planning area. See Figure 132 (Wild and scenic 

rivers by classification) for a summary of these river segments by classification. Individual wild 

and scenic river segments are listed by district in the tables at the end of Chapter 2.
424

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Table 128. Wild and scenic rivers by district

Wild and 

Scenic River 

Classification

Status District

Number 

of River 

Segments

Acres

Limited Timber 

Harvesting 

Allowed

Wild

Designated 

Salem 1 142

No

Medford 1 6,602

Suitable Medford 4 5,083

Eligible Medford 30 24,368

Scenic

Designated

Salem 3 1,398

Yes

Klamath Falls 1 2,780

Eligible

Salem 3 1,401

Medford 2 3,864

Recreational

Designated

Medford 1 4,911

Roseburg 1 2,142

Salem 4 2,505

Suitable

Salem 2 6,004

Eugene 3 6,691

Eligible

Salem 25 8,560

Coos Bay 4 1,958

Eugene 6 2,512

Roseburg 3 4,338

Medford 28 24,274

Total 122 109,533

Figure 132. Wild and scenic rivers by classification 

Classification Acres

Recreational 62938

Wild 36195

Scenic 9443

62,938 acres,

58%

9,443 acres,

9% 36,195 acres,

33%

Recreational Wild Scenic
425

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Soils

Key Points

Soils perform many functions in the environment that are important for plant growth, water quality, and human 

benefit. Natural events and management actions can change the capacity of a soil to perform these functions. 

Physical, chemical, and biological properties determine soil compactibility, erosiveness, and 

productivity. For example, shallow soils tend to hold less moisture and nutrients and are more 

susceptible to loss of soil productivity than deeper soils. Some soils are more or less susceptible 

to landslides and debris flows depending on geology and slope. 

Precipitation falls on the soil surface and is either:

•	 taken up by plants after being infiltrated and stored in the soil, or 

•	 moves across or through the soil into streams and lakes. 

The condition of the soil surface determines how this occurs. The potential for plant growth 

depends on the ability of the soil to accept, hold, and release nutrients and moisture. Soil provides 

the environment for root growth and development. Soil serves as the habitat for microorganisms 

that control processes related to plant nutrition, nutrient cycling, and the biological control of 

pests. The condition of the subsoil (soil below the surface) determines the effectiveness of these 

functions (Larson et al. 1996).

Natural events or management actions can change soil properties. Wildfire can reduce the organic 

matter found in soil and landslides can cause erosion. Timber harvesting, site preparation, road 

construction, prescribed burns and fuels reduction, off-highway vehicle use, mining, and livestock 

grazing cause soil compaction or displacement, surface erosion, and mass wasting processes. 

They also alter nutrient status, soil biology, and long-term soil productivity. 

Compaction

Soil compaction is the packing together of soil particles by physical pressure or vibration 

at the soil surface that results in an increase in soil density and a decrease in pore space. 

When pore space is decreased to a point where water, air, and plant roots have restricted 

movement, it increases surface runoff and reduces plant growth. All soils are susceptible 

to compaction and displacement “regardless of soil type, machine type [ground skidding 

machinery will cause soil compaction], soil moisture, or other soil characteristics” 

(Skaugset 1997). In addition, “research and monitoring confirmed that despite their 

unique design and use, highly mechanized systems (e.g., harvesters and forwarders) 

for logging younger and smaller timber have the potential to produce significant soil 

compaction” (Adams 2005).
426

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Soil displacement is a process where the soil surface is moved some distance by 

mechanical means or the hoof action of livestock. If nutrients, water, and soil organisms 

are removed from the site, rooting depth is reduced to the point plant growth is decreased. 

This process usually occurs concurrently with soil compaction.

Compaction and displacement from past timber harvesting activities remain. The extent 

of these conditions across the planning area is not known.

Soil compaction is also caused by road construction. The road surface must be compacted 

to hold the weight of rolling vehicular traffic. This results in soil that is unavailable for 

tree growth. Some literature suggests, however, that the growth of roadside trees may 

benefit from the increased light, moisture, and reduced competition (Miller et al. 1989). It 

is not known if increased growth makes up for the loss of trees on the running surface of 

a road. There are approximately 78,300 acres of roads that are administered by the BLM 

within the planning area, which represents about 3% of BLM land.

Erosion

Erosion is the detachment and movement of soil particles by water, wind, ice, or gravity. 

All soils are susceptible to erosion. The soils within the planning area are subject to two 

types of erosion:

•	 surface erosion 

•	 mass soil movement from debris flows or avalanches, slumps, and earth flows 

Surface erosion is rare on BLM lands within the planning area since undisturbed forest 

soils have a cover of vegetation, duff, and litter, which limits the overland flow of water 

and the subsequent erosion. Surface erosion can occur on compacted sites (e.g., roads). 

Mass soil movement is common on BLM lands in western Oregon. Slope failures 

are consistent with the soils, geologic material, and topography in western Oregon 

(Burroughs et al. 1976). Fast moving debris flows develop in shallow, coarse textured 

soils on steep slopes (greater than 65 %) in V-shaped drainages (usually in bedded 

sedimentary rock). Slumps and earth flows occur in deep, saturated soils that are high 

in silt or clay on gentle to moderate slopes. Soils derived from volcanic and deeply 

weathered sedimentary materials are subject to this mass movement process. 

Both wildfires and prescribed burns cause soil heating. Wildfire is a natural process that 

occurs with varying frequency, intensity, and severity. Prescribed burns are used as a tool 

for preparing sites for planting after timber harvests, for changing vegetative species, and 

for fuels reduction. When soil heating occurs to the point where there is a breakdown in 

soil structure, soil functions are impaired. Such impairments can include a reduction or 

loss of organic matter and microbial species, water repellency, and surface runoff. 
427

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Productivity

Soil productivity is the ability of a soil to produce vegetation. Vegetative growth requires 

adequate air, water, and nutrients. The physical (texture and structure), chemical (organic 

matter decomposition and nutrient release), and biological (nutrient cycling and nitrogen 

fixation) properties of soil supply air, water, and nutrients for plant growth. When any 

of these properties are altered such that vegetative growth is reduced, soil function is 

impaired. These soil properties are influenced by soil compaction and displacement, 

erosion, and fire. 

Soil productivity can be altered through such management actions as the harvesting of 

timber or the addition of fertilizer. Nitrogen is the main growth-limiting nutrient within 

the planning area and all districts have applied nitrogen fertilizer in the past, except for 

some Coast Range areas with soils that are not nitrogen limited. 

Organic matter decomposition and the subsequent nutrient release is a major factor of 

long-term soil productivity. The small components of trees (needles, leaves, and twigs) 

contain the highest concentrations of nitrogen and yet are the easiest material to remove 

from a site through displacement, erosion, or fire. 
428

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Grazing

Key Points

•	 The availability of forage and water is generally adequate for livestock.

•	 The number of vacant allotments and leases within the planning area has increased since 1996 by over 300%.

•	 The condition within individual allotments is variable based on historic grazing levels, past management actions, 

and current grazing management.

The Medford and Coos Bay districts and the Klamath Falls Field Office administer livestock 

grazing on 560,000 acres, which represents 22% of the planning area. See Map 7 (Lands 

available for livestock grazing) in Chapter 2. This level of grazing represents 14% of the total 

federal grazing acres that occur on lands that are covered by the Northwest Forest Plan. See 

Figure 133 (Percentage of grazing on BLM and Forest Service lands within the planning area). 

Figure 133. Percentage of grazing on BLM and Forest Service lands within the planning area 

The existing grazing leases and permits authorize a total of 26,840 active animal unit months 

during the grazing season. See Table 129 (Livestock grazing authorizations by district).

Table 129. Livestock grazing authorizations by district

Authorization Type Coos Bay 

District

Medford 

District

Klamath Falls Resource Area 

(Lakeview District) Total

Allotments 0 95 96 191

Leases 4 0 0 4

Public land acres 16 352,312 207,682 560,010

Active animal unit months 23 13,416 13,401 26,840

Permittees or lessees 3 59 92 154

The level of livestock grazing on Forest Service and BLM lands that are covered by the 

Northwest Forest Plan has decreased between the early 1990s and the early 2000s (Charnley 

2006). The reasons for the decline include:

•	 Requirements of the Northwest Forest Plan 

•	 Periods of drought

•	 Requirements of the Endangered Species Act 

•	 Socioeconomic factors causing the viability of grazing operations to decline 

•	 Difficulty of managing livestock across the checkerboard pattern of intermingled private 

and federal lands

Agency Acres

BLM 560,010

Forest Serv 3,415,138

Forest 

Service 

86%

BLM 

14%
429

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

The level, duration, and timing of livestock grazing use within the planning area has been leased 

or permitted at or below the levels of the current resource management plans. The number of 

vacant allotments and leases within the planning area has increased from 17 in 1996 (all in the 

Medford District) to 53 in 2004 (43 in the Medford District, 2 in the Coos Bay District, and 8 in 

the Klamath Falls Resource Area of the Lakeview District). See 

Figure 134 (Change in the number of active allotments between 1996 

and 2004). Some allotments have been vacant since the 1970s. The 

reasons for the increase of vacant allotments include:

•	 relinquishment by operators

•	 cancellation due to nonuse or noncompliance

•	 lack of interest

•	 intermingled private land making it difficult to graze within an allotment

•	 lack of fencing to control livestock on public land

Figure 134. Change in the number of active allotments between 1996 and 2004 

The overall number of active animal unit months decreased within the planning area. See 

Figure 135 (Change in active animal unit months between 1996 and 2004). The increase in the 

total active animal unit months for the Klamath Falls Field Office between 1996 and 2004 is a 

result of a combination of factors, including:

•	 Land sales, acquisitions, and exchanges

•	 Changes based on rangeland health assessments and rangeland survey results

•	 Adjustments to correct past allocation errors

•	 New information

Figure 135. Change in active animal unit months (AUMs) between 1996 and 2004 

Vacant allotment

A vacant allotment is an 

allotment that does not currently 

have an active permit or lease. 

0

50

100

150

Medford Coos Bay Klamath Falls

Number of 

Allotments

1996 2004

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

Medford Coos Bay Klamath Falls

Active 

AUM's

1996 2004
430

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

The condition within individual allotments is variable based on historic grazing levels, past 

management actions, and current grazing management. 

•	 In the Coos Bay District, the vegetation on BLM land within the four grazing leases is 

characterized by a mix of native grass species, noxious weeds, and nonnative pasture 

vegetation with the nonnative pasture species being the dominant vegetation. 

•	 In the Medford District, the vegetation within grazing allotments is characterized by a 

mix of grassland, chaparral, and mixed conifers and hardwoods. 

•	 In the Klamath Falls Resource Area of the Lakeview District, the eastern portion of the 

resource area is characterized by nonforested uplands, which are comprised of sagebrush 

and juniper communities. The western portion of the resource area is characterized by 

mixed conifers and hardwoods. 

Current grazing regulations 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. The standards are the basis for assessing and monitoring rangeland conditions and 

trends. If livestock is a significant causal factor in the failure to meet a standard, management 

will be implemented to ensure that progress is being made toward the attainment of the standard. 

A total of 101 allotments, which is 52% of the number of allotments and leases and 53% of the 

total number of public land acres within the planning area, have been assessed. Livestock was 

identified as a significant causal factor in the failure to meet one or more of the standards on all or 

portions of seven allotments. See Table 130 (Rangeland health standards assessment results).

Table 130. Rangeland health standards assessment results

Rangeland 

Standards Category

Coos Bay 

District Medford District

Klamath Falls 

Resource Area 

(Lakeview District)

Totals

Allotments Acres Allotments Acres Allotments Acres Allotments Acres

Meeting or Making 

Significant Progress 

Toward Meeting All 

Standards

4 16 23 20,280 44 105,548 71 125,844

Not Meeting or Making 

Significant Progress but 

Appropriate Action Has 

Been Taken to Ensure 

Significant Progress 

(Livestock is a factor)

0 0 0 0 7 36,369 7 36,369

Not Meeting or Making 

Significant Progress 

Toward Meeting 

Standards Due to 

Causes Other Than 

Livestock Grazing

0 0 17 99,667 6 34,697 23 134,364

Total Assessed 4 16 40 119,947 57 176,614 101 296,577

Total Not Assessed 0 0 55 232,365 39 31,068 94 263,433

Totals per District 4 16 95 352,312 96 207,682 195 560,010

Note: The category of Rangelands Not Meeting All Standards or Making Significant Progress Toward Meeting the Standard-No Appropriate Action has been Taken to 

ensure Significant Progress Toward Meeting the Standard (Livestock is a Significant Factor) is not included in the above table as the numbers would all be zero.
431

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Range improvements have been developed when needed to achieve the standards for rangeland 

health for Oregon and Washington, resource management plan objectives, or other allotment 

specific objectives. See Table 131 (Range Improvements constructed or maintained from 1996 

through 2006). Range improvements have been constructed to:

•	 improve the distribution of livestock;

•	 provide livestock with forage;

•	 provide for restoration;

•	 protect sensitive areas;

•	 improve wildlife habitat; and

•	 facilitate intensive management of livestock through the implementation of 

grazing systems.

Table 131. Range Improvements constructed or maintained from 1996 through 2006 

Type of Project

Coos Bay 

District Medford District

Klamath Falls 

Resource Area 

(Lakeview 

District)

Totals

Units Miles Units Miles Units Miles Units Miles

Livestock Fences 

Constructed 0 0 18 5 11 19 29 24

Livestock Fences 

Maintained 0 0 123 64 21 38 144 102

Reservoirs Constructed 

or Springs Developed 0 --- 6 --- 3 --- 9 ---

As overstory canopy cover decreases, understory forage production increases (USDA, Soils 

Conservation Service 1971; Young et al. 1967). Production of forage within regeneration harvest 

units is greater than within thinned stands because the understory vegetation does not have to 

compete with the overstory for limited resources. Over time, forage production would decline 

as juvenile trees continue to grow and begin to outcompete forage for the limited resources. The 

understory production is also influenced by successional stage and forest type (Walburger et al. 

2005). The amount of forage production would be higher within a stand establishment forest 

than within a young, mature and structurally complex forest. See Figure 136 (Forage production 

within a stand establishment forest versus a young forest).
432

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Figure 136. Forage production within a stand establishment forest versus a young forest

Off-highway vehicle use affects livestock grazing through the disturbance or harassment of 

livestock by the type of vehicles and access that permittees and lessees use to manage livestock or 

to conduct range improvement maintenance. 

•	 Areas designated as open to off-highway vehicle use provide more opportunities for the 

disturbance or harassment of livestock than areas designated as limited. 

•	 Areas designated as open to off-highway vehicle use do not limit the type of vehicle 

and availability of access that operators can use to move livestock or conduct range 

improvement maintenance. 

Fuels treatments affect livestock grazing by temporarily changing the use of foraging areas and 

changing forage production. Adjustments to foraging areas would be needed if soil and vegetation 

are no longer capable of supporting livestock following fuels treatments. Forage production 

would decline following fuels treatments but would increase over time as vegetation recovered.

 

 Stand Establishment Forest Young Forest 
433

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Wild Horses

Key Points

The wild horses within the Pokegama Herd Management Area have an appropriate management level of 

30 to 50 head.

The Pokegama Herd Management Area is the only herd management area within the planning 

area. It encompasses a total of 80,885 acres in Oregon and California and includes private, 

state, and federal lands. The planning area contains 84% of the herd management area, which 

is 67,869 acres. See Map 12 (Location of Pokegama Herd Management Area) in Chapter 2 and 

Figure 137 (Wild horses in the Pokegama Herd Management Area).

Figure 137. Wild horses in the Pokegama Herd Management Area 

Approximately 23% of the herd management area that lies within the planning area is located on 

BLM land while the remainder is located on private land. The wild horse herd is estimated to spend 

approximately 80 to 90% of its time on private land. The herd management area that is on BLM 

land is administered by the Klamath Falls Field Office. The private landowners have generally 

allowed the presence of wild horses on their lands—providing that the horses are within the 

established appropriate management level and do not range outside of the herd management area. 

The appropriate management level for the Pokegama Herd Management Area is 30 to 50 head. 

The appropriate management level has been maintained through two captures that were completed 

in 1996 and 2000. Since the designation of the herd management area in 1971, the wild horse 

population has ranged from 25 in 1972 to 55 in 2000. The current estimate of the herd size is 

30 to 35 animals; however, actual horse numbers are difficult to determine in a forested landscape. 

The average growth rate for the Pokegama herd is 4 to 5%, which is below the average rate of 

20% for other wild horse herds. The lower growth rate for the Pokegama herd may be related to a 

higher ratio of male to female horses (Gottlieb 1993). The lower growth rate may also be related 

to young horses being killed by mountain lions during the winter or being illegally removed 

(USDI, BLM 2002). The overall condition of the herd is excellent (USDI, BLM 1996c, 2002).
434

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Due to the high percentage of private lands (77%) within the herd management area and the 

use the herd makes of those lands, 150 animal unit months of forage are allocated to the herd 

on BLM lands. That figure is based on the proportion of BLM-administered lands in the herd 

management area. 

The Oregon portion of the herd management area lies within the boundaries of two grazing 

allotments. There is abundant forage and available water within the two allotments that comprise 

the herd management area, even though the distribution of the wild horses is not uniform. The 

Pokegama herd prefers (94%) meadows, open areas, and the tree cover on the edge of meadows 

(Gottlieb 1993). During the spring and summer the horses are seen in the northern and central 

portions of the herd management area. Due to the typically high winter snow accumulations 

present on the northern and central portions of the herd management area, the horses concentrate 

in the southern portion of the area from December through March. 

The majority (95%) of the Californian portion of the herd management area (13,016 acres) is 

located on private and state land, while only 5% is located on BLM land. The Pokegama herd can 

usually be found on the Californian portion of the herd management area during the winter and 

early spring, although they can be found there at any time of the year.

The diet of the Pokegama herd is predominantly grasses and grass-like species. The primary 

water sources for the Pokegama herd include creeks, springs, and reservoirs. The BLM and 

private land owners have constructed several exclosures to protect riparian areas from wild 

horse use. The majority (70 to 80%) of developed water sources (springs and reservoirs) for the 

Pokegama herd are located on private land (Lindsey 2006).

Off-highway vehicle use affects wild horses through disturbance or harassment. Areas designated 

as open to off-highway vehicle use would provide more opportunities for the disturbance or 

harassment of the wild horse herd than areas designated as limited. 

Fuels treatments affect wild horses by temporarily changing the use of traditional watering or 

foraging areas and changing forage production. Adjustments to traditional watering or foraging 

areas would be needed if soil and vegetation are no longer capable of supporting wild horses 

following fuels treatments. Forage production would decline following fuels treatments but would 

increase over time as vegetation recovered.

As overstory canopy cover decreases understory forage production increases (USDA, Soils 

Conservation Service 1971; Young et al. 1967). The production of forage within regeneration 

harvest units is greater than within thinned stands because the understory vegetation does not 

have to compete with the overstory for limited resources. Over time, forage production would 

decline as juvenile trees continue to grow and would begin to outcompete forage for the limited 

resources. The understory production is also influenced by successional stage and forest type 

(Walburger et al. 2005). The amount of forage production would be higher within a stand 

establishment forest than within a young, mature, or structurally complex forest. See Figure 136 

(Forage production within a stand establishment forest versus a young forest) in the Grazing

section of this chapter.
435

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

and Research Natural Areas

Key Points

•	 Relevant and important resource values are being protected and maintained on BLM-administered lands 

through the special management attention that is prescribed within 132 designated and potential areas of critical 

environmental concern on 85,548 acres.

•	 There is a high level of diversity in both the values protected within the areas of critical environmental 

concern across the planning area and the number and types of values contained within any one area of critical 

environmental concern.

Areas of critical environmental concern were defined in the Federal Land Policy and Management 

Act as areas within the public lands where special management attention is required to protect or 

to prevent irreparable damage to:

•	 important historic, cultural, or scenic values;

•	 fish and wildlife resources;

•	 other natural processes or systems; or 

•	 life and safety from natural hazards. 

Special management attention is developed to expressly protect relevant and important values. 

The management measures used for special management attention would not be necessary if the 

relevant and important features were not present, and would not be prescribed in the absence of 

the designation. 

Some special management attention is designed to change the relevant and important value on a 

trend towards the desired condition. Other special management attention is designed to protect the 

relevant and important values from management actions or other human activities, such as timber 

harvesting or recreation activities, by prohibiting those activities or by modifying the methods 

that would be used. 

In order to be considered for designation as an area of critical environmental concern, an area 

must meet relevance and importance criteria and require special management attention. An area 

meets the relevance criterion if it contains one or more of the following: 

•	 an important historic, cultural, or scenic value; 

•	 a fish and wildlife resource; 

•	 a natural process or system; or 

•	 a natural hazard.

The value, resource, process or system, or hazard described above must have substantial 

significance in order to satisfy the importance criteria. This generally means that the value, 

resource, process or system, or hazard is characterized by one or more of the following: 

•	 it has more than locally significant qualities that give it special worth, consequence, 

meaning, distinctiveness, or cause for concern, especially compared to any similar resource; 
436

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

•	 it has qualities or circumstances that make it fragile, sensitive, rare, irreplaceable, 

exemplary, unique, endangered, threatened, or vulnerable to adverse change; 

•	 it has been recognized as warranting protection in order to satisfy national priority concerns 

or to carry out the mandates of the Federal Land Management and Practices Act; 

•	 it has qualities that warrant highlighting in order to satisfy public or management 

concerns about safety or public welfare; or 

•	 it poses a significant threat to human life or safety, or to property.

Research natural areas are designated as a type of area of critical environmental concern. These 

areas are established and maintained for the primary purpose of research and education because 

the land has one or more of the following characteristics: 

•	 a typical representation of a common plant or animal association; 

•	 an unusual plant or animal association; 

•	 a threatened or endangered plant or animal species; 

•	 a typical representation of common geologic, soil, or water feature; or 

•	 an outstanding or unusual geologic, soil, or water feature. 

The research natural area network is designed to play a role as a control group or reference site 

to allow the BLM to determine if changes that are due to climate change, invasive organisms, or 

disturbance processes are occurring in the forests that are being managed for sustained yield to 

the same degree as in the research natural areas.

Outstanding natural areas are dually designated as an area of critical environmental concern. 

These areas are designated to protect the unique scenic, scientific, educational, and recreational 

values of certain areas within the public lands. 

Within the planning area, there are:

•	 94 designated areas of critical environmental concern; 

•	 5 potential areas of critical environmental concern that have been under interim management;

•	 34 designated areas of critical environmental concern that are also research natural areas; and

•	 7 designated areas of critical environmental concern that are also outstanding natural areas.

There are 85,548 acres within the designated and potential areas of critical environmental 

concern. The potential areas of critical environmental concern are under interim management. 

(The potential areas of critical environmental concern were nominated during the previous 

resource management plan process and are referred to in this analysis as “old” potential areas of 

critical environmental concern.) See Table 132 (Designated and old potential areas of critical 

environmental concern by district).
437

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Table 132. Designated and old potential areas of critical environmental concern by district

Areas of Critical 

Environmental 

Concern (ACECs)

Salem Eugene Roseburg Coos 

Bay Medford Klamath Falls Totals

Designated ACECs 26 14 10 11 28 5 94

Potential ACECs 

(under interim mgmt) 0 3 0 0 0 2 5

Research natural 

areas

8 5 7 1 12 1 34

Outstanding natural 

areas

5 1 0 0 1 0 7

Total ACEC acres per 

district 20,029 12,915 12,165 10,211 17,692 12,536 85,548

Total BLM acres per 

district 403,000 315,100 426,300 322,700 865,800 224,900 2,557,800

% ACEC acres of 

BLM acres 5.0% 4.1% 2.9% 3.2% 2.0% 5.6% 3.3%

Note: The research natural areas and outstanding natural areas are dually designated as areas of critical environmental concern, and their numbers are already 

counted within the designated and potential numbers.

Each district received new nominations for areas of critical environmental concern for the 

revisions of the western Oregon resource management plans. Thirty-three areas were found to 

meet the relevance and importance criteria and were recommended for further analysis in the 

plan revisions as new potential areas of critical environmental concern. While these areas are 

not currently designated as areas of critical environmental concern, their relevant and important 

values receive interim management upon nomination and are discussed here. None of these areas 

were nominated as research natural areas or outstanding natural areas. There are 20,608 acres 

within these 33 new potential areas of critical environmental concern. See Table 133 (New 

potential areas of critical environmental concern by district). 

Table 133. New potential areas of critical environmental concern by district

Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern 

(ACECs)

Salem Eugene Roseburg Coos 

Bay Medford Klamath Falls Totals

New potential ACECs 10 5 3 6 7 2 33

Total ACEC acres per district 5,508 2,040 202 4,053 8,620 185 20,608

Total BLM acres per district 403,000 315,100 426,300 322,700 865,800 224,900 2,557,800

% ACEC acres of BLM acres 1.4% 0.6% 0.05% 1.3% 1.0% 0.08% 0.8%

Relevant and important values are usually described in four categories. See Table 134 (Value 

categories for designated and old potential areas of critical environment concern by district) and 

Table 135 (Value categories for new potential areas of critical environmental concern by district).

•	 Historic, cultural, or scenic values include, but are not limited to, rare or sensitive archeological 

resources and religious or cultural resources that are important to Native Americans. 

•	 Fish and wildlife resources include, but are not limited to, habitat that is needed for 

endangered, sensitive, or threatened species, or habitat that is essential for maintaining 

species diversity. 
438

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

•	 Natural processes or systems include, but are not limited to, endangered, sensitive, or 

threatened plant species; rare, endemic, or relic plants or plant communities that are 

terrestrial, aquatic, or riparian; or rare geological features. 

•	 Natural hazards include, but are not limited to, areas of avalanche, dangerous flooding, 

landslides, unstable soils, seismic activity, or dangerous cliffs. A hazard caused by 

human action may be considered a natural hazard if it is determined through the resource 

management planning process that it has become part of a natural process. 

Table 134. Value categories for designated and old potential areas of critical environment concern by district

Value Category Salem Eugene Roseburg Coos 

Bay Medford Klamath Falls Totals

Historic, cultural, and 

scenic 8 4 2 5 8 5 32

Fish and wildlife 17 12 3 5 8 5 50

Natural process or 

system 26 15 9 11 27 7 95

Natural hazard 2 0 0 0 0 0 2

Table 135. Value categories for new potential areas of critical environmental concern by district

Value Category Salem Eugene Roseburg Coos 

Bay Medford Klamath Falls Totals

Historic, cultural, and 

scenic 0 0 0 1 1 1 3

Fish and wildlife 1 3 0 2 3 1 10

Natural process or 

system 9 4 3 5 7 2 30

Natural hazard 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

While it is only necessary for an area to meet the relevance and importance criteria for one value 

to qualify as an area of critical environmental concern, many areas within the planning area meet 

these criteria for several values. However, the number of values that meet the relevance and 

importance criteria can vary widely across the planning area, as can the combination of values 

that meet these criteria within an area of critical environmental concern. For example, area of 

critical environmental concern values range from a single special status plant species (Kincaid’s 

lupine) in the Stouts Creek Potential Area of Critical Environmental Concern in Roseburg, to a 

combination of unique geologic features, vernal pools, special status plants (natural processes and 

systems), listed fairy shrimp (fish and wildlife), developed interpretive educational area, scenic 

and cultural values at the Table Rocks Area of Critical Environmental Concern/Outstanding 

Natural Area in Medford. 
439

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Cultural Resources

Key Points

Cultural and paleontological sites are not evenly distributed across the districts but the location of sites is predictable. 

Cultural and paleontological resources are nonrenewable and typically consist of physical 

remains. Some traditional use sites and some historic sites may only be identified through written 

historic records or oral traditional sources and may not have physical remains. Collectively, these 

resources can be called heritage resources. See Table 136 (Heritage resources by district).

Table 136. Heritage resources by district

Heritage Resources

BLM Districts

Salem Eugene Roseburg Coos Bay Medford Klamath 

Falls

Archaeological sitesa 58 89 223 47 357 924

Historic sitesb 142 7 23 45 711 217

National Register of Historic 

Places (eligible) 7 2 45 5 130 0c

National Register of Historic 

Places (listed) 4 0 2 1 26 0c

% of district inventoried 25 4 15 10 7 50

Paleontological sites 6 0 18 19 2 Isolated

Notes:

a

Sites that contain either or both prehistoric and historic surface and subsurface deposits.

b

Sites with historic structural remains.

c

No formal determinations have been conducted.

Cultural resource locations are identified as:

•	 sites (the locations of a significant event, a prehistoric or historic occupation or activity, 

or a building or structure); or

•	 isolated finds (the locations with fewer than 10 artifacts). 

Cultural sites may be prehistoric, historic, or both. Sites may be entirely buried, may consist 

of above-ground or built features only (particularly historic sites), may include archeological 

remains, or may consist of features that are not native or natural to the specific environment. 

Nonnative features may be evidenced by domestic fruit trees and a clearing, which may be the 

only remaining evidence of a homestead site. 
440

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Types of Cultural Resource Sites

The types of cultural resource sites include lithic scatters and other prehistoric sites, 

historic sites, paleontological sites, and traditional use sites.

•	 Lithic scatters account for at least 80% of the prehistoric sites within the 

planning area. Lithic scatters are sites that consist primarily of flakes and 

chipped stone tools. 

•	 Other categories of prehistoric sites recorded within the planning area include 

rock shelters, middens, middens with structural features, rock art, rock features, 

lithic quarries, house pits, and peeled trees. Human burial sites may occur in 

districts either as individual sites or as features within larger sites (e.g., middens 

and housepit villages). Stacked rock hunting blinds and rock ring villages are 

contained in the Klamath Falls Resource Area of the Lakeview District. Stacked 

rock cairns in the Klamath Falls Resource Area are often associated with Native 

American vision quests. 

•	 Historic sites within the planning area are predominantly associated with the 

following activities: 

– homesteading, ranching, and settlement

– logging

– fire suppression

– mining

– subsistence living

– government management of the land 

•	 Paleontological sites consist of the physical remains of past animal or plant life in 

the form of fossils. Paleontological sites are uncommon within the planning area. 

The known sites have fossil remains of invertebrate marine and plant species. No 

known sites have vertebrate fossil remains.

•	 Traditional use sites play a current role in a living community’s historically rooted 

beliefs, customs, and practices. Traditional use sites within the planning area may 

include areas where traditional resources (food resources, basket making resources, 

and other traditional material sites) are collected and spiritual or sacred sites are 

located. Two of the federally recognized Indian tribes within the planning area (the 

Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs and the Klamath Indian Tribe) have offreservation treaty rights. The Klamath Indian Tribe’s rights, however, apply to their 

former reservation boundaries, which are not within the planning area. Members 

of the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs do exercise their off-reservation 

rights within the planning area (west of the Cascade crest into the Portland basin 

and extending south into the northeast reaches of the Eugene District). Trust 

responsibility directly applies to proposed agency actions that could pose an effect 

on tribal lands and resources (e.g., water quality, air quality, or fire control). 
441

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Prehistoric Sites

Overall site density is difficult to ascertain on BLM-administered lands in western 

Oregon due to the checkerboard pattern of land ownership, which has prevented 

extensive cultural resource surveys from being conducted over large contiguous areas 

within any single terrain type. Ascertainment of site density is further handicapped by 

heavy groundcover in the forested environment. However, it is possible to make some 

broad generalizations regarding prehistoric site density based on BLM inventory acreages 

and site documentation from the past 30 years.

Northern and Coastal Areas (Salem, Eugene, and Coos Bay Districts)

The majority of prehistoric archaeological sites on the west slopes of the Cascade 

Range are situated in predictable locations. Sites are typically situated: 

•	 along the crests of major ridge systems (often within saddles); 

•	 on river and stream terraces and on upland slump benches and meadows; 

•	 on the lower reaches of east, south, and west aspect slopes within the 400 

to 500 foot upslopes of larger secondary streams; and 

•	 where quarry sites occur on slopes.

Ridgeline sites are the most scattered as their locations are strongly associated 

with saddles, which are limited in number and distribution. Not all ridgeline 

saddles contain archaeological sites. Sites within this location category have a 

site density of 1 or 2 sites per linear mile of ridgeline. 

Valley margin sites have much higher densities with as many as 14 sites recorded 

within a single 500 acre tract for an average density of approximately 1 site per 

37 acres. However, site distribution in this setting is often much more concentrated 

with as many as six distinct artifact clusters being located within a 40 acre tract.

The BLM lands in the Salem and Eugene districts, with some notable exceptions, 

are absent from the valley floors of all, but the most minor, streams. 

There are only 12 recorded prehistoric archaeological sites located on BLM land 

in the Coast Range. The lack of prehistoric archaeological sites is verified by the 

results of numerous preproject cultural resource surveys. The few known sites do 

not provide enough information to identify topographic settings that have a high 

probability for site occurrence. 

The scarcity of known prehistoric sites on BLM land in the Coast Range is in 

part due to the history of BLM land tenure in the Coast Range. Most of the land 

administered by the BLM is revested O&C parcels and in the Coast Range those 

parcels have steep midslopes that largely preclude habitation. 
442

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Southern Area (Roseburg and Medford Districts) 

In the Siskiyou Mountains, known prehistoric sites are located in the vicinity of 

permanent springs and along river and stream terraces. The underlying serpentine 

bedrock includes pockets of high-quality rock that were used prehistorically for tool 

production. As least one excavated site on BLM land is located on a small midslope 

terrace with access to raw tool-making materials. Other prehistoric sites on BLM land 

are found along ridgetops. The availability of water was a greater factor in choosing 

site locations for prehistoric habitation in the southern areas of Oregon than in either 

the Coast Range or the Western Cascades, particularly during the fall acorn harvest.

Known prehistoric site density appears higher in this region than in the Coast 

Range, although the scattered nature of BLM parcels and of the surveyed areas 

limits meaningful quantitative measurement.

Slope is a prominent factor in the location of prehistoric sites in the Medford 

District. Slopes that are greater than 35% are associated with a lower incidence of 

prehistoric site occurrence. Other factors include the proximity to water and the 

presence of culturally important geologic resources (e.g., tool stone).

The Roseburg District manages a larger number of acres that are located on river 

and stream terraces than either of the Salem or Eugene districts. 

The BLM manages scattered parcels within the Oregon coastal shelf, which is the 

area between the Pacific Ocean and the foothills of the Coast Range and the Siskiyou 

Mountains. This north/south corridor has seen the development of substantial 

historic settlement and infrastructure and this development has adversely affected the 

preservation of prehistoric cultural resources (mostly shell middens). 

Klamath Falls Area (Klamath Falls Resource Area of the 

Lakeview District)

Prehistoric cultural resource occurrence reflects a mix of two physiographic 

provinces—the Basin and Range and the High Cascades. Sites tend to be near 

water sources that are within areas affording unobstructed views of prominent 

landscape features (e.g., Mt. Shasta, Mt. McLoughlin, Yainax Butte, and Bryant 

Mountain), along ridgelines, and adjacent to rock outcrops.

The Klamath River Canyon contains some of the oldest and most significant 

prehistoric sites known in this area. Many of these sites are located on private 

property (PacifiCorp), although nearly 30 sites are known to exist on BLM land. 

The Gerber Block (located in the eastern portion of the Klamath Falls 

Resource Area of the Lakeview District) contains the vast majority of known 

archaeological sites in the resource area. Both the Klamath Indians and Modoc 

Indians were known to use this area for hunting and gathering. Numerous village 

sites, lithic and ground stone artifact scatters, hunting blinds, and vision quest 

sites have been documented in this area.
443

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Historic Sites

The location and density of cultural sites varies greatly within the planning area. Historic 

site distribution differs from that of prehistoric sites. The majority of historic sites consist 

of the remains of features that were constructed as temporary or permanent residences or 

as transportation facilities for the purposes of:

•	 homesteading;

•	 obtaining timber, minerals, and other commodity resources;

•	 protecting against fires; or

•	 managing government resources. 

Sites related to homesteading, settlement, logging, and transportation are found generally 

in the Cascade Range, Coast Range, and Siskiyou Mountains. 

Historic sites occur in a variety of locations, such as:

•	 alongside drainages, 

•	 along ridgelines and on peaks, 

•	 in and around meadows and wetlands, and 

•	 along stream terraces. 

Slope is not a reliable predictor for historic site occurrence, particularly those associated 

with logging or mining. The presence of geologic resources (e.g., a precious metal), 

however, is a reliable predictor for mining sites. 

Few historic structures from the time of the first settlement activities (the mid nineteenth 

through the early twentieth centuries) can still be found standing. 

Historic sites representing early settlement activities appear to be more frequent in the 

Cascade Range and the Siskiyou Mountains than in the Coast Range for several reasons.

•	 The Willamette Valley was the destination of Oregon’s earliest settlers and was 

always the most densely populated area in the state relative to other regions. 

•	 The early settlement of agriculturally productive land in the Willamette Valley 

resulted in later-arriving settlers seeking homesteads. 

•	 The economic boom and bust cycles in the Willamette Valley led to short-term 

homesteading or subsistence living attempts in the Willamette uplands, which 

have left some cultural remains visible today. 

•	 Farming and ranching activities in the Siskiyou Mountains were more easily 

undertaken in that area’s open environment. 

•	 Dryer weather in the southern portions of the state preserved structures better. 

•	 Remaining sites are more visible in the Cascade Range and in the Siskiyou 

Mountains than in the Coast Range due to the open vegetation in those areas.
444

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Paleontological Sites

While rare within the planning area, paleontological resources have been found in the 

sedimentary rock that exists on all of the districts, except the Eugene District.

Traditional Use Sites

The identification of traditional use sites cannot be effectively accomplished without the 

help of recognized tribal governments and other traditional groups who currently use the 

sites for traditional practices. Once identified, cultural sites are evaluated and managed 

according to two different sets of criteria: 

•	 Eligibility criteria of the National Register of Historic Places. Eligibility for listing 

on the National Register of Historic Places is assessed using criteria that addresses 

site integrity and considers factors that include uniqueness, research potential in the 

study of history or prehistory, and association with important events or persons that 

have made contributions to the broad patterns of history. The first element addressed 

in the National Register of Historic Places significance criteria is site integrity.

•	 Criteria of the management use categories of the BLM (BLM Manual 

Section 8110.42). Six BLM management use categories (scientific use, conservation 

for future use, traditional use, public use, experimental use, and discharged from 

management) are employed to provide for site protection and use standards. Although 

some scientific and experimental uses result in the physical alteration of resources, 

in general, use does not imply consumptive use. Managed use of cultural resources 

can be fully compatible with long-term preservation, and also provide the means by 

which preservation is achieved.

The Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs have reserved treaty rights within the planning 

area. Other recognized tribes also have traditional areas and resources of concern within 

the planning area. A list of tribes with interests within the planning area is included in 

Appendix N. Cultural Resources. The importance of identified traditional use sites and 

resources are determined in consultation with federally recognized tribal governments. 

Adverse impacts to heritage values occur when sites are disturbed and site material 

contexts become mixed or churned, materials are damaged, and site integrity is disrupted 

or destroyed. Change to site setting can also be an adverse impact.

Threats to site integrity can be natural- or human-caused, inadvertent or intentional, 

or direct or indirect. Natural causes include erosion, weathering, gradual deterioration 

and decay, flooding, and wildfire. Human activities that result in ground or vegetation 

disturbance, and that can directly or indirectly affect heritage resource values, include 

timber harvest, reforestation, road building and decommissioning, burning and fire line 

construction, recreation development and use, livestock grazing, special forest product 

collection, and mineral extraction. Heritage resource values are also adversely impacted 

by such intentional disturbances as theft and vandalism.
445

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Traditional use sites can be impacted by visual and audible intrusions, loss of access, 

alteration of setting, and loss of or reduction in the quantity or quality of the material 

(resource) needed for traditional practices.

Lands, Realty, Access, and Transportation

Lands and Realty

Land use plans use land tenure zones to identify lands that are available for retention, 

proposed disposal, or acquisition. The factors considered in evaluating opportunities for 

the disposal or acquisition of lands can be found in Appendix O. Lands, Realty, Access, 

and Transportation. 

The three land tenure zones identify lands as follows. 

•	 Zone 1 is the retention and acquisition zone. 

•	 Zone 2 is the exchange and consolidation zone. 

•	 Zone 3 is the disposal zone. 

For the acreage of the zones for the six districts within the planning area, see Table 137 

(Acres of land tenure zones by district).

Table 137. Acres of land tenure zones by district

BLM District Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Total BLM Acres per District

Salem 160,200 233,300 9,500 403,000

Eugene 80,900 234,200 100 315,200

Roseburg 35,900 377,000 13,400 426,300

Coos Bay 4,600 317,000 1,000 322,600

Medford 292,100 566,500 7,200 865,800

Klamath Falls Resource Area 

(Lakeview District) 212,100 8,200 3,800 224,100

Total acres per zone 785,800 1,736,200 3,500 2,557,000

There has been limited activity in the acquisition of lands by purchase under Zone 1. One 

active acquisition project is ongoing—the Sandy River/Oregon National Historical Trail 

project that is located in the Salem District. 

The majority of the BLM’s land within the planning area is identified as Zone 2 (suitable 

for exchange). Land changes, as a method of adjusting land tenure, have had limited use in 

the support of resource management programs. Land exchanges have become extremely 

controversial and difficult to complete. Most land exchanges and transfer activities within the 

planning area were directed by federal legislation rather than by a discretionary agency action. 
446

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

There are 35,000 acres of BLM land within the planning area that are designated as 

Zone 3 (suitable for sale). There have been 2,186 acres sold to date—sold primarily to 

resolve unintentional occupancy trespass cases. Lands identified for sale are not sold if 

project-level reviews show conflicts with the land tenure adjustment criteria. Specific 

parcels of Zone 3 lands are shown in Appendix O. Lands. 

Section 3 of the Oregon Public Lands Transfer and Protection Act (Public Law 105-321), 

which is dated October 23, 1998, established a “no net loss” requirement for lands that 

are administered by the BLM in western Oregon. The act requires that, when selling, 

purchasing, or exchanging land, the BLM may not:

•	 Reduce the total acres of the Oregon and California Railroad Grant (O&C) lands 

or the Coos Bay Wagon Road (CBWR) lands.

•	 Reduce the number of acres of O&C, CBWR, and public domain lands that are 

available for timber harvesting below what existed on the date of enactment. 

The act requires the BLM to ensure a no net loss of acres on a 10‐year basis. To date, 

the BLM in western Oregon shows a surplus of 50 acres of O&C land and a deficit of 

63 acres of harvestable timberland. There has been a general decline in the use of land 

sales or land exchanges in western Oregon as methods of adjusting land tenure since the 

enactment of this law.

Withdrawals generally segregate land from operations under the nondiscretionary general 

land laws, mining laws, and sometimes the mineral leasing laws, but do not always affect 

BLM surface management. Classifications generally segregate the lands from all forms of 

appropriation under the public land laws, including the mining laws, but not the mineral 

leasing laws. The existing withdrawals and classifications within the planning area are 

shown in Appendix O. Lands.

There are 86 communication sites located on BLM land within the planning area. Several 

sites have multiple authorized users or uses, including two-way, microwave, and low 

power relay. These uses are generally compatible on the same site. Mass media users 

with associated high power transmissions are generally not compatible with existing low 

power uses on these developed sites. Existing communication site information is shown 

in Appendix O. Lands. 

Access

BLM land is generally available for needed right-of-ways where consistent with local 

comprehensive plans, Oregon statewide planning goals and rules, and the exclusion and 

avoidance of areas identified in resource management plans. Numerous types of right-ofways have been authorized by the BLM, including:

•	 state highways

•	 county roads

•	 private access roads
447

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

•	 trails

•	 power transmission lines

•	 electric distribution and service lines

•	 telephone and cable television lines

•	 railroads

•	 water pipelines and reservoirs

•	 canals

•	 federal highway material sites

•	 communication sites

•	 oil and gas pipelines

•	 bicycle paths 

The checkerboard land ownership pattern of the O&C lands generates most of the need 

to cross public lands in order to provide access and utilities to intermingled private lands. 

New right-of-way proposals across public lands are likely to continue in the future. 

The location and nature of such proposals is generally not known until an application is 

received by the BLM. 

Major existing right-of-way corridors within the planning area are shown in Map 9 

(Utility corridors) in Chapter 2. Existing facilities located within right-of-way corridors 

include Bonneville Power Administration and private electric transmission lines, 

pipelines, fiber-optic lines, and transportation infrastructure. 

A programmatic environmental impact statement to designate corridors for oil, gas, and 

hydrogen pipelines, and electricity transmission and distribution facilities on federal 

lands in 11 western states is currently underway by the Department of Energy. After the 

environmental impact statement is completed (December 2007), the BLM will amend 

relevant land use plans, as necessary, to implement any new corridor designations. The 

project currently includes the Salem, Eugene, Roseburg, Medford, and Lakeview districts. 

The proposed Jordan Cove Energy Liquid Natural Gas Terminal and Pacific Connector 

Gas Pipeline project would include an approximately 223-mile-long, 36-inch-diameter 

natural gas pipeline extending from a new terminal in Coos Bay southeastward across 

Coos, Douglas, Jackson, and Klamath counties in Oregon to an interconnection with an 

existing pipeline near Malin, Oregon. The proposed route extends across 40 miles of 

BLM land in the Roseburg, Coos Bay, Medford, and Lakeview districts. The Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission will prepare an environmental impact statement to 

address the environmental consequences of the project. The final environmental impact 

statement is scheduled to be finished by December 2007. 

The majority of right-of-ways granted over BLM land in western Oregon are for logging 

roads. In most cases, other right-of-ways (for such uses as domestic or irrigation water 

lines, or utility lines for servicing residences) are authorized within or adjacent to existing 

road clearing limits. In addition, there are numerous temporary use permits in effect that 

authorize other activities on public lands, including:
448

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

•	 apiary (beehive) sites;

•	 agricultural cultivation of small areas;

•	 residential encroachments or other structures pending their removal or longterm authorization;

•	 national guard or military reserve training; and

•	 other miscellaneous short-term activities. 

Leases are issued for land uses involving substantial construction, development, or land 

improvement. No new permits or leases (under any authority) are allowed for landfills 

and other waste disposal facilities. 

The BLM land within the planning area is predominantly intermingled in a checkerboard 

pattern with private land. Intermingled nonfederal lands are owned primarily by private 

timber companies and are managed for commercial timber production. Most of the 

legal access to the federal and nonfederal timberlands is provided through long-term or 

perpetual reciprocal right-of-way agreements between the United States and the private 

timberland owners. It is estimated that 80% of the public lands within the planning area 

are available for road construction and use under reciprocal right-of-way agreements. 

Reciprocal right-of-way agreements provide the United States and the private landowner 

with the right to use and construct logging roads on each other’s property for forest 

management and timber removal. 

Transportation

The BLM controls approximately 14,000 miles of road within the planning area. 

Approximately 13,000 miles (about 93%) of BLM roads have some form of surfacing 

(bituminous, aggregate, or pit run). The primary purpose for development and use of the 

BLM road system is the transportation of timber. The majority of the BLM road system is 

authorized for use by intermingled private timberland owners through reciprocal right-of 

way agreements and used for transportation of timber harvested from their lands. 

Although most BLM roads are not public roads, the BLM road system serves as a means 

for the public to access public lands for recreational activities where public access rights 

have been obtained or to provide ingress and egress to residences. The roads of the BLM 

road system are described by the following functional classifications. For a quantitative 

comparison of the road types, see Figure 138 (Distribution of functional classifications 

for BLM roads).

•	 Collector roads. Those roads that normally provide access to large blocks of 

public land and connect to state and county road systems.

•	 Local roads. Those roads that primarily provide access to lands that are adjacent 

to the collector network and serve travel over relatively short distances.

•	 Resource roads. Those roads that are primarily spur roads and provide access for 

only one or two types of resource management and carry very low traffic volumes.
449

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Road construction standards and maintenance intensity are generally highest on collector 

roads and lowest on resource roads.

Figure 138. Distribution of functional classifications for BLM roads 

Transportation management includes the development of a transportation management 

plan, road density reduction, and maintenance of the road system to meet the needs 

of resource programs. A transportation management plan for western Oregon was 

developed in 1996 (with a subsequent revision in 2002). The BLM has decommissioned 

approximately 590 miles of road. An additional 1,360 miles of BLM roads are identified 

for potential road closure. The BLM’s contractual obligations in reciprocal right-of-way 

agreements preclude a substantial reduction in road mileage within fifth-field watersheds. 

Maintenance of the BLM road system within the planning area follows the guidance 

in the western Oregon transportation management plan of 2002. Each district 

develops an annual maintenance operating plan that contains a list of roads scheduled 

to be maintained in the current year. Approximately 25% of the BLM road system 

(3,800 miles) is scheduled to be maintained in any given year. See Figure 139 (Miles of 

road maintenance). Road maintenance activities include:

•	 roadside brush removal

•	 road surface grading and replacement

•	 pavement maintenance and replacement

•	 ditch cleaning

•	 culvert cleaning and replacement 

•	 slough and slide removal 

Drainage facilities currently under assessment include:

•	 350 bridges

•	 500 major culverts (greater than 80 inches in diameter)

•	 40,000 minor culverts

Maintenance levels (for the intensity of maintenance) are assigned to BLM roads using 

a progressive five-level system (levels 1 through 5). Higher maintenance intensity (level 

4 or 5) is typically assigned to bituminous surface collector roads. Native surface local 

Collector, 

9%

Local,

 30%

Resource,

 61%
450

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

roads receive at least level 1 or 2 maintenance to ensure resource protection. Roads 

at levels 3 to 5 are maintained on a scheduled basis and may receive more extensive 

maintenance during periods of short-term increased use for timber hauling.

Figure 139. Miles of road maintenance 

The following tables display the current inventory of transportation development on and 

to BLM land within the planning area. 

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

12345

Low Maintenance Intensity High

Road Miles

Aggregate surface Native surface Bituminous surface
451

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Table 138. Road functional classifications by BLM district within the planning area 

Land Control 

Category

Functional Classifications of Roads (miles)

Arterial Collector Local Resource Unknown Road Totals

Salem District

BLM Controlled 0 219 847 1,434 27 2,527

BLM Land, No 

Control 15 17 75 67 199 373

Salem Totals 15 236 922 1,501 226 2,900

Eugene District

BLM Controlled 0 138 1,553 350 4 2,045

BLM Land, No 

Control 34 20 145 45 41 285

Eugene Totals 34 158 1,698 395 45 2,330

Roseburg District

BLM Controlled 0 372 775 1,637 47 2,831

BLM Land, No 

Control 15 12 109 191 45 372

Roseburg Totals 15 384 884 1,828 92 3,203

Coos Bay District

BLM Controlled 0 227 408 1,257 3 1,895

BLM Land, No 

Control 17 27 59 109 162 374

Coos Bay Totals 17 254 467 1,366 165 2,269

Medford District

BLM Controlled 0 390 1,091 3,128 102 4,711

BLM Land, No 

Control 32 36 72 106 443 689

Medford Totals 32 426 1,163 3,234 545 5,400

Klamath Falls Resource Area (Lakeview District)

BLM Controlled 2 87 133 143 0 365

BLM Land, No 

Control 3 8 150 1 188 350

KFalls RA Totals 5 95 283 144 188 715

Totals (All) 118 1,553 5,417 8,468 1,261 16,817
452

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Table 139. Road standards by BLM district within the planning area

Land Control 

Category

Width of Roads (miles)

Double-Lane Multiple-Lane Single-Lane Unknown Road Totals

Salem District

BLM Controlled 23 0 2,407 97 2,527

BLM Land, No 

Control 16 0 136 221 373

Salem Totals 39 0 2,543 318 2,900

Eugene District

BLM Controlled 18 0 1,945 82 2,045

BLM Land, No 

Control 21 0 214 50 285

Eugene Totals 39 0 2,159 132 2,330

Roseburg District

BLM Controlled 31 0 2,746 54 2,831

BLM Land, No 

Control 20 1 300 51 372

Roseburg Totals 51 1 3,046 105 3,203

Coos Bay District

BLM Controlled 60 0 1,792 43 1,895

BLM Land, No 

Control 5 17 182 170 374

Coos Bay Totals 65 17 1,974 213 2,269

Medford District

BLM Controlled 25 0 4,557 129 4,711

BLM Land, No 

Control 47 2 192 448 689

Medford Totals 72 2 4,749 577 5,400

Klamath Falls Resource Area (Lakeview District)

BLM Controlled 8 0 312 45 365

BLM Land, No 

Control 2 0 26 322 350

KFalls RA Totals 10 0 338 367 715

Total (All) 276 20 14,809 1,712 16,817
453

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Table 140. Road surface type by BLM district 

Land Control 

Category

Surface Type of Roads (miles)

Aggregate Bituminous Natural or 

Unknown Road Totals

Salem District

BLM Controlled 2,145 139 243 2,527

BLM Land, No 

Control 134 25 214 373

Salem Totals 2,279 164 457 2,900

Eugene District

BLM Controlled 1,494 224 327 2,045

BLM Land, No 

Control 174 25 86 285

Eugene Totals 1,668 249 413 2,330

Roseburg District

BLM Controlled 2,057 176 598 2,831

BLM Land, No 

Control 183 8 181 372

Roseburg Totals 2,240 184 779 3,203

Coos Bay District

BLM Controlled 1,139 414 342 1,895

BLM Land, No 

Control 111 10 253 374

Coos Bay Totals 1,250 424 595 2,269

Medford District

BLM Controlled 3,005 300 1,406 4,711

BLM Land, No 

Control 97 39 553 689

Medford Totals 3,102 339 1,959 5,400

Klamath Falls Resource Area (Lakeview District)

BLM Controlled 150 34 181 365

BLM Land, No 

Control 13 3 334 350

KFalls RA Totals 163 37 515 715

Totals (All) 10,702 1,397 4,718 16,817
454

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Energy and Minerals

Key Points

•	 Most of the lands within the planning area are open to the exploration and development energy and mineral.

•	 The coal-bearing sandstones and siltstones of the Coos Bay Basin contain methane gas at a rate that compares very 

favorably to existing natural gas from coal operations elsewhere in the United States and Canada.

•	 Coastal and ridge line areas within the planning unit are rated as having outstanding potential for wind-driven 

power generation.

•	 Approximately 3 to 5% of all mineral materials that are produced in Oregon come from public lands. Within the 

planning area, there are about 250 sites that each produce between 1,000 and 25,000 tons per year.

Physiographic and Geologic Terrains

The planning area is divided into several physiographic provinces (the Coast Range, 

the Willamette Valley, the Western Cascades, the Eastern Cascades, and Klamath). The 

unique geologic origin and morphology of each province controls their potential for 

mineral occurrence.

The heavily vegetated, elongated Coast Range province consists of a long, narrow 

belt of moderately high mountains and coastal headlands that extend southward from 

the Columbia River to the Middle Fork of the Coquille River and westward from the 

continental shelf inland to the western edge of the Willamette Valley. The area of the 

Coast Range province is approximately 200 miles long by 30 to 60 miles wide. The 

shoreline depositional basins of this province (including the southwest coastal coal beds) 

hold the potential for the accumulation of natural gas.

The Willamette Valley province extends southward for 130 miles from the Columbia 

River to Cottage Grove and comprises a 30 to 40 mile wide low land catch basin 

between the Coast Range and the Western Cascade. The valley dips gently from about 

400 feet in elevation at its southern end to near sea level at Portland. The material 

deposited by floods consists mainly of gravels to fine sediments and is separated at 

intervals by low hills.

The planning area contains lands that have a moderate to high potential for both 

hydrothermal metallic deposits and geothermal energy.

The Coast Mountains and the Willamette Valley terminate to the south against the 

12,000 square miles of the Klamath. It is a province of deep, narrow valleys and 

peaks, bounded to the west by a narrow coastal plain with steep headlands and the 

Cascades Mountains to the east. Intrusions within the Klamath Mountains have created 

a high potential for the accumulation of hydrothermal metallic deposits and secondary 

enrichment zones.
455

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

The Basin and Range is a province of narrow, north and south trending fault-block 

mountains and alternating broad basins bordering the Cascade Mountains to the west 

and the High Lava Plains of central Oregon to the north. The Basin and Range may have 

some potential for natural gas while its volcanic past has created a high potential for 

geothermal resources.

Regulation and Availability of Mineral and 

Energy Resources

In Oregon, the BLM administers the mineral estate on nearly 40 million acres of BLM, 

U.S. Forest Service, and other federal and Indian lands. Approximately 2,557,700 acres 

are within the planning unit. An additional 68,600 acres of federal subsurface mineral 

estate exists beneath private surface. Known and inferred information indicates that about 

half of this area has a low potential for mineralization of interest with 40% at a moderate 

potential and 5% with a higher likelihood. Aside from the restrictions that are imposed by 

law, regulation, or executive/secretarial order, over 90% of the BLM-administered public 

lands, including O&C lands, are currently available for mineral and energy exploration 

and development (subject to the tenets of the individual resource management plans of 

the districts).

Mineral and energy resources on federal lands are managed under the authorities enacted 

by Congress in the following laws: 

•	 Mining Law of 1872 (e.g., metallic and gem stones)

•	 Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (e.g., energy and industrial chemicals)

•	 Mineral Materials Sales Act of 1947 (e.g., common variety construction 

materials)

•	 Mining and Materials policy Act of 1970

•	 Federal land Policy and Management Act of 1976

•	 National Materials and Minerals Policy, Research and Development Act of 1980 

The cornerstone of BLM minerals management policy is the understanding that public 

lands will remain open for exploration and development, unless it is clearly in the 

national interest to withdraw them in whole or in part from mineral entry. Furthermore, 

the BLM encourages environmentally sound practices for mineral exploration and 

development on the open public lands by individuals and industry in a manner that 

satisfies both National and local needs.
456

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Known and Inferred Mineral Occurrence 

Potential

Summarized below is the approximate aerial extent of the BLM-administered mineral 

estate, current acreage open or closed to mineral entry, and the likely potential for 

the occurrence of economic mineralization (consistent with the existing resource 

management plans) for each district within the planning area.

Salem District

Table 141. Known and inferred mineral occurrence potential for the Salem District

Category Acres Remarks

Federal Surface and 

Mineral Estate 398,100

Federal Minerals and 

Private Surface 27,800

Locatable (e.g., metallics and gemstones)

Closed 5,900 Nondiscretionary

Closed 16,200 Discretionary

Open 49,200 Standard restrictions/stipulations

Open 326,800 Additional restrictions

Unknown or Low 321,900 Mineral occurrence potential

Moderate 18,000 Mineral occurrence potential

High 58,200 Mineral occurrence potential

Salable (e.g., sand, gravel, stone, clays, pumice)

Closed 5,900 Nondiscretionary

Closed 220,400 Discretionary

Open 49,200 Standard restrictions/stipulations

Open 122,600 Additional restrictions

Unknown or Low 387,600 Mineral occurrence potential

Moderate 5,000 Mineral occurrence potential

High 1,000 Mineral occurrence potential

Leasable (e.g., oil, gas, geothermal, coal, 

chemical minerals)

Closed 5,900 Nondiscretionary

Open 49,200 Standard restrictions/stipulations

Open 122,000 Additional restrictions

Open 221,000 No surface occupancy

Unknown or Low 389,100 Mineral occurrence potential

Moderate 219,500 Mineral occurrence potential

High 25,400 Mineral occurrence potential
457

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Provinces and mineral potentials within the Salem District:

•	 Geologic terrains (west to east): 

– Coast Range

– Willamette Valley

– Cascade Mountains

•	 Minerals: 

– ferruginous bauxite throughout Willamette Valley

– porphyritic copper and gold in headwater area of Santiam River

– good potential for lode metallics near St. Helens

– scattered low to moderate potential for beach placers

•	 Mineral materials: 

Aggregate and basalt rock abundant throughout district

•	 Energy: 

– high potential for gas near Mist with moderate potential throughout 

Coast Range and Willamette Valley

– scattered low grade coal deposits east of Salem and Newport

•	 Known production: 

– natural gas (Mist field)

– coal (Columbia Co.)

– clays (Portland area)

Eugene District

Table 142. Known and inferred mineral occurrence potential for the Eugene District

Category Acres Remarks

Federal Surface and 

Mineral Estate 318,000

Federal Minerals and 

Private Surface 1,300

Locatable (e.g., metallics and gemstones)

Closed 400 Nondiscretionary

Closed 15,300 Discretionary

Open 290,600 Standard restrictions/stipulations

Open 10,000 Additional restrictions

Unknown or Low 299,900 Mineral occurrence potential

Moderate 13,500 Mineral occurrence potential

High 2,900 Mineral occurrence potential

Salable (e.g., sand, gravel, stone, clays, pumice)

Closed 100 Nondiscretionary

Closed 9,100 Discretionary

Open 200 Standard restrictions/stipulations
458

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Category Acres Remarks

Open 307,000 Additional restrictions

Unknown or Low 300,100 Mineral occurrence potential

Moderate 12,500 Mineral occurrence potential

High 3,800 Mineral occurrence potential

Leasable (e.g., oil, gas, geothermal, coal, chemical 

minerals)

Closed 100,000 Nondiscretionary

Open -- Standard restrictions/stipulations

Open 138,000 Additional restrictions

Open 177,000 No surface occupancy

Unknown or Low 99,000 Mineral occurrence potential

Moderate 316,000 Mineral occurrence potential

High -- Mineral occurrence potential

Provinces and mineral potentials within the Salem District:

•	 Geologic terrains (west to east): 

– Coast Range

– Willamette Valley

– Cascade Mountains

•	 Minerals: 

– gold placers in the headwaters of the McKenzie and Middle Fork of 

the Willamette Rivers, and the Dorena Lake area

– metallic placer potential around Eugene

•	 Mineral materials: 

– aggregate and basalt rock abundant throughout district

– clays at Hobart Butte

•	 Energy: 

speculative to moderate potential for gas in the Willamette Valley 

and coastal areas
459

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Roseburg District

Table 143. Known and inferred mineral occurrence potential for the Roseburg District

Category Acres Remarks

Federal Surface and 

Mineral Estate 425,600

Federal Minerals and 

Private Surface 1,700

Locatable (e.g., metallics and gemstones)

Closed 300 Nondiscretionary

Closed 4,800 Discretionary

Open 366,200 Standard restrictions/stipulations

Open 20,800 Additional restrictions

Unknown or Low 307,600 Mineral occurrence potential

Moderate 88,000 Mineral occurrence potential

High 24,400 Mineral occurrence potential

Salable (e.g., sand, gravel, stone, clays, pumice)

Closed 30 Nondiscretionary

Closed 8,400 Discretionary

Open 381,700 Standard restrictions/stipulations

Open 29,200 Additional restrictions

Unknown or Low -- Mineral occurrence potential

Moderate 418,700 Mineral occurrence potential

High 1,900 Mineral occurrence potential

Leasable (e.g., oil, gas, geothermal, coal, chemical 

minerals)

Closed 30 Nondiscretionary

Open 356,300 Standard restrictions/stipulations

Open 53,300 Additional restrictions

Open 9,700 No surface occupancy

Unknown or Low 420,600 Mineral occurrence potential

Moderate 78,100 Mineral occurrence potential

High 155,800 Mineral occurrence potential

Provinces and mineral potentials within the Roseburg District:

•	 Geologic terrains: 

– Coast Range

– Klamath 

•	 Minerals: 

– nickel laterites east of Riddle; mercury in the headwaters of the 

Calapeoya and North Umpqua

– disseminated copper and gold throughout the pre-late Jurassic rocks 

along the Umpqua River and its tributaries

– placer metallics east of Drain and Sutherline
460

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

•	 Mineral materials: 

aggregate and basalt rock abundant throughout district

•	 Energy: 

scatter low grade coal deposits near Glide, Melrose, and Carson Valley

•	 Known production: 

nickel (Riddle)

Coos Bay District

Table 144. Known and inferred mineral occurrence potential for the Coos Bay District

Category Acres Remarks

Federal Surface and 

Mineral Estate 329,600

Federal Minerals and 

Private Surface 12,200

Locatable (e.g., metallics and gemstones)

Closed 1,000 Nondiscretionary

Closed 11,500 Discretionary

Open 99,500 Standard restrictions/stipulations

Open 217,600 Additional restrictions

Unknown or Low -- Mineral occurrence potential

Moderate -- Mineral occurrence potential

High -- Mineral occurrence potential

Salable (e.g., sand, gravel, stone, clays, pumice)

Closed 600 Nondiscretionary

Closed 14,700 Discretionary

Open 84,600 Standard restrictions/stipulations

Open 229,700 Additional restrictions

Unknown or Low 303,900 Mineral occurrence potential

Moderate 4,600 Mineral occurrence potential

High 900 Mineral occurrence potential

Leasable (e.g., oil, gas, geothermal, coal, chemical 

minerals)

Closed 1,600 Nondiscretionary

Open 101,400 Standard restrictions/stipulations

Open 56,300 Additional restrictions

Open 170,300 No surface occupancy

Unknown or Low Mineral occurrence potential

Moderate Mineral occurrence potential

High Mineral occurrence potential
461

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Provinces and mineral potentials within the Coos Bay District:

•	 Geologic terrains: 

– Coast Range

– Klamath

•	 Minerals: 

– gold, platinum, and chromite in coastal black beach sands

– disseminated lode and placer copper, chromite, and gold with scattered 

nickel laterite deposits throughout prelate Jurassic rocks along the 

Rogue River, its tributaries, and in the Kalmiopsis Wilderness

– silica beach sands at the mouth of the Umpqua River

•	 Mineral materials: 

aggregate and basalt rock abundant throughout district

•	 Energy: 

moderate to high potential for coal in early Tertiary basins 

surrounding Coos Bay with associated coal bed methane

•	 Known production: 

– subbituminous coal (Coos Co.)

– silica sands

Medford District

Table 145. Known and inferred mineral occurrence potential for the Medford District

Category Acres Remarks

Federal Surface and 

Mineral Estate 866,300

Federal Minerals and 

Private Surface 4,700

Locatable (e.g., metallics and gemstones)

Closed 16,800 Nondiscretionary

Closed 20,800 Discretionary

Open 536,500 Standard restrictions/stipulations

Open 293,400 Additional restrictions

Unknown or Low 473,100 Mineral occurrence potential

Moderate 388,700 Mineral occurrence potential

High 10,100 Mineral occurrence potential

Salable (e.g., sand, gravel, stone, clays, pumice)

Closed -- Nondiscretionary

Closed -- Discretionary

Open 864,800 Standard restrictions/stipulations

Open -- Additional restrictions

Unknown or Low -- Mineral occurrence potential
462

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Category Acres Remarks

Moderate 864,800 Mineral occurrence potential

High -- Mineral occurrence potential

Leasable (e.g., oil, gas, geothermal, coal, chemical 

minerals)

Closed 22,000 Nondiscretionary

Open 232,500 Standard restrictions/stipulations

Open 539,700 Additional restrictions

Open 73,300 No surface occupancy

Unknown or Low 789,500 Mineral occurrence potential

Moderate 202,700 Mineral occurrence potential

High 52,600 Mineral occurrence potential

Provinces and mineral potentials within the Medford District:

•	 Geologic terrains: 

– Klamath

– Cascade Mountains

•	 Minerals: 

disseminated lode and placer copper, chromite, and gold with 

scattered nickel laterite deposits throughout prelate Jurassic rocks 

throughout the area of the middle Rogue River and tributaries with 

major mining regions and pocket deposits along contacts of fine 

grained slate, argillite and carbonaceous rock

•	 Mineral materials: 

aggregate and basalt rock abundant throughout district

•	 Energy: 

scattered low grade coal deposits near Medford and Ashland

•	 Known production: 

– gold and precious metals (along Galice, Josephine, Sucker, Althouse 

Creeks and the Illinois River)

– talc

– subbituminous coal (Jackson Co.)
463

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Klamath Falls Resource Area (Lakeview District)

Table 146. Known and inferred mineral occurrence potential for the Klamath Falls 

Resource Area of the Lakeview District

Category Acres Remarks

Federal Surface and 

Mineral Estate 212,000

Federal Minerals and 

Private Surface 21,000

Locatable (e.g., metallics and gemstones)

Closed 4,700 Nondiscretionary

Closed 700 Discretionary

Open 191,600 Standard restrictions/stipulations

Open 37,900 Additional restrictions

Unknown or Low 99,000 Mineral occurrence potential

Moderate 128,000 Mineral occurrence potential

High 900 Mineral occurrence potential

Salable (e.g., sand, gravel, stone, clays, pumice)

Closed 300 Nondiscretionary

Closed 14,500 Discretionary

Open -- Standard restrictions/stipulations

Open 222,500 Additional restrictions

Unknown or Low -- Mineral occurrence potential

Moderate 200,000 Mineral occurrence potential

High 1,300 Mineral occurrence potential

Leasable (e.g., oil, gas, geothermal, coal, chemical 

minerals)

Closed 300 Nondiscretionary

Open -- Standard restrictions/stipulations

Open 197,600 Additional restrictions

Open 40,800 No surface occupancy

Unknown or Low -- Mineral occurrence potential

Moderate 200,000 Mineral occurrence potential

High 1,500 Mineral occurrence potential

Provinces and mineral potentials within the Klamath Falls Resource Area of the 

Lakeview District:

•	 Geologic terrains: 

– Cascade Mountains

– western Basin and Range

•	 Minerals: 

diatomite along Sprague River
464

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

•	 Mineral materials: 

aggregate, basalt rock, and pumice are abundant throughout district

•	 Energy: 

– moderately favorable potential for geothermal from Klamath Falls 

and southward

– speculative gas

•	 Known production: 

diatomite

Energy Resources

Currently, exploration or development of inground energy resources within the planning 

area are focused on the hydrocarbon potential (i.e., coal and natural gas) that are 

generally associated with Cenozoic marine sediments. Small quantities of low-grade 

coal have been mined in both the Salem and Coos Bay districts. There is a potential for 

occurrence elsewhere in the Coast Range and Willamette Valley provinces. The potential 

for renewable wind energy has yet to be tapped but is generally rated at good to better 

over most of the planning area.

Natural Gas

Conventional natural gas has been produced since the 1970s near the community 

of Mist in west-central Columbia County. The Mist Gas Field produced over 

65 billion cubic feet of gas since its discovery in 1979 with a value of about 

$125 million. Modern seismic technology is being used to guide the discovery 

of new pools at the field. The Mist Gas Field now includes two commercial 

underground natural gas storage projects. The potential existence of gas deposits 

in many coastal and Coast Range areas of western Oregon resulted in the leasing 

of nearly 6 million acres from federal, state, and local agencies and the permitting 

of over 500 wells in the 1980s.

In western Oregon, there are up to 100,000 prospective onshore acres for natural 

gas production. These are enhanced by excellent year-round access via logging 

and fire control roads and the availability of already constructed timber recovery 

staging areas for drilling sites. Currently, there are no conventional that are 

producing gas wells on federal leases.

To date, the state of Oregon’s Department of Geology and Mineral Industries 

has created only one gas field designation for the area encompassing the Mist 

Gas Field. Another gas field designation, however, is expected soon for the Coos 

Basin. The designation is required to accomplish state requirements for well 

spacing designations, mineral rights, and the control of drainage. It also increases 

interest and competition among development companies.
465

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

In the state of Oregon, nonfederal leasing and applications for permits to drill 

for production are currently focused in the Mist Gas Field, which has 16 current 

production wells and eight applications recently submitted for production permits 

(Houston, 2007), and focused in the Coos Basin (115,000 acres leased for three 

single-pad multiwell production systems).

Coal Bed Methane

Coal bed methane was recently proved up along the southwest coast with 

the strong likelihood of commercial development in the Coos Bay District. 

Foreseeable development of coal bed methane plays could potentially result in 

an additional 25,000 acres of BLM-managed lease offerings. To develop this 

resource, the industry estimates a near-term build-out of between 300 and 719 

wells (Halferty 2007) with approximately 37 wells and 77 wells on BLM lands.

The coal-bearing sandstones and siltstones of the Coos Bay Basin are estimated 

to form a section approximately 6,600 feet thick with multiple seams containing 

approximately 780 billion cubic feet of methane gas (approximately 10 billion 

cubic feet per section) with a producible rate that compares favorably to existing 

natural gas from coal operations elsewhere in the United States and Canada. 

A commercial drilling program is underway near the Coos County natural gas 

line and within a few miles of unleased federal coal. The Coos Bay District 

is beginning an environmental assessment process to develop special lease 

stipulations for about 10,000 acres that appear to be of interest to industry for 

coal bed natural gas. The environmental assessment should be completed in time 

to allow leasing to begin in September 2007.

Geothermal

Oregon has the distinction of being a state where geothermal resources are 

available in many areas. These resources are suitable for many different types of 

uses including the current dominant production for direct heat applications.

Although Oregon does not generate commercial electricity from geothermal 

energy, the potential is there. A U.S. Interior Department report identifies seven 

sites as among the 35 highest potential geothermal regions in the country. These 

sites include the Newberry Crater (near Bend), a location of past geothermal 

exploration, and the Klamath Falls, Lakeview, Crump Lake, Summer Lake, 

Malheur River, and Vale areas of southern and eastern Oregon.

Wind

Nationally, about 20% of installed wind energy capacity is on federal lands. 

Coastal areas and ridge lines within the planning unit are rated as having a good 

to excellent potential for wind-driven power generation—the better portion of the 

7,991 megawatts for all of Oregon. Oregon currently has some 435 megawatts 
466

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

of installed wind power generating capacity with another 140 megawatts 

proposed (American Wind Energy Association 2007). Notable areas with a 

good to excellent potential include the Columbia River corridor and the Oregon 

coast. The Columbia River corridor is generally an area of high wind resource; 

however, the complex terrain causes considerable local variability. The annual 

average wind resource at exposed areas ranges from Class 3 to Class 6. Spring 

and summer are the seasons of maximum wind power, except for the extreme 

west where the maximum resource is in winter. The power potential of western 

Oregon is classified at 4. Winter is the season of maximum power potential at 

sites well exposed to the prevailing south and southeasterly winds. During the 

summer, wind power is high along the central and southern Oregon coast at 

sites well-exposed to northerly winds and is associated with the strong surface 

pressure gradients created by the cold water and relatively warm interior (Wind 

Energy Resource Atlas of the United States 2007).

Energy Transmission

The proposed 1 billion cubic feet per day 223-mile Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline 

(Pacific Connector) is being jointly developed by Williams’ Northwest Pipeline 

(Williams’ Northwest), Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), and Fort 

Chicago Energy Partners L.P. (Fort Chicago). It will join the proposed Jordan Cove 

liquefied natural gas terminal being developed by Fort Chicago near Coos Bay, 

Oregon, to the Williams’ Northwest pipeline system near Myrtle Creek, Oregon, 

and then to Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s backbone gas transmission system 

near Malin, Oregon. About 56 miles of the proposed route cross federal land that 

is managed by the BLM and the Forest Service, and will require a federal right-ofway. Environmental reviews and public participation are underway as part of the 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission prefiling process.

National Energy Policy

Within the planning area, implementation of the National Energy Policy is a priority for 

modernizing the energy infrastructure, increasing supplies of renewable and nonrenewable 

energy, and accelerating conservation, protection, and improvement of the environment.

Oregon’s contribution to this effort is focused on:

•	 Acting in a timely manner to requests for right-of-ways and easements for energy 

exploration and development (e.g., geophysical surveys and infrastructure to 

develop and transport renewable and nonrenewable energy, and emphasizing 

parallel use of existing right-of-ways wherever possible).

•	 Being receptive to alternative energy proposals and the completion of an 

environmental impact statement relating to the authorization of wind energy 

projects (Nevada, Idaho, Oregon, Arizona, and Utah are principal areas identified 

for development).
467

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

•	 Being prepared for increased interest in oil and gas drilling in the southwest Oregon 

coastal area based on promising exploration taking place on private lands.

•	 Emphasizing adjudication of lands nominated for oil, gas, and geothermal 

leasing; timely processing of drilling permits; development of wind and 

geothermal resources; hydropower relicensing; monitoring to ensure 

environmentally sound practices; and integrating study findings of the Energy 

Policy Act into BLM land use plans.

• Facilitating National Energy Policy goals for modernizing energy infrastructure, 

increasing energy supplies, and accelerating the protection and improvement of 

the environment.

• Providing opportunities for environmentally sound commercial development.

• Supporting land use plan decisions for renewable and nonrenewable energy 

exploration, development, and transportation of energy sources.

• Reducing impediments that are limiting access across public lands.

• Issuing right-of-way authorizations for necessary infrastructure to develop and 

transport renewable and nonrenewable energy (e.g., oil or gas from producing 

areas or electricity generated from a variety of sources, such as hydropower, coal 

or gas-fired generators, and geothermal).

Summary of Mineral Occurrence Potential

Salable Mineral Materials

Within the planning area, the functions of the BLM’s principle mineral material 

program (common sand, gravel, rock, volcanic cinders, and clay) are related 

to designation of sites (community pits and common use areas), disposals 

(issuing sale contract and free use permits), and compliance inspections. Mineral 

materials are the most commonly mined commodities in Oregon. See Figure 140 

(Active mineral materials cases on BLM-administered lands by township). 
468

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Figure 140. Active mineral materials cases on BLM-administered lands by township 

Although production from BLM pits has declined since the 1980s due to the 

decrease in logging road construction, approximately 3 to 5% of all mineral 

materials produced in Oregon come from public lands, including from some 

250 sites within the planning area that can yield between 1,000 and 25,000 tons 

per year. This trend is expected to continue with an average annual growth rate 

of approximately 1% requiring significant quantities of crushed stone, sand, and 

gravel to come from resources yet to be delineated. Despite its low unit value, 

the aggregate and crushed stone industry is a major contributor to the regional 

economics (U.S. Geological Survey 2007). 
469

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Currently, activity is limited primarily to small sales and the use of larger 

volumes by other federal, state, and local agencies. In many portions of 

the planning area, rock sources are becoming scarce or are encumbered by 

restrictions, which limit the availability of rip-rap, large bounders and surfacing 

material required for restoration projects or timber harvesting activities. In the 

rapidly developing urban areas, expensive materials are being purchased from 

private sources and transported to BLM projects, at times passing potential BLMadministered sources.

Locatable Minerals

Locatable minerals include metallic minerals (i.e., gold, silver, lead, and zinc) 

and some nonmetallic minerals (e.g., fluorspar, 

asbestos, mica, gemstones, and uncommon varieties of 

sand, gravel, and stone). Large areas of southwestern 

Oregon are within mining districts. Most claim sites 

within the planning area are situated in the Klamath 

Mountains and the Western Cascades.

All BLM districts within the planning area carryout 

actions that are related to the administration of some 2,500 claims of active 

record. See Figure 141 (Active mining claim cases on BLM-administered lands 

by township) for the spatial distribution of claim sites to the nearest township. 

Related actions include:

•	 the processing of mining notices and plans of operations,

•	 the inspection of mining claims and mill sites for surface management 

compliance, 

•	 the determination of mining claim validity, 

•	 the processing of patents that are not otherwise precluded by 

moratorium, and 

•	 the mitigation of trespass and unauthorized occupancy cases.

Mining district

A mining district is a section 

of country that is usually 

designated by name and 

described or understood as 

being confined within certain 

natural boundaries in which gold, 

silver, or other minerals may be 

found in paying quantities.
470

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Figure 141. Active mining claim cases on BLM-administered lands by township 

Sporadic small-scale placer gold mining is the main type of locatable production 

occurring on BLM lands within the planning area, particularly in the southern 

districts. The number of active mining claims in western Oregon has generally 

declined due to changes in federal regulations that have resulted in increased fees 

for recording claims and maintenance.
471

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Summary of Potential

Currently, none of the types of mineral entry (i.e., locatable, salable, or leasable) 

contribute significantly to the economic base of the communities within the planning 

area. 

For western Oregon, the mineral occurrence potential can generally be described as 

follows:

• Natural gas. Submarginal to moderately favorable for natural gas from Coos 

County northward to the Columbia River with areas of high potential surrounding 

Coos Bay and in the vicinity of Mist in Columbia County. Conventional oil and 

gas potential exist as identified speculative petroleum systems (Ryu et al. 1990). 

Part of a structural sedimentary basin system that extends on and offshore from 

the Klamath Terrains boundary (Middle Fork of the Coquille River) north to the 

Columbia River (extending into Washington) and from the continental shelf east 

to the Willamette Valley.

• Coal bed natural gas (methane). Focused mainly on the Coaledo Formations 

of the onshore portion of the Coos Basin (an area of approximately 250 square 

mile located on the western edge of the Coos Bay District). Federally managed 

mineral rights are approximately 12.3% of the basin while the BLM-administered 

mineral right is approximately 7.6%.

• Coal. Highly favorable in the Coos Bay Field and Eden Ridge Field in southern 

Coos County, although of generally poor quality with interstratified carbonaceous 

shale.

• Locatable metallic deposits. Moderate to highly favorable throughout 

southwestern Oregon and in the vicinity of St. Helens in Columbia County. 

Reported production of gold and nickel in Douglas and Josephine counties.

• Saleable. Moderate to high potential across the planning area.

See Table 147 (Summary of the mineral occurrence potential within the planning area by 

resource type).
472

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Table 147. Summary of the mineral occurrence potential within the planning area by resource type

Resource Type Unknown or Low 

Potentiala

Moderate 

Potentialb

High 

Potentialc

Locatable (acres) 1,180,000 636,000 97,000

Salable (acres) 1,534,000 1,000,000 9,000

Leasable (acres) 2,016,000 1,265,000 235,000

Windd

 (% of planning area) 20% is Class 1 and 2 75% is Class 4 5% is Class 5 and 6

Note: All values rounded to the nearest 1,000.

a

Unknown or low potential: References and district documents indicate geologic formations and processes are not favorable for the 

accumulation of mineral resources or there is insufficient information to make a determination of the mineral potential.

bMedium potential: References and district documents indicate geological formation and processes are favorable for the accumulation of 

mineral resources. For example, there may be additional mineral resources in old mines, or prospects or new resources in areas with a high 

lever of mining notice filing.

c

High potential: References and district documents indicate geological formation and processes are favorable for the accumulation of mineral 

resources. These are areas of known active mines or active exploration and development activities, which indicate a high potential for the 

accumulation of mineral resources.

dWind class: According to the Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the United States, wind classes are as follows: Class 1 (< 200 W/m2

), Class 2 

(200 to 300 W/m2), Class 3 (300 to 400 W/m2), Class 4 (400 to 500 W/m2), Class 5 (500 to 600 W/m2), and Class 6 (600 to 800 W/m2).

Restrictions that could affect the exploration and development of energy and mineral 

resources can be divided into five categories:

•	 nondiscretionary closures

•	 discretionary closures

•	 no surface occupancy stipulations

•	 standard stipulations

•	 additional restrictions

See Table 148 (Acres of the restrictions that could affect the exploration and development 

of energy and mineral resources) for the acres of the existing restrictions.

Table 148. Acres of the restrictions that could affect the exploration and development of energy 

and mineral resources

Restrictions Unknown or Low 

Potential

Moderate 

Potential

High 

Potential

Nondiscretionary closures 389,000 128,000 59,000

Discretionary closures 25,000 8,000 1,000

No surface occupancy 

stipulations 56,000 121,000 0

Standard stipulations 2,618,000 2,251,000 275,000

Additional restrictions 354,000 286,000 5,000

Note: The sum of acres for each resource type (locatable, saleable, and leasable), which include overlap, are rounded to nearest 1,000.
PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300

OFFICIAL BUSINESSPortland, Oregon 97204333 S.W. 1st AvenueOregon State OfficeBureau of Land ManagementUnited States Department of the Interior PRIORITY MAIL

POSTAGE AND FEES PAID

Bureau of Land Management

Permit No. G-76

BLM/OR/WA/PL-07/046+1792
October 2005

Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement

for the Revision of the 

Resource Management Plans of the 

Western Oregon Bureau of Land 

Management Districts 

of Salem, Eugene, Roseburg, Coos Bay, and 

Medford Districts, and the Klamath Falls Resource 

Area of the Lakeview District

Volume II

Salem, Eugene, Roseburg, Coos Bay, Medford, and Klamath Falls Offices August 2007

BLM
As the Nation’s principal 

conservation agency, the Department 

of the Interior has responsibility for 

most of our nationally owned public 

lands and natural resources. This 

includes fostering the wisest use 

of our land and water resources, 

protecting our fish and wildlife, 

preserving the environmental and 

cultural values of our national 

parks and historical places, and 

providing for the enjoyment of life 

through outdoor recreation. The 

Department assesses our energy 

and mineral resources and works to 

assure that their development is in 

the best interest of all our people. 

The Department also has a major 

responsibility for American Indian 

reservation communities and for 

people who live in Island Territories 

under U.S. administration. 
473

Chapter 4 – Environmental 

Consequences

Chapter 4 of this draft environmental impact statement analyzes the environmental consequences of 

the alternatives for the six resource management plans of the planning area that are being revised. 

In this chapter:

Introduction ...............................................................................................................................475

Ecology........................................................................................................................................494

Socioeconomics .......................................................................................................................534

Environmental Justice..............................................................................................................554

Timber.........................................................................................................................................557

Special Forest Products ............................................................................................................590

Botany .......................................................................................................................................593

Invasive Plants...........................................................................................................................611

Wildlife ....................................................................................................................................633

Fish...............................................................................................................................................723
474

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Water............................................................................................................................................745

Fire and Fuels ..........................................................................................................................765

Air ...............................................................................................................................................773

Recreation ................................................................................................................................775

Wilderness Characteristics .....................................................................................................784

Visual Resources .....................................................................................................................789

National Landscape Conservation System ........................................................................793

Soils ..........................................................................................................................................794

Grazing .....................................................................................................................................798

Wild Horses .............................................................................................................................804

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern............................................................................807

Cultural Resources ...................................................................................................................811

Energy and Minerals ...............................................................................................................816
475

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Introduction

Chapter 4 describes the environmental consequences of the alternatives on the affected 

environment (described in Chapter 3) within the planning area (defined in Chapter 2). The 

various resources and programs would be affected to various degrees by each of the four 

alternatives (the No Action Alternative and the three action alternatives). Also described in 

this chapter are the analytical assumptions, the key assumptions, the analytical methodology 

and modeling, and the data that were used in the analyses of this draft environmental impact 

statement. Finally, this chapter suggests mitigation measures that may be needed for some 

resources or programs to reduce impacts. 

Keep in mind that this draft environmental impact statement describes the generalized 

management-level actions and not the site-specific implementation-level actions. 

Analytical Assumptions 

The analytical assumptions that were used in the analysis of the alternatives are based 

on the science of and the relationships within the natural systems that exist within the 

planning area. The specific assumptions that were used in this draft environmental impact 

statement for the analysis of each resource or program are contained within the 2006 

Proposed Planning Criteria and State Director Guidance document and its subsequent 

updates (incorporated by reference). In addition, the details about the methodology, 

including assumptions, that was used to model vegetation, water, large wood source 

areas, timber valuation, and socioeconomics are included as appendices. 

Following are the key assumptions that are common to all four alternatives. The 

assumptions that are specific to a resource or program are contained within the individual 

sections of Chapter 4 for those resources or programs.

Key Assumptions and Information Common to All Four 

Alternatives

Terminology

The following terms are used in this draft environmental impact 

statement.

•	 Commercial forest lands. Those lands that are capable of producing 

20 cubic feet per year of wood of commercial species. These lands 

are identified in the timber productivity capability classification (see 

Appendix Q – Vegetation Modeling). These lands are biologically 

capable of producing a sustained yield of timber.

•	 Forested lands. Those lands that are capable of 10% tree stocking. 

This excludes roads and such nonforest areas as water, meadows, and 

rock outcrops, which are identified in the GIS data. 
476

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

•	 Long term. For the management direction of these resource 

management plan revisions, long term is considered to be 100 years.

•	 Short term. For the management direction of these resource 

management plan revisions, short term is considered to be 10 years. 

Projection of Forest Conditions 

For all four alternatives, the lands that would be available for harvesting 

in support of the allowable sale quantity and sustained yield management 

(harvest land base) were mapped. Other lands (nonharvest land base) 

were also mapped and segregated into those lands where active 

management could occur and those lands where timber harvesting is 

prohibited. This mapping allowed the spatial application of the analytical 

assumptions of the alternatives, including timber harvesting, to model 

forest conditions over time. These modeled projections of forest 

conditions were expressed as classifications of habitat for the northern 

spotted owl, and as structural stages of forests, which were used by the 

interdisciplinary team in their analyses. See Appendix B – Ecology and 

Appendix Q – Vegetation Modeling. 

As part of this revision effort, the BLM has modeled timber harvesting 

and the development of wildlife habitat on BLM-administered lands. See 

Appendix Q – Vegetation Modeling. This modeling allowed projections 

to be made of the changes to the vegetation over time in the harvest land 

base. See the Ecology section of this chapter. 

Information from the Northwest Forest’s Plan 10-Year Monitoring Report

Information from the Northwest Forest Plan’s 10-year monitoring 

report was considered in the analyses in this draft environmental impact 

statement. Some of the general key findings in this monitoring report 

were that:

•	 watershed conditions improved,

•	 late-successional and old-growth forest increased more than was 

anticipated, and

•	 less timber harvesting occurred on federal lands than was 

anticipated. 

Specific information used from the report is referenced in the individual 

sections found in Chapters 3 and 4. 

Existing Federal and State Agency Plans

For purposes of analysis, it is assumed that other federal and state agencies 

would continue the implementation of their current plans as written. 
477

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

•	 The U.S. Forest Service would continue to implement their current 

land and resource management plans, which incorporate the 

standards and guidelines of the Northwest Forest Plan. The latesuccessional and riparian reserves would continue to grow into 

late-successional forest over time. The matrix lands would continue 

to provide the same overall amount and spatial pattern of vegetation 

over time.

•	 State lands and other federal lands would continue to provide the 

same overall amount and spatial pattern of vegetation over time. 

Although changes do occur on particular parcels of land, it is not 

feasible to project specific changes to millions of acres of land 

over time. Such a projection would be extremely complex and cost 

prohibitive to make. In the case of U.S. Forest Service’s matrix lands, 

the assumption that matrix lands would not appreciably change is 

conservative for species analysis, since forested stands in the matrix 

would continue to grow until harvested, and in some cases would 

develop into late-successional habitat. 

Private Lands

It is assumed that private lands, including both industrial forest lands and 

non-industrial lands would continue to provide the same overall amount 

and spatial pattern of vegetation over time as presently exists. 

Industrial forest lands are generally harvested on a short rotation basis, 

which is approximately every 40 years within the planning area. This 

means that these lands rotate through vegetative conditions in a regulated 

fashion from 0 to 40 years. At the landscape level, it is therefore expected 

that current vegetation patterns would remain approximately the same. 

Private, non-industrial lands are owned by a variety of individuals 

and entities (including private homeowners, local governments, and 

corporations). It would be cost and time prohibitive to predict the 

countless scenarios that could occur on these lands. In addition, these 

lands are less connected to the BLM’s management than the intermingled 

industrial forest lands, state lands, and other federal lands. 

Past Effects

As the Council on Environmental Quality in guidance issued on June 

24, 2005, points out, the “environmental analysis required under NEPA 

is forward-looking,” and review of past actions is required only “to 

the extent that this review informs agency decisionmaking regarding 

the proposed action.” Use of information on the effects on past action 

may be useful in two ways according to the CEQ guidance. One is for 
478

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

consideration of the proposed action’s cumulative effects, and secondly 

as a basis for identifying the proposed action’s direct and indirect effects. 

The CEQ stated in this guidance that “[g]enerally, agencies can conduct 

an adequate cumulative effects analysis by focusing on the current 

aggregate effects of past actions without delving into the historical details 

of individual past actions.” This is because a description of the current 

state of the environment inherently includes the effects of past actions. 

The CEQ guidance specifies that the “CEQ regulations do not require 

the consideration of the individual effects of all past actions to determine 

the present effects of past actions.” Our information on the current 

environmental condition is more comprehensive and more accurate for 

establishing a useful starting point for a cumulative effects analysis, than 

attempting to establish such a starting point by adding up the described 

effects of individual past actions to some environmental baseline 

condition in the past that, unlike current conditions, can no longer be 

verified by direct examination. 

The second area in which the CEQ guidance states that information on 

past actions may be useful is in “illuminating or predicting the direct 

and indirect effects of a proposed action.” Extrapolation of data from 

largely anecdotal information of past actions is not generally accepted 

as a reliable predictor of effects. The basis for predicting the direct and 

indirect effects of this proposed action and its alternatives is published 

empirical research, the general accumulated experience of the resource 

professionals in the agency with similar actions, and models that apply 

current scientific knowledge regarding relationships of our proposed 

management actions and effects that are generally accepted by the 

scientific community in the various specialized fields. 

Scoping for this project did not identify any need to exhaustively 

list individual past actions or analyze, compare, or describe the 

environmental effects of individual past actions in order to complete an 

analysis which would be useful for illuminating or predicting the effects 

of the proposed action.

For purposes of analysis, projects designed under the current RMPs 

proposed prior to October 1, 2005, are assumed completed as proposed. 

For example, the habitat on acreage included in a timber sale project 

proposed prior to that date would be displayed and analyzed as harvested, 

whether or not that harvest has yet been completed in fact. 

BLM Budget

It is assumed that all four alternatives would be adequately funded to 

implement the alternatives as designed.. 
479

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Administrative Actions

It is assumed that these types of routine transactions and activities 

(see Chapter 2 for details) would occur under all four alternatives at 

approximately the same level as during the past 10 years. The effects of 

these actions have been generally incorporated into the analysis for each 

resource or program.

Reasonably Foreseeable Mineral Development

Minerals that can be reasonably foreseeable for development include:

•	 fluid minerals (from natural gas wells, oil wells, geothermal wells 

and plants, and coal bed natural gas wells); 

•	 salable minerals (from rock quarries and decorative stone 

collection); and 

•	 locatable minerals (from dredging and mines). 

With the exception of coal bed natural gas, it is assumed that these types 

of activities would occur at a rate consistent with the past 10 years and 

would not vary by alternative. Exploration and development of coal bed 

natural gas is occurring on private lands in the Coos Bay District and 

exploration on BLM-administered lands is expected to increase in the next 

10 years. Development scenarios would not vary by alternative. A detailed 

description of the reasonably foreseeable development scenario can be 

found in Appendix P – Energy and Minerals. The effects of these actions 

have been generally incorporated into the analysis for each resource or 

program. Site-specific analysis would occur during project implementation.

Threatened and Endangered Species

It is assumed that the current listing status for species under the 

Endangered Species Act would remain in effect. 

Several recovery planning efforts and redesignations of critical habitat 

are currently underway. Information from these efforts was used in 

formulating the alternatives, management objectives and actions, and 

effects analyses to the extent practical. As these efforts are updated 

or completed, they would be considered between the draft and final 

environmental impact statements. The alternative that is subsequently 

adopted and implemented will be consistent with the recovery plan and 

management requirements for redesignated critical habitat. 
480

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Analytical Methodologies and Models

The analytical methodologies that were used in assessing the effects of the alternatives 

are described in detail in the 2006 Proposed Planning Criteria and State Director 

Guidance document. The public was requested to provide comments on the 

methodologies. Those comments were used to refine the methodologies used in the 

analysis. The analyses are both qualitative and quantitative in nature. The methodologies 

consist of procedures or models from experimental forests, scientific papers, previous 

environmental impact statements, and procedures developed by the BLM’s specialists.

Analytical models have been used to assess and compare some of the environmental 

consequences of the alternatives. These models simplify the complexity of biological, 

physical, or economic systems. Even though they are limited by current knowledge, they 

represent a synthesis of the knowledge of BLM staff and other scientists who are familiar 

with the subjects of concern. 

Forest Vegetation and Habitat Modeling

The alternatives outline a range of approaches for managing the BLM forest 

lands by varying the size and placement of land use allocations and varying the 

intensity with which the BLM forests are managed. These different management 

approaches would result in a range of outcomes—forest characteristics, 

habitat types, and sustainable harvest levels. A model was used to simulate the 

development of the forest over time under each alternative. The model simulated 

the application of management practices and forest development assumptions to 

characterize what the forests would be like in 10, 20, 50, and 100 years into the 

future. The outputs from this modeling form a quantitative basis for the analysis 

in this draft environmental impact statement that compares the alternatives. 

The OPTIONS model by D.R. Systems was used to model forest vegetation 

conditions, to model endangered species habitat, and to determine a sustainable 

harvest level. It is a scenario-based model and not an optimization model. A 

scenario-based model simulates the intensity of management and the analytical 

assumptions of the alternatives that produce a solution that satisfies both the 

objectives of the alternative and a sustainable harvest level. An optimization 

model seeks to find combinations of the types, timing, and intensity of harvests 

that increase the value of a forest in terms of its economic value from timber 

harvesting, as well as its ecological and social value from its composition. 

The OPTIONS model is also a spatially explicit model. This allowed for the 

development of map-based scenarios for the estimation of the environmental 

consequences of the alternatives within the short term (10 years) and long term 

(100 years). 

The OPTIONS model was applied to the approximately 2.5 million acres of 

BLM-administered lands within the planning area. The surrounding private, state, 

and other federal lands comprise approximately 22 million acres. Modeling the 
481

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

non-BLM lands to the same level of detail as the BLM-administered lands was 

not practical. Context vegetation modeling for the non-BLM lands was done by 

applying assumptions regarding the future management of non-BLM lands to the 

Interagency Vegetation Mapping Project satellite image vegetation classification.

The OPTIONS model came with no data and was used only as a modeling tool. 

The BLM was responsible for the data, assumptions, and rules that were used in 

formulating the model for analyzing the alternatives. A complete description of the 

OPTIONS modeling effort can be found in Appendix Q – Vegetation Modeling.

The Organon growth and yield model was used to determine the volume outputs 

for the silviculture regimes of each alternative and was a key input into the 

OPTIONS model. A complete description of the growth and yield modeling 

effort can be found in Appendix Q – Vegetation Modeling.

The OPTIONS model provided an assessment of the changes to the structural 

stages of forests and the changes to the habitat of the northern spotted owl over 

time for each alternative. A detailed description of these vegetation classes 

may be found in Appendix B – Ecology. The OPTIONS model also provided 

changes to key baseline vegetation conditions and northern spotted owl habitats. 

These outputs were used by resource specialists to estimate the environmental 

consequences of the alternatives. Outputs were also used as data inputs for other 

models (such as the modeling of hydrology and fire). 

The harvest treatments that were simulated in the model for the first 10 years 

were used to develop a first decadal scenario. This first decadal scenario was used 

for the purpose of estimating short-term change to the forests and the display 

of the types of treatments that would be applied. It also served as a basis to 

estimate road construction and harvesting methods. In addition, the first decadal 

scenario served as a quality control check of the sampled harvest units that were 

identified by the model. These harvest units were examined for the practicality 

of implementation. The first decadal scenario was not intended to be a plan for 

subsequent implementation on the ground. The environmental consequences 

from subsequent implementation of forest treatments through actual projects 

will be analyzed and disclosed in project-level environmental analysis. Projectlevel analysis will examine project level impacts and determine if they are 

within those already anticipated and described in this Environmental Impact 

Statement. Additional information about the first decadal scenario can be found 

in Appendix D – Timber.
482

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Geographic Information System Data

To support the western Oregon resource management planning effort in the mid 1980s, 

the BLM created an automated geospatial database, which is a geographic information 

system (GIS) database. Ongoing collaborative efforts in data collection, data standards, 

and data acquisition have resulted in a significant increase in the amount and accuracy of 

the geospatial data that is available for land use planning. 

The quality, quantity, and management of the data that is contained within the GIS 

database have provided managers and resource professionals with the ability to analyze 

complex land management issues and scenarios. The western Oregon component of the 

GIS database includes forest vegetation, management units, roads, hydrology, elevation, 

ownership, and a wide range of wildlife habitat information (including the location of 

threatened and endangered species on BLM-administered lands). 

Existing data was evaluated for accuracy, reliability, and limitations. Missing, incomplete, 

or outdated information was identified and updated when practical. Of particular note is 

an update to the estimated amount of BLM lands that are contained in the riparian reserve 

land use allocation under the No Action Alternative. Over the past 10 years, the extent 

of the hydrology network has been more fully mapped and the information regarding the 

presence of fish has increased. This improved GIS data about hydrology and the presence 

of fish on BLM lands within the planning area made it possible to model the extent 

of the riparian reserves to a precision that was not feasible 10 years ago. For the 1995 

resource management plans, it was estimated that 22% (522,000 acres) of the western 

Oregon BLM lands within the planning area were contained in the riparian reserve land 

use allocation (the portion covering the matrix and adaptive management areas after 

all other allocations are deducted). This number has been adjusted downward to 15% 

(364,000 acres) for the No Action Alternative.

Other corrections that resulted from the improved accuracy of the GIS information 

included a mapping correction. A mapping error during the previous Medford District 

resource management plan revision resulted in the inaccurate reporting of the district’s 

acres that were open to off-highway vehicle use. The resource management plan showed 

391,400 acres were open to off-highway vehicle use when, in fact, only 139,878 acres 

were open to off-highway vehicle use.

Besides the improved GIS data, another important source of data that was used in the 

analysis of the alternatives included the recently completed decadal assessment of 

the Northwest Forest Plan. This decadal assessment generated data that described the 

condition of the environment across the area of the Northwest Forest Plan. 

In general, data that was used in the analysis of the alternatives was summarized 

at various scales, including the planning area, physiographic provinces, the BLM 

districts, and fifth-field watersheds. There are 260 fifth-field watersheds, which average 

87,000 acres in size, that are located all or partially within the planning area. 
483

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Reference Analysis

In addition to analyzing subalternatives, which are variations of an alternative that add, 

remove, or modify certain management actions, several reference analyses are also 

analyzed in this draft environmental impact statement. Reference analyses provide 

additional information that is useful to more fully understand the effects of one or more 

of the alternatives.

Like the subalternatives, the analysis of the reference analyses is focused and limited 

to specific analytical questions. Unlike the subalternatives, however, the reference 

analyses are not selectable during decision making because they do not meet all of the 

qualifications for being a subalternative. 

The two reference analyses for this draft environmental impact statement include:

1 Allow no harvesting. This reference analysis will provide information about the 

vegetation condition that would occur naturally without management and the capacity of 

the BLM-administered lands to provide wildlife habitat.

2. Manage most commercial forest lands for timber production. This reference analysis 

will provide information about the vegetation condition and timber production levels 

that would occur if most of the BLM-administered lands (except the National Landscape 

Conservation System lands, the administratively withdrawn lands, and lands within 25 ft. 

of streams) were managed for timber harvesting. 

Scope of the Analysis

The Council on Environmental Quality’s regulations for implementing the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) direct that “NEPA documents must concentrate on the 

issues that are truly significant to the action in question, rather than amassing needless 

detail” (40 CFR 1500.1(b)). Issues are “truly significant to the action in question” if they 

are necessary to make a reasoned choice between alternatives (i.e., the issue relates to 

how the alternatives respond to the purpose and need). Issues are also “truly significant 

to the action in question” if they relate to significant direct, indirect, or cumulative 

impacts resulting from the alternatives. This analysis addresses the environmental 

consequences that are associated with the issues that are related to the purpose and need 

(see Chapter 1). For example, the analysis of fisheries focuses on the effects on listed 

fish species to address the issue of “How should the BLM manage federal lands in a 

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

conservation of species.” Other fish species occur within the planning area, and some 

have different habitat requirements and life histories than the listed fish species. However, 

this analysis does not attempt to analyze the effects of the alternatives on all fish species. 

Similarly, the analysis of plants and wildlife focus on the effects on species listed under 

the Endangered Species Act, and analyze effects on special status species to the extent 

necessary to evaluate changes in populations or habitat that would contribute to a need 
484

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

to list the species under the Endangered Species Act. These sections do not attempt to 

analyze the effects of the alternatives on all plant and animal species. 

Direct and Indirect Effects

The Council on Environmental Quality’s regulations for implementing the National 

Environmental Policy Act requires that both the direct and indirect effects on the quality 

of the human environment of a proposed action or alternative be disclosed. 

•	 Direct effects. Those effects “which are caused by the action and occur at the 

same time and place.” 

•	 Indirect effects. Those effects “which are caused by the action and are later in 

time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable.”

There is no requirement for discussing direct and indirect effects be discussed 

individually. Also, it can be difficult to distinguish between the two, particularly at the 

scale of the planning area. Therefore, the terms direct and indirect are not differentiated in 

the analysis of the effects in this draft environmental impact statement. Effects caused by 

the actions are identified without attempting to categorize them as direct or indirect. 

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects result from the incremental impact of an action when added to 

other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions (40 CFR 1508.7). Due 

to the nature of the analysis in this large scale and long-term resource management 

plan environmental impact statement, all environmental effects described in this 

environmental impact statement have incremental impacts that result in cumulative 

effects. Therefore, there is not a discreet and separate section labeled as cumulative 

effects. The discussion of effects on each resource incorporates the context of 

incremental effects thus revealing the cumulative effects of the action.

The cumulative effects in this draft environmental impact statement consider past and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions. The existing baseline information is a result of 

the aggregation of all past actions; therefore, it is not necessary to analyze past actions 

individually. For BLM-administered lands, reasonably foreseeable future actions are 

those actions that would occur as described under the various alternatives. For U.S Forest 

Service and state of Oregon lands, reasonably foreseeable future actions are those that 

would occur under their current land use plans. For private lands, reasonably foreseeable 

actions are those actions that would occur with the continuation of present management. 

There are other broad-scale analyses that are currently underway that are relevant to the 

analyses of these environmental consequences. They include:
485

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

•	 Final Supplement to the 2004 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact 

Statement To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure 

Standards and Guidelines. This supplement provides additional effects analyses 

in support of the 2004 record of decision to remove the survey and manage 

standards and guidelines. The U.S. Forest Service and the BLM have reinstated 

the survey and manage standards and guidelines until this supplement and the 

subsequent decision have been completed. The SEIS was completed in June, 

2007 and the Record of Decision is expected in July, 2007. However, before 

any decision to remove the Survey and Manage standards and guidelines can 

be implemented, approval of the U.S. District Court for the District of Western 

Washington must be obtained. Since it is not certain if that will occur before 

this revision of the current RMPs is completed, we are assuming for purposes 

of analysis of the No Action Alternative for this western Oregon Plan Revision 

that Survey and Manage standards and guidelines consistent with the 2001 SEIS 

Record of Decision, including changes through the Annual Species Reviews 

completed through 2003, remain in effect. 

•	 Westwide Energy Corridor Project. This project has a programmatic 

environmental impact statement to designate corridors for oil, gas, and 

hydrogen pipelines, as well as electricity transmission and distribution facilities 

on federal lands in 11 western states that is currently underway. The draft 

programmatic environmental impact statement, which is being coordinated by the 

Department of Energy, is scheduled for release in the summer of 2007. After the 

environmental impact statement is completed, the BLM will amend the relevant 

land use plans, as necessary, to implement corridor designations on the lands 

it administers. See the Maps section at the end of Chapter 2 for the projected 

location of the corridor within the planning area. This project was included as a 

reasonably foreseeable future action for purposes of analyzing cumulative effects.

•	 Proposed Jordan Cove Energy (Liquid Natural Gas Terminal) Project and 

Proposed Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline Project. These two projects would 

consist of an onshore liquid natural gas import and storage terminal, which 

would be located on the bay side of the North Spit of Coos Bay, Oregon, and 

an approximately 223-mile-long, 36-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline, which 

would extend from the terminal southeastward across Coos, Douglas, Jackson, 

and Klamath counties to an interconnection with an existing pipeline near 

Malin, Oregon. 

•	 The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission will prepare an environmental 

impact statement to address the environmental consequences of the project. The 

current schedule calls for completion of the draft environmental impact statement 

by August 2007 and the final environmental impact statement by December 

2007. See the Maps section at the end of Chapter 2 for the projected location of 

the corridor within the planning area. This project was included as a reasonably 

foreseeable future action for purposes of analyzing cumulative effects.
486

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Spatial and Temporal Scales of Analysis 

Some resources are spread more broadly across the planning area than others. The 

analysis of the alternatives at multiple spatial scales is necessary to examine those 

resources for which their geographic area differs from the planning area. For example, 

the analysis of certain animals or birds may require the consideration of a geographic 

area that is broader than individual districts. In contrast, the geographic area appropriate 

for the analysis of a rare plant may be quite limited. Information presented at multiple 

spatial scales helps the BLM to understand issues, analyze cumulative impacts, and tailor 

decisions to specific needs and circumstances.

It is also necessary to consider various temporal scales. The Council on Environmental 

Quality’s regulations require a consideration of the relationships between the short-term 

uses of the human environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term 

productivity. Some natural processes and the implementation of management actions may 

occur over a relatively short time, whereas other natural processes and implementation 

of management actions occur over longer periods of time. Therefore, vegetation changes 

were analyzed at 10, 20, 50, and 100 years. When possible, interim benchmarks and rates 

of progress or trends have been identified for those management objectives that may not 

be achieved for decades, a century, or longer. 

In general, for these analyses, the short term is considered 10 years and the long term is 

considered 100 years. In the analysis of certain resources, the definition of short term and 

long term varies from this general definition. In those instances, the time period for short 

and long term is specified in the text. 

Incomplete or Unavailable Information

As noted in the individual analyses in this environmental impact statement, there are 

certain relationships for some of the resources that are not fully understood. This is to 

be expected given the complexities and interrelationships inherent in natural resource 

management. When encountering a gap in information (incomplete or unavailable 

information), the Council on Environmental Quality’s regulations pose the question 

as to whether the information is “essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives” 

(40 CFR 1502.22(a)). While additional information would often add precision, if the 

basic data and central relationships are sufficiently well-established that new information 

would not likely reverse or nullify the relationships, or be essential to a reasoned choice 

among the alternatives, then it is not necessary. 

If information that is relevant to reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts or that is 

essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives is unavailable, or if the costs of obtaining the 

information are exorbitant, an environmental impact statement must include statements to let 

the public know this and its effect on the ability to predict impacts to a particular resource. 

Natural disturbances, salvaging, global climate change, and sudden oak death are areas of 

incomplete information.
487

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Natural Disturbance and Salvage

This analysis does not include estimates of future natural disturbances, such as 

wildfires, windstorms, disease, or insect infestations, or subsequent salvaging. 

These disturbances will occur in the future under all four alternatives; however, 

the location, timing, severity, and extent of such disturbances are speculative. 

Wildfire is the most predictable of these natural disturbances, yet it is still not 

possible at the scale of the planning area to identify reasonably foreseeable 

effects related to wildfires, which would be highly dependent on the wildfire 

location, timing, severity, and extent. Wildfire location, timing, severity, and 

extent would all be highly dependent upon variables that cannot be reasonably 

foreseen, such as weather, ignition sources, fuel conditions in the fire location, 

and the effectiveness of control efforts. For example, the Late Successional/

Old Growth Monitoring Report found that there was high variation among 

the provinces in the loss of late-successional forest to wildfires in the past 

10 years—more than three-quarters of the acres lost to wildfires were the result 

of a single fire (Moeur et al. 2005, 95). The FSEIS of the Northwest Forest Plan 

assumed that 2.5% of late-successional forests would be lost to wildfires each 

decade (NWFP FSEIS, 3&4:42). Most of the planning area had a lower rate of 

loss in the past decade, but the Klamath province had a much higher loss rate 

(9.5% for the decade) (Spies 2006, 84; Moeur et al. 2005). It is not possible 

to accurately predict the total acreage of wildfires at the scale of all federal 

forests in a province. To predict total acreage of wildfires for BLM-administered 

lands, which are highly dispersed among other ownerships, would be far more 

speculative. To attempt to predict wildfire acreage for BLM-administered lands 

at finer scales, or to predict wildfire severity, timing, or extent, would be so 

speculative as to be arbitrary. 

The alternatives contain management actions related to salvaging of trees 

killed following disturbances and those management actions vary among the 

alternatives. Information on the effects of natural disturbances and salvaging 

(or the absence of salvaging) is incomplete or unavailable. The analysis of the 

effects of such disturbances prior to their occurrence, and the possible associated 

salvaging, would require making so many speculative assumptions regarding 

specific circumstances that the conclusions of the analysis could not be used 

to make reasonably informed decisions regarding management actions. Such 

analysis can be addressed at the time of proposed implementation when specific 

circumstances can be analyzed. 

The following describes general information on the effects of natural 

disturbances and salvaging. 
488

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Natural Disturbances

Natural disturbances kill trees, which creates snags and logs. Some 

disturbances, like wildfires, consume some portion of the trees that are 

killed, but other disturbances leave the killed trees intact. Disturbances 

drive the development of forest structure, composition, and process 

(Franklin et al. 2002). Disturbances have strong controls on the pattern 

of the landscape, nutrient cycling, hydrology, and habitat (Hutto 2006; 

Lindenmayer and Noss 2006; Reeves et al. 2006; Beschta et al. 2004; Ice 

et al. 2004; Karr et al. 2004; Lindenmayer et al. 2004; Robichaud et al. 

2000; Perry 1998; Forman 1995). For example:

•	 Soil conditions and processes. The environmental impact statement 

for the Timbered Rock Fire Salvage and Elk Creek Watershed 

Restoration Project concluded that these wildfires altered the 

conditions and processes of the soil, which increased soil erosion 

and the risk of landslides (Timbered Rock EIS, 3-9 – 3-21). The 

environmental impact statement for the Biscuit Fire Recovery Project 

also concluded that that wildfire altered the conditions and processes 

of the soil, but did not conclude that the wildfire had increased the 

risk of landslides (Biscuit Fire EIS, III-81 – III-85). 

•	 Stream flow, sedimentation, and water temperature. The 

environmental impact statement for the Timbered Rock Fire Salvage 

and Elk Creek Watershed Restoration Project and the environmental 

impact statement for the Biscuit Fire Recovery Project concluded 

that the wildfires had increased stream flow, sedimentation, and 

water temperature (Timbered Rock EIS, 3-45 - 3-53; Biscuit Fire 

EIS, III-206 - III-211). 

•	 Insect infestations. The environmental impact statement for the 

Timbered Rock Fire Salvage and Elk Creek Watershed Restoration 

Project concluded that that wildfire would lead to only limited 

and localized subsequent tree mortality from insect infestations 

(Timbered Rock EIS 3-105 - 3-106). The environmental impact 

statement for the Biscuit Fire Recovery Project concluded that the 

extensive insect infestations were possible but impossible to predict 

(Biscuit Fire EIS, III-143 – III-144). 

The environmental impact statement for the Timbered Rock Fire Salvage 

and Elk Creek Watershed Restoration Project and the environmental 

impact statement for the Biscuit Fire Recovery Project concluded that the 

wildfires had removed late-successional forest habitats and created earlysuccessional habitats (Timbered Rock EIS 3-175 – 3-180; Biscuit Fire 

EIS, III-153 – III-173). 

The analyses in these two environmental impact statements are 

incorporated by reference. 
489

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Salvaging

Salvaging after natural disturbances provides opportunities for timber 

harvesting. Such harvesting, when it would occur in the late-successional 

management areas, is not included in computing the allowable sale 

quantity (see the Timber section of this chapter), because this harvesting 

would not be repeated over time. The economic return from harvesting in 

the late-successional management areas that would not otherwise occur 

in the absence of a natural disturbance cannot be analyzed because of 

the speculative nature of the timing and magnitude of the disturbance 

and the value of the timber that might be killed. When harvesting after 

natural disturbance occurs in the timber management area or general 

landscape area, the harvests would be included as part of the allowable 

sale quantity. Any variations in the allowable sale quantity that is offered 

for sale in a given year, because of salvaging after a natural disturbance, 

would be averaged over subsequent years according to the management 

actions in the alternatives. Because such harvesting in the timber 

management area and general landscape area would become part of the 

scheduled allowable sale quantity, there would be no economic benefit 

beyond that assumed from normal harvesting in these areas. 

Salvaging after natural disturbances can potentially reduce the risk of a 

future high-severity fire by reducing the quantity of large fuels (Biscuit 

Fire EIS III-37 – III-38, III-58; Timbered Rock EIS, III-162 - III-168; 

McIver and Starr 2000). The large fuels in a fire release a large amount 

of energy over a sustained time period. This heat pulse contributes to 

long-term soil damage (Timbered Rock EIS, III-163 - III-164). All 

disturbances that kill trees increase the quantity of both fine and large 

fuels on the ground. Salvage logging reduces the quantity of large fuels, 

but can increase the quantity of fine fuels. In contrast, Donato et al. 

(2006) and Beschta et al. (2004) concluded that salvage logging increases 

fire risk by increasing surface fine fuels, and suggested that leaving 

snags standing could result in a lower fire hazard. While the potential 

for reducing future fire severity by reducing large fuels is consistent 

with existing research on fire effects (Brown et al. 2003), there is little 

research that directly evaluates the effectiveness of salvage logging in 

achieving this objective. As noted by Reeves et al. (2006):

“reburn probability and reburn fire behavior are 

understood mostly in theory; there is little empirical 

evidence that would be useful for evaluating risks.”

Salvaging after natural disturbances can potentially reduce insect and 

disease outbreaks (Ice et al. 2004; Sessions et al. 2004; McIver and Starr 

2000). For example, windthrow can contribute to increases in Douglas fir 

bark beetle populations (Furniss and Carolin 1977). However, the effect 

of salvage logging on future insect and disease outbreaks, like the 
490

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

effect on reburns, is understood mostly in theory and without empirical 

evidence (Biscuit Fire EIS, III-143 – III-144). 

Ground disturbances that are caused by salvage logging can 

mechanically break up hydrophobic soils, which can result from highseverity fires (McIver and Starr 2000). However, some studies suggest 

that hydrophobic soils are temporary and would be naturally altered 

before salvage logging would typically occur, and that the disturbances 

necessary to break up hydrophobic soils would cause soil compaction 

and erosion (Reeves et al. 2006; Beschta et al. 2004). The environmental 

impact statement for the Timbered Rock Fire Salvage and Elk Creek 

Watershed Restoration Project summarized the research on hydrophobic 

soils and concluded that they are not considered a major hydrologic 

concern in the Pacific Northwest, except for granitic soils (BLM 

Timbered Rock EIS, 3-21). 

Salvaging can reduce safety hazards. Natural disturbances create snags 

and logs that can pose safety hazards to people and infrastructure 

(roads, trails, and recreation facilities). Salvaging can also reduce safety 

hazards during wildfire suppression, because large fuels contribute to the 

difficulty of suppression operations, and snags and logs pose direct safety 

hazards to firefighters (Biscuit Fire EIS, III-38 - III-41, III-51 – III-53, 

III-55 – III-56).

Salvage logging can disrupt natural tree regeneration (Donato et al. 2006; 

McIver and Starr 2000), but can improve access to disturbed sites to 

allow replanting and future silvicultural treatments (Sessions et al. 2004). 

Several studies have asserted that salvage logging necessarily causes 

forest degradation as a result of soil compaction, erosion, sedimentation 

to streams, and the spread of invasive species (Lindenmayer and Noss 

2006; Reeves et al. 2006; Beschta et al. 2004; Karr et al. 2004). These 

adverse effects are only potential results of salvage logging, not certain 

results. As with other timber harvesting, proper logging design and 

implementation can avoid adverse effects on soil and water (Ice et al. 

2004; Sessions et al. 2004; Duncan 2002; McIver and Starr 2000)

Salvaging does not directly contribute to the ecological recovery of 

disturbed forests, and, in some respects, impairs or delays ecological 

recovery. Salvaging does reduce snag and coarse woody debris levels, 

which reduces ecological functions and alters future stand development 

(Lindenmayer and Noss 2006; Noss et al. 2006; Reeves et al. 2006; 

Franklin et al. 2002). Salvage logging does simplify and homogenize 

the postdisturbance early-successional forest, and several studies 

have asserted that structurally complex early-successional forests are 

becoming increasingly rare and are important sites for many biological 

and ecological processes (Hutto 2006; Lindemayer and Noss 2006; Spies 

2006; Ohmann et al. 2005; Lindemayer et al. 2004; Franklin et al. 2002). 
491

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Climate Change 

In the past decades, the regional climate has become warmer and wetter with 

reduced snowpack (Scientific Consensus Statement 2004). Current climate 

conditions have changed from the climate conditions when the current oldgrowth stands were developing (Franklin et al. 2006). It is unknown whether 

these changes in climate have altered fundamental processes about tree 

regeneration and stand development in a way that changes the likely development 

of currently young stands. 

The analysis assumes no change in climate conditions, because the specific 

nature of regional climate change over the next decades remains speculative. 

Although an increase in average annual regional temperatures is likely, changes 

to the amount and timing of precipitation are too uncertain to predict (U.S. 

Global Change Research Program 2001; Climate Impacts Group 2004; Scientific 

Consensus Statement 2004). Changes in the impact analysis as a result of 

climate change would be highly sensitive to changes in the amount and timing 

of precipitation. Furthermore, it would be very difficult to apply the results of 

climate change models to a finer scale than the entire Pacific Northwest, which 

limits the ability to apply the results of climate change models to the analysis of 

specific management strategies or actions. This analytical assumption is generally 

consistent with the recent U.S. Forest Service science consistency review 

Addressing Climate Change in Plan Revision (U.S. Forest Service 2005). 

Either higher than previous temperatures or higher than previous atmospheric 

carbon dioxide levels could increase tree growth rates. However, the overall 

effects on regional forest growth are uncertain (Smith 2004), especially because 

of the uncertainty of precipitation changes. Increased summer temperatures 

combined with reduced summer precipitation could result in reduced tree growth 

rates and increased losses due to wildfires. 

Increased temperatures could also result in changes to hydrologic processes, 

including reduced snowpacks, earlier snowmelt, shifting of the rain-on-snow 

zones, higher spring streamflows, and lower summer streamflows. However, 

as with forest growth, the overall effects on hydrologic processes are uncertain 

because of the uncertainty of precipitation changes. Increased winter precipitation 

could mitigate or overwhelm the effects of increased temperatures on snowpack 

and the changes in the timing of streamflows. 

Sudden Oak Death

Sudden oak death is a recently recognized disease that is killing tanoak, oaks, 

and other plant species in California. The disease is caused by the introduced 

pathogen known as Phytophthora ramorum. The disease causes trunk cankers, 

which often directly leads to the death or weakening of a tree to the point that 

fungi or insects kill it (Rizzo et al. 2002). Tree mortality rates vary widely, 
492

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

even in susceptible species. A wide range of other species with visible branch 

cankers or foliar lesions is infected by the pathogen, but with uncertain 

effects on the plant. One of the most common oak species within the planning 

area, Oregon white oak (Quercus garryana), appears to be unaffected by the 

pathogen (Rizzo 2003). The long-term effect of sudden oak death on infected 

forest ecosystems is unknown. 

The disease has been confirmed in one location in Curry County in southwestern 

Oregon (Kanaskie et al. 2006). Future spread of the disease into Oregon is 

uncertain. Models identify different levels of risk of sudden oak death spread 

across the planning area (Kelly et al. 2005). Widespread infections and mortality 

of tanoak and oak species could alter not only forest composition and structure, 

but also important forest processes, such as nutrient cycling and wildlife habitat. 

For example, tanoak and oaks are important in many southwestern Oregon stands 

in providing cover and food for a wide variety of wildlife species. Widespread 

infections could affect suitable northern spotted owl habitat in southwestern 

Oregon through the removal of sub-dominant canopy tree and shrub species; 

altering habitat structure and prey base numbers. However, because future spread 

of the disease and subsequent tree mortality in the planning area is speculative, 

there is no basis on which this analysis can assume future changes to forest 

composition, structure, and process as a result of Sudden Oak Death.

Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitment of 

Resources

The irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources refers to those that cannot be 

reversed or that are lost for a long period of time. Examples include the extraction of 

minerals or the commitment of land to permanent roads. Specific irreversible or irretrievable 

commitments of resources are described in the environmental consequences for each resource. 

Adverse Effects That Cannot be Avoided

Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), an agency does not have to 

avoid adverse effects. However, an agency must identify adverse effects and disclose 

them. An agency must also identify the means to mitigate those adverse effects that can 

be mitigated—not all adverse effects can be mitigated. Adverse effects that cannot be 

avoided are those that remain after mitigation measures have been applied. 

Mitigation

The Council of Environmental Quality’s regulations state that mitigation includes 

avoiding, minimizing, rectifying, reducing, eliminating, or compensating for adverse 
493

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

environmental impacts. Most measures often used in mitigating effects from timber 

management are already included in the design of the alternatives, and therefore assessed 

as part of the effects of the alternatives. Those mitigation measures that are not included 

in the design of the alternatives are identified in the discussions of environmental 

consequences for individual resources or programs. 

Estimated Timber Management Activity for 

the First 10 Years

See Table 149 (Estimated annual first decade levels of timber management activity by 

alternative) for the assumed levels of timber management activities that were used in the 

analysis of the environmental consequences.

Table 149. Estimated annual first decade levels of timber management activity by alternative

Timber Management Activity Unit

Alternative

No Action Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3

Regeneration harvesting ASQ acres 60,500 90,600 143,400 3,900

Partial harvesting ASQ acres 0 0 0 124,600

Thinning ASQ acres 36,800 45,400 43,300 160,300

Allowable sale quantity (ASQ) mmbf 268 456 727 471

Nonharvest land base thinning acres 63,200 68,000 33,400 0*

Nonharvest land base (NHLB) volume mmbf 87 81 40 2

Total harvest volume mmbf 355 537 767 473

Permanent road construction miles 360 520 610 550

Temporary road construction miles 460 310 400 510

Right-of-way area for permanent road 

construction acres 1,800 2,800 3,300 3,200

Ground-based yarding acres 31,100 38,700 36,500 58,500

Cable yarding acres 100,400 139,100 157,000 187,900

Aerial yarding acres 29,000 26,200 26,600 42,400

Site preparation:

Prescribed burning acres 48,200 71,700 109,300 60,800

Other acres 14,900 28,500 46,200 20,400

Release/precommercial thinning acres 54,600 54,600 54,600 54,600

stand conversion acres 2,100 2,100 2,100 2,100

Planting/unimproved genetics acres 18,600 29,300 38,600 20,300

Planting/improved genetics acres 50,800 73,500 115,700 62,400

Fertilization acres 104,700 129,700 127,200 204,400

stand maintenance/protection acres 112,500 161,400 259,900 134,400

Pruning acres 37,600 37,600 37,600 37,600

*Acres round to 0.
494

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Ecology

This analysis describes the abundance and spatial patterns of the forest structural stages that 

would exist under the alternatives:

•	 for the BLM-administered lands within the entire planning area by land use allocation 

and by physiographic province, and 

•	 across all ownerships for the entire planning area by physiographic province.

This analysis compares these abundances and spatial patterns to the average historic conditions. 

Key Points

•	 The abundance of the forest structural stages across all ownerships:

– would not return to their average historic conditions in 100 years, even if there were no timber harvesting on 

the BLM-administered lands, and

– would only shift 1% in 100 years under all four alternatives.

•	 The abundance of the forest structural stages on the BLM-administered lands: 

– would be consistent with the average historic conditions only under the No Action Alternative, and 

– would decrease the abundance of the young forests and increase the abundance of the mature &structurally 

complex forests from the current condition under all four alternatives. 

•	 The retention of structural legacies in regeneration harvests, which would occur under the No Action Alternative 

and Alternative 3, would result in structurally complex forests redeveloping almost twice as fast after harvesting as 

under Alternatives 1 and 2.

•	 The alternatives would vary widely in the amount of existing old forest that would be harvested in 100 years—

from 14% under the No Action Alternative to 63% under Alternative 3.

•	 Across all ownerships, the patch size of mature and structurally complex forests would increase under all four 

alternatives. The No Action Alternative would result in the largest increase and Alternative 3 would result in the 

smallest increase in all provinces.

•	 On the BLM-administered lands, the size and connectivity of the patches of the mature&structurally complex forests: 

– would increase from the current condition in most provinces under the No Action Alternative, 

– would decrease in most provinces under Alternatives 1 and 2, and 

– would decrease in all provinces under Alternative 3.

Ecological Conditions of the Conifer Forests 

on the BLM-Administered Lands across the 

Planning Area

On the BLM-administered lands in 100 years, the abundance of:

•	 the stand establishment forests would remain approximately constant under the 

No Action Alternative, and increase under the three action alternatives;

•	 the young forests would decrease under all four alternatives;

•	 the mature forests would increase under all four alternatives; and 

•	 the structurally complex forests would increase under all four alternatives.
495

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

See Figure 142 (Structural stage abundances on the BLM-administered lands 

by alternative). 

Figure 142. Structural stage abundances on the BLM-administered lands by alternative1

Under the No Action Alternative, the abundance of the forest structural stages on the 

BLM-administered lands would become roughly consistent with the estimates of the 

average historic conditions (Nonaka and Spies 2005) within 100 years. Under the three 

action alternatives, the abundance of the forest structural stages on the BLM-administered 

lands would move toward the average historic conditions, but would not reach the 

average historic conditions within 100 years. See Figure 142, Figure 143 (Comparison 

of the BLM-administered forested lands by 2106 with the average historic conditions 

and current conditions by alternative), and Table 150 (Structural stage abundances by 

percentage of the BLM-administered forested lands by alternative). 

1 The 2006 forest structural stage abundances differ slightly among the alternatives because of the differences in how the inventory information is assembled for modeling under each alternative and the changes in the identification of nonforest. See the 

Ecology section in Chapter 3 for the descriptions for Alternative 3 that used the 2006 data. 

No Action Alternative

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Percent of

BLM Lands

Stand Establishment Young Mature Structurally Complex

Alternative 1

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Percent of

BLM Lands

Stand Establishment Young Mature Structurally Complex

Alternative 2

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Percent of

BLM Lands

Stand Establishment Young Mature Structurally Complex

Alternative 3

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Percent of

BLM Lands

Stand Establishment Young Mature Structurally Complex
496

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Figure 143. Comparison of the BLM-administered forested lands by 2106 with the average historic 

conditions and current conditions by alternative 

Table 150. Structural stage abundances by percentage of the BLM-administered forested lands 

by alternative

Year

Stand 

Establishment 

(%)

Young 

(%)

Mature 

(%)

Structurally 

Complex 

(%)

No Action Alternative

2006 7 41 27 25

2016 6 36 30 27

2026 7 32 32 29

2056 9 17 38 36

2106 8 8 31 53

Historic Averages 5 15 25 55

Alternative 1

2006 7 41 27 25

2016 7 39 29 25

2026 10 34 31 26

2056 14 19 37 30

2106 10 15 33 42

Historic Averages 5 15 25 55

Alternative 2

2006 7 41 27 25

2016 10 39 29 22

2026 13 34 31 22

2056 20 22 36 23

2106 15 21 32 33

Historic Averages 5 15 25 55

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Current 

Historic

Average

No Harvest

No Action

Alt 1Alt 2Alt 3

Intensive

Management

Percent of 

BLM Lands

Stand Establishment Young Mature Structurally Complex
497

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Year

Stand 

Establishment 

(%)

Young 

(%)

Mature 

(%)

Structurally 

Complex 

(%)

Alternative 3

2006 7 41 27 25

2016 9 38 29 24

2026 13 34 31 23

2056 19 18 41 22

2106 20 11 39 30

Historic Averages 5 15 25 55

The No Action Alternative would result in the BLM-administered lands being dominated 

by mature and structurally complex forests. The amount of the structurally complex 

forests would more than double in 100 years. The increase in structurally complex 

forests would be accompanied by a comparable decrease in the amount of young forests. 

The overall result of these changes would be to shift the BLM-administered lands from 

a condition in which the young forests are the most common to a condition in which the 

structurally complex forests are the most common. This shift would occur largely as a 

result of four factors:

•	 The large acreage in the nonharvest land base would develop into mature 

and structurally complex forests. The nonharvest land base would develop 

similarly under all four alternatives, but the nonharvest land base would be larger 

under the No Action Alternative than any other alternative (73% of the forested 

acres). See Figure 148 (Structural stage abundances on the forested lands in the 

nonharvest land base by alternative) later in this section.

•	 The regeneration harvest rate would be too low to increase the amount of 

stand establishment forests, eventually resulting in a decrease in the young 

forests. Regeneration harvesting in the harvest land base would create an average 

of 6,100 acres of stand establishment forest per year in the first decade, but 

8,400 acres of stand establishment forest would develop into young forests across 

all allocations. Meanwhile, an average of 15,600 acres of young forest would 

develop into mature forest per year the first decade, which would result in a 

substantial decrease in the total abundance of young forest. 

•	 Green tree retention in regeneration harvests would speed the 

redevelopment of the structurally complex stands after harvesting. The 

green tree retention requirements in the harvest land base would result in 

harvested stands developing into structurally complex forest almost twice as 

quickly as stands without structural legacies. Stand establishment forests with 

structural legacies, such as those produced under the No Action Alternative and 

Alternative 3, would develop into structurally complex forests in approximately 

80 years for the most common stand conditions on productive sites. Stand 

establishment forests without structural legacies, such as those produced 

under Alternatives 1 and 2, would develop into structurally complex forests in 

approximately 150 years for common stand conditions on productive sites. See 
498

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Figure 144 (The influence of legacy retention on future stand development). This 

finding is consistent with other studies that concluded that green tree retention 

would speed the redevelopment of the structurally complex forests (Spies 2006, 

94; Zenner 2005; Zenner 2000). 

•	 The standards and guidelines of the matrix land use allocation would 

constrain the harvesting of the structurally complex forests. Several matrix 

standards and guidelines would contribute to the retention of the structurally 

complex forest within the harvest land base under the No Action Alternative:

– the retention of late-successional forests in landscape areas where little 

late-successional forest persists (15% rule); 

– the maintenance of 25 to 30% of each connectivity/diversity block in 

late-successional forest;

– the management of connectivity/diversity blocks on a 150-year area 

control rotation; and 

– a 120-year minimum regeneration harvest age in the Southern General 

Forest Management Area (Medford RMP, 72-74). 

The 120-year minimum regeneration harvest age in the Southern General Forest 

Management Area would contribute to the retention of the structurally complex 

forest because some forests (7,700 acres in 2006) in the Medford District were 

identified in the inventory as less than 120 years old, but were classified as 

structurally complex forest. The green tree retention requirements in regeneration 

harvesting in the Southern General Forest Management Area would result in 

harvested stands developing back into structurally complex forests in less than 

120 years on some sites, which would result in the retention of the structurally 

complex forest. 

More than any other alternative, the No Action Alternative would increase the size and 

connectivity of mature&structurally complex forest patches compared to the current 

condition, which would move the spatial patterns in the direction of historic conditions. 

See Figure 151 (Change in the mean patch size from the current condition to 2106 by 

forest structural stage on the BLM-administered lands) later in this section. 

The No Action Alternative is the only alternative that would increase the size and 

connectivity of the mature&structurally complex forest patches in the Western Cascades 

and Klamath provinces. None of the alternatives would increase the size and connectivity 

of the mature&structurally complex forest patches in the Eastern Cascades province.
499

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Figure 144. The influence of legacy retention on future stand development

No Action Alternative and Alternative 3 

100-year old stand developed 

with structural legacies 

(structurally complex forest)

Alternatives 1 and 2 

100-year old stand developed 

without structural legacies 

(mature with single canopy forest)

Under Alternative 1, the overall change in the abundance of the forest structural stages 

would be similar to the No Action Alternative, in part because the large acreage in 

the late-successional management areas would be coincident with the mapped latesuccessional reserves of the No Action Alternative. However, the shift in the forest 

structural stage abundances would not be as pronounced as under the No Action 

Alternative, because the total of the riparian management areas would be smaller than the 

riparian reserves of the No Action Alternative, the absence of green tree retention would 

slow the redevelopment of the structurally complex forests, and the regeneration harvest 

rate would be higher in the harvest land base. 

Alternative 1 would increase the size and connectivity of the mature&structurally 

complex forest patches in the Coast Range province compared to the current condition, 

but less so than under the No Action Alternative. See Figure 151 (Change in the mean 

patch size from the current condition by 2106 by forest structural stage on the BLMadministered lands). In all other provinces, Alternative 1 would decrease the size 

and connectivity of the mature&structurally complex forest patches compared to the 

current condition. Under Alternative 1, the BLM-administered lands would become 

strongly dichotomous, with the nonharvest land base being dominated by mature& and 

structurally complex forests and the harvest land base dominated by forests in the stand 

establishment without structural legacies and young without structural legacies forests. 

The edges between the harvest land base and nonharvest land base would be abrupt: the 

adjacent forests would contrast highly in their structure. Strongly dichotomous landscape 

patterns with abrupt edges would be inconsistent with modeled historic conditions for 

western Oregon (Nonaka and Spies 2005; Wimberly et al. 2000), and some research has 

suggested that such a dichotomous landscape would pose a risk to species and ecological 

processes (Spies 2006; Cissel et al. 1999; Forman 1995). However, little empirical 

research is available to evaluate the effects of a strongly dichotomous landscape pattern 

on most species and ecological processes. 

 No Action and Alternative 3 

 100-year-old stand developed 

 with legacies – Structurally 

 Complex 

 

 Alternatives 1 and 2 

 100-year-old stand developed 

 without structural legacies – 

 Mature with Single Canopy 
500

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

In Alternative 2, the overall change in the abundance of the forest structural stages 

would also be similar to the No Action Alternative. However, the shift in structural 

stage abundances would be less pronounced than under Alternative 1, because the latesuccessional management areas and the riparian management area would be smaller 

than under Alternative 1. Similar to Alternative 1, the regeneration harvest rate under 

Alternative 2 would be higher in the harvest land base than under the No Action 

Alternative, and the absence of green tree retention would slow the redevelopment of the 

structurally complex forests under Alternative 2 compared to the No Action Alternative. 

Alternative 2 would decrease the size of the mature&structurally complex forest 

patches compared to the current condition in all provinces, though less so than 

Alternative 3. See Figure 151 (Change in the mean patch size from the current 

condition by 2106 by forest structural stage on the BLM-administered lands). 

Alternative 2 would decrease the connectivity of the mature&structurally complex 

forest patches in all provinces, except the Coast Range province where Alternative 2 

would result in a smaller increase in connectivity than Alternative 1 or the No Action 

Alternative. Decreasing the size and connectivity would move the spatial pattern of 

the mature&structurally complex forests further away from the historic conditions. 

Alternative 2 would shift the spatial patterns and create a dichotomous landscape on the 

BLM-administered lands similar to Alternative 1.

Alternative 3 would result in the largest increase in the abundance of stand establishment 

forests and the smallest increase in the abundance of the structurally complex forest 

of all four alternatives. The development of the structural stages would be different 

under Alternative 3 from the other alternatives because of the relatively small 

acreage in the nonharvest land base. As a result, there would not be a large acreage 

predictably and inexorably developing into mature&structurally complex forests, as 

in the other alternatives. Nevertheless, Alternative 3 would have only slightly less 

mature&structurally complex forest by 2106 than would Alternative 1 and more than 

would Alternative 2. Alternative 3 would quickly redevelop mature&structurally 

complex forest after harvesting because of the use of partial harvesting and the retention 

requirements in both partial and regeneration harvesting. 

Alternative 3 would decrease the size and connectivity of the mature&structurally 

complex forest patches in all provinces more than any other alternative, which would 

move the spatial pattern of the mature&structurally complex forest away from historic 

conditions. See Figure 151 (Change in the mean patch size from the current condition by 

2106 by forest structural stage on the BLM-administered lands).

The harvest intervals under Alternative 3 are designed to mimic the historic average fire 

return interval, which might suggest that Alternative 3 would be effective at restoring 

average historic conditions. However, the conclusion here that the application of the 

harvesting based on the average fire return interval would not restore average historic 

conditions in 100 years is consistent with other analyses (Nonaka and Spies 2005; Wallin 

et al. 1994). The current structural stage abundances and spatial patterns are the result 

of extensive forest management and human-caused fires in the twentieth century and is 

strongly inconsistent with the average historic conditions. The application of extensive 
501

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

active forest management—even management mimicking natural disturbances—to the 

current condition would initially move forests away from the average historic conditions 

and likely take several centuries to return the BLM-administered lands to the average 

historic conditions.

The No Action Alternative and Alternative 3 would transform the stand establishment 

forests on the BLM-administered lands to a structural condition more like naturally-created 

early-successional forests than the current condition or Alternatives 1 or 2. See Figure 145 

(Stand establishment forests with and without structural legacies by alternative) and 

Figure 146 (Young forests with and without structural legacies by alternative). Under the 

No Action Alternative and Alternative 3, the stand establishment forests would quickly 

and completely shift to dominance by stand establishment with structural legacies. This 

shift would occur because the current stand establishment without structural legacy forests 

would develop into young forests, and would be replaced by new stand establishment with 

structural legacy forests because of the green tree retention when regeneration harvesting 

under the No Action Alternative and Alternative 3. 

Alternatives 1 and 2 would create stand establishment forests that would lack the 

structural complexity of naturally-created early-successional forests. stand establishment 

with structural legacy forests would almost completely disappear because of the absence 

of green tree retention when regeneration harvesting. Alternative 2 would create a very 

small acreage of stand establishment with structural legacy when regeneration harvesting 

within riparian management areas along intermittent non-fish-bearing streams that are not 

prone to debris flows and in the management area adjacent to the Coquille Forest, where 

green tree retention is required.

In 100 years, the abundance of stand establishment forest on the BLM-administered lands 

would be slightly above the average historic conditions under the No Action Alternative, 

and well above the average historic conditions under the three action alternatives. 

The abundance of young forests would drastically decline under all four alternatives. The 

No Action Alternative and Alternative 3 would slowly shift the remaining young forests 

to an eventual dominance by young with structural legacy forests. This shift would occur 

because young forests without structural legacies would develop into mature forests 

over time and would be replaced by young forests with structural legacies because of the 

continuous new supply of stand establishment forests with structural legacies under the 

No Action Alternative and Alternative 3. 

Alternatives 1 and 2 would increase the proportion of young without structural legacy 

forests, because almost all new young forests would develop from stand establishment 

without structural legacy forests.

In 100 years, the abundance of young forests on the BLM-administered lands would 

be slightly below the average historic conditions under the No Action Alternative and 

Alternative 3; equal to the average historic conditions under Alternative 1, and slightly 

above the average historic conditions under Alternative 2. 
502

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Figure 145. Stand establishment forests with and without structural legacies (e.g., retained green trees) 

by alternative2

2 This picture displays stand conditions that would develop following regeneration harvesting in No Action (general forest management area) or Alternative 3 (western hemlock retention levels). Partial harvesting under Alternative 3 would also create stand 

establishment with structural legacy forests, but with more overstory trees than shown here. 
503

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Figure 146. Young forests with and without structural legacies (e.g., retained green trees) by alternative3

3 This picture displays stand conditions that would develop following regeneration harvesting in No Action (general forest management area) or Alternative 3 (western hemlock retention levels). Partial harvesting under Alternative 3 would also create young 

with structural legacy forests, but with more overstory trees than shown here. 
504

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

The overall abundance of mature forests would be more consistent among the alternatives 

than other structural stages. See Figure 147 (Mature forest with multilayered canopies or 

single canopies by alternative). All four alternatives would result in an overall increase 

in the abundance of mature forests over the next 50 years (as young forests develop into 

mature forests), and then a decrease after 50 years. However, the alternatives would differ 

in the proportion of mature forests with multilayered canopies to mature forests with 

single canopies. Under the No Action Alternative and Alternative 3, mature forests with 

multilayered canopies would predominate, because of the eventual influence of green 

tree retention in timber harvests. Under Alternatives 1 and 2, which have no green tree 

retention, mature with Single Canopy forest would predominate. The influence of timber 

harvesting and green tree retention on mature forests is further demonstrated by the 

benchmark analysis of the no harvesting reference analysis, under which mature forests 

with single canopies would predominate (similar to Alternatives 1 and 2). The benchmark 

analysis of the reference analysis for intensive management on most commercial timber 

lands, which would have no green tree retention, would have the most extreme outcome. 

There would be 80% of all mature forests that would be mature with single canopies in 

100 years. 

In 100 years, the amount of mature forests on the BLM-administered lands would be 

above the average historic conditions under all four alternatives. 
505

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Figure 147. Mature forest with multilayered canopies or single canopies by alternative 
506

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Under all four alternatives, the abundance of the structurally complex forests results from 

the retention of existing structurally complex forests coupled with the future development 

of additional structurally complex forests. However, the alternatives vary in both the 

amount of the existing structurally complex forest that is retained and how much 

additional structurally complex forest develops. Under all four alternatives, the additional 

structurally complex forest that would develop would initially be at the lower end of 

forest structural conditions that meet the definition of structurally complex forests, which 

is generally consistent with the pattern for the implementation of the No Action 

Alternative for the past decade (Moeur et al. 2005, 100). 

The No Action Alternative would result in the largest increase in the abundance of 

the structurally complex forests of all four alternatives. The No Action Alternative 

would harvest less existing old forest than any other alternative, because the No Action 

Alternative has the smallest amount of existing old forest in the harvest land base of all 

four alternatives, and would harvest the lowest percentage of existing old forest in the 

harvest land base of all four alternatives. See Table 151 (Outcome of existing old forest by 

2106 by alternative). The harvest of existing old forest under the No Action Alternative 

would be offset by the development of far more additional structurally complex forest. 

The overall function of the structurally complex forests would improve under the 

No Action Alternative, because: 

•	 the majority of existing old forest (86%) would remain unharvested and would 

continue to develop into older structurally complex forests; 

•	 an even greater percentage (90%) of the oldest of these forests (existing very old 

forest) would remain unharvested and continue to develop; 

•	 approximately 15 times the acreage of existing old forest that would be harvested 

would develop into new structurally complex forest by 2106; and

•	 the size and connectivity of the mature&structurally complex forest patches 

would increase from the current condition in all provinces, except Eastern 

Cascades. See the Ecological Conditions on the BLM-administered Lands at the 

Province Scale section later in the Ecology section of this chapter.

Alternative 1 would increase the abundance of the structurally complex forests more 

than Alternatives 2 or 3 but less than the No Action Alternative. Under Alternative 1, 

the structurally complex forests would be almost entirely restricted to the nonharvest 

land base in 100 years. Alternative 1 would harvest more existing old forest than the 

No Action Alternative, but less than Alternatives 2 and 3. See Table 151 (Outcome of 

existing old forest by 2106 by alternative). The harvesting of 88,800 acres of existing old 

forest under Alternative 1 would be offset by the development of additional structurally 

complex forest for a net increase of 370,000 acres by 2106. The overall function of the 

structurally complex forests would improve under Alternative 1 (though less so than the 

No Action Alternative) because: 

•	 the majority of existing old forest (75%) would remain unharvested and would 

continue to develop into older structurally complex forests; 
507

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

•	 an even greater percentage (90%) of the oldest of these forests (existing very old 

forest) would remain unharvested and continue to develop; 

•	 approximately six times the acreage of existing old forest that would be harvested 

would develop into new structurally complex forest by 2106; and 

•	 the size and connectivity of the mature&structurally complex forest patches 

would increase from the current condition in the Coast Range province. Size and 

connectivity would decrease in other provinces, but less than under the other 

action alternatives. See the Ecological Conditions on the BLM-administered 

Lands at the Province Scale section later in the Ecology section of this chapter.

Under Alternative 2, the abundance of the structurally complex forests would slightly 

decrease in the first 50 years and eventually increase in abundance in 100 years. As 

under Alternative 1, the structurally complex forests would be almost entirely restricted 

to the nonharvest land base in 100 years. Alternative 2 would harvest more existing 

old forest than the No Action Alternative or Alternative 1, but less than Alternative 3. 

See Table 151 (Outcome of existing old forest by 2106 by alternative). Of the existing 

old forest, 57% would be allocated to the nonharvest land base (compared to 83% for 

the No Action Alternative, 74% for Alternative 1, and 52% for Alternative 3). The 

harvesting of 152,400 acres of existing old forest under Alternative 1 would be offset 

by the development of additional structurally complex forest and the abundance of the 

structurally complex forest would remain almost constant for the first 50 years with an 

eventual net increase of 210,100 acres by 2106. The overall function of the structurally 

complex forests would increase in some aspects under Alternative 2 (though less so than 

the No Action Alternative and Alternative 1), and decrease in other aspects because: 

•	 the majority of existing old forest (57%) would remain unharvested and would 

continue to develop into older structurally complex forests; 

•	 a greater percentage (76%) of the oldest of these forests (existing very old forest, 

which are the stands that are 400 years or older in the current inventory) would 

remain unharvested and continue to develop; 

•	 slightly more acres of the existing old forest that would be harvested would 

develop into new structurally complex forest by 2106; and 

•	 the size of the mature&structurally complex forest patches would decrease 

from the current condition in all provinces, and the connectivity of the 

mature&structurally complex forests would decrease in all provinces, except the 

Coast Range province. See the Ecological Conditions on the BLM-administered 

Lands at the Province Scale section later in the Ecology section of this chapter.
508

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Alternative 3 would result in the lowest acreage of the structurally complex forests of any 

alternative. Under Alternative 3, the amount of the structurally complex forests would 

decrease slightly over the first 50 years, and then eventually increase slightly from current 

levels. The harvesting of the structurally complex forests (including partial harvesting) 

would be roughly balanced by the development of additional structurally complex 

forest, which would result in a fluctuating total abundance over time. Alternative 3 

would harvest more of the existing old forest than any other alternative. See Table 151 

(Outcome of existing old forest by 2106 by alternative). Alternative 3 would allocate 

the largest amount of the existing old forest to the harvest land base of any alternative. 

The harvesting of 220,000 acres of existing old forest under Alternative 3 would be 

offset by the development of additional structurally complex forest, but less so than 

other alternatives with a net increase of 122,000 acres by 2106. The overall function 

of the structurally complex forests would decrease from the current condition under 

Alternative 3, because: 

•	 the majority of existing old forest (63%) would be harvested within 100 years; 

•	 the majority (68%) of the oldest of these forests (existing very old forest, which 

are stands that are 400 years or older in the current inventory) would be harvested 

within 100 years; 

•	 the total abundance of the structurally complex forest would decline slightly for 

the first 50 years; and 

•	 the size and connectivity of the mature&structurally complex forest patches 

would decrease from the current condition in all provinces. See the Ecological 

Conditions on the BLM-administered Lands at the Province Scale section later in 

the Ecology section of this chapter.

In 100 years, the amount of the structurally complex forest on the BLM-administered 

lands would be approximately equal to the average historic condition under the No Action 

Alternative, and below the average historic condition under the three action alternatives. 
509

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Table 151. Outcome of existing old forest by 2106 by alternative 

Note: The harvest Land Base graphs are sized approximately to reflect total acreage.
510

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

There is inadequate information to quantify the abundance of hardwood stands. See 

the Ecology section in Chapter 3. Furthermore, there is inadequate information about 

hardwood stand development, especially red alder stands, to model future stand 

development and transition to mixed or conifer-dominated stands. Some researchers 

have hypothesized that riparian red alder stands might develop into shrub-dominated 

areas (especially salmonberry) where conifer tree regeneration is absent (Deal 2006; 

Harrington 2006; Hibbs and Bower 2001). Empirical evidence for this successional 

pathway is generally lacking, and this successional development is most likely possible 

only for small patches rather than entire stands. The likely successional pathway for red 

alder stands in the Coast Range is to eventually develop into mixed or conifer-dominated 

stands (western hemlock, western red-cedar, and Douglas fir). This development into 

conifer stands would be accelerated where hardwood conversion actions would be 

implemented, but the rate of this successional development is unknown. Therefore, it is 

most likely that the riparian and upland hardwood stands would develop into mixed or 

conifer-dominated stands, except:

•	 where natural disturbances maintain hardwoods,

•	 where special management in special habitats outside of the harvest land base 

would be applied to maintain hardwoods, or

•	 where site conditions preclude succession to a conifer forest. 

As a result, hardwood forest abundance would decline under all four alternatives. In 

addition, none of the alternatives would create additional hardwood stands because of the 

limited disturbance of the nonharvest land base and the intensive silvicultural practices to 

reestablish conifers following disturbances in the harvest land base. 

Ecological Conditions on the BLMAdministered Lands by Land Use Allocation

Harvest Land Base

In the harvest land base under all four alternatives, the abundance of stand 

establishment forests and mature forests would increase, and the abundance of 

young forests and structurally complex forests would decrease. The No Action 

Alternative and Alternative 3 would maintain 14% of the harvest land base in 

structurally complex forests in 100 years (compared to the current condition 

of 19%). Alternatives 1 and 2 would nearly eliminate the structurally complex 

forests in the harvest land base (compared to the current condition of 2% and 

1%, respectively). 

The combined abundance of the mature&structurally complex forests in the 

harvest land base would stay approximately constant under the No Action 

Alternative, decrease under Alternatives 1 and 2, and increase under 

Alternative 3. The analysis of terrestrial habitats in the Northwest Forest Plan 

FSEIS, on which the current RMPs of the No Action Alternative relied, analyzed 
511

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

the abundance and connectivity of late-successional and old-growth forests 

(which approximates mature&structurally complex forests in this analysis) based 

on the abundance and future development of forests in the nonharvest land base 

(FSEIS, 3&4:39-43, 3&4:238-241). That previous analysis did not account for 

the retention or development of late-successional and old-growth forests in the 

harvest land base. Nevertheless, the mature&structurally complex forest together 

would continue to constitute approximately half of the acres (289,000 acres) 

within the harvest land base over the next 100 years under the No Action 

Alternative. See Figure 148 (Structural stage abundances on the forested lands 

in the harvest land base by alternative). 

Alternatives 1 and 2 would result in a larger increase in the stand establishment 

forests and a larger decrease in the structurally complex forests in the harvest 

land base than the No Action Alternative because of: 

•	 the higher regeneration harvest rate in the harvest land base than 

under the No Action Alternative. Alternatives 1 and 2 do not have any 

of the standards and guidelines of the No Action Alternative that would 

constrain the harvesting of the structurally complex forests in the harvest 

land base.

•	 the absence of green tree retention, which would slow the 

development of the structurally complex forests after harvesting.

Without green tree retention, stands would take almost twice as long to 

develop into structurally complex forest after regeneration harvesting. 

These two factors would interact to decrease the abundance of the structurally 

complex forest in the harvest land base. The higher regeneration harvest rate 

combined with the slower development into structurally complex forests would 

increase the likelihood that a stand would be harvested before it would have time 

to develop into structurally complex forest. As a result, structurally complex 

forest would be almost eliminated from the harvest land base by 2106, even 

though the total acreage of the structurally complex forests across all land use 

allocations would increase under Alternatives 1 and 2. 

The harvest land base under Alternative 3 would have the most stand 

establishment forest, the least young forest, and the most mature forest of any 

alternative. Alternative 3 would maintain the abundance of the structurally 

complex forest in the harvest land base similar to the No Action Alternative, even 

though Alternative 3 would harvest the most existing old forest of any alternative.

This analysis does not include estimates of future natural disturbances, but most 

natural disturbances in the harvest land base would have little effect on the 

abundance of the structural stages described here. Except in the most severe and 

extensive disturbances, salvaging of naturally disturbed stands would result in 

the same eventual effect on the overall structural stage abundances in the harvest 

land base as scheduled timber harvesting under all four alternatives.
512

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Figure 148. Structural stage abundances on the forested lands in the harvest land base by alternative

Nonharvest Land Base

The structural stage development within the nonharvest land base would be 

similar among all four alternatives, although the total acreage in the nonharvest 

land base would vary. The forest-capable portion of the nonharvest land base 

would become almost completely dominated by mature and structurally complex 

forest in 100 years. See Figure 149 (Structural stage abundances on the forested 

lands in the nonharvest land base by alternative). 

This analysis does not include estimates of future natural disturbances, but 

natural disturbances would increase the amount of stand establishment and 

young forests from the abundances described here. The Northwest Forest Plan 

FSEIS assumed that 2.5% of the late-successional forests in the late-successional 

reserves would be lost to wildfire each decade (NWFP FSEIS, 3&4:42). The 

rate of disturbance would likely be much lower on the BLM-administered lands 

because of the land ownership pattern and greater access for fire suppression. 

No Action Harvest Land Base

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Percent of 

BLM Lands

Stand Establishment Young Mature Structurally Complex

Alternative 1 Harvest Land Base

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Percent of

BLM lands

Stand Establishment Young Mature Structurally Complex

Alternative 2 Harvest Land Base

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Percent of 

BLM lands

Stand Establishment Young Mature Structurally Complex

Alternative 3 Harvest Land Base 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Percent of 

BLM lands

Stand Establishment Young Mature Structurally Complex
513

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Figure 149. Structural stage abundances on the forested lands in the nonharvest land 

base by alternative

Ecological Conditions on the BLMAdministered Lands at the Province Scale 

The effects of the alternatives on the structural stage abundances and spatial patterns 

in the Coast Range, Western Cascades, and Klamath provinces generally reflect the 

structural stage abundances and spatial patterns described for the planning area as a 

whole. The effects of the alternatives in the Eastern Cascades province differs from the 

other provinces in many measures of the structural stage abundance and spatial pattern, 

in part because of the differing ecological conditions and management history. However, 

these different patterns have little effect on the overall pattern for the planning area, 

because the Eastern Cascades province makes up only 2% of the BLM-administered 

forest lands modeled within the planning area. 

See Figure 150, Figure 151, and Figure 152 on the next several pages.

No Action Non-Harvest Land Base

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Percent of

BLM lands

Stand Establishment Young Mature Structurally Complex

Alternative 1 Non-Harvest Land Base

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Percent of 

BLM lands

Stand Establishment Young Mature Structurally Complex

Alternative 2 Non-Harvest Land Base

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Percent of

BLM lands

Stand Establishment Young Mature Structurally Complex

Alternative 3 Non-Harvest Land Base

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Percent of 

BLM lands

Stand Establishment Young Mature Structurally Complex
514

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Figure 150. Comparison of the structural stage abundances on the BLM-administered forested lands by 

2106 with the current conditions and the average historic conditions by alternative by province

Coast Range 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Current Historical

Average

No Action Alternative

1

Alternative

2

Alternative

3

Percent of

BLM Land

Mature and Structurally Complex

Young 

Stand Establishment

West Cascades

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Current Historical

Average

No Action Alternative

1

Alternative

2

Alternative

3

Percent of

BLM land

Mature and Structurally Complex

Young 

Stand Establishment

Klamath

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Current Historical

Average

No Action Alternative

1

Alternative

2

Alternative

3

Percent of

BLM Land

Mature and Structurally Complex

Young 

Stand Establishment

East Cascades

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Current Historical

Average

No Action Alternative

1

Alternative

2

Alternative

3

Percent of

BLM land

Mature and Structurally Complex

Young 

Stand Establishment
515

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Figure 151. Change in the mean patch size from the current condition by 2106 by forest structural stage on 

the BLM-administered lands 

Stand Establishment Forest Mean Patch Size 2106

-250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250

No Action

Alternative 1 

Alternative 2

Alternative 3

Acres

Decrease From Current Increase From Current

Coast Range West Cascades

Klamath East Cascades

Young Forest Mean Patch Size 2106

-250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250

No Action

Alternative 1

Alternative 2

Alternative 3

Acres

Decrease From Current Increase From Current

Coast Range West Cascades

Klamath East Cascades

Mature and Structurally Complex Forest Mean Patch Size 2106

-250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250

No Action

Alternative 1 

Alternative 2

Alternative 3

Acres

Decrease from Current Increase From Current

Coast Range West Cascades

Klamath East Cascades
516

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Figure 152. Change in the connectance from the current condition by 2106 by forest structural stage 

on the BLM-administered lands 

Stand Establishment Forest Connectance 2106

-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200

No Action

Alternative 1 

Alternative 2

Alternative 3

Percent

Decrease From Current Increase From Current

Coast Range West Cascades

Klamath East Cascades

Young Forest Connectance 2106

-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200

No Action

Alternative 1

Alternative 2

Alternative 3

Percent

Decrease From Current Increase From Current

Coast Range West Cascades

Klamath East Cascades

Mature and Structurally Complex Forest Connectance 2106

-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200

No Action

Alternative 1 

Alternative 2

Alternative 3

Percent

Decrease From Current Increase From Current

Coast Range West Cascades

Klamath East Cascades
517

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Coast Range Province

Under all four alternatives, the young forests would decrease and the 

mature forests would increase in abundance in the Coast Range province. 

See Figure 153 (Structural stage abundances on the BLM-administered 

forested lands in the Coast Range province by alternative). In the No Action 

Alternative and Alternative 1, the stand establishment forests would remain 

approximately constant in abundance and the structurally complex forests 

would steadily increase to become the most abundant structural stage because 

of the predominance of the nonharvest land base in the Coast Range. Under the 

No Action Alternative and Alternative 1, very little of the existing old forest 

(less than 10% in 100 years) would be harvested in the Coast Range province. 

Alternative 2 would allocate a larger harvest land base in the Coast Range 

province than the No Action Alternative or Alternative 1, and consequently 

would increase the abundance of the stand establishment forests and maintain 

the abundance of the structurally complex forests approximately constant for the 

first 50 years. Alternative 3 would allocate an even larger harvest land base in 

the Coast Range province than Alternative 2, and consequently would increase 

the abundance of the stand establishment forests more than any other alternative 

and would slightly decrease the abundance of the structurally complex forests. 

Alternative 3 would harvest the majority of the existing old forest (69% in 

100 years) in the Coast Range province. 

In 100 years, the No Action Alternative and Alternative 1 would result in less 

young forest and more mature&structurally complex forest than the average 

historic condition4

. See Figure 150 (Comparison of the structural stage 

abundances on the BLM-administered forested lands by 2106 with the current 

conditions and the average historic conditions by alternative by province). 

Alternative 2 would result in a structural stage abundance that is approximately 

similar to the average historic condition in the Coast Range province in 

100 years with slightly more stand establishment forest and slightly less 

mature&structurally complex forest. Alternative 3 would result in more stand 

establishment forest, less young forest, and slightly less mature&structurally 

complex forest than the average historic condition in the Coast Range province in 

100 years.

4 Note that for this analysis, the mature and structurally complex forests are combined because of the limitations in the description of the average historic conditions.
518

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Figure 153. Structural stage abundances on the BLM-administered forested lands in the Coast Range 

province by alternative

All four alternatives would result in smaller patches of stand establishment 

forest and young forest in the Coast Range province as shown in Figure 151. 

The No Action Alternative would result in the most decrease in the size of stand 

establishment patches, and Alternative 3 would result in the least decrease, 

which is consistent with the changes in the overall structural stage abundances. 

All four alternatives would result in mean patch size of stand establishment and 

young forests that would be far below the average historic condition. Although 

a direct comparison of these results is problematic (see the Ecology section in 

Chapter 3), Nonaka and Spies (2005) reported historic mean patch sizes of stand 

establishment forest and young forest ranging from 183 to 264 acres, which is 10 

to 20 times larger than the alternatives. 

The No Action Alternative and Alternative 1 would increase the size and 

connectivity of the mature&structurally complex forest patches on the BLMadministered lands over the next 100 years in the Coast Range province. 

See Figure 151 and Figure 152. Over the next 100 years, the No Action 

Alternative and Alternative 1 would create larger patches of mature&structurally 

complex forest with more interior habitat than the current condition (see 

Appendix B-Ecology). Alternative 2 would slightly decrease the size of the 

No Action - Coast Range

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Percent of 

BLM lands

Stand Establishment Young Mature Structurally Complex

Alternative 1 - Coast Range

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Percent of 

BLM Lands

Stand Establishment Young Mature Structurally Complex

Alternative 2 - Coast Range

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Percent of 

BLM Lands

Stand Establishment Young Mature Structurally Complex

Alternative 3 - Coast Range

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Percent of 

BLM Lands

Stand Establishment Young Mature Structurally Complex
519

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

mature&structurally complex forest patches and increase the connectivity from 

the current condition in the Coast Range province. Alternative 3 would decrease 

both the size and connectivity of the mature&structurally complex forest patches. 

Alternative 3 would move the spatial pattern of the mature&structurally complex 

forest further away from the historic conditions, which is consistent with the 

research that concluded that the restoration of historic wildfire would move the 

Coast Range province further away from the historic range of variability over the 

next 100 years (Nonaka and Spies 2005). 

The increase in the mean patch size for the mature&structurally complex forests 

under the No Action Alternative and Alternative 1 would be comparable to the 

estimates of the average historic mature forest patch size (Nonaka and Spies 

2005). In their modeling of the average historic spatial patterns in the Coast 

Range province, Nonaka and Spies reported the mean patch size of the mature 

forests as 272 acres, which is compared to a current mean patch size of 84 acres 

across all ownerships. From this analysis, the current mean patch size of the 

mature&structurally complex forest on the BLM-administered lands in the Coast 

Range province is currently 110.8 acres and would increase to 255.1 acres under 

Alternative 1 and 340.2 acres under the No Action Alternative. 

Western Cascades Province

The structural stage abundance in the Western Cascades province would show the 

overall changes similar to the Coast Range province. See Figure 154 (Structural 

stage abundances on the BLM-administered forested lands in the Western 

Cascades province by alternative). The difference among the alternatives would 

be less pronounced than in the Coast Range province, because the No Action 

Alternative and Alternative 1 would allocate a larger portion of the BLMadministered lands in the Western Cascades to the harvest land base than in the 

Coast Range province.

In 100 years, the No Action Alternative would result in a structural stage 

abundance that is approximately similar to the average historic condition in the 

Western Cascades with slightly more stand establishment forest and slightly less 

young forest. See Figure 150 (Comparison of the structural stage abundances 

on the BLM-administered forested lands by 2106 with the current conditions 

and the average historic conditions by alternative by province). Alternatives 1 

and 2 would result in more stand establishment forest, more young forest, and 

less mature&structurally complex forest than the average historic condition in 

the Western Cascades in 100 years. Alternative 3 would result in more stand 

establishment forest, less young forest, and less mature&structurally complex 

forest than the average historic condition in the Western Cascades in 100 years.
520

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Figure 154. Structural stage abundances on the BLM-administered forested lands in the Western 

Cascades province by alternative

Most of the changes in the spatial patterns in the Western Cascades province 

under the alternatives would be similar to the changes in the Coast Range 

province, although the changes from the current condition and the differences 

among the alternatives would be less pronounced for all measures of 

spatial pattern. See Figures 151 and 152. The No Action Alternative is 

the only alternative that would increase the size and connectivity of the 

mature&structurally complex forest patches from the current condition in the 

Western Cascades province. Alternative 1 would slightly decrease the size and 

connectivity in the mature&structurally complex forest patches. Alternative 2 

would have a larger decrease. And Alternative 3 would have the largest decrease 

in size and connectivity. There are no detailed studies of the historic spatial 

pattern in the Western Cascades province comparable to those in the Coast Range 

province. However, studies of fire frequency and extent suggest that the historic 

spatial pattern would have been larger and more connected mature&structurally 

complex forest patches than the current condition (Weisberg and Swanson 2003; 

Cissel et al. 1999). Therefore, the three action alternatives would move the spatial 

pattern of the mature&structurally complex forest further away from the historic 

conditions in the Western Cascades province. 

No Action - West Cascades

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Percent of

BLM lands

Stand Establishment Young Mature Structurally Complex

Alternative 1 - West Cascades

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Percent of 

BLM Lands

Stand Establishment Young Mature Structurally Complex

Alternative 2 - West Cascades

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Percent of 

BLM Lands

Stand Establishment Young Mature Structurally Complex

Alternative 3 - West Cascades

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Percent of 

BLM Lands

Stand Establishment Young Mature Structurally Complex
521

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Klamath Province

The structural stage abundance in the Klamath province would show the 

overall changes similar to the Coast Range and Western Cascades provinces, 

although the mature forest would remain approximately constant in abundance 

under the No Action Alternative and decrease slightly under Alternative 3. See 

Figure 155 (Structural stage abundances on the BLM-administered forested 

lands in the Klamath province by alternative). The difference among the 

alternatives in the Klamath province would be less pronounced than in the 

Coast Range province, because the No Action Alternative and Alternative 1 

would allocate a larger portion of the Klamath province to the harvest land base 

than in the Coast Range province. 

In 100 years, the No Action Alternative would result in less stand establishment 

forest, less young forest, and more mature&structurally complex forest than the 

average historic condition in the Klamath province. See Figure 150 (Comparison 

of the structural stage abundances on the BLM-administered forested lands 

by 2106 with the current conditions and the average historic conditions by 

alternative by province). Alternative 1 would result in less stand establishment 

forest and more young forest than the average historic condition in the Klamath 

province in 100 years. Alternative 2 would result in more young forest and 

less mature&structurally complex forest than the average historic condition in 

the Klamath province in 100 years. Alternative 3 would result in more stand 

establishment forest and less mature&structurally complex forest than the 

average historic condition in the Klamath province in 100 years.

This analysis does not include the estimates of future natural disturbances, but 

natural disturbances would be more likely to alter the structural stage abundances 

in the nonharvest land base in the Klamath province than in the Coast Range or 

Western Cascades provinces. The predominant high fire frequency regime and 

the effects of past fire suppression increase the likelihood that wildfires would 

increase the amount of stand establishment and young forests in the nonharvest 

land base from the abundances described here. However, there remains 

inadequate information to estimate the acreage, location, timing, severity, and 

extent of such disturbances. 
522

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Figure 155. Structural stage abundances on the BLM-administered forested lands in the Klamath province 

by alternative

The No Action Alternative, Alternative 1, and Alternative 2 would result in 

more smaller patches of stand establishment and young forests in the Klamath 

province. See Figure 151 (Change in the mean patch size from the current 

condition by 2106 by forest structural stage on the BLM-administered lands). 

Alternative 3 would create more stand establishment patches with little change 

in the mean patch size, which is consistent with the overall increase in the 

abundance of stand establishment forest. As in the Western Cascades province, 

the three action alternatives would decrease the size and connectivity of the 

mature&structurally complex forest patches compared to the current condition—

Alternative 1 would result in the least decrease, and Alternative 3 would result 

in the most decrease. See Figures 150 and 151. There are no detailed studies of 

the historic spatial pattern in the Klamath province to compare these results to. 

The historic spatial patterns was likely more variable than in the Coast Range 

or Western Cascades provinces because of the complex interaction of highly 

variable geology and climate with the highly variable disturbance regimes 

(Taylor and Skinner 2003; Frost and Sweeney 2000). 

No Action - Klamath

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Percent of 

BLM Lands

Stand Establishment Young Mature Structurally Complex

Alternative 1 - Klamath

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Percent of 

BLM lands

Stand Establishment Young Mature Structurally Complex

Alternative 2 - Klamath

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Percent of 

BLM Lands

Stand Establishment Young Mature Structurally Complex

Alternative 3 - Klamath

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Percent of 

BLM Lands

Stand Establishment Young Mature Structurally Complex
523

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Eastern Cascades Province

The structural stage abundances in the Eastern Cascades province would differ 

from the other provinces and would differ strongly among the alternatives. See 

Figure 156 (Structural stage abundances on the BLM-administered forested 

lands in the Eastern Cascades province by alternative). 

Under the No Action Alternative, the structural stage abundances in the Eastern 

Cascades province would fluctuate, but remain approximately constant. The 

patterns in the Eastern Cascades province would differ from the other provinces 

under the No Action Alternative because of the absence of the late-successional 

reserves and the small acreage of the riparian reserves in the Eastern Cascades 

province. The acreage of the riparian reserves in the Eastern Cascades province 

is small because 69% of the BLM-administered forested acres in the Eastern 

Cascades province would be in the harvest land base as compared to the 

planning area average of 26%. Alternatives 1 and 2 would allocate similar 

acreage amounts to the harvest land base and consequently would show similar 

structural stage abundance—increasing the stand establishment forests and 

decreasing the mature forests over the next 100 years. The structural stage 

abundance under Alternative 3 in the Eastern Cascades would show a pattern 

different than the other alternatives and different than Alternative 3 in the 

other provinces—increasing the stand establishment forest to become the 

most abundant structural stage and decreasing the young forest and mature 

forest. The uneven-aged management of the Eastern Cascades province under 

Alternative 3 would repeatedly reset stands to the stand establishment with 

structural legacies forest structural stage, which would limit or preclude the 

development into mature forest. 

In 100 years, none of the alternatives would result in structural stage abundances 

that are similar to the average historic condition in the Eastern Cascades. See 

Figure 150 (Comparison of the structural stage abundances on the BLMadministered forested lands by 2106 with the current conditions and the average 

historic conditions by alternative by province). The No Action Alternative would 

result in less young forest and more mature&structurally complex forest than 

the average historic condition in the Eastern Cascades province in 100 years. 

Alternatives 1 and 2 would result in more stand establishment forest and less 

young forest. Alternative 3 would result in a structural stage abundance that 

would be the most different from the average historic condition of all four 

alternatives—more stand establishment forest, less young forest, and less 

mature&structurally complex forest. 

The classification of the forest structural stages in the Eastern Cascades province 

and the characterization of the average historic condition is more challenging 

than in any other province. The effect of partial harvesting under Alternative 3 

would reset stands to stand establishment forest, which likely overestimates the 
524

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

abundance of the stand establishment forests compared to the average historic 

condition. See the Ecology section in Chapter 3.

As in the Klamath province, natural disturbances would be more likely 

to alter the structural stage abundances in the nonharvest land base in the 

Eastern Cascades province than in the Coast Range or Western Cascades. The 

predominant high fire frequency regime and the effects of past fire suppression 

increase the likelihood that wildfires would increase the amount of the stand 

establishment and young forests in the nonharvest land base from the abundances 

described here. However, there remains inadequate information to estimate the 

acreage, location, timing, severity, and extent of such disturbances. 

Figure 156. Structural stage abundances on the BLM-administered forested lands in the Eastern Cascades 

province by alternative

The No Action Alternative would decrease the size of the stand establishment 

forest patches in the Eastern Cascades province, and the three action alternatives 

would increase the size of the stand establishment forest patches, which is 

consistent with the changes in the overall structural stage abundance. See 

Figure 151 (Change in the mean patch size from the current condition by 2106 by 

forest structural stage on the BLM-administered lands). 

All four alternatives would result in only slight changes in the size of young 

forest patches compared to the current condition. The No Action Alternative, 

No Action - East Cascades

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Percent of 

BLM Lands

Stand Establishment Young Mature Structurally Complex

Alternative 1 - East Cascades

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Percent of 

BLM Lands

Stand Establishment Young Mature Structurally Complex

Alternative 2 - East Cascades

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Percent of 

BLM Lands

Stand Establishment Young Mature Structurally Complex

Alternative 3 - East Cascades

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Percent of 

BLM Lands

Stand Establishment Young Mature Structurally Complex
525

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Alternative 2, and Alternative 3 would slightly decrease the size of the young 

forest patches, and Alternatives 1 would slightly increase the size of young 

forest patches.

All four alternatives would decrease the size and connectivity of the 

mature&structurally complex forest patches in the Eastern Cascades province. 

See Figures 151 and 152. The No Action Alternative would result in the 

least decrease, and Alternative 3 would result in the most decrease. There are 

no studies of historic spatial pattern to compare to these results. However, 

the historic spatial pattern in the Eastern Cascades likely differed from other 

provinces within the planning area because of the prevalence of a low-severity/

high-frequency fire regime that would have produced a fine-grained mosaic of the 

forest structural stages (Frost and Sweeney 2000). 

Subalternatives and Reference Analyses

Alternative 1 Subalternative: 

No Harvesting of Stands 80 years of age and older

This subalternative would decrease the amount of the stand establishment and 

young forests, and increase the amount of mature and structurally complex 

forests from the current condition. See Figure 157 (Structural stage abundances 

of the subalternatives and the reference analyses as a percentage of the BLMadministered forested lands by 2106) and Table 152 (Structural stage abundances 

of the subalternatives and the reference analyses as a percentage of the BLMadministered forested lands by 2106). Without the timber harvesting of stands 

that are 80 years of age and older, the stand establishment and young forests 

would decline in abundance. Similarly to the no harvest reference analysis, the 

no harvesting of stands that are 80 years of age and older subalternative would 

result in the BLM-administered lands almost completely being dominated by the 

mature and structurally complex forests. The structural stage abundances under 

this subalternative would be more similar to the no harvesting reference analysis 

than Alternative 1. Like the no harvesting reference analysis, the no harvesting of 

stands that are 80 years of age and older subalternative would result in less stand 

establishment and young forests and more mature&structurally complex forests 

than the average historic condition.

Alternative 1 Subalternative: 

No Harvesting of Stands 200 years of age and older

This subalternative would increase the amount of stand establishment forests, 

decrease the amount of young forests, maintain the amount of mature forests, and 

increase the amount of the structurally complex forests compared to the current 

condition. See Figure 157 (Structural stage abundances of the subalternatives 
526

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

and the reference analyses as a percentage of the BLM-administered forested 

lands by 2106) and Table 152 (Structural stage abundances of the subalternatives 

and the reference analyses as a percentage of the BLM-administered forested 

lands by 2106). The structural stage abundances under this subalternative would 

be more similar to Alternative 1 than the no harvesting reference analysis or 

the no harvesting of stands that are 80 years of age and older subalternative. 

This subalternative would result in more stand establishment forests, less young 

forests, more mature forests, and less structurally complex forests than the 

average historic condition.

No Harvesting Reference Analysis

Without any timber harvesting on the BLM-administered lands, the stand 

establishment forests would completely disappear and the young forests would 

almost completely disappear from the BLM-administered lands by 2106. See 

Figure 157 (Structural stage abundances of the subalternatives and the reference 

analyses as a percentage of the BLM-administered forested lands by 2106) and 

Table 152 (Structural stage abundances of the subalternatives and the reference 

analyses as a percentage of the BLM-administered forested lands by 2106). 

The mature and structurally complex forests would increase to occupy almost 

all the BLM-administered lands. This would result in less stand establishment 

and young forests and more mature and structurally complex forests on the 

BLM-administered lands than the average historic condition. Because the 

mature&structurally complex forests would occupy almost all the BLMadministered lands, the size and connectivity would increase in all provinces and 

far more than any alternative. See Appendix B, Ecology.

This analysis does not include the estimates of future natural disturbances, but natural 

disturbances would increase the amount of the stand establishment and young forests 

from the abundances described here. The Northwest Forest Plan FSEIS assumed that 

2.5% of the late-successional forests in the late-successional reserves would be lost to 

wildfires each decade (USDA, USDI 1994b, 3&4:42). The rate of disturbance would 

likely be much lower on the BLM-administered lands because of the land ownership 

pattern and the greater access for fire suppression. 

Across all ownerships, no timber harvesting on the BLM-administered lands, 

combined with the effect of the management on other lands, would result in a 

decrease in the stand establishment forests and young forests from the current 

condition and an increase in the mature&structurally complex forests, as in all 

four alternatives and the subalternatives described in this section. These changes 

would move the landscape in the direction of the historic average conditions. 

However, the structural stage abundances across all ownerships would not reach 

the average historic conditions in 100 years. The stand establishment forests 

would remain above the average historic condition and the mature&structurally 

complex forests would remain below the average historic condition, as they 
527

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

would in all four alternatives. See Figure 158 (Comparison of all ownerships by 

2106 with average historic conditions and current conditions by alternative). 

Intensive Management on Most Commercial Timber Lands 

Reference Analysis

This reference analysis would result in more stand establishment forests, more 

young forests, and less structurally complex forests than any alternative. The 

structurally complex forests would be restricted almost entirely to the nonharvest 

land base, which would comprise 18% of the BLM-administered lands 

(compared to 40% under Alternative 3, which is the lowest of the alternatives). 

Although the mature forests would continue to comprise 33% of the BLMadministered lands, the majority (80%) would be mature with single canopy 

forests (far higher than any other alternative). See Figure 147 (Mature forest with 

multilayered canopies or single canopies by alternative) earlier in this section. 

This reference analysis would result in more stand establishment forests, more 

young forests, more mature forests, and less structurally complex forests than the 

average historic condition.

Figure 157. Structural stage abundances of the subalternatives and the reference analyses as a 

percentage of the BLM-administered forested lands by 2106

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Current

Historic

Average

No Harvest

No Action 

Alternative 1

No Harvest

>80 yrs

No Harvest

>200 yrs

Alternative 2Alternative 3

Intensive

Management

% of BLM lands

Stand Establishment Young Mature Structurally Complex
528

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Table 152. Structural stage abundances of the subalternatives and the reference analyses as a 

percentage of the BLM-administered forested lands by 2106

Alternatives, 

Subalternatives, and 

Reference Analyses

Forest Structural Stages

Stand 

Establishment Young Mature Structurally 

Complex

Average Historic 

Conditions 5 15 25 55

No Action Alternative 8 8 31 53

Alternative 1 10 15 33 42

Alternative 2 15 21 32 33

Alternative 3 20 11 39 30

Alternative 1 Subalternative: 

No harvesting of stands older 

than 80 years

2 2 31 64

Alternative 1 Subalternative: 

No harvesting of stands older 

than 200 years

13 10 30 48

Reference Analysis: 

No harvesting 0 1 33 66

Reference Analysis: 

Intensive management on 

most commercial timber lands

22 31 33 15

Note: Some percentages do not add up to 100 because of rounding.

Ecological Conditions across All Ownerships

The structural stages for all lands other than the BLM-administered lands were classified 

using IVMP data (see the Ecology section in Chapter 3). The IVMP data, however, only 

describes the current conditions. The BLM-administered lands are classified for both 

the current and future conditions based on modeling outputs rather than IVMP data. 

The modeling outputs provide the only available data on the future conditions under 

the different alternatives. It is not possible to conduct comparable modeling of future 

conditions on lands other than the BLM-administered lands. Therefore, the analysis 

relies on simple assumptions about the future conditions on other lands. The analysis 

assumes that all forest-capable lands in the U.S. Forest Service late-successional reserves, 

administratively withdrawn, and congressionally reserved lands would develop through 

the structural stages by the following progression:

•	 By 2016, all stand establishment forests would become young forests. 

•	 By 2056, all young forests that were young forests by 2006 would become 

mature&structurally complex forests.

•	 By 2106, all young forests that were stand establishment forests by 2006 would 

become mature&structurally complex forests.

The analysis assumes that all other lands would maintain their current abundances and 

spatial patterns. These broad assumptions are acknowledged to be inaccurate. There is 

inadequate information, however, to make more accurate assumptions. The assumption 
529

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

about the U.S. Forest Service reserves does not account for natural disturbances (similar 

to the modeling of the BLM-administered lands) or the slow structural development on 

poor sites. The assumption on other lands overestimates harvesting on the U.S. Forest 

Service harvest base lands, does not account for riparian reserves, and overestimates 

harvesting on state lands. The prediction of harvesting practices on private lands would 

be complex and largely speculative (Kennedy and Spies 2005; Nonaka and Spies 2005). 

Nevertheless, the broad assumptions here are sufficient to evaluate the relative effect of 

the different BLM management actions on the structural stage abundances and spatial 

patterns across all ownerships. 

The value of the analysis across all ownerships is in the relative results that compare the 

future conditions under the different alternatives. Absolute results from the abundance 

and spatial analysis should be interpreted with great caution. The measurements of spatial 

patterns are strongly influenced by:

•	 the definition of the elements of the analysis (e.g., the landscape boundaries):

•	 the scale the spatial analysis; 

•	 the definition of patch types; and

•	 the basis for delineating patches. 

In addition, this analysis integrates two different data sources to construct the landscape 

for the analysis—modeling outputs for the BLM-administered lands and IVMP data for 

all other lands. These different data sources use slightly different parameters to define 

the structural stages and are measured at different scales, which influence the spatial 

pattern results. Therefore, these abundance and spatial pattern results cannot reliably be 

compared directly to the results from other studies, but should only be used to describe 

the relative effects of the different alternatives.

All four alternatives, combined with the effect of the management on other lands 

consistent with the assumptions described above, would contribute to a decrease in the 

stand establishment forests and young forests from the current condition and an increase 

in the mature&structurally complex forests. These changes would move the landscape in 

the direction of the historic average conditions. However, the structural stage abundance 

across all ownerships would not reach the average historic conditions in 100 years under 

any alternative. The stand establishment forests would remain above the average historic 

condition and the mature&structurally complex forests would remain below the average 

historic condition in all four alternatives. See Figure 158 (Comparison of all ownerships 

by 2106 with average historic conditions and current conditions by alternative). This 

conclusion is consistent with the research on the Coast Range landscape conditions that 

modeled alternative future management scenarios on all ownerships, rather than the broad 

assumptions described above (Nonaka and Spies 2005).

The structural stage abundances across all ownerships would vary only slightly among 

the alternatives for two reasons: 

•	 The BLM-administered lands make up only 16% of all forested land within the 

planning area, which is too small an area to substantially shift the structural stage 

abundances across all ownerships.
530

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

•	 The effect of the alternatives on the BLM-administered lands, though 

quantitatively different, would make similar overall changes to the structural 

stage abundance—a decrease in the young forests and an increase in the 

mature&structurally complex forests.

As a result, none of the alternatives would result in more than a 1% shift in the structural 

stage abundances across all ownerships. Even the reference analyses of no harvesting 

and intensive management on most commercial timber lands would result in only an 

additional 1 to 2% shift in the structural stage abundances across all ownerships. There 

are differences among the alternatives that are masked by grouping all mature and 

structurally complex forests, together, and these differences are detailed in the analysis 

of the BLM-administered lands above. But at the broad scale of analysis across all 

ownerships, the management of the BLM-administered lands does not substantially alter 

the condition of the entire forested landscape. 

The principal controls on the condition of the entire forested landscape are the 

development of the U.S. Forest Service reserves into mature&structurally complex 

forests and the continued intensive management of the nonfederal forests. For example, 

the No Action Alternative would add an additional 684,000 acres of mature&structurally 

complex forest on the BLM-administered lands in 100 years, whereas the development 

of the U.S. Forest Service reserves would add more than twice that amount 

(1,786,000 acres) of mature&structurally complex forest over the same time period.

Figure 158. Comparison of all ownerships by 2106 with average historic conditions and current 

conditions by alternative

The abundances of the structural stages over time shows slightly more difference among 

the alternatives at the province scale than for the entire planning area. Nevertheless, the 

alternatives still only shift the abundances at the province scale less than 3% in 100 years. 

See Figure 159 (Comparison of all ownerships by 2106 with average historic conditions 

and current conditions by province by alternative).

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

current

historic

average

No Harvest

No Action

Alt 1Alt 2Alt 3

Intensive

Management

% of all forested lands

Stand Establishment Young Mature&Structurally Complex
531

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Figure 159. Comparison of all ownerships by 2106 with average historic conditions and current 

conditions by province by alternative

The spatial patterns of the structural stages across all ownerships would reveal more 

differences among the alternatives than the abundances of the structural stages. 

The stand establishment forest patch sizes would decrease in some alternatives in some 

provinces and increase in others. See Figure 160 (Change in the mean patch sizes 

from the current condition by 2106 by the forest structural stages on all ownerships). 

Alternative 3 would contribute to an increase in the stand establishment patch size in 

all provinces. However, these relative shifts represent very slight absolute changes 

in the Coast Range and Western Cascades provinces, where the differences among 

the alternatives is less than 4% of the current mean patch size. In the Klamath and 

Eastern Cascades provinces, the difference among the alternatives would be greater—

Alternative 3 would result in stand establishment patch sizes 12% greater than the 

No Action Alternative in the Klamath province, and 17% greater than the No Action 

Alternative in the Eastern Cascades province. This is consistent with the overall trend in 

the abundances across all ownerships, but the differences among the alternatives in mean 

patch sizes are greater than the differences in the overall abundance.

Coast Range

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Current Historic

Average

No Action Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3

Percent of all 

Forested Land

Stand Establishment Young Mature&Structurally Complex

East Cascades

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Current Historic

Average

No Action Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3

Percent of all 

Forested Land

Stand Establishment Young Mature&Structurally Complex

Klamath

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Current Historic

Average

No Action Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3

Percent of all 

Forested Land

Stand Establishment Young Mature&Structurally Complex

West Cascades

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Current Historic

Average

No Action Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3

Percent of all 

Forested Land

Stand Establishment Young Mature&Structurally Complex
532

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

The young forest patch sizes would decrease in all four alternatives in all provinces 

consistent with the overall trend in abundances.

The mature&structurally complex forest patch sizes would increase in all four 

alternatives in all provinces consistent with the overall trend in abundances. The 

development of the Forest Service reserves into mature&structurally complex forests 

would produce very large mature&structurally complex forest patches that would 

contribute to the increase in mean patch size, but there would still be a measurable 

difference among the alternatives. Among the alternatives, the No Action Alternative 

would contribute to the most increase in mature&structurally complex forest patch 

size, and Alternative 3 would contribute to the least increase in all provinces. 

The No Harvesting reference analysis would result in more difference in the 

mature&structurally complex forest patch size than in the overall abundance of the 

mature&structurally complex forest across all ownerships. The no harvesting reference 

analysis would result in mature&structurally complex forest mean patch sizes that are 

much larger than Alternative 3—35% larger in the Coast Range province, 23% larger in 

the Western Cascades province, 120% larger in the Klamath province, and 32% larger 

in the Eastern Cascades province. The differences among the alternatives would be 

greatest in the Klamath province, in part because the BLM-administered lands make up 

a higher portion of the Klamath province than any other province. 
533

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Figure 160. Change in the mean patch sizes from the current condition by 2106 by the forest 

structural stages on all ownerships 

Note the change in scale for the mature&structurally complex forests.

Stand Establishment Forest Mean Patch Size 2106

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

No Harvest

No Action

Alternative 1 

Alternative 2

Alternative 3

Acres

Decrease From Current Increase From Current

Coast Range West Cascades

Klamath East Cascades

Young Forest Mean Patch Size 2106

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

No Harvest

No Action

Alternative 1 

Alternative 2

Alternative 3

Acres

Decrease From Current Increase From Current

Coast Range West Cascades

Klamath East Cascades

Mature and Structurally Complex Forest Mean Patch Size 2106

-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50

No Harvest

No Action

Alternative 1 

Alternative 2

Alternative 3

Acres

Decrease From Current Increase From Current

Coast Range West Cascades

Klamath East Cascades
534

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Socioeconomics 

This analysis examines the county-level economic impacts in terms of the jobs and income that 

are associated with the BLM’s timber harvests, the BLM’s payments to counties, the BLM’s 

budget requirements, and the economic value of the BLM timber program that would result from 

the alternatives.

Key Points

•	 None of the alternatives would produce timber receipts that are sufficient to bring payments to the counties to 

the level provided by the Secure Rural Schools payments of the Secure Rural Schools and Community SelfDetermination Act of 2000. Alternative 2 would produce the highest payments to the counties at 94% of the O&C 

portion of the 2005 Secure Rural Schools payment, while the No Action Alternative would produce the lowest 

payments at 37% of the O&C portion of the 2005 Secure Rural Schools payment. 

•	 Alternative 2 would have the most favorable impact on local economies and would result in a net increase of 

3,442 jobs and $136.5 million of wages. The No Action Alternative would have the least favorable impact on local 

economies and would result in a next decrease of 3,710 jobs and $125.5 million of wages. Economic impacts 

would vary by county depending on: 

- the economic structure of the economy, 

- the county’s share of the Secure Rural School payments, and 

- the projected changes in the wood products industry.

•	 The BLM would require an increase in budget to implement all four alternatives. The increase would range 

from 17% under the No Action Alternative to 60% under Alternative 2.

•	 The present net value of the BLM timber harvest would range from $46.1 million under Alternative 3 to 

$962.3 million under Alternative 2.

The management of the BLM timberlands contributes to the economic activity in the western 

Oregon communities within the planning area. Timber harvesting and the manufacture of wood 

products create jobs and income in these sectors and also stimulates economic activity in other 

sectors of the local and regional economies. The BLM’s employees and the BLM’s management 

expenditures also contribute to local economies. Approximately 50% of the revenues received 

from the O&C lands, furthermore, flows directly to the county governments and is used to fund a 

variety of social services and investments. 

The BLM lands contribute to the employment and income in industries other than those that are 

related to lumber and wood products. Dispersed and developed recreation, commercial fishing, 

hunting, special forest products, mining, and grazing all contribute to the region’s economies and 

are affected by changes in federal forest management. Estimating the jobs and income that are 

associated with uses other than the wood products and government sectors is not possible because 

data for the evaluation of many economic aspects of the alternatives is limited for resources and 

uses that have no market or transaction costs. In addition, the BLM’s receipts from these activities 

in western Oregon are relatively minor compared to the timber program and vary little between 

alternatives. For example, receipts from such nontimber sources as recreation ($1.2 million 

annually), special forest products ($300,000 annually), and grazing receipts ($30,000 to $40,000 

annually) are relatively minor and would not vary between the alternatives. 

While primary data is not available to measure how the alternatives would differ in economic 

benefits of recreation opportunities on the BLM, it is important to note that both resident and 

nonresident tourists contribute to local economies in the form of purchases of goods and services 
535

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

of accommodations, transportation, food and beverage, retail, and commercial recreation services. 

Outdoor recreation on BLM-administered lands in the planning area yielded an estimated 

3,953,400 visitor days in 2004, of these an estimated 24% were tourists who resided more than 50 

miles from the recreation site. Using regional tourism studies for western Oregon in combination 

with national outdoor recreation valuation studies cited by the National Park Service and the 

BLM produces a conservative estimate of the value of nonresident outdoor recreation spending in 

the planning area. In 2004, visitors to the BLM’s recreation areas spent over $68,300,000 in local 

communities to support their visit to the public lands. As described in the Recreation section of 

this chapter, all alternatives would continue to meet recreational demand on BLM-administered 

lands in the planning area with some minor effects on visitor use patterns.

The measures that are used for the comparison of the alternatives are:

•	 Employment. Those full-time equivalent jobs associated with the timber-related 

economic sectors.

•	 Income. The wages associated with employment.

•	 Payments to counties. The counties’ share of the revenues that are paid to the BLM.

•	 BLM budget. The money that is spent for the BLM’s personnel, services, equipment, etc.

•	 Contract costs. The money that is spent on contracting certain silvicultural costs.

•	 Present net value. The sum of the discounted revenues and costs associated with the 

timber sale program.

The volumes and revenues of harvests for this analysis were derived from the OPTIONS model. 

The Western Oregon Model (Adams and Latta 2007, 8-14) was used to project delivery points 

for the projected harvest from OPTIONS. Developed at Oregon State University, this model 

relies on data about processing facilities, market prices, and private inventory to project log 

flows and production across Western Oregon. County-level input/output models were constructed 

specifically for this analysis. Data specific to the economy of each county were incorporated 

into the model, resulting in employment and income projections tuned to the economy found in 

each county economy. The U.S. Forest Service’s Timber Assessment Market Model was used 

to estimate the stumpage price impact of adding more BLM timber to the market. Revenues, 

employment, and income reported herein are based on the total harvest volumes including both 

the harvest land base (lands that contribute to the annual sale quantity) and nonharvest land base. 

See Appendix C, Socioeconomics for a more complete discussion of the analytical process and the 

assumptions for this analysis.

An increase in the BLM timber harvest would lead to an increase in the total timber harvest in the 

market area, and an increased activity in the wood processing sectors. Under all four alternatives, 

as the BLM sells more timber into the log market, log prices would fall and timber harvests from 

price-sensitive private lands or log imports from Canada and Washington would decline to some 

degree. Because of this price effect, the increase in the total harvest would be somewhat less than 

the increment of the BLM’s timber. As manufacturing capacity adjusts to absorb the increased 

volume of the BLM’s timber, prices and harvests from other owners would adjust to previous 

levels. See Chapter 3 for discussion of the timber market and wood products industry.
536

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

The differences in the economic effect of the harvests between the alternatives are due not only 

to the differences in the volume of timber that would be harvested, but also to the differences in 

the location and characteristics of the timber that would be harvested. During the first 10 year 

period after implementation, for example, the harvest volume from Alternative 3 would be mostly 

from partial harvesting, whereas more regeneration harvesting would occur under Alternatives 1 

and 2. Since thinning and partial harvesting costs more than regeneration harvesting, the average 

net revenue per thousand board feet would be highest under Alternative 2 and lowest under 

Alternative 3. The differences in the type of timber harvested would result in a difference in log 

quality. Large, peeler-grade logs, for example, would constitute more of the harvest volume under 

Alternative 2 than under the No Action Alternative. See Table 153 (Distribution of harvest by 

harvesting type and the percentage of large, peeler-grade logs for the first 10 years). 

Table 153. Distribution of harvest by harvesting type and percentage of large, peeler-grade logs for 

the first 10 years

Alternatives

Total 

Annual 

Harvest 

(mmbf)

Treatment Type Percentage of 

Large, PeelerGrade Logs

Regeneration 

Harvesting Thinning Uneven-aged Harvesting

Partial 

Harvesting

No Action 355 65% 35% 1% 0% 4.1%

Alternative 1 537 77% 22% 0% 0% 7.7%

Alternative 2 767 89% 11% 0% 0% 8.5%

Alternative 3 473 4% 34% 0% 62% 7.7%

As a result of the differences in the type of harvesting (thinning, partial harvesting, regeneration 

harvesting, and uneven-aged management) and log quality, there is a difference in the projected 

average stumpage prices between the alternatives. See Table 154 (Estimated annual payments to 

the counties for the first 10 years); also see Figure 186 (Annual stumpage value by alternative 

over the next 10 years), which is in the Timber section of this chapter. They show that 

stumpage prices within the first 10 years would range from $280 per mbf under Alternative 2 to 

$217 per mbf under Alternative 3. 

The differences in the type and quality of logs harvested could also lead to differences in the 

employment projections. For example, larger and higher-quality logs can produce higher-valued 

specialty products that often require more labor-intensive milling procedures. Large logs, on the 

other hand, generally require less logging labor. Due to data limitations, this analysis does not 

incorporate an employment distinction based on log size or quality. 

Payments to the Counties

Currently, the BLM-related revenues provide about 2.5% of the total revenue received 

by the O&C counties and 9.8% of the discretionary portion of the county budgets 

(see Chapter 3). These figures range from 0.1% of the total funding and 0.2% of the 

discretionary funding for the large metropolitan counties to 20.5% of the total funding 

and 70.4% of the discretionary funding for the more rural southwestern Oregon counties. 

See the Socioeconomic section of Chapter 3.
537

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Since the Secure Rural Schools funding has expired, this analysis assumes that the BLM 

payments to the counties would be based on the preexisting formula with which the 

counties would receive 50% of the BLM stumpage receipts and some minor additional 

funding, as described in Chapter 3. Table 154 (Estimated annual payments to the counties 

for the first 10 years) shows that because Alternative 2 would harvest the most timber 

at the highest price, it would generate the highest total revenue ($215.8 million) and 

the highest payment to counties ($108.0 million). That is equivalent to 94% of the 2005 

Secure Rural Schools funding that is associated with the BLM lands and 46% of the 

Secure Rural Schools funding from all federal lands.

The No Action Alternative would have the lowest total annual revenue ($83.9 million) 

and the lowest payment to Counties ($42.0 million). That is equivalent to 37% of the 

2005 Secure Rural Schools funding that is associated with the BLM lands and 18% of the 

Secure Rural Schools funding from all federal lands.

Table 154. Estimated annual payments to the counties for the first 10 years

Harvests, Revenues, and Payments

Alternatives

No Action Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3

Harvest (mmbf) of short logs 355 537 767 473

Adjusted stumpage ($/mbf) 234 254 280 217

Total revenue ($ million) 83.9 137.2 215.8 103.3

Total O&C county payments ($ million) 42.0 68.7 108.0 51.7

% of 2005 BLM payments to the counties 37% 60% 94% 45%

% of 2005 BLM, USFS, and SRS* payments 18% 29% 46% 22%

*SRS (Secure Rural Schools)

Table 155 (Annual payments to the counties for the first 10 years (based on 2005 levels) 

shows the payments to the counties for the first 10 years. The bulk of the projected 

payments is based on 50% of the BLM stumpage receipts. That revenue is distributed 

between the counties based on historic valuation. The distribution of other revenues is 

fixed at the 2005 level and does not change between alternatives. Since this is a minor 

amount of revenue, the distribution of the total revenue between the counties on a 

percentage basis would be nearly identical under any alternative.
538

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Table 155. Annual payments to the counties for the first 10 years (based on 2005 levels)

Counties

SRSa

 Payments 

($ million)

Alternatives 

($ million)

BLM USFS Totalsb No Action Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3

Benton 3.2 0.5 3.7 1.2 1.9 3.0 1.5

Clackamas 6.3 7.2 13.5 2.3 3.8 6.0 2.9

Columbia 2.3 0.0 2.3 0.9 1.4 2.2 1.1

Coos 7.6 0.8 7.5 2.5 4.1 6.4 3.0

Curry 4.2 5.6 9.8 1.5 2.5 3.9 1.9

Douglas 28.7 22.7 51.2 10.5 17.2 27.0 12.9

Jackson 17.8 6.4 24.3 6.6 10.8 16.9 8.1

Josephine 13.8 3.1 16.8 5.1 8.3 13.0 6.2

Klamath 2.7 17.2 19.9 1.0 1.6 2.6 1.3

Lane 17.4 34.2 51.5 6.4 10.5 16.5 7.9

Lincoln 0.4 5.3 5.7 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.2

Linn 3.0 11.4 14.4 1.1 1.8 2.8 1.4

Marion 1.7 4.3 5.9 0.6 1.0 1.6 0.8

Multnomah 1.2 1.1 2.3 0.5 0.7 1.2 0.6

Polk 2.5 0.0 2.5 0.9 1.5 2.3 1.1

Tillamook 0.6 2.8 3.5 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.3

Washington 0.7 0.0 0.7 0.3 0.4 0.7 0.3

Yamhill 0.8 0.8 1.6 0.3 0.5 0.8 0.4

Totalsb 114.9 123.3 237.1 42.0 68.7 108.0 51.7

a

SRS (Secure Rural Schools) 

b

Totals do not add precisely due to the rounding of numbers.

Table 155 also shows that the Secure Rural Schools funding that is associated with the 

BLM lands accounted for slightly less than half of the total Secure Rural Schools funding 

with the Secure Rural Schools funding that is associated with the U.S. Forest Service 

lands accounting for the other half. The distribution of U.S. 

Forest Service-related Secure Rural Schools funding differs 

from the distribution of the BLM-related Secure Rural School 

funding. The analysis of the impacts on jobs and income is 

based on the assumption that there would no longer be any of 

the BLM- or U.S. Forest Service-related Secure Rural Schools 

funding. While this analysis does not include a projection of future U.S. Forest Service 

payments to counties (25% of timber sale revenue), the amount of the annual payment 

would have averaged $4.2 million over the period of 2000-2004. Projecting a similar 

amount of payment into the future would not make any substantive difference in the 

projection of the effects of the BLM’s alternatives.

Assumption

There would no longer be 

any BLM- or U.S. Forest 

Service-related Secure Rural 

Schools funding. 
539

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Figure 161 (Historic and projected BLM payments to the counties for the first 10 years)

compares the projected BLM payments to counties to the historic BLM payments. The 

No Action Alternative and Alternative 3 would provide payments less than the lowest 

year in the 20-year history. Alternative 1 would provide payments in the range seen 

during the late 1990s. Alternative 2 would provide payments in the range seen in the late 

1980s and again after the passage of the Secure Rural Schools legislation, which started 

in fiscal year 2001.

Figure 161. Historic and projected BLM payments to the counties for the first 10 years 

Employment and income

The economic impact estimates for all four alternatives were calculated from countylevel input/output models. These models were tailored and field-calibrated to specifically 

address the types of impacts that are expected from the potential changes in the BLM 

timber harvest levels. 

The economic impacts include the combination of direct effects due to:

•	 the changes in BLM management and county payments,

•	 the indirect effects that are associated with inter-industry transactions, and 

•	 the induced effects from payroll spending. 

The total effects are described in terms of the changes in employment and earnings. 

Changes that would result from the alternatives are compared to a 2005 estimated 

baseline (labeled current in the following tables). The term (current) describes the amount 

of each county’s 2005 economy that could be attributed to the combination of the BLM 

$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

19851987198919911993199519971999200120032005

2005 w/o SRS

Alt 1Alt 3

Million $
540

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

management actions and the Secure Rural Schools payments that are associated with both 

the BLM and the U.S. Forest Service. 

This analysis considers six principal sources of direct economic impacts on the O&C 

counties, which are: 

•	 the loss of current Secure Rural Schools payments to counties; 

•	 the change in the BLM timber harvesting and associated changes in logging and 

log hauling under the alternatives; 

•	 the change in administrative expenditures by the BLM offices; 

•	 the changes in sawmill operations in response to changes in timber harvesting; 

•	 the changes in the output of plywood mills; and 

•	 the changes in board and pulp mill operations as more chips and sawmill 

residuals come on the market. 

Each of these changes is considered at the county level. To project economic impacts at the 

county level, the Western Oregon Model, developed at Oregon State University, was used 

to project where the BLM timber harvested under each alternative would be manufactured 

into products (Adams and Latta 2007, 8-14). See Table 156 (Sources of economic effects by 

alternative) for a regional summary of direct effects for each alternative.

Table 156. Sources of economic effects by alternative

Sources of Economic Effects Current Changes by Alternatives

No Action Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3

Payments to the counties ($ million) 237 -195 -168 -129 -185

Timber harvest (mmbf) 117 238 420 650 356

BLM expenditures ($ million) 141 26 55 91 45

Lumber production (mmbf) 6,084 454 720 1,060 656

Plywood production (mmbf 3/8 in.) 2,838 -441 -428 -395 -433

Board mill output ($ million) 26 32 53 83 51

Pulp mill output ($ million) 18 38 67 104 60

Notes: Current represents a 2005 estimated baseline.

Two of these effects are dominant sources of economic impacts to the county economies 

throughout western Oregon. The Western Oregon Model projects a continuing shift in the 

panel markets away from plywood to less-expensive oriented strand board (OSB). This 

shift would occur despite increased BLM timber harvests under the alternatives. Plywood 

production would decline by about 15% by 2009 under any of the alternatives. 

Variations in BLM harvest are not a causal factor in the decline of plywood production 

in that projected declines are due to national market factors. Plywood production 

declines would occur even under the alternatives that would substantially increase the 

BLM’s timber harvest. The projected decline in plywood production would reduce 

industry output over $400 million under all four alternatives. In addition, approximately 

1,500 to 2,000 plywood and veneer jobs would be lost plus additional job losses from a 

multiplier effect as a result of the decline in plywood production.
541

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Historically, counties shared in federal timber sales receipts. Western Oregon counties 

received 25% of U.S. Forest Service receipts and O&C counties received 50% from 

the BLM’s timber sale receipts. Under the Northwest Forest Plan, federal timber sales 

and shared receipts dropped. The Secure Rural Schools funding that had compensated 

for lost timber sharing ended in 2006. These annual county payments had ranged from 

$0.7 million in Washington County to $51.5 million in Lane County. 

This analysis assumes that no reauthorization of the Secure Rural Schools and 

Community Self-Determination Act, or new similar legislation, would occur. The 

projections of the payments to the counties include shared receipts that are primarily 

expected from timber sales under the alternatives. All four alternatives would have an 

off-setting effect to the loss of payments. Western Oregon counties would lose between 

2,500 to 3,500 local government jobs from the loss of Secure Rural School payments 

and multiplier effects would double the total job loss. Losses would be the largest in the 

timber-dependent counties that have large federal land acreages. For example, under the 

No Action Alternative, Douglas County would lose over 700 jobs in local government 

due to changes in county payments and another 350 jobs in plywood manufacturing. 

Rural county economies typically have a narrower economic base and lower resilience 

than metropolitan counties. 

The increase in the BLM harvests would range between 208% and 560% under the 

proposed alternatives. These increased harvests would create between 800 and 1,500 

jobs in logging, trucking, and additional jobs in the sectors that are linked to logging. 

Increased BLM harvests, plus the projected increased private harvests (estimated by the 

Western Oregon Model), would allow sawmills, board mills, and pulp mills to increase 

output. This increase would not be one-for-one, as some substitution of the additional 

BLM timber harvest for private timber harvest would occur. 

The BLM’s land management, coupled with Secure Rural Schools payments, has played 

a large role in many western Oregon counties (refer to Sources of economic effects by 

alternative). Together, in 2005, they accounted for 8,948 regional jobs and $319 million 

in earnings. See Table 157 (Total economic impacts that are associated with BLM timber 

harvests by alternative). Under all four alternatives, economic losses would be greatest 

in southwestern Oregon where the O&C lands are concentrated. In Jackson and Douglas 

counties, revenues that are associated with the BLM’s lands currently account for over 

3,000 jobs. Timber harvested from the BLM’s lands also plays important roles in the 

Eugene-Springfield, Albany, Medford, Coos Bay, and Grants Pass economies.

Table 157. Total economic impacts that are associated with BLM timber harvests by alternative

Economic impacts Current Changes in O&C County Totals by Alternative

No Action Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3

Jobs (number of) 8,948 -3,770 -516 3,442 -1,275

Earnings ($ million) 319.4 -125.5 -7.3 136.5 -34.7

Note: Current represents a 2005 estimated baseline.
542

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Under all four alternatives, timber harvesting would increase. There would be an increase 

in jobs and income along with a multiplier as impacts ripple through other sectors in 

the affected county economies. The economic effects would vary in proportion to the 

increased timber harvest volumes. The economic effects would also vary with the amount 

of a county’s concentration of its economy in the wood products sector. Economic 

activity in other sectors (caused indirectly by multipliers) would be based on the county’s 

economic diversity and its self-sufficiency as a trade center. Under all but Alternative 2, 

however, the loss of Secure Rural Schools funding, coupled with the reduction in the 

plywood industry, would be greater than the increased employment and earnings linked 

to the increased BLM harvest levels. Table 157 therefore, shows that under the No Action 

Alternative and Alternatives 1 and 3, there would be a net reduction in jobs and income. 

The higher harvest level and higher stumpage price for Alternative 2 would more than 

compensate the economic losses due to changes in the plywood sector and the loss of 

Secure Rural School funding. 

The loss of Secure Rural Schools payments under the No Action Alternative would 

reduce regional earnings by about one-third. These reductions would be compounded by 

contraction in the plywood subsector of the wood products industry in Curry, Douglas, 

Jackson, Josephine, Linn, and Klamath counties.

Under Alternative 1, the increase of the BLM timber harvest by 364% would generate 

relatively small net economic impacts in western Oregon. Under Alternative 1, the jobs 

lost in some counties (Coos, Jackson, Lane, Linn, and Marion) would be offset by the 

jobs created in most other counties. However, Douglas and Klamath counties would 

have such large losses of jobs and earnings that there would still be a net loss overall in 

western Oregon.

Under Alternative 2, increased jobs and earnings would offset declines in most counties 

that would be caused by changes in the wood products industry and loss of Secure Rural 

Schools payments. Under Alternative 2, about 3,500 new jobs would be created and 

income would be increased by $137 million across western Oregon. Substantial increases 

would occur in Clackamas, Coos, Jackson, Lane, Linn, Marion, and Yamhill counties. 

However, the projected 560% increase in the BLM’s harvest under Alternative 2 would 

still not be sufficient economic stimulus to overcome job losses in Curry, Douglas, 

Josephine, Klamath, and Lincoln counties. The job losses in these counties would be 

primarily in local government resulting mostly from losses of payments to the counties 

and contraction in the plywood sectors unrelated to the BLM’s harvests. 

For most counties, the economic impacts under Alternative 3 would be similar to those 

that would occur under Alternative 1. The exception would be Lane County, which would 

have considerably more jobs created in logging and wood products manufacturing. Under 

Alternative 3, there would be a net income loss of about $35 million across western 

Oregon. The most substantial county losses would occur in southwestern Oregon (Curry, 

Douglas, Josephine, and Klamath counties). For example, Douglas County would 

lose about $40 million in earnings. In the remaining counties, there would be enough 

economic increases resulting from the BLM’s harvest to generally offset the loss of 
543

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Secure Rural School payments. Nevertheless, many individual sectors, particularly those 

linked to plywood production, would still have income losses.

Only under Alternative 2 would there be sufficient economic gains from increased 

harvesting to offset the loss of Secure Rural Schools payments and the projected 

contractions in the plywood sub-sector. In some alternatives, particularly Alternative 2, 

the increased employment and income that is associated with the increased harvesting 

would be sufficiently large enough to offset the decreased employment and income that 

is associated with the loss of Secure Rural Schools funding and the reduction in the 

plywood industry. 

Jobs are an important indicator of the magnitude of the economic impact of the 

alternatives. A large set of O&C counties would generally show net gains under all four 

alternatives. See Table 158 (Counties in which the alternatives would compensate for 

other job losses). Note that under the No Action Alternative, however, harvest increases 

would be relatively small, so job losses which would result from other factors, would not 

be offset in Coos and Jackson counties. 

Table 158. Counties in which the alternatives would compensate for other job losses 

Counties with Net Gains Current 

Jobs

Changes in Jobs by Alternative

No Action Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3

Benton 118 13 53 132 39

Clackamas 265 51 250 460 211

Columbia 52 77 120 204 88

Coos 410 -39 100 358 75

Jackson 1,612 -351 211 672 16

Marion 272 -2 124 219 95

Polk 54 87 160 139 139

Tillamook 79 6 27 93 43

Washington 22 57 76 112 60

Yamhill 59 54 151 216 106

Harvesting under any of the alternatives would not create sufficient jobs to compensate 

for job losses caused by the loss of Secure Rural Schools payments and the decline in 

plywood production in a number of counties. See Table 159 (Counties in which the 

alternatives would not compensate for other job losses). The group of counties shown 

in Table 159 is characterized by large losses in Secure Rural Schools payments and the 

presence of a large plywood subsector.
544

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Table 159. Counties in which the alternatives would not compensate for other job losses

Counties with Net Losses Current 

Jobs

Changes in Jobs by Alternative

No Action Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3

Curry 235 -190 -196 -30 -230

Douglas 2,204 -2,012 -1,436 -494 -1,351

Josephine 470 - 306 -165 -4 -208

Klamath 571 -251 -278 -237 -257

Lane 1,987 -766 184 1,261 -113

Lincoln 143 -115 -102 -91 -105

Linn 396 -82 205 432 117

Douglas County would have the largest economic loss among all the O&C counties, 

because it would lose large Secure Rural Schools payments ($51.2 million annually from 

the USFS and BLM) and because it has a large plywood subsector. 

A closer look at the estimated job impacts in Douglas County under the No Action 

Alternative illustrates the importance of considering all of the reasonably foreseeable 

sources of economic impact. If the economic analysis considered just the impacts of the 

changes to the harvest levels, the analysis would show that Douglas County employment 

would increase by 645 jobs simply as a result of increased harvest levels. If the analysis 

considered just the increased harvest levels and the contraction of the plywood industry, 

then the analysis would show a net loss of 936 jobs, because the plywood industry is 

heavily concentrated in Douglas County. If the analysis considered only the changes to 

the harvest levels and the loss of the Secure Rural Schools payments, then there would 

be a net increase of 163 jobs, which would result from an increase in the wood products 

sector offsetting losses in the government sector. When all three factors—the loss of the 

Secure Rural Schools payments, the contraction of the plywood industry, and the increase 

in BLM harvest levels—are taken together, there would be a net loss of 2,021 jobs. In 

other words, the increased employment in the wood products sector, specifically the 

sawmilling industry, would not be nearly enough to offset losses to the government sector 

and the plywood industry. Similar relationships would occur in each county under each 

alternative—the magnitude depending on the unique economic structure of each county 

and the specific harvest configuration of each alternative. 

There would be a spectrum of county economic responses to timber harvest increases 

under the alternatives. For the purpose of analysis and discussion, counties are clustered 

into five categories that reflect the sensitivity of individual county economies. A county 

may fall into one or more of these categories.

Sensitivity Categories of County Economies

Type 1

These counties would receive little or no influence from the 

alternatives. This is caused by having small Secure Rural School 

payments, few BLM lands, or having economies with little reliance 
545

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

on the wood products industries. Benton County and Polk County are 

examples. Clatsop County has so few connections to all of the impact 

sources that it was not modeled. 

Type 2

These counties have large diversified economies. Here, the economic 

effects of the alternatives would be small relative to the jobs and 

incomes generated by other sectors. Columbia and Washington counties 

have positive wood products sector responses, but they are primarily 

commuter adjuncts to Portland. Marion County is dominated by state and 

federal government sectors. The Portland metropolitan economy is so 

large that the Multnomah County model was not used. 

Type 3

These are counties in which the effects of the alternatives would be large 

enough to compensate for the loss of Secure Rural Schools payments—

mostly from the higher levels of activity in the sawmill sectors and 

its multipliers. See Table 160 (Wood products counties with gains 

concentrated in sawmills). These counties would face internal trade-offs 

between job and budget losses in their county governments and labor 

gains as sawmills expand. In some cases, resource-based economies, 

such as Lincoln and Tillamook counties, are reliant on non-BLM timber 

sources, so they would be only peripherally affected by the BLM timber 

harvest changes under the alternatives. The plywood counties (see 

Type 5) are shown here to indicate that some may have sawmill gains 

even when plywood jobs are declining.

Table 160. Wood products counties with gains concentrated in sawmills

Counties with 

Concentrated 

Sawmill Gains

Current

Changes in Sawmill Sector Industrial 

Output ($1,000) by Alternative

No Action Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3

Clackamas 4,913 14,717 27,702 40,412 25,541

Columbia 339 17,274 21,767 32,962 19,409

Coos 2,638 6,185 11,781 16,782 11,083

Curry 222 3,307 6,386 9,103 5,905

Douglas 12,892 18,895 36,493 56,132 34,257

Jackson 8,305 4,656 8,993 13,162 8,557

Josephine 1,569 1,741 3,363 4,793 3,109

Lane 15,711 30,573 58,205 91,352 55,606

Linn 2,392 13,197 16,790 23,936 14,881

Polk 462 9,160 11,905 16,588 10,504

Tillamook 726 11,854 14,926 23,471 14,311
546

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Type 4

These counties have a large federal forest land base and significant wood 

products sectors. All counties had some reliance on federal Secure Rural 

Schools payments. The BLM’s harvest revenue sharing would offset 

losses somewhat under all four alternatives. However, seven of these 

counties (Clackamas, Douglas, Jackson, Josephine, Klamath, Lane, 

and Linn) would be at large fiscal risk even considering higher BLM 

harvests. See Table 161 (Counties losing more than $10 million per year 

in Secure Rural Schools payments). Job and budget losses would be 

concentrated in the county government sector and any multipliers tied to 

that sector. 

Table 161. Counties losing more than $10 million per year in Secure Rural 

Schools (SRS) payments

Counties with 

Large SRS 

Funding Losses

Current 

($ million)

Changes in Secure Rural Schools 

Payments ($ million) by Alternative

No Action Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3

Clackamas 13.5 -11.2 -9.7 -7.5 -10.8

Douglas 51.1 -40.7 -34.0 -24.1 -39.0

Jackson 24.3 -17.7 -13.5 -7.4 -16.7

Josephine 16.8 -11.7 -8.5 -3.8 -11.0

Klamath 19.9 -18.9 -18.3 -17.3 -18.7

Lane 51.5 -45.1 -41.1 -35.1 -44.2

Linn 14.4 -13.3 -12.6 -11.6 -13.1

Counties with large sawmill production value increases (e.g., Clackamas) 

and relatively small plywood subsectors would be most likely to have a 

neutral economic effect. Plywood counties have compounded economic 

losses from losses of payments to counties and adjustments in the wood 

products industry.

Type 5

These are counties that would have substantial or moderate losses from 

the alternatives. Three plywood counties (Douglas, Jackson, Lane) would 

have substantial economic losses. Four other counties (Coos, Curry, 

Josephine, and Linn) would have moderate economic losses where 

the plywood industry supplements instead of characterizes the wood 

products sectors. Large projected reductions in plywood and veneer 

output values worsen the Secure Rural Schools payment losses. See 

Table 162 (County plywood output contraction by alternative).
547

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Table 162. County plywood output contraction by alternative

Counties with 

Plywood Output 

Contraction

Current 

Output

Changes in Plywood Output ($ million) 

by Alternative

No Action Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3

Coos 78.5 -12.2 -12.2 -12.2 -12.2

Curry 42.9 -6.6 -5.9 -5.9 -6.6

Douglas 438.7 -68.1 -65.9 -60.4 -67.2

Jackson 271.4 -42.0 -39.8 -37.3 -39.7

Josephine 59.9 -9.3 -9.3 -8.3 -9.3

Lane 211.2 -32.7 -32.7 -29.0 -32.7

Linn 55.6 -8.9 -8.7 -8.1 -8.7

This pattern of economic response would be caused by large 

compounded economic losses from two sources. The elimination of 

Secure Rural Schools payments concentrates economic impacts in 

county government employment and budgets. The plywood contraction 

projection reduces highly paid jobs and high value-added production. 

BLM harvests directly increase logging, transportation, sawmill, 

pulpmill, and board plant jobs only where these subsectors exist. As each 

of these sectors has different patterns of purchases from other sectors, 

many of these counties have unique multiplier effects. 

A discussion of the overall economic impacts does not capture the subtleties of the 

impacts within the individual counties or the specific sectors, such as the plywood and 

sawmill industries. Under all four alternatives, Douglas County would have the most 

severe economic losses. It would have a sharp decline in plywood production and local 

government, along with secondary effects in other such sectors as logging and the 

retail trade. Most of these economic losses would occur in the Roseburg vicinity, where 

government and plywood manufacturing are concentrated.

Economic losses in Curry County would not be as large as those in the larger Douglas 

County economy, but would still be substantial. There would be an increase in logging 

and sawmill operations in Brookings, but these increases would be offset by declines 

in plywood manufacturing. The loss of government jobs would be most severe in Gold 

Beach, the county seat. The loss of local governmental services would be particularly 

difficult for this county because of the high proportion of retirees who need such 

specialized services as home health care. Only 10 counties in the United States have 

higher retiree proportions than Curry County (Census 2000, 2006).

Klamath County would also experience substantial economic losses under all four 

alternatives because of its large losses of Secure Rural Schools payment and small 

amount of BLM-administered timber lands. Job losses in Klamath County under all four 

alternatives would range from 237 to 278 jobs. Klamath County is a major producer of 

plywood, so these job losses would be compounded by job losses resulting in adjustments 

in the wood products industry. 
548

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Josephine County and Jackson County have close economic ties and similarities. Both 

counties have plywood manufacturing operations that are projected to lose jobs; both 

counties have a large share of the O&C lands; and both county governments received 

large Secure Rural Schools payments. Grants Pass would experience economic losses 

under all four alternatives due to the loss of county payments. Cave Junction would 

experience improvements in its economy due to increased timber harvests from both 

the BLM and private forests. The Medford area is a major plywood manufacturing area 

and would experience large reductions in employment. Some of these economic losses 

would be offset by increased industry output in sawmills and board mills in White City. 

Local government services in both counties would shrink. The Medford economy is 

sufficiently diverse and robust that these job losses would be offset by growth in other 

economic sectors. 

Lincoln County would experience economic losses under all four alternatives. Almost all 

of these losses would be in local government, which would lose about 100 jobs. Newport 

would experience the most loss.

Lane and Linn County would experience similar economic losses, but Lane County’s 

economic losses would be mostly the result of the loss of $39.3 million in Secure Rural 

Schools payments. The logging and sawmill sectors in these counties would grow by 

2009, particularly under Alternative 2, with both counties showing large economic gains 

in that part of the wood products sector but both counties would concurrently experience 

losses associated with the decline in plywood production. There would be a large 

economic loss to local government in these two counties, especially in both county seats 

(Eugene and Albany). These larger, more urban economies, however, are more resilient 

than the county seats in more rural areas. Plywood mill closures in communities such as 

Lebanon are more likely to produce long-term localized changes than those caused by 

changes in the BLM’s timber harvesting. 

The two other coastal counties, Coos and Tillamook, would experience improvements in 

their logging and sawmill sectors, particularly under Alternative 2. In Coos County, these 

economic gains would be partially offset by losses in plywood manufacturing. Coos County 

has a much larger proportion of federal lands, so increased federal jobs would offset the 

reduction in local government funding and services resulting in little net government sector 

change. There would be a proportionally larger economic loss to Coquille compared to 

other communities because it has both a plywood plant and it is the county seat.

Counties in and near the Portland metropolitan area (Clackamas, Washington, Yamhill, 

and Columbia) are part of a diversified and rapidly growing economy. None of these 

counties have a large proportion of federal lands; none are timber dependent; and 

none are dependent on Secure Rural School funds, even though Clackamas would lose 

$11.3 million from this source. Economic impacts on these counties would be minimal 

and almost unrelated to the BLM’s timber harvest changes. There are, however, some 

smaller communities within those counties that do have wood products-based economies. 

Willamena, Molalla, St. Helens, and Rainier would experience economic gain of varying 

degrees under all four alternatives.
549

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Central Willamette Valley counties (Benton, Marion, and Polk) would not experience 

a substantive economic effect as a result of any of the alternatives. They have only lost 

$2.4 million to $4.6 million each from the termination of Secure Rural Schools payments. 

These counties are not major wood products processing counties and do not have 

significant shares of the O&C lands.

Community Well-Being

Donoghue et al. (USDA, U. S. Forest Service 2006c) calculated a socioeconomic wellbeing index for 433 communities in western Oregon and noted how the index changed 

between 1990 and 2000 (see the Socioeconomic section of Chapter 3). The results 

suggest those communities with low and or declining socioeconomic well being scores 

are more typically found in the more rural and more southern counties.

The county-level analysis of jobs and income indicates that the counties with the 

greatest potential net loss of jobs and income under any alternative are similarly more 

rural and more southern. 

The analysis of the economic impacts of the alternatives describes net changes in countylevel jobs and income. Because employees in one sector of an economy often require 

specialized skills and knowledge, employees may not be able to move easily from a 

declining sector to a growing sector. While job creation in one sector does not offset all 

of the social costs of job losses in another sector, a more detailed analysis of these social 

effects is beyond the scope of this analysis.

The BLM Budget

The BLM’s budget requirements would be higher under all four alternatives, due to the 

administrative costs of implementing higher timber harvest levels. For this analysis, 

budget requirements for nontimber resource programs and the state office—about 78% 

of the 2006 fiscal year budget—were held constant between alternatives. See Table 163 

(BLM budget) for budget requirements at full harvest levels under each alternative. It is 

assumed that it would take a transition of two years before full harvest level would be 

achieved under the action alternatives.

All four alternatives would require an increase from the current BLM’s budget to 

implement the increased levels of timber harvesting. Compared to the current level, 

the BLM budget would increase 17% under the No Action Alternative, 37% under 

Alternative 1, 60% under Alternative 2, and 29% under Alternative 3.
550

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Table 163. BLM budget

BLM Districts

2006 

Fiscal 

Year

Changes in the BLM Budget by Alternative 

($ million)

No Action Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3

Salem 16.1 21.3 30.7 38.9 28.5

Eugene 11.9 17.6 27.0 34.2 19.2

Roseburg 14.7 17.9 18.7 25.3 22.3

Coos Bay 12.8 18.2 20.5 30.4 19.1

Medford 33.9 39.6 46.3 50.8 44.2

Lakeview* 13.5 14.2 14.7 14.7 14.5

State Office 51.3 51.3 51.3 51.3 51.3

Totals 154.2 180.2 209.1 245.6 199.1

*This represents the entire budget for the Lakeview District of which only a part is used for the Klamath Falls Resource Area, which is the only 

portion of the Lakeview District that is within the planning area.

In addition to the costs above, expenditures (shown in Table 164) for contractors to 

perform silvicultural treatments (planting, fertilization, pruning, etc.) would increase as 

well. These expenditures vary by alternative based on the types of harvest anticipated 

under each alternative. Alternative 2 would require the highest expenditure, since it 

includes the most regeneration harvesting.

Table 164. Annual expenditures for silviculture for the first 10 years by district

BLM Districts

Annual Expenditures for Silviculture by Alternative 

($ million) (first 10 years)

No Action Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3

Salem 0.5 0.9 1.2 1.0

Eugene 0.8 1.2 1.6 1.1

Roseburg 1.5 1.6 2.3 2.8

Coos Bay 1.2 1.2 2.3 0.6

Medford 3.0 4.1 4.9 3.1

Lakeview* 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.1

Totals 7.2 9.3 12.7 8.6

*This represents the expenditures for the entire Lakeview District of which only a part applies to the Klamath Falls Resource Area, which is the 

only portion of the Lakeview District that is within the planning area.

Present Net Value of the Timber Program

Present net value is a measure of economic return. Future revenues and costs over a 50-

year period are discounted back to the present using a 5% discount rate. 

Projections of the stumpage revenue for each alternative reflect the amount of 

timber harvested, the type of harvest (regeneration harvesting, partial harvesting, 

or thinning), and the age or size of the timber that would be harvested. Stumpage 

revenues would change over time, reflecting changes in the nature of the sale 

program under each alternative. See Figure 162 (Average annual stumpage revenues). 

These revenues include volume from both the harvest land base (from which the 
551

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

annual sale quantity is calculated) and volume from the nonharvest land base during 

the first five decades after implementation. 

Figure 162. Average annual stumpage revenues

For the No Action Alternative, Alternatives 1, and Alternative 2, for example, harvests past 

the first decade would have less thinning volume from the late-successional management 

areas, thereby reducing the total volume and value of timber harvests over time. Under 

Alternatives 1 and 2, higher-valued harvests from the structurally complex forests would 

drop off after the first couple of decades, and the harvests would shift to more mature and 

less structurally complex forest types, thereby reducing the average harvest value. Under 

Alternative 3, harvesting would shift from partial harvesting to regeneration harvesting with 

an accompanying reduction in costs, resulting in an increase in stumpage revenue.

Revenue projections are based on the 2005 average log price and do not include 

any future real price increase. Revenues under all four alternatives are based on an 

assumption that stumpage prices in the market area would fall slightly as the BLM adds 

more timber into the market. By the second decade, it is assumed that mill capacity would 

adjust to absorb the additional capacity, and the market adjustment is removed. 

Under all four alternatives, the cost of the BLM timber program is estimated to be 

$200 per mbf. This covers all of the work that is associated with preparing, offering, 

and administering timber sales. It includes work done by members of a timber sale 

interdisciplinary Team, National Environmental Policy Act compliance work, overhead, 

etc. The additional silvicultural costs that are specific to each alternative are also included 

in the calculation. See Table 164 (Annual expenditures for silviculture for the first 

10 years by district) in the previous section (BLM Budget).

0

50

100

150

200

250

12345

Decade

Dollars 

(millions)

No Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
552

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

See Figure 163 (Revenues, costs, and net revenues for the first 10 years) for a comparison 

of the revenues, costs, and net revenues for the first 10 years. See Table 165 (Revenues 

and costs for the first 10 years and the present net value over 50 years by alternative) for 

the present net value calculated over a 50-year period. 

Figure 163. Revenues, costs, and net revenues for the first 10 years 

Table 165. Revenues and costs for the first 10 years and the present net value over 50 years 

by alternative 

Alternatives

Decade 1 Present Net 

Value Over 50 

years 

($ million)

Total Revenues 

($ million)

Total Costs 

($ million)

Net Revenues 

($ million)

No Action 83.9 -78.7 5.2 107.5

Alternative 1 137.5 -117.7 19.8 342.8

Alternative 2 215.8 -166.9 48.9 962.3

Alternative 3 103.3 -103.8 -0.4 46.1

Alternative 2 would have the highest total revenue of all four alternatives because it 

would have both the highest harvest level and the highest stumpage value. First decade 

revenues under the No Action Alternative would be the lowest of all four alternatives. 

This is because even though the No Action Alternative would have an 8% higher average 

stumpage value than Alternative 3, it would have 33% less harvest volume.

The alternatives are ranked differently with respect to the 50-year present net value 

calculation. From the highest to lowest present net value, the alternatives would be 

ranked Alternative 2, Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, and Alternative 3. Because 

the average first decadal stumpage price under Alternative 3 is close to the average timber 

program cost, the net revenue under Alternative 3 would be negative in the first 10 years. 

Net revenues in subsequent decades would be slightly positive as capacity adjusted to the 

additional BLM volume and stumpage prices rebounded. 

(200)

(150)

(100)

(50)

-

50

100

150

200

250

No Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Dollars

(millions)

Revenue Costs Net Revenue
553

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

The present net value calculation shown here is based only on the costs and revenue of 

timber harvests. It does not include the value of the standing inventory, which would 

increase under all four alternatives. (Growth would exceed harvest because of the amount 

of lands allocated to the nonharvest land base.) Nor does the present net value include the 

cash revenues and costs that are associated with nontimber outputs, such as special forest 

products, nor any economic value associated with other commodity or amenity values.
554

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Environmental Justice

This analysis examines the disproportionate impacts on low-income and minority populations that 

would result from the alternatives. 

Key Points

•	 No high or adverse human health or environmental effects have been identified for any of the alternatives. 

•	 The effects of the alternatives are not expected to fall disproportionately on minority or low income populations.

Federal agencies are required to “identify and address . . . [the] disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on 

minority populations and low-income populations in the United States” in accordance with 

Executive Order 12898 regarding environmental justice. 

The guidelines described by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ 1997) were used 

to guide the analysis of the potential environmental justice issues that are associated with the 

western Oregon resource management plan revisions. The analysis included: 

•	 A determination of the geographic distribution of low-income populations and minority 

populations within the affected area (i.e., the planning area).

•	 An assessment of whether the impacts of the alternatives produce impacts that are high 

and adverse. 

•	 If impacts are high and adverse, a determination as to whether these impacts would 

disproportionately impact low-income populations or minority populations.

The following Council on Environmental Quality guidelines (CEQ 1997) are used to identify 

what are minority and low-income populations.

•	 Minority population. A minority population is identified for a geographic unit if the 

number of minority persons (Hispanic/Latino, Black/African American, American Indian/

Alaskan Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander, or some other race ) is:

– greater than 50% of the total population of that geographic unit, or

– meaningfully greater than the percentage of the minority population in the reference 

unit for that geographic unit.

For this analysis, each county is a geographic unit and the state of Oregon is the 

reference unit.

The first part of the Council on Environmental Quality’s guidance on minority population 

provides a numeric measure—the number of minority persons must exceed 50% of 

the total population for an affected area (i.e., a geographic unit). The remainder of the 

guidance calls for a judgment in evaluating the potential for environmental justice 

concerns. It is important to consider the circumstances of any one group that resides 

within the affected area, in addition to considering the percentage of the affected 

community that is composed of minority persons (EPA 1998).
555

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

•	 Low-income population. Low-income individuals are defined as individuals who fall 

below the poverty line. The poverty line takes into account the size of the family and the 

age of individuals in the family. In 1999, for example, the poverty line for a family of 

five with three children below the age of 18 was $19,882. For any given family below the 

poverty line, all family members are considered as being below the poverty line for the 

purposes of analysis (Proctor and Dalaker 2002). 

While there are no quantitative guidelines by the Council on Environmental Quality 

regarding the percentages of low-income populations in reference to larger populations, 

the Council on Environmental Quality does suggest a screen to determine if low-income 

populations are unevenly distributed in an affected area compared to the larger population.

See Table 166 (Current composition of minority and low-income populations of the counties 

within the planning area compared to the state of Oregon) for the current composition of the minority 

and low-income populations for each of the 18 counties within the planning area and the state of 

Oregon based on 2000 census data and the Council on Environmental Quality’s guidelines. Counties 

that exceed the state-wide averages for minority or low-income populations are highlighted. 

According to Table 166:

•	 For minority populations: 

– None of the minority populations in the counties exceeds 50% of the total population 

of the county. 

– There are three counties that exceed the state average for the percentage of 

minorities. The percentage of minority individuals in these three counties exceeds the 

state average by 6 to 7 percentage points. 

– These three counties are within large metropolitan areas with diverse economies 

(Portland and Salem). For these three counties, the BLM lands constitute less than 

3% of the county area. 

•	 For low-income populations: 

– There are 12 counties that exceed the state average for the percentage of low-income 

populations. They exceed the state average by 0.1 to 5.4 percentage points. 

– One of the 12 counties (Klamath County) is more than 5 percentage points above 

the state average. Approximately 7% of the lands within Klamath County are the 

BLM lands. These BLM lands are largely public domain lands east of the Cascade 

Mountains and are close to unincorporated populations. Low-income populations are 

not expected to be unevenly distributed in relationship to the BLM lands.

No high or adverse human health or environmental effects have been identified for any of 

the alternatives and effects are not expected to fall disproportionately on minority or lowincome populations. 
556Table 166. Current composition of minority and low-income populations of the counties within the planning area compared to the state of Oregon

Counties within the Planning Area

Total Populations White Hispanic/ Latino Black/ African American American Indian/ Alaskan Native Asian Native Hawaiian/ Other Pacific Islander Some other race 2+ Races Total Minority Percent Minority Total Low- Income Percent Low- Income

Benton 78,153 67,816 3,645 637 556 3,493 175 173 1,658 10,337 13.2 10,655 14.6

Clackamas 338,391 301,548 16,744 2,056 2,090 8,216 521 317 6,899 36,843 10.9 21,969 6.6

Columbia 43,560 40,576 1,093 97 540 246 39 43 926 2,984 6.9 3,910 9.1

Coos 62,779 56,616 2,133 169 1,412 553 99 66 1,731 6,163 9.8 9,257 15.0

Curry 21,137 19,206 761 31 408 144 21 29 537 1,931 9.1 2,554 12.2

Douglas 100,399 92,302 3,283 165 1,446 601 83 86 2,433 8,097 8.1 12,999 13.1

Jackson 181,269 160,795 12,126 674 1,782 1,583 291 198 3,820 20,474 11.3 22,269 12.5

Josephine 75,726 69,233 3,229 192 844 460 78 52 1,638 6,493 8.6 11,193 15.0

Klamath 63,775 53,659 4,961 362 2,443 482 72 96 1,700 10,116 15.9 10,515 16.8

Lane 322,959 286,075 14,874 2,391 3,268 6,390 562 534 8,865 36,884 11.4 45,423 14.4

Lincoln 44,479 39,260 2,119 113 1,296 412 66 31 1,182 5,219 11.7 6,084 13.9

Linn 103,069 94,012 4,514 285 1,192 789 125 92 2,060 9,057 8.8 11,618 11.4

Marion 284,834 217,880 48,714 2,274 3,326 4,905 967 337 6,431 66,954 23.5 37,104 13.5

Multnomah 660,486 505,492 49,607 35,592 5,754 37,344 2,206 1,216 22,275 154,994 23.5 81,711 12.7

Polk 62,380 53,394 5,480 229 1,078 671 152 57 1,319 8,986 14.4 6,943 11.5

Tillamook 24,262 22,086 1,244 42 273 154 50 9 404 2,176 9.0 2,718 11.2

Washington 445,342 346,251 49,735 4,778 2,335 29,552 1,249 650 10,792 99,091 22.3 32,575 7.4

Yamhill 84,992 71,684 9.017 592 1,134 889 91 76 1,509 13,308 15.7 7,336 9.2

Oregon 3,421,399 2,857,656 275,314 53,325 40,130 100,333 7,398 4,550 82,733 563,743 16.5 388,740 11.4

Source: U.S. BLM of the Census (2000)
557

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Timber

This analysis examines timber harvest levels, the size of the harvest land base, the value of 

the harvest, the acres of harvest activities, and changes to the forest inventory and forest stand 

conditions that would result from the alternatives.

Key Points

•	 The annual allowable sale quantity would range from a high of 727 mmbf under Alternative 2 to a low of 

268 mmbf under the No Action Alternative. 

•	 Prohibiting harvesting in certain types of stands or changing the intensity of management would all have 

substantial effects on the allowable sale quantity.

•	 Over the next 10 years, volume from thinnings in the nonharvest land base would range from a high of 87 mmbf 

under the No Action Alternative to virtually no volume under Alternative 3.

•	 The harvest land base varies between the alternatives from a high of 1.4 million acres, which is 65% of the 

forested acres, under Alternative 3 to a low of 608,000 acres, which is 27% of the forested acres, under the 

No Action Alternative.

•	 The estimated sale price of timber sold during the first 10 years after implementation would range from a high of 

$2.16 billion under Alternative 2 to a low of $839 million under the No Action Alternative.

•	 The annual timber harvest acres of all harvest types would range from approximately 16,000 acres for the 

No Action Alternative to 29,000 acres for Alternative 3.

The annual productive capacity of the sustained yield units is determined by the productivity 

of the land, the quantity of acres in the harvest land base, and the management intensity. The 

O&C Act requires the determination and declaration of an annual productive capacity. It also 

requires the sale annually of an amount equal to this level, which is the allowable sale quantity. 

The term allowable sale quantity is used to describe the annual level of sustainable harvest under 

each alternative. See Chapter 3 for a discussion of forest inventory. As areas are removed from or 

added to the harvest land base under the alternatives, the quantity, location, and the productivity 

of the harvest land base would vary. 

Timber Harvest Levels

Allowable Sale Quantity

Variation in the acres of different age classes within the harvest land base affects 

the allowable sale quantity. Harvest scheduling by treatment type also affects 

the allowable sale quantity. See Appendix Q – Vegetation Modeling for detailed 

information on how harvests were modeled. 

Alternative 3 would restrict regeneration harvesting until landscape thresholds 

are met. Since the long-term allowable sale quantity is based upon the eventual 

harvest of all the areas that are within the harvest land base, this landscape 

threshold would temporarily suppress the allowable sale quantity. The allowable 

sale quantity shown below in the following figures and table for Alternative 3 is 

the initial reduced level. 
558

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

The No Action Alternative would also restrict harvest levels. For example, 

connectivity/diversity blocks would limit the level of harvest within a 

decade. Regeneration harvesting of older forest would be deferred within 

watersheds in which federal forest lands are comprised of 15% or less of latesuccessional forest. 

Requirements for the retention of green trees in regeneration harvests would 

affect the productivity of forest stands. Retention trees would reduce the available 

volume and thus the allowable sale quantity. These retention trees would reduce 

the growth of the subsequent stand. This reduction varies by stand type, site 

quality, retention levels, and other factors but is expected to be in the range 

of 10 to 25%. The No Action Alternative and Alternative 3 contain green tree 

retention requirements

The allowable sale quantity for the planning area is shown in Figure 164 (Total 

allowable sale quantity by alternative for the planning area). The allowable 

sale quantity by district is shown in Figure 165 (Allowable sale quantity by 

district and alternative). See Table 167 (Allowable sale quantity by district and 

alternative) for the allowable sale quantity by district and alternative.

The eastern management lands of the Klamath Falls resource area do not have 

an allowable sale quantity because these lands are not covered by the O&C 

act. Any harvest would occur only to meet forest stand health needs. Under all 

alternatives, the annual harvest to meet forest health needs would not exceed the 

modeled annual productive capacity of 2 MMBF/year. With the exception of 

the maximum allowable annual volume that may be harvested, and the expected 

miles of road constructed, these eastern management lands are not shown in the 

subsequent analysis of ASQ.
559

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Figure 164. Total allowable sale quantity by alternative for the planning area 

Figure 165. Allowable sale quantity by district and alternative

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

No action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

MMBF

Allowable Sale Quantity

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Salem Eugene Roseburg Coos Bay Medford Klamath Falls

MMBF/

Year

No action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
560

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Table 167. Allowable sale quantity by district by alternative

BLM Districts

Allowable Sale Quantity by Alternative 

(mmbf/year)

No Action Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3

Salem 41 100 172 116

Eugene 58 117 165 82

Roseburg 56 63 107 95

Coos Bay 48 65 143 79

Medford 59 102 131 91

Klamath Falls Resource Area 

(Lakeview District) 6 9 9 8

Subalternatives to Alternative 1 address four questions of how the allowable sale 

quantity would change in response to variations in available stands and harvest 

method. Subalternatives were also analyzed for Alternatives 2 and 3.

Alternative 1: Subalternative 1

The first of these subalternatives examined how long a harvest level 

similar to Alternative 1 would be maintained by only thinning stands 

that were of an appropriate age and density. A minimum thinning harvest 

level of 90% of the Alternative 1 allowable sale quantity level was used 

as a threshold. The results are shown below in Figure 166 (Alternative 1, 

Subalternative 1: Allow no regeneration harvesting until thinning 

opportunities are exhausted). 

Figure 166. Alternative 1, Subalternative 1: Allow no regeneration 

harvesting until thinning opportunities are exhausted

012345678

Klamath Falls

Medford

Coos Bay

Roseburg

Eugene

Salem

Years of thinning at 90% or better of Alternative 1 ASQ Level

Years of Thinning Only
561

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

In less than a decade, thinning would no longer be maintained at 90% of 

the allowable sale quantity. This subalternative demonstrates that high 

levels of thinning cannot be maintained for extended periods to sustain 

an allowable sale quantity level.

Alternative 1: Subalternative 2

The second subalternative analyzed for Alternative 1 addressed the 

effect on the allowable sale quantity if stands currently 80 years of 

age and older were reserved from harvesting. The sustainable levels of 

allowable sale quantity are shown below in Figure 167 (Alternative 1, 

Subalternative 2: Allow no harvesting of stands that are 80 years of age 

and older).

Figure 167. Alternative 1, Subalternative 2: Allow no harvesting of stands 

that are 80 years of age and older

The substantial decline in the allowable sale quantity in all districts 

indicates that the harvest of stands over 80 years of age would be 

essential to attain the Alternative 1 level of volume harvested. If 

stands currently over 80 years of age were reserved from harvesting, 

the allowable sale quantity for the planning area would fall to 

96 mmbf per year, which would be 21% of Alternative 1’s allowable 

sale quantity. Specifically: 

•	 The effects would vary by district with the highest harvest level 

being in the Eugene District at 33 mmbf per year. 

•	 The highest percentage level would be in the Coos Bay District 

where the allowable sale quantity would be 29 mmbf per year, which 

would be 45% of Alternative 1’s allowable sale quantity. 

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

Salem Eugene Roseburg Coos Bay Medford Klamath

Falls

Total

MMBF No harvest 80+ Subalternative Alternative 1
562

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

•	 The Roseburg and Medford districts would be greatly affected with 

the allowable sale quantity in the Roseburg District dropping to 

8 mmbf per year, which would be 13% of Alternative 1’s allowable 

sale quantity.

•	 The allowable sale quantity in the Medford District would drop to 

1 mmbf per year, which would be less than 1% of Alternative 1’s 

allowable sale quantity. 

Alternative 1: Subalternative 3

The third subalternative analyzed for Alternative 1 addressed the effect 

on the allowable sale quantity if stands currently 200 years of age 

and older were reserved from harvesting. The allowable sale quantity 

is shown in Figure 168 (Alternative 1, Subalternative 3: Allow no 

harvesting of stands that are 200 years of age and older).

Figure 168. Alternative 1, Subalternative 3: Allow no harvesting of stands 

that are 200 years of age and older

Under this subalternative, the allowable sale quantity for the planning 

area would drop to 398 mmbf per year, which is 87% of Alternative 1’s 

allowable sale quantity. Specifically:

•	 The Salem District’s allowable sale quantity would be the least affected 

as a percentage by retaining 98 mmbf per year, which would be 98% of 

Alternative 1’s allowable sale quantity, because the Salem District has a 

substantial acreage of stands between 80 and 200 years of age. 

•	 The Roseburg District would have the greatest percentage drop in 

allowable sale quantity with the allowable sale quantity dropping 

to 39 mmbf per year, which is 61% of Alternative 1’s allowable 

sale quantity. 

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

Salem Eugene Roseburg Coos Bay Medford Klamath

Falls

Total

MMBF

No Harvest 200+ Subalternative Alternative 1
563

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

•	 The Medford District allowable sale quantity would not be as greatly 

reduced because the Medford District has a substantial acreage of 

stands between 80 and 200 years of age that could be harvested. 

Harvest in the Medford District would only drop to 86 mmbf per 

year, which would be 84% of Alternative 1’s allowable sale quantity. 

Alternative 1: Subalternative 4

The fourth subalternative examined the consequences of adding the 

acres of the northern spotted owl critical habitat units that are not already 

within the late-successional management area to the late-successional 

management area under Alternative 1. This would reduce the harvest 

land base acres. The allowable sale quantity for this subalternative is 

shown in Figure 169 (Alternative 1, Subalternative 4: Increase the size of 

the late-successional management area to include all critical habitat of 

the northern spotted owl).

Figure 169. Alternative 1, Subalternative 4: Increase the size of the latesuccessional management area to include all critical habitat of the northern 

spotted owl

Under this subalternative, the allowable sale quantity for planning 

area would be reduced to 372 mmbf per year, which would be 82% of 

Alternative 1’s allowable sale quantity. Specifically:

•	 The Klamath Falls Resource Area would be the most affected with 

a harvest level of 4 mmbf, which would be 44% of Alternative 1’s 

allowable sale quantity. 

•	 The Salem District would be the least affected with a harvest level 

of 92 MMBF per year, which would be 92% of Alternative 1’s 

allowable sale quantity.

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

Salem Eugene Roseburg Coos Bay Medford Klamath

Falls

Total

MMBF

LSMA+NSO CHU Subalternative Alternative 1
564

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Alternative 2: Subalternative 1

This subalternative examined the consequences under Alternative 2 of 

reducing the minimum harvest age to more closely resemble current 

industrial forest management and removing commercial thinning. The 

allowable sale quantity of this subalternative is shown in Figure 170 

(Alternative 2, Subalternative 1: Change the rotation to emulate the 

timber industry’s short rotation).

Figure 170. Alternative 2, Subalternative 1: Change the rotation to emulate 

the timber industry’s short rotation

This subalternative would increase the allowable sale quantity to 

746 mmbf per year, which would be 103% of Alternative 2’s allowable 

sale quantity. However, the consequences would be different for different 

districts with the Salem and Eugene districts decreasing in allowable sale 

quantity, and the Roseburg, Coos Bay, and Medford districts increasing. 

The existing stand age class distributions of the districts respond 

differently in this subalternative. 

Reference Analysis 

A reference analysis of managing most commercial forest lands for 

timber production was completed. 

The results that would occur are shown in Figure 171 (Reference 

Analysis: Manage most commercial forest lands for timber production).

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

Salem Eugene Roseburg Coos Bay Medford Klamath

Falls

Total

MMBF

Short Rotation Subalternative Alternative 2
565

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Figure 171. Reference Analysis: Manage most commercial forest lands for 

timber production

The allowable sale quantity under all of the alternatives is substantially 

lower than the reference analysis of managing most commercial forest 

lands for timber production. The total for the planning area would be 

1,201 mmbf per year, which would be 165% of Alternative 2’s allowable 

sale quantity. That would be an increase of 474 mmbf per year.

The allowable sale quantities for all four alternatives would be 22%, 

38%, 61%, and 39% of the allowable sale quantity of the manage most 

lands for commercial timber production for the No Action Alternative, 

Alternative 1, Alternative 2, and Alternative 3, respectively.

Alternative 3: Subalternative 1

This subalternative examined the consequences under Alternative 3 of 

using landscape thresholds for regeneration harvests, but only in the 

areas of high BLM ownership. The results are shown in Figure 172 

(Alternative 3, Subalternative 1: Apply the landscape target of 50% 

in late-successional habitat condition to only those areas where the 

government land is half or more of the total ownership).

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

Salem Eugene Roseburg Coos Bay Medford K Falls Total

MMBF Most Commercial Forest Subalternative Alternative 2
566

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Figure 172. Alternative 3, Subalternative 1: Apply the landscape target 

of 50% in late successional habitat condition to only those areas where the 

government land ownership is half or more of the total ownership

This subalternative increases the allowable sale quantity from Alternative 3 

to 515 mmbf per year, which would be 109% of Alternative 3’s allowable 

sale quantity. That would be an increase of 44 mmbf per year.

Changes from 1995 Harvest Land Base and ASQ

The alternatives would vary the portion of the forest allocated to the harvest land 

base, which has a direct effect on the harvest level by increasing or decreasing 

the acreage of lands available for sustained harvest. 

In 1995, it was estimated that the riparian reserves contained approximately 

522,000 acres. Improved riparian reserve estimations, which were completed 

for these plan revisions, have shown that riparian reserves under the No Action 

Alternative contain 364,000 acres. Over the past 10 years, the extent of the 

hydrology network has been more fully mapped and the information regarding 

fish presence has increased. This improved data of the BLM lands allowed for 

GIS modeling of the extent of riparian reserves that was not feasible 10 years 

ago. See Geographic Information System Data in the Introduction to this chapter.

The allowable sale quantity for the planning area is based on the improved 

GIS mapping of allocations, new inventory data, and revised growth and yield 

information. Given the low level of harvests in the last decade, the total standing 

volume has increased since the 1995 estimations. Therefore, the allowable sale 

quantity for the No Action Alternative would be 268 mmbf per year, which would 

be 32% greater than the 203 mmbf per year that was declared as the allowable 

sale quantity in the 1995 resource management plans. 

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

Salem Eugene Roseburg Coos Bay Medford Klamath

Falls

Total

MMBF

High Ownership Only Subalternative Alternative 3
567

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Nonharvest Land Base Volume

Under the alternatives, timber would be offered each year as allowable sale 

quantity. In addition, volume from the nonharvest land base would be added to 

the allowable sale quantity and offered for sale each year. The nonharvest land 

base volume would result from applying thinning treatments in young stands to 

accelerate the development of mature and structurally complex forest for stands 

not in the harvest land base (see the Introduction section of this chapter). These 

thinning harvests would not be sustainable and would decline over time as the 

young stands in the nonharvest land base become too old for treatment. Under the 

alternatives, thinnings treatments would occur in:

•	 the late-successional reserves and riparian reserves under the No Action 

Alternative, 

•	 the late-successional management areas and riparian management areas 

under Alternatives 1 and 2, and

•	 the riparian management areas under Alternative 3.

For some areas in the nonharvest land base, such as National Landscape 

Conservation System lands, or lands not suitable for sustained timber harvesting, 

no thinning harvesting is planned. See Figure 173 (Nonharvest land base volume 

over time) for the volume and duration of harvest from the nonharvest land base 

for all four alternatives. 

Figure 173. Nonharvest land base volume over time

Figure 173 shows that for all four alternatives, the nonharvest land base harvest 

volume would decline over the entire planning area and would cease by the end 

of the eighth decade. 

See Table 168 (Nonharvest land base volume over the next 10 years) for the first 

decade level of nonharvest land base volume that would occur for the alternatives. 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1st

Decade

2nd

Decade

3rd

Decade

4th

Decade

5th

Decade

6th

Decade

7th

Decade

8th

Decade

MMBF

No action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
568

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Table 168. Nonharvest land base volume over the next 10 years

BLM Districts

First Decadal Nonharvest Land Base 

Volume 

(mmbf)

No Action Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3

Salem 32 32 12 2

Eugene 14 14 12 0

Roseburg 12 9 7 0

Coos Bay 26 24 8 0

Medford 3 2 1 0

Klamath Falls Resource Area 0 0 0 0

Totals 87 81 40 2

Volume harvested from the nonharvest land base volume is added to the 

computed allowable sale quantity to determine the total volume that would be 

annually harvested under the alternatives. 

The No Action Alternative would thin more timber volume from the nonharvest 

land base than the other alternatives because the No Action Alternative would 

have the largest acreage in the nonharvest land base of all four alternatives. The 

additional volume from these lands outside the harvest land base would be an 

additional 32% of the allowable sale quantity for the No Action Alternative. 

The No Action Alternative would restrict thinning to stands less than 80 years 

of age (except for the North Coast Adaptive Management Area, where the limit 

would be 110 years). Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 would not restrict nonharvest land 

base thinning by stand age. Through thinning, Alternative 1 would generate an 

additional 18% above the allowable sale quantity. The level of Alternative 2 

would be 5% and Alternative 3 would be less than 1%. 

In addition to the allowable sale quantity and nonharvest land base volume, the 

eastern management lands of the Klamath Falls Resource Area would add an 

additional 2 mmbf under all four alternatives. 

Total Harvest Volume Level

The allowable sale quantity, the nonharvest base volume, and the eastern 

management land volume comprise the total harvest volume level. This level is 

shown below by district and alternative for the first decade in Figure 174 (Total 

annual volume level by alternative over the next 10 years), and in Table 169 

(Total annual volume by district over the next 10 years). 
569

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Figure 174. Total annual volume level by alternative over the next 10 years 

Table 169. Total annual volume by district over the next 10 years 

Alternatives

First Decadal Annual Harvested Volume by BLM District 

(mmbf) Totals

Salem Eugene Roseburg Coos 

Bay Medford Klamath 

Falls

No Action 73 72 68 74 62 8 357

Alternative 1 132 131 72 89 104 11 539

Alternative 2 184 177 114 151 132 11 769

Alternative 3 118 82 95 79 91 10 475

As a result of the declining nonharvest land base volume, the total volume 

harvested would decrease over the first eight decades, except for Alternative 3 

where the attainment of landscape objectives would permit the sustainable 

allowable sale quantity to increase. The volume harvested by decade is shown in 

Figure 175 (Total harvest volume by decade and alternative).

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

Salem

Eugene

Roseburg

Coos Bay

Medford

Klamath Falls

Salem

Eugene

Roseburg

Coos Bay

Medford

Klamath Falls

Salem

Eugene

Roseburg

Coos Bay

Medford

Klamath Falls

Salem

Eugene

Roseburg

Coos Bay

Medford

Klamath Falls

No action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

MMBF

Allowable Sale Quantity Non Harvest Land Base Volume Eastern Management Lands Volume
570

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Figure 175. Total harvest volume by decade and alternative

Age of Stands Harvested

The ages of the stands that would be harvested vary by alternative. The No 

Action Alternative would harvest proportionally less mature and structurally 

complex forest and a higher amount of younger forest than the action 

alternatives. Specifically:

•	 Under the No Action Alternative, the allowable sale quantity harvest 

volume from forests older than 200 years during the first decade would 

be 19 mmbf per year, which would be 7% of the allowable sale quantity 

harvest volume. 

•	 Under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3, the allowable sale quantity from forests 

older than 200 years during the first decade would be 98 mmbf per 

year (21 %), 175 mmbf per year (24%), and 99 mmbf per year (21%), 

respectively. 

The following four figures (Figures 176 through Figure 179) show the volumes 

that would be harvested by age class by alternative during the first decade. These 

figures include both allowable sale quantity and nonharvest land base volumes. 

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1st decade 2nd decade 3rd decade 4th decade 5th decade 6th decade 7th decade 8th decade

MMBF/

Year

No action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
571

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Figure 176. Timber volume harvest by age class under the NoAction Alternative over the next 10 years

Figure 177. Timber volume harvest by age class under Alternative 1 over the next 10 years

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

0

102030405060708090

100110120130140150160170180190

200+

10 Year Age Class

MMBF

Regeneration Harvest Harvest Land Base Thinning Non Harvest Land Base Thinning

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

0

102030405060708090

100110120130140150160170180190

200+

10 Year Age Class

MMBF

Regeneration Harvest Harvest Land Base Thinning Non-Harvest Land Base Thinning
572

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Figure 178. Timber volume harvest by age class under Alternative 2 over the next 10 years

Figure 179. Timber volume harvest by age class under Alternative 3 over the next 10 years

Summary of Timber Harvest levels 

The total volume harvested annually would vary substantially between the 

subalternatives and alternatives. Subalternatives change not only in the allowable 

sale quantity but also the amount on nonharvest base volume that would be 

produced. The total volume for the alternatives and subalternatives is shown in 

Figure 180 (Total volume harvested for all four alternatives and subalternatives).

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

0

102030405060708090

100110120130140150160170180190

200+

10 Year Age Class

MMBF

Regeneration harvest Harvest Land Base Thinning Non-Harvest Land Base Thinning

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

0

102030405060708090

100110120130140150160170180190

200+

10 Year Age Class

MMBF

Regeneration Harvest Partial Harvest and Uneven Age Harvest Land Base Thinning and Uneven Age
573

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Figure 180. Total volume harvested for all four alternatives and subalternatives

Harvest Land Base

The harvest land base varies by alternative. The No Action Alternative has the lowest 

number of acres within the harvest land base. This alternative has 27% of the forested 

acres contained within the harvest land base (nearly 608,000 acres). Alternative 3 has 

the highest amount with 65% of the forested acres being contained within the harvest 

land base (1.4 million acres). Figure 181 (Acres in the harvest land base by alternative)

displays the acres for the alternatives contrasted with the total forested acres. 

Figure 181. Acres in the harvest land base by alternative

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

No Action

Alt 1

Alt 1 and NSO

CHU

Alt 1 Thin First

Alt 1and No 80+

Alt 1and No

200+

Alt 2

Short Rotation

Most

Commercial

Forest

Alt 3

High Ownership

Only

Alternative/subalternative

MMBF/Year 

Non-Harvest Land Base Volume

Allowable Sale Quantity

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

No Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Acres 

(thousands)

Harvest Land Base Forested Acres
574

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Value of the Harvest

Log Quality

The differences in the ages of the stands and the species composition of those 

stands that would be harvested under the alternatives would result in different types 

and grades of logs being removed. The structural stage classification described 

in the Ecology section of Chapter 3 is used as one basis for determining the log 

quality and the value resulting from these harvests. The differences in species 

that occur in each district would also affect the value of the harvests for each 

alternative. Historical sales data has been used to estimate the percentage of harvest 

volume by species or groups of species. Individual species have been consolidated 

into groupings that are typical of those quoted for prices, such as true firs and 

hemlock being grouped into whitewoods. Historical sales data has also been used 

to estimate the amount of different log grades that would result from harvesting 

each structural stage. See Appendix D – Timber for further discussion on the 

methodology to value the timber that would be produced under each alternative. 

The percentages of volume by structural stage that would be harvested are 

shown in Figure 182 (Percent volume by structural stage) as the average annual 

level for the first 10-year period. Volume is from both the harvest land base and 

nonharvest land base. The volumes of harvest by structural stage are shown in 

Figure 183 (Volume by structural stage and alternative).

Figure 182. Percent volume by structural stage

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

no action alt 1 alt 2 alt 3 no action alt 1 alt 2 alt 3

regeneration and partial harvest thinning and uneven age

Harvest type and alternative

Percentage

Young and Stand Establishment Mature Structurally Complex
575

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Figure 183. Volume by structural stage and alternative

Both as a percentage and in quantity, the No Action Alternative would harvest 

less structurally complex forest than the action alternatives. Under the No Action 

Alternative, there would be substantially more regeneration harvesting of young 

forest than for the action alternatives. 

The action alternatives would all have similar percentage levels of harvest 

from structurally complex forest, but would vary in quantity. As a result, the 

percentage levels of higher-grade logs (number 3, peeler-grade and better 

Douglas fir) would be higher under the action alternatives than the No Action 

Alternative. The action alternatives would harvest similar percentages of peeler 

grade Douglas fir logs in the first decade. 

Log quality for the first 10 year period is determined only for Douglas fir due to 

the dominance of Douglas fir in all districts. Historically, except for the Klamath 

Falls Resource Area, Douglas fir has been approximately 80% of the volume of 

timber sold. Two log grade groups are used for log quality analysis: 

•	 number 3, peeler-grade and better 

•	 sawlog grade

The percentage level of Douglas fir volume by peeler grade that would be 

harvested by alternative is shown in Figure 184 (Percentage of number 3, peelergrade and better Douglas fir logs by alternative).

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

No Action Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3

MMBF/

Year

Young and Stand Establishment Mature Structurally Complex
576

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Figure 184. Percentage of number 3, peeler-grade and better Douglas fir logs by 

alternative 

Under the alternatives, there are differing levels of harvest volume. The quantities 

of peeler-grade logs compared to sawlog-grade logs are shown in Figure 185 

(Douglas fir log volumes by peeler grade and sawlog grade by alternative).

Figure 185. Douglas fir log volumes by peeler grade and sawlog grade by alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, there would be a reduced level in the 

quality of logs as a percentage and in the quantity harvested compared to the 

action alternatives because of the higher proportion of thinning and the lower 

proportion of the structurally complex forest that would be harvested compared 

to the action alternatives.

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

No Action Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3

DF 3-Peeler and Better

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

No Action Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3

MMBF/

Year

Sawlog Peeler
577

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Stumpage Value

The value of the timber harvests for each alternative is the product of the harvest 

levels and the anticipated stumpage price.

The anticipated stumpage price is influenced by the pond value and the cost 

associated with harvesting.

The pond value is the market value of the logs at a processing facility. The pond 

value is affected by the quality and species of harvested logs. Douglas fir is the 

primary commercial species within the planning area. In the Medford District and 

Klamath Falls Resource Area, ponderosa pine, white fir, and sugar pine are also 

important. Only these species have been divided by grade as a part of valuation. 

Other species have not been split by grade because of low occurrence, or because 

they are typically purchased as “camp run” where one price is quoted for all 

sizes and grades. Historical information indicates that other than the four above 

species, the level of higher grade logs was low relative to the total volume of 

other species. 

The costs associated with harvesting, such as falling, logging, transportation, 

and road construction, reduce the price received for timber that would be sold. 

Stumpage is the residual value after the costs to get the log from the standing tree 

in the forest to where it is manufactured are subtracted from the pond value. The 

costs of such requirements as road construction that is needed to access timber 

have been estimated using costs from actual sales with a base period of 1995 

through 2006. See Appendix D – Timber for further information.

The stumpage value of the harvests over the first 10 years is the product of the 

volumes for each type of harvest (i.e., thinning, partial harvesting, regeneration 

harvesting, and uneven-aged management) and structural stage (i.e., stand 

establishment, young, mature, and structurally complex) multiplied by the 

expected stumpage price for each harvest type. Stumpage prices for each harvest 

type are developed from historical costs and log prices. 

The values shown in Figure 186 (Annual stumpage value by alternative over the 

next 10 years) are calculated using 2005 log prices. Values are in 2005 dollars 

without adjustment for inflation. 
578

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Figure 186. Annual stumpage value by alternative over the next 10 years

Type of Harvest

The different types of harvest that occur under the alternatives include thinning, unevenaged management, partial harvesting, and regeneration harvest. Thinning can occur in 

both the harvest land base and the nonharvest land base.

The harvest levels by harvest type under each alternative over the next 10 years are 

shown in Figure 187 (Harvest acres by harvest type over the next 10 years).

Figure 187. Harvest acres by harvest type over the next 10 years

0

50

100

150

200

250

No Action Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3

Dollars 

(hundred millions)

Thinning

Regeneration Harvest, Uneven age and Partial Harvest

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

Salem

Eugene

Roseburg

Coos Bay

Medford

Klamath

E. Mgt. Lands

Salem

Eugene

Roseburg

Coos Bay

Medford

Klamath

E. Mgt. Lands

Salem

Eugene

Roseburg

Coos Bay

Medford

Klamath

E. Mgt. Lands

Salem

Eugene

Roseburg

Coos Bay

Medford

Klamath

E. Mgt. Lands

No action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Acres regeneration harvest uneven age

partial harvest harvest land base thinning

non harvest land base thinning
579

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

The different alternatives would vary in the age classes that receive regeneration 

harvesting, partial harvesting, uneven-aged management, or thinning. The acres harvested 

over the next 10 years by age class are shown in the next four figures (Figure 188 through 

Figure 191) and the next four tables (Table 170 through Table 173).

During the first decade under the No Action Alternative, approximately 10% of the 

harvest land base would be regeneration harvested, which is 2.7% of the total forested 

acres within the planning area. Harvest land base thinning would occur on 6% of the 

harvested land base with both types of thinning (harvest land base and nonharvest land 

base) occurring on 4.6% of the forested acres. See Figure 188 and Table 170.

Figure 188. Harvest acres by age class under the No Action Alternative

Table 170. Acres harvested by age group compared with the size of the total harvest land base 

under the No Action Alternative 

No Action Alternative First Decade Harvest

Age Group 

(years)

Total Harvest 

Land Base 

(acres)

Harvest Land Base Nonharvest Land 

Base

Regeneration 

Harvesting (acres)

Thinning 

(acres)

Thinning 

(acres)

0 to 30 151,800 0 3,200 15,100

40 to 70 190,900 16,300 28,900 47,500

80 to 110 101,000 10,400 3,700 600

120 to 150 71,800 18,700 400 0

160 to 190 33,300 10,500 100 0

200+ 58,800 4,600 500 0

Totals 607,600 60,500 36,800 63,200

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

0

102030405060708090

100110120130140150160170180190

200+

10 Year Age Class

Average Acres/

Year Regeneration Harvest Thinning
580

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

During the first decade under Alternative 1, approximately 10% of the harvest land base 

would be regeneration harvested, which is 4.1% of the total forested acres within the 

planning area. Harvest land base thinning would occur on 5% of the harvested land base 

with both types of thinning (harvest land base and nonharvest land base) occurring on 

5.1% of the forested acres. See Figure 189 and Table 171.

Figure 189. Harvest acres by age class under Alternative 1

Table 171. Acres harvested by age group compared with the size of the total harvest land base 

under Alternative 1 

Alternative 1 First Decade Harvest

Age Group 

(years)

Total Harvest 

Land Base 

(acres)

Harvest Land Base Nonharvest Land 

Base

Regeneration 

Harvesting (acres)

Thinning 

(acres)

Thinning 

(acres)

0 to 30 204,600 0 7,400 16,000

40 to 70 282,400 1,500 37,500 50,600

80 to 110 144,100 22,200 500 1,400

120 to 150 109,500 32,900 0 0

160 to 190 53,100 18,200 0 0

200+ 92,100 15,800 0 0

Totals 885,800 90,600 45,400 68,000

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

0

102030405060708090

100110120130140150160170180190

200+

10 Year Age Class

Average Acres/

Year

Regeneration Harvest Thinning
581

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

During the first decade under Alternative 2, approximately 12% of the harvest land base 

would be regeneration harvested, which is 6.5% of the total forested acres in the planning 

area. Harvest land base thinning would occur on 3.6% of the harvested land base with 

both types of thinning (harvest land base and nonharvest land base) occurring on 3.5% of 

the forested acres. See Figure 190 and Table 172.

Figure 190. Harvest acres by age class under Alternative 2

Table 172. Acres harvested by age group compared with the size of the total harvest land base 

under Alternative 2

Alternative 2 First Decade Harvest

Age Group 

(years)

Total Harvest 

Land Base 

(acres)

Harvest Land Base Nonharvest Land 

Base

Regeneration 

Harvesting 

(acres)

Thinning 

(acres)

Thinning 

(acres)

0 to 30 279,000 0 6,800 7,400

40 to 70 346,600 3,700 36,300 25,200

80 to 110 169,300 30,100 200 800

120 to 150 163,600 51,100 0 0

160 to 190 72,100 23,700 0 0

200+ 152,400 34,800 0 0

Totals 1,183,000 143,400 43,300 33,400

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

0

102030405060708090

100110120130140150160170180190

200+

10 Year Age Class

Average Acres/

Year

Regeneration Harvest Thinning
582

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

During the first decade under Alternative 3, approximately 0.3% of the harvest land base 

would be regeneration harvested, which is 0.2% of the total forested acres within the 

planning area. Partial harvesting would occur on 8.7% of the harvest land base, which 

is 5.7% of the forested acres. And harvest land base thinning would occur on 11% of the 

harvest land base, which is 7.3% of the forested acres. See Figure 191 and Table 173.

Figure 191. Harvest acres by age class under Alternative 3

Table 173. Acres harvested by age group compared with the size of the total harvest land base 

under Alternative 3 

Alternative 3 First Decade Harvest

Age Group 

(years)

Total Harvest 

Land Base 

(acres)

Harvest Land Base Nonharvest Land 

Base

Regeneration 

Harvesting 

(acres)

Thinning 

(acres)

Thinning 

(acres)

0 to 30 377,100 0 22,800 0

40 to 70 445,700 100 117,500 0

80 to 110 201,400 300 47,800 0

120 to 150 160,100 800 44,900 0

160 to 190 83,200 400 23,800 0

200+ 166,700 2,300 28,100 0

Totals 1,434,200 3,900 284,900 0

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

0

102030405060708090

100110120130140150160170180190

200+

10 Year Age Class

Average Acres/

Year

Regeneration Harvest Partial Thinning
583

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Under all four alternatives, the acres harvested would decline over time as the nonharvest 

land base thinning declines and as harvesting begins to shift to managed stands with 

higher expected yields. See Figures 192 through Figure 195 for the average annual 

harvested acres by harvest type over the next 100 years for each alternative. 

Figure 192. No Action Alternative, average annual harvested acres by harvest type over the next 

100 years

Figure 193. Alternative 1, annual average harvested acres by harvest type over the next 

100 years

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Decade

Average Acres/

Year

Non-Harvest Land Base Thinning

Harvest Land Base Thinning

Regeneration Harvest

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Decade

Average Acres/

Year

Non-Harvest Land Base Thinning

Harvest Land Base Thinning

Regeneration Harvest
584

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Figure 194. Alternative 2, average annual harvested acres by harvest type over the next 

100 years

Figure 195. Alternative 3, average annual harvested acres by harvest type over the next 

100 years

Under all four alternatives, some forest land would be converted to roads and landings 

in order to implement timber management activities. New permanent road construction 

under the alternatives over the next 10 years are shown in Figures 196 (Miles of new 

permanent road construction under each alternative) and Figure 197 (Acres of new 

permanent road construction under each alternative).

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Decade

Average Acres/

Year

Non-Harvest Land Base Thinning

Harvest Land Base Thinning

Regeneration Harvest

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Decade

Average Acres/

Year

Non-Harvest Land Base Thinning

Harvest Land Base Thinning

Partial Harvest 

Regeneration Harvest
585

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Figure 196. Miles of new permanent road construction under each alternative

Figure 197. Acres of new permanent road construction under each alternative

Note: Acres are calculated using an average road construction and disturbance width of 45 feet.

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

No action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Miles Miles Road All Types Miles Permanent Road

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

No action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Acres of 

Roads 

Acres New Permanent Roads
586

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Forest Inventory and Forest stand Conditions

In the past 10 years, the amount of older forest on the BLM-administered lands within 

the planning area has been increasing. Under all four alternatives, this trend would 

continue (see the Ecology section in this chapter). Under all four alternatives, the aging 

of the nonharvest land base would cause the overall age class distribution on the BLMadministered lands to get older. Generally, the harvest land base would move towards a 

regulated condition. 

To estimate the future growth and yield at the time of harvest, the initial volume 

for each forest operations inventory (FOI) unit is projected over time using the 

ORGANON and OPTIONS models. See Appendix Q. Vegetation Modeling for further 

explanation of this methodology. 

For the entire planning area (all land use allocations), standing volume would increase 

under all four alternatives. This is primarily due to the stands within the nonharvest land 

base increasing in age. Under all four alternatives, the volume on the harvest land base 

would drop initially, then recover and increase as the harvest land base moves towards a 

regulated condition with approximately even levels of age classes below the anticipated 

harvest age. The trend of the standing volume for the planning area by alternative is shown 

in Figure 198 (Inventory on the harvest land base by alternative over the next 100 years).

Figure 198. Inventory on the harvest land base by alternative over the next 100 years 

The standing volume for the different alternatives varies due to the different sizes of 

harvest land base for the alternatives. Under all four alternatives, the standing volume 

in the harvest land base would dip and then recover as mature and structurally complex 

stands are harvested and replaced with rapidly growing stand establishment and young 

stands, while the standing volume in the nonharvest land base would increase. By 2106, 

Alternatives 1 and 3 would exceed the starting condition, the No Action Alternative will 

have nearly reached the starting standing volume, and Alternative 2 would not have yet 

recovered to the starting standing volume level. 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

BBF

No Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
587

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

The growth rates for stands would change in the harvest land base over time. mature and 

structurally complex stands would be harvested and replaced with more rapidly growing 

stand establishment and young stands. As young stands progress in age within the 

nonharvest land base, the growth on these stands would change as a result of increasing 

age and response to thinning. 

The standing volume on the nonharvest land base indicates that the 100 year analytical 

period is not long enough to reach the time when the nonharvest land base growth rate 

would be expected to slow due to advancing age. Nonharvest land base areas, such as 

the late successional management areas, contain acres of stand establishment and young 

stands that have not yet reached culmination of mean annual increment. The growth rates 

on these stand establishment and young stands would remain high beyond 100 years.

Under all four alternatives, the harvest land base would move towards, but not reach, a 

regulated condition. The requirement to maintain a nondeclining even flow of harvest 

volume reduces the ability to rapidly achieve regulation. The age classes of the harvest 

land base in 2006 and by 2106 under the alternatives are shown in the next four figures 

(Figure 199 through Figure 202). 

Figure 199. Harvest land base distribution under the No Action Alternative over the next 100 years

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

0

102030405060708090

100110120130140150160170180190

200+

10 Year Age Class

Acres

2006 2106
588

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Figure 200. Harvest land base distribution under Alternative 1 over the next 100 years

Figure 201. Harvest land base distribution under Alternative 2 over the next 100 years

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

0

102030405060708090

100110120130140150160170180190

200+

10 Year Age Class

Acres

2006 2106

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

0

102030405060708090

100110120130140150160170180190

200+

10 Year Age Class

Acres 2006 2106
589

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Figure 202. Harvest land base distribution under Alternative 3 over the next 100 years

Under the No Action Alternative, the age class distribution shows a substantial level of 

stands 200 years of age and older that would remain after 100 years in the harvest land base.

Alternative 1 would harvest more of the stands that are 200 years of age and older within 

the 100 year analytical period.

Alternative 2 would also harvest most of the 200+ year old stands in the harvest land base 

in the 100 year analytical period. 

Under Alternative 3, age should be used with caution when describing stands that would 

develop. This is because the application of a silvicultural system consisting of partial 

harvests causes stand age to be a less applicable measurement of stand condition. As partial 

harvesting is applied to stands, they would increase in variability in age with different 

cohort ages included within the stands. They would develop into multistoried stands. 

Although stands harvested using partial harvesting have their ages adjusted to provide a 

blended age, age is a useful metric only for those stands that are regeneration harvested. 

Under all four alternatives, the age class distribution in the districts would respond in two 

distinct manners. In the Salem, Eugene, and Coos Bay districts, and the Klamath Falls 

Resource Area of the Lakeview District, the harvest land base is currently approaching 

a regulated state, and the age class distribution of these districts would remain relatively 

stable. The Roseburg and Medford districts currently have proportionally more mature 

and structurally complex forests stands, which would be harvested over the next 

100 years, and have variation in their acres by age class that would persist. 

The alternatives would produce a variety of allowable sale quantities, a range of values 

for those timber products, and occur on a varying amount of acres, but all would move 

the harvest land base toward even amounts of acres in age classes that are less than the 

average harvest age. 

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

0

102030405060708090

100110120130140150160170180190

200+

10 Year Age Class

Acres 2006 2106
590

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Special Forest Products

This analysis examines the availability, quantity, and abundance of special forest products relative 

to their demand that would result from the alternatives.

Key Points

•	 All four alternatives would maintain similar levels of availability and quantity of special forest products. 

•	 Under all four alternatives, special forest products would generally be abundant relative to demand over the long 

term.

Under all four alternatives, the harvest locations of specific special forest products would 

change over time as forest management activities occur in different locations. For example, the 

harvesting of firewood, fungi, floral, and greenery would shift either into or away from where 

regeneration timber harvesting occurs. Collectors focus harvesting efforts in locations where 

special forest products of commercial or personal value are abundant, easy, and economical to 

harvest. In general, it is expected that, similar to past activity, special forest products would be 

harvested from common and abundant plant or fungi species. Special forest products would be 

generally abundant under all four alternatives in relation to the overall demand. See the Special 

Forest Products section in Chapter 3. 

All four alternatives would accommodate and respond to normal market fluctuations, conditions, 

and public demand, and provide reasonable opportunities for new special forest products. New 

road construction on the BLM-administered lands would occur under all four alternatives and 

would provide access to new harvest areas for special forest products. The additional access that 

results from new roads, however, would likely be offset by restrictions on public access that 

would be implemented for administrative purposes, and by the decommissioning of roads. 

Timber harvesting would be distributed across the harvest land base over time and would result in 

an increase for some special forest products and a decrease for others. Regeneration and thinning 

harvests modify the condition of conifer forest stands and stand components (such as substrates 

and species that support mats of mosses), disturb the forest ground floor, and remove conifer host 

species that support mushrooms. See the Special Forest Products section in Chapter 3. 

Silvicultural treatments (e.g., stand maintenance and precommercial thinning) retard the 

development of some special forest products (such as mushrooms and floral and greenery), 

while improving the quality and quantity of others (such as Christmas trees and boughs). The 

development of commercial mushroom products is delayed because silviculture treatments target 

host species and slash debris prevents access. The amount of precommercial thinning would be 

similar under all four alternatives.

Fuels reduction treatments, livestock grazing, recreation, watershed restoration, road construction 

and maintenance, and wildfire suppression activities would be similar under all four alternatives 

and would not affect the availability, quantity, and abundance of special forest products relative to 

their demand. Fuels reduction treatments normally target small diameter wood products and chip 

or cut unwanted fuels, but would not affect the overall availability and quantity of special forest 

wood products.
591

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

The availability and quantity of special forest products that are associated with the stand 

establishment structural stage would vary with the amount of regeneration harvesting and partial 

harvesting that would occur under the alternative.

The availability and quantity of special forest products that are associated with older forests 

would vary with the amount of forest in the mature and structurally complex structural stages that 

would exist under the alternatives. 

Thinning would disturb the forest floor but would retain conifer host species and allow 

mushrooms to recover and fruit within approximately 5 to 10 years after harvesting (Pilz et al. 

2006). Floral and greenery products would generally respond to the new growing conditions 

that would result from the increased light and decreased competition even though thinning 

activities would initially disturb the forest floor and the commercial floral and greenery special 

forest products. 

Under all four alternatives, the relative availability and quantity of mushrooms, mosses, and floral 

and greenery are associated with the amount of stands that are in the mature and structurally 

complex structural stage. 

The relative availability of Christmas trees is associated with the amount of regeneration 

harvesting. The relative availability and quantity of firewood and other wood products, which 

are byproducts of regeneration and thinning harvesting, would also coincide with the amount of 

regeneration harvesting. 

Timber harvesting under all four alternatives would not alter the overall availability, quantity, and 

sustainability of special forest products, although availability would vary on individual harvest 

units in the short term. Although overall availability and quantity would be maintained because 

of the abundance of special forest products, a small variation in availability and quantity would 

occur as a result of varying amounts of regeneration harvesting and thinning of the structurally 

complex forests under all four alternatives. See Table 174 (Acres of forest management activity 

and mature&structurally complex forest by alternative in the year 2016).
592

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Table 174. Acres of forest management activity and mature&structurally complex forest by alternative in the year 2016

Forest Management 

Activity and Forest 

Type

Special 

Forest 

Product 

Response*

Response 

(as acres 

increase)

No Action 

(acres)

Alternative 1 

(acres)

Alternative 2 

(acres)

Alternative 3 

(acres)

Regeneration 

harvesting or partial 

harvesting

Floral/

greenery

decreases

60,500 90,600 143,400 128,500

Mosses decreases

Mushrooms decreases

Wood 

products increases

Christmas 

trees increases

Thinning harvesting 

(includes both 

harvest land base 

and nonharvest land 

base)

Floral/

greenery

increases

100,000 113,400 76,700 160,300

Mosses decreases

Mushrooms decreases

Wood 

products increases

Silvicultural 

treatments 

(stand maintenance/ 

protection)

Floral/

greenery

decreases

Mushrooms decreases 112,500 161,400 259,900 134,400

Christmas 

trees increases

mature&structurally 

complex forest

Floral/

greenery

increases

1,266,000 1,190,000 1,131,000 1,161,000 Mosses increases

Mushrooms increases

Under all four alternatives, the availability and quantity of five special forest product categories 

(transplants, seeds and seed cones, edibles and medicinals, burls and miscellaneous, and boughsconiferous) would be similar to past levels. Differing levels of timber harvesting and silviculture 

activities, based on the amount of acres treated, would not increase or decrease the quantity or 

availability of these forest products from the current level. These forest products are generally 

abundant relative to their demand throughout the region or within the vegetative community where 

they occur. In general, an extensive amount of acres of forest habitat exists for these special forest 

products over the planning area, combined with relatively low commercial demand.

Natural disturbances, such as wildfires and wind storms, which shape the types and availability of 

special forest products, are unpredictable in time and location, but are expected to occur as in the 

past across the landscape. Natural disturbances change local conditions for special forest products. 

In general, most special forest products would be lost in wildfires, although the availability of 

firewood and mushrooms, which respond to fire, would increase. Windstorms that blow down large 

amounts of trees would reduce the quality of special forest products and would limit the access for 

harvesting. Natural disturbances would have a substantive effect on the availability and quantity of 

special forest products only at the local level. Availability, quantity, and abundance relative to the 

demand of special forest products would not be substantially affected at the planning area scale.
593

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Botany 

This analysis examines the effects of timber management, fuels treatments, road construction, 

grazing, and areas of critical environmental concern on plant populations including BLM 

sensitive and assessment species, and species listed under the Endangered Species Act.

Key Points

•	 Under all alternatives the populations and habitat of species listed under the Endangered Species Act and state 

listed species where the BLM has entered into a cooperative management agreement for a species would be 

maintained or increased and recovery activities implemented. 

•	 Under all alternatives on BLM-administered lands, there would be little risk of loss of populations of BLM 

sensitive and assessments species in eight of nine habitat groups. 

•	 Under the action alternatives, some populations of BLM sensitive and assessment species in the conifer habitat 

group on O&C lands in the harvest land base would be lost. There would be low to moderate risk of local 

extirpation for some species in the conifer forest habitat group, but little risk of extirpation from the planning area 

or extinction. The ranking of alternatives is as follows:

No Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

 Lower Risk ---------------------------------------------->.Moderate Risk

Federally Listed Plant Species and those state 

listed species where the BLM has entered into 

a cooperative management agreement 

The species shown in Table 175 (Federally listed and candidate plant species in the 

planning areas) are listed as threatened or endangered or are candidates for listing under 

the Endangered Species Act.

Table 175. Federally listed and candidate plant species in the planning area

Status Species Common Name

FTO Sidalcea nelsoniana Nelson’s Checker-mallow

FTO Castilleja levisecta Golden Paintbrush

FTO Howellia aquatilis Water Howellia

FTO Lupinus sulphureus ssp. 

kincaidii Kincaid’s Lupine

FEO Lilium occidentale Western Lily

FEO Astragalus applegatei Applegate’s Milk-Vetch

FEO Lomatium cookii Cook’s Lomatium

FEO Fritillaria gentneri Gentner’s Fritillary

FEO Limnanthes floccosa ssp. 

grandiflora Large-Flowered Wooly Meadowfoam

FEO Arabis macdonaldiana MacDonald’s Rock-Cress

FEO Plagiobothrys hirtus Rough Popcorn Flower
594

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

FEO Erigeron decumbens var. 

decumbens Willamette Valley Daisy

FEO Lomatium bradshawii Bradshaw’s Desert Parsley

FCO Calochortus persistens Siskiyou Mariposa lily

FTO = Federally Threatened Oregon FEO = Federally Endangered Oregon FTO = Federal Candidate Oregon

Under all four alternatives, no damage or loss of occupied habitat, individual plants, 

or populations would occur as a result of management activities on BLM-administered 

lands. This is because species recovery measures would be applied. These measures are 

required by recovery plans, biological opinions, or conservation agreements and would 

maintain or reduce the risk of extinction to species. Occasionally, emergency operations 

such as wildfire suppression would result in the damage or loss of occupied habitat or 

populations. When these occasional situations occur, conservation measures would be 

applied to the extent possible to minimize damage or loss of populations or habitat. 

The number of populations of federally listed and candidate species on BLMadministered lands varies by species and the BLM’s contribution to the recovery of the 

species also varies accordingly. The number of populations by species found on BLMadministered lands ranges from over 100 populations of Gentner’s fritillary to only three 

known populations of Nelson’s checker-mallow. 

Populations of federally listed and candidate species also occur on private lands. 

For analysis purposes, it is assumed that these populations would not contribute 

to recovery of the species (USDI, USFWS 2006b; USDI, USFWS 2003b; USDI, 

USFWS). This is because no protection of plant species is provided by state or 

federal laws on private lands. 

Recovery activities would be implemented consistent with plans and conservation 

agreements for each federally listed plant species. Recovery activities are described 

individually in each recovery plan (see Appendix E, Botany). Occupied habitat and 

populations of federally listed and candidate species would be maintained or increased on 

BLM-administered lands as a result of these conservation activities. 
595

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

State Listed Species where the BLM has not 

entered into a conservation agreement and 

BLM Sensitive and Assessment Species

Most plant and fungi species are considered common and are of no conservation concern 

(see the Botany section of Chapter 3). This analysis focuses on the BLM’s sensitive and 

assessment species which include State-listed species where the BLM has not entered 

into a conservation agreement. Species are grouped according to habitat associations 

(see the Botany section of Chapter 3) to facilitate the analysis of large number of species. 

Table 176 shows the habitat groups and the physiographic provinces and land allocations 

in which they occur. 

Table 176. Habitat groups, physiographic provinces, and land use allocations

Habitat Groups Physiographic Provinces Land Use Allocations

Upland Meadows/

Grasslands areas

Klamath and Willamette 

Valley

• Non timber management area

• National Landscape Conservation 

System

Shrub Communities Klamath

• Non timber management area

• National Landscape Conservation 

System

Oak and Hardwood 

Woodlands

Klamath and Willamette 

Valley

• Timber management area

• Non timber management area

• National Landscape Conservation 

System 

Conifer and Mixed 

Evergreen Forests All

• Late-successional management area

• Riparian management area

• Timber management area

• Areas of critical environmental concern 

and research natural areas

• National Landscape Conservation 

System 

Seasonal Wetlands 

Fens/Vernal Pools All

• Riparian management area

• Areas of critical environmental concern 

and research natural areas

Riparian and Aquatic All • Riparian management area

Serpentine Areas Klamath • Timber management area

• Non timber management 

Rocky Areas Outcrops/

Scree All • Non timber management 

Maritime Zone Coast and Klamath

• Late-successional management area

• Riparian management area

• Timber management area

• Areas of critical environmental 

concern and research natural areas

• National Landscape Conservation 

System 
596

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Introduction

Under the No Action Alternative, conservation measures would be applied to 

all habitat groups under the BLM Special Status Species Policy and Survey 

and Manage on all BLM-administered lands in the planning area. Habitat 

characteristics would be managed for the specific requirements of each species. 

Conservation measures provide protection from management activities that 

modify or degrade occupied habitat, compact or displace soil, or trample or 

damage individual plants or populations. The types of conservation measures are 

numerous and affect the area, extent, or timing of the activity, the type of operation, 

and the degree of disturbance to a population. Typically conservation measures 

are implemented as seasonal or operational restrictions and changes, treatment 

changes, or protection buffers. 

Under the action alternatives, conservation measures from the BLM Special 

Status Species Policy would be applied on Public Domain lands and O&C lands 

that are not in the harvest land base. With the exception of the conifer habitat 

group, all other habitat groups occur primarily on Public Domain and O&C lands 

not in the harvest land base. Conservation measures would not be applied to 

populations of species in the conifer habitat group that occur within the O&C 

harvest land base unless 20 or fewer populations of a species are known to exist.

Timber harvest including silviculture treatments in young stands, hazardous 

fuels treatments, and road construction, are major activities that would affect 

populations in the conifer habitat group. The level of these activities that would 

occur under the alternatives is shown in Table 177 (Forest management activities 

that affect plant populations over the next 10 years).

Table 177. Forest management activities that affect plant populations over the next 10 years

Activity No Action 

(acres)

Alt 1 

(acres)

Alt 2 

(acres)

Alt 3 

(acres)

Regeneration Harvest 60,500 90,600 143,400 3,900

Partial Harvest 0 0 0 124,600

Thinning (HLB and Non-HLB) 100,000 113,400 76,700 160,300

Hazardous Fuels Treatments 110,000 110,000 110,000 110,000

Road Construction 4,100 4,100 5,000 5,300

Timber Harvest

Under all action alternatives, the acres subject to timber harvest with known 

populations would increase. Figure 203 (Distribution of populations of BLM 

sensitive and assessment botany species subject to timber harvest) shows that 

when all known populations of BLM sensitive and assessment species are 

aggregated and compared between alternatives, the most notable pattern is the 
597

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

increase in the number of populations that occur in the harvest land base under 

the action alternatives compared to the No Action Alternative. 

Approximately 5,000 known populations of BLM sensitive and assessment 

species occur on BLM-administered lands. The percentage of known populations 

in the conifer habitat group that would occur within the harvest land base is 16%, 

37%, 41% and 45% under the No Action Alternative and Alternatives 1, 2, and 

3, respectively. The known populations of species in the conifer habitat group 

located in the harvest land base would be subject to greater risk of population and 

habitat losses through management actions.

Figure 203. Distribution of populations of BLM sensitive and assessment botany species 

subject to timber harvest 

Harvest methods include ground based, cable, and helicopter logging. Timber 

harvesting modifies forest stand vegetation, species composition, stand density 

and structure, canopy, snags, and large down wood which serve as substrate, 

hosts, and environmental conditions associated with species in the conifer 

habitat group. Thinning modifies forest stand structure and conditions less 

than regeneration harvests or partial harvests and stands recover quicker from 

disturbance. After harvest, slash disposal treatments reduce fuel loads.

No Action Alternative

Population Ocurrances by Land Base

833

4385

Harvest Land

Base

Other Land Use

Categories

Alternative One 

Population Occurances by Land Base

1943

3275

Harvest Land

Base

Other Land Use

Categories

Alternative Two

Population Occurances by land Base

2161

3057

Harvest Land

Base

Other Land Use

Categories

Alternative Three

 Population Occurances by Land Base

2342

2859

Harvest Land

Base

Other Land Use

Categories
598

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Silvicultural treatments on new stands reduce vegetative competition to conifer 

species and would occur on the same areas where regeneration harvest and 

thinning would take place over a 3 to 20 year period of time after harvest. 

Typically, more timber harvest units receive fuels and silviculture treatments in 

the Klamath province than the other provinces where more populations occur. 

Few populations that occur in these areas would survive the combination of 

treatments without the application of conservation measures. However, post 

treatment monitoring has shown that occasional populations have survived 

the combination of treatments, and populations of some species respond with 

increased vigor.

For some species and populations, the affects of the physical disturbance of 

the harvest method would have more consequence than the modification of the 

habitat itself. For example, the amount of physical disturbance of the site from 

regeneration harvest can vary widely depending upon factors such as terrain, 

access, type of equipment, and skills of the operator. These factors contribute to 

the total area disturbed and the survival of any population occurring in the area. 

Under the alternatives, the amount of regeneration harvest acres as a portion 

of total harvest acres is 38% under the No Action Alternative and 44%, 65% 

and 44% under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3, respectively. Partial harvests under 

Alternative 3 would create forests in the stands establishment structural stage 

classification resulting in a change in forest habitat similar to that of regeneration 

harvest. Under the action alternatives, in regeneration harvests and partial 

harvests on O&C harvest base lands, few populations of species in the conifer 

forest habitat group would survive because of multiple fuels and silvicultural 

treatments associated with treating forests in the stand establishment structural 

stage classification within a 3 to 20 year period of time. This would also occur 

because no conservation measures under BLM special status species policy 

would be applied, except where populations of species are 20 or fewer. The 

amount of timber harvest, hazardous fuels treatments and road construction as 

a portion of the total amount of forested acres is estimated to be 12% under the 

No Action Alternative, and 14%, 15%, and 18% under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 

respectively over the next 10 years.

Under all alternatives, fuel reduction treatments would reduce slash from timber 

harvest and silviculture activities. The Medford District and Klamath Falls 

Resource Area would treat the slash on 90% of harvest units while the other 

districts would treat approximately 50% of harvest units.

These treatments include slash piling and burning or broadcast burning. Handpiling and burning reduces slash and live vegetation. Approximately 10% to 

25% of the treated area would be piled and burned. Excavator-piling crushes 

vegetation as well as displaces and compacts soil. Approximately 5,000 acres 

over the past 10 years has been treated and 2,500 acres would be projected to be 

treated for the next 10 years. Piling and burning occurs primarily in southern 
599

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Oregon. Broadcast burning occurs after harvest and consumes logging debris and 

other live vegetation on approximately 75% of the treated timber harvest areas. 

Under all four alternatives, silvicultural treatments within the harvest land base 

would modify young stands through thinning, stand conversion, fertilization, 

cutting brush, and scalping vegetation. Treatments would result in young 

stands that are generally even-aged with reduced species diversity, reduced 

stand structures, and reduced amounts of small micro-habitat patches where less 

disturbance occurred during harvest and where species in the conifer habitat 

group are more like to persist. The amount of silviculture treatments within the 

harvest land base would be tied directly to the amount of regeneration and partial 

harvest acres as shown in Table 177 (Forest management activities that affect 

plant populations over the next 10 years).

A few species in the conifer habitat group occur in forests in the stand 

establishment and young forest structural stage classification. As long as 

populations weren’t completely lost during timber harvest, they would benefit from 

more frequent habitat disturbances. Post-harvest monitoring has shown that species 

such as Tall bugbane and Wayside aster respond positively by increasing growth, 

flowering, and fruiting from more open conditions (e.g., Cimicifuga elata, Kaye 

and Kirkland, 1994, Eucephalus vialis, Thorpe and Kaye, 2006). Other populations 

of species in the conifer habitat group have survived the combination of treatments 

in the past but do not appear to benefit with increased growth and reproduction

(Cypripedium fasciculatum, Knorr and Martin, 2003). These are considered relic 

populations that have survived the activity and habitat disturbance in micro-habitat 

patches but do not appear to benefit with increased growth and reproduction. 

Hazardous Fuels Treatments

Under all four alternatives, hazardous fuel reduction treatments (outside of 

timber harvest units) would occur on approximately 110,000 acres over the next 

10 years in the Wildland Urban Interface. A majority of the acres that would be 

treated would occur in the Klamath province. The operational methods and habitat 

disturbance would be similar to fuel reduction treatments from timber harvest slash, 

except that these fuels reduction treatments would retain more of the original forest 

stand and vegetation conditions than treatments of slash from timber harvest. 

These treatments would affect species in the conifer and mixed evergreen 

forests, shrub communities, and oak and hardwood woodlands habitat groups. 

Generally, the species in these habitat groups are shade intolerant and respond 

to increased light and reduction in plant competition with increased growth, 

flowering and fruiting (Kaye and Thorpe 2006; USDA,USDI 2004b;USDA 

and USDI, BLM and NPS 2004; USDI, USFWS 2005; USDI, USFWS 2006b). 

However, disturbance from fuel reduction treatments would create exposed soil 

and increased light that would result in the introduction and spread of invasive 

plants into occupied habitat. Invasive plant species would reduce population 
600

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

vigor, expansion, and migration (See the Invasive Plants section of Chapter 4) 

of the BLM’s sensitive and assessment species. Impacts would vary depending 

on several factors. Variations in site characteristics, the type and growth habit 

of the invasive species, and rare plant species vigor and growth would determine 

the growth or decline of a population. Actions to control invasive plants species 

would benefit the growth and survival of rare plant populations. Additionally, 

species with larger populations would be more likely to survive the disturbance 

than species with small populations. 

The overall risk to species populations from these hazardous fuel treatments is 

low because the species in these habitat groups are generally shade intolerant and 

respond with increased growth to increased light and less competition. 

Road Construction

Under all alternatives, road construction would occur in areas where all nine 

habitat groups are found. However, the majority of road construction activities 

would occur in the conifer habitat group. Roads built in the Klamath province 

are most likely to cross habitat types such as meadows or serpentine with rare 

plant populations. This is because such habitats and populations occur more 

commonly in the Klamath Province than other provinces. The estimated 

amount of new road construction over the next 10 years on the Medford District, 

primarily the Klamath province, would range from 158 miles under the No 

Action Alternative to 330 miles under Alternative 3. This would equate to 795 

acres or 0.1% of BLM-administered lands in Medford District under the No 

Action to 1650 acres or about 0.2% of BLM-administered lands under Alternative 

3. New road construction in the Klamath province has the potential to affect 

more BLM sensitive and assessment plant species relative to other provinces 

because of the higher density of such plant populations in this province. 

New roads would increase the introduction and spread of invasive plants (See the 

Invasive Plants section of this chapter). Actions to control invasive plants would be 

applied in order to reduce competition to the BLM’s sensitive and assessment plant 

populations and occupied habitat. Conservation measures would be applied to 

populations and occupied habitat in the path of road construction of all nine habitat 

groups in areas outside of the harvest land base. Populations in the conifer habitat 

group which occurred in the path of road construction would likely not survive 

in areas within the harvest land base management. However, it is assumed that 

conservation measures would be applied to species with 20 or fewer populations. 

Other Management Activities

Under all alternatives, wildfire suppression activities would occur in all habitat 

groups. Plant species in the planning area evolved in ecosystems which 

included periodic natural fires but not wildfire suppression activities. The most 

wildfire suppression activity would occur in the Klamath province and in the 
601

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

southern part of the Western Cascades province. Wildfire suppression activities 

that involve bull-dozing such as fireline access and construction, safety zone 

construction, and staging centers often make more fundamental and longer 

lasting changes to habitat than the wildfire itself, although on a much smaller 

area. On the recent Timber Rock wildfire, only 27 of 27,100 acres (0.1%) were 

disturbed by fire lines (USDI, BLM 2004). The acres of wildfire suppression 

activity are low relative to other management activities, but where they occur, 

populations of the BLM’s sensitive and assessment species would likely be lost. 

Under all alternatives, mining operations would occur primarily in areas occupied 

by the rocky areas/outcrops/scree, serpentine, conifer, and riparian and aquatic 

habitat groups. According to the BLM’s records, mining operations occur 

primarily in the Klamath province where more rare plant populations occur. 

Approximately 230 mining notices would be issued over the next 10 years on 

approximately 280 acres. The number of acres is very low, but mining notices 

would require processing during a biological window when field reviews would 

not be suitable. Conservation measures would not be applied in most cases and 

some populations would be lost. 

Approximately 17 mining plans that total 250 acres would be anticipated over 

the next 10 years. The total amount of acres is small and mining plans would 

provide for conservation measures associated with the application of the BLM’s 

Special Status Species Policy in most cases. A mining plan currently occurs on 

portions of the French Flat area of critical environmental concern where seven of 

the BLM’s sensitive and assessment species are found.

Quarry operations would also occur in areas occupied by the rocky areas/

outcrops/scree, serpentine, conifer, and riparian and aquatic habitat groups. The 

amount of quarry operation activity would be associated with the level of road 

construction under each alternative. There would be approximately 300 quarries 

located on 600 acres. This would affect a relatively small percentage of the 

planning area and would intersect with a small number of plant populations. 

The overall risk of population losses in these four habitat groups from quarry 

activities is low under all alternatives. This is because most quarries have 

been surveyed and few populations discovered. Additionally, populations and 

occupied habitat would receive conservation measures in most cases.

Under all alternatives invasive plants would increase and alter the existing plant 

community for all habitat groups (see the Invasive Plants section of this chapter). 

Invasive plants occur throughout the planning area, but are less prominent on 

serpentine soils in the Klamath province. Invasive plants are well documented 

on habitat occupied by the BLM’s sensitive and assessment Species. Invasive 

plant species reduce vigor, flowering and fruiting and limit the expansion and 

migration of populations of the BLM’s sensitive and assessment species. Under 

all action alternatives, rare plant populations forced to compete with invasive 

plants would decrease in vigor and the likelihood of survival would be reduced.
602

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Under all alternatives, livestock grazing would occur in areas occupied by 

five habitat groups including upland meadows/grasslands, oak and hardwood 

woodlands, conifer, seasonal wetlands fens/vernal pools, and riparian and 

aquatic. Under the No Action Alternative, approximately 560,000 acres would 

be authorized for grazing. Under all action alternatives, the number of grazing 

allotment acres would be reduced by 141,000 acres to 420,000 acres. Since these 

141,000 acres of allotments are currently vacant (no cattle grazing occurring), 

there would be no change in the effects to the 1,126 known populations of the 

BLM’s sensitive and assessment species in this area. Allotments that would be 

authorized for grazing contain approximately 1,300 known populations.

Livestock graze and trample vegetation including the BLM’s sensitive and 

assessment species. Species assessments and monitoring of rangeland conditions 

and trends indicate that few populations of species are lost due to grazing. 

However, livestock graze on vegetation and trample and damage plants (USDA, 

USDI 1996a; Oregon Department of Agriculture 2001; Kaye, 2002). Not all 

populations in grazing allotments are affected by grazing or trampling because 

they occur in inaccessible locations, areas of low forage, or where grazing 

and trampling is low. A few annual species such as bellinger’s meadow-foam, 

disappearing monkeyflower, and sculptured allocarya tolerate light to moderate 

levels of trampling and grazing as long as they can produce seed and maintain 

stable germination and occupancy levels (Whiteaker, pers. com. 2007). 

Generally, the areas of higher grazing utilization occur in close proximity to 

abundant forage, grassland meadows, water sources, and flat ground. Areas of 

higher disturbance from trampling occur around holding pens, watering areas 

and salt blocks. These high disturbance areas allow invasive plants to establish 

and increase occupancy. Populations of BLM sensitive and assessment species 

occur in areas of high utilization and high disturbance. While populations would 

normally withstand low to moderate amounts of grazing and trampling damage, 

high levels of disturbance repeated over multiple years would reduce plant vigor, 

prevent reproduction, and damage individual plants and populations. This would 

cause the loss of populations (Menke and Kaye 2006). 

Populations and occupied habitat of most the BLM’s sensitive and assessment 

species that occur in these five habitat groups would be protected from grazing 

and trampling through conservation measures associated with the application of 

the BLM’s Special Status Species Policy under all alternatives. 

Under the No Action Alternative, off-highway vehicle activities would occur 

on BLM-administered lands designated as open to off-highway vehicle use 

where species in all nine habitat groups are found. A total of 330,000 acres is 

currently designated as open in the Salem, Medford, and Klamath Falls districts. 

A majority of these open areas are located on steep, densely-forested terrain, 

which is not conducive to cross-country motor vehicle travel. However, where 

cross country travel would occur, vehicles would crush vegetation, displace soils 
603

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

and create trails that degrade occupied habitat and damage populations scattered 

throughout the area. 

High concentrations of off-highway vehicle activities occur around campgrounds, 

recreation areas, existing trails, and adjacent to private lands and fan outwards 

for hundreds of acres. Off-highway vehicle activities occur across a wide area 

including 140,000 acres in the Klamath province where the highest species’

population densities are found. 

Under all action alternatives, off-highway vehicle activity would be designated 

as limited to designated roads and trails on most of the 330,000 acres currently 

designated as open to off-highway vehicles under the No Action Alternative. A 

total of 77 acres are designated as open under the action alternatives. This would 

result in a reduction to the amount of damage to occupied habitat and populations 

for all habitat groups compared to the No Action Alternative. 

Areas of critical environmental concern are designated where special 

management attention is required to maintain and protect relevant and important 

values. Under the No Action Alternative, 70 potential and existing areas of 

critical environmental concern would provide special management attention 

resulting in the conservation of approximately 700 known populations of the 

BLM’s sensitive and assessment plant species. These species occur in a wide 

range of habitats throughout the planning area and over 540 populations occur in 

the Klamath province. More populations are likely to occur in existing areas of 

critical environmental concern because of the unique nature of the habitat. 

Under the action alternatives, nine areas of critical environmental concern that 

contain special status species as a relevant and important value would not be 

designated under one or more alternatives. These areas contain 127 known 

populations. There are 14 additional areas of critical environmental concern 

with the BLM’s sensitive and assessment species that would be reduced in size 

under one or more alternatives. Populations of species in the conifer habitat 

group would be subject to forest management activities. Since these species’ 

populations would not receive special management attention (except for those 

species with 20 or fewer populations), populations would be lost. One of these 

species, Cupressus bakeri, is one of eight populations in Oregon and is found 

in the Baker Cypress area of critical environmental concern. It is the only 

population on BLM-administered lands and is the northern most population of 

cypress in North America. 

Biological Factors and Risk to Species from Management

There is incomplete information available to determine the effects of the loss 

of one or more populations to a BLM sensitive and assessment plant or fungi 

species. The species in the habitat groups are diverse and respond differently to 

habitat change and disturbance. Each species’ unique biological requirements and 

threats shape the number of individuals, patch size, and distribution. Biological 
604

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

factors interact with environmental factors to determine population and species 

rarity and trends ((Gurevitch et al. 2006, Kaye et al, 1997). Several studies 

discuss specific factors that influence population trends and they include plant 

life-form and life history, breeding systems and effective breeding populations, 

seed dormancy, recruitment, clonal growth, colonization, genetic factors, and 

models of extinction risks and disturbance (Lennartsson 2002, Menges 2000, 

Ellestrand and Elam 1993, Schemske et. al, 1994). Any population losses from 

management activities to species with 20 or fewer populations would contribute 

to the trend toward local extirpation or extinction of the species within the 

planning area (Ellstrand and Elam, 1993; USF&WS, 2003; Kaye, pers.com., 

2007, Freidman, 2007, pers. com). A minimum population threshold of 20 is 

selected to ensure survival of species and therefore no additional population 

losses would be allowed as a result of management actions. The threshold is 

based on biological and environmental factors and is consistent with species 

rankings in Oregon Natural Heritage Plan (2004) and NatureServe (2006).

Under all alternatives, there would be little risk of population losses of the 

BLM’s sensitive and assessment species in the nine habitat groups on O&C lands 

in areas outside of the harvest land base and on Public Domain lands. This is 

because conservation measures associated with the BLM Special Status Species 

Policy would be applied.

Under all action alternatives, populations of species in the conifer habitat group 

on O&C lands in the harvest land base would be subject to forest management 

activities. This would include regeneration harvest, partial harvest, thinning 

harvest, slash treatment, silviculture treatments, and road construction. The 

following percentages of the area would be affected by management activities 

over the next 10 years: 

•	 No Action Alternative: 12% 

•	 Alternative 1: 14% 

•	 Alternative 2: 15% 

•	 Alternative 3: 18 % 

The specific location of management activities that would take place under the 

alternatives is unknown in relation to the specific locations of populations of 

the BLM’s sensitive and assessment species. Therefore, the specific number of 

populations in the conifer habitat group that would be lost is uncertain. 

However, the risk of local extirpation to species in the conifer habitat group 

would increase under the action alternatives compared to the No Action 

Alternative. Populations would be lost under all action alternatives. Few 

populations would survive in areas of regeneration harvest that occur in the 

path of direct operational activities. However, conservation measures would be 

applied for species with from 20 or fewer known populations. The number of 
605

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

populations that would be lost would increase with the amount of acres of forest 

management activities. The combined amount of partial harvest and thinning 

under Alternative 3 would modify more conifer forest habitat than the other 

action alternatives even though partial harvest would leave small patches of 

habitat. The increase in the amount of thinning acres under Alternative 3 offsets 

any small habitat benefits to populations. 

The factors used in determining these outcomes included: 

•	 distribution and the number of known populations and occupied habitat on 

BLM-administered lands, particularly within the harvest land base, and

•	 the types and amount of activities anticipated over the next ten years.

As shown in Figure 204 (Number of populations and occupied habitat by 

province), under all action alternatives, the Klamath province has the highest 

risk of losses of populations and the highest risk of local extirpation due to forest 

management activities. This is because the number of the BLM’s sensitive and 

assessment species populations is the highest and the average patch size is the 

smallest compared to the other provinces. In the other provinces, there are fewer 

sites, but the patch size is larger. 

Figure 204. Number of populations and occupied habitat acres by province

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

Klamath East

Cascades

West

Cascades

Coast Range Willamette

Valley

Populations Acres
606

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Under all alternatives, there would be 53 of the BLM’s sensitive and assessment 

species with 20 or fewer known populations and containing at least one 

population on BLM-administered lands (excluding species in the Cascade 

Siskiyou National Monument and West Eugene Wetlands). There are 11 of these 

species that occur entirely on BLM-administered lands5

. Specifically:

•	 There are 18 of the 53 species that have 1 to 5 known populations. 

•	 There are 35 of the 53 species that have 6 to 20 known populations. 

The conifer habitat group, where forest management activities would occur, 

includes 23 of the 53 species as shown in Figure 205 (Species in the conifer 

habitat group by ownership and number of currently known populations). 

Of these:

•	 There are 5 species with 1 to 5 known populations. 

•	 There are 18 species with 6 to 20 known populations. 

Any population losses from management activities would be critical for species 

with fewer than 20 populations (Ellstrand and Elam, 1993; USDI, USFWS 

2003c; Kaye, pers.com., 2007). Conservation measures would be applied to 

species with 20 or fewer populations to prevent extirpation in the planning area. 

There are another 53 species that are known from between 21 to 100 populations. 

There are 5 of these that occur entirely on BLM-administered lands and 21 of 

these that occur in the conifer habitat group. 

Figure 205. Species in the conifer habitat group by ownership and number of currently 

known populations 

5

 There is some uncertainty when combining records from 2 data sets related to double counting and undercounting. Geobob was 

the primary data source for BLM and other Federal Lands and Heritage data was the source for state, private and other lands.

Species by Total Populations (BLM and Other Lands)

BLM & Only BLM Conifer 

1-5 28 22 11

6-20 32 1 16

21-100 56 8 22

100+( 18 0 6

WEW and 134

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1-5 6-20 21-100 100+

Population Range

Number of 

Species

BLM & Other Lands (Both) Only BLM Lands

Conifer Forest Group (Both)
607

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

For species with 21 to 100 known populations in the conifer habitat group, risk of 

extirpation from population losses would increase. Any population losses would 

contribute to a trend toward extirpation within the planning area. However, if 

populations drop to 20 or fewer known sites, conservation measures would be 

applied to prevent extirpation. 

It is assumed that no protection of the BLM’s sensitive and assessment species 

would occur on private lands. These populations are at high risk of population 

loss. Populations of these species have been damaged and lost on private lands, 

including federally listed lands (USDI, USFWS 2003b; Brock and Callagan, 

2006, USDI, USFWS 2006b) and the loss of habitat is documented in recovery 

plans for federally listed plant species (USDI, USFWS 1998c; USDI, USFWS 

2000; UDDI, USFWS 2003a; USDI, USFWS 2003b). These sites would not be 

considered when determining which species have 20 or fewer known sites on 

federal lands.

Projected Populations

A quantitative analysis was conducted to calculate the number of populations of 

the BLM’s sensitive and assessment species that would be expected to occur on 

unsurveyed BLM-administered lands. The analysis allows a comparison of the total 

number of populations and occupied habitat on BLM-administered lands under 

the alternatives. There is incomplete information on the distribution of the BLM’s 

sensitive and assessment plant and fungi species in the planning area as well as the 

specific location of future management actions that could affect these populations. 

This information is useful in estimating the number of populations and occupied 

habitat expected to occur and the potential intersect of populations and management 

activities. The analysis derives estimated populations and occupied habitat based 

on a single linear projection using existing survey and population data for BLMadministered lands in the harvest land base (a subset of the total land base). The acres 

in the harvest land base ranges from 14%, 15% and 18% for Alternatives 1, 2, and 3, 

respectively. The number of known populations within the harvest land base ranges 

from 37%, 41% and 45 under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3, respectively. 

 The following information was used to determine outcomes:

•	 There have been 433,000 acres surveyed on BLM-administered lands 

in the planning area over the past 6 years. This is 17% of the total BLM 

land base (2,555,000 acres) in the planning area. Surveyed acres occur in 

the range of habitat types where future activities on BLM-administered 

lands would occur.

•	 There are 5000 total known populations of the BLM’s special status 

species that occur on BLM-administered lands in the planning area.6

6

 These species and populations are based on the 2006 BLM special status species list and the records in GeoBob on 3-28-2006. 

It is anticipated that species on the BLM special status species list would change in the final EIS, as well as the number of populations which would change the results of this analysis.
608

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

•	 Acres of timber harvest and fuels reduction treatments were projected for 

each action alternative.

•	 Data sets of surveyed acres and known populations were analyzed for 

each BLM district. 

A ratio of the total number of known populations to the total number of acres 

surveyed was calculated and applied across all BLM-administered lands. The 

following caveats apply to the projection of populations and occupied habitat:

•	 BLM sensitive and assessment species are not homogenously distributed 

throughout the planning area, and tend to have a clumpy or patchy 

distribution. They are often associated with poorly understood biotic, 

edaphic and climatic patterns.

•	 The pattern that results from the acres surveyed, populations found, and 

acres of occupied habitat cannot be used to predict the location of BLM 

sensitive and assessment species. The analysis is limited to broad-scale 

estimates of the aggregate of all populations and occupied habitat and is 

not applicable to any specific species.

•	 The pattern of distribution is based on the survey information and 

provides only a broad approximation of the number of populations and 

the pattern of occupied habitat at the planning area scale.

The results of the analysis, including the number and percentage of projected 

populations that would be affected by forest management activities under 

the alternatives is shown in Table 178 (Projected populations that would be 

affected by forest management over the next 10 Years). It is assumed for 

purposes of analysis that the percentage of projected populations that would be 

affected under the alternatives is directly proportional to the amount of acres 

subject to forest management. If forest management occurred on 12 percent of 

the planning area, then 12 percent of projected populations would be affected. 

There is no assumed propensity for management activities to occur where 

populations are scarce or dense. 

The percentage of projected populations that would be affected by management 

activities under the alternatives ranges from 12 to 16 percent. The projected 

populations that occur in the harvest land base (not all populations), would 

intersect with forest management activities over many decades and be lost or 

harmed unless the species is known from 20 or fewer populations. In this case, 

populations would be protected by conservation measures under the BLM 

Special Status Species policy. The percentage of populations affected also does 

not equate to the percentage of risk that a specific population or species would be 

lost. Populations are not assumed to be affected under the No Action Alternative 

due to the application of conservation measures under the BLM Special Status 

Species policy.
609

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Table 178. Projected Populations that would be affected by Forest Management over 

the next 10 Years

Alternative

Planning 

Area 

BLM acres

Number of 

Projected 

Populations

Acres of 

Timber Harvest 

& Fuels 

treatments

Number of 

Projected 

Populations 

Affected

Percent of 

Projected 

Populations 

Affected

Alt 1 2,557,800 31,400 314,000 3,850 12

Alt 2 2,557,800 31,400 330,100 4,050 13

Alt 3 2,557,800 31,400 398,800 4,950 16

The average occupied habitat size per population, or patch size, of BLM sensitive 

and assessment species varies widely between districts. Based on current survey 

data and known populations, the average patch size ranges from 0.5 acres per 

population in the Salem and Medford districts to approximately 5 acres in 

the Coos Bay District, and 10 acres in the Klamath Falls Resource Area. The 

Klamath Falls Resource Area has only 20 known populations. The differences 

in patch size are largely dependant on the species and characteristics of the 

population, including size, density, and the habitat type.

The ratio of known occupied habitat and known populations as a fraction of 

surveyed acres, when calculated for each BLM district and projected over each 

district’s entire land base, provides a comparison of projected occupied habitat 

and populations between districts. The lowest percent of projected occupied 

habitat occurs in the Salem District (0.2%) and the Klamath Falls Resource Area 

(0.4%). The Medford, Roseburg, Coos Bay, and Eugene districts increase this 

ratio incrementally from 1.0 to 2.4 percent as shown in Table 179 (Projected BLM 

sensitive and assessment species populations and occupied habitat by district). 

The Medford District would have the most occupied habitat, and includes most 

of the Klamath province. The amount of projected populations in the Medford 

District is nearly 4 times greater than the next nearest district. 

Under all action alternatives the risk of damage and loss of populations of the 

BLM’s sensitive and assessment species changes by district relative to the 

number of populations and the patch size. In districts where few populations 

are found, the likelihood of activities occurring where populations occur is 

lower. In districts where more populations are found, the likelihood of activities 

occurring where populations occur is higher. Where the patch size per population 

is smaller, such as in the Medford and Salem districts, the risk of population loss 

would be higher when activities occur is areas where populations are found. 
610

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Table 179. Projected BLM sensitive and assessment species populations and occupied 

habitat by district

Total Area

(acres)

Planning 

Area Salem Eugene Roseburg Coos Bay Medford Klamath Falls

2,557,800 403,000 315,000 426,300 322,600 865,800 51,300

Projected 

Occupied 

(acres)

23,000 940 7,500 6,200 6,700 8,600 190

Land Base (%) 0.9 0.2 2.4 1.4 2.1 1.0 0.4

Projected 

Populations 

(#)

31,000 1,800 4,800 3,350 1,250 18,500 20

Mitigation Measures

Mitigation Measures could be applied to reduce the risks of extirpation to 

populations and species under the action alternatives. This would involve the 

application of conservation measures similar to the BLM special status species 

policy to species at risk of local extirpation in the conifer forest habitat group that 

have an Oregon Natural Heritage ranking of S1 and S2 in Oregon. 
611

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Invasive Plants

This analysis examines timber harvesting, road management activities, and off-highway vehicle use 

for the potential to introduce and spread invasive plant species that would result from the alternatives. 

Key Points

•	 The risk of introducing invasive plant species would be greater under Alternative 2 than the No Action Alternative 

and Alternatives 1 and 3.

•	 Invasive plant species would have a greater risk of spreading more broadly under Alternative 3 than under the 

No Action Alternative and Alternatives 1 and 2.

•	 The BLM’s influence on invasive plant species introduction and spread is limited by the relative amount of BLMadministered land within the planning area compared to other ownerships.

Timber harvesting, road management activities, and off-highway vehicle use create susceptibility 

for invasive plant species introduction and spread. Infestations are introduced and spread more 

readily in areas that have more human activity (e.g., high recreational use areas).

Introducing Invasive Plant Species 

The factors that were considered in the analysis of the relative levels of risk for the 

inadvertent introduction of invasive plant species on the BLM-administered lands include:

•	 the distribution and abundance of species, 

•	 the types and methods of timber harvesting,

•	 the proximity of harvesting activity to streams,

•	 the intensity and distribution of management activities, and

•	 the designations for off-highway vehicle use.

Species group distributions are categorized and displayed in maps as abundant, limited, 

or low by fifth-field watershed (see the Invasive Plant section in Chapter 3). For analysis 

purposes, species groups are combined to represent invasive plant species. 

Risk of Introduction

The relative risk of invasive plant species being introduced over the next 10 years 

as an inadvertent by-product of timber harvesting activities varies by alternative. 

The differences are based on the distribution of invasive plant species, the acres 

of the different timber harvesting types (thinning, partial harvesting, regeneration 

harvesting, and uneven-aged management), and the methods of logging used. 
612

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Timber harvesting types and logging methods alter the conditions that affect the 

introduction and spread of invasive weeds. For example:

•	 Regeneration harvests under all four alternatives and partial harvests 

under Alternative 3 create higher light levels than commercial thinning 

and uneven-aged management. 

•	 Soil is disturbed more by ground-based logging methods, less by skyline 

cable systems, and least by aerial logging systems. 

The watersheds that would generate the most and the least postharvest light 

and soil disturbance from timber harvesting activities are shown in Figure 206 

(Relative susceptibility of fifth-field watersheds to invasive plant species 

introduction as a result of timber harvesting activities over the next 10 years). 
613

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Figure 206. Relative susceptibility of fifth-field watersheds to invasive plant species introduction as a 

result of timber harvesting activities over the next 10 years 
614

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

A comparison of the relative susceptibility between the alternatives can be seen 

in Figure 207 and Table 180 (Susceptibility comparison for the introduction of 

invasive plant species that are associated with timber harvesting activities over 

the next 10 years). Watersheds with no potential for timber harvesting activities 

in the first 10 years after implementation, or which have no BLM-administered 

lands, have no assigned susceptibility category.

Figure 207. Susceptibility comparison for the introduction of invasive plant species that 

are associated with timber harvesting activities over the next 10 years 

Table 180. Susceptibility comparison for the introduction of invasive plant species that 

are associated with timber harvesting in the fifth-field watersheds across the alternatives 

over the next 10 years

Susceptibility 

Ranking No Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

High 0 0 2 1

Moderate 2 6 13 8

Low 154 152 156 151

Total Susceptible 156 158 171 160

Total Not Susceptible 104 102 89 100

Total Watersheds 260 260 260 260

Susceptibility to the introduction of invasive plant species would be greatest 

under Alternative 2 with 171 watersheds having some level of susceptibility that 

is associated with timber harvesting activities over the next 10 years compared to 

the 156 watersheds under the No Action Alternative and 158 and 160 watersheds 

with susceptibility rankings under Alternatives 1 and 3. 

Under Alternative 2, two fifth-field watersheds would be in the highest 

susceptibility category and 13 would be in the moderately susceptible category. 

Under Alternative 2, the highly susceptible watersheds would be in the Eugene, 

140

145

150

155

160

165

170

175

No Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Number of Fifth 

Field Watersheds Low Moderate High
615

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Roseburg, and Coos Bay districts. Watersheds of moderate and low susceptibility 

would be in all of the districts within the planning area.

Alternative 3 would be the second most susceptible to invasion with one fifthfield watershed in the highest category and eight in the moderately susceptible 

category. Under Alternative 3, the highly susceptible watershed would in the 

Roseburg and Coos Bay districts. The moderately susceptible watersheds would 

be in the Salem, Eugene, and Roseburg districts.

Alternative 1 and the No Action Alternative would have the lowest overall 

susceptibility to the introduction of invasive plant species that are associated with 

timber harvesting activities over the next 10 years. For both of these alternatives, 

no fifth-field watersheds would be in the highest susceptibility category. 

Under Alternative 1, six fifth-field watersheds would be in the moderately 

susceptible category. The moderately susceptible watersheds would be in all of 

the districts within the planning area, except the Salem District.

The No Action Alternative would have two fifth-field watersheds in the 

moderately susceptible category and they would be in the Roseburg, Coos 

Bay, and Medford districts. All of the other watersheds would be in the lowest 

susceptibility category.

The risk of invasion is determined by both the susceptibility of a watershed to 

invasion from timber harvesting activities in the first 10 years of implementation 

and the presence of invasive plant species.

The process used to determine the risk of invasive plant species introduction 

by fifth-field watershed is shown in Table 181 (Matrix to determine the relative 

risk for the introduction of invasive plant species that are associated with 

timber harvesting activities over the next 10 years) and displayed in Figure 208 

(Comparison of the risk by mapped watershed for the introduction of invasive 

plant species that are associated with timber harvesting activities over the 

next 10 years). Within this table, categories for the distribution of invasive 

plant species distribution categories and the categories for the susceptibility of 

introduction from timber harvesting activities are used to determine the relative 

risk categories for the inadvertent introduction of invasive plant species. 

Table 181. Matrix to determine the relative risk for the introduction of invasive plant 

species that are associated with timber harvesting activities over the next 10 years

Species 

distribution 

categories

Susceptibility categories for the introduction of invasive 

plant species from timber harvesting activities

Low Moderate High

Low Low Moderately Low Moderate

Limited Moderately Low Moderately High High

Abundant Moderate High Highest
616

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Figure 208. Comparison of the risk by mapped watershed for the introduction of invasive plant species 

that are associated with timber harvesting activities over the next 10 years 
617

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Watersheds with a low distribution of invasive plant species and a low or 

moderate susceptibility for the introduction of invasive plant species would have 

the lowest risk of invasion. The greatest risk of invasion would be in fifth-field 

watershed where both invasive plant species are abundant and susceptibility 

would be high. Watersheds with either no reported sites for the sample set 

of invasive plant species in the analysis or with no BLM ownership have no 

assigned risk category.

See Figure 209 (Comparison of the risk by watersheds for the introduction of 

invasive plant species associated with timber harvesting activities over the next 

10 years) and Table 182 (Risk comparison for the introduction of invasive plant 

species associated with timber harvesting in the fifth-field watersheds across the 

alternatives over the next 10 years) for the relative risk for the introduction of 

invasive plant species that are associated with timber harvesting activities over 

the next 10 years across the alternatives.

Figure 209. Comparison of the risk by watersheds for the introduction of invasive plant 

species associated with timber harvesting activities over the next 10 years 

Table 182. Risk comparison for the introduction of invasive plant species associated with 

timber harvesting in the fifth-field watersheds across the alternatives over the next 10 years

Risk Ranking No Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

High 1 4 9 3

Moderately high 1 2 6 6

Low 148 147 149 144

Total Susceptible 150 153 164 153

Total Not Susceptible 110 107 96 107

Total Watersheds 260 260 260 260

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

No Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Number of Fifth 

Field Watersheds

Null Low Moderately low Moderate Moderately high High Highest
618

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

The relative levels of risk of invasive plant species introduction associated with 

timber harvesting activities over the next 10 years under the alternatives follow 

the same pattern as the relative levels of susceptibility. Alternative 2 would have 

164 watersheds with some level of risk compared to 150 watersheds under the 

No Action Alternative and 153 watersheds under both Alternatives 1 and 3. 

Alternative 2 would have the most watersheds in the high and moderately high 

risk categories for invasive plant species introduction associated with timber 

harvesting activities over the next 10 years. Under Alternative 2, nine of the fifthfield watersheds would have a high risk of invasion and another six watersheds 

would have a moderately high risk of invasion. High risk watersheds are from all 

of the districts within the planning area, except the Salem District. Moderately 

high risk watersheds would be in the Salem, Roseburg, and Coos Bay districts. 

Under the No Action Alternative, one of the fifth-field watersheds would be in 

both the high risk and moderately high risk categories. The high risk watershed 

would be in the Medford District. The moderately high risk watershed would be 

shared between the Roseburg and Coos Bay districts.

Alternative 1 would have four fifth-field watersheds in the high risk category and 

two watersheds in the moderately high risk category. The high risk watersheds 

would be all in the Medford District and one would be shared between the Medford 

District and the Klamath Falls Resource Area in the Lakeview District. The 

moderately high risk watersheds would be in the Eugene and Coos Bay districts.

Alternative 3 would have three fifth-field watersheds in the high risk category 

and six watersheds would be in the moderately high risk category. The high 

risk watersheds would be in the Eugene, Roseburg, and Coos Bay districts. The 

moderately high risk watersheds would be in the Salem, Roseburg, Coos Bay, 

and Medford districts.

Invasive Plant Species Introduction into Riparian Areas

The introduction of invasive plant species into riparian habitats provides a 

corridor for introduction (see the Invasive Plants section in Chapter 3). The risk 

of invasive plant species being introduced into riparian habitats as an inadvertent 

by-product of timber harvesting activities and associated new road construction 

varies with the widths, prescriptions, and levels of timber harvesting activities 

within riparian reserves and riparian management areas. The lower the shade 

levels, the higher the risk for the introduction of invasive plant species (see the 

Invasive Plants section in Chapter 3).

Under the No Action Alternative and Alternative 1, the post-thinning shade levels 

are the highest because of the broader widths of the riparian reserves or riparian 

management areas for all streams (perennial and intermittent). 

•	 Post-thinning shade levels in the riparian management areas for perennial 

streams under Alternatives 2 and 3 would be lower than those under 
619

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 and the No Action Alternative since the widths of the 

riparian management areas are narrower. 

•	 The widths of the riparian management areas are 25 feet for all intermittent 

streams under Alternative 2, except for debris-flow prone intermittent 

streams, and for all intermittent streams under Alternative 3. This would 

result in the lowest post-harvest shade levels along these streams. 

The analytical assumption for the risk for the introduction of invasive plant 

species in intermittent streams under Alternative 2 and 3 is that the shade levels 

for the riparian habitats that are associated with these streams would mimic the 

levels in the surrounding timber harvest units. The intermittent riparian habitat 

post-harvest shade levels would be lower under Alternatives 2 and 3 than under 

the No Action Alternative and Alternative 1.

See Figure 210 (Susceptibility comparison for the introduction of invasive plants 

species into riparian habitats associated with timber harvesting activities over 

the next 10 years) and Table 183 (Susceptibility comparison for the introduction 

of invasive plant species into riparian habitats that are associated with timber 

harvesting activities in the fifth-field watersheds over the next 10 years) for a 

comparison of the relative susceptibility between the alternatives. 

Figure 210. Susceptibility comparison for the introduction of invasive plant species into 

riparian habitats associated with timber harvesting activities over the next 10 years 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

No Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Number of Fifth 

Field Watersheds

Low Moderate High
620

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Table 183. Susceptibility comparison for the introduction of invasive plant species into 

riparian habitats that are associated with timber harvesting in the fifth-field watersheds 

over the next 10 years

Susceptibility No Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Post-thinning shade 

levels highest highest lower lower

Widths of riparian 

reserves or riparian 

management areas

broader broader narrower narrower

Overall susceptibility moderate moderate highest next highest

High 1 1 11 7

Moderate 5 6 22 20

Low 127 142 136 131

Total Susceptible 133 149 169 158

Total Not Susceptible 127 111 91 102

Total Watersheds 260 260 260 260

Alternative 2 would have 169 fifth-field watersheds with assigned susceptibility 

categories. Alternative 3 would have 158 with assigned susceptibility categories. 

The No Action Alternative and Alternative 1 would have 133 and 149 fifth-field 

watersheds, respectively, with assigned susceptibility categories. 

The relative distribution of the fifth-field watersheds that were assigned 

susceptibility categories for invasive plant species introduction into riparian 

habitats for each alternative can be seen in Appendix F, Invasive Plants.

Over the next 10 years, Alternative 2 would have the most fifth-field watersheds 

in the highest susceptibility category for the introduction of invasive plant 

species into riparian habitats that are associated with timber harvesting activities. 

There are 11 watersheds that would be the most susceptible to introductions and 

they would be in the Salem, Eugene, Roseburg, and Medford districts. Another 

22 watersheds would be in the moderately susceptible category and they would 

be in all of the districts within the planning area, except for the Klamath Falls 

Resource Area of the Lakeview District. 

Over the next 10 years, Alternative 3 would have the second highest overall 

susceptibility for the introduction of invasive plant species into riparian habitats 

that are associated with timber harvesting activities. There are seven watersheds 

that would be the most susceptible to introductions and they would be in the 

Klamath Falls Resource Area of the Lakeview District and the Medford District. 

There are 20 fifth-field watersheds that would be moderately susceptible to 

invasive plant species introductions and they would be in all of the districts 

within the planning area. 

Over the next 10 years, Alternative 1 and the No Action Alternative would be 

similar in their relative level of susceptibility for the introduction of invasive 

plant species into riparian habitats that are associated with timber harvesting 

activities. Both alternatives would have a single fifth-field watershed in the 
621

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

highest susceptibility category and it would be shared between the Roseburg 

and Coos Bay districts. There are five and six fifth-field watersheds under 

the No Action Alternative and Alternative 1, respectively, which would be 

in the moderately susceptible category. Under the No Action Alternative, the 

moderately susceptible fifth-field watersheds would be in the Eugene, Roseburg, 

and Coos Bay districts. Under Alternative 1, all of the districts within the 

planning area, except the Klamath Falls Resource Area of the Lakeview District, 

would have moderately susceptible fifth-field watersheds.

The risk of introducing invasive plant species into riparian habitats is shown 

in Figure 211 (Relative risk of introducing invasive plant species in riparian 

habitats over the next 10 years) and based on riparian susceptibility values and 

invasive plant species distribution. The risk comparison for invasion into riparian 

habitats between the alternatives is presented in Figure 212 (Riparian risk 

category comparison for the introduction of invasive plant species over the next 

10 years) and Table 184 (Risk comparison for the introduction of invasive plant 

species into riparian habitats associated with timber harvesting in the fifth-field 

watersheds over the next 10 years). 
622

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Figure 211. Relative risk of introducing invasive plant species in riparian habitats over the next 10 years
623

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Figure 212. Riparian risk category comparison for the introduction of invasive plant 

species over the next 10 years 

Table 184. Risk comparison for the introduction of invasive plant species into riparian 

habitats associated with timber harvesting in the fifth-field watersheds across the 

alternatives over the next 10 years 

Risk Ranking No Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Highest 0 0 4 6

High 2 3 18 11

Moderately high or lower 125 141 140 134

Total Susceptible 127 144 162 151

Total Not Susceptible 133 116 98 109

Total Watersheds 260 260 260 260

Alternative 2 would create the greatest risk of introducing invasive plant 

species into riparian habitats. The least amount of risk would occur under the 

No Action Alternative with its broader riparian management areas on both 

perennial and intermittent streams. Alternative 2 would have 162 fifth-field 

watersheds with risk for the introduction of invasive plant species into riparian 

habitats that are associated with timber harvesting activities. Alternative 3 

would have 151 fifth-field watersheds with a risk for introduction. The 

No Action Alternative and Alternative 1 would have 127 and 144 fifth-field 

watersheds, respectively, with a risk for introduction. Over the next 10 years, 

watersheds with either no harvesting activities or no documented invasive plant 

species were determined to have no risk of introduction into riparian habitats 

that are associated with timber harvesting activities. These watersheds are 

represented in the null category in Figure 212.

Alternative 3 would have the most fifth-field watersheds in the highest risk 

category for the introduction of invasive plant species into riparian habitats that 

are associated with timber harvesting activities over the next 10 years. There are 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

No Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Number of Fifth 

Field Watersheds

Null Low Moderately low Moderate Moderately high High Highest
624

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

six watersheds that would be in the highest risk category and they would be in the 

Klamath Falls Resource Area of the Lakeview District and the Medford District. 

Another 11 watersheds would be in the high risk category and they would be in 

all of the districts within the planning area.

Over the next 10 years, Alternative 2 would have the second highest amount 

of fifth-field watersheds in the highest risk category for the introduction of 

invasive plant species into riparian habitats that are associated with timber 

harvesting activities. There are four fifth-field watersheds that would be in 

the highest risk category and they would be in the Eugene, Roseburg, and 

Medford districts. There are 18 fifth-field watersheds that would be in the high 

risk category and they would be in all of the districts within the planning area, 

except the Coos Bay District. 

Over the next 10 years, Alternative 1 and the No Action Alternative would 

be similar in their relative level of risk for the introduction of invasive plant 

species into riparian habitats that are associated with timber harvesting activities. 

Alternative 1 and the No Action Alternative would have a relatively low risk of 

invasive plant species introduction into riparian areas compared to the risk levels 

under Alternatives 2 and 3. 

Alternative 1 and the No Action Alternative would have no fifth-field watersheds 

in the highest risk category. Under the No Action Alternative there would be two 

fifth-field watersheds in the high risk category and they would be in the Eugene, 

Roseburg, and Coos Bay districts. Under Alternative 1, the three fifth-field 

watersheds in the high risk category would be in the Eugene, Roseburg, Coos 

Bay, and Medford districts. 

An increase in timber harvesting activities indirectly increases the amount of 

road construction and maintenance that is needed to support the preparation, 

harvesting, and reforestation of the timber harvesting. Typical road management 

activities involve some level of soil disturbance and reduction in shade. For the 

relationship of timber harvesting and roads to the runoff into streams, see the 

Water section in this chapter. 

See Figure 213 and Table 185 (Risk comparison for the introduction of 

invasive plant species associated with new road construction over the next 

10 years) for the risk comparison for the introduction of invasive plant 

species into fifth-field watersheds as a result of new road construction 

activities between the alternatives.
625

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Figure 213. Risk comparison for the introduction of invasive plant species associated 

with new road construction over the next 10 years 

Table 185. Risk comparison for the introduction of invasive plant species associated 

with new road construction by fifth-field watershed over the next 10 years 

Risk Ranking No Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

High 5 4 5 8

Moderately high 7 4 7 3

Moderate or lower 138 145 152 150

Total Susceptible 150 153 164 161

Total Not Susceptible 110 107 96 99

Total Watersheds 260 260 260 260

The greatest relative risk of inadvertent invasive plant species introduction that is 

associated with new road construction activities would occur under Alternative 2 

and would be the lowest under the No Action Alternative. Alternative 2 would 

have 164 fifth-field watersheds with assigned risk categories. Alternative 3 would 

have 161 fifth-field watersheds with assigned risk categories. The No Action 

Alternative and Alternative 1 would have 150 and 153 fifth-field watersheds, 

respectively, with assigned risk categories.

Over the next 10 years, Alternative 3 would have the most fifth-field watersheds 

in the high risk category for the introduction of invasive plant species that are 

associated with new road construction activities. There are eight fifth-field 

watersheds from the Eugene, Coos Bay, and Medford districts that would be 

in the high risk category. Another three fifth-field watersheds from the Salem, 

Roseburg, and Coos Bay districts would be in the moderately high risk category. 

Alternative 2 and the No Action Alternative would have the same amount of fifthfield watersheds in the high and moderately high risk categories, but the high risk 

watersheds would come from four of the districts within the planning area under 

Alternative 2 compared to two districts under the No Action Alternative. 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

No Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Number of Fifth 

Field watersheds

Null Low Moderately low Moderate Moderately high High Highest
626

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Over the next 10 years, Alternative 2 would have five fifth-field watersheds 

in the high risk category for the introduction of invasive plant species that are 

associated with new road construction activities and they would be in the Eugene, 

Roseburg, Coos Bay, and Medford districts. Another seven fifth-field watersheds 

from the Salem, Eugene, Roseburg, and Coos Bay districts would be in the 

moderately high risk category. 

Over the next 10 years, the No Action Alternative would have five fifth-field 

watersheds in the high risk category for the introduction of invasive plant species 

that are associated with new road construction activities and they would be in 

the Eugene and Medford districts. Another seven fifth-field watersheds from the 

Salem, Eugene, Roseburg, and Coos Bay districts would be in the moderately 

high risk category. 

Over the next 10 years, Alternative 1 would have four fifth-field watersheds 

in the high risk category for the introduction of invasive plant species that 

are associated with new road construction activities and they would be in the 

Medford District. Another four fifth-field watersheds from the Roseburg and 

Coos Bay districts would be in the moderately high risk category. 

Areas that are designated as open to off-highway vehicle use would not be 

substantially more susceptible to having new introductions of invasive plant 

species and more spread than areas that are designated as limited or closed 

because a majority of the open areas are located on steep, densely-forested 

terrain, which is not conducive to cross-country motor vehicle travel. Areas that 

are designated closed to off-highway vehicle use would not be susceptible to 

having new introductions and spread of invasive plant species due to off-highway 

vehicle activity. 

Emphasis areas for off-highway vehicle use would be more susceptible to 

having new introductions than other areas under the limited designation. This 

higher level of susceptibility is due primarily to the use of larger numbers of 

off-highway vehicles in the emphasis areas. The analytical assumption is that 

with additional off-highway vehicle use there is a corresponding chance of 

introducing infestations. 

Under the No Action Alternative, 330,000 acres are designated as open and 

84,600 acres are designated as closed, and the remaining acres are designated as 

limited. In contrast, under the three action alternatives, 77 acres are designated 

as open in the three action alternatives and 98,800 acres are designated as closed. 

Most of the acres that were designated as open under the No Action Alternative 

would be designated as limited under the three action alternatives. Therefore, the 

BLM-administered lands would be somewhat less susceptible to the introduction 

of invasive plant species by off-highway vehicle use under the three action 

alternatives than under the No Action Alternative. The designation of offhighway vehicle emphasis areas under Alternative 2 would raise the relative risk 
627

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

of invasive plant species introduction from off-highway vehicle use (in affected 

watersheds) above the risk levels under Alternatives 1 and 3. 

A relative risk comparison between the alternatives for the introduction of 

invasive plant species into fifth-field watersheds that are associated with the 

off-highway vehicle designations is shown in Figure 214 (Relative risk for 

the introduction of invasive plant species that are associated with off-highway 

vehicle designations) and Figure 215 (Risk comparison for introduction of 

invasive plant species that are associated with off-highway vehicle use). 
628

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Figure 214. Relative risk for the introduction of invasive plant species that are associated with offhighway vehicle designations 
629

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Figure 215. Risk comparison for introduction of invasive plant species that are 

associated with off-highway vehicle use 

The No Action Alternative would have the most fifth-field watersheds in the 

highest risk category for the introduction of invasive plant species that are 

associated with off-highway vehicle use. There are seven fifth-field watersheds 

that would be in the highest risk category and they would be in the Eugene, 

Roseburg, and Medford districts and the Klamath Falls Resource Area of the 

Lakeview District. Another 15 fifth-field watersheds would be in the high risk 

category and they would be in all of the districts within the planning area, except 

the Klamath Falls Resource Area of the Lakeview District.

Alternative 2 would have the second highest overall risk for the introduction of 

invasive plant species from off-highway vehicle use. There are five fifth-field 

watersheds that would be in the highest risk category and they would be in the 

Roseburg and Medford districts and the Klamath Falls Resource Area of the 

Lakeview District. There are 15 fifth-field watersheds that would be in the high 

risk category and they would be in all of the districts within the planning area, 

except the Klamath Falls Resource Area of the Lakeview District. There would 

be more emphasis areas designated under Alternative 2 than under Alternatives 1 

and 3 in the Medford District. The addition of these emphasis areas under 

Alternative 2 creates a relative increase in the risk for the introduction of invasive 

plant species from off-highway vehicle use in those watersheds compared to the 

level of risk for the same watersheds under Alternatives 1 and 3. 

Alternatives 1 and 3 would have the same relative level of risk for the 

introduction of invasive plant species from off-highway vehicle use and it would 

be less than the levels under Alternative 2 and the No Action Alternative. There 

are three fifth-field watersheds that would be in the highest risk category and 

they would be in the Roseburg and Medford districts. There are 15 fifth-field 

watersheds that would be in the high risk category and they would be in all of the 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

No Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Number of Fifth 

Field Watersheds

Null Low Moderately low Moderate Moderately high High Highest
630

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

districts within the planning area, except the Klamath Falls Resource Area of the 

Lakeview District. 

Spreading Invasive Plant Species

Management activities that create susceptibility for the spread of invasive plant 

species are timber harvesting, associated road management activities, and offhighway vehicle use. 

Infestations are introduced and spread more readily in areas that have more 

human activity (such as high recreational use area). The distribution of highuse recreational use areas does not vary by alternative, except for off-highway 

vehicle designations.

Over the long term, the potential for the introduction and spread of invasive 

plant species is higher in the following areas that are associated with timber 

harvesting activities: 

•	 the matrix areas under the No Action Alternative,

•	 the timber management areas under Alternatives 1 and 2, and

•	 the general landscape areas under Alternative 3. 

See Chapter 2 for maps that show the relative amounts and distribution of the 

land use allocations under each alternative. 

The No Action Alternative and Alternatives 1 and 2 would concentrate timber 

harvesting and the associated road management activities in the matrix, 

adaptive management area, and timber management area land use allocations, 

which would consist of 33%, 37%, and 48% of the BLM-administered lands, 

respectively. Under Alternative 3, timber management activities would occur 

throughout the general landscape area, which includes 66 % of the BLMadministered lands. 

The potential for the spread of invasive plant species from existing weed 

infestations and as a result of infestations that are associated with timber 

harvesting activities would be the lowest under the No Action Alternative. 

Alternative 1 would have the second lowest amount of area in a land use 

allocation with an emphasis on timber harvesting activities. Alternative 3 would 

contribute more to invasive plant species spread from timber harvesting activities 

than the other alternatives because timber harvesting and road construction would 

be most dispersed across the BLM-administered lands and would occur on a 

larger proportion of the BLM-administered lands. 

There is less potential for the introduction and spread of invasive plant species 

with larger late-successional reserves or late-successional management 

areas. Within the planning area, Alternative 1 would have 28% of the BLMadministered lands in late-successional management areas, Alternative 2 would 

have 19%, and the No Action Alternative would have 36% in late-successional 
631

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

reserves. There would be larger blocks of land in late-successional management 

areas or late-successional reserves under Alternative 1 and the No Action 

Alternative compared to Alternative 2. Therefore, less introduction and spread of 

invasive plant species would be expected under Alternative 1 and the No Action 

Alternative than under Alternative 2. 

Under Alternative 2, the BLM-administered lands in the Western Cascades 

physiographic province within the Salem District would predominately be in the 

timber management area land use allocation. There would be larger blocks of 

late-successional reserves under the No Action Alternative and late-successional 

management areas under Alternative 1. Therefore, in the Western Cascades 

province within the Salem District, the spread potential for invasive plant species 

would be higher under Alternative 2 than it would be under the No Action 

Alternative and Alternative 1. 

Invasive plant species infestations in riparian areas spread as seeds and vegetative 

propagules that are carried downstream. The risk of the spread of invasive plant 

species along riparian habitats would be higher under Alternatives 2 and 3 than 

under the No Action Alternative and Alternative 1 because more infestations that 

are associated with timber harvesting would be introduced along intermittent 

streams under Alternatives 2 and 3 with their relatively narrow riparian 

management areas widths along most of the intermittent streams.

Compared to the other alternatives, Alternative 2 would have the greatest risk of 

introducing invasive plant species infestations and Alternative 3 would have the 

greatest potential of spreading invasive plant species based the following factors: 

•	 current invasive plant species distribution 

•	 timber harvesting activity levels

•	 proximity of harvesting to streams 

•	 off-highway vehicle designations 

•	 land use allocation arrangement 

For the introduction and spread of invasive plant species, Alternative 2 would 

have the greatest number of high risk and moderate risk fifth-field watersheds 

that are associated with timber harvesting activities over the next 10 years. The 

No Action Alternative, closely followed by Alternative 1, would have the fewest. 

Alternative 3 would create the greatest risk of introducing and spreading invasive 

plant species in riparian habitats. The No Action Alternative, closely followed by 

Alternative 1, would create the lowest risk of introducing and spreading invasive 

plant species in riparian habitats. 

Under Alternative 3, invasive plant species would spread most readily. Under 

the No Action Alternative, invasive plant species would spread the least over the 

long term. Of the action alternatives, Alternative 1 would have the lowest risk of 

invasive plant species spread.
632

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Although off-highway designations favor invasive plant species introduction and 

spread under the No Action Alternative relative to the action alternatives, when 

considered in combination with timber harvesting activities and associated road 

management activities, the No Action Alternative would have the lowest overall 

potential to introduce and spread invasive plant species and Alternative 3 would 

have the greatest overall potential for introduction and spread.

Management activities on other land ownerships would also contribute to the 

amount of lands made susceptible to the introduction and spread of invasive plant 

species that are associated with timber harvesting activities, road construction, 

off-highway vehicle use, and other recreational activities. Because the BLM is 

rarely the predominate landowner within the fifth-field watersheds within the 

planning area (see the Introduction to this chapter), the overall influence that 

the BLM management activities would have on the introduction and spread of 

invasive plant species across all lands is limited. 

Mitigation Measures 

Applying the following mitigation measures would reduce the risk of the introduction 

and spread of invasive plant species that are associated with shade-reducing and soildisturbing management activities: 

•	 Use cable or aerial logging methods in fifth-field watersheds that are at high risk 

for the introduction of invasive plant species.

•	 Use clean heavy equipment on actions that would operate off of roads. 

•	 In infested areas, where the transport of invasive plant species seeds or 

propagules on heavy equipment is likely, clean the heavy equipment before 

leaving the project site, except in emergency situations. 

•	 Use weed-free straw and mulch. 

•	 Consistent with project objectives, retain native vegetation in and around project 

locations and minimize soil disturbance. 
633

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Wildlife 

This analysis examines how the alternatives would affect wildlife habitat. The requirements for 

habitat and the responses to habitat changes vary by species. The northern spotted owl is examined 

first, the marbled murrelet next, followed by deer, elk, the bald eagle, the fisher, landbirds in general, 

the western snowy plover, the sage grouse, and special status species specifically.

Key Points

Northern spotted owl:

•	 The No Action Alternative and Alternative 1 would steadily increase the total amount of suitable habitat. 

Alternative 2 would maintain approximately the current amount of suitable habitat over time. Alternative 3 would 

maintain approximately the current amount of suitable habitat for the first 20 years, and then increase the amount 

of habitat to more than Alternative 1 in 2106.

•	 The No Action Alternative, Alternative 1, and Alternative 2 would contribute to large blocks of suitable habitat to 

support clusters of reproducing owls, distributed among the physiographic provinces, and spaced so as to facilitate 

owl movement between the blocks. However, the BLM contribution to large blocks would require 50 to 100 years 

to develop into almost all suitable habitat.

•	 Alternative 3 would not contribute to large blocks of suitable habitat that support clusters of reproducing owls, 

because it would fragment suitable habitat from current conditions.

•	 During the next 50 years, while large blocks are developing into suitable habitat, the No Action Alternative would 

increase the amount of suitable habitat outside of large blocks. Alternative 1 would approximately maintain the 

amount of suitable habitat outside of large blocks. Alternative 2 would decrease the amount of suitable habitat 

outside of large blocks.

•	 No Action and Alternative 1 would maintain the current total quantity of dispersal habitat, and would increase the 

quality of dispersal habitat from current conditions. Alternative 2 would decrease the total quantity of dispersal 

habitat, and would not increase the quality of dispersal habitat. Alternative 3 would decrease the total quantity of 

dispersal habitat, but would increase the quality of dispersal habitat over time.

•	 In the Rogue-Umpqua area of concern, No Action and Alternative 1 would steadily increase the amount of suitable 

habitat over time, but Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 would decrease the amount of suitable habitat for the next 

50 years. In the South Willamette-North Umpqua and Ashland areas of concern, all alternatives would steadily 

increase the amount of suitable habitat.

Marbled Murrelet:

•	 By 2106, the quantity of marbled murrelet nesting habitat would increase under all alternatives. 

•	 In the short term (50 years) there would be a decrease in the quantity of marbled murrelet nesting habitat of 16% 

under Alternative 2 and 14% under Alternative 3 compared to the current condition.

•	 Under No Action and Alternative 1 in the Coast Range province, and No Action in the Klamath province, there would 

be an increase in the mean patch and core area size and an increase in edge density compared to current condition. 

Under Alternatives 2 and 3 there would be decreasing patch size and core area and increasing edge density. 
634

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Northern Spotted Owl

This analysis examines the effects of the alternatives on the quantity and quality 

of northern spotted owl suitable habitat and dispersal habitat. The analysis further 

examines the development, distribution and spacing of large blocks of suitable habitat 

and areas of concern. 

Effects to populations were not analyzed because population size is affected by 

numerous factors other than habitat. As described in the 2007 Draft Recovery Plan 

for the Northern Spotted Owl, the most important threat to the northern spotted owl is 

competition from the barred owl. The interaction of barred owl competition and habitat 

changes is currently unknown. 

Development of Suitable Habitat

The reference analysis for no harvest on BLM-administered lands would steadily 

increase the amount of suitable habitat to 98% of the habitat-capable acres in 

2106. The reference analysis of intensive management on most commercial 

timber lands would steadily decrease the amount of suitable habitat to 26% 

of habitat-capable acres in 2106. As shown in Figure 216 (Northern spotted 

owl suitable habitat on BLM-administered lands by alternative and reference 

analysis), all of the alternative would result in amounts of suitable habitat 

between these two reference analyses. Note that while this analysis acknowledges 

that natural disturbances will occur and affect habitat under all four alternatives, 

the specific location, timing, severity, and extent of such disturbances are 

speculative (see the Introduction to this chapter). Some management actions 

may affect the likelihood of impact from natural disturbances (see the Fire and 

Fuels section of this chapter). For example, management actions may make 

the landscape more or less vulnerable to catastrophic wildfire. However, it is 

impossible to predict where or when wildfires would occur in specific areas.
635

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Figure 216. Northern spotted owl suitable habitat on BLM-administered lands by 

alternative and reference analysis

No Action and Alternative 1 would steadily increase suitable habitat over the next 

100 years: 

•	 No Action would result in the greatest increase in suitable habitat of 

all alternatives with 76% of habitat-capable acres in suitable habitat by 

2106. 

•	 Alternative 1 would result in suitable habitat on 66% of habitat-capable 

acres in 2106. 

The subalternatives of Alternative 1 would increase the amount of suitable 

habitat compared to Alternative 1. See Table 186 (Northern spotted owl suitable 

habitat on BLM-administered lands by alternative, reference analysis, and subalternatives).

•	 The subalternative of no harvesting of stands that are older than 80 years 

would increase the amount of suitable habitat almost as much as No 

Harvest: 94% of habitat-capable acres in 2106. 

•	 The subalternative of no harvesting of stands that are older than 200 

years would result in suitable habitat on 72% of habitat-capable acres 

in 2106. 

•	 The subalternative of including all currently designated northern spotted 

owl critical habitat units with the late-successional management area 

would result in suitable habitat on 74% of habitat-capable acres in 2106 

Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 would each result in a nearly stable amount of 

suitable habitat until 2026. Alternative 2 would result in a slight increase in 

suitable habitat between 2026 and 2056, followed by a slight decrease to 51% of 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Percent of Habitat 

Capable 

No Harvest No Action

Alt 1 Alt 2

Alt 3 Intensive Management
636

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

habitat-capable lands in 2106 - an amount almost equal to the current condition. 

Alternative 3 would increase the amount of suitable habitat after 2026 to 69% of 

habitat-capable lands in 2106 – an amount slightly more than Alternative 1, but 

less than No Action.7

Table 186. Northern spotted owl suitable habitat on BLM-administered lands by 

alternative, reference analysis, and subalternative 

HabitatCapable 

Acres

Percent of Habitat Capable

(Acres)

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

No Harvest 2,196,700 49

(1,085,800)

56

(1,234,600)

64

(1,396,100)

86

(1,889,200)

98

(2,158,000)

No Action 2,196,700 49

(1,085,800)

54

(1,196,500)

59

(1,290,300)

70

(1,547,700)

76

(1,674,800)

Alternative 1 2,196,700 49

(1,085,800)

52

(1,138,800)

55

(1,198,400)

63

(1,383,700)

66

(1,457,900)

Alt 1 No Harvest 

>80 2,196,700 49(1,085,800)

56

(1,225,400)

62

(1,365,400)

81

(1,783,200)

94

(2,066,900)

Alt 1 No Harvest 

>200 2,196,700 49

(1,085,800)

52

(1,151,700)

56

(1,229,200)

66

(1,460,100)

72

(1,578,000)

Alt 1 + CHU 2,196,700 49

(1,085,800)

53

(1,159,800)

57

(1,241,700)

68

(1,487,800)

74

(1,635,400)

Alternative 2 2,196,700 49

(1,085,800)

49

(1,075,400)

50

(1,102,900)

54

(1,184,400)

51

(1,131,100)

Alternative 3 2,196,700 49

(1,085,800)

50

(1,092,000)

51

(1,119,200)

60

(1,329,000)

69

(1,512,000)

Intensive 

Management 2,196,700 49(1,085,800)

47

(1,030,800)

45

(997,000)

38

(829,700)

26

(563,100)

The changes in suitable habitat by alternative would differ among the provinces. 

See Figure 217 (Northern spotted owl suitable habitat on BLM-administered 

lands by province by alternative). In the Coast Range province, all alternatives 

would result in an increase in suitable habitat from current conditions. In the other 

provinces, the changes in suitable habitat are not consistent among alternatives. 

The No Action Alternative would:

•	 Steadily increase the amount of suitable habitat over time in the Coast 

Range, Western Cascades, and Klamath provinces. 

7

 Suitable habitat in Alternative 3 is classified by a combination of the habitat classification and the forest structural stage classification. This is because partial harvesting in Alternative 3 would create multi-cohort stands that are not accurately classified by 

the habitat classification alone. For Alternative 3, stands are classified as suitable habitat if they either are classified as such by the 

habitat classification, or if they are classified as dispersal habitat and are also classified as mature – multiple canopy or structurally complex forest by the structural stage classification. For other alternatives, the classification of suitable habitat is generally parallel with the structural stage classification of mature - multiple canopy and structurally complex forest, even though the habitat 

classification and structural stage classification used a different set of stand parameters. This combined classification is only used 

for results from the years 2056 and 2106; in the earlier years the results of the two different classification approaches are similar 

because the difference in classification is not apparent for several decades after the partial harvesting applied in Alternative 3. For 

further information, see Appendix G - Wildlife.
637

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

•	 Result in a fluctuating amount of suitable habitat in Eastern Cascades 

province, increasing until 2026, decreasing to 2056, and then increasing 

to an amount almost equal to current conditions in 2106.

Alternative 1 would:

•	 Steadily increase the amount of suitable habitat over time in the Coast 

Range, Western Cascades, and Klamath provinces, but less so than the 

No Action alternative. 

•	 Decrease the amount of suitable habitat in Eastern Cascades province.

Alternative 2 would:

•	 Increase the amount of suitable habitat over the next 50 years in the 

Coast Range and Klamath provinces. 

•	 Increase the amount of suitable habitat in the Western Cascades province 

over the next 50 years and then decrease from 50 to 100 years, resulting 

in an overall decrease from current conditions. 

•	 Decrease the amount of suitable habitat in Eastern Cascades province, 

similar to Alternative 1.

Alternative 3 would

•	 Steadily increase the amount of suitable habitat over the next 50 years in 

the Coast Range province, but less so than No Action and Alternative 1. 

•	 Maintain the current amount of suitable habitat in the Western Cascades 

province over the next 20 years, and then increase the amount of habitat 

to more than any other alternative by 100 years. 

•	 Decrease the amount of suitable habitat in the Klamath province over the 

next 20 years, and then increase habitat to more than Alternative 2. 

•	 Decrease the amount of suitable habitat in Eastern Cascades province 

more than any other alternative.
638

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Figure 217. Northern spotted owl suitable habitat on BLM-administered lands by province by alternative 

The amount of suitable habitat by designated critical habitat units is presented in 

Appendix G - Wildlife.

Large Blocks of Suitable Habitat

This section compares the development of blocks of suitable habitat on BLMadministered lands under each alternative. The distribution and spacing of those 

blocks are examined in subsequent sections. 

Northern spotted owl conservation is predicated on providing blocks of suitable 

habitat that support clusters of owls. A cluster is at least 20 breeding pairs of 

owls that support each other demographically and thereby maintain a stable 

population (Thomas et al. 1990 p. 24). The Interagency Scientific Committee 

strategy (Thomas, et al. 1990), 1994 draft northern spotted owl recovery plan 

(USDI, USFWS 1992), northern spotted owl critical habitat designation (Federal 

Register 1992a), and the Northwest Forest Plan (USDA, USDI 1994) utilized this 

principle in developing systems of large blocks of habitat. Using assumptions 

from Thomas et al. (1990), the minimum size of a block of suitable habitat varies 

among the provinces in the planning area. See Table 187 (Minimum acreage of 

large blocks of suitable habitat). 

Suitable Habitat

Coast Range

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Percent of 

Habitat 

Capable 

No Action Alt 1

Alt 2 Alt 3

Suitable Habitat

West Cascades

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Percent of 

Habitat 

Capable 

No Action Alt 1

Alt 2 Alt 3

Suitable Habitat

Klamath

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Percent of 

Habitat 

Capable No Action Alt 1

Alt 2 Alt 3

Suitable Habitat

East Cascades

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Percent of 

Habitat 

Capable 

No Action Alt 1

Alt 2 Alt 3
639

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

The land ownership pattern in most of the planning area limits the ability of 

BLM-administered lands to satisfy the minimum acreage for 20-pair blocks 

without the contribution of suitable habitat from other ownerships. In some 

parts of the planning area, suitable habitat on U.S. Forest Service lands could 

contribute along with BLM-administered lands to make a large block of suitable 

habitat. But in most of the planning area, BLM-administered lands could only 

form large blocks of suitable habitat together with nonfederal lands. Because of 

their different management objectives and different responsibilities under the 

Endangered Species Act, most nonfederal lands are unlikely to provide suitable 

habitat (Raphael et al. 2006; USDA, USDI 1994b pp. 3&4-244 – 2&4-245). 

Therefore, most potential large blocks would require that all or nearly all BLMadministered lands in the block be suitable habitat before the block would support 

clusters of the intended number of reproducing northern spotted owls. For the 

purpose of this analysis, the large blocks would not be considered functional until 

at least 90% of the BLM-administered lands are suitable habitat.

Table 187. Minimum acreage of large blocks of suitable habitat 

Province

Acres

20-pair Block 10-19-pair Block

Coast Range 70,000 35,000 – 66,500

Western Cascades 45,000 22,500 – 42,750

Klamath 55,000 25,000 – 52,250

The analysis of the Northwest Forest Plan in the Northwest Forest Plan final 

supplemental environmental impact statement and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service biological opinion concluded that the mapped late-successional reserves 

on BLM-administered lands together with the mapped late-successional reserves 

on U.S. Forest Service lands would provide large blocks of habitat capable of 

supporting self-sustaining, breeding clusters of northern spotted owls (USDA, 

USDI 199b pp. 3&4-238 - 3&4-239; Appendix G-18; G-11). That analysis is 

incorporated by reference.

The No Action alternative would allocate 809,400 acres to large blocks in latesuccessional reserves. This number underestimates the actual amount of such 

reserves since it does not exclude occupied marbled murrelet sites and other 

unmapped late-successional reserves.8

 Alternative 1 would allocate 807,400 acres 

to late-successional management areas (excluding occupied marbled murrelet 

sites) that would be almost exactly coincident with the late-successional reserves 

in the No Action Alternative. Alternative 2 would allocate 521,500 acres to latesuccessional management areas (excluding occupied marbled murrelet sites) 

- 36% less than under the No Action Alternative and Alternative 1. Alternative 3 

would allocate no late-successional management areas.

8

 Late-successional reserves in the Northwest Forest Plan were allocated for a variety of objectives, in addition to providing large 

blocks of suitable habitat for northern spotted owls: “[t]he objective of Late-successional reserves is to protect and enhance 

conditions of late-successional and old-growth forest ecosystems, which serve as habitat for late-successional and old-growth 

related species including the northern spotted owl...They are designed to incorporate key watersheds to the extent possible, while 

remaining consistent with other objectives. They also incorporate some or parts of...ecologically significant late-successional 

and old-growth forests (Northwest Forest Plan ROD, C-9).
640

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Because the mapped late-successional reserves in the No Action Alternative 

would be almost coincident with the late-successional management areas in 

Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative and Alternative 1 would provide 

essentially the same large blocks of suitable habitat.

Late-successional reserves in the No Action Alternative and late-successional 

management areas in Alternative 1 would be 300,000 acres larger than the 

late-successional management areas in Alternative 2, and would largely overlap 

the late-successional management areas in Alternative 2 (see Map 32, Overlap 

between Alternative 2 and Alternative 1 late-successional management areas). 

The overlap would not be exact: 83% of the late-successional management areas 

acres in Alternative 2 would also be allocated to late-successional reserves in the 

No Action Alternative and late-successional management areas in Alternative 1. 

Because of this considerable overlap, the No Action Alternative and Alternative 1 

would be at least as effective as Alternative 2 in developing large blocks of suitable 

habitat simply by the design of the land use allocations. The most notable exceptions 

to the overlap between the late-successional reserves in the No Action Alternative 

and late-successional management areas in Alternative 1 and the late-successional 

management areas in Alternative 2 would be the two areas (contained in Alternative 

2 only) that are northeast and southwest of Roseburg as shown in Map 32 (Overlap 

between Alternative 2 and Alternative 1 late-successional management areas). These 

two areas would be allocated mostly to Matrix in the No Action Alternative and 

Timber Management Area in Alternative 1. The area northeast of Roseburg would 

be located within the South Willamette-North Umpqua area of concern, which is 

specifically addressed below under “Areas of Concern.” 

Alternative 3 would allocate no late-successional management areas, and 

therefore this analysis cannot directly compare the creation of large blocks 

under Alternative 3 to the other alternatives. However, examination of the 

total abundance of suitable habitat and the spatial pattern analysis of mature & 

structurally complex forest (see Ecology section of this chapter) reveals that 

Alternative 3 would not create large blocks of suitable habitat. Alternative 3 

would not increase the total acreage of suitable habitat from current conditions 

on BLM-administered lands for the first twenty years and would progressively 

fragment suitable habitat compared to current conditions over the next 100 years. 

Spatial pattern analysis (see Ecology section of this chapter) analyzed 

fragmentation of mature & structurally complex forest by measuring mean patch 

size and connectance of patches. Although mature & structurally complex forest 

does not directly equate to suitable habitat, there is sufficient overlap between the 

two classifications that changes in spatial patterns would be similar (USDA, USDI 

1994b p. G-33). 9

9

 Using mature and structurally complex forest structural stage classification as a surrogate for suitable habitat likely overestimates the amount of suitable habitat by approximately 5 to 10% in most years, based on evaluation of the two classifications 

on BLM-administered lands. Nevertheless, the trends in the amount of mature and structurally complex forest and the relative 

results for the alternatives are consistent with the results for suitable habitat. Therefore, using mature and structurally complex 

forest as a surrogate for suitable habitat in the evaluation of spatial pattern is sufficient for comparative analysis of the effects 

of the alternatives.
641

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Map 32. Overlap between Alternative 2 and Alternative 1 late-successional management areas 
642

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Alternative 3 would decrease the mean patch size and connectance of mature 

& structurally complex forest from the current condition in all provinces and 

more than any other alternative (see Ecology section of this chapter). The current 

condition does not yet provide large blocks with the amounts of suitable habitat 

considered necessary to provide for the intended level of self-sustaining, breeding 

clusters of northern spotted owls in the future (USDA, USDI 1994b pp. 3&4-229 

through 242; Appendix G) and Alternative 3 would fragment suitable habitat into 

patches smaller than the current condition. Therefore, Alternative 3 would not 

provide the large blocks of suitable habitat that are necessary to provide for selfsustaining, breeding clusters of northern spotted owls. 

Development of Suitable Habitat Within Large Blocks

The development of suitable habitat within large blocks can be directly 

compared among The No Action Alternative, Alternative 1, and Alternative 

2 by summarizing the development of suitable habitat within the latesuccessional reserves or late-successional management areas at the scale of 

the planning area and the District/Province divisions (e.g. Salem/Coast Range, 

Salem/West Cascades, etc.). Although both of these scales of analysis group 

together several blocks, it allows direct comparison of the alternatives within 

the large blocks allocations.10

As is the case with the nonharvest land base as a whole, the rate of development 

of suitable habitat within late-successional reserve/late-successional management 

areas is similar under The No Action Alternative, Alternative 1, and Alternative 

2. See Table 188 (Suitable habitat within late-successional reserves/latesuccessional management areas). 

Table 188. Suitable habitat within late-successional reserves/late-successional 

management areas11

Alternatives

Habitatcapable 

acres

Percent of Habitat Capable 

(acres)

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

No Action 809,400 57 

(458,900)

61 

(490,400)

66 

(535,300)

86 

(693,100)

99 

(797,300)

Alternative 1 807,400 57 

(456,800)

60 

(485,600)

65 

(528,000)

84 

(682,000)

99 

(796,500)

Alternative 2 521,500 54 

(281,300)

58 

(300,400)

64 

(334,800)

87 

(452,400)

99 

(515,000)

The No Action Alternative, Alternative 1, and Alternative 2, when supported by 

the late-successional reserves on U.S. Forest Service lands, eventually would 

10 This analysis includes only the mapped late-successional reserves in the No Action Alternative and the portions of the Adaptive 

Management Areas in the North Coast and Applegate Adaptive Management Areas which are managed with objectives similar to 

late-successional reserves. It does not include occupied marbled murrelet sites or other unmapped late-successional reserves. 

11 Alternative 3 is not included, because it would not allocate late-successional management areas.
643

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

provide large blocks of habitat capable of supporting self-sustaining, breeding 

clusters of northern spotted owls. However, late-successional reserves/latesuccessional management areas would require about 50 years before the blocks 

will be close to the goal of having 90% of the BLM-administered lands providing 

suitable habitat in all District/Province divisions (see Table 189, Suitable within 

late-successional reserves/late-successional management areas by district/

province divisions as percent of habitat-capable acres). Note that this analysis 

does not include the effects of natural disturbances (see the Introduction section 

of this chapter).

Alternative 2 would explicitly allocate late-successional management areas in 

discrete and individually numbered blocks. Therefore, it is possible to examine 

the development of suitable habitat over time in individual blocks in Alternative 

2. This analysis of individual blocks is not possible for the No Action Alternative 

or Alternative 1, because the blocks in those alternatives are not discrete (that 

is, the boundaries between “individual” late-successional reserves or latesuccessional management area are not explicitly delineated). Furthermore, 

because the late-successional reserves in the No Action Alternative and latesuccessional management areas in Alternative 1 would largely overlap the 

late-successional management areas in Alternative 2, the effects of the No Action 

Alternative, Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 would be approximately similar 

within the areas allocated to late-successional management areas in Alternative 2.

Of the late-successional management area blocks created in Alternative 2, only 

one (LSMA-24-27) would be able to satisfy the minimum acreage for a 20-

pair block with BLM-administered lands alone (see Table 190, Development 

of suitable habitat within Alternative 2 large blocks of late-successional 

management). All other blocks would rely in part on suitable habitat on other 

ownerships within the block to meet the minimum acreage required for 20-pair 

or 10-19-pair blocks. Although the blocks in the No Action Alternative and 

Alternative 1 are not explicitly delineated, the land ownership pattern similarly 

limits the ability to satisfy the minimum acreage for 20-pair blocks with BLMadministered lands alone.
644

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Table 189. Suitable Habitat within Late-successional reserves/Late-successional management areas 

by District/Province Divisions, as percent of habitat-capable acres12

District/

Province

Alternative Habitat-capable 

acres

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Salem/

Coast Range

No Action 148,700 47 54 64 90 100

Alt 1 148,700 47 52 61 89 100

Alt 2 105,400 43 49 60 91 100

Salem/

West Cascades

No Action 53,600 61 62 63 85 100

Alt 1 53,600 61 62 63 83 100

Alt 2 -13 - - - - -

Eugene/

Coast Range

No Action 103,200 42 51 61 86 100

Alt 1 102,900 42 50 59 85 100

Alt 2 61,700 46 53 62 87 100

Eugene/

West Cascades

No Action 22,500 56 57 59 87 100

Alt 1 22,500 56 57 59 86 100

Alt 2 23,900 35 41 54 94 100

Roseburg/

Coast Range

No Action 79,500 61 63 65 81 92

Alt 1 78,200 61 63 66 78 91

Alt 2 48,900 59 61 64 80 94

Roseburg/

West Cascades

No Action 25,700 69 69 70 76 99

Alt 1 25,700 69 69 70 75 99

Alt 2 29,900 63 63 66 76 98

Roseburg/

Klamath

No Action 60,000 59 61 63 76 99

Alt 1 59,900 59 62 65 76 100

Alt 2 58,400 58 61 64 75 100

Coos Bay/

Coast Range

No Action 126,000 50 53 61 89 99

Alt 1 125,800 50 53 60 89 99

Alt 2 88,700 45 47 55 91 99

Coos Bay/

Klamath

No Action 9,000 68 69 82 97 100

Alt 1 9,000 67 69 82 97 100

Alt 2 - - - - - -

Medford/

West Cascades

No Action 21,000 57 60 61 69 96

Alt 1 21,000 57 60 60 68 96

Alt 2 - - - - - -

Medford/

Klamath

No Action 160,300 74 76 79 88 98

Alt 1 160,300 73 75 78 87 99

Alt 2 103,500 75 76 80 90 98

12 Alternative 3 is not included, because it would not allocate late-successional management areas.

13 Results are not reported where late-successional reserves or late-successional management areas total <500 acres: Salem/West 

Cascades, Coos Bay/Klamath, and Medford/West Cascades in Alternative 2, and Klamath Falls/East Cascades in all alternatives.
645

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Table 190. Development of suitable habitat within Alternative 2 large blocks of late-successional 

management areas14

LateSuccessional 

Management 

Areas

Total 

acres (all 

ownerships)

Total 

LSMA 

acres

HabitatCapable 

acres

Suitable Habitat (acres)

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

LSMA-10 70,800 100 100 - - - 100 100

LSMA-11a 75,300 26,400 25,100 7,500 9,000 12,800 22,400 24,400

LSMA-11b 46,900 30,100 28,700 19,600 19,600 19,800 22,600 28,700

LSMA-17 91,700 800 800 200 200 200 300 800

LSMA-19 55,600 400 400 300 200 300 400 400

LSMA-21a 55,000 36,200 35,100 27,200 27,600 28,500 31,000 33,900

LSMA-24-27 201,800 104,600 99,800 68,400 70,900 74,300 85,500 99,000

LSMA-26 55,200 400 400 400 400 400 400 400

LSMA-28 55,100 27,900 26,700 15,200 16,000 16,900 20,000 26,600

LSMA-29 71,400 46,300 43,900 24,000 25,300 29,700 39,900 43,400

LSMA-30 78,200 48,700 46,700 25,100 26,300 28,300 40,900 45,500

LSMA-32-34 70,300 39,400 37,100 13,500 14,400 16,500 33,000 37,000

LSMA-33 127,000 60,200 57,200 25,900 28,000 32,200 46,600 55,500

LSMA-36 58,700 26,400 25,500 12,700 16,000 19,000 23,600 25,500

LSMA-38 46,900 900 800 700 700 700 800 800

LSMA-39 70,100 25,500 24,100 14,200 15,200 17,300 21,900 24,100

LSMA-40 20,300 7,300 6,700 2,700 3,100 3,800 6,400 6,700

LSMA-41 48,200 26,400 25,000 5,400 7,900 13,700 22,800 24,700

LSMA-42 68,500 4,300 3,800 1,600 2,100 2,200 3,300 3,800

LSMA-43 72,600 37,000 33,600 16,500 17,200 18,100 30,500 33,600

Total 1,439,700 549,200 521,500 281,300 300,400 334,800 452,400 515,000

Figure 218 (Suitable habitat within Alternative 2 large blocks of latesuccessional management areas by province) also shows the development of 

suitable habitat as a percent of the habitat-capable acres on BLM-administered 

lands within the individual blocks of late-successional management area. Only 

those 9 blocks for which BLM-administered lands constitute at least 10% of the 

total acres in the block are shown. Data for the amount of suitable habitat in the 

remaining 11 blocks is shown in Table 190 above.

Under the current condition, suitable habitat averages 54% of habitat-capable 

acres in the Alternative 2 late-successional management areas. By 2026, the 

average amount of suitable habitat would increase to 64%, ranging from 44% 

to 81% on blocks with at least 10% BLM-administered lands. By 2056, average 

amount of suitable habitat would increase to 87%, ranging from 75% to 95% on 

blocks with at least 10% BLM-administered lands. All blocks would develop 

suitable habitat on 97% to 100% of habitat-capable acres by 2106. 

14 For most acreage numbers in this analysis, descriptions of conditions are rounded to the nearest 1,000 acres. However, these results 

are rounded to the nearest 100 acres because several individual blocks have less than 1,000 acres of late-successional management area.
646

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

All of the individual blocks under Alternative 2 eventually would provide large 

blocks of habitat capable of supporting self-sustaining, breeding clusters of 

northern spotted owls. However, all blocks would require 50 years before reaching 

the threshold of 90% of BLM-administered lands providing suitable habitat. 

Figure 218. Suitable Habitat within Alternative 2 large blocks of late-successional management areas by province 

Coast Range Province Coast Range Province:

LSMA-29 

Nesting, Roosting, and Foraging Habitat

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Percent of Habitat 

Capable Acres

LSMA-30 

Nesting, Roosting, and Foraging Habitat

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Percent of Habitat 

Capable Acres

LSMA-32-34 

Nesting, Roosting, and Foraging Habitat

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Percent of Habitat 

Capable Acres

LSMA-33 

Nesting, Roosting, and Foraging Habitat

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Percent of Habitat 

Capable Acres

LSMA-43 

Nesting, Roosting, and Foraging Habitat

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Percent of Habitat 

Capable Acres
647

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Western Cascades province:

Klamath Province:

West Cascade Province

Klamath Province

LSMA-11a 

Nesting, Roosting, and Foraging Habitat

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Percent of Habitat 

Capable Acres

LSMA-11b 

Nesting, Roosting, and Foraging Habitat

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Percent of Habitat 

Capable Acres

LSMA-24-27 

Nesting, Roosting, and Foraging Habitat

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Percent of Habitat 

Capable Acres

LSMA-21a 

Nesting, Roosting, and Foraging Habitat

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Percent of Habitat 

Capable Acres

LSMA-28 

Nesting, Roosting, and Foraging Habitat

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Percent of Habitat 

Capable Acres

West Cascade Province

Klamath Province

LSMA-11a 

Nesting, Roosting, and Foraging Habitat

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Percent of Habitat 

Capable Acres

LSMA-11b 

Nesting, Roosting, and Foraging Habitat

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Percent of Habitat 

Capable Acres

LSMA-24-27 

Nesting, Roosting, and Foraging Habitat

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Percent of Habitat 

Capable Acres

LSMA-21a 

Nesting, Roosting, and Foraging Habitat

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Percent of Habitat 

Capable Acres

LSMA-28 

Nesting, Roosting, and Foraging Habitat

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Percent of Habitat 

Capable Acres
648

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Examining the development of large blocks of suitable habitat from the two 

perspectives shows the same result: the No Action Alternative, Alternative 1, and 

Alternative 2 would all eventually contribute to blocks suitable habitat capable of 

supporting self-sustaining, breeding clusters of northern spotted owls. 

•	 The late-successional management areas under Alternative 2 would 

generally be limited to those needed to provide for large blocks of 

suitable habitat, and therefore would allocate fewer acres to latesuccessional management areas than the No Action Alternative or 

Alternative 1. 

•	 In all three alternatives, the development of suitable habitat would 

proceed at the same pace and would take 50 years before the BLM 

contribution to large blocks would be almost entirely (90%) in 

suitable habitat. 

•	 The No Action Alternative and Alternative 1 would allocate 300,000 

additional acres beyond the large blocks to late-successional reserve/

late-successional management areas, but these additional acres would not 

make large blocks of suitable habitat develop more quickly than under 

Alternative 2.

The land ownership pattern of BLM-administered lands and the current forest 

condition restrict the capability to speed the development of large blocks of 

suitable habitat by allocating additional acres to late-successional management 

areas. The additional acres of late-successional reserves in the No Action 

Alternative and late-successional management areas in Alternative 1 would result 

in more total acres of suitable habitat than Alternative 2, but would not result in 

faster development or a higher proportion of suitable habitat within large blocks. 

Because it would take 50-100 years before the BLM contribution to large blocks 

would be almost entirely suitable habitat, habitat outside of large blocks would 

be important to owl populations until habitat within the blocks is capable of 

supporting clusters of reproducing owls (see “Suitable Habitat Outside of Large 

Blocks” later in this section). 

Large Block Distribution

This section evaluates how blocks of suitable habitat would be distributed across 

a variety of ecological conditions under each alternative. Thomas et al. (1990) 

noted that species that are well distributed across their range are less prone to 

extinction than species confined to small portions of their range. Therefore, 

conservation planning for northern spotted owls includes distribution of large 

blocks of suitable habitat among the provinces. 
649

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

The No Action Alternative would allocate to late successional reserves:

•	 478,200 acres (60% of BLM-administered lands) in the Coast Range 

province, 

•	 131,400 acres (19% of BLM-administered lands) in the Western 

Cascades province,

•	 239,300 acres (29% of BLM-administered lands) in the Klamath 

province. 

Alternative 1 would allocate Late-successional management areas: 

•	 476,200 acres (60% of BLM-administered lands) in the Coast Range 

province,

•	 131,300 acres (19% of BLM-administered lands) in the Western 

Cascades province, 

•	 239,200 acres (29% of BLM-administered lands) in the Klamath 

province. 

Alternative 2 would allocate Late-successional management areas: 

•	 322,400 acres (41% of BLM-administered lands) in the Coast Range 

province,

•	 57,100 acres (8% of BLM-administered lands) in the Western Cascades 

province,

•	 169,500 acres (20% of BLM-administered lands) in the Klamath 

province.

None of the alternatives would allocate large blocks in the Eastern Cascades 

province. The BLM-administered lands in the East Cascades make up only 2% 

of the habitat-capable acres within the planning area. The Northwest Forest Plan 

allocated late-successional reserves on U.S. Forest Service lands in the Eastern 

Cascades province and it is assumed that they will remain in place. 

The No Action Alternative, Alternative 1, and Alternative 2 would all distribute 

large blocks among the Coast Range, Western Cascades, and Klamath provinces 

and therefore would provide habitat across a variety of ecological conditions (see 

Figure 219, Acres of late-successional reserve/late-successional management 

area allocated by province). This is consistent with the analysis of the No Action 

Alternative in the Northwest Forest Plan FSEIS, which concluded that the latesuccessional reserves would provide large blocks of habitat distributed among 

the provinces (USDA, USDI 1994b pp. 3&4-231 – 3&4-232). That analysis is 

incorporated by reference.
650

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Figure 219. Acres of late-successional reserve/late-successional management area 

allocated by province

As shown in Figure 220 (Percentage of late-successional reserve/latesuccessional management area acres allocated by province), Alternative 

2 would allocate a smaller acreage of BLM-administered lands to latesuccessional management areas in the Coast Range, Western Cascades, and 

Klamath provinces than the No Action Alternative and Alternative 1. However, 

the percent of the total late-successional management area allocated to each 

province would be similar to the No Action Alternative and Alternative 1, 

with a slight increase in the Coast Range and Klamath provinces and a slight 

decrease in the Western Cascades province. 

Alternative 3 would not provide large blocks of suitable habitat necessary to 

provide for self-sustaining, breeding clusters of northern spotted owls, and 

therefore the distribution of large blocks is not relevant to Alternative 3. Suitable 

habitat would develop as a consequence of long-rotation timber management, but 

it would be in a dispersed pattern rather than consolidated into large blocks.

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

900,000

Coast Range West Cascades

West

Klamath East Cascades

Acres

Total BLM acres No Action LSR Alt 1 LSMA Alt 2 LSMA
651

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Figure 220. Percentage of late-successional reserve/late-successional management area acres allocated by province

Large Block Spacing

This section evaluates how blocks of suitable habitat would be spaced under each 

alternative. Thomas et al. (1990) and the Northwest Forest Plan determined that 

blocks of habitat should be of sufficient size to support 20 breeding pairs of northern 

spotted owl, should be spaced no more than 12 miles apart, and that smaller blocks 

should be spaced no more than 7 miles apart (USDA, USDI 1994b p. G-28). 

The large blocks of suitable habitat that would be created under the No Action 

Alternative and Alternative 1 would be virtually identical. When supported by 

the large blocks of suitable habitat on U.S. Forest Service lands, the large blocks 

created under these two alternatives would be spaced so as to facilitate owl 

movement between the blocks. See Map 33 (No Action Alternative/Alternative 

1 spacing of late-successional reserves/late-successional management areas). 

This is consistent with the analysis of the No Action Alternative in the Northwest 

Forest Plan FSEIS, which concluded that the late-successional reserves would 

provide large blocks of habitat distributed among the provinces (USDA, USDI 

1994b pp. 3&4-231 – 3&4-232). That analysis is incorporated by reference.

No Action

15.48%

28.19%

0.00%

56.33%

Coast Range West Cascades

Klamath East Cascades

Alternative 1

56.24%

15.51%

28.25%

0.00%

Coast Range West Cascades

Klamath East Cascades

Alternative 2

58.70%

10.41%

30.86%

0.04%

Coast Range West Cascades

Klamath East Cascades
652

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Late-successional management areas in Alternative 2 were allocated explicitly 

to create spacing of no more than 12 miles between blocks large enough to 

support 20 pairs, and to create spacing of no more than 7 miles between blocks 

large enough to support 10-19 pairs with the support of large blocks of suitable 

habitat on U.S. Forest Service lands. See Map 34 (Alternative 2 spacing of latesuccessional management areas). 

Alternative 3 would not provide large blocks of suitable habitat, even when 

supported by the large blocks of suitable habitat on U.S. Forest Service lands. 

Therefore the analysis of spacing of large blocks is not relevant to Alternative 3. 
653

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Map 33. No Action Alternative/Alternative 1 spacing of late-successional reserves/late-successional management areas
654

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Map 34. Alternative 2 spacing of late-successional management areas
655

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Suitable Habitat Outside of Large Blocks

The availability of suitable habitat outside of the large blocks is important 

because owl populations would need to rely on suitable habitat outside of the 

large blocks until habitat within the blocks is capable of supporting clusters of 

reproducing owls (Lint 2005, p. 75). 

The amount of suitable habitat outside of the large blocks would differ widely 

among the alternatives as a result of differing amounts of riparian management 

area acres and differing management direction within the harvest land base. 

The late-successional reserves/late-successional management areas have a 

higher proportion of suitable habitat than the other land use allocations in each 

alternative. However, there are currently more total acres of suitable habitat 

outside of late-successional reserves/late-successional management areas than 

within late-successional reserves/late-successional management areas in the No 

Action Alternative, Alternative 1, and Alternative 2. 

Although the development of suitable habitat within large blocks is similar 

among the No Action Alternative, Alternative 1, and Alternative 2, the 

development and maintenance of suitable habitat outside of large blocks would 

differ among the alternatives. See Table 191 (Acres of suitable habitat outside 

of late-successional reserves/late-successional management areas) and Figure 

221 (Suitable habitat outside of late-successional reserves/late-successional 

management areas, as percentage of habitat-capable acres). 

•	 Under the No Action Alternative the percentage of suitable habitat 

outside of large blocks would increase. 

•	 Under Alternative 1 the percentage of suitable habitat outside of large 

blocks would be maintained at the current level. 

•	 Under Alternative 2 the percentage of suitable habitat outside of large 

blocks would decrease. 

Table 191. Acres of suitable habitat outside of late-successional reserves/latesuccessional management areas15

Alternative

HabitatCapable 

acres

Percent of Habitat Capable 

(acres)

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

No Action 1,404,000 47 

(661,300)

50 

(706,100)

54 

(755,000)

61 

(854,700)

62 

(877,500)

Alt 1 1,406,000 45 

(637,900)

46 

(653,200)

48 

(670,400)

50 

(701,700)

47 

(661,400)

Alt 2 1,675,000 48 

(808,100)

46 

(774,900)

46 

(767,900)

44 

(731,800)

37 

(615,900)

Alt 3 2,196,700 49 

(1,085,800)

50 

(1,092,000)

51 

(1,119,200)

60 

(1,329,000)

69 

(1,512,000)

15 For Alternative 3, this figure presents the amount of suitable habitat on all BLM-administered lands, because Alternative 3 does 

not allocate late-successional management areas.
656

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Under the No Action Alternative the percentage of suitable habitat outside of the 

large blocks over the next 100 years would increase because: 

•	 more acres would be allocated to riparian reserves than the riparian 

management areas in any of the action alternatives; 

•	 green trees would be retained within the harvest land base, which 

would speed the redevelopment of suitable habitat after timber harvest 

compared to Alternative 1 and Alternative 2; and 

•	 the harvest of suitable habitat within the harvest land base would be 

more constrained than in Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 (see the Ecology 

section of this chapter).

Under Alternative 1 the percentage of suitable habitat outside of the large 

blocks would increase over the next 50 years (though less than the No Action 

Alternative), and then would decrease to an amount only slightly above the 

current condition in 2106. 

Under Alternative 2, the percentage of suitable habitat outside of large blocks 

would steadily decrease over the next 100 years. Alternative 2 would result in a 

lower percentage of suitable habitat outside of large blocks than Alternative 1, 

because Alternative 2 would allocate fewer acres to riparian management areas. 

Under Alternative 3, the percentage of suitable habitat within the harvest land 

base would be the highest of all alternatives after 2056 because of green tree 

retention and the long-rotation constraint on harvest. Since Alternative 3 would 

allocate no late-successional management areas, it would create and maintain less 

total suitable habitat than the No Action Alternative and Alternative 1 until 2106.
657

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Figure 221. Suitable habitat outside of late-successional reserves/late-successional 

management areas, as percentage of habitat-capable acres16

The amount of suitable habitat outside of late-successional reserves/latesuccessional management areas at the scale of the District/Province divisions is 

shown in Figure 222 (Suitable habitat outside of late-successional reserves/latesuccessional management areas, by district/province divisions, as percentage 

of habitat-capable acres). The amount is generally consistent with the overall 

pattern at the planning area scale. As Figure 222 shows:

•	 In almost all District/Province divisions, the No Action Alternative 

and Alternative 3 would increase the amount of suitable habitat, and 

Alternative 2 would decrease the amount of suitable habitat. 

•	 In all District/Province divisions except Klamath Falls/Eastern Cascades, 

Alternative 2 would result in the least suitable habitat outside of latesuccessional management areas. 

•	 In Roseburg/Coast Range, Roseburg/West Cascades, Roseburg/Klamath, 

Coos Bay/Coast Range, and Coos Bay/Klamath, Alternative 1 would 

show a pattern similar to the No Action Alternative, but elsewhere would 

show a pattern similar to Alternative 2. 

16 For Alternative 3, this table presents the amount of suitable habitat on all BLM-administered lands, because Alternative 3 does 

not allocate Late-successional management areas.

Suitable Habitat Outside LSR/LSMA

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Percent of Habitat 

Capable No Action Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3
658

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Figure 222. Suitable habitat outside of late-successional reserves/late-successional management areas, by 

district/province divisions, as percentage of habitat-capable acres 

Salem/Coast Range

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Percent of 

Habitat Capable

No Action Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3

Eugene/West Cascades

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Percent of 

Habitat Capable

No Action Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3

Roseburg/Coast Range

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Percent of Habitat 

Capable

No Action Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3

Salem/West Cascades

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Percent of 

Habitat Capable

No Action Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3

Eugene/Coast Range

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Percent of 

Habitat Capable

No Action Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3

Roseburg/West Cascades

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Percent of 

Habitat Capable

No Action Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3
659

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Roseburg/Klamath

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Percent of 

Habitat Capable

No Action Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3

Coos Bay/Coast Range

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Percent of 

Habitat Capable

No Action Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3

Coos Bay/Klamath

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Percent of 

Habitat Capable

No Action Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3

Medford/West Cascades

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Percent of 

Habitat Capable

No Action Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3

Medford/Klamath

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Percent of 

Habitat Capable

No Action Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3

Klamath Falls/East Cascades

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Percent of 

Habitat Capable

No Action Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3
660

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Dispersal Habitat

This section evaluates whether dispersal habitat conditions within and between 

large blocks of suitable habitat would facilitate owl movement between the 

blocks. Dispersal habitat is comprised of both suitable habitat and additional 

habitat that supports only owl dispersal. The quality of dispersal quality increases 

with the portion of that habitat that is comprised of suitable habitat (see the 

Wildlife section of Chapter 3). 

This analysis describes dispersal habitat at three scales: 

•	 the quantity and quality of dispersal habitat on BLM-administered lands 

for the entire planning area;

•	 the quantity and quality of dispersal habitat on BLM-administered lands 

by the District/Province divisions; and

•	 the quantity of dispersal habitat across all ownerships by sixth-field 

watersheds. 

The analysis by sixth-field watersheds is at a scale similar to the quarter-township 

scale (approximately 5,760 acres) of the original 50-11-40 rule (see Chapter 3 – 

Wildlife). The analysis by sixth-field watershed includes all land ownerships.

While the total quantity of dispersal habitat (dispersal habitat only and suitable 

habitat) on BLM-administered lands across the entire planning area would 

remain high under all alternatives, the quality of the dispersal habitat would differ 

among the alternatives. See Figure 223 (Dispersal habitat conditions on BLMadministered lands across the planning area by alternative).

Under the No Action Alternative, the amount of total dispersal habitat would 

remain almost constant over time, fluctuating between 87% and 92% of habitatcapable acres on BLM-administered lands across the entire planning area. The 

amount of suitable habitat, however, would steadily increase over time, until it 

would constitute 76% of habitat-capable acres in 2106. Therefore, the No Action 

Alternative would maintain the current total quantity of dispersal habitat, and 

would increase the quality of dispersal habitat over time because the proportion 

of dispersal habitat that is suitable habitat would increase.

Under Alternative 1, the amount of total dispersal habitat would also remain almost 

constant over time, although fluctuating between 85% and 90% of habitat-capable 

acres on BLM-administered lands. The amount of suitable habitat, however, would 

steadily increase over time, but less so than under the No Action Alternative: suitable 

habitat would constitute 66% of habitat-capable acres in 2106. Therefore, like the 

No Action Alternative, Alternative 1 would maintain the current total quantity of 

dispersal habitat, and would increase the quality of dispersal habitat over time.
661

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Under Alternative 2, the amount of total dispersal habitat would decrease, although 

it would fall only to 77% of habitat-capable acres on BLM-administered lands by 

2056 and then increase to 82% by 2106). However, the amount of suitable habitat 

would not increase over time as in the No Action Alternative and Alternative 

1; it would fluctuate between 49% and 53% to end at 49% by 2106. Therefore, 

Alternative 2 would decrease the total quantity of dispersal habitat, and would 

maintain approximately the current quality of dispersal habitat over time. 

Alternative 3 would not create large blocks of suitable habitat, and the conservation 

need for dispersal habitat is predicated on a large block design. Therefore, dispersal 

habitat under Alternative 3 would not have the same relevance as under the other 

alternatives, and the analysis of dispersal habitat under Alternative 3 is provided 

here to provide comparison to the other alternatives. 

Under Alternative 3, the amount of total dispersal habitat would steadily decrease 

to eventually reach the same total amount as Alternative 2 - 82% in 2106. 

However, unlike Alternative 2, the amount of suitable habitat would increase over 

time. After remaining stable for the first 20 years, the amount of suitable habitat 

would increase to 69% of habitat-capable acres - slightly more than Alternative 1. 

Therefore, Alternative 3 would decrease the total quantity of dispersal habitat, but 

eventually would increase the quality of dispersal habitat over time.

Figure 223. Dispersal habitat conditions on BLM-administered lands across the planning 

area by alternative

 No Action

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Acres

Nesting, Roosting, and Foraging Habitat Dispersal Only Non-Habitat

Alternative 1

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Acres

Nesting, Roosting, and Foraging Habitat Dispersal Only Non-Habitat

 Alternative 2

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Acres

Nesting, Roosting, and Foraging Habitat Dispersal Only Non-Habitat

 Alternative 3

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Acres

Nesting, Roosting, and Foraging Habitat Dispersal Only Non-Habitat
662

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Under the No Action Alternative, Alternative 1, and Alternative 2, the changes 

in dispersal habitat quantity and quality at the district/province divisions would 

generally be consistent with the overall changes across the planning area, with 

the following slight variations: 

•	 The No Action Alternative would result in a decrease in dispersal 

quantity in Roseburg/West Cascades, Medford/Western Cascades, and 

Medford/Klamath, although dispersal quality would increase.

•	 Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 would result in a decrease in dispersal 

quantity and quality in Klamath/Eastern Cascades. 

•	 Alternative 2 would result in an increase in dispersal quality in the 

Salem/Coast Range, Eugene/Coast Range, and Coos Bay/Coast Range, 

because Alternative 2 would allocate more acres to late-successional 

management areas in the Coast Range than any other province. 

However, the increase in dispersal quantity and quality in the Coast 

Range under Alternative 2 would still be less than under the No Action 

Alternative and Alternative 1.

•	 Alternative 2 would result in a decrease in dispersal quantity and 

quality in Salem/Western Cascades, because it would allocate no latesuccessional management areas in Salem/Western Cascades.

Under Alternative 3, the changes in dispersal habitat quantity and quality would 

vary among the district/province divisions: 

•	 In Roseburg/Coast Range and Roseburg/Western Cascades, dispersal 

quantity and quality would decrease until 2056, and then increase from 

2056 to 2106. 

•	 In Roseburg/Klamath, dispersal quality would fluctuate, but total 

dispersal quantity would decrease to 64% of habitat-capable acres in 

2106 - lower than any other district/province divisions in any alternative. 

•	 In Coos Bay/Coast Range, dispersal quantity and quality would increase 

until 2056, and then decrease from 2056 to 2106. 

•	 In Klamath/Eastern Cascades, Alternative 3 would result in an increase 

in total dispersal quantity and a substantial decrease in dispersal quality – 

suitable habitat would decrease to 28% of habitat-capable acres in 2056. 

•	 In other district/province divisions, the changes would generally be 

consistent with the overall changes across the planning area: a slight 

decrease in total dispersal habitat quantity and an increase in dispersal 

habitat quality. 

Data on each district/province division by alternative is provided in Appendix 

G, Wildlife.

The evaluation of dispersal habitat across all ownerships requires use of the 

structural stage classifications, rather than the habitat classification, because the 
663

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

habitat classification relies on some stand parameters that are not available for 

non-BLM lands, such as snag and coarse woody debris levels. The structural 

stages of young, mature, and structurally complex forest approximate dispersal 

habitat. The lower threshold for young forest is not exactly equivalent to the 

lower limit of dispersal habitat: the use of young, mature, and structurally 

complex forest probably overestimates dispersal habitat for stands without 

structural legacies and underestimates dispersal habitat for stands with structural 

legacies. Nevertheless, the structural stages are a close enough approximation of 

dispersal habitat to compare the relative effects of the alternatives and evaluate 

changes in dispersal habitat over time.

Currently, 35% of sixth-field watersheds have more than 50% dispersal habitat. 

See Figure 224 (Current conditions of dispersal habitat across all ownerships 

by sixth-field watershed). The percentage of sixth-field watersheds that would 

have more than 50% dispersal habitat would increase under all alternatives over 

time. The percentage of sixth-field watersheds that would have 25-50% dispersal 

habitat would decrease under all alternatives over time. The percentage of sixthfield watersheds that would have less than 10% or 10-25% dispersal habitat 

would change very little over time under all alternatives. 

For the reference analysis of allow no harvest on BLM-administered lands, the 

percentage of sixth-field watersheds that would have more than 50% dispersal 

habitat would increase to 44% in 2056 and would stay at that level until 2106. 

The percentage of sixth-field watersheds that would have more than 50% 

dispersal habitat would increase in 2106 to 41% under the No Action Alternative; 

40% under Alternative 1; 39% under Alternative 2; and 38% under Alternative 3. 

Most of the sixth-field watersheds that would become more than 50% dispersal 

habitat in 2106 include U.S. Forest Service lands, especially in the Siskiyou 

National Forest and Siuslaw National Forest. See Figure 225 (Dispersal habitat 

across all ownerships by sixth-field watershed for the no harvest reference 

analysis 2106). 
664

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Figure 224. Current condition of dispersal habitat across all land ownerships by sixth-field watershed
665

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Figure 225. Dispersal habitat by 2106 across all land ownerships by six-field watershed for the no 

harvest reference analysis
666

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Areas of Concern

This section evaluates the amount of total dispersal habitat and the amount 

of suitable habitat within the Areas of Concern on BLM-administered lands 

and across all ownerships. See Table 192 (Total dispersal habitat on BLMadministered lands in areas of concern); and Table 193 (Suitable habitat on 

BLM-administered lands in areas of concern). 

The areas of concern have limited federal ownership, which limits the ability 

of the federal land base to support the movement of northern spotted owl 

populations between the provinces. The three areas of concern are South 

Willamette-North Umpqua, Rogue-Umpqua, and Ashland (see the Wildlife 

section of Chapter 3). As with dispersal habitat, there are no explicit thresholds 

for habitat conditions with the areas of concern below which owl movement 

would be disrupted, but the ability of habitat conditions within an area of concern 

to maintain genetic interchange between northern spotted owl populations 

would increase with increasing amounts of total dispersal habitat, and increasing 

amounts of suitable habitat.

The evaluation of dispersal and suitable habitat on BLM-administered lands in 

the areas of concern uses the habitat classification directly. However, evaluation 

of dispersal and suitable habitat across all ownerships requires use of the forest 

structural stage classification, rather than the habitat classification, as explained 

above for the large block analysis of Alternative 3 and the analysis of dispersal 

habitat across all ownerships. Young, mature, and structurally complex forest 

structural stage classifications are used as a surrogate for total dispersal habitat, 

and mature and structurally complex forest structural stage classifications are 

used as a surrogate for suitable habitat. There are some differences in absolute 

results between the habitat classifications of BLM-administered lands in the 

areas of concern and the structural stage classifications of all ownerships, but the 

relative results and trends are generally similar.
667

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Table 192. Total dispersal habitat on BLM-administered lands in areas of concern

Area of 

Concern

Habitatcapable 

acres

Percent of Habitat-Capable Acres

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

South 

WillametteNorth 

Umpqua

251,100

No Harvest 85 95 98 100 100

No Action 85 93 94 90 89

Alt 1 85 92 92 89 92

Alt 2 85 90 88 84 88

Alt 3 85 89 87 78 83

RogueUmpqua 224,400

No Harvest 86 90 95 100 100

No Action 86 86 87 83 84

Alt 1 86 86 88 84 89

Alt 2 86 84 84 77 87

Alt 3 86 81 78 70 65

Ashland 62,000

No Harvest 89 92 93 100 100

No Action 89 90 89 90 86

Alt 1 89 89 89 89 90

Alt 2 89 90 89 89 88

Alt 3 89 92 92 98 98

Table 193. Suitable Habitat on BLM-administered Lands in areas of concern

Area of 

Concern

Habitatcapable 

Acres

Percent of Habitat-capable Acres

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

South 

WillametteNorth 

Umpqua

251,100

No Harvest 44 50 57 85 100

No Action 44 48 54 73 77

Alt 1 44 46 50 64 68

Alt 2 44 45 46 58 58

Alt 3 44 45 46 60 77

RogueUmpqua 224,400

No Harvest 54 58 63 82 99

No Action 54 55 56 64 74

Alt 1 54 54 56 61 70

Alt 2 54 52 52 54 60

Alt 3 54 49 47 52 57

Ashland 62,000

No Harvest 51 57 61 72 86

No Action 51 64 66 69 71

Alt 1 51 59 56 59 66

Alt 2 51 54 56 60 65

Alt 3 51 55 56 61 81
668

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

In the South Willamette-North Umpqua area of concern, the current 

amount of total dispersal habitat is 85% of habitat-capable acres on BLMadministered lands and 50% across all ownerships. As Table 192 (Total 

dispersal habitat on BLM-administered lands in areas of concern) and Figure 

226 (South Willamette-North Umpqua area of concern: total dispersal habitat 

across all ownerships) show: 

•	 The reference analysis of allow no harvest on BLM-administered lands 

would result in dispersal habitat on 53% of habitat-capable acres across 

all ownerships in 2106. 

•	 The amount of total dispersal habitat would fluctuate under all 

alternatives, but the alternatives would differ by less than 4% in the 

amount of dispersal habitat across all ownerships. 

•	 The No Action Alternative is the only alternative that would not decrease 

total dispersal habitat from current conditions over the next 100 years. 

•	 Alternative 1 would decrease total dispersal habitat in 2056, but increase 

to the same amount as the No Action Alternative in 2106. 

•	 Alternative 3 would initially increase the amount of total dispersal 

habitat but would decrease to the lowest amount of all alternatives. 

All alternatives would increase the amount of suitable habitat on BLMadministered lands and across all ownerships in the South Willamette-North 

Umpqua area of concern. See Table 193 (Suitable habitat on BLM-administered 

lands in areas of concern) and Figure 227 (South Willamette-North Umpqua area 

of concern: suitable habitat across all ownerships). 

•	 Consistent with the overall trend for the planning area, the No Action 

Alternative would result in the most suitable habitat. 

•	 Alternative 2 would result in the least suitable habitat. 

•	 The difference among the alternatives would be less than 3% across all 

ownerships. 

Note that even though Alternative 2 located several late-successional 

management area blocks within this area of concern, Alternative 2 would not 

create as much dispersal habitat or suitable habitat as the No Action Alternative 

or Alternative 1 in the area of concern. 
669

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Figure 226. South Willamette-North Umpqua area of concern: Total Dispersal Habitat 

across All Ownerships

Figure 227. South Willamette-North Umpqua area of concern: suitable habitat across all 

ownerships* 

*Note change in range of y-axis values

46

48

50

52

54

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Percent Habitat 

Capable

No Harvest No Action Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

38

40

42

44

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Percent Habitat 

Capable

No Harvest No Action Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3
670

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

In the Rogue-Umpqua area of concern, the current amount of total dispersal 

habitat is 86% of habitat-capable acres on BLM-administered lands (almost the 

same as in South Willamette-North Umpqua area of concern) and 60% across 

all ownerships (much higher than in the South Willamette-North Umpqua area 

of concern). See Table 192 (Total dispersal habitat on BLM-administered Lands 

in areas of concern) and Figure 228 (Rogue- Umpqua area of concern: total 

dispersal habitat across all ownerships). 

•	 The reference analysis of allow no harvest on BLM-administered lands 

would result in dispersal habitat on 65% of habitat-capable acres across 

all ownerships in 2106. 

•	 The amount of total dispersal habitat would fluctuate under all 

alternatives, but the difference among the alternatives would result in less 

than a 4% difference across all ownerships. 

•	 As in the South Willamette-North Umpqua area of concern, the No 

Action Alternative is the only alternative that would not decrease total 

dispersal habitat from current conditions.

•	 Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 would decrease total dispersal habitat 

in 2056, but increase to the same amount as the No Action Alternative 

in 2106. 

•	 Alternative 3 would initially increase the amount of total dispersal 

habitat but would decrease to the lowest amount of all alternatives. 

The current amount of suitable habitat (54% of habitat capable acres on BLMadministered lands and 47% on all ownerships) is higher than in the other Areas 

of Concern. As shown in Table 193 (Suitable habitat on BLM-administered 

lands in areas of concern) and Figure 229 (Rogue-Umpqua area of concern: total 

suitable habitat across all ownerships):

•	 Under all alternatives, the amount of suitable habitat across all 

ownerships would decrease for the first twenty years, and then increase 

after 2026. 

•	 The No Action Alternative, Alternative 1, and Alternative 2 would 

increase the amount of suitable habitat in 2106 from current levels. 

•	 Alternative 3 would result in approximately the same amount of suitable 

habitat across all ownerships in 2106 as the current condition. 

•	 All alternatives would result in a 10% decrease in the amount of suitable 

habitat across all ownerships in 2106 – a bigger decrease than in the 

other Areas of Concern. 
671

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Figure 228. Rogue-Umpqua area of concern: total dispersal habitat across all 

ownerships

Figure 229. Rogue-Umpqua area of concern: suitable habitat across all ownerships.*

*Note change in range of y-axis values.

54

56

58

60

62

64

66

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Percent Habitat 

Capable

No Harvest No Action Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3

42

44

46

48

50

52

54

56

58

60

62

64

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Percent Habitat 

Capable

No Harvest No Action Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3
672

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

In the Ashland area of concern, the current amount of total dispersal habitat is 

89% of habitat-capable acres on BLM-administered lands and 61% across all 

ownerships - higher than in the other Areas of Concern. See Table 192 (Total 

Dispersal Habitat on BLM-administered Lands in Areas of Concern) and Figure 

230 (South Willamette-North Umpqua area of concern: total dispersal habitat 

across all ownerships). 

•	 The reference analysis of “Allow No Harvest” on BLM-administered 

lands would result in dispersal habitat on 63% of habitat-capable acres 

across all ownerships in 2106. 

•	 The amount of total dispersal habitat would decrease from current 

conditions under all alternatives. 

•	 There is a 4% difference among the alternatives across all ownerships. 

•	 As in the other Areas of Concern, the No Action Alternative would result 

in the most total dispersal habitat, and Alternative 3 would result in the 

least total dispersal habitat of all alternatives. 

All alternatives would increase the amount of suitable habitat in the Ashland 

area of concern. See Table 193 (Suitable habitat on BLM-administered lands 

in areas of concern) and Figure 231 (Ashland area of concern: suitable habitat 

across all ownerships). 

•	 The No Action Alternative would consistently result in at least 4% more 

suitable habitat than other alternatives. 

•	 Unlike in other Areas of Concern and the planning area as a whole, 

Alternative 1 would result in approximately the same amount of suitable 

habitat as Alternative 2 and both would be less than the No Action 

Alternative and Alternative 3 in 2106. 
673

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Figure 230. Ashland area of concern: total dispersal habitat across all ownerships

Figure 231. Ashland area of concern: suitable habitat across all ownerships* 

*Note change in range of y-axis values.

54

56

58

60

62

64

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Percent Habitat 

Capable

No Harvest No Action Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3

34

36

38

40

42

44

46

48

50

52

54

56

58

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Percent Habitat 

Capable

No Harvest No Action Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3
674

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Marbled Murrelet

This analysis describes the abundance and development of marbled murrelet nesting 

habitat and the patch dynamics of marbled murrelet nesting habitat. 

Effects to populations were not analyzed because population size is affected by numerous 

factors other than habitat. A large portion of the marbled murrelet life cycle is tied to 

at-sea conditions including food supplies and mortality due to oil spills. Changes in 

sea conditions are likely to vary widely over the next 100 years. The interaction of sea 

conditions and habitat changes is currently unknown. 

Surveys and Marbled Murrelet Sites

Under all alternatives, known, occupied marbled murrelet sites would receive 

protection from harvest. There are currently 226 known, occupied marbled murrelet 

sites on BLM-administered lands. These sites were found between 1993 and 2006. 

The No Action Alternative includes management direction that would require 

marbled murrelet surveys prior to any habitat-disturbing activities which is 

consistent with the recommendation in the marbled murrelet recovery plan. The 

analysis for Alternatives 1 and 3 also assumes that surveys would occur.

The analysis for the No Action Alternative, Alternative 1, and Alternative 3 

projects discovery and protection of future marbled murrelet sites. Based on past 

find rates (between 1993 and 2006), the analysis projects that surveys over the 

next 10 years would discover:

	 592 new sites under the No Action Alternative,

	 601 new sites under Alternative 1, and

	 801 new sites under Alternative 3.

Under the No Action Alternative and Alternative 1, the analysis assumes 

that these additional sites would be protected from timber harvest. Under 

Alternative 3, occupied marbled murrelet sites would be protected from harvest 

until 50% of the acres in an assessment area are older than defined threshold 

stand ages. The year until which marbled murrelet sites would be protected 

under Alternative 3 is shown in Table 194 (Year at which the threshold age 

would be reached under Alternative 3).

Analysis of Alternative 2 assumes that surveys would not occur. Because of 

the hidden nature of nesting marbled murrelets, it is not reasonably foreseeable 

that additional sites would be found without surveys. Therefore, the analysis of 

Alternative 2 does not project protection of additional sites beyond the currently 

known, occupied sites.
675

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Table 194. Year at which the threshold age would be reached under Alternative 3

Sustained Yield Unit (District) /Province Year

Salem/Coast Range 2046

Eugene/Coast Range 2046

Roseburg/Coast Range 2016

Roseburg/Klamath 2106

Coos Bay/Coast Range 2056

Coos Bay/Klamath 2026

Medford/Klamath 2056

Marbled Murrelet Nesting Habitat

There are 891,000 acres of BLM-administered lands that are capable of growing 

nesting habitat for the marbled murrelet. As shown in Table 195 (Available 

marbled murrelet nesting habitat on BLM-administered lands within the planning 

area), 641,000 acres occur within marbled murrelet Zone 1 and 250,000 acres 

occur within marbled murrelet Zone 2. A map of the two Zones is contained in 

the Wildlife section of Chapter 3. 

For this analysis, marbled murrelet habitat is classified as the mature, multiple 

canopy and structurally complex structural stage classifications. This 

classification is based on marbled murrelet nesting suitability category 4 from 

Raphael et al. (2006). Category 4 structural classifications are generally stands 

greater than 20 inches quadratic mean diameter with complex canopy structures. 

Raphael et al. (2006) also classified simple canopy stands with a quadratic mean 

diameter greater than 30 inches as nesting suitability class 4. Although the 

data used for this analysis does not distinguish between the 30 inch and greater 

diameter class, the assumption is that the majority of those stands would fall into 

the structurally complex structural stage classification.

By the year 2106, marbled murrelet nesting habitat would increase from the 

current condition of 373,000 acres to:

•	 715,000 acres under the No Action Alternative (an increase of 92%)

•	 620,000 acres under Alternative 1 (an increase of 66%)

•	 439,000 acres under Alternative 2 (an increase of 18%)

•	 493,000 acres under Alternative 3 (an increase of 32%)
676

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Figure 232 (Marbled murrelet nesting habitat by the year 2106) shows how 

habitat develops over time. In the first 50 years, there would be a decrease 

in marbled murrelet nesting habitat under Alternatives 2 and 3 compared to 

the current condition of 373,000 acres. There would be a 16% decrease (to 

313,000 acres) under Alternative 2 and a 14% decrease (to 321,000 acres) under 

Alternative 3. 

Figure 232. Marbled murrelet nesting habitat by the year 2106

Table 195. Available marbled murrelet nesting habitat on BLM-administered lands within 

the planning area

District Alternative

Habitatcapable 

(acres) 

Marbled murrelet nesting habitat (acres)

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

ZONE 1

Coos Bay

Alt 1

 

298,000 

122,000 118,000 117,000 124,000 199,000

Alt 2 122,000 104,000 93,000 83,000 129,000

Alt 3 122,000 119,000 117,000 108,000 144,000

No Action 122,000 123,000 126,000 137,000 227,000

Eugene

Alt 1

 

108,000 

37,000 43,000 47,000 52,000 80,000

Alt 2 37,000 38,000 40,000 37,000 49,000

Alt 3 37,000 41,000 46,000 45,000 68,000

No Action 37,000 44,000 51,000 61,000 93,000

Medford

Alt 1

 

1,000 

500 600 600 600 900

Alt 2 500 400 300 300 300

Alt 3 500 500 500 600 600

No Action 500 600 600 600 800

0

20

40

60

80

100

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Habitat-Capable BLM 

Land 

(Percent)

0

300

600

900

Habitat-Capable

BLM Lands 

(1000's acres)

Habitat-capable (ac) Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 No Action
677

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

District Alternative

Habitatcapable 

(acres) 

Marbled murrelet nesting habitat (acres)

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

ZONE 1

Roseburg

Alt 1

 

37,000 

18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 25,000

Alt 2 18,000 17,000 17,000 16,000 21,000

Alt 3 18,000 17,000 15,000 9,000 21,000

No Action 18,000 19,000 19,000 20,000 28,000

Salem

Alt 1

 

197,000 

67,000 81,000 84,000 92,000 151,000

Alt 2 67,000 74,000 76,000 77,000 114,000

Alt 3 67,000 77,000 75,000 63,000 114,000

No Action 67,000 84,000 92,000 111,000 169,000

Total 

Zone 1

Alt 1

 

641,000 

244,500 260,600 266,600 286,600 455,900

Alt 2 244,500 233,400 226,300 213,300 313,300

Alt 3 244,500 254,500 253,500 225,600 347,600

No Action 244,500 270,600 288,600 329,600 517,800

ZONE 2

Coos Bay

Alt 1

 

4,000 

1,300 1,000 900 1,000 2,200

Alt 2 1,300 1,100 700 500 700

Alt 3 1,300 1,200 1,000 1,200 2,300

No Action 1,300 1,400 1,500 1,400 2,700

Eugene

Alt 1

 

40,000 

12,000 14,000 15,000 15,000 25,000

Alt 2 12,000 14,000 14,000 14,000 24,000

Alt 3 12,000 13,000 14,000 14,000 24,000

No Action 12,000 15,000 17,000 19,000 31,000

Medford

Alt 1

 

46,000 

24,000 24,000 23,000 24,000 27,000

Alt 2 24,000 21,000 18,000 19,000 22,000

Alt 3 24,000 23,000 22,000 22,000 25,000

No Action 24,000 27,000 26,000 33,000 36,000

Roseburg

Alt 1

 

142,000 

81,000 77,000 75,000 78,000 103,000

Alt 2 81,000 71,000 66,000 60,000 76,000

Alt 3 81,000 70,000 59,000 50,000 82,000

No Action 81,000 77,000 77,000 84,000 114,000

Salem

Alt 1

 

18,000 

10,000 10,000 8,000 8,000 7,000

Alt 2 10,000 9,000 7,000 6,000 3,000

Alt 3 10,000 10,000 11,000 9,000 13,000

No Action 10,000 10,000 10,000 11,000 14,000

Total

Zone 2

Alt 1

 

250,000 

128,300 126,000 121,900 126,000 164,200

Alt 2 128,300 116,100 105,700 99,500 125,700

Alt 3 128,300 117,200 107,000 96,200 146,300

No Action 128,300 130,400 131,500 148,400 197,700
678

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Marbled Murrelet Habitat in Zone 1

In Zone 1, the increase in marbled murrelet nesting habitat by the year 2106 

would range from 68,800 acres or a 28 % increase under Alternative 2 to 273,300 

acres or a 112% increase under the No Action Alternative. Zone 1 is important 

because it represents the approximate area identified in the marbled murrelet 

recovery plan as the recovery area for the species (USDI, USFWS 1997). 

Alternative 1 would increase nesting habitat 86% (to 455,900 acres) by 2106 in 

Zone 1. In all districts, Alternative 1 would increase marbled murrelet nesting 

habitat. The increase would range from 39 and 125%. The Coos Bay District 

would be the only district with a short-term decline in marbled murrelet nesting 

habitat. The decline would be 3.3% over the next 10 years.

Alternative 2 would increase marbled murrelet nesting habitat in all districts by 

2106 in Zone 1 with one exception. The Medford District would decline 200 

acres. The Salem District would have an increase in marbled murrelet nesting 

habitat in each time increment. 

Alternative 3 would increase marbled murrelet nesting habitat 42% (or 103,000 

acres) in Zone 1 by 2106. The largest increases in nesting habitat would occur in 

the Eugene, Coos Bay, and Salem districts. 

In the shorter term (50 years), there would be an overall decrease in 

marbled murrelet nesting habitat of 16% under Alternative 2 and 14% 

under Alternative 3 compared to the current condition. The Coos Bay 

and Roseburg districts show decreases at 10, 20, and 50 years under 

Alternatives 2 and 3.

Declines in the amount of marbled murrelet nesting habitat are caused by the 

increase in the amount of lands being harvested each decade, compared to No 

Action and Alternative 1. The decline is also attributable to the lack of legacy 

retention after harvest which delays the development of new nesting habitat (See 

the Ecology section of this Chapter).

Figure 233 (District marbled murrelet nesting habitat fluctuations in Zone 1) 

compares habitat fluctuations by district in Zone 1. 
679

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Figure 233. District marbled murrelet nesting habitat fluctuations in Zone 1.

Marbled Murrelet Habitat in Zone 2

In Zone 2, marbled murrelet nesting habitat would increase by 2106 from 

the current condition of 128,000 acres to 198,000 acres under the No Action 

Alternative, 164,000 acres under Alternative 1, and 146,000 acres under 

Alternative 3. Under Alternative 2, nesting habitat would decrease approximately 

2000 acres by 2106.

Under the No Action Alternative, marbled murrelet nesting habitat would 

increase in all districts, in Zone 2 by 2106. There would be a decrease in habitat 

in the shorter term in the Roseburg District in 2026. 

Under Alternative 1 overall nesting habitat on BLM-administered lands in the 

planning area would decline 12% over the next 10 years. Specifically, there 

would be a 23% decrease in the Coos Bay District and a 5% decrease in the 

Roseburg District. There would be no change in habitat in the Medford and 

Salem districts. By 2056, overall nesting habitat in Zone 2 would decline 2%. 

There would be a decline of 23% in the Coos Bay District, 4% in the Roseburg 

District, and 20% in the Salem District. Salem would be the only district in 

which marbled murrelet nesting habitat would decline in Zone 2 in 2106. The 

decline of 3,000 acres represents 30% of nesting habitat. 

Alternative 3 -Zone 1

-75

-50

-25

0

25

50

75

100

BLM Salem Eugene Coos Bay Roseburg Medford

Change from 

2006 (Percent)

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Alternative 2 - Zone 1

-100

-75

-50

-25

0

25

50

75

100

BLM Salem Eugene Coos Bay Roseburg Medford

Change from 

2006 (Percent) 2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Alternative 1 -Zone1

-25

0

25

50

75

100

125

BLM Salem Eugene Coos Bay Roseburg Medford

Change from 

2006 (Percent) 2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

No Action - Zone 1

-25

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

BLM Salem Eugene Roseburg Coos Bay Medford

Change from 

2006 (Percent) 2006 2016 2026 2056 2106
680

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Short-term declines in habitat are important to consider, especially with a 

threatened or endangered species. This is because the short-term decline of 

habitat could depress the population abundance to a level from which they may 

not recover. The larger the short-term decline, the greater the impact to recovery.

Under Alternative 2, there would be less marbled murrelet nesting habitat in 

Zone 2 in all time periods compared to the current condition in all districts except 

Eugene. There would be an overall decrease of 22% in 2056 compared to 2006 

on BLM-administered lands in the planning area. By 2106, however, there would 

be an upward trend in the amount of overall habitat in the planning area to the 

point that there would only be 2% less habitat than in 2006. 

Under Alternative 3, overall marbled murrelet nesting habitat on BLMadministered lands in the planning area would increase 14% (18,000 acres) in 

Zone 2 by 2106. There would be an increase in marbled murrelet nesting habitat 

in all districts. These increases would range from 1% to 100%. The largest 

increases in habitat would occur in the Eugene, Coos Bay, and Salem Districts. In 

the shorter term (by 2056), marbled murrelet nesting habitat would decrease 17% 

in the first two decades and would decrease 25% by 2056 compared to current 

conditions. Eugene is the only district in which there would be an increase in 

marbled murrelet nesting habitat in all time periods.

Figure 234 (District Marbled murrelet nesting habitat fluctuations in zone 2) 

compares habitat fluctuations by district in Zone 2 
681

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Figure 234. District marbled murrelet nesting habitat fluctuations in Zone 2.

Patch and Core Area Size

The Ecology section of this chapter analyzed the development of patch size over 

time for the mature and structurally complex forest structural stage classifications. 

Marbled murrelet habitat includes the mature, structurally complex forest structural 

stage classification, so the absolute patch sizes would be different, but relative 

relationships would be similar. In the Coast Range physiographic province, in 

comparing the current patch size of 111 acres to the patch size that would exist 

in 2106, the mean patch size of mature and structurally complex forest on BLMadministered lands in the planning area would:

•	 increase to 338 acres under the No Action Alternative,

•	 increase to 254 acres under Alternative 1, 

•	 decrease to 101 acres under Alternative 2, and

•	 decrease to 37 acres under Alternative 3. 

Mean core area size would follow the same trends as mean patch size. An 

increase in the size of core areas would indicate that more nesting opportunities 

further from edge habitat would develop. This would result in a decrease in 

potential nest predation. 

No Action - Zone 2

-25

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

BLM Salem Eugene Coos Bay Roseburg Medford

Change from 

2006 (Percent) 2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Alternative 1 - Zone 2

-50

-25

0

25

50

75

100

125

BLM Salem Eugene Coos Bay Roseburg Medford

Change from 

2006 (Percent) 2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Alternative 3 - Zone 2

-75

-50

-25

0

25

50

75

100

125

BLM Salem Eugene Coos Bay Roseburg Medford

Change from 

2006 (Percent) 2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Alternative 2 - Zone 2

-100

-75

-50

-25

0

25

50

75

100

BLM Salem Eugene Coos Bay Roseburg Medford

Change from 

2006 (Percent) 2006 2016 2026 2056 2106
682

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Edge density would increase under all alternatives. The increase compared to 

the current condition of 54 feet per acre would range from 72 feet per acre under 

the No Action Alternative to 96 feet per acre under Alternative 3. Potential nest 

predation increases with increased forest fragmentation and the amount of edge 

(Raphael et al. 2002a and 2002b, Meyer et al. 2002). 

In the Klamath province, in comparing the current patch size of 137 acres to the 

patch size that would exist in 2106, the mean patch size of mature and structurally 

complex forest on BLM-administered lands in the planning area would:

•	 increase to 192 acres under the No Action Alternative,

•	 decrease to 91 acres under Alternative 1, 

•	 decrease to 79 acres under Alternative 2, and

•	 decrease to 27 acres under Alternative 3. 

Edge density would increase under all alternatives. The increase compared to 

the current condition of 62 feet per acre, would range from 73 feet per acre under 

Alternative 2 to 91 feet per acre under Alternative 3. 

The quantity of marbled murrelet nesting habitat on BLM-administered lands 

in the planning area would increase under all alternatives, in 100 years. In the 

shorter term (50 years), there would be decreases in the quantity of marbled 

murrelet nesting habitat under Alternatives 2 and 3.

The quality of marbled murrelet nesting habitat (as measured by patch and core 

area size and edge density) would vary under the alternatives. 

Under the No Action Alternative, long term patch and core area size increases in 

mature and structurally complex stands in the Coast Range and Klamath provinces 

would indicate improving habitat conditions for the marbled murrelet. The increase 

in core area size would offset increases in edge density. Edge density would only 

become a limiting factor when core area sizes remain the same. There would also 

be an increase in overall marbled murrelet nesting habitat. 

Under Alternative 1, long term patch size and core area size increases in mature 

and structurally complex stands in the Coast Range province would indicate 

improving habitat conditions. In the Klamath province, considering increases in 

the quantity of marbled murrelet nesting habitat and a decrease in patch size area, 

habitat conditions would be maintained. 

Under both the No Action Alternative and Alternative 1, short term impact 

to available nesting habitat would be nonexistent or small (less than 5% 

available habitat). 

Under Alternatives 2 and 3 in Coast Range and Klamath provinces, a decline 

in habitat conditions would be expected given decreased patch size, decreased 

core area, increasing edge density, and decreases in nesting habitat over the 

next 50 years. 
683

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Deer

The Douglas County population segment of the Columbian white-tailed deer would 

continue to be managed on the North Bank Habitat Management Area in accordance with 

the habitat management plan (BLM 2001c). 

Management that converts forest from the mature and structurally complex forest 

structural stages to the stand establishment stage would result in the loss of winter cover. 

This would occur only in those stands located adjacent to the valley bottom habitats 

utilized as foraging habitat. Under all alternatives, there would be incidental impacts to 

the Columbian white-tailed deer commensurate with the amount of regeneration harvest 

activities that would occur and the amount of mature and structurally complex forest 

habitat located adjacent to occupied valley bottomlands. 

Management of the BLM’s forests that are adjacent to the Umpqua Valley and Columbia 

River, where the deer are located, would have little impact on the survival of the species. This 

is because the recovery of the Douglas County population is tied to the presence of secure 

valley habitat and not the upland coniferous forest where timber harvest under the alternatives 

would occur. The recovery of the Columbia River population is tied to habitat conditions on 

the Julia Butler Hansen National Wildlife Refuge and surrounding valley bottom habitat. 

Mule deer and black-tailed deer occur across BLM-administered lands within the 

planning area. Specific limited habitat includes important wintering areas and areas that 

provide summer thermal cover. There are 26 such designated deer habitat management 

areas (See Wildlife section of Chapter 3). Stable thermal conditions and summer thermal 

habitat are provided by mature, multiple canopy and structurally complex structural stage 

classifications. Five of the 26 deer habitat management areas (approximately 30,000 

acres) would be designated to provide summer thermal cover in the Coos Bay District. 

With the exception of Alternative 2, all other alternatives would exhibit little change 

in these habitat management units until 2056. Thermal cover, primarily a function 

of stand age, would develop predominantly after 50 years. See Figure 235 (Average 

summer thermal habitat availability on deer habitat management units in the Coos Bay 

District). These five habitat management areas would have stable to increasing levels 

of thermal habitat under the No Action Alternative and Alternatives 1 and 3. All habitat 

management areas would develop at least 50% thermal cover under the No Action 

Alternative and Alternative 1. Four out of five habitat management areas would remain 

stable or decline up to 28% in available thermal cover under Alternative 2. 

Other habitat factors include core area size (or distance from edge) and open road 

density on BLM-administered lands. Habitat models indicate that cover values increase 

with distance from the edge and decrease with increasing density of open roads open to 

vehicles. Compounding the effects of decreasing thermal cover under Alternatives 2 and 

3 are the decreasing patch size, and core area size of thermal cover (mature or structurally 

complex forests) from the current condition in the Coast Range, on BLM-administered 

lands (see the Ecology section in this chapter for complete analysis of patch size).
684

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Figure 235. Average summer thermal habitat availability on the deer habitat management units in 

the Coos Bay District.*

* Expressed as a percentage of the habitat-capable BLM-administered lands (n=5).

There would be 21 deer habitat management areas totaling 191,000 acres designated 

as winter habitat areas in the Medford District and the Klamath Falls Resource Area. 

These deer habitat management areas would provide areas of adequate forage habitat and 

limited disturbance. 

There are 12 of the 21 areas within the western part of the planning area. The amount of 

forage habitat would remain relatively stable or slightly decrease under all alternatives. 

On average, the alternatives would vary no more than 11% as shown in Figure 236

(Percent of foraging habitat availability on the deer habitat management units in the 

Medford District and Klamath Falls Resource Area). Factors affecting the quality of 

foraging habitat include:

•	 Fuels treatment after harvesting and its effects on the resulting vegetation.

•	 Size of the forage units. Deer use would decrease with an increased distance 

from hiding cover.

•	 Disturbance caused by vehicles. Forage habitat quality would decrease with 

increasing density of roads open to vehicular traffic. 

The creation of foraging habitat would occur as a result of regeneration harvests. Forest 

stands would remain in the stand establishment phase and provide foraging habitat for 

up to two or three decades following regeneration harvest. Non-forested areas would 

provide stable background levels of foraging habitat. 

Under the No Action Alternative, the amount of foraging habitat would decrease from the 

current condition up to 16 % on nine deer habitat management areas in western Oregon. 

Under Alternatives 1 and 2, foraging habitat would decrease 16% on six areas and 32% 

on five areas. Alternative 3 would increase the amount of foraging habitat up to 36% in 

10 management areas. 

0

20

40

60

80

100

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Habitat-Capable 

BLM Lands 

(Percent)

No Action Alternative 1

Alternative 2 Alternative 3
685

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Figure 236. Percent of foraging habitat availability on the deer habitat management units in the 

Medford District and Klamath Falls Resource Area

Note: Does not include eastside management lands.

There are 9 of the 21 deer habitat management areas on eastside management lands in 

the Klamath Falls Resource Area. Forests in those areas would be managed with an 

uneven-aged management regime under all alternatives. It is assumed that the overall 

distribution of forest structural stages would not change in this area as a result of unevenaged management. Current conditions on these eastside management lands vary from 

approximately 20 to 90 % foraging habitat as shown in Figure 237 (Percent of foraging 

habitat in deer habitat management areas on eastside management lands in the Klamath 

Falls Resource Area).

Foraging habitat would be created as harvested stands regenerate, but would not persist 

as long as foraging habitat created under even-aged management. This is because 

the openings created to regenerate the stand would be much smaller. Intensive forest 

management on intermingled private forestlands would provide more foraging habitat per 

unit area than BLM-administered lands, because the foraging habitat would last longer.

0

20

40

60

80

100

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Habitat-Capable BLM 

Lands (Percent)

Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Alternative 3 No Action
686

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Figure 237. Percent of foraging habitat in Deer Habitat Management Areas on eastside 

management lands in the Klamath Falls Resource Area.

The standard for density of roads that are open is 1.5 miles per square mile in deer habitat 

management areas. Under all alternatives, road density on BLM-administered lands 

within the habitat management areas would vary from 4.65 to 0.56 miles per square 

mile. When considering roads that are open, the density varies from 4.12 to 0.26 miles 

per square mile as shown in Table 196 (Current road density on BLM-administered lands 

within deer habitat management units). 

There are twelve deer habitat management areas currently exceed the 1.5 mile standard 

of which seven are important deer wintering areas. Up to 65% of all existing, open 

roads in some deer habitat management areas would be seasonally restricted to meet 

these objectives.

0

20

40

60

80

100

Bly Bly

Mountain

Hogback Horton

Windy

Lorella South

Bryant

South

Gerber

Stukel Swan

Lake

Percent Forage habitat
687

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Table 196. Current road density on BLM-administered lands within deer habitat management 

units

Deer habitat 

management area District

Road density 

(mi/mi2

)

Miles of road 

closures to meet 

standard

Open 

Roads

All 

Roads (mile) (%)

Camp Creek Coos Bay 3.02 3.70 29.9 50

Edson Butte Coos Bay 1.55 3.34 0.35 4

Millicoma Tree Farm N 

Edge Coos Bay 4.12 4.21 2.56 65

Millicoma Tree Farm NE 

Edge Coos Bay 2.98 4.15 14.09 49

Rock Creek Coos Bay 3.82 4.65 24.91 61

Bly Klamath Falls 1.39 1.39

Bly Mt Klamath Falls 1.42 1.42

Hogback Klamath Falls 0.98 0.98

Horton Windy Klamath Falls 1.09 1.09

Keno Worden Klamath Falls 1.38 1.38

Lorella Klamath Falls 0.94 0.94

South Bryant Klamath Falls 1.55 1.55 0.14 2

South Gerber Klamath Falls 0.64 0.64

Stukel Klamath Falls 1.13 1.13

Swan Lake Klamath Falls 0.64 0.56

Topsy Pokegama Klamath Falls 2.92 3.54 30.25 48

 Little Applegate Medford 1.30 1.99

Little Butte Creek Southb Medford

1.12 2.26

0.26 1.64

 Burnt Creek Medford 0.59 1.62

 Elk Creek Medford 3.33 4.02 54.53 55

Salt Creek Medford 2.00 2.50 13.79 25

Shady Cove West Medford 1.61 1.78 1.33 7

 Camel Hump Medford 1.47 1.94

Williams Medford 2.74 4.34 56.54 45

DHMA Monument East Medford 1.58 3.03 1.29 5

DHMA Monument West Medford 0.52 2.10

Total All DHMAs 1.83 2.53 129.5 18

An estimated 12 miles of new, permanent roads would be constructed over the next 10 

years in 23 deer habitat management areas under the No Action Alternative, along with 

and 25, 22, and 21 miles under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 (respectively). This would slightly 

increase road densities in the deer habitat management areas under all alternatives. As 

shown in the shaded area of Table 197, 18 deer habitat management units would exceed 

the standard of 1.5 miles per square mile. There are 13 of these 18 that are designated for 

winter range.
688

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Table 197. Road densities by 2016 for deer habitat management areas 

Deer Habitat 

Management Area District

Projected Road Density (all roads) (mi/mi2)

No Action Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3

Camp Creek Coos Bay 3.79 3.88 3.93 3.78

Edson Butte Coos Bay 3.38 3.37 3.44 3.37

Millicoma Tree Farm N 

Edge Coos Bay 4.80 4.45 4.44 4.44

Millicoma Tree Farm NE 

Edge Coos Bay 4.15 4.22 4.16 4.38

Rock Creek Coos Bay 4.89 5.07 5.01 4.80

Bly Klamath Falls 1.42 1.42 1.42 1.42

Bly Mt Klamath Falls 1.45 1.45 1.45 1.45

Hogback Klamath Falls 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07

Horton Windy Klamath Falls 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09

Keno Worden Klamath Falls 1.41 1.43 1.40 1.44

Lorella Klamath Falls 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94

South Bryant Klamath Falls 1.53 1.53 1.53 1.53

South Gerber Klamath Falls 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65

Stukel Klamath Falls 1.14 1.14 1.14 1.14

Swan Lake Klamath Falls 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70

Topsy Pokegama Klamath Falls 3.57 3.54 3.56 3.56

 Burnt Peak Medford 1.60 1.61 1.66 1.60

 Camel hump Medford 1.94 2.03 2.04 1.99

 Elk Creek Medford 4.05 4.09 4.17 4.19

 Little Applegate Medford 2.03 2.07 2.06 2.06

DHMA Monument East Medford 3.02 3.02 3.02 3.02

DHMA Monument West Medford 2.11 2.12 2.11 2.11

Little Butte Creek South Medford

2.27 2.29 2.31 2.35

1.66 1.68 1.67 1.69

Salt Creek Medford 2.55 2.60 2.60 2.58

Shady Cove West Medford 1.78 1.84 1.92 1.91

Williams Medford 4.37 4.56 4.49 4.58

Total for all areas 2.57 2.61 2.62 2.62

Under all alternatives, off-highway vehicles travel would be limited to designated 

roads and trails. These limitations, along with the closure of roads in deer management 

areas, would limit the amount of disturbance caused to wintering animals. Reduced 

disturbance would decrease the amount of unnecessary movements animals would make 

and therefore would reduce energy expenditure. Additionally, road closures would result 

in more available foraging habitat since animals would not need to shift away from 

frequently used roads and trails. 

Assuming that winter forage was the only limiting factor to population growth, 

population numbers in deer habitat management areas in the Klamath Falls Resource 

Area and Medford District would increase in response to newly created or newly 

available forage areas. 
689

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

By 2056, available forage habitat and deer population responses under the No Action 

Alternative would remain stable. Under the action alternatives, available foraging habitat 

and populations would increase approximately 50 %. 

By 2106, Alternative 3 would increase available forage habitat and deer population 

responses by almost 50%. Under Alternatives 1 and 2, habitat and populations would 

remain stable. Under the No Action Alternative, habitat and populations would decrease 

approximately 25%. 

In the Coos Bay District, winter road closures would not have any effect on the five 

deer habitat management areas since these areas were created for summer thermal 

protection. Road density is projected to increase under all alternatives and would cause 

corresponding increases in deer disturbance within patches of thermal cover. 

The No Action Alternative and Alternatives 1 and 3 would create additional maturemultiple canopy and structurally complex forest stands capable of providing summer 

thermal habitat and would therefore result in a corresponding increases in deer 

populations. This is based on the assumption that summer thermal cover is the only 

limiting factor. 

Mitigation could be applied that would mitigate increased road densities in the deer 

habitat management areas that exceed the 1.5 miles of open road per square mile standard 

on the Coos Bay District. Any new roads on BLM-administered lands in deer habitat 

management areas should be temporary rather than permanent. Where there are no 

reciprocal rights-of-way, existing roads could be closed or seasonal closures could be 

applied to BLM-administered roads. Sufficient closures would be necessary to achieve a 

density of 1.5 miles of open road per square mile, on BLM-administered lands. Summer 

seasonal restrictions would need to be applied between May 1 and August 31.

Elk

There are 16 elk habitat management areas on BLM-administered lands (see the Wildlife 

section of Chapter 3). These areas provide specific limited habitat needs for elk. Specific 

limited habitat includes important wintering areas and areas that provide summer thermal 

cover. Elk forage on grasses, forbs, shrubs, and trees species that are characteristic of the 

nonforest or stand establishment forest structural stage classifications. Additional forage 

(lichens) would be found in older structural stages. Stable thermal conditions and summer 

thermal habitat are provided by stands in the mature, multiple canopy or structurally 

complex forest structural stage classifications. 

Five of the 16 elk habitat management areas (approximately 30,000 acres) would be 

designated to provide summer thermal cover in the Coos Bay District. 

Under the No Action Alternative and Alternatives 1 and 3, thermal cover would 

increase or remain stable in all elk habitat management areas in the Coos Bay District. 
690

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

On average, the No Action Alternative would increase thermal cover from 35 to 71 

% compared to existing conditions while Alternative 1 would increase it to 63 %, and 

Alternative 3 would increase it to 49 %. See Figure 238 (Average summer thermal 

habitat availability on the elk habitat management units in the Coos Bay District) for 

how summer thermal habitat would change over time. 

Under Alternative 2, thermal cover would remain stable or decrease in four of five elk 

habitat management areas. The amount would average between the current amount of 

35% to a low of 28%. 

Other habitat factors include core area size (or distance from edge) and open road 

density. Habitat models indicate that cover value increases from the edge up to 200 

yards into the stand. Cover value decreases with increasing density of roads that are 

open to vehicles (Wisdom et al. 2004). Thermal cover patch size on BLM-administered 

lands would increase by 2106 under the No Action Alternative and Alternative 1 and 

would decrease under Alternative 2 and 3. See discussion of patch size in the Ecology

section of this chapter. 

Figure 238. Average summer thermal habitat availability on the elk habitat management units in 

the Coos Bay District

Under all alternatives, nine elk habitat management areas (totaling 123,700 acres) would 

be designated in areas of important winter habitat in the Medford District. 

Following are several factors that affect the quality of elk foraging habitat:

•	 The affect to vegetation of fuels treatment after harvesting. 

•	 The size of the forage units. Elk use would decrease with increased distance 

(greater than 100 yards) from hiding cover (Wisdom et al. 2004).

•	 The disturbance caused by vehicles. Forage habitat quality would decrease with 

increasing density of roads open to vehicular traffic (Wisdom et al. 2004).

0

20

40

60

80

100

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Habitat-Capable 

BLM Lands 

(Percent)

Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Alternative 3 No Action
691

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

The creation of foraging habitat would occur as a result of regeneration harvests. Forest 

stands would remain in the stand establishment phase and provide foraging habitat for 

up to two to three decades following regeneration harvest. The differences between 

alternatives would be a result of regeneration harvests and partial harvests that would 

create the stand establishment forest structural stage classification. Nonforested areas 

would provide stable background levels of foraging habitat. Intensive forest management 

on intermingled private forestlands would provide additional foraging habitat. It is 

assumed that the amount of forage habitat on privately owned commercial forest lands 

would remain approximately the same over time. 

Forage habitat would vary little across the alternatives. Foraging habitat would increase 

from the current condition of 16% to 18% under Alternatives 1, to 20% under Alternative 

2, and to 26% under Alternative 3. Forage habitat would decrease to 11% under the No 

Action Alternative. Figure 239 (Average foraging habitat on the elk habitat management 

units in the Medford District) shows how the habitat would change over time. 

Figure 239. Average foraging habitat on the elk habitat management units in the Medford District

Two elk management areas (totaling 5600 acres) in the Salem District would limit the 

disturbances caused by roads and off-highway vehicles. As shown in Table 198 (Current 

road density on BLM-administered lands within elk habitat management units), the 

density of roads that are open in these areas ranges from 0.92 and 0.24 miles per square 

mile. The density of all roads ranges from 2.11 miles per square mile to 2.78 miles per 

square mile. New permanent road construction would range from 0.3 miles under the No 

Action Alternative to 1.3 miles under Alternative 3. 

New roads would raise the density of roads in the Luckiamute elk management area. 

Road density would increase from 2.11 miles of road per square mile to 2.12 miles 

under the No Action Alternative, to 2.15 miles under Alternative 1, to 2.13 miles under 

Alternative 2, and to 2.32 miles under Alternative 3. The new roads would also raise road 

densities in the Bummer Ridge elk management area. Road density would increase from 

0

20

40

60

80

100

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Habitat-Capable 

BLM Lands 

(Percent)

Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Alternative 3 No Action
692

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

2.78 miles of road per square mile to 2.83 miles under the No Action Alternative, to 2.90 

miles under Alternative 1, to 2.99 miles under Alternative 2, and to 2.88 miles under 

Alternative 3. 

Under all alternatives, there would be a road density target of 1.5 miles of roads that 

are open to vehicles per square mile of BLM-administered lands within the habitat 

management areas designated for winter habitat in the Medford District. As shown 

in Table 198 (Current road density on BLM-administered lands within elk habitat 

management units), road densities on BLM-administered lands in these areas vary from 

4.71 to 1.62 miles per square mile. Road densities for the roads that are open vary from 

4.12 to 0.24 miles per square mile Twelve elk habitat management areas currently 

exceed the 1.5 mile standard. Seven of these areas, occurring in the Medford District, are 

important elk wintering areas. Up to 65% of all roads that are open in some elk habitat 

management areas would need to be seasonally restricted to meet the road density target. 

Table 198. Current road density on BLM-administered lands in elk habitat management units 

Elk Habitat 

Management Area District

Road density 

(mi/mi2

)

Amount of road 

closure necessary to 

meet density targets

Open 

Roads All Roads (miles) (%)

SALT CREEK Medford 2.01 2.52 13.93 25

CAMEL HUMP Medford 1.47 1.94

 SHADY COVE WEST Medford 1.81 1.79 1.33 7

BURNT PEAK Medford 0.59 1.62

 ELK CREEK Medford 3.33 4.02 54.38 55

PEAVINE Medford 1.92 2.82 17.55 22

FAR OUT Medford 2.42 3.57 12.74 38

 ELK VALLEYI Medford 3.46 4.71 43.81 57

 MULE CREEK Medford 1.77 3.63 8.26 15

CAMP CREEK Coos Bay 3.02 3.7 29.9 50

MILLICOMA TREE 

FARM NE EDGE Coos Bay 2.98 4.16 14.09 49

MILLICOMA TREE 

FARM N EDGE Coos Bay 4.12 4.21 2.56 65

ROCK CREEK Coos Bay 3.82 4.65 24.91 61

EDSON BUTTE Coos Bay 1.55 3.34 0.35 4

LUCKIAMUTE Salem 0.92 2.11

BUMMER RIDGE Salem 0.24 2.78

Total ALL EHMAS 2.35 3.34 212.2 36

An estimated 18.6 miles of new, permanent road would be constructed in the first decade 

in 15 elk habitat management areas under the No Action Alternative, 38.5 miles would 

be constructed Under Alternative 1, 43.0 miles under Alternative 2, and 32.6 miles under 

Alternative 3 This would slightly increase road densities in all elk habitat management 

areas under all alternatives. All elk habitat management areas would exceed the road 
693

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

density target of 1.5 miles per square miles as shown in Table 199 (Road densities in 

2016 for all elk habitat management areas).

Table 199. Road densities in 2016 for all elk habitat management areas 

Elk Habitat 

Management Area District

Projected Road density (all roads) (mi/mi2)

No Action Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3

SALT CREEK Medford 2.56 2.62 2.62 2.60

CAMEL HUMP Medford 1.94 2.03 2.04 1.99

 SHADY COVE WEST Medford 1.78 1.84 1.92 1.92

BURNT PEAK Medford 1.60 1.61 1.66 1.60

 ELK CREEK Medford 4.03 4.08 4.16 4.18

PEAVINE Medford 2.86 2.89 2.87 3.00

FAR OUT Medford 3.61 3.77 3.92 3.81

 ELK VALLEY Medford 4.87 5.01 4.95 4.79

 MULE CREEK Medford 3.83 3.96 3.95 3.77

CAMP CREEK Coos Bay 3.80 3.88 3.96 3.79

MILLICOMA TREE 

FARM NE EDGE Coos Bay 4.14 4.14 4.14 4.14

MILLICOMA TREE 

FARM N EDGE Coos Bay 4.89 5.35 4.59 6.99

ROCK CREEK Coos Bay 4.89 5.07 5.01 4.80

EDSON BUTTE Coos Bay 3.38 3.37 3.44 3.37

LUCKIAMUTE Salem 2.12 2.15 2.13 2.32

BUMMER RIDGE Salem 2.83 2.90 2.99 2.88

Total All Areas 3.41 3.49 3.51 3.47

Under all alternatives, off-highway vehicles travel would be limited to designated roads 

and trail. These limitations along with the closure of roads in elk management areas 

would limit the amount of disturbance and risks of poaching. Reduced disturbance would 

decrease the amount of unnecessary movements animals would make and therefore 

would reduce energy expenditure. Additionally, road closures would result in more 

available foraging habitat since animals would not need to shift use away from frequently 

used roads and trails. 

Assuming that winter forage was the only limiting factor to population growth, 

population numbers in elk habitat management areas in the Medford District would 

increase in response to newly created or newly available forage areas. 

By 2056, available forage habitat and elk population responses under the No Action 

Alternative would decrease by 25%. Available foraging habitat and populations would 

increase by 37% under Alternative 1, would increase by 87% under Alternative 2, and 

would increase by 43% under Alternative 3. 

By 2106, the No Action Alternative would decrease available forage habitat and deer 

population responses by 30%. Under Alternative 1, habitat and populations would remain 

stable. Under Alternative 2, habitat and populations would increase by 25%. Under 

Alternative 3 habitat and populations would increase by almost 62%. 
694

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Winter road closures would not have any effect on the elk habitat management areas 

in the Coos Bay and Salem districts since these areas were created for summer thermal 

protection and year-round protection from disturbance. An increase in the density of 

roads that are open would result in decreased use of cover and forage habitat adjacent to 

those roads. 

The No Action Alternative and Alternatives 1 and 3 would create additional maturemultiple canopy or structurally complex forest structural classifications capable of 

providing summer thermal habitat and would result in an increase in elk populations. 

This assumes that summer thermal cover is the only limiting factor to population growth.

Mitigation could be applied that would mitigate adverse effects due to increased road 

densities in the Coos Bay and Salem districts. Any new roads on BLM-administered 

lands in elk habitat management areas should be temporary rather than permanent. 

Where there are no reciprocal rights-of-way, existing roads could be closed or seasonal 

closures could be applied to BLM-administered roads. Sufficient closures would be 

necessary to achieve a density of 1.5 miles of open road per square mile, on BLMadministered lands. Summer seasonal restrictions would need to be applied between May 

1 and August 31.

Bald Eagle

There are approximately 1,630,000 acres of BLM-administered land capable of 

growing bald eagle nesting and roosting habitat within the planning area (those forestcapable lands within 4 miles of foraging waters). Approximately 800,000 acres are 

currently providing bald eagle nesting and roosting habitat. There are 3,600 miles of 

stream and 291,000 acres of pond and lakes which have been identified as bald eagle 

foraging habitat. 

As shown in Figure 240 (Bald eagle nesting and roosting habitat development under the 

alternatives), under the No Action Alternative, bald eagle nesting and roosting habitat 

would increase from approximately 800,000 acres to 1,290,000 acres by 2106. Under 

Alternative 1, this habitat would increase to 1,150,000 acres. Approximately 965,000 

and 1,000,000 acres of eagle nesting and roosting habitat would develop by 2106 under 

Alternatives 2 and 3 respectively. 

Eastside management lands in the Klamath Falls Resource Area contain approximately 

50,000 acres of bald eagle nesting and roosting habitat; approximately 31% of the 

available lands within 4 miles of assumed foraging habitat. Uneven-aged management 

(under all of the alternatives) would not change the availability of bald eagle nesting and 

roosting habitat. Since management of these lands does not change under any of the 

alternatives, they will not be discussed further. 
695

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Figure 240. Bald eagle nesting and roosting habitat development under the alternatives

Figure 241 (Summary of bald eagle nesting and roosting habitat development in the westside of the Klamath Falls Resource Area) shows how bald eagle nesting and roosting 

habitat changes over time on the west-side lands of the Klamath Falls Resource Area. 

Bald eagle nesting and roosting habitat would remain relatively stable or decrease in 100 

years. The amount of habitat would change from the current condition of 31,000 acres to:

•	 31,500 acres under the No Action Alternative, 

•	 18,000 acres under Alternative 1,

•	 19,000 acres under Alternative 2, and 

•	 14,000 acres under Alternative 3.

Over 100 years, bald eagle nesting and roosting habitat would decline under Alternatives 

1 and 2 due to lower site classes on the forests of the Klamath Falls Resource Area and 

a lack of retention trees in the harvest units. Both of these factors decrease the rate at 

which habitat would recover from timber harvest activities. Under Alternative 3, unevenaged management coupled with the higher rate of stand entry would cause a higher rate of 

habitat loss compared to the other alternatives. Uneven-aged management would remove 

trees equally from all size classes and stands would be entered more frequently. Structural 

stage development may be delayed or reversed depending on the resultant numbers of 

large diameter trees and how they compare against structural stage thresholds. Under 

Alternative 3 the amount of available nesting and roosting habitat would stabilize around 

13,000 acres in the west-side of the Klamath Falls Resource Area.

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Area

 (1000's Acres)

No Action Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3
696

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Figure 241. Summary of bald eagle nesting and roosting habitat development in the west-side of 

the Klamath Falls Resource Area

Under all alternatives, occupied bald eagle nest sites, historic sites, potential sites 

and wintering and congregation areas would be protected. Under all alternatives, the 

only management activity that would occur in bald eagle management areas would be 

treatments to lower fire risk and thinning to foster the development of large trees. All 

bald eagle management areas would increase in the amount of available eagle nesting and 

roosting habitat (see Figure 241). In 2106, 144 bald eagle management areas (out of a 

total of 177) would contain more than 90% suitable nesting and roosting habitat. This 

is an increase of 44% from the current condition of 100 bald eagle management areas 

that contained more than 90% nesting and roosting habitat as shown in Figure 242 (A 

histogram illustrating the abundance and development of bald eagle nesting and roosting 

habitat in bald eagle management areas). Under the bald eagle recovery plan, the BLM 

activities that would disturb nesting bald eagle would be restricted during critical nesting 

periods (1 January – 31 August).

0

10

20

30

40

50

No Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 1 -

Let It Grow

Area

 (1000's Acres) 

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106
697

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Figure 242. A histogram illustrating the abundance and development of bald eagle nesting and 

roosting habitat in bald eagle management areas 

Under all alternatives, in the Salem, Eugene, Coos Bay, Roseburg and Medford districts, 

current or higher levels of eagle nesting and roosting habitat would be maintained. This 

would provide ample opportunities for the movement of existing bald eagle pairs and 

the addition of new sites. Under all alternatives, in the Klamath Falls Resource Area, 

nesting and roosting habitat would decline and the opportunities for additional nest sites 

on BLM-administered lands would diminish. BLM-administered lands account for 16% 

of all the federal lands within the Klamath Falls Resource Area. Although habitat would 

decline in the Klamath Falls Resource Area, the bald eagle population in the Klamath 

Basin is increasing (Anthony and Isaacs 2007). The Bald Eagle Protection Act would 

provide protection for sites on both federal and private lands. Monitoring indicates 

increasing population and productivity numbers (Anthony and Isaacs 2007) and under all 

alternatives available nesting and roosting habitat would be stable or would increase.

Measures could be implemented to mitigate the decrease in nesting and roosting habitat 

in the Klamath Falls Resource Area. These measures include maintaining all trees greater 

than forty inches in diameter at breast height in all stands within 4 miles of bald eagle 

foraging habitat. 

year

habitat % 

category 2006 2016 2026 2056

0-9 8 6 5 2

10-19 4321

20-29 4111

30-39 3441

40-49 6633

50-59 14 13 11 6

60-69 10 7 6 4

70-79 11 12 14 11

80-89 17 17 15 11

90-100 100 108 116 137

177 177 177 177

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0-9

10-1920-2930-3940-4950-5960-6970-7980-89

90-100

Nesting Habitat (Percent) 

Bald Eagle Management 

Area (Number) 

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106
698

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Fisher

Fisher historically ranged throughout BLM-administered lands within the planning 

area. The only remaining recognized population centers are in the southern Cascade 

Mountains and the northern Siskiyou Mountains of the Medford District. The fisher 

selects habitat based on factors measured at the home-range scale or higher and are 

strongly associated with forest cover (Carroll et al. 1999). There are currently 560,000 

acres of natal habitat on BLM-administered lands within the planning area (25% of 

breeding habitat-capable lands) and 1,354,000 acres (61%) of foraging habitat (includes 

overlap with natal habitat). 

Table 200. Available fisher natal and foraging habitat on BLM-administered lands within the 

planning area

Alternative Habitatcapable (ac)

Natal habitat (percent of habitat-capable)

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

No Action 2,197,000 25 27 29 37 54

Alt 1 2,197,000 25 25 26 30 42

Alt 2 2,197,000 25 22 22 23 33

Alt 3 2,197,000 25 24 23 22 30

Foraging Habitat (percent of habitat-capable)

No Action 2,197,000 62 65 68 84 92

Alt 1 2,197,000 62 63 65 73 76

Alt 2 2,197,000 62 61 61 64 67

Alt 3 2,197,000 62 62 62 74 79

Across BLM-administered lands, within the planning area, fisher natal habitat would 

increase under all alternatives as shown in Figure 243 (Fisher natal and foraging 

habitat summarized for BLM-administered land within the planning area) and Table 

200 (Available fisher natal and foraging habitat on BLM-administered lands within 

the planning area). The No Action Alternative would increase habitat to 53% of 

habitat-capable acres while Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 would increase habitat to 44, 33, 

and 30%, respectively.
699

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Figure 243. Fisher natal and foraging habitat summarized for BLM-administered lands within the 

planning area 

Natal habitat would decrease under Alternative 3 from 395 to 19% in the Roseburg 

District and from 285 to 23 % in the Coos Bay District as shown in Figure 244

(Abundance of fisher natal habitat under Alternative 3). This is due to the increase in the 

areas of partial and regeneration harvesting in this alternative. Areas of regeneration or 

partial harvesting would only provide natal habitat for a short period under Alternative 3 

at which point they would be scheduled for treatment again. In some areas stands would 

never again reach natal habitat conditions.

Natal Habitat

0

20

40

60

80

100

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Habitat-Capable (Percent) 

No Action Alternative 1

Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Foraging Habitat

0

20

40

60

80

100

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Habitat-Capable (Percent) 

No Action Alternative 1

Alternative 2 Alternative 3
700

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Figure 244. Abundance of fisher natal habitat under Alternative 3

Natal habitat in the Klamath Falls Resource Area would decline under all of the action 

alternatives initially, but would be slightly higher in 2106 than in 2006. These habitat 

trends would occur as a result of the small amount of habitat-capable areas that would be 

reserved from regeneration harvest. Continued and repeated entry into the stands would 

preclude fisher natal habitat from developing. Fisher populations are not known to occur 

in the Klamath Falls Resource Area, but this area is adjacent to the southern Cascade 

Mountain population center (Hayner, pers comm. 2007).

For this analysis, fisher are assumed to forage in all habitat types that are capable of 

providing high canopy cover and which have some legacy component. Foraging habitat 

estimates are likely underestimates because they do not include the stand establishment 

with legacy forest structural stage classification that would provide foraging habitat. 

This underestimate would be higher for the No Action Alternative and Alternative 

3, where legacy retention would be required for all timber harvesting. Under all 

alternatives, fisher foraging habitat would increase on BLM-administered lands within 

the planning area. As shown in Table 200, by 2106, foraging habitat would increase by:

•	 30% under the No Action Alternative,

•	 15% under Alternative 1,

•	 6% under Alternative 2, and 

•	 17% under Alternative 3.

All BLM districts would follow this trend with the exception of the Klamath Falls 

Resource Area. As shown in Figure 245 (Response of fisher foraging habitat in the 

Klamath Falls Resource Area), by 2106, foraging habitat would decrease from 81% of 

habitat capable acres to:

0

20

40

60

80

100

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Habitat-Capable (Percent) 

Roseburg

Coos 

Bay
701

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

•	 41% under Alternative 1,

•	 43% under Alternative 2, and

•	 32% under Alternative 3 

Figure 245. Response of fisher foraging habitat in the Klamath Falls Resource Area

In the Klamath Falls Resource Area, the two factors that would cause the decline in fisher 

foraging habitat include the large percentage of the resource area in the harvest land base 

(approximately 60% in the No Action Alternative and 70% under the action alternatives) 

and lower site productivity compared to the other districts. Lower site productivity 

causes an increase in the amount of time it takes for foraging habitat to recover after 

timber harvest. 

The spatial configuration of natal habitat is as important as the amount. Lewis and Hayes 

(2004) concluded that landscapes comprised of large, contiguous patches of late-seral 

forests were more likely to support the fisher than a more fragmented landscapes. Large 

blocks of mature or structurally complex forest habitat would be expected to form within 

the late-successional reserves under the No Action Alternative and the late-successional 

management areas under Alternatives 1 and 2. 

The patterns found in mature and structurally complex forest habitat are used as 

indicators of natal habitat development. Landscape comparisons were done between the 

current condition and the condition in 2106 (see the Ecology section of this Chapter). 

The analysis concludes that the principal controls on the condition of the entire forested 

landscape are the development of the U.S. Forest Service reserves into mature & 

structurally complex forest and the continued intensive management of the nonfederal 

forests. BLM-administered lands play a significant role at the provincial scale by linking 

the physiographic provinces and the U.S. Forest Service lands within them. Genetic 

research on the fisher population centers in the southern Cascade Mountains and the 

0

20

40

60

80

100

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Habitat-Capable 

(Percent)

No Action Alternative 1

Alternative 2 Alternative 3
702

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

northern Siskiyou Mountains indicate no genetic exchange has occurred (Aubry et al. 

2004). The specific reasons for this lack of genetic exchange are unknown but could 

include poor habitat quality and anthropogenic barriers (Aubry et al. 2004).

Patch size, core area and connectance would vary on BLM-administered lands in the 

physiographic provinces as follows:

•	 Coast Range: Mean patch size and mean core area of mature and structurally 

complex forest would increase under the No Action Alternative and Alternative 

1. Mean patch size would increase from 44 acres to 138 and 103 acres, under 

the No Action Alternative and Alternative 1, respectively. Connectance would 

increase over time in the No Action Alternative and Alternatives 1 and 2 but 

would decrease under Alternative 3.

•	 Western Cascades and Klamath: Mean patch size and mean core area of mature 

and structurally complex forests would increase under the No Action Alternative. 

Mean patch size would decrease under all action alternatives. Connectance 

would remain stable over time under the No Action Alternative and Alternative 1, 

while patch size would decrease under Alternatives 2 and 3.

•	 Eastern Cascades: Mean patch size of mature and structurally complex 

forests would decrease under all alternatives. Connectance would decline 

under all alternatives.

Assuming fisher respond positively to the increases in the amount, mean patch size, mean 

core patch size, and connectance of natal habitat, the number of fishers would increase 

under the No Action Alternative and Alternative 1 in the Coast Range province. Fisher 

populations would increase under the No Action Alternative in the Klamath and Western 

Cascades provinces. Decreasing patch size, mean core area size, and connectance would 

lead to decreasing populations of fishers under Alternatives 2 and 3. Habitat connectivity 

between the provinces is a limiting factor to fisher movements between the Klamath 

Province and the Western Cascades province. Connectance would remain relatively 

stable in the Klamath and Western Cascade provinces and the mean patch size of mature 

and structurally complex forest habitat would increase under the No Action Alternative. 

Landbirds

Landbirds are associated with stand establishment, young, mature and structurally 

complex forest structural stage classifications. The amount of these structural stages 

that currently exist and would develop under the alternatives is described in the Ecology

section of this chapter. Landscape objectives developed by the group Partners-in-Flight 

“...provide targets for designing management plans and benchmarks for measuring 

success of management actions” (Altman 1999). Although they are not BLM objectives, 

they are useful for comparing the effects of the alternatives. 
703

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Conservation objectives identified by Altman (2000a) for landbirds in the East Cascade 

Mountains identify the need for “no net loss” of structurally complex eastside conifer 

forests and the retention of large diameter trees (greater than 20 inches in diameter). 

Under all alternatives, in the Klamath Falls Resource Area, BLM-administered lands 

would not meet the objective of “no net loss” of habitat. As shown in Figure 246

(Klamath Falls Resource Area landbird habitat trends for eastside coniferous forests, 

expressed as a percentage of total forested area in the plant association), mature or 

structurally complex forest habitat would decrease under all alternatives; from over 80% 

of the habitat-capable area to approximately 30%. 

Figure 246. Klamath Falls Resource Area landbird habitat trends for eastside coniferous forests, 

expressed as a percentage of total forested area in the plant association

Assuming that bird abundance responds directly to habitat abundance, this loss of habitat 

would result in a corresponding decrease of approximately 50% of the birds associated 

with large trees, snags, and multi-layered dense canopy within eastside conifer forests 

on BLM-administered lands. Table 201 (Habitat features and focal bird species of 

conservation concern in the eastside conifer plant group in central, eastside Oregon and 

Klamath Basin) shows habitat features and associated species (Altman 2000a). Private 

forest lands would not contribute to structurally complex forest habitat because it is 

assumed that private forest lands are generally managed on short rotations. 

Table 201. Habitat features and focal bird species of conservation concern in the eastside conifer 

plant group in central, eastside Oregon and Klamath Basin

Habitat Feature/Conservation Focus Focal species

Large trees Brown creeper

Large snags Williamson’s sapsucker

Multi-layered dense canopy Hermit thrush

Bird abundance is assumed to follow habitat abundance in a one to one relationship. That 

is, a 10% increase in habitat abundance results in a 10% increase in bird abundance. This 

0

20

40

60

80

100

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Total Forested 

Area in the Plant 

Association 

(Percent)

No Action Alternative 1 Base

Alternative 2 Alternative 3
704

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

simplistic assumption allows a relative comparison of the alternatives. In reality, other factors 

such as immigration rates, home range size, food abundance, and nesting structure abundance 

would contribute to the ability of bird populations to respond to newly available habitat. 

Uneven-aged management under Alternative 3 would result in multi-layered stands. 

Because it is assumed that all size classes would be harvested proportional to their 

occurrence in the stand, the harvested stands under this alternative would not meet the 

mature, multiple canopy, or structurally complex forest structural stage classifications. 

This would result in a decrease in those structural stages. In the Klamath Falls Resource 

Area, private forest lands would provide stand establishment and young forest habitat 

while on the U.S. Forest Service lands, it is assumed the amount of mature, multiple 

canopy, or structurally complex forest would increase in the late successional reserves. 

The Oregon-Washington Partner’s in Flight published the following habitat objectives for 

coniferous forests west of the Cascade Mountains. 

•	 Maintain existing old-growth forest where there is less than 15% of the 

landscape within a sub-province (physiographic province), and initiate actions 

to develop old-growth forest to provide greater than 15% old-growth forest in 

each sub-province. 

•	 Maintain existing mature, multiple canopy forest where there is less than 15% of 

the landscape within a sub-province, initiate actions to develop mature, multiple 

canopy forest to provide greater than 15% forest in each physiographic province 

(Altman 1999). 

A landscape that would provide for landbirds in western Oregon coniferous forests would 

contain roughly one third each of the stand establishment, young forest, and mature and 

structurally complex forest structural stage classifications within each physiographic 

province (Altman 1999). 

Under all alternatives, the landbird conservation objectives for mature and structurally 

complex forests would be met on BLM-administered lands as shown in Figure 247

(Westside coniferous forest landbird habitat trends, expressed as a percentage of total 

forested acres in the plant association). 
705

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Figure 247. Westside coniferous forest landbird habitat trends, expressed as a percentage of total 

forested area in the plant association

The Ecology section of this chapter analyzed the development of patch size over time 

for the mature and structurally complex forest structural stage classifications. Landbird 

habitat includes the mature, structurally complex forest structural stage classification, so 

the absolute patch sizes would be different, but relative relationships would be similar. 

An analysis of all ownerships in the planning area, however, reveals that all alternatives 

would decrease the abundance of stand establishment and young forests from current 

Stand Establishment

0

20

40

60

80

100

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Total Forested 

Area in Plant Association 

(Percent)

No Action Alternative 1 Base

Alternative 3 Alternative 2

Young

0

20

40

60

80

100

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Total Forested

Area in the Plant 

Association (Percent)

No Action Alternative 1 Base

Alternative 3 Alternative 2

Mature and Structurally Complex

0

20

40

60

80

100

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Total Forested 

Area in the Plant 

Association (Percent)

No Action Alterative 1 Base

Alternative 3 Alternative 2
706

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

levels (see Chapter 4, Ecology). Mature, multiple canopy and structurally complex forests 

would increase in abundance under the No Action Alternative and Alternatives 1 and 3 

from the current condition of 47% to 77% under the No Action Alternative and to 59% 

under Alternatives 1 and 3. Alternative 2 would maintain a relatively stable amount of 

habitat. Landbird species reliant on mature, multiple canopy and structurally complex 

forests are shown in Table 202 (Habitat features and focal bird species of conservation 

concern in the western Oregon conifer forests). Their abundance would be expected to 

increase, similarly, from 10-30 % (assuming bird abundance responds directly to habitat 

abundance) across BLM-administered lands in western Oregon.

Table 202. Habitat features and focal bird species of conservation concern in the western Oregon 

conifer forests

Habitat Feature Focal Species

Structurally Complex

Large snags Vaux’s swift

Large trees Brown creeper

Conifer cones Red crossbill

Mature Forest Multi-canopy

Large snags Pileated woodpecker

Large trees Brown creeper

Conifer cones Red crossbill

Closed canopy Hermit warbler

Deciduous canopy trees Pacific-slope flycatcher

Mid-story tree layers Varied thrush

Open mid-story Hammond’s flycatcher

Deciduous understory Wilson’s warbler

Forest floor complexity Winter wren

Young structural stage (Young stand initiation and Pole stem exclusiona

)

Closed canopy Hermit warbles

Deciduous canopy trees Pacific-slope flycatcher

Open mid-story Hammond’s flycatcher

Deciduous canopy trees Black-throated gray warbler

Deciduous understory Wilson’s warbler

Forest floor complexity Winter wren

Deciduous subcanopy/understory Hutton’s vireo

Stand Establishment

Residual canopy trees Olive-sided flycatcher

Snags Western bluebird

Deciduous vegetation Orange-crowned warbler

Nectar-producing plants Rufous hummingbird

a

Altman’s seral stages (Altman 1999) are in italics.

Over 100 years, young stands would decline on BLM-administered lands under all 

alternatives. The current level of 47% if west-side coniferous forests would decline to 

15% under the No Action Alternative, and to 32, 42, and 22% under Alternatives 1, 2, 

and 3 respectively. Populations of bird species which rely exclusively on the young 
707

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

forest structural stage classification would similarly decline in abundance on BLMadministered lands. 

The abundance of the specific habitat components important to landbirds including snags, 

residual trees, deciduous shrubs, and nectar producing flowers would vary between the 

alternatives. The No Action Alternative and Alternative 3 would retain residual trees and 

snags in regeneration harvest units while Alternatives 1 and 2 would not retain residual 

trees or snags as shown in Table 203 (Comparison of snag and residual tree retention 

by alternative). Under Alternatives 1 and 2, the stand establishment and young forest 

structural stage classifications created as a result of regeneration harvest would have little 

or no value for landbird species which require residual trees or snags. 

Table 203. Comparison of snag and residual tree retention by alternative

Retention 

Component

No Action 

(# per acre)

Alternative 1 

(# per acre)

Alternative 2 

(# per acre)

Alternative 3 

(# per acre)

LSMA TMA LSMA TMA

GLMA

(Regen)

GLMA

(Partial)

Snags 

created or 

retained*

1.1 2-6 0 1 2-6 0 1 2-4 2-4

Residual trees

6-8 (north)

18-25 (south)

12-18 

(connectivity)

0 0 0 0 6-9 20-30

As analyzed in the Ecology section of this chapter, mature and structurally complex 

forests would be provided on BLM-administered lands along with U.S. Forest Service 

lands under all alternatives. Private forest lands are expected to contribute a stable 

amount of the stand establishment and young forest structural stage classifications. The 

No Action Alternative and Alternative 3 would create the best quality stand establishment 

and young forest habitat compared to Alternatives 1 and 2 because of the requirements 

to retain snags, and legacy trees. The stand establishment and young forests located on 

private forest land would generally contain low amounts of legacy components (old, large 

trees, and snags) and limited amounts of hardwood shrubs and other herbaceous material 

which are important to a diverse bird community. 
708

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Western Snowy Plover 

Under all alternatives, existing plans for the western snowy plover habitat at North 

Spit and New River areas of critical environmental concern would continue to be 

implemented. These plans are designed to prevent disturbance to known western snowy 

plover nest sites, to restore natural dune process with a goal of providing additional 

nesting habitat, and provide predator control. Designated critical habitat for the 

western snowy plover is located within the North Spit and New River areas of critical 

environmental concern. 

The Pacific coast distinct population segment of the western snowy plover has exhibited 

“significant” progress towards recovery as shown in Figure 248 (Total number of 

western snowy plover young fledged along the Oregon Coast from 1990-2006) (Lauten 

et al. 2006). Since the management that has led to this recovery would continue, it is 

anticipated that population numbers and nesting success in the long term would remain 

stable or increase under all alternatives. 

Figure 248. Total number of western snowy plover young fledged along the Oregon Coast from 

1990-2006) 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

19901991199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006

Number Oregon Coast North Spit New River
709

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Sage Grouse

Sage grouse are not currently known to occupy any lands within the Klamath Falls 

resource Area or in the planning area. The last occupied lek, of the four historically 

known leks on BLM-administered lands, was in 1993 (Hagen 2005). The historic 

range for sage grouse encompasses 630,000 acres (all ownerships) in the Klamath Falls 

Resource Area as shown in Figure 249 (Historic range of sage grouse within the planning 

are of the western Oregon plan revision).

Figure 249. Historic range of sage grouse within the planning area of the western Oregon plan revision

Approximately 47,000 acres of potential habitat (including all biological and behavioral 

needs; lekking, nesting, brood rearing, and wintering habitat) were identified on BLMadministered lands using data derived from the Ecological Site Inventory as shown in 

Table 204 (Sage grouse habitat on the Gerber block, Klamath Falls Resource Area). 

Table 204. Sage grouse habitat on the Gerber block, Klamath Falls Resource Area 

Unit Total BLM Area 

(acre)

Habitat-Capableb Habitata Non-habitat

(acre) (%) (acre) (%)c (acre) (%)c

Gerber block 83,276 47,143 57 27,707 59 19,436 41

a Provides for all biological and behavioral needs – lekking, nesting, brood rearing, wintering.

b Vegetative communities the would likely develop into, or could be converted into sage grouse habitat. 

c Percent of habitat-capable.
710

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Ecological Site Inventory data does not contain sufficient information to differentiate 

between the individual habitat needs (lekking, nesting, brood rearing, and wintering). 

Therefore, they are lumped together and referred to as suitable sage grouse habitat. 

Potential habitat includes sage brush communities, meadows, ephemeral wetlands, and 

non-forested riparian habitats. Potential natural communities (within the natural range of 

plant species occurrences) and late seral habitats provide for the biological needs for the 

sage grouse. 

Figure 250 (Sage grouse habitat within the Klamath Falls Resource Area) shows 

that suitable sage grouse habitat occurs on BLM-administered lands in two units, the 

Campbell and the Gerber blocks. The Campbell block contains less than 10% of BLMadministered lands and will not be analyzed further because of the dispersed nature of the 

BLM-administered lands. The Gerber block contains 83,176 acres and is the largest and 

most important block of potential sage grouse habitat on BLM-administered lands within 

the planning area. The Gerber block currently contains approximately 27,000 acres of 

sage grouse habitat. 

Figure 250. Sage grouse habitat within the Klamath Falls Field Office 

The treatment of the lands east of Highway 97 in the Klamath Falls Resource Area 

would not vary between the alternatives; therefore the following impacts would occur 

under all alternatives.

The Oregon conservation strategy for sage grouse was completed in 2005. The BLM was 

a partner in that process, along with the U.S. Forest Service and state agencies (Hagen 

et al. 2005). The conservation strategy for sagebrush habitat includes managing for at 
711

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

least 70% of the sage grouse habitat-capable lands in habitat condition and 30% in a 

potential condition. Within the Gerber block this would equate to approximately 33,000 

acres out of the 47,000 acres of habitat-capable lands. Currently there are 27,000 acres of 

sage grouse habitat (59% of habitat-capable) within the Gerber block. Current levels of 

juniper removal, grazing, and wildfire suppression activities would increase the amount 

of sage grouse habitat. These activities would continue under all alternatives. 

Juniper encroachment prevents sage grouse non-habitat from developing into suitable 

habitat because it competes for moisture and light. Juniper encroachment is a major 

cause of the loss of sage grouse habitat in the Gerber block. Juniper woodlands occupy 

approximately 40,000 acres within the Gerber block. Juniper expansion has increased by 

a factor of 10 since the 1880s (Miller and Tausch 2001, as cited in Hagen 2005). 

It is assumed that forest management activities in the next decade would occur at the 

same rate as in the past decade in the Klamath Falls Resource Area. This would result 

in removal of between 12,000 and 30,000 acres of juniper for fuels reduction and an 

additional 3,000 to 6,000 acres for biomass production and/or utilization for chips, 

sawlogs, firewood and other commercial uses over the next 10 years. Removal of 

juniper would remove competing vegetation and allow sage grouse habitat to re-establish. 

The spread of invasive, non-native grasses also causes the loss of sage grouse habitat. 

Site disturbing activities can include the use of heavy equipment or burning which 

allows the spread of invasive, non-native grasses. These non-native grasses prevent the 

establishment of sagebrush and other native forage species for sage grouse. Similar to 

juniper, they limit the availability of food source and hiding cover for the sage grouse.

Measures that would mitigate the spread of invasive grasses to sage grouse habitat include 

eradicating isolated patches of invasive plants, prioritizing sage brush areas for invasive 

control and prevention, and maximizing site occupancy of desired vegetation (Hagen 2005).

Grazing allotments overlay the entire Gerber block. Rangeland surveys in the Gerber 

block have shown that range conditions have been on an upward trend towards late 

successional forest and potential natural community since the late 1930’s. In 1938, 

surveys indicated that 68% of range was dominated by cheatgrass communities. 

A 2004 report states: “[n]ative perennial bunchgrasses, desirable shrub species, 

and native forbs have all increased in abundance [since 1938], leaving only 4.5% 

dominated by cheatgrass (and other non-native annual grasses) and in an early to midseral successional forest state (USDI unpublished).” Grazing under the No Action 

Alternative has been compatible with the maintenance and the creation of sage grouse 

habitat. Grazing levels and practices in the Gerber block would not change under the 

action alternatives, therefore grazing would not result in the loss of sage grouse habitat 

under any of the alternatives. 

Sage grouse do not utilize forested areas; therefore any timber harvest of the eastside 

lands in the Klamath Falls Resource Area would have no impact on the sage grouse.

Wildfires have had very little impact on sage grouse habitat in the Klamath Falls 

Resource Area. In the last 15 years, wildfire has affected less than 1,000 total acres 
712

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

(Hayner, pers. com. 2007). With continuing fuels reduction efforts and aggressive 

suppression under all alternatives, wildfire would continue to have little or no impact on 

sage grouse habitat.

Sage grouse do not occur within the planning area, therefore effects to sage grouse 

populations are difficult to predict. Disturbances, primarily noise, would limit suitable 

grouse habitat from becoming occupied. Conservation measures to reduce or restrict 

disturbances would be implemented if a site were to become occupied or if reintroduction 

were attempted. Off-highway vehicle use in the Gerber block would be restricted to 

designated roads and trails. This would result in a reduction of disturbance due to offhighway vehicle use. No new campground or other large-scale recreation developments 

would occur under any of the alternatives. There would be 18.2 miles of potential trail 

development for non-motorized users in the action alternatives. Avoiding historic lekking 

areas and seasonal trail closures would limit disturbance impacts to any new leks.

Currently, sage grouse show no resistance to West Nile virus and mortality is assumed to 

be 100% (Naugle et al. 2004). West Nile virus has not been documented in sage grouse 

in Oregon (Hagen 2005). None of the alternatives would affect the likelihood of West 

Nile virus from occurring.

Special Status Species

There are 117 special status animal species known or suspected to occur on BLMadministered lands within the planning area. For analytical purposes, they have been 

place into seven groups based on habitat needs. Table 205 (BLM special status animal 

species known or suspected to occur on BLM-administered lands in the planning area) 

shows species by group. Species in groups 1 and 3 are analyzed elsewhere in this Wildlife 

section. Species in group 2 are found either inconsistently on BLM-administered 

lands or on highly specialized non-forested habitats such as noncommercial forests, 

oak woodlands, shrublands, grasslands, cliffs, rock outcrops, talus slopes, meadows, 

wetlands, spring, fens, ponds, and vernal pools where harvest would not occur. These 

species are assumed to not be affected by the alternatives and are not further analyzed 

here. Species in groups 4 and 5 are analyzed below. 

Table 205. BLM special status animal species known or suspected to occur on BLM-administered lands within the 

planning area

Group Habitat Species Discussion Species Group 1.

Various

BALD EAGLE

Analyzed Individually elsewhere in Wildlife 

Section

WESTERN SNOWY 

PLOVER

SAGE GROUSE

NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL

MARBLED MURRELET

FISHER

COLUMBIANN WHITETAILED DEER
713

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Group Habitat Species Discussion Species Group 2.

Includes species 

associated with special 

habitats or features (non 

O&C Timber lands). 

Assume protection 

of known sites for all 

alternatives. 

Also includes accidental or 

occasional migrants where 

impacts are unlikely. 

RHINOCEROS AUKLET Not affected. According to Birds of 

Oregon, marine island associate

CASSIN’S AUKLET Not affected. According to Birds of 

Oregon, marine island associate

TUFTED PUFFIN Not affected. According to Birds of 

Oregon, marine island with deep soils and 

coastal headland nester

UPLAND SANDPIPER Not affected- According to Birds of 

Oregon, only 4 records from western OR, 

3 within boundaries of Coos Bay BLM, 

question if on BLM-administered land? 

Accidental occurrence on BLM.

FORK-TAILED STORM 

PETREL

Not affected- marine species breeds on 

off-shore islands. Only inland record was 

dead bird used as prey item, probably of 

great-horned owl according to Birds of 

Oregon.

ALEUTIAN CANADA GOOSE Non breeding migrant, delisted ESA SSS 

on BLM-administered land. Has its own 

plan on New River ACEC which is non 

forested Public Domain area. Assume 

effect of all action alt the same. 

DUSKY CANADA GOOSE Non breeding, unlikely migrant on BLMadministered land, Not Affected

CALIFORNIA BROWN 

PELICAN

Not affected, according to Birds of Oregon 

a coastal marine species that rarely 

occurs inland.

AMERICAN WHITE 

PELICAN.

Use on the BLM is non breeder. Open and 

wetland associate. Not affected.

RED-NECKED GREBE According to Birds of Oregon, the only 

consistent breeding population in OR 

is found at Upper Klamath Lake NWR. 

Winters mainly along the coast. Unlikely 

migrant on BLM-administered land, Not 

Affected.

TRUMPETER SWAN According to Birds of Oregon, nonbreeding west of the Cascades, unlikely 

migrant on BLM-administered land, Not 

Affected.

FERRUGINOUS HAWK Klamath Basin, open arid plain associate. 

Occasional winter visitor west of the 

Cascades.

COMMON NIGHTHAWK 

(Willamette Valley 

Population)

Non-forest species, unlikely to be affected, 

no BLM-administered land.

TULE GOOSE Not Affected. Uses open water and ag 

wetlands. Accidental on the BLM. 

MERLIN Insufficient data; no way to analyze. 

Occasional - non breeder? 
714

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Group Habitat Species Discussion

WHITE-TAILED KITE Ag land, wet meadows, prairie and open 

land associate. Not affected by forest 

activities. 

YELLOW RAIL Upper Klamath Basin Plan, PD wetland

AMERICAN PEREGRINE 

FALCON

 Nests on cliff features, possible effects 

to prey species (landbirds). Covered with 

landbird analysis. 

INSULAR BLUE 

(BUTTERFLY)

Coastal Grasslands, clover is the 

host plant. No known sites on BLMadministered lands. Potential habitat on 

the BLM.

HOARY ELFIN 

(BUTTERFLY)

No known populations on the BLM or FS 

lands. Kinnikinnik associate on coastal 

bluffs. Potential habitat on the BLM.

OREGON SILVERSPOT 

BUTTERFLY

Coastal species associated with salt-spray 

meadows.

FENDER’S BLUE 

BUTTERFLY

Westside prairie species associated with 

- Lupine suphereus var. kincaidii, use the 

lupine analysis

NEWCOMB’S LITTORINE 

SNAIL

Intertidal species; was documented on N 

Spit; most likely does occur on the BLM 

as pickerel weed (their closely associated 

plant) occurs on both the BLM and state 

land on the bay side of the Spit. Primary 

impact = OHV use.

VERNAL POOL FAIRY 

SHRIMP

Vernal Pools. Has own plan for Table Rock 

which is non forested PD area. May be 

stand alone plan from WOPR. Assume 

effect of all action alt may be the same. 

Potential recreational effects. 

LARCH MOUNTAIN 

SALAMANDER

New data showing it restricted to Columbia 

Gorge and talus-skree habitat. The BLM 

does not have this habitat. Based on 

extensive surveys on Mt Hood NF. WA 

habitat data not seem to apply to OR. 

AMERICAN GRASS BUG Associated with Deschampsia cespitosa 

in wet native grasslands in Benton and 

Yamhill counties.

SISKIYOU SHORT-HORNED 

GRASSHOPPER

Grassland/herbaceous habitats associated 

with elderberry plants. Assumes forest 

mgmt will encourage more habitat or 

not negatively impact if elderberry is 

maintained and enhanced. If herbicides 

are applied, it will be a negative effect. 

WHULGE (Taylor’s) 

CHECKERSPOT 

(BUTTERFLY)

No known sites on BLM or FS lands. 

Westside prairie species, with strawberry 

appearing to be a principal adult nectar 

source in OR.
715

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Group Habitat Species Discussion

MARDON SKIPPER 

(BUTTERFLY)

Westside grass/shrub - open; grazing and 

burning effects. Associated with fescue. 

Only known sites are on Medford.

DIMINUTIVE PEBBLESNAIL Springs with perennial flows. Actions that 

effect groundwater flow to spring is a 

concern. 

FALL CREEK PEBBLESNAIL Springs with perennial flows. Actions that 

effect groundwater flow to spring is a 

concern. 

KEENE CREEK 

PEBBLESNAIL Springs with perennial flows

KLAMATH PEBBLESNAIL Springs with perennial flows

NERITE PEBBLESNAIL Springs with perennial flows

CRATER LAKE TIGHTCOIL 

- (SNAIL) Springs, wetlands

MONTANE PEA CLAM Springs, wetlands. On Coos Bay District, 

this species most likely does occur on 

the BLM as pickerel weed (their closely 

associated plant) occurs on both the BLM 

and state land on the bay side of the Spit. 

Primary impact = OHV use.

EVENING FIELDSLUG Springs, wetlands

CROWNED TIGHTCOIL- 

(SNAIL) Springs, wetlands

ROBUST WALKER Springs, seeps, wetlands

PACIFIC WALKER Springs, seeps, wetlands

TOOTHED PEBBLESNAIL Springs with perennial flows

PISTOL RIVER POCKET 

GOPHER

Coastal meadow, agriculture/pasture/

mixed environs associate. Any 

alternatives’ effects to coastal meadows 

could have negative effect. Very little 

known. Very limited range - no known 

BLM sites. This species only collected 

from mouth of Pistol River. 

GOLD BEACH POCKET 

GOPHER

Coastal meadow associate. Any 

alternative effects to this habitat could 

have negative effect. Very little known. 

Very limited range - no known BLM sites. 

Taxonomy questionable. May not have 

enough data to analyze. 

TOWNSEND’S BIG-EARED 

BAT

Caves, mines, tunnels, bridges, old 

buildings

SPOTTED BAT Cliffs

FRINGED MYOTIS Caves, mines, tunnels, bridges

PALLID BAT (Pacific Pallid 

and Pallid considered the 

same)

Caves, mines, tunnels, bridges, old 

buildings
716

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Group Habitat Species Discussion Species Group 3.

Various

PURPLE MARTIN 

Analysis covered in Landbird section

YELLOW BREASTED CHAT 

WHITE-HEADED 

WOODPECKER

THREE-TOED 

WOODPECKER 

BLACK-BACKED 

WOODPECKER

GRASSHOPPER SPARROW

TRICOLORED BLACKBIRD 

BURROWING OWL

FLAMMULATED OWL

LEWIS WOODPECKER

OREGON VESPER 

SPARROW 

WESTERN MEADOWLARK 

STREAKED HORNED LARK 

Snag Dependent

FRINGED MYOTIS

See landbird discussion for stand 

establishment species PALLID BAT (Pacific Pallid and 

Pallid considered the same)

Mature and structurally 

complex structural stage 

associate

RED TREE VOLE

Assume similar effects as those for the 

northern spotted owl. 

NORTHERN GOSHAWK

JOHNSON’S HAIRSTREAK 

(BUTTERFLY)

SURVEY AND MANAGE 

SPECIES

Included under the No Action Alternative 

only. Assume similar effects as those for 

the northern spotted owl.

Species Group 4.

Aquatic/Riparian Associates 

HADDOCK’S 

RHYACOPHILAN CADDIS 

FLY

Stream Order 1 & 2

COPE’S GIANT 

SALAMANDER

Stream Order 1 & 2- any healthy salmon 

stream is healthy for this species

SCOTT’S APATANIAN 

CADDIS FLY Stream Order 1 & 2

CASCADE TORRENT 

SALAMANDER Stream Order 1 & 2

COLUMBIA TORRENT 

SALAMANDER Stream Order 1 & 2

WILLAMETTE FLOATER - 

(MUSSEL) Stream Order 3 & 4

HARLEQUIN DUCK Stream Order 3 & 4

FOOTHILL YELLOWLEGGED FROG Slow moving water with rocky substrate

OREGON SPOTTED FROG Slow moving water
717

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Group Habitat Species Discussion

SCALE LANX - (SNAIL) Fast water, on the BLM in Klamath River 

Canyon (WSR, ACEC)

ROTUND LANX - (SNAIL) Fast Water, main stream of Umpqua 

-limited in range

NORTHWESTERN POND 

TURTLE Slow water / wetlands

PAINTED TURTLE Slow water / wetlands

Species Group 5.

Forest Floor Associates

PUGET OREGONIAN

Range is Salem, Eugene, and Roseburg 

districts 

TILLAMOOK 

WESTERNSLUG

SALAMANDER SLUG

SPOTTED TAIL-DROPPER

BALD HESPERIAN

OAK SPRINGS HESPERIAN

OREGON GIANT 

EARTHWORM

ROTH’S BLIND GROUND 

BEETLE

OREGON SLENDER 

SALAMANDER

TRAVELING SIDEBAND - 

(SNAIL)

Range is Southern Oregon Cascades 

Province including South River Resource 

Area - east, Glendale, Butte Falls, 

Ashland, and Klamath Falls Resource 

Areas

KLAMATH TAILDROPPER

MODOC SIDEBAND (SNAIL)

SISKIYOU HESPERIAN

CHASE SIDEBAND (SNAIL)

CALIFORNIA SLENDER 

SALAMANDER

OREGON SHOULDERBAND 

(SNAIL)

BLACK SALAMANDER

SISKIYOU MTNS 

SALAMANDER

SISTERS HESPERIAN

Range is Coos Bay and Roseburg 

Districts GREEN SIDEBAND - 

(SNAIL)

Under all alternatives, the 12 federal candidate and listed species identified in Table 206

(Federally listed candidate, threatened, and endangered species not associated with 

forested ecosystems) would be managed to provide for the conservation of the species. 

Individual and programmatic actions would be consistent with the conservation needs of 

the species. 
718

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Table 206. Federally listed candidate, threatened, and endangered species not associated with 

forested ecosystems

Statusa Scientific Name Common Name Habitat Conditions

FC Eremophila 

alpestris strigata

Streaked Horned 

Lark

Found in the Willamette Valley. Nesting habitat 

included native prairies and a wide range of 

agricultural fields (Marshall et al. 2003)

FC Euphydryas editha 

taylori

Whulge Checkerspot 

(Butterfly)

Low-elevation upland prairies; host plant is 

narrow-leaved plantain (Plantago lanceolata) 

(ODFW 2006)

FC Polites mardon Mardon Skipper 

(Butterfly)

Meadow habitats; host plants are native fescues 

(ODFW 2006).

FC Rana pretiosa Oregon Spotted 

Frog

Permanent ponds, marhses and meandering 

streams through meadows; bottom of dead and 

decaying vegetation. Springs and other slow 

moving water (ODFW 2006)

FT

Branchinecta 

lynchi Vernal Pool Fairy 

Shrimp

Ephemeral pools, small, cooler (ODFW 2006). 

Found on the BLM in Medford District; 

Critical Habitat 432 acres in the Medford District

FT Eumetopias 

jubatus Steller Sea Lion

Marine habitats include coastal waters near 

shore and over the continental slope; sometimes 

rivers are ascended in pursuit of prey. The 

most commonly used terrestrial habitat types 

are beaches used as rookeries and haulouts 

(NatureServe 2006)

FT

Speyeria zerene 

hippolyta Oregon Silverspot 

Butterfly

Salt spray meadows; host plants early blue and 

western blue violets (Viola spp.) (ODFW 2006

Critical Habitat Critical habitat not designated for BLMadministered lands.

FE Balaenoptera 

musculus Blue Whale Mainly pelagic; generally prefers cold waters and 

open seas (NatureServe 2006).

FE Eschrichtius 

robustus Gray Whale

Mostly in coastal and shallow shelf waters. 

Young are born in lagoons and bays 

(NatureServe 2006).

FE

Icaricia icarioides 

fenderi Fender’s Blue 

Butterfly

Seasonally wet native prairies; host plant is 

Kincaid’s lupine (Lupinus sulphureus kincaidii) 

(ODFW 2006).

Critical Habitat Eugene District

FE Megaptera 

novaeangliae Humpback Whale

Pelagic and coastal waters, sometimes 

frequenting inshore areas such as bays 

(NatureServe 2006).

FE

Pelecanus 

occidentalis 

californicus

California Brown 

Pelican

A coastal marine species rarely found inland. 

Roost on sandy shores and offshore rocks; 

nests on islands and offshore rocks (Marshall et 

al. 2003)

a

 Status Codes: FC - Federal candidate for listing, FT - Federally listed as threatened, FE - Federally listed as endangered.
719

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

On all BLM-administered lands under the No Action Alternative, and on public domain 

lands and on the non-harvest land base on O&C lands under the action alternatives, 

special status species would be managed to avoid contributing to the need to list as 

threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. This management would 

be consistent with existing conservation strategies. Public domain lands account for 

16% of the BLM-administered lands in the planning area. The majority of these lands 

are in the Klamath Falls Resource Area. Public domain lands account for 10% of BLMadministered lands in the Salem, Eugene, Coos Bay, Roseburg and Medford districts (See 

the Introduction section of Chapter 3). 

Species in group 4 are aquatic or riparian species that are highly dependent on water 

quality and aquatic and terrestrial species. The discussion of the environmental 

consequences of the alternatives to fisheries and water quality (See the Fish and Water 

sections of this chapter) are important in understanding the effects to these species.

Analysis of effects to fisheries and water quality that effect anadromous fish species and 

drinking water supplies, water temperature, and sedimentation are pertinent to species 

in group 4. Riparian management areas would constitute approximately 37% of BLMadministered lands under the No Action Alternative, 20% under Alternative 1, 13% under 

Alternative 2, and 11% under Alternative 3 as shown in Table 207 (Riparian management 

areas across all land use allocations under the alternatives). 

Table 207. Riparian management areas across all land use allocations under the alternatives

Alternative Riparian Management Area 

(% Total BLM-administered Lands)

No Action 37

Alternative 1 20

Alternative 2 13

Alternative 3 11

Riparian reserves under the No Action Alternative and riparian management areas under 

the action alternatives are designated along streams. While the areas in riparian reserves 

or riparian management areas beyond the width of one site-potential tree (generally 

greater than 150 feet in western Oregon) on either side of the stream would add little to 

maintenance of lotic and riparian species assemblages (Cockle and Richardson 2003, 

McComb et al 1993, Vessely and McComb 2002, Haggerty et al. 2004, Gomez and 

Anthony 1996) studies found differences for at least some species out to 150-300 feet. 

Vesely and McComb (2002) found buffer strips 66 feet wide contained approximately 

80% of detectable torrent, Pacific giant and Dunn’s salamanders. Additional width, out 

to 90-100 feet would assist in stabilizing diurnal variations in temperature and relative 

humidity. Riparian and stream associated species abundance would be maintained under 

the No Action Alternative and Alternative 1 along intermittent streams because riparian 

management areas 100 feet wide would be sufficient to maintain the environmental 

conditions, moisture and temperature, necessary to support the riparian associates. 

Under Alternatives 2 and 3, riparian management areas would extend to 100 feet on 

either side of perennial and fish bearing streams. Additionally, under Alternative 2, 
720

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

intermittent streams at high risk of debris flows would have a 100 feet stream buffer. 

These riparian management areas would be managed to maintain stream temperature, 

organic matter inputs, and large wood. Stands would be managed to maintain or develop 

mature or structurally complex forest structural stage classifications. Habitat for species 

associated with the stream channel and the area immediately adjacent to the streams 

would be maintained. Species not as strongly associated with the stream would decline 

in abundance, because the canopy openings that would occur in the area between 25 and 

100 feet from the stream and the regeneration of habitat beyond 100 feet from the stream 

channel would create habitat unfavorable to those species. Thinnings have been shown 

to increase the amount of solar radiation reaching the forest floor, increasing both air 

and soil temperature and decreasing relative humidity (Anderson et al. in press). Stream 

salamanders are thinned skinned and especially vulnerable to desiccation. 

Riparian management areas under Alternative 2 would allow harvest within 25 feet of 

intermittent streams, except for debris-flow prone areas which would allow no harvest 

within 25 feet and in addition would develop into mature or structurally complex forests 

between 25 out to 100 feet on either side of the stream channel. The non-commercial 

vegetation which would be retained within 25 feet of intermittent streams (except debrisflow prone) would not maintain the thermal regime of the streamside ecosystem. 

The retention of trees in the 25 feet riparian management area under Alternative 3 

would have similar effects to Alternative 2. This is because, the canopy provided by 

trees within 25 feet of the stream channel would be sparse and the forest edges created 

between riparian management areas and upland regeneration harvest would increase 

diurnal and seasonal temperature fluctuation and decrease the relative humidity and the 

microclimate within the riparian management area (Vesely and McComb 2002, Anderson 

et al. in press). Plethodontid salamanders found in and adjacent to streams are especially 

susceptible to desiccation in dry environments.

Bury (2005) concluded that “...the retention of shade from riparian zones and adjacent 

forests may be critical to the survival and dispersal of even those stream amphibians with 

high fidelity to the stream channel.” The effects of clearcut harvesting are seen in stream 

amphibian populations last from 25 to over 50 years post harvest (Karraker and Welsh 

2006, Bury and Pearl 1999, Ashton et al. 2006). 

Approximately 4,000 acres of harvest would occur over the next 10 years along 

non-debris flow prone, non-fish bearing intermittent streams under Alternative 2 

(approximately 1% of the total area within 100 feet of all intermittent streams) on 

BLM-administered lands within the planning area. A similar amount of harvest would 

occur within riparian management areas under Alternative 3. At a local scale, riparian 

management areas under Alternatives 2 and 3 adjacent to these intermittent streams 

would not maintain a stable assemblage of stream and riparian associated species. 

With 4,000 acres of harvest per decade adjacent to intermittent streams, at the 5th field 

watershed or larger scale, impacts to species assemblages and their connectivity are not 

anticipated under Alternatives 2 and 3. 

Species in group 5 are comprised of amphibians and mollusk species associated with 

mature or structurally complex forests, upland, forest floor communities. These species 

respond to changes to canopy cover, down wood, and soil moisture. Regeneration harvests 
721

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

and the associated impact to adjacent forests would result in the loss of habitat. This is due 

to the breakage and movement of existing forest structure during harvest and the decreases 

in soil and down wood moisture levels due to increased light and wind penetration into 

adjacent stands. Twenty random watersheds were modeled to evaluate the effects of 

regeneration harvests and legacy requirements on forest floor species. Structural stages 

from nonforest and stand establishment to structurally complex stands were scored based on 

habitat value as shown in Table 208 (Forest floor habitat quality ratings). Structural stage 

scores were decreased if there was a lack of legacy, if canopy cover was low, and if location 

occurred within 50 feet of a stand in the stand establishment structural stage. Habitat values 

for young stands (without legacy) were increased one point when they reached 50 years of 

age to account for the natural development of legacy. The habitat quality scores have no 

proportional relationship to each other. A stand with a score of 4 would not provide twice as 

much habitat benefit as a score of 2. 

Table 208. Forest floor habitat quality rating criteria

Structural stage condition

Habitat 

quality 

score

Structural stage condition

Habitat 

quality 

score

Road and Non-Forest 0 Young high density with legacy 3

Stand establishment with legacy 1 Young high density without legacy 2

Stand establishment without legacy 0 Young high density without legacy, 

>50 years old 3

Young low density with legacy 2 Mature single canopy 4

Young low density without legacy 1 Mature multiple canopy 5

Young low density without legacy, > 50 

years old 2 Structurally complex 5

As shown in Figure 251 (Forest floor habitat quality summary for each alternative), under 

all alternatives at least 50% of the forested habitat would receive a habitat quality score of 

4 or 5 by 2056. Differences between the alternatives in the amount of habitat within habitat 

quality categories 0 to 3 would occur as a result of legacy retention and the amount of 

harvesting activities. Since Alternatives 1 and 2 do not have legacy retention requirements, 

they would have more habitat with a 0 to 3 score compared to the No Action Alternative 

and Alternative 1. Habitat quality 2, under Alternative 3, would be comprised mainly 

of young, low density forest stands with legacy; this category would drop to 1% of the 

BLM-administered lands in 2056. This is due primarily to the fact that harvested stands 

under Alternative 3 would move more quickly from the stand establishment (with legacy) 

structural stage directly to the mature, or structurally complex structural stages. Legacy 

structures (downed wood and snags) are key habitat features in enabling forest floor species 

to maintain a presence in a stand when regeneration harvests occur. 
722

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Figure 251. Forest floor habitat quality summary for each alternative 

Under all alternatives, trends in each physiographic province would resemble those 

displayed in Figure 251. The model assumes that forest floor associates persist through 

harvest activities or recolonize from adjacent habitats, either riparian management 

areas or upland areas. Based on the results of this modeling, at least 50% of the forest 

floor habitat would persist in habitat quality category 4 or 5, and therefore, forest floor 

associates would persist on BLM-administered lands under all alternatives. 

Under the action alternatives, 60,000 to 143,000 acres (2.6 – 6.5% of forest capable 

lands) would be harvested over the next 10 years as shown in Table 209 (Harvest levels 

as percent of forest capable acres under each alternative). Given the low percentage 

of harvest over the next 10 years, only species with fewer than 20 known sites and 

highly endemic to one or several locations would be at risk of declines in abundance 

and distribution severe enough that extinction might become a concern. In this case, 

protection measures would be applied to maintain populations of the species (see Chapter 

2, Management Common to All Action Alternatives, Wildlife). 

Table 209. Harvest levels as percent of forest capable acres under each alternative

Alternative Harvest* (acres) Forest capable (%)

No Action 62,000 2.6

Alternative 1 91,000 3.8

Alternative 2 143,000 6.5

Alternative 3 133,000 6.1

1

*Note: Total of regeneration and selection harvest activities.

0

20

40

60

Alt 1

0

Alt 2

0

Alt 3

0

NA

0

Alt 1

1

Alt 2

1

Alt 3

1

NA

1

Alt 1

2

Alt 2

2

Alt 3

2

NA

2

Alt 1

3

Alt 2

3

Alt 3

3

NA

3

Alt 1

4

Alt 2

4

Alt 3

4

NA

4

Alt 1

5

Alt 2

5

Alt 3

5

NA

5

Alternative/Habitat Quality Score 

Percent of Habitat-Capable BLM Lands 

2006 2016

2026 2056
723

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Fish

This analysis examines how the alternatives would affect fish habitat by the delivery of large wood 

and fine sediments to streams and by the alterations to peak water flows and stream temperature. 

Key Points

•	 Large wood contributions would be the same in all four alternatives and would nearly reach the maximum 

potential in two of the five representative watersheds. In the other three representative watersheds, large wood 

contributions would be nearly the same under the No Action Alternative, Alternative 1, and the no harvesting 

reference analysis, but lower under Alternatives 2 and 3.

•	 The No Action Alternative would have nearly twice the acres in the riparian management areas as Alternative 1, 

and three times the acreage of Alternatives 2 and 3.

•	 Increases in large wood contribution would cause similar increases in the potential fish productivity under all 

four alternatives in two of the five representative watersheds. In the other three representative watersheds, fish 

productivity would be nearly the same under the No Action Alternative, Alternative 1, and the no harvesting 

reference analysis, and in few cases slightly lower under Alternatives 2 and 3. 

•	 The effect of the alternatives on fish productivity would be highly dependant on the amount of high intrinsic 

potential stream channels that are within any one watershed.

•	 Increases in fine sediment delivery under all four alternatives would be less than 1% of the baseline sediment rates, 

and therefore would not degrade fish habitat under any of the alternatives.

•	 None of the alternatives would result in increases in peak flows in fifth-field watersheds to a level that would affect 

fish habitat.

•	 None of the alternatives would result in increases in stream temperature that would affect fish habitat or 

populations, except under Alternatives 2 and 3, where there would be some localized increases in stream 

temperatures in the Coquille management area.

A variety of anadromous and resident fish species occur throughout the planning area (see the 

Fish section in Chapter 3). The requirements for habitat and the responses to habitat changes vary 

by species and vary among age groups within species. However, the fish species that would be 

affected by the BLM’s management are similar enough to permit an analysis of how any changes 

to large wood, sediment, flow, or temperature would affect fish habitat.

Large Wood

This analysis uses a large wood model to determine the mean annual large wood 

contribution under each alternative and the maximum potential large wood contribution 

to fish-bearing streams from BLM-administered lands and non-BLM-administered lands 

in representative watersheds. See the Fish section in Chapter 3 for the descriptions of the 

five representative fifth-field watersheds. The model output of mean annual large wood 

contribution is not a prediction of actual instream conditions at a specific point in time, 

but represents a potential contribution to instream wood based on forest conditions over 

time. This analysis compares the mean annual large wood contribution to a maximum 

biological potential large wood contribution and determines a relative fish productivity 

index for coho salmon, chinook salmon, and steelhead trout based on the potential large 

wood contribution. Because the trends are similar for each species, fish productivity 

indices are displayed only for coho salmon. 
724

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

See Figure 252 (Total large wood contribution and potential coho productivity index 

for the five representative fifth-field watersheds on the BLM-administered lands) for the 

mean annual large wood contribution from BLM-administered lands and non-BLMadministered lands from 2006 to 2106 and the potential coho productivity index from 

BLM-administered lands in the five representative fifth-field watersheds.

Figure 252. Total large wood contribution and potential coho productivity index for the five 

representative fifth-field watersheds on the BLM-administered lands 

Total Large Wood Contribution

Rogue-Horseshoe Bend (93% BLM)

100

300

500

700

2006No Action

2106

Alt 1 2106Alt 2 2106Alt 3 2106No Harvest

2106

Potential

Maximum

Mean Annual 

LWD 

Contribution

BLM non-BLM

Coho Productivity Index 

Proportion of basin-wide maximum potential

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

2006 2026 2046 2066 2086 2106

No Action Alt 1

Alt 2 Alt 3

No Harvest Maximum Potential

Total Large Wood Contribution

Upper Smith River (59% BLM)

100

400

700

1000

1300

2006No Action

2106

Alt 1 2106Alt 2 2106Alt 3 2106No Harvest

2106

Potential

Maximum

Mean 

Annual 

LWD 

Contribution

BLM non-BLM

Coho Productivity Index 

Proportion of basin-wide maximum potential

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%

2006 2026 2046 2066 2086 2106

No Action Alt 1

Alt 2 Alt 3

No Harvest Maximum Potential
725

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Total Large Wood Contribution

Evans Creek (41% BLM)

100

300

500

700

2006No Action

2106

Alt 1 2106Alt 2 2106Alt 3 2106No Harvest

2106

Potential

Maximum

Mean 

Annual 

LWD 

Contribution

BLM Non-BLM

Coho Productivity Index 

Proportion of basin-wide maximum potential

0%

10%

20%

30%

2006 2026 2046 2066 2086 2106

No Action Alt 1

Alt 2 Alt 3

No Harvest Maximum Potential

Total Large Wood Contribution

Applegate-McKee (34% BLM)

0

40

80

120

160

200

2006No Action

2106

Alt 1 2106Alt 2 2106Alt 3 2106No Harvest

2106

Potential

Maximum

Mean Annual 

LWD 

Contribution BLM Non-BLM

Coho Productivity Index 

Proportion of basin-wide Maximum Potential

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

2006 2026 2046 2066 2086 2106

No Action Alt 1

Alt 2 Alt 3

No Harvest Maximum Potential

Total Large Wood Contribution

Eagle Creek (6% BLM)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2006No Action

2106

Alt 1 2106Alt 2 2106Alt 3 2106No Harvest

2106

Potential

Maximum

Mean Annual 

LWD 

Contribution BLM Non-BLM

Coho Wood Index 

Proportion of basin-wide maximum potential

0%

5%

10%

15%

2006 2026 2046 2066 2086 2106

No Action Alt 1

Alt 2 Alt 3

No Harvest Maximum Potential
726

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

In all five fifth-field representative watersheds, the large wood contribution from the 

BLM-administered lands would increase under all four alternatives to near the maximum 

potential large wood contribution over the 100 year period. The proportion of large 

wood contribution from the BLM-administered lands would also increase under all four 

alternatives from 2006 to 2106. The results focus on long-term effects (100 years), which 

are driven by the changes in vegetative patterns that result from growth and harvesting. 

In the short term (within the next 10 years), the differences in effects between the 

alternatives are no greater than in the long term. 

•	 Under the No Action Alternative, Alternative 1, and the no harvesting reference 

analysis, the large wood contribution would be nearly the same in all five fifthfield representative watersheds.17

•	 Under all four alternatives, the mean annual large wood contribution from the 

BLM-administered lands would be nearly the same over the 100-year period 

for two of the five representative watersheds (Eagle Creek and Applegate River/

McKee Bridge). 

•	 Under Alternatives 2 and 3, the mean annual large wood contribution from the 

BLM-administered lands would be slightly lower than under the No Action 

Alternative and Alternative 1 in three of the five representative watersheds 

(Evans Creek, Upper Smith River, and Rogue River/Horseshoe Bend). 

In the Evans Creek representative watershed, the proportion of the maximum large wood 

contribution from the BLM-administered lands would increase from the current level of 

64% to 96% by 2106 under the No Action Alternative, to 90% under Alternative 1, to 

76% under Alternative 2, to 81% under Alternative 3, and to 98% under the no harvesting 

reference analysis. 

In the Upper Smith River representative watershed, the proportion of the maximum 

large wood contribution from the BLM-administered lands would increase from the 

current level of 41% to 97% by 2106 under the No Action Alternative, to 96% under 

Alternative 1, to 88% under Alternative 2, to 84% under Alternative 3, and to 97% under 

the no harvesting reference analysis. 

In the Rogue-Horseshoe Bend representative watershed, the proportion of the maximum 

large wood contribution from the BLM-administered lands would increase from the 

current level of 44% to 95% by 2106 under the No Action Alternative, to 94% under 

Alternative 1, to 91% under Alternative 2, to 89% under Alternative 3, and to 96% under 

the no harvesting reference analysis. The differences in percentages would account for 

less than 10 pieces of large wood per year over the entire representative watershed. 

17 The differences among the alternatives are slight when compared to the total wood contribution, and sources of error in modeling may be greater than any differences in large wood contributions in these representative watersheds. For example, there is a 

slight difference in how the modeling classified open water as nonforest for each alternative (see the Ecology section in Chapter 3). As a result, initial large wood contributions may be overestimated until 2056 for the No Action Alternative and Alternative 1 compared to Alternatives 2 or 3. This may in part explain the higher fish productivity values for the No Action Alternative 

in the Rogue-Horseshoe Bend watershed by 2016 and 2026. 
727

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Although the mean annual large wood contribution would increase in all five 

representative watersheds, it would be lower than the maximum potential in 2106, 

because not all forests that are capable of delivering large wood to fish-bearing streams 

would become mature or structurally complex forests by 2106, even under the no 

harvesting reference analysis.

In three of the five representative watersheds, the mean annual large wood contribution 

from non-BLM-administered lands would remain the same from 2006 to 2106. In the 

Eagle Creek representative watershed, non-BLM-administered lands comprise 94% 

of the watershed. For these non-BLM lands, the proportion of the mean annual large 

wood contribution of the maximum would increase by 2% from 52% in 2006 to 54% 

by 2106. In the Rogue-Horseshoe Bend representative watershed, the proportion of the 

mean annual large wood contribution of the maximum large wood contribution from 

non-BLM-administered lands would increases by 52% from 25% in 2006 to 77% by 

2106. However, the non BLM-administered lands make up only 7% of the watershed. 

This analysis assumes that U.S. U.S. Forest Service reserves would continue to develop 

and all other lands would maintain their current abundances. See the Ecology section in 

this chapter.

See Figure 253 (Riparian reserve and riparian management area widths and large wood 

contribution) for an illustration of the riparian reserves and riparian management areas 

for each alternative and the average annual large wood contribution for the Upper Smith 

and Eagle Creek representative watersheds at the year 2106. 
728

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Figure 253. Riparian reserve and riparian management area widths and large wood contribution

No Action Alternative 

Riparian reserve: 960,348 acres (37%) 

Smith: 704 pieces per year 

Eagle: 21 pieces per year

Alternative 1 

Riparian management area: 

508,763 acres (20%) 

Smith: 701 pieces per year 

Eagle: 20 pieces per year 

Alternative 2 

Riparian management area: 

196,421 acres (13%) 

Smith: 638 pieces per year 

Eagle: 19 pieces per year 

Alternative 3 

Riparian management area: 

282,837 acres (11%) 

Smith: 614 pieces per year 

Eagle: 19 pieces per year 
729

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

The No Action Alternative has twice as many acres in a riparian reserve as Alternative 1. 

However, in all five representative watersheds, the large wood contribution would 

be nearly the same for the No Action Alternative and Alternative 1. The large wood 

contribution is slightly less under Alternatives 2 and 3 in several representative 

watersheds and nearly the same in the other representative watersheds. However, the 

amount of acres within the riparian management areas are far less (up to two-thirds less) 

than the riparian reserves under the No Action Alternative.

The large wood contributions would increase over time under all four alternatives and 

vary only slightly among the alternatives for several reasons, as follows.

Reason 1. Areas outside of the riparian management areas would 

contribute large wood to streams.

Large wood source areas that are not allocated to riparian management 

areas would contribute large wood to fish-bearing streams if they are in a 

mature&structurally complex forest condition. For example, large wood source 

areas would occur in areas withdrawn under the timber productivity capability 

classification (TPCC) or allocated to late-successional management areas. Under 

all four alternatives, the amount of the mature&structurally complex forests 

outside of riparian management areas would increase from 2006 to 2106. See 

Figure 254 (Structural stage abundances in the harvest land base by alternative). 

The large wood model considered all Stand Establishment and Young forests 

as not capable of providing large wood to streams. This underestimates large 

wood contribution from outside Riparian management areas under the No Action 

Alternative and Alternative 3. The No Action Alternative and Alternative 3 

require green tree retention in regeneration harvests and partial harvest, which 

would ensure that future Stand Establishment and Young forests would include 

some trees greater than 20 inches in diameter, and therefore could provide some 

large wood to streams (see the Ecology section of this Chapter).
730

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Figure 254. Structural stage abundances in the harvest land base by alternative

Reason 2. All four alternatives would incorporate most large wood 

source areas into the riparian reserves or the riparian management areas. 

The acreage in the riparian reserves or the riparian management areas under the 

alternatives would vary more than the large wood contribution. This is because 

all four alternatives would incorporate most of the large wood source areas into 

the riparian management areas. In the five representative watersheds, the majority 

of the large wood comes from streamside areas. See Figure 255 (Example of 

riparian management areas under all four alternatives). 

Under all four alternatives, the riparian management areas would include a 

distance of at least 100 feet from all perennial streams, which would include 

most of the riparian sources of large wood to streams. Meleason et al. (2002) 

found that 90% of streamside large wood input originated from within 46 feet 

of streams when adjacent stands are 80 to 200 years of age and within 118 feet 

when adjacent stands are greater than 200 years of age. McDade et al. (1990) 

found that 90% of large wood recruitment from streamside sources occurs 

within 157 feet when adjacent stands are 80 to 200 years of age and 180 feet 

when adjacent stands are greater than 200 years of age. May and Gresswell 

(2003) found that 80% of large wood originated from trees that are rooted within 

50 meters (164 feet) of the channel in colluvial streams and within 30 meters 

(98 feet) in alluvial channels. 

No Action Harvest Land Base

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Percent of 

BLM Lands

Stand Establishment Young Mature Structurally Complex

Alternative 1 Harvest Land Base

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Percent of

BLM lands

Stand Establishment Young Mature Structurally Complex

Alternative 2 Harvest Land Base

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Percent of 

BLM lands

Stand Establishment Young Mature Structurally Complex

Alternative 3 Harvest Land Base 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Percent of 

BLM lands

Stand Establishment Young Mature Structurally Complex
731

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Figure 255. Example of riparian management areas under all four alternatives

The widths of the riparian management areas also vary by alternative along 

headwater streams (non-fish-bearing intermittent channels).

Headwater streams differ in susceptibility to debris flows. The Coastal Landscape 

Analysis and Modeling Study (CLAMS), see Figure 256 (Percent intermittent 

streams with highest probability of debris flow to fish-bearing stream channels)
732

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

showed that a relatively small amount of intermittent channels deliver most of the 

large wood from these sources.

Figure 256. Percent intermittent streams with highest probability of debris flow to fishbearing stream channels

Along intermittent streams, all four alternatives would incorporate some portion 

of large wood source areas into the riparian reserves or the riparian management 

areas. Alternative 3 would include the smallest proportion of large wood source 

areas along intermittent streams within riparian management areas, which 

explains why large wood contributions would be slightly lower in two of the five 

representative watersheds under Alternative 3.

Although Alternatives 2 and 3 would have similar riparian management areas 

along perennial streams, Alternative 2 would allocate larger riparian management 

areas on debris-flow prone intermittent streams and permit timber harvesting 

along other intermittent streams. The large wood contribution under Alternative 2 

would be nearly the same as the No Action Alternative and Alternative 1 in 

two of the five watersheds, and nearly the same as Alternative 3 in all five 

representative watersheds. This is because there would be 100 foot riparian 

management areas under Alternative 2 along debris-flow prone intermittent 

channels having a high probability of delivering large wood to fish-bearing 

stream channels. 

Reason 3. The abundance of structural stages within riparian 

management areas would change similarly over time under all four 

alternatives. 

The contribution of large wood to streams would depend on the amount of 

mature&structurally complex forests within large wood source areas. Under 

all four alternatives, the amount of mature&structurally complex forests 

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

%

25 50 75% 100

Percent of Intermittent Streams

Probability of Debris Flow 
733

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

would increase in the riparian reserves and the riparian management areas 

from 2006 to 2106. See the Water section in this chapter. As the amount of the 

mature&structurally complex forests increase in large wood source areas, the 

large wood contribution would also increase. The development of mature & 

structurally complex forests within the riparian management areas would be 

similar for all four alternatives. See the Ecology section in this chapter. 

Fish Productivity

In all five representative watersheds, the relative potential of fish productivity for coho 

salmon, chinook salmon, and steelhead trout from BLM-administered lands would 

increase under all four alternatives between 2006 and 2106 to nearly the maximum 

potential. See Table 210 (Relative potential of fish productivity index in 100 years 

compared to basin-wide maximum).

Table 210. Relative potential of fish productivity index in 100 years compared to basin-wide 

maximum

Representative 

Watersheds

Fish 

Species

No Action 

Alt. Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3

No 

Harvesting 

Ref. Anal.

Maximum 

Potential

Upper Smith 

River 

Coho 49 49 48 48 49 50

Steelhead 53 53 51 51 53 53

Chinook 48 48 48 47 48 49

Rogue River/ 

Horseshoe 

Bend

Coho 24 24 24 24 24 26

Steelhead 29 29 29 29 29 32

Chinook 18 18 18 18 18 20

Applegate River/

McKee Bridge

Coho 10 10 10 10 10 11

Steelhead 11 11 11 11 11 13

Chinook 5 5 5 5 5 6

Evans Creek 

Coho 18 18 17 17 18 19

Steelhead 21 21 19 19 21 22

Chinook 15 15 14 14 14 16

Eagle Creek 

Coho 10 10 10 10 10 11

Steelhead 13 13 13 13 13 14

Chinook 12 12 12 11 12 12

Note: The fish productivity index is estimated based on the surface area of the available stream habitat weighted by the intrinsic habitat potential value. The 

intrinsic habitat potential is based on topographical attributes of each stream reach including valley width, channel width, and channel gradient. This provides 

a comparison of the potential fish production between BLM and other land ownerships. As the proportion of the large wood contribution changes compared to 

the maximum potential large wood contribution, the fish productivity index would also change.

In the Rogue River/Horseshoe Bend and Applegate River/Mckee Bridge watersheds, 

there is no difference between all four alternatives in terms of the relative potential of fish 

productivity for coho salmon, chinook salmon, and steelhead trout.

In the other three representative watersheds, the relative potential of fish productivity 

for coho salmon, chinook salmon, and steelhead trout is the same under the 

No Action Alternative and Alternative 1, and slightly lower for some species under 
734

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Alternatives 2 and 3 (less than a 2% difference under Alternative 2 and 3 compared 

to the No Action Alternative). 

For example, in the Upper Smith River, the relative proportion of the maximum potential 

watershed coho salmon productivity from BLM-administered lands would increase 

from the current level of 38% to 2106 levels of 49% under the No Action Alternative, 

Alternative 1, and the no harvesting reference analysis, 48% under Alternative 2, and 

48% under Alternative 3. This trend for the three fish species is the same in the other 

four representative watersheds, and the difference in the proportion of the maximum 

watershed fish productivity from BLM-administered lands among the alternatives would 

be less than 2%. See Figure 257 (Chinook salmon productivity index and steelhead trout 

productivity index for the Upper Smith River representative watershed).

Figure 257. Chinook salmon productivity index and steelhead trout productivity index for the 

Upper Smith River representative watershed

Although the proportion of the maximum large wood contribution would vary slightly 

among the alternatives in the Evans Creek representative watershed (14% difference 

among the alternatives) and the Rogue River/Horseshoe Bend representative watershed 

(7% difference among the alternatives), the differences among the alternatives in terms of 

fish productivity from the BLM-administered lands would be far smaller (less than 2%). 

The differences in the increase in large wood contribution in the Evans Creek and the 

Rogue River/Horseshoe Bend representative watersheds would have little effect on fish 

productivity because there are few high intrinsic potential streams on BLM-administered 

lands in those watersheds and the mature&structurally complex forest stands likely occur 

along the high intrinsic potential streams. 

The effect of the four alternatives on fish productivity in the five representative 

watersheds would be influenced by the large wood contribution and the amount of high 

intrinsic potential streams on BLM-administered lands, as follows.

Chinook Productivy Index 

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%

2006 2026 2046 2066 2086 2106

No Action Alt 1

Alt 2 Alt 3

No Harvest Maximum Potential

Steelhead Productivity Index 

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%

2006 2026 2046 2066 2086 2106

No Action Alt 1

Alt 2 Alt 3

No Harvest Maximum Potential
735

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Reason 1. The maximum potential large wood contribution varies 

among watersheds. 

In general, the potential for large wood to be delivered to a fish-bearing stream 

channel would vary among the watersheds. Some watersheds have a greater potential 

to deliver large wood to fish-bearing stream channels than others. See Figure 258 

(Maximum large wood contribution to fish bearing streams) for how the maximum 

large wood contribution varies between the five representative watersheds. 

Figure 258. Maximum large wood contribution to fish-bearing streams

The differences among watersheds, in general, explain why the maximum large 

wood contribution would vary greatly among the representative watersheds. 

For example, the maximum large wood contribution from the BLMadministered lands in the Upper Smith River representative watershed 

(728 pieces per year) is more than twice that in the Rogue River/Horseshoe 

Bend representative watershed (296 pieces per year), even though the 

percentage of the BLM-administered land within the Upper Smith River 

representative watershed is about one-third less (59% and 93%, respectively). 

See the Fish section in Chapter 3.

Reason 2. The relative importance of each source area differs between 

watersheds.

The majority of large wood is delivered from riparian and flood plain source 

areas. All four alternatives include at least a 100 foot riparian management 

area around these large wood source riparian areas. The slight differences are a 

result of the differences in riparian management area widths along intermittent 

channels. Headwater streams differ in susceptibility to debris flows within 

watersheds and among watersheds. The rate and amount of wood recruited 

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Eagle Creek Upper Smith River Evans Creek Applegate Rogue Horeshoe

Bend

Mean Annual Large 

Wood Contribution 

(pieces/year/

watershed)

BLM Non-BLM
736

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

from these upslope debris-flow sources varies between watersheds. See Figure 

259 (Wood contribution by source) and Figure 260 (Debris flow probabilities 

between watersheds). 

Figure 259. Wood contribution by source

Although the Rogue River/Horseshoe Bend representative watershed has a 

greater percentage of large wood coming from debris flow sources and a similar 

amount coming from riparian and floodplain sources as does the Upper Smith 

River representative watershed, it has a lower density of fish-bearing stream 

channels in the watershed on the BLM-administered lands. In these watersheds, 

the low density of fish-bearing streams suggests that there are some watersheds 

where timber harvesting would have a lesser effect on wood recruitment to fishbearing channels. In the Upper Smith River representative watershed, the high 

density of fish-bearing channels suggests that timber harvesting has a greater 

potential to effect wood recruitment to fish-bearing streams.

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

Applegate-McKee Upper Smith River Rogue-Horseshoe Bend

Riparian Debris Flow
737

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Figure 260. Debris flow probabilities between watersheds
738

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Reason 3. Increasing the large wood contribution along high intrinsic 

potential streams affects fish productivity more than increasing it along 

low intrinsic potential streams. 

Fish productivity is largely dependant on the number of miles of high intrinsic 

potential streams within a watershed. The amount of high intrinsic potential 

streams varies among the watersheds. See Figure 261 (Differences in the number 

of miles of high intrinsic potential streams between watersheds on BLMadministered lands). 

In the Evans Creek representative watershed, the BLM-administered lands are 

41% of the watershed, but would only affect approximately 16%, 19%, and 22% 

of the maximum potential productivity for the coho salmon, chinook salmon, and 

steelhead trout, respectively, because the majority of the high intrinsic potential 

stream habitat is on the non-BLM-administered lands.

In the Rogue River/Horseshoe Bend representative watershed, the BLMadministered land is 93% of the watershed, but there are very few high intrinsic 

potential stream channels, and most are on non-BLM-administered land. 

In the Upper Smith River representative watershed, where there is a greater 

amount of BLM-administered land along high intrinsic potential stream 

channels than in the other representative watersheds, there would be a slightly 

greater difference (2%) among the alternatives in their effect on steelhead trout 

productivity compared to other representative watersheds. 
739

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Figure 261. Differences in the number of miles of high intrinsic potential streams between watersheds on BLMadministered lands 
740

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Instream Restoration

It is assumed that the annual instream restoration would be 11 miles under all four 

alternatives (based on the level of instream restoration that has occurred from 1995 

to 2006), but would be applied in different areas. Under the No Action Alternative, 

key watersheds would continue to be high priority areas for instream restoration. Key 

watersheds do not always coincide with high intrinsic potential streams (see the Fish

section in Chapter 3).

Figure 262 (Distribution of high intrinsic potential streams for chinook salmon, coho 

salmon, and steelhead trout within key watersheds of the planning area) shows that a 

relatively small portion of the high intrinsic potential streams occur within key watersheds. 

Figure 262. Distribution of high intrinsic potential streams for chinook salmon, coho salmon, and 

steelhead trout within key watersheds of the planning area

Under the action alternatives, priority for instream restoration would be given to areas 

along high intrinsic potential streams. Because increasing the large wood in high intrinsic 

potential streams would be more effective in improving habitat complexity and fish 

productivity than increasing the large wood in other streams (see the Fish section in 

Chapter 3), instream restoration under the action alternatives would be more effective in 

improving fish productivity than under the No Action Alternative.
741

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Nutrient Input

As noted in the Fish section of Chapter 3, the thresholds for the amount of organic input 

that are adequate to maintain food supplies for fish are unknown. All four alternatives 

would maintain nutrient input because all four alternatives would maintain some type of 

streamside vegetation. 

Organic inputs under the No Action Alternative and Alternative 1 would be increasingly 

dominated by conifer needles, because the riparian reserves and the riparian management 

areas, which include the area along streams that would provide organic inputs, would 

develop into mature&structurally complex conifer forests over time (see the Ecology

section in this chapter). 

Under Alternatives 2 and 3, the organic inputs along perennial streams would be similar 

to the No Action Alternative and Alternative 1. However, along non-fish-bearing 

intermittent streams, some localized shifts in vegetation would occur because the 

riparian management areas would not include all of the areas that provide organic inputs 

to streams. Timber harvesting would alter the vegetation in these areas, which would 

create younger forest conditions with more shrub and hardwood organic input than the 

No Action Alternative or Alternative 1. This shift in stand ages and species composition 

would provide a variety of organic materials at varying rates, thereby adding to habitat 

heterogeneity. However, there is inadequate information to conclude that shifts in nutrient 

inputs would result in any difference in the effects of the alternatives on fish productivity.

Fine Sediment Delivery 

As noted in the Fish section of Chapter 3, thresholds have not been established for the 

levels of sediment delivery that would cause impairment to fish. This analysis focuses 

on the management activities that would change the magnitude, timing, or duration of 

sediment transport and overwhelm the ability of fish to cope with or avoid the stress. This 

analysis assumes that every 1% increase in fine sediment from management activities 

would result in a 3.4% decrease in fish survival (see the Fish section in Chapter 3). 

The proximity of ground disturbances to streams is an important factor for controlling 

sediment delivery. The potential for an increase of fine sediment delivery to fish-bearing 

stream channels could occur from soil disturbances from timber harvesting activities, road 

construction and use, culvert replacement, instream restoration activities, and grazing. 

The potential for increased fine sediment delivery from timber harvesting activities 

would be greatest under Alternative 2. Over 10 years under Alternative 2, approximately 

400 acres of regeneration timber harvesting would occur along non-debris-flow prone 

intermittent channels across the planning area (less than 0.5% of total BLM-intermittent 

stream miles). Although more harvesting would occur near the stream channel under 

Alternative 2 than in other alternatives, best management practices would reduce the 

amount of disturbances near stream channels. See the Water section in this chapter.
742

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Fine sediment production would increase with road construction, use, maintenance, and 

decommissioning. Actions that expose the soil surface or disturb road or ditch surfaces 

would increase erosion potential. Once fine particles have been produced, they would 

be available for transport to streams where they could impact the quality of salmonid 

habitat (IMST 1999). Under all four alternatives, new roads would be located outside of 

a stream influence zone where possible, and these miles most likely would not deliver 

fine sediment to streams channels. See the Water section in this chapter. During the 

next 10 years under all four alternatives, the potential fine sediment delivery from new 

roads would be less than 1% of the fine sediment delivery from existing roads. Best 

management practices for road-related activities would also reduce the amount of fine 

sediment that is delivered to stream channels. 

Under all four alternatives, the rate of susceptibility to shallow landsliding from timber 

harvesting and road construction over the next 10 years would not increase. This is 

because fragile soils susceptible to landsliding are either currently withdrawn under the 

timber productivity capability classification system as nonsuitable forest or would be 

withdrawn when identified with a project activity. See the Water section in this chapter. 

The placement of culverts and instream structures could result in an increase in turbidity 

and potential downstream sediment delivery, and often would occur during low flow 

periods when fish are most vulnerable to fine sediment. Under all four alternatives, 

culvert replacements and other instream activities would cause short-term, localized 

increases in turbidity (less than eight hours and less than 300 feet). The increase in 

turbidity would not affect fish populations because: 

•	 Best management practices, such as diverting water around a site, use of 

containment and filtering techniques (e.g., silt curtains), and limiting mechanized 

equipment along streambanks, would mitigate increases in turbidity.

•	 The majority of culverts that are barriers to anadromous salmonids have already 

been replaced on BLM-administered lands (see the Fish section in Chapter 3), 

so future culvert replacements would occur infrequently and the effects would be 

spread out over a large area.

•	 Fish have the ability to avoid short-term and localized turbidity. The amount 

of instream restoration activities and the best management practices applied to 

minimize increases in turbidity would be the same under all four alternatives.

Grazing in riparian areas can reduce and eliminate streambank vegetation and can 

increase sediment to stream channels. Within the planning area, sedimentation is a 

limiting factor for endangered Lost River and Shortnose suckers (USDI, USFWS 2003d). 

Under the three action alternatives, up to 29 reservoirs and 48 miles of fence would be 

constructed within the Klamath Falls Resource Area of the Lakeview District. These 

range improvements would be used to improve livestock distribution by shifting the 

grazing pressure from riparian and wetland areas to upland areas, and shift the grazing 

distribution on the upland areas (including those areas that are not currently used). These 

actions would be consistent with conservation measures of the recovery plan for the Lost 
743

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

River and Shortnose suckers to fence portions of streams to reduce cattle-caused erosion 

and to replant streambanks with native vegetation (USDI, USFWS 2003d).

Even though there would be short-term (less than one year), localized increases in fine 

sediment delivery from culvert, grazing, and other management activities under all four 

alternatives, there would be less than a 1% increase in fine sediment compared to existing 

rates from road-related activities, which often accounts for the majority of sediment that 

is delivered to stream channels. See the Water section in this chapter. 

Peak Flows

Peak flows would not increase in fifth-field watersheds under any of the alternatives to a 

level that would affect fish habitat, because they would not cause 5-year, 24-hour flow to 

occur at the 2-year, 24-hour interval. See the Fish section in Chapter 3. 

One sixth-field subwatershed out of 635 would be susceptible to increases in peak flow 

in rain-dominated areas (where the 2-year, 24-hour bankfull channel forming peak flow 

is greater than the 5-year, 24-hour peak flow). For rain-on-snow-dominated areas, three 

sixth-field subwatersheds out of 471 would be susceptible to peak flow increases. See the 

Water section of this chapter. 

In these four sixth-field watersheds, some intermediate streamflows may be elevated in 

the short term (a few hours to a few days), but this does not automatically imply adverse 

effects on stream morphology and fish habitat. Site-specific information regarding stream 

types and the resistance to the adjustment of bed and banks, as well as existing fisheries 

habitat information, would need to be analyzed during project implementation.

Stream Temperature

None of the alternatives would contribute to an increase in stream temperatures, except 

for the following temporary and localized exceptions. There are 31 miles of perennial 

streams on BLM-administered lands that are adjacent to the Coquille Forest (including 

10 miles within the East Fork Coquille watershed and 20 miles within the Middle Fork 

Coquille Watershed). Under Alternatives 2 and 3, trees in the primary shade zone would 

be fully retained. However, the secondary shade zone would have varying amounts of 

tree retention. This would decrease effective shade by 10 to 20% and result in a probable 

temperature change of up to 1oF per mile. See the Water section in this chapter. This 

increase in temperature would occur on a limited amount of stream miles relative to the 

entire planning area (less than 0.05%). However, streams in the Coquille basin are listed 

as temperature-limited by the Oregon Department of Environment Quality. In these 

areas, increases in stream temperature could cause stress to fish by limiting their ability 

to absorb oxygen at certain temperatures. Mitigation could be applied to eliminate these 

adverse effects and it is described in the Water section of this chapter.
744

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Mitigation

To mitigate for the slightly reduced large wood contributions that would occur under 

Alternatives 2 and 3, apply the width of one site potential tree height to riparian 

management area along intermittent channels where the large wood contribution from 

BLM-administered lands would be delivered to a greater percentage of high intrinsic 

potential stream channels within the watershed. 
745

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Water

This analysis examines the peak water flow and water quality, which includes stream temperature 

and fine sediment that would result from the alternatives.

Other water quality parameters, including dissolved oxygen, bacteria, and heavy metals, were 

considered but eliminated from detailed consideration because their effects are site specific and 

have limited applicability to forest management. See the Water section of Chapter 3.

Key Points

•	 Within the rain-dominated hydroregion, and the rain-on-snow hydroregion, there would be four sixth-field 

subwatersheds susceptible to increased peak flows from timber management under all four alternatives.

•	 All four alternatives would maintain effective stream shade that would limit the increase of stream temperatures 

within the range of natural variability.

•	 Under all four alternatives, the existing road network’s potential for fine sediment delivery to streams would far 

outweigh the slight potential for additional fine sediment delivery from new roads.

•	 Under all four alternatives, the most fragile soils that are susceptible to landsliding would be withdrawn.

•	 All the alternatives, which include the application of best management practices, would reduce contamination 

sources and improve water quality.

Peak Water Flow 

Timber harvesting influences peak flows where a large proportion of the timber has been 

harvested in a watershed. The magnitude of the effect is scaled by the type of harvesting 

(thinning or regeneration harvesting), the amount and distribution of harvesting within 

watersheds, and the physical characteristics of the landscape. A stand establishment 

structural stage class of forest is used as a surrogate of open conditions where the 

majority of the basal area has been removed through timber harvesting. Acres of stand 

establishment forests are shown in Table 211 (Projected acres of stand establishment 

forests on BLM-administered lands).

Table 211. Projected acres of stand establishment forests on BLM-administered lands

Alternatives

Stand Establishment Forests on BLM-Administered Lands

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

acres % acres % acres % acres % acres %

No Action 

Alternative 155,000 7 140,000 6 159,000 7 198,000 8 173,000 7

Alternative 1 155,000 7 161,000 7 213,000 9 305,000 13 228,000 10

Alternative 2 155,000 7 213,000 9 295,000 12 431,000 18 319,000 13

Alternative 3 155,000 7 195,000 8 274,000 12 417,000 17 450,000 19

Note: Stand establishment acres are shown as a % of BLM-administered lands and includes roads and nonforest. Regeneration harvesting that results in forest in 

the stand establishment classification contains varying amounts of green tree retention (legacies) under the alternatives. Only stand establishment acres without 

legacies was used in calculating rain-on-snow peak flows (see the Water section in Chapter 3).
746

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

The results of modeling to determine the effects of timber harvesting on peak flows in 

rain-dominated subwatersheds are shown in Figure 263 (Susceptible rain-dominated 

subwatershed). Also see Appendix I. Water. Considering BLM-administered lands, a 

single sixth-field subwatershed out of 635 (less than 1%) would be susceptible to peak 

flow increases because the stand establishment structural age class would exceed 40% 

of the subwatershed over all time periods under all four alternatives. Two additional 

sixth-field subwatersheds would be susceptible when considering management activity 

on all lands. 

There was no difference in the results for the potential increases in peak flows in raindominated subwatersheds for the reference analyses (the no harvesting reference analysis 

and the intensive management of most commercial timber lands) for timber production 

that were also examined. 

Forest patch size, pattern, and age are important factors in the accumulation, 

redistribution, melting, and ablation of snow in the rain-on-snow hydroregion. 

Within rain-on-snow elevations, a sufficient proportion of watershed acreage must consist 

of recent regeneration harvests in order to detect a vegetative-related peak flow effect 

significant enough to increase flooding or alter the geomorphology of streams. The low 

amount and scattered pattern of BLM-administered lands within most watersheds makes 

it difficult to determine a BLM-caused rain-on-snow peak flow signal. Furthermore, the 

changes in water balance due to vegetative management is relatively small and is dwarfed 

by the inner-annual stream flow variability that have formed the dominant stream channel 

characteristics (Grant et al. 2007, in review).
747

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Figure 263. Susceptible rain-dominated subwatershed

The results of modeling to determine the effects of timber harvesting on peak flows in 

rain-on-snow-dominated subwatersheds are shown in Figure 264 (Susceptible rain-onsnow-dominated sixth-field subwatersheds). See Appendix I. Water and the Water section 

in Chapter 3. Considering that the BLM-administered lands are intermingled with other 

ownerships, three sixth-field subwatersheds out of 248 (1%) would be susceptible to 

peak flow increase over all time periods for all four alternatives. One additional sixthfield subwatershed would be susceptible when considering management activity in the 

subwatersheds without BLM-administered lands. 

Potential increases in peak flows for rain-on-snow-dominated subwatersheds for the 

reference analyses (the no harvesting reference analysis and the intensive management of 

most commercial timber lands) for timber production were also examined. There was no 

change for the no harvesting reference analysis and one additional subwatershed found to 

be susceptible in the 2026 and 2056 time periods for the intensive management of most 

commercial timber lands reference analysis.

In rain-on-snow-dominated sixth-field subwatersheds, the alternatives are more sensitive 

to extremes in environmental conditions than to the BLM’s management activity. If 

daily average air temperatures and wind speeds are changed from average conditions 

(exceeded 50% of the time) to where they are exceeded less than 2% of the time, then 

4 to 10 of the sixth-field subwatersheds out of 248 (up to 4%) with various levels of BLM 
748

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

ownership would be susceptible to peak flow increases. This involves approximately 

78,000 acres (3%) of BLM-administered lands within the planning area. Alternatives 1 

and 2 involve slightly more affected sixth-field subwatersheds during the 2026 and 2056 

and 2106 time periods, while there was no difference in the No Action Alternative and 

Alternative 3. Alternative 3 would have fewer regeneration harvest areas and therefore 

fewer stand establishment areas without legacy. When considering all lands, 13 sixth-field 

subwatersheds out of 248 (5%) would be susceptible to peak flow increases.

For susceptible sixth-field subwatersheds, intermediate streamflows, which may be 

elevated in the short term (a few hours to a few days) do not automatically imply adverse 

effects on stream morphology, or aquatic or benthic resources. Site-specific information 

regarding stream types and the resistance to the adjustment of bed and banks, as well 

as existing fisheries habitat information, would need to be analyzed. Furthermore, the 

downstream routing of streamflows, including the degree of tributary basin convergence 

and synchronicity of tributary watersheds would also need to be analyzed.
749

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Figure 264. Susceptible rain-on-snow-dominated sixth-field subwatersheds

Note: Peak flow susceptibility for sixth-field watersheds where the 2-year, 24-hour bankfull channel forming peak flow is greater than 

the 5-year, 24-hour peak flow. Includes the current rate of harvesting on private land from the 1996 IVMP satellite imagery, applied to all 

time periods.

Roads that extend the stream network influence the advances in the timing of water 

runoff or increases in peak flow (Wemple 1994; Jones and Grant 1996; and Grant et al. 

in review). New road construction can extend the stream drainage network with roadside 

ditches that channel runoff and contribute to peak flows. Few studies evaluate the degree 

that roadside ditches increase stream flow. See the Water section in Chapter 3.

Under all four alternatives, the new roads constructed for timber harvesting would extend 

the stream network by less than 0.1% of the BLM’s total stream miles in the affected 

watersheds. This inconsequential stream lengthening would have no effect on the timing 

of runoff. 
750

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Water Quality

Shade

Solar radiation is the most important source of radiant energy that affects stream 

temperature (Brown 1969; Beschta 1997). Brown recognized that it was the loss 

of riparian vegetation, and not timber harvesting that affected solar radiation that 

fall on a stream (Brown and Krygier 1970). The forest canopy that is nearest a 

stream blocks the majority of the solar radiation from reaching the stream. 

•	 For most circumstances, the first 12 to 60 feet along each side of streams 

shades the primary midday solar radiation. 

•	 For mornings and afternoons, when the sun is at lower angles, a secondary 

zone up to 100 feet provides additional blocking of solar radiation. 

At least 80% effective shade is met at 100 feet distance from streams. There is 

only marginal improvement (less than 5%) in the shading ability of wider areas. 

Approximately 80% effective shade corresponds to less than 0.2oF change in 

stream temperature per mile of stream. This is considered to be within the range 

of natural variability. See the Water section in Chapter 3.

Slope steepness, stream orientation, stream width, overhanging vegetation, and 

undercut banks, as well as forest tree height, spacing and crown form, can either 

increase or reduce shade or affect shade quality. See the Water section in Chapter 3. 

See Figure 265 (Riparian management areas for permanently flowing streams)

for the width of the riparian reserves or the riparian management areas along 

permanently flowing streams under the alternatives.
751

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Figure 265. Riparian management areas for permanently flowing streams 

 Note: SPT [Site Potential Tree] example shown for mid-range of conifer forest site productivity [site class III]

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the width of the riparian reserves would be one 

site potential tree height along each side of permanently flowing non-fish-bearing 

streams, and two site potential tree heights along each side of permanently 

flowing fish-bearing streams.

Under the No Action Alternative, most riparian reserves (with the exceptions that 

are noted below) along permanently flowing non-fishing-bearing and fish-bearing 

streams would fully retain the shade that is necessary to block sunlight from 

reaching the streams and increasing their temperature. The exceptions are:

•	 The riparian reserves fully occupy the primary and secondary shade 

zones. See the Water section in Chapter 3 for definitions of the primary 

and secondary shade zones.

•	 The riparian reserves are in excess of what is needed to maintain 80% 

effective shade (100 feet). This includes up to 66% of the riparian reserve 

area (or approximately 314,500 acres) in excess of the needs for the 80% 

effective shade level. The gain from these additional acres of riparian 

reserve corresponds to less than 0.2oF change in stream temperature per 

mile of stream, which is considered to be within the range of natural 

variability. See the Water section in Chapter 3.

See Figure 266 (Structural stage classes of the riparian reserves under the 

No Action Alternative) for the distribution of acres by structural stage class 
752

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

within the riparian reserves. The preponderance of acres within the young highdensity and mature forest structural stage classes indicates that the riparian areas 

already have tree heights and crown areas that would provide effective shading. 

See the Water section in Chapter 3. There would be a gradual decline of stand 

establishment and young forest structural stage classes over time. This would 

result in riparian forest structure that would improve shade quality as more acres 

move into the mature and structurally complex classes. 

Figure 266. Structural stage classes of the riparian reserves under the No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, forest thinning and other practices would occur 

in the riparian reserves for the purpose of promoting the development of mature 

and structurally complex forests. In the short term (10 to 40 years), localized 

water temperatures would increase from 0.2 to 1oF, depending on the extent of 

the area of such actions. However, these activities would be widely spaced within 

and between watersheds. The pattern and intensity of site-level forest treatments 

would not produce shade loss and corresponding temperature gain that exceeds 

the range of natural variability or reasonable measurement error of temperature 

monitoring instruments. In the long term, these practices would promote the 

development of mature forests, which result in greater proportions of shade. 

Under the No Action Alternative, salvaging for safety or operational reasons in 

riparian reserves would have no effect on shade loss because it would be limited 

to incidental trees, which would be similar to random tree mortality.

Alternative 1

Under Alternative 1, the width of the riparian management areas would be a one 

site potential tree height along each side of permanently flowing streams. 

Under Alternative 1, most riparian management areas (with the exceptions 

that are noted below) along permanently flowing streams would fully retain 

the shade that is necessary to block sunlight from reaching the streams and 

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

900,000

0 10 20 50 100

Time (years)

Acres

Non-Forest Stand Establishment Young Mature Structurally Complex
753

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

increasing their temperature. This would be true in both the short and long 

terms. The exceptions are:

•	 The riparian management areas fully occupy the primary and secondary 

shade zones. See the Water section in Chapter 3 for definitions of the 

primary and secondary shade zones.

• The riparian management areas are in excess of what is needed to 

maintain 80% effective shade (100 feet). This includes up to 32% 

of the riparian management area (or approximately 75,700 acres) in 

excess of the needs for the 80% effective shade level. The gain from 

these additional acres of riparian management area corresponds to less 

than 0.2oF change in stream temperature per mile of stream, which is 

considered to be within the range of natural variability. See the Water 

section in Chapter 3.

See Figure 267 (Riparian management area structural stage classes under 

Alternative 1) for the distribution of acres by structural stage class within the 

riparian management areas. The preponderance of acres within the young highdensity and mature forest structural stage classes indicate that the riparian areas 

already have tree heights and crown areas that would provide effective shading. 

There would be a gradual decline of stand establishment and young forest 

structural stage classes over time. This would result in riparian forest structure 

that would improve shade quality as more acres move into the mature and 

structurally complex classes. 
754

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Figure 267. Structural stage classes of the riparian reserves under Alternative 1

Under Alternative 1, thinning and other practices would occur for the purpose 

of promoting the development of mature and structurally complex forests. 

Some short term shade loss could occur. In the short term (10 to 40 years), 

localized water temperatures would increase from 0.2 to 1o

F, depending on the 

extent of the area of such actions. However, these activities would be widely 

spaced within and between watersheds. The pattern and intensity of site-level 

forest treatments would not produce shade loss and corresponding temperature 

gain that exceeds the range of natural variability or reasonable measurement 

error of temperature monitoring instruments. In the long term, these practices 

would promote the development of mature forests, which would result in 

greater proportions of shade. 

Under Alternative 1, salvaging for safety or operational reasons in the riparian 

management areas would have no effect because it would be limited to incidental 

trees, which would be similar to random tree mortality.

Alternatives 2 and 3

Under Alternatives 2 and 3, the riparian management areas would feature a primary 

and secondary shade zones along each side of permanently flowing fish-bearing 

streams, and along each side of permanently flowing non-fish-bearing streams. 

Under Alternatives 2 and 3, the riparian management areas (with the exception 

that is noted below) along permanently flowing non-fishing-bearing and fishbearing streams would fully retain the shade that is necessary to block sunlight 

from reaching the streams and increasing their temperature. The exception is: The 

riparian management areas would fully occupy the primary and secondary shade 

zones. See the Water section in Chapter 3 for definitions of the primary and 

secondary shade zones.

Under Alternatives 2 and 3, trees within the primary shade zone would be 

retained. In the short term, thinning and other practices would occur for the 

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

450,000

500,000

0 10 20 50 100

Time (years)

Acres

Non-Forest Stand Establishment Young Mature Structurally Complex
755

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

purpose of promoting the development of mature and structurally complex 

forests within the secondary shade zone. Thinning would maintain at least 

50% of this canopy cover after harvesting. In the short and long terms, this 

combination of shade zones would maintain at least 80% of the effective shade. 

This level corresponds to less than 0.2oF change in stream temperature per mile 

of stream, which is considered to be within the range of natural variability. See 

the Water section in Chapter 3.

See Figures 268 (Structural stage classes of the riparian reserves under 

Alternatives 2 and 3) for the distribution of acres by structural stage class within 

the riparian management areas. The preponderance of acres within the young 

high-density and mature forest structural stage classes indicate that the riparian 

areas already have tree heights and crown areas that would provide effective 

shading. There would be a gradual decline of stand establishment and young 

forest structural stage classes over time. This would result in riparian forest 

structure that would improve shade quality as more acres move into the mature 

and structurally complex classes.
756

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Figure 268. Structural stage classes of the riparian reserves under Alternatives 2 and 3

Under Alternatives 2 and 3, salvage for safety or operational reasons would have 

no effect because it would be limited to incidental trees, which would be similar 

to random tree mortality.

There are 31 miles of perennial streams on BLM-administered lands adjacent 

to the Coquille Forest, which include 10 miles within the East Fork Coquille 

watershed and 20 miles within the Middle Fork Coquille Watershed. Under 

Alternatives 2 and 3, trees in the primary shade zone would be fully retained. The 

secondary shade zone, however, would have varying amounts of tree retention. 

This would decrease the effective shade by 10 to 20% and result in a probable 

temperature change of up to 1oF per mile. This would be outside the range of 

natural variability. See the Water section in Chapter 3. The East Fork of the 

Coquille River and the Middle Fork of the Coquille River are listed for the water 

quality parameter of temperature. The Oregon Department of Environmental 

Quality is scheduled to complete a total maximum daily loads (TMDL) in 2007. 

Alternative 2

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

0 10 20 50 100

Time (years)

Acres

Non-Forest Stand Establishment Young Mature Structurally Complex

Alternative 3

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

0 10 20 50 100

Time (years)

Acres

Non-Forest Stand Establishment Young Mature Structurally Complex
757

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

See Figure 269 (Number of miles along streams that are maintaining 80% 

effective shade within the primary and secondary shade zones) for the minimal 

difference between the alternatives when considering the retention of effective 

shade along streams. Under Alternatives 2 and 3 there would be 31 miles of 

stream that would not maintain effective shade in the secondary shade zone.

Figure 269. Number of miles along streams that are maintaining 80% effective shade 

within the primary and secondary shade zones

Certain assumptions were used in analyzing the effects on stream temperature 

caused by the alternatives. They include:

•	 Treatments within the primary and secondary shade zones within the 

riparian management areas for all four alternatives would normally be 

well distributed in such a way that no more than 5% of the riparian areas 

along perennial streams would be treated within a watershed in any 

10 year period.

•	 Within the riparian management areas under the No Action Alternative, 

Alternative 1, and the secondary shade zone under Alternatives 2 and 3, 

no more than one half of the riparian areas that are providing shade to 

perennial streams would be thinned, because of the physical limitations 

in the ability to harvest these areas.

•	 The overhanging vegetation that provides stream shade is decreased 

when floods cause bank undercutting that results in the subsequent 

falling of trees. Under Alternatives 2 and 3, the retention of trees in the 

primary shade zone would result in a high density of trees adjacent to 

streams, which would lessen the loss of stream shading.

6728

6728

6728

6728

6697

6728

6697

6728

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000

Secondary Shade

Zone

Primary Shade Zone

Miles of Stream Meeting 80% Effective Shade

No Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
758

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Riparian-Wetlands on East-Side Management Lands 

The Medford District and Klamath Falls Resource Area contain rangeland 

riparian-wetland systems, such as streams, marshes, wet meadows, and 

spring/seep areas occur. These riparian-wetland habitats may include shade 

producing woody vegetation such as willows and cottonwoods, or pinyonjuniper woodlands. Other riparian systems do not have the potential for woody 

vegetation and are dominated by grasses or shrubs and provide limited shade. 

A full discussion of these riparian systems is contained in the Klamath Falls 

Resource Area Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

(1994). This environmental impact statement is incorporated by reference.

The BLM expresses the status of riparian-wetland areas in terms of properly 

functioning condition and ecological status. Functioning condition is an 

important measure of the health of riparian-wetland conditions. Riparian 

management is designed to improve properly functioning condition (see the 

Water section in Chapter 2)

To limit solar radiation exposure during the summer months, under all 

alternatives, riparian-wetland communities would be managed for an upward 

trend, where ecologically appropriate. Depending on vegetation species height, 

density, width and physical aspects of the riparian-wetland area, a wide range 

of effective shade levels would result. For stream systems, width and depth, 

bank stability, and frequency of floodplain inundation would be related to the 

vegetative condition to determine an upward trend. 

Mitigation

Mitigation could be applied to maintain 80% of the effective shade in the 

secondary shade zone on BLM-administered lands adjacent to the Coquille 

Forest. This would consist of managing the BLM-administered lands adjacent to 

the Coquille Forest to retain at least 50% of the canopy cover in the secondary 

shade zone (60 to 100 feet from stream) after harvesting. 

Fine Sediment Delivery

The delivery and routing of fine sediment is a natural part of stream systems. 

There is a wide variability in the natural rates of fine sediment production, which 

varies from 34 to 344 tons per square mile per year for undisturbed mountainous 

basins (Reid 1981). The principal sources of fine sediment are landslides, debris 

flows, bank erosion, and trees toppled by wind and animal burrows. See the 

Water section in Chapter 3. 

Overland flow is seldom observed in the Pacific Northwest because forest soils 

have high infiltration capacities. Roads, however, shed more water overland 

because their hardened surfaces have low infiltration capacities. Therefore, roads 

that are within a delivery distance to streams become the primary sites in the 
759

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Pacific Northwest for mobilizing chronic fine sediment to those streams. See the 

Water section in Chapter 3. See Figure 270 (Projected new permanent BLM road 

miles contributing to fine sediment delivery) for a comparison of existing roads 

to the new roads that would be constructed under the alternatives. Note that the 

graph uses a logarithmic scale.

Figure 270. Projected new permanent BLM road miles contributing to fine sediment delivery 

Under all four alternatives, new roads would be located outside of stream 

influence zones, where possible, and therefore would most likely would not 

deliver fine sediment to streams channels. See the Water section in Chapter 3. 

During the next 10 years under all four alternatives, roads outside of stream 

influence zones would average 90% of the total new road construction.

See Table 212 (Potential delivery of fine sediment by roads under the 

alternatives) for the results for road segments that could contribute to fine 

sediment delivery over the next 10 years under each alternative. The current 

condition is shown for comparison. 

Sediment Buffer RoTotal Road

Existing 5096 14273

No Action 13 345

Alternativ 38 513

Alternativ 8 604

Alternativ 37 526

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

100,000

Existing No Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Miles

Roads Within Sediment Delivery Distance All Roads
760

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Table 212. Potential delivery of fine sediment by new roads constructed by 2016 under the alternatives 

Current Condition and 

Condition under the 

Alternatives by 2016

Roads Within Fine 

Sediment Delivery 

Distance 

(miles2)

Potential Fine Sediment 

Delivery 

(tons/year3)

Watershed Average 

Potential Fine Sediment 

Delivery 

(tons/sq. mile/year 3)

Current Condition

Existing Roads1 BLM Other BLM Other BLM Other

Natural 1,738 15,874 23,050 233,054 0.86 8.75

Aggregate 2,590 22,938 28,938 30,765 1.09 1.15

Paved 767 2,436 8,277 33,807 0.31 1.27

Totals 5,096 21,249 60,265 297,626 2.26 11.17

No Action Alternative

New Roads (by 2016)4

Natural 5.5 154 <0.01

Aggregate 7.4 202 <0.01

Paved 0.0 0 0

Totals 12.9 356 0.01

Alternative 1

New Roads (by 2016)4

Natural 9.6 251 0.01

Aggregate 28.8 705 0.03

Paved 0 0 0

Totals 38.4 956 0.04

Alternative 2

New Roads (by 2016) 4

Natural 2.9 87 <0.01

Aggregate 5.4 112 <0.01

Paved 0 0. 0

Totals 8.3 199 <0.01

Alternative 3

New Roads(by 2016) 4

Natural 10.4 282 0.01

Aggregate 26.9 624 0.02

Paved 0 0 00

Totals 37.3 906 0.03

1

The BLM includes the BLM-controlled roads and the private roads within the planning area from BLM GIS GTRN (roads) coverage. 2

Delivery distances include the road segments within 200 feet of stream channels, where ditchflow carrying fine sediment could enter streams. 3

The calculations for these planning criteria estimates were calculated by surface type for each fifth-field watershed and summed for the planning area. 4

New roads include BLM new roads only. Information is not available to predict the number of miles of new roads on other lands.

Under the No Action Alternative, there would be 12.9 miles of permanent new 

roads constructed with natural or aggregate surfaces within a sediment delivery 

distance over the next 10 years. These new roads would occur in 25% of the 185 

fifth-field watersheds where the BLM has ownership. No permanent paved roads, 

however, are planned. 

Under Alternative 1, there would be 38.4 miles of permanent new roads 

constructed with natural or aggregate surfaces within a sediment delivery 

distance over the next 10 years. These new roads would occur in 34% of the 185 
761

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

fifth-field watersheds where the BLM has ownership. No permanent paved roads, 

however, are planned. 

Under Alternative 2, there would be 8.3 miles of permanent new roads 

constructed with natural or aggregate surfaces within a sediment delivery 

distance over the next 10 years. These new roads would occur in 12% of the 185 

fifth-field watersheds where the BLM has ownership. No permanent paved roads, 

however, are planned. 

Under Alternative 3, there would be 37.3 miles of permanent new roads 

constructed with natural or aggregate surfaces within a sediment delivery 

distance over the next 10 years. These new roads would occur in 29% of the 185 

fifth-field watersheds where the BLM has ownership. No permanent paved roads, 

however, are planned. 

Under all four alternatives over the next 10 years, the potential fine sediment 

delivery from new permanent roads would be less than 1,000 tons per year, which 

is 0.3% of the 358,000 tons per year of sediment delivery from existing roads. 

When averaging the watersheds for the next 10 years, the potential fine sediment 

delivery from new permanent roads would be 0.03 tons per square mi per year, 

which is less than 1% of the 13.43 tons per square mi per year of sediment 

delivery from all existing roads.

Alternatives 1 and 3 would have potential fine sediment yield that are similar, 

while the No Action Alternative and Alternative 2 would be slightly lower, 

because fewer roads within a sediment delivery distance of streams would be 

constructed. Under all four alternatives, 66 to 88% of fifth-field watersheds with 

BLM-administered lands are not projected to have new BLM permanent roads 

constructed within a sediment delivery distance of streams. 

Under all four alternatives, best management practices would be applied (see 

Appendix I. Water) and are assumed to maintain or improve water quality. The 

best management practices include methods that limit the delivery of sediment to 

streams. These practices are applied during such management activities as timber 

harvesting, road maintenance and construction, road decommissioning, energy 

and mineral development, and fuel treatments.

Some of the best management practices that are related to roads include:

•	 Reducing the number of new road and reducing the stream fine sediment 

delivery points. 

•	 Any new stream crossings would have sufficient cross drains 

commensurate with road slopes. 

•	 Road systems improvements would reduce the flow of concentrated 

water and entrainment of fine sediment in roadside ditches by increasing 

drainage relief. 
762

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

•	 Road restoration actions where roads are permanently decommissioned 

would disconnect road flow paths from streams. 

Under all four alternatives, it is assumed that the decommissioning of existing 

roads would be completed within streamside areas in the same proportion as other 

roads. It is assumed that 550 miles of roads would be decommissioned in the 

next 10 years based on the level of activity in the last decade. Table 212 shows 

that 5,096 miles (36%) of the BLM’s roads occur within a sediment delivery 

distance out of the 14,273 miles (see the Water section of Chapter 3) of BLM or 

BLM-controlled roads. On a proportional basis, it is estimated that 200 miles of 

streamside roads would be substantially improved or decommissioned. 

Over the next 10 years, it is estimated that approximately 8 to 38 miles of 

new permanent roads would be constructed that would be within a sediment 

delivery distance. Given the projections for both new roads and decommissioned 

roads within a sediment delivery distance of streams, there would be a net 

decrease of approximately 160 to 190 miles of roads contributing fine sediment 

to stream channels.

Over 89,937 acres of fragile BLM-administered lands within the planning area 

(3.5% of the BLM-administered lands) have been permanently withdrawn from 

forest management under the timber productivity capability classification (TPCC) 

system due to landsliding concerns. This includes very steep slopes, skeletal soils 

and rock outcrops, waterlogged soils, or other fragile landforms. See Figure 271 

(Timber productivity capability classification withdrawals within the Upper Smith 

River representative watershed). 

Figure 271. Timber productivity capability classification withdrawals within the Upper 

Smith River representative watershed 
763

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Under all four alternatives, the rate of susceptibility to shallow landsliding from 

timber harvests and road construction over the next 10 years would not increase. 

This is because fragile soils that are susceptible to landsliding are either currently 

withdrawn or would be withdrawn under the timber productivity capability 

classification system when identified during field work that is associated with 

site-specific project planning. This would include areas in all land use allocations. 

All four alternatives would include best management practices for road 

construction, which include the avoidance of headwalls, old slump benches, weak 

geologic bedding planes, seeps, and steep channel-adjacent side slopes.

Under all four alternatives, broadcast burning for site preparation after harvesting 

would involve higher fuel loadings, longer duration, and higher intensity 

fires compared to underburning in a thinned stand. Approximately 50% of the 

regeneration harvest units would be broadcast burned. There are intervening 

riparian management areas between regeneration harvest units and stream 

channels under all four alternatives, except for a portion of the intermittent 

stream channels under Alternative 2. Unburned areas close to streams within 

riparian management areas would act as an effective filter strip and prevent 

sediment delivery. See the Water section of Chapter 3. Under Alternative 2, 

approximately 200 acres per year of broadcast burning would occur along 

33 miles (less than 0.5% of the total BLM intermittent stream miles) of 

nondebris flow non-fish-bearing intermittent stream channels. There would be 

widely distributed short-term sediment delivery for up to one year while new 

groundcover vegetation is being established. 

Fine sediment from short-term soil loss would be delivered to streams when 

burning within riparian areas to reduce fuel hazard loadings or for restoration 

purposes. The amount of fine sediment delivery would depend on the residual 

vegetation, organic material and duff, soil organic matter, site roughness, soil 

type, and slope steepness. Fuel prescriptions would require low-intensity, shortduration burns and only where fuel loads are light (up to 12 tons per acre) under 

favorable moisture and weather conditions. Residual vegetation, unburned 

debris, and surface duff would be retained with an objective that no more than 

5% of bare soil would be exposed where soil material could be detached. This 

residual groundcover would effectively trap and retard the movement of fine 

sediment toward stream channels. Additional best management practices would 

be applied within and between watersheds including the limiting of fire ignition 

within riparian management areas and distributing treatment areas. Fine sediment 

inputs to stream channels would last for no more than one year due to rapid 

establishment of grasses, forbs, and shrubs. 

Under all four alternatives, there would be 77 acres in the open off-highway vehicle 

use designation. This is within the Heceta Dunes Area of Critical Environmental 

Concern. This area contains windblown shifting sand with no watercourses 

involved. Therefore, no impact to the water resource is expected. Under the three 

action alternatives, the number of areas that are open to off-highway vehicle use 
764

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

would decrease by 330,000 acres. Under the three action alternatives, 2.4 million 

acres (93%) of BLM-administrated lands within the planning area would be 

designated as limited to designated roads and trails for off-highway vehicle 

use. This is an increase from 1.1 million acres under the No Action Alternative. 

Limiting off-highway vehicle use to designated roads and trails would have a 

benefit to the maintenance of water quality by controlling open area disturbances in 

erodible soils, and near or within stream channels or waterbodies. 

The grazing of cattle along rangeland streams would contribute contaminants 

to water (fine sediment and bacteria) and elevate stream temperatures. The 

standards for rangeland health (1997), particularly standard II (for riparian area 

function) and standard IV (for water quality) would be achieved at the earliest 

possible date, or when permits or leases are renewed. 

Under all four alternatives, the general guidelines for grazing management and 

best management practices for water quality would be expected to meet the 

proper functioning condition of streams and water quality standards in the long 

term. These measures would include:

•	 Providing adequate cover and plant community structure to promote 

stream bank stability, debris and fine sediment capture, and floodwater 

energy dissipation in riparian areas.

•	 Maintaining or restoring plant communities to promote photosynthesis 

throughout the growing season.

•	 Completing range improvements including riparian pasture fencing, 

development of off-stream watering, and the relocation of animal holding 

facilities away from riparian areas (see the Grazing section in this chapter).

There are 80 source water watersheds within the planning area. The potential 

contaminant sources that would impact the surface water have been identified 

as part of the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Source Water 

Assessments. See the Water section of Chapter 3. Potential water quality 

impairment sources under all four alternatives would include: regeneration 

harvest units, road and stream crossings, river recreation, transmission lines, 

grazing animals, and quarry operations.

Under all four alternatives, the riparian reserves or riparian management areas 

would be established and best management practices (see Appendix I. Water) 

would be applied during management activities. These land use allocations and 

best management practices would maintain or improve water quality in source 

water watersheds. 
765

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Fire and Fuels 

This analysis examines how the alternatives would affect fire severity and fire hazard on all BLMadministered lands; and fire resiliency in the Medford District and Klamath Falls Resource Area. 

Key Points

•	 In the Salem, Eugene, Coos Bay, and Roseburg Districts, compared to the current condition, all alternatives would 

reduce the fire hazard and would reduce the acres of high severity fire when wildfires occur.

•	 In the Medford District, compared to the current condition, all alternatives would reduce the fire hazard and would 

decrease the acres of high severity fire when wildfires occur. The No Action alternative would result in the largest 

decrease and Alternative 2 would result in the smallest decrease.

•	 In the Klamath Falls Resource Area, compared to the current condition, the No Action Alternative and Alternative 

3 would reduce the fire hazard and the acres of high severity fire when wildfires occur. Alternatives 1 and 2 would 

increase the fire hazard and would increase the acres of high severity fire when wildfires occur.

•	 In the Medford District and Klamath Falls Resource Area, the No Action Alternative and Alternative 3 would 

increase fire resiliency from current conditions. Alternatives 1 and 2 would decrease fire resiliency.

•	 In the Medford District and Klamath Falls Resource Area, the No Action Alternative, Alternative 1, and 

Alternative 2 would create stand establishment and young stands consisting of even-aged plantations, which would 

be highly susceptible to stand-replacing crown fires. Alternative 3 would reduce crown fire hazard.

Under all alternatives, fuels treatments to reduce fire hazard in areas other than timber sale units 

would occur on approximately 110,000 acres per decade. The majority of these treatments will 

occur in the Medford District and Klamath Falls Resource Area. 

The analysis of fire and fuels divides the planning area into two areas: 

•	 The Salem, Eugene, Coos Bay, and Roseburg districts (the North), which generally have 

a low frequency/high severity fire regime; and 

•	 The Medford District and Klamath Falls Resource Area (the South), which generally have 

a high frequency/low severity fire regime. 

Fire severity and hazard are of particular concern in the Wildland Urban Interface. The Wildland 

Urban Interface constitutes the majority of BLM-administered acres in most of the planning area, 

and the trends described here would be reflected within the Wildland Urban Interface.

Fire severity, hazard, and resiliency can generally be equated to broad descriptions of vegetation 

conditions. This analysis uses the standard 13 fuel models (Andersen 1982), which are assigned 

to the forest structural stage classifications. However, fire severity, hazard, and resiliency are 

also influenced by site-specific or stand-specific factors, which are evaluated qualitatively in this 

analysis. Environmental conditions such as temperature, wind, and relative humidity can cause 

extreme variations in fire behavior within the fuel models. See the Fire section of Chapter 3 for 

additional discussion of weather, risk, hazard and ignition patterns and how they contribute to fire 

hazard and severity. 
766

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Fire severity is a function of both ground and surface fuel loading. As a young forest develops 

into a mature forest, the fire severity drops from high to low. As a mature forest develops into 

a structurally complex forest, fire severity changes to a mixed severity rating, as both ground 

fuels and surface fuels increase. Very heavy amounts of ground and surface fuels increase the 

probability of a crown fire, which would occur under extreme conditions (weather that exceeds 

the 90th percentile). Weather factors that influence fire behavior are temperature, relative humidity, 

and wind speed. On a 10-year average, extreme fire weather conditions occur:

•	 0-2 days a year in coastal areas, 

•	 2 to 11 days in the Willamette Valley and the Central Cascades, and 

•	 Greater than 11 days in the south. (ODF Hazard and Risk Assessment 2005).

Under moderate and extreme conditions, the primary source of high severity fire would be in 

the stand establishment and young forest structural stage classifications that consist of even 

aged plantations. Under extreme conditions, the structurally complex forest structural stage 

classification would also burn with high severity.

In the stand establishment and young forest structural stage classifications in the North, 

slash levels created by timber harvest have a strong influence on fire behavior. In the stand 

establishment and young forest structural stage classifications in the South, live vegetation has 

more of an influence on fire behavior. 

Slash levels would be highly variable, depending on site-specific conditions such as: 

•	 pre-harvest stand condition and composition, 

•	 harvesting methods, 

•	 timber merchantability standards, and 

•	 market prices. 

Post-harvest slash treatment can greatly reduce slash levels. Because slash levels cannot be predicted at 

this scale of analysis, the effect of slash on fire severity and hazard is evaluated qualitatively. 

For analysis purposes, it is assumed that in the North, approximately half of the acreage within 

regeneration harvest units would receive slash treatment, and thinning units would not receive 

slash treatment. For analysis purposes, it is projected that 90% of harvest units would receive 

some form of slash treatment in the south. The remaining 10% would not have enough slash to 

require treatment. The assignment of structural stages to fire severity and hazard levels reflects 

the severity and hazard of surface fires. At this scale of analysis, it is not possible to categorize 

the structural stages by crown fire hazard, or otherwise quantitatively evaluate crown fire hazard. 

The hazard of crown fire depends in large part on site-specific stand conditions such as height 

to live crown and canopy density which cannot be modeled at this scale of analysis. Therefore, 

the analysis qualitatively evaluates crown fire hazard based on the amount and types of stand 

treatments and the expected stand conditions that would result from treatment. 

Fire resiliency depends in part on some of the same site-specific factors as crown fire hazard. 

However, surface fuels and the presence of large trees also affect fire resiliency, and these factors 
767

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

can be reflected in assignment of structural stages to fire resiliency levels as shown in Table 

213 (Principles of fire resiliency) and Table 214 (Fire severity, hazard, and resiliency by forest 

structural stage classifications).

Table 213. Principles of fire resiliency 

Structure Class Principle Effect Advantage Concern

Young & stand 

establishment with 

legacy

Large legacy trees 

reduce probability of 

mortality to stand

Low crown bulk 

density in overstory 

Separation of 

crown between 

legacy and Young 

& stand est. 

Reduces crown 

fire potential in 

legacy

Surface wind 

may increase and 

surface fuels may 

be drier

Mature

Low surface fuels

High height to live 

crown

Reduced flame 

length.

Requires longer 

flame length to 

initiate torching

Control easier 

Less torching

Surface disturbance 

is less with fire 

than with other 

techniques

Mature, structurally 

complex Large trees Thicker bark and taller crowns

Increases 

probability of 

trees surviving

May accumulate 

heavy ground and 

surface fuels

Table 214. Fire severity, hazard, and resiliency by forest structural stage classifications

Structure class Severity Hazard Resiliency

Stand Establishment without Structural Legacies; 

and

Young without Structural Legacies

High High Low

Stand Establishment with Structural Legacies; 

and 

Young with Structural Legacies

High High Moderate

Mature Moderate Moderate Moderate

Structurally complex Mixed Moderate Moderate
768

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Fire Severity and Hazard in the North

Over the next 100 years, all alternatives would reduce fire severity and hazard in the 

North, because all alternatives would reduce the combined abundance of the stand 

establishment and young forest structural stage classifications. The reductions in acres 

susceptible to high severity fire during wildfires and reduction of fire hazard would vary 

among districts. The No Action Alternative and Alternative 1 would result in the largest 

decrease and Alternative 2 would result in the smallest decrease as shown in Figure 272

(High fire severity for northern districts by alternative). 

Figure 272. High fire severity for northern districts by alternative

High Severity Acres Coos Bay

0

40,000

80,000

120,000

160,000

200,000

No Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Acres 2006 2106

High Severity Acres Eugene

0

40,000

80,000

120,000

160,000

200,000

No Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Acres

2006 2106

High Severity Acres Roseburg

0

40,000

80,000

120,000

160,000

200,000

No Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Acres

2006 2106

High Severity Acres Salem

0

40,000

80,000

120,000

160,000

200,000

No Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

2006 2106
769

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Fire Severity, Hazard, and Resiliency in the 

South

Over the next 100 years, fire severity and hazard would decrease in the Medford 

District under all alternatives, but the amount of decrease would vary widely among the 

alternatives. The amount of decrease is relative to the reduction in acreage of the stand 

establishment and young forest structural stage classifications compared to the current 

condition. The No Action Alternative would result in the most decrease, reducing the 

acres of high severity fire when wildfires occur and fire hazard to less than half of the 

current condition in 100 years. Alternative 2 would have the least decrease, maintaining 

the acres of high severity fire when wildfires occur and fire hazard at only slightly less 

than the current condition. See Figure 273 (High fire severity for southern districts by 

alternative). 

Figure 273. High fire severity for southern districts by alternative.

Fire severity and hazard would increase in the Klamath Fall Resource Area under 

Alternatives 1 and 2, and would decrease under both the No Action Alternative and 

Alternative 3. As in the Medford District, the change in fire severity and hazard would be 

generally consistent with the change in the acreage of the various structural stages. Under 

Alternative 3, the application of repeated partial harvests would create a large number of 

acres in the stand establishment forest structural stage classification in the Klamath Falls 

Resource Area. In the Klamath Falls Resource Area, it is common practice to manage 

understory vegetation with every entry thus eliminating dense buildups of ladder fuels 

normally associated with even aged plantations. This modification of fuel levels will 

reduce the likelihood of high severity fires under Alternative 3. 

The following assumptions were used in projecting fire resiliency and fire severity under 

Alternative 3 in the Medford District and Klamath Falls Resource Area:

•	 Thinning or partial harvest would occur across all structure stage classifications

•	 Small patches of group selection would occur that would not retain legacy trees

High Severity Acres Medford

0

40,000

80,000

120,000

160,000

200,000

240,000

280,000

320,000

360,000

400,000

No Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Acres 2006 2106

High Severity Acres Klamath Falls

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

No Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Acres 2006 2106
770

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

•	 Legacy trees would be retained under a variable spacing and not clustered around 

the edges of regeneration units

•	 Legacy trees will be a minimum of 16 inches in diameter

•	 There will be a vertical separation between the canopies of the legacy trees 

and the understory of the stand establishment and young forest structural 

stage classifications.

•	 Understory thinning would occur

•	 Surface fuels would be treated whenever a management action occurs that would 

increase existing surface fuel loads

Although surface fire hazard can be quantified through an analysis of the change in the 

amount of acres in the structural stage classifications, such a quantified comparison 

of crown fire hazard is not possible. Although the crown fire hazard cannot be 

analyzed quantitatively, there would be differences between the alternatives. The stand 

establishment and young forests created under the No Action Alternative, Alternative 

1, and Alternative 2 would consist of even-aged plantations, which would be highly 

susceptible to stand-replacing crown fires. This would maintain or increase the crown 

fire hazard in the South. While Alternative 3 would also create stand establishment and 

young forests, there would be less crown fire hazard as a result of the use of partial 

harvest or uneven-aged management. Alternative 3 would increase the tree height to 

live crown ratio, create multiple-storied canopies with gaps, reduce canopy bulk density, 

and treat both surface and ladder fuels. All of these actions would decrease fire severity 

and increase fire resiliency. Any increase in wind or reduction of fuel moistures created 

by opening the canopy in the partial harvests would likely be offset by a reduction in 

fire severity and an increase in fire resiliency (Agee and Skinner, 2005). As a result, 

Alternative 3 would be the only alternative that would reduce crown fire hazard.

In both the Medford District and Klamath Falls Resource Area, the No Action Alternative 

and Alternative 3 would increase the acreage of fire resilient forest from current 

conditions, because they would create forests with structural legacies. See Figure 274

(Fire resiliency by district by alternative).
771

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Figure 274. Fire resiliency by district by alternative

There is no threshold for the number of green trees needed to be retained during timber 

harvesting to create a fire resilient stand. In general, enough green trees need to be 

retained to materially alter the drying conditions of the stands. The greater the canopy 

retained, the less influence wind has on surface fire. This in turn reduces flame length 

which can lead to a reduction in mortality. (Fire Behavior Field Reference Guide: NFES 

2224). The cover above ground fuels is assigned to one of the following categories: fully 

sheltered, partially sheltered, and unsheltered. A wind reduction factor is assigned to 

each category:

Fully sheltered fuels are defined as: fuel sheltered beneath standing timber 

on flat or gentle slopes or near the base of a mountain with steep slopes. Fully 

sheltered is subdivided into dense and open stands. Dense stands receive a wind 

reduction factor of 0.1 to reduce 20 ft wind speeds. Open stands receive a wind 

reduction factor of 0.2. 

Partially sheltered fuels are defined as: Fuels beneath patchy timber where it 

is not well sheltered, fuel beneath standing timber at midslope or higher with 

a wind blowing directly at the slope. Partially sheltered fuels receive a wind 

reduction factor of 0.3. 

Unsheltered fuels are defined as fuels that are directly exposed to the wind – no 

overstory or sparse overstory, fuel beneath timber near clearing or clearcuts. The 

wind reduction factor ranges from 0.4 to 0.6 for these fuels.

Frequent surface fires tend to favor the largest trees with the thickest bark (Hessburg et al. 

2005). Large diameter trees (greater than 16 inches in diameter) have greater resistance 

to mortality from bole and crown scorch. The information in Table 215 (Probability 

of mortality by tree diameter in an extreme event) was generated using the mortality 

module from the Behave Plus model under extreme burning conditions. This table shows 

expected mortality during a wildfire by diameter class and species. A lower probability 

of mortality equates to greater fire resiliency. Although this table does not address the 

Fire Resilient Acres Klamath Falls

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

No Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Acres

2006 2106

Fire Resilient Acres Medford

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

No Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Acres

2006 2106
772

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

number of trees needed to create a fire resilient stand, it gives an indication of the size 

and species of trees that need to be retained.

Table 215. Probability of mortality by tree diameter in an extreme fire event Medford, Douglas fir

Tree Diameter 

in inches

Probability of

Mortality

Klamath Falls, Ponderosa

Tree Diameter

in inches

Probability of

Mortality

10 71 10 25

15 49 15 12

20 34 20 7

25 24 25 4

30 18 30 3

35 15 35 2

40 13 40 2

Alternatives 1 and 2 would decrease the acres of fire resilient forest from current 

conditions, because they would create forests without green tree structural legacies which 

have lower fire resiliency compared to forests with such structural legacies.

Although the No Action Alternative would increase the acres of fire resilient forest 

similar to Alternative 3, other aspects of fire resiliency would differ from Alternative 

3. Similarly to Alternatives 1 and 2, the No Action Alternative (similar to Alternatives 

1 and 2) would create stand establishment and young forests, consisting of even-aged 

plantations, that would be highly susceptible to stand-replacing crown fires. 

The increased crown fire hazard under the No Action Alternative would partially offset 

the increase in fire resiliency from the retention of green tree structural legacies. The 

increased crown fire hazard under Alternatives 1 and 2 would exacerbate the reduction in 

fire resiliency (resulting from stand establishment and young forests that lack green tree 

structural legacies). Alternative 2 would have the greatest reduction in fire resiliency by 

creating the largest number of acres of forest without such green tree structural legacies 

combined with high crown fire hazard.

Mitigation

The following mitigation measures could be used to increase fire resilience and reduce 

crown fire hazard under Alternatives 1 and 2:

•	 Increase initial plantation spacing to reduce the need to thin and reduce the 

amount of slash that would require fuels treatment.

•	 Treat surface fuels whenever management actions (such as thinning) would 

increase existing surface fuel loads
773

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Air 

This analysis examines the affects of prescribed burning and wildfire on air quality that would 

result from the alternatives.

Key Points

Under all four alternatives, prescribed burning would be accomplished under the Oregon Smoke Management Plan to 

protect air quality, Class 1 visibility areas, and air quality maintenance areas.

Prescribed burning for the purpose of hazardous fuels treatments and site preparation is the only 

management action under the alternatives that would have a notable effect on air quality. This 

effect would be largely at the local level because prescribed burning would be implemented in 

accordance with the Oregon Smoke Management Plan. The Oregon Smoke Management Plan 

minimizes smoke impacts on local communities and directs smoke away from designated areas. 

See the Air section in Chapter 3. 

The amount of acres that are burned by prescription for the purpose of hazardous fuels treatment 

(not due to timber harvesting) would not vary by alternative, therefore emissions production from 

this source would remain constant across all four alternatives. Emissions predictions are based on 

the number of acres treated and the tons of slash per acre. It is estimated that:

•	 The Medford District and the Klamath Falls Resource Area of the Lakeview District 

would produce 3,257 tons of PM10 material per year. 

•	 Hazardous fuels treatments in Salem, Eugene, Roseburg, and Coos Bay districts would 

have minimal effects on air quality. 

The amount of emissions from slash treatments after timber harvesting activities do vary by alternative. 

See Table 216 (Prescribed burning emissions from timber harvesting activities in the northern and 

southern BLM districts within the planning area) for the PM10 emissions under the alternatives.

Table 216. Prescribed burning emissions from timber harvesting activities in the northern and 

southern BLM districts within the planning area

BLM Districts

PM10 Emissions (tons/year)

No Action 

Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Northern (Salem, Eugene, 

Roseburg, and Coos Bay) 3,443 4,090 7,414 3,979

Southern (Medford and the 

Klamath Falls Resource 

Area of the Lakeview 

District)

2,004 3,094 3,137 3,138

Under the No Action Alternative, the PM10 emissions from postharvesting prescribed burning 

in the northern districts would be 3,443 tons per year, while the emissions in southern districts 

would be 2,004 tons per year
774

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Under Alternative 1, the PM10 emissions from postharvesting prescribed burning in the northern 

districts would increase by 647 tons per year over the No Action Alternative, while the emissions 

in the southern districts would increase by 1,090 tons per year over the No Action Alternative.

Under Alternative 2, the PM10 emissions from postharvesting prescribed burning in northern 

districts would increase by 3,971 tons per year over the No Action Alternative, while the emissions 

in the southern districts would increase by 1,133 tons per year over the No Action Alternative.

Under Alternative 3, the PM10 emissions from postharvest prescribed burning in the northern 

districts would increase by 450 tons per year over the No Action Alternative, while the emissions 

in southern districts would increase by 1,134 tons per year over the No Action Alternative.

The prediction of the amount of emissions from future wildfires is speculative. A broad 

generalization can be made, however, that wildfire emissions are roughly double those from the 

fires of prescribed burns (Huff 1995). The emissions from recent large wildfires in southwest 

Oregon in 2002 are discussed in the Timbered Rock environmental impact statement. The 

Timbered Rock fire resulted in 12,000 tons of PM10 emissions. The discussion of wildfire 

emissions in the Timbered Rock environmental impact statement is incorporated by reference 

(USDI, BLM 2004b pp. 3-168 through 3-171). 

Although the prediction of the location and magnitude of wildfires is speculative, the amount of 

wildfire emissions that has occurred over the past 10 years provides a reasonable index of what 

could occur in the future. Because wildfires and prescribed burns do not usually occur at the same 

time, there would be no cumulative effect of the emissions from these two sources.

The health effects of smoke vary from the irritation of the eyes and respiratory tract to more serious 

disorders, including asthma, bronchitis, reduced lung function and premature death. Studies have 

found that fine particulate matter is linked (alone or with other pollutants) to a number of significant 

respiratory- and cardiovascular-related effects, including increased mortality and the aggravation of 

existing respiratory and cardiovascular diseases (Therriault 2001).

In addition, airborne particles are respiratory irritants, and laboratory studies (Therriault 

2001) show that high concentrations of particulate matter cause persistent coughing, phlegm, 

wheezing, and physical discomfort in breathing. Particulate matter can also alter the body’s 

immune system and affect the removal of foreign materials, such as pollen and bacteria, from 

the lungs (Therriault 2001). 

The health threat from lower levels of carbon monoxide is the most serious effect for those 

who suffer from cardiovascular disease. At higher levels, carbon monoxide exposure can cause 

headaches, dizziness, visual impairment, reduced work capacity, and reduced manual dexterity. 

At even higher levels (seldom associated solely with wildfires), carbon monoxide can be deadly 

(Therriault 2001). People exposed to toxic air pollutants at sufficient concentrations and durations 

may have an increased chance of cancer or other serious health problems. However, in general, 

it is believed that the long-term risk from toxic air pollutants from the smoke of wildfires and 

prescribed burns is very low (Therriault 2001).
775

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Recreation 

This analysis examines the recreational demand and the quality of visitor experiences under each 

alternative as measured by the availability of recreational developments, recreational management 

areas, off-highway vehicle designations, and the variety of recreational settings.

Key Points

•	 All action alternatives would meet projected recreational demand and improve the quality of visitor experiences.

•	 The redesignation of off-highway vehicle areas under all action alternatives would improve off-highway vehicle 

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

•	 In the Medford District, the addition of 10 off-highway vehicle emphasis areas under Alternative 2 would improve 

off-highway vehicle opportunities and would result in fewer visitor conflicts, thereby improving the quality of 

experiences for all visitors compared to the other alternatives.

•	 All action alternatives would continue to maintain a mix of recreation settings that provide a variety of 

opportunities and experiences for visitors.

All action alternatives would carry forward 206 existing recreation developments on BLMadministered lands, except for two day-use areas in the Coos Bay District that would be 

discontinued due to insufficient local demand. However, two new environmental education areas 

would be established in the Coos Bay District (see the Recreation section in Chapter 2).

Under all action alternatives, there would be no new recreation developments under any of the 

action alternatives. Existing developments would continue to support the increasing level of 

recreation use on BLM-administered lands. This is because visitors are not solely dependent on 

recreation developments for their recreation pursuits. For example, dispersed recreation uses (e.g., 

hunting, fishing, and sightseeing) do not require recreation developments.

It is, however, probable that visitors would experience localized crowding at certain existing 

recreation developments as demand for these sites increases. Although potential recreation 

developments are not included in the analysis of effects (since there is no certainty of their future 

development), a list of potential sites, trails, and byways is included under all action alternatives 

(see the Recreation section in Chapter 2). Future overcrowding could be offset by developing 

potential recreation sites.

Under all action alternatives, four new special recreation management areas would be designated 

and two existing special recreation management areas would be consolidated. In addition, the 

boundaries of nine special recreation management areas would be adjusted. As a result, there 

would be 31 special recreation management areas on BLM-administered lands in the planning 

area, for a total of 308,800 acres. This is an increase of 150,800 acres from the No Action 

Alternative. A majority of this change in acreage is a result of designating the Gerber Special 

Recreation Management Area (104,400 acres) in the Klamath Falls Resource Area and Tioga 

Special Recreation Management Area (34,000 acres) in the Coos Bay District. See the Recreation

section in Chapter 2 for information about individual recreation management areas for each BLM 

district by alternative. 
776

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

The Row River Trail in the Eugene District is the only special recreation management area that 

would result in a measurable reduction in acreage under all action alternatives. This area would 

be reduced from 15,100 acres to 170 acres in order to focus recreation management on the trail 

corridor itself, rather than the entire Row River fifth-field watershed, as established under the No 

Action Alternative. Since intensive recreation management only occurs within the trail corridor, 

there would be no loss of existing opportunities or experiences for visitors.

Under all action alternatives, the overall increase in the number and total acres of special 

recreation management areas would improve the BLM’s ability to provide quality visitor 

experiences. This is because special recreation management areas, by definition, are designed 

to provide specific recreation opportunities, experiences, and benefits to visitors. See Appendix 

J. Recreation for the planning frameworks that are designed to enhance the quality of visitor 

experiences within these special recreation management areas.

Under all action alternatives, 2.4 million acres (93%) of BLM-administered lands in the planning 

area would be designated as limited-to-designated-roads-and-trails for off-highway vehicle 

use. This is an increase from 1.1 million acres under the No Action Alternative. For the action 

alternatives, this change would reduce the amount of area open to off-highway vehicle use from 

330,000 acres to 77 acres, and reduce the amount of area designated as limited-to-existing-roadsand-trails from 950,000 acres to 0 acres. 

Under all action alternatives, there would also be an increase of 14,200 acres (less than 1% of the 

total land base) in areas that are closed to off-highway vehicle use compared to the No Action 

Alternative. This would bring the total amount of closed area to 98,800 acres. A majority of this 

increase in acreage is the result of closing off-highway vehicle use in three elk emphasis areas 

(the Bull Run Watershed Management Unit and the Mt. Hood Corridor in the Salem District, 

and the North Bank Habitat Management Unit in the Roseburg District). This small increase in 

closed area would not measurably affect off-highway vehicle opportunities when considering 

the overall planning area. It would, however, result in a loss of site-specific off-highway vehicle 

opportunities, while improving nonmotorized recreational experiences in these areas. 

An improvement in nonmotorized recreational experiences is based on the assumption that 

motorized and nonmotorized activities have limited compatibility. This is especially true when 

high levels of both types of use are confined to the same area. For example, motorcycle riders 

and horseback riders using a narrow, single-track trail would likely result in visitor conflicts 

and safety concerns. Spatial segregation of these activities would reduce encounters, thereby 

improving the overall experience for visitors. This is also true of areas that are managed 

specifically for off-highway vehicle opportunities (e.g., designated trail systems and off-highway 

vehicle emphasis areas), which would also result in fewer visitor conflicts by deemphasizing 

nonmotorized recreation activities in these areas. 

Under the action alternatives, a reduction of 330,000 acres of open areas would not result in 

a substantial loss of off-highway vehicle opportunities. This is because a majority of the open 

areas are located on steep, densely-forested terrain, which is not conducive to cross-country 

motor vehicle travel. (Only 7% of these lands are classified as nonforest habitat.) For this 

reason, off-highway vehicle use is primarily limited to existing roads and trails in these areas. 

These existing routes would continue to be available to off-highway vehicle use until route 
777

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

designations are completed through subsequent transportation management plans. Some of 

these roads and trails would eventually be closed to off-highway vehicle use if warranted for 

resource or social concerns.

Under all action alternatives, the limited-to-designated-roads-and-trails off-highway vehicle area 

designation would increase off-highway vehicle opportunities and public safety and decrease 

visitor conflicts compared to the No Action Alternative. This would result from an increase in onsite management controls and other off-highway vehicle related developments that are associated 

with this designation type (e.g., improved signing, construction of parking areas with off-loading 

ramps, placement of stream crossing structures, and trail construction and maintenance based on 

standards for off-highway vehicle use).

Improving off-highway vehicle management under all action alternatives would primarily be 

accomplished through subsequent route designations, which would identify specific roads and trails 

to provide off-highway vehicle opportunities for the public. These routes would be improved or 

expanded to enhance visitor experiences or to meet increasing demand. Routes that are not designed 

or suitable for off-highway vehicle use (or are only compatible for certain types of motor vehicles) 

would be closed or restricted in order to reduce visitor conflicts and improve public safety.

Appendix J, Recreation includes interim off-highway vehicle management guidelines for the 

districts. They provide the basis for managing off-highway vehicle use until subsequent 

transportation management plans are completed. 

Under the No Action Alternative, there are three off-highway vehicle emphasis areas in the 

Salem, Eugene, and Roseburg districts, totaling 34,200 acres. Under all action alternatives, these 

existing emphasis areas would be carried forward with some acreage adjustments.

In addition, under all action alternatives, a new off-highway vehicle emphasis area (Blue Ridge) 

would be designated in the Coos Bay District, for a total of 1,600 acres. This area currently 

provides a multiple-use, off-highway vehicle trail system for the public. The new emphasis area 

designation would improve the BLM’s management of the area for off-highway vehicle use. This 

would result from an increase in off-highway vehicle related developments and management 

presence which would better accommodate off-highway vehicle riders.

Under all action alternatives, these small changes in off-highway vehicle emphasis areas in 

the BLM districts would not appreciably increase off-highway vehicle opportunities when 

considering the entire planning area, but it would improve local opportunities near Coos Bay and 

Eugene compared to the No Action Alternative.

Off-highway vehicle emphasis areas would only vary by action alternatives on the Medford 

District. Under the No Action Alternative, there are three existing off-highway vehicle emphasis 

areas on this district, totaling 25,600 acres. Under Alternative 1 and 3, none of these would be 

designated. Under Alternatives 2, all existing emphasis areas would be carried forward with some 

acreage adjustments and ten new ones would be designated.

Alternatives 1 and 3 would result in a mix of outcomes in the Medford District. Since offhighway vehicle emphasis areas neither allow nor prevent off-highway vehicle use of a particular 

area (that is only determined through the broader off-highway vehicle area designations of 
778

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

open, limited, and closed), eliminating emphasis areas would simply diminish the BLM’s more 

concentrated off-highway vehicle management approach of these areas. As a result, visitor 

conflicts and safety concerns would increase due to a lack of on-site management controls. Offhighway vehicle riders who prefer a more structured recreation experience (i.e., designed trails 

and other amenities) would be displaced to other areas that offer such an experience.

As with most recreation developments, information that is disseminated to the public about 

their presence typically result in higher levels of use. The loss of existing off-highway vehicle 

emphasis area designations under Alternatives 1 and 3 would likely reduce public awareness of 

these areas, leading to a gradual reduction in off-highway vehicle use over time. 

Under Alternative 2, a total of 13 off-highway vehicle emphasis areas would be designated in the 

Medford District, for a total of 105,800 acres. This would result in a four-fold increase in acres of 

off-highway vehicle emphasis areas as compared to the No Action Alternative. All of these areas 

are currently receiving moderate to high levels of off-highway vehicle use. However, 10 of these 

areas are undeveloped and have limited management presence under the No Action Alternative. 

By designating these areas as off-highway vehicle emphasis areas, there would eventually be 

an improvement in off-highway vehicle opportunities that would result from an increase in 

developments. This would result in more concentrated levels of off-highway vehicle use within 

these areas and likely cause a reduction in dispersed off-highway vehicle use on other Medford 

District BLM lands. It is assumed that dispersed off-highway vehicle use would decrease because 

riders would be attracted to greater opportunities within these developed emphasis areas.

Alternative 2 would result in a loss of nonmotorized recreation opportunities in the Medford 

District due to the larger portion of land that would be designated specifically for motorized 

recreation use (12% of the district’s total land base). Since off-highway vehicle emphasis 

areas are specially managed to accommodate motorized recreational activities, visitors seeking 

nonmotorized forms of recreation would be dissuaded from using these areas. If they did engage 

in nonmotorized activities within these emphasis areas, the quality of their experiences would 

be diminished as a result of the limited compatibility of their activity with off-highway vehicle 

riders. In general, however, off-highway vehicle emphasis areas help segregate these user groups, 

resulting in an overall improvement in the quality of experiences for all visitors.

If management actions change the remoteness and naturalness aspects of the recreation setting of 

areas, then those actions can cause corresponding changes in the public use of those areas. This is 

because certain settings are more conducive to certain types of recreation activities and preferred 

by visitors who engage in them (see the Recreation section in Chapter 3). Since recreation use 

occurs on the BLM-administered lands that are managed for timber production, modifying 

these recreation setting characteristics could improve or diminish the BLM’s ability to provide 

opportunities that contribute to meeting recreation demand and quality recreation experiences.

Visitors engage in a wide variety of recreation activities on BLM-administered lands, each with a 

unique combination of recreation setting preferences. See the Recreation section in Chapter 3 for 

an illustration of the diversity of settings preferred by each activity. 

These setting preferences are based on a combination of physical, administrative, and social 

setting characteristics. When these primary setting characteristics are combined together, they 
779

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

establish the overall recreation setting of an area. However, this analysis only considers the 

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

direct measure of timber management effects under each alternative. 

The effects of future management actions on the levels of recreation demand are projected 

through 2016. A 10-year period is used because a reasonably accurate projection of road 

construction and recreation demand beyond 10 years is not possible. For recreation demand, 

this is due to the continually changing variables that influence outdoor recreation trends, such as 

regional demographics and new technologies.

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

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

levels of certain types of use. Such changes can also displace certain types of visitors who 

preferred the area before access was modified. This dynamic relationship between recreation 

settings, recreation demand, and the distribution of recreation demand is the basis for analyzing 

the effects of alternatives (Clark and Stankey 1979).

The total amount of roads (including new road construction that would be projected to occur 

under the alternatives over the next 10 years) is used to classify levels of remoteness. This is 

done by buffering the different road types that occur on BLM-administered lands. Table 217

(Acres of remoteness levels by alternative) shows the results of this classification process by 

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

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

Table 217. Acres of remoteness levels by alternative

Alternative

Remoteness Level

Primitive 

(acres)

Back 

Country 

(acres)

Middle 

Country 

(acres)

Front Country 

(acres)

Rural 

(acres)

No Action Alt 8,000 463,000 1,735,000 279,000 70,000

Alternative 1 14,000 461,000 1,731,000 279,000 70,000

Alternative 2 13,000 455,000 1,739,000 279,000 70,000

Alternative 3 13,000 447,000 1,746,000 279,000 70,000

Under all four alternatives, the front country and rural settings are static. This is because new road 

construction for timber harvesting under each alternative would only require additional local and 

resource roads (often referred to as logging roads). These road types would be developed within 

the middle country setting or further into the back country or primitive settings. These settings 

vary by less than 0.5% each under all action alternatives. Because of the extensive road network 

that already exists on BLM-administered lands, new road construction under all four alternatives 

would not measurably change these existing levels of remoteness. 

Under all four alternatives, there would be no effect to the variety of recreational opportunities 

that exist on BLM-administered lands when considering remoteness levels. As a result, the 

majority of BLM-admiistered lands (82%) would continue to be located within a quarter mile of 
780

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

roads, which are more conducive to motorized forms of recreation. Under all four alternatives, 

18% of BLM-administered lands would continue to be within the primitive and back country 

settings, which are favored by those seeking nonmotorized recreational opportunities. 

As with remoteness, timber management activities affect the naturalness aspects of the recreation 

setting (i.e., forest stand structure and age). This in turn affects where visitors recreate based on 

their setting preferences. 

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

classify degrees of naturalness along the continuum of recreation settings from primitive to rural. 

This analysis is based on forest stand types that are characteristic of these areas. For example, 

timber harvest that involves thinning dense, young stands would shift the naturalness of an area 

from the front country to the middle country setting. In contrast, the regeneration harvesting 

of older stands would modify the naturalness of an area from primitive to rural. These changes 

influence the distribution of recreation demand for visitors who prefer these different settings. 

The scale of this analysis is at the forest stand level, which varies greatly across BLMadministered lands. In fact, within a one-square-mile block of ownership, there can be more 

than a dozen different stand types. This results in an equal number of recreation settings, some of 

which can be relatively small and disjointed. For example, small patches of old forest scattered 

throughout young, even-aged stands can result in the primitive setting being obscured by a more 

predominate front country setting.

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

preferences. Since setting preferences are subjective and vary from one person to the next, this 

interrelationship is not considered in the analysis. Rather, all forest stands on BLM-administered 

lands within the planning area are analyzed to calculate the total number of acres within each 

setting type. 

This analysis does not consider nonforested lands or BLM-administered lands occupied by 

existing roads, since the naturalness of these areas are not affected by timber harvesting. 

Nonforest habitat and roads account for approximately 4% and 3% respectively of the BLM’s 

total land base.

See the Recreation section of Chapter 3 for a series of stand visualizations that illustrate these 

individual setting types.
781

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Table 218 (Acres of naturalness levels projected for the year 2016 by alternative) and Figure 275

(Acres of naturalness levels for the year 2016 by alternative) show the naturalness component of 

the recreation setting by alternative. 

Table 218. Acres of naturalness levels projected for the year 2016 by alternative

Alternative

Naturalness Levels

Primitive 

(acres)

Back Country 

(acres)

Middle 

Country 

(acres)

Front Country 

(acres)

Rural 

(acres)

No Action Alt 595,000 671,000 176,000 632,000 140,000

Alternative 1 550,000 640,000 222,000 641,000 161,000

Alternative 2 491,000 638,000 223,000 630,000 213,000

Alternative 3 563,000 595,000 223,000 626,000 196,000

Figure 275. Acres of naturalness levels for the year 2016 by alternative

When considering the entire land base, all four alternatives would have a relatively minor effect 

on naturalness settings by the year 2016. This is largely due to the short duration for which 

timber harvest practices would modify forest stands under each alternative. As a result, all four 

alternatives would continue to maintain a mix of naturalness settings that provide a variety of 

recreational opportunities and experiences for visitors. 

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

setting preferences for different recreational activities (see Recreation section of Chapter 3) 

with changes to individual naturalness settings. This analysis assumes that visitor preferences 

for naturalness would be similar to their overall recreation setting preferences, which includes 

physical, administrative, and social setting characteristics. 

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

Primitive Back Country Middle Country Front Country Rural

Acres

No-Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
782

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Figure 276 (Percent change in naturalness settings by the year 2016 under each alternative) 

illustrates changes to individual naturalness settings by alternative when using the existing 

condition for the year 2006 as the baseline.

Figure 276. Percent change in naturalness settings by the year 2016 under each alternative

All four alternatives would have relatively minor affects to existing levels of the primitive and 

back country settings.

•	 Existing levels of these settings account for 25% and 28%, respectively, of all BLMadministered lands in the planning area. 

•	 Due to their large proportion of the entire land base, small changes to these settings 

under all four alternatives would not substantially diminish or improve recreational 

opportunities within these areas. 

•	 The greatest levels of recreational use that occur within these settings are from 

nonmotorized activities, such as hiking, horseback riding, hunting, and fishing. High 

levels of use from off-highway vehicles, wildlife viewing, camping, and picnicking also 

occur within the back country setting. Visitors seeking these activities may experience 

localized changes within these settings, but visitor use patterns associated with these 

activities would not be affected when considering the entire land base.

All Action Alternatives would increase the middle country setting by 6%; the No Action 

Alternative would decrease it by 16%. 

•	 The highest percentage of almost every recreational activity occurs within this setting, 

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

•	 Middle country provides the highest level of naturalness within close proximity to 

roads, which is preferred by visitors who are seeking nature-based experiences that are 

easily accessible. 

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

Primitive Back Country Middle Country Front Country Rural

No-Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
783

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

•	 When considering the BLM’s entire land base in the planning area, 68% is classified as 

middle country based on remoteness levels. However, only 9% is classified as middle 

country when considering naturalness. 

•	 All Action Alternatives would increase the proportion of middle country (based 

on naturalness levels) compared to the No Action Alternative, thereby improving 

recreational opportunities and experiences for visitors who prefer this setting.

All four alternatives would slightly reduce the front country setting by no more than 6%.

•	 When considering the BLM’s entire land base in the planning area, 31% is classified as 

front country (based on existing naturalness levels), which is proportionally more than all 

of the other settings. 

•	 Due to its extensiveness throughout the planning area, small reductions under each of the 

alternatives would not affect recreational use that occurs within this setting type.

Alternatives 2 and 3 would increase the rural setting by 32% and 22% respectively.

•	 Although these increases appear to be considerable, the rural setting only accounts for 5% 

of the BLM’s total land base. 

•	 The naturalness aspect of this setting is classified as a substantially modified 

environment, which (from a forestry standpoint) is typical of an area following a 

regeneration harvest.

•	 These areas are generally not conducive to recreational use; however, high levels of 

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

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

which are also located within the overall rural setting. These experiences are generally 

more important to visitors in the rural setting than those derived from the physical aspects 

of the environment.

•	 Since only 5% of the BLM’s lands are classified as rural when considering naturalness 

levels, increasing the amount of this setting by as much as 32% would not noticeably 

affect overall recreational opportunities and experiences for visitors. 

•	 Substantially modifying the natural setting of certain areas would have a localized effect 

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

of visitors would occur. This effect would be greatest under Alternative 2.

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

would be measurable enough to influence visitor use patterns that are associated with any single 

recreation activity within the planning area. As a result, all action alternatives would continue 

to maintain a mix of naturalness settings that provide a variety of recreational opportunities and 

experiences for visitors.
784

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Wilderness Characteristics 

This analysis examines the wilderness characteristics of the BLM-administered lands based on 

the timber harvesting treatments under each alternative.

Key Points

Alternative 1 would maintain wilderness characteristics on the greatest percentage of BLM-administered lands 

compared to the other action alternatives. Alternative 3 would have the highest degree of long-term impacts 

compared to all other alternatives.

The identification of BLM-administered lands with wilderness characteristics is the result of 

an evaluation of 146 public wilderness proposals received during scoping. Nine areas (26,123 

acres) contain the following wilderness characteristics: sufficient size, naturalness, and either 

outstanding opportunities for solitude or outstanding opportunities for primitive and unconfined 

recreation (See the Recreation section in Chapter 3 and Appendix J, Recreation).

Under all action alternatives, the BLM districts would apply special management to maintain 

the wilderness characteristics on five of these nine units. See Table 219 (Special management 

to maintain wilderness characteristics under all action alternatives) for a summary of this 

management direction by district.

Table 219. Special management to maintain wilderness characteristics under all action alternatives

BLM District Unit Name Acres

Special management 

to maintain wilderness 

characteristics

Coos Bay Wasson Creek 3,408 Yes

Salem

Bull of the Woods/ Opal Creek Additions 3,203 Yes

South Fork Clackamas River 919 Yes

Salmon Huckleberry Additions 637 Yes

Mount Hebo 81 Yes

Medford

Berry Creek 6,433 No

Whiskey Creek 5,667 No

Wellington Mountain 5,659 No

Roseburg Williams Creek 116 No

Except for designated wilderness areas and wilderness study areas, the BLM-administered lands 

with wilderness characteristics are not identified in the existing RMPs. Because of this, the effects 

of the No Action Alternative on these lands are considered without the application of special 

management to maintain their identified wilderness characteristics.

Under all action alternatives, the special management to maintain wilderness characteristics 

would not apply to portions of these units that occur on O&C lands suitable for permanent 

timber production. For analytical purposes, it is assumed that these portions would eventually 
785

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

be regeneration harvested unless they have been removed from the harvest land base for other 

purposes (e.g., critical habitat for threatened and endangered species or wild and scenic river 

corridors). Regeneration timber harvest would result in a loss of wilderness characteristics. Under 

all action alternatives, special management would exclude regeneration harvest on only those 

public domain lands and portions of O&C lands not suitable for permanent timber production on 

the five units that would receive special management. 

Of the total amount of the lands with identified wilderness characteristics, the portion that would 

be in the harvest land base varies when applying special management on select units and other 

protections as defined by each alternative. Table 220 (BLM-administered lands with wilderness 

characteristics in the harvest land base by alternative) shows the amount of lands with 

wilderness characteristics that would be in the harvest land base by alternative.

Table 220. BLM-administered lands with wilderness characteristics in the harvest land base by alternative

Unit Name Total 

Acres

Harvest Land Base by Alternative 

(acres)

No Action 

Alt Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3

Wasson Creek 3,408 0 0 1,989 2,154

Bull of the Woods 3,203 144 239 634 641

South Fork Clackamas River 919 246 363 389 388

Salmon Huckleberry Additions 637 88 121 144 141

Mount Hebo 81 0 0 17 19

Berry Creek 6,433 563 1,658 3,512 3,465

Whiskey Creek 5,667 2,074 1,949 0 2,701

Wellington Mountain 5,659 1,680 2,185 2,258 2,311

Williams Creek 116 22 54 54 54

Totals 26,123 4,817 6,569 8,997 11,874

Percentage of Total acres 100% 18% 25% 34% 46%

Timber harvest that is associated with late successional management areas and riparian 

management areas would also have an effect on the lands that have wilderness characteristics. 

Limited timber harvest to promote the development of structurally complex forests and to 

protect streams would occur within these land use allocations and would only slightly diminish 

naturalness if no new road construction is necessary. This effect (of slightly diminished 

naturalness) would occur initially after treatment, but the long-term implications of such practices 

would eventually result in a higher degree of naturalness.

Opportunities for solitude and primitive, unconfined recreation would also be diminished within 

late successional management areas and riparian management areas due to the visible evidence 

of limited timber harvesting. Ultimately, to retain these wilderness characteristics, the “imprint of 

man’s work [should be] substantially unnoticed,” as defined by the Wilderness Act of 1964. Even 

with the limited timber harvest associated with late successional management areas and riparian 

management areas, this would not be entirely possible to achieve. For example, evidence of 

thinning operations includes slash piles, yarding corridors, and stumps, which can take decades to 

become indiscernible. 
786

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Because of these effects to wilderness characteristics, special management of select units would 

exclude limited timber harvesting within these management areas on public domain lands 

and portions of O&C lands not suitable for permanent timber production. Table 221 (BLMadministered lands with wilderness characteristics in late successional management areas 

and riparian management areas by alternative) shows the proportion of each unit of BLMadministered land with wilderness characteristics that contain late successional and riparian 

management areas by alternative.

Table 221. BLM-administered lands with wilderness characteristics in late successional management 

areas and riparian management areas by alternative

Unit Name Total 

Acres

Late-Successional and 

Riparian management areas by Alternative 

(acres)

No Action 

Alt Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3

Wasson Creek 3,408 106 106 442 10

Bull of the Woods 3,203 414 430 127 38

South Fork Clackamas River 919 134 118 64 42

Salmon Huckleberry Additions 637 69 9 2 2

Mount Hebo 81 63 19 5 0

Berry Creek 6,433 1,342 1,902 170 29

Whiskey Creek 5,667 2,198 1,052 2,350 138

Wellington Mountain 5,659 495 308 329 72

Williams Creek 116 0 0 0 0

Total Acres 26,123 4,821 3,944 3,489 331

Percentage of Total Acres 100% 18% 15% 13% 1%

See Table 222 (BLM-administered lands with wilderness characteristics maintained by 

alternative) and Figure 277 (Acres of BLM-administered lands with wilderness characteristics 

maintained by alternative) for the amount of lands with wilderness characteristics that would be 

maintained when excluding those portions in the harvest land base, late successional management 

areas, or riparian management areas by alternative.
787

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Table 222. BLM-administered lands with wilderness characteristics maintained by alternative

Unit Name Total 

Acres

Wilderness Characteristics Maintained 

(acres)

No Action 

Alt Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3

Wasson Creek 3,408 3,302 3,302 977 1,244

Bull of the Woods 3,203 2,645 2,534 2,442 2,524

South Fork Clackamas River 919 539 438 466 489

Salmon Huckleberry Additions 637 480 507 491 494

Mount Hebo 81 18 62 59 62

Berry Creek 6,433 4,528 2,873 2,751 2,939

Whiskey Creek 5,667 1,395 2,666 3,317 2,828

Wellington Mountain 5,659 3,484 3,166 3,072 3,276

Williams Creek 116 94 62 62 62

Total Acres 26,123 16,485 15,610 13,637 13,918

Percentage of Total Acres 100% 63% 60% 52% 53%

Figure 277. Acres of BLM-administered lands with wilderness characteristics maintained by alternative

Alternative 1 would maintain wilderness characteristics on the greatest portion of lands compared 

to the other action alternatives. However, all action alternatives would maintain fewer acres with 

wilderness characteristics than the No Action Alternative. Alternative 1 would maintain only 

3% less than the No Action Alternative. Alternatives 2 and 3 would maintain 11% and 10 % less 

respectively. Alternative 3 would have the highest degree of long-term impacts (46%) resulting 

from regeneration harvesting compared to all other alternatives. 

Under all action alternatives, special management of the five selected units would protect these 

lands from all other discretionary management actions (e.g., recreation developments, road 

building). However, special management would not protect these areas from nondiscretionary 

actions, such as road construction associated with reciprocal right-of-way agreements or mining 

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

No-Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Acres

Wilderness Characteristics Maintained

Harvest Land Base

Late-Successional and Riparian Management Areas
788

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

unless the area is withdrawn from mineral entry. Since there is no certainty of these potential 

actions, it is not possible to reasonably foresee their effects.

Mitigation

Project design features, such as helicopter yarding and flush-cutting stumps at 

ground level would lessen the short-term effects of limited timber harvesting in late 

successional management areas and riparian management areas that overlap lands with 

wilderness characteristics. 
789

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Visual Resources 

This analysis examines the maintenance of the visual resource quality of the BLM-administered 

lands under each alternative.

Key Points

Alternative 1 would maintain existing visual resource quality on the greatest portion of BLM-administered lands in 

the planning area compared to the other action alternatives.

Visual resource quality is determined through the visual resource inventory process, which is 

based on a combination of scenic quality, sensitivity levels, and distance zones. The results of this 

inventory process classified all BLM-administered lands in the planning area as class I, II, III, or 

IV.Class I areas have the highest level of visual resource quality, while class IV areas have the 

lowest level (see the Recreation section of Chapter 3). 

The BLM also designates visual resource management classes through the land use planning 

process and these classes also range from class I to IV. Class I areas are managed to preserve 

visual resource quality and class IV areas allow for major modifications. Except for Class I areas, 

management classes can vary from the original inventory classes to be consistent with resource 

management plan goals and objectives (see the Visual Resources section of Chapter 2). 

It is assumed that a visual resource management class that matches the inventory class of an 

area would not diminish its existing visual resource quality. For example, an area inventoried 

and designated as class IV would not degrade its existing visual resource quality. Conversely, 

an area with a lower inventory class rating that has a higher management classification would 

reduce its visual resource quality. For instance, an area inventoried as class II but managed as 

class IV would allow for a major modification of the area’s high level of scenic quality. Table 

223 (Visual resource inventory classes and management classes by alternative) and Figure 278

(Visual resource inventory and management classes in acres by alternative) show the relationship 

between visual resource inventory and management classes by alternative.

Table 223. Visual resource inventory classes and management classes by alternative

Visual Resource 

Classes

Inventoried 

(acres)

No Action Alternative 

(acres)

All Action Alternatives 

(acres)

Class I 79,000 29,000 60,000

Class II 477,000 199,000 62,000

Class III 573,000 587,000 61,000

Class IV 1,404,000 1,717,000 2,377,000
790

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Figure 278. Visual resource inventory and management classes in acres by alternative

The relationship between inventory and management classes can not be used exclusively to 

analyze the effects of alternatives on visual resource quality. Effects are dependant upon the level 

and type of surface disturbing activities that would occur under each alternative. It is assumed 

that major modifications of visual resource quality would take place on forest lands that are in 

the harvest land base (i.e., where regeneration harvests would occur). Therefore, the amount of 

harvest land base within each visual resource inventory class is used to determine the degree to 

which existing visual resource quality would be affected under each alternative. See Table 224

(Harvest land base within each visual resource inventory class by alternative) and Figure 279

(Harvest land base acres within visual resource inventory classes by alternative) for the amount 

of BLM-administered lands by inventory class in the harvest land base by alternative.

Table 224. Harvest land base within each visual resource inventory class by alternative

Visual 

Resource 

Inventory 

Classes

Harvest Land Base by Alternative 

(acres)

No Action Alt Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3

Class I* 4,000 1,000 3,000 5,000

Class II 127,000 173,000 217,000 256,000

Class III 180,000 245,000 325,000 350,000

Class IV 324,000 474,000 668,000 1,002,000

*Some harvest land base acres overlap class I areas. This is due to mapping errors associated with the original inventory, which does not align 

exactly with congressional and administrative areas that are designated as class I.

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

Class I Class II Class III Class IV

Acres

Inventoried No-Action Alternative All Action Alternatives
791

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Figure 279. Harvest land base acres within visual resource inventory classes by alternative

Existing visual resource quality on BLM-administered lands inventoried as class I would be 

maintained under all alternatives. Class I is unique from the other inventory classes, because it is 

assigned to areas where a management decision has been made to preserve a natural landscape 

(see the Visual Resources section of Chapter 3). Because of this, no timber harvest would occur 

within these areas. All four alternatives would protect existing visual resource quality on lands 

inventoried and managed as class I.

The existing visual resource quality on BLM-administered lands inventoried as class IV would 

also be maintained under all four alternatives. Major modifications that would occur within 

the harvest land base portions of these areas would not diminish their existing visual resource 

quality. Areas inventoried as class IV have low scenic quality; have low sensitivity levels (based 

on indicators of public concern); or they are seldom seen (based on the relative visibility from 

travel routes or observation points). Because of these factors, regeneration harvest practices are 

compatible in areas inventoried as class IV.

Areas inventoried as class II and III have higher degrees of scenic quality and sensitivity levels 

and are typically more visible to the public than areas inventoried as class IV. Because of this, 

regeneration harvests would diminish existing visual resource quality within these areas. Table 225

(Percentage of existing visual resource quality maintained by alternative within areas inventoried 

as class II and III) shows the percentage of these inventory classes that would be maintained under 

each alternative based on the portion of these areas that are not within the harvest land base.

Table 225. Percentage of existing visual resource quality maintained by alternative within areas 

inventoried as class II and III

Visual Resource Inventory 

Classes

Percent Maintained by Alternative

No Action Alt Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3

Class II 73% 64% 55% 46%

Class III 69% 57% 43% 39%

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

Class I Class II Class III Class IV

Acres

No-Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
792

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

All action alternatives would maintain less existing visual resource quality within areas 

inventoried as class II and III compared to the No Action Alternative. Alternative 1 maintains the 

highest portion of existing visual resource quality within these areas compared to the other action 

alternatives. Figure 280 (Visual resource inventory class II areas maintained by alternative) 

shows the proportion of areas inventoried as class II that would be maintained or in the harvest 

land base by alternative. Figure 281 (Visual resource inventory class III areas maintained by 

alternative) shows the proportion of areas inventoried as class III that would be maintained or in 

the harvest land base by alternative.

Figure 280. Visual resource inventory class II areas maintained by alternative

Figure 281. Visual resource inventory class III areas maintained by alternative

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

No-Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Acres

Visual Resource Quality Maintained Harvest Land Base

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

No-Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Acres Visual Resource Quality Maintained Harvest Land Base
793

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

National Landscape Conservation System 

This analysis examines the protection of the National Landscape Conservation System lands 

under each alternative. 

Key Points

All alternatives would continue to protect all National Landscape Conservation System designations. 

The BLM manages the following National Landscape Conservation System designations within 

the planning area: 1 national monument, 12 wild and scenic river segments, 2 wilderness areas, 

5 wilderness study areas, 1 national scenic trail, and 1 outstanding natural area. The BLM also 

manages portions of the Mount Hood Corridor and the Bull Run Watershed Management Unit, 

along with 110 eligible and suitable wild and scenic river segments, which are related to, but not 

part of, the National Landscape Conservation System. See Chapter 2 for a list of these individual 

designations in the planning area. 

All of these designations are withdrawn from timber harvest with the exception of designated, 

suitable, and eligible wild and scenic rivers that are classified as scenic or recreational. Therefore, 

only the wild and scenic rivers classified as scenic or recreational are considered in the analysis. 

Under all four alternatives, limited timber harvesting would be allowed within designated, 

suitable, and eligible wild and scenic river corridors that are classified as scenic or recreational. 

Harvesting would be done in a manner that would not impair their free-flowing character, 

classification, or identified outstandingly remarkable values. There are 86 of these river segments 

on BLM-administered lands in the planning area, totaling 73,338 acres.

These river segments have different combinations of outstandingly remarkable values that overlay 

site-specific conditions, each of which requires unique management considerations to guarantee 

their protection. Because of this, all wild and scenic river corridors would not be included in the 

harvest land base under all four alternatives.

Under all four alternatives, limited timber harvest would be allowed if designed to have either a 

positive or neutral effect on a river segment’s classification and outstandingly remarkable values. 

This would result in the protection of all designated, suitable, and eligible wild and scenic rivers 

under all four alternatives. 
794

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Soils 

This analysis examines the effects of forest management activities on soil productivity that would 

result from the alternatives. 

Key Points

Soil productivity would be maintained or improved under all four alternatives.

The same or improved practices that were used from 1995 to 2006 under the current RMP (the No 

Action Alternative) would be used under all alternatives to improve or maintain soil productivity. 

It is reasonable to assume that these practices would be implemented under all alternatives 

because the management objective for soils under all action alternatives is the same. 

Timber harvest activities can cause soil compaction, displacement and erosion. The duration and 

extent of soil disturbance depends on numerous factors including: soil characteristics, harvest 

method, amount of area in yarding trails, topography, skill of the individual equipment operators, 

and the application of amelioration practices. 

In general, soil compaction that reduces water infiltration rates and large pore space for gas and 

water movement constitutes detrimental soil disturbance and can last many years (Froehlich and 

McNabb 1984; Cafferata 1992). Soil compaction reduces tree growth, but the relationship between 

compaction and tree growth is complex. For example, Miller, et al (1996) found early growth 

reductions of seedlings planted on compacted skid trails compared to uncompacted locations, but 

growth of most seedlings on compacted locations caught up to uncompacted locations after eight 

years. For most soils and climates, soil compaction and displacement will reduce tree growth, but 

the magnitude and duration of this reduction is difficult to predict (Miller et al. 1996).

The extent of existing compaction caused by past timber harvest on BLM-administered lands is 

not known. Under all four alternatives, when these areas of existing compaction are encountered 

during future management actions, amelioration of soil compaction would be implemented if 

needed to improve or maintain soil productivity.

Ground-based yarding equipment, such as rubber tired and tracked skidders, can compact forest 

soils. Highly mechanized ground-based logging systems (e.g., harvester/forwarders, feller 

bunchers, shovels) have become more prevalent recently in timber harvests on BLM-administered 

lands. However, even with these systems, “... research and monitoring confirmed that despite 

their unique design and use, highly mechanized systems ... for logging younger and smaller 

timber have the potential to produce significant soil compaction” (Adams, 2005).

Under all alternatives, skyline and helicopter logging systems would generally be used on slopes 

over 35%. These harvest methods decrease log contact with soils compared to ground-based 

systems by partially or fully suspending the logs over the soils. The more a log is suspended 

during yarding, the less the soil is affected. 
795

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

The area of residual detrimental soil disturbance within a timber harvest area remaining after all 

activities including amelioration would vary by logging method as follows: 

•	 ground–based 15% 

•	 skyline 3% 

•	 helicopter 1%. 

The amount of acres that would be harvested by each logging method varies by alternative. 

However, under all alternatives, when the total acres of residual detrimental soil disturbance is 

compared to total acres harvested for each alternative, the residual detrimental soil disturbance 

would be about 5%. 

Table 226 (Residual detrimental soil disturbance compared to total acres harvested) shows the 

total acres harvested and the predicted acres that would remain in a detrimental condition after 

timber harvest and amelioration.

Table 226. Residual detrimental soil disturbance compared to total acres harvested

No Action Alt Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3

Total Acres 

Harvested 160,500 204,000 220,100 288,800

Total Detrimental 

Soil Disturbance 8,400 10,700 10,800 15,300

Under all alternatives, permanent roads and landings would be constructed as part of forest 

management activities and would be compacted to increase the bearing strength of the soil in 

order to hold the weight of trucks and equipment. Some research suggests that the growth of 

roadside trees may benefit from the increased light and moisture and reduced competition (Miller, 

et al, 1989). Whether this increased growth makes up for the loss of timber production on a 

permanent road or landing is not known.

For this analysis, temporary roads and landings would not affect overall soil productivity, because 

associated compaction would be ameliorated.

New permanent roads and landings would be built under all four alternatives. Decommissioning 

of permanent roads and landings no longer needed for forest management would also occur. The 

net effect of road building versus road decommissioning results in a less than 1% increase over 

current road and landing acreage in Alternatives 2 and 3 and a net decrease in acres in the No 

Action Alternative and Alternative 1. 

Prescribed fire can cause detrimental soil disturbance if the temperature and duration of a fire 

heats the soil at depth, such that there is a breakdown in soil structure and decrease in soil 

productivity. The deeper the burn, the more likely soil productivity would be impaired. 

Under all four alternatives, site preparation after timber harvest would include pile and burn 

(either by machine or hand) or broadcast burning. Burning piles would be more likely to create 

the higher temperatures that last longer then broadcast burning, increasing consumption of 

organic matter and volatilization of nutrients. Broadcast burns for slash disposal and hazardous 
796

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

fuels treatment would generally have lower temperatures and shorter duration such that surface 

soils and organic matter would be left mostly intact.

Both pile and burn and broadcast burning for site preparation has been implemented on BLMadministered lands since 1995 with practices and techniques designed to lessen the duration and 

temperature of fire. The annual amount of site preparation prescribed burning would vary from 

4,800 under the No Action Alternative to 10,900 acres under Alternative 2. Under all alternatives, 

overall soil productivity would be maintained because severe depth of burning would be highly 

localized and small in area extent.

Little is known about the long term effects of mechanically treating vegetation for site preparation 

or fuels reduction on soils. However, machines that reduce vegetation into small pieces have 

the potential to compact soils (Bennett and Fitzgerald). The effects of mechanically treating 

vegetation would be similar to timber harvest activities due to repeated trips over the same site. 

Soil nitrogen would be tied up and unavailable for plant growth due to the high carbon-nitrogen 

ratio until the woody material decomposes. Some research suggests that if the resulting mulch 

layer exceeds three inches following mastication biological damage from soil heating can occur 

if the mulch is burned. “Field projections indicate that up to one-fourth of treated areas with 

dense premastication of vegetation would surpass lethal soil temperatures during a surface 

wildfire.” (Busse et al. 2005). However, the mechanical treatment of hazardous fuels reduces the 

risk soil damage caused by uncharacteristic wildfire. It is projected that in the northern districts, 

approximately half of the acreage within regeneration harvest units would receive slash treatment, 

and thinning units would not receive slash treatment. It is projected that 90% of harvest units 

would receive some form of slash treatment in the southern districts. The remaining 10% would 

not have enough slash to require treatment.

Uncharacteristic wildfire damages soils. Regardless of whether the ignition source is natural or 

human caused, when soil heating occurs such that there is a breakdown in soil structure, reduction 

or loss of organic matter and microbial species, water repellency, and surface runoff, soil 

functions are impaired and soil productivity can be decreased (Neary et al. 2005). All alternatives 

would treat hazardous fuels using mechanical means. The methods and techniques used would be 

consistent with past practices and would maintain or improve soil productivity by decreasing the 

effects of uncharacteristic wildfire.

Livestock cause compaction and displacement of soils where there is a concentration of animals. 

Livestock also exacerbate erosion if bare ground is present due to the churning action of their 

hooves. This hoof action can compact biological crusts which play a role in nitrogen fixation and 

soil stabilization. This would typically be localized and occur around water sources, salt licks and 

on the trails leading to these areas. 

A BLM assessment of rangelands to determine which grazing allotments meet rangeland health 

standards is anticipated to be completed by 2009. The rangeland health standards incorporate soil 

parameters that contribute to rangeland health. These include qualitative indicators for soil/site 

stability, hydrologic function, and biotic integrity (Pellant, et al). If rangeland health standards 

are met it is assumed that soil productivity is maintained. 

Out of the approximately 560,000 acres currently available for grazing in the planning area 

about 53% has been assessed so far. Figure 282 (Acres available for grazing) shows the acres 

available for grazing and if they are meeting standards or making progress towards meeting the 

standards. There are 7 allotments representing 36,000 acres in the Klamath Falls Resource Area 

(approximately 6% of the acreage available for grazing) that have not met or made significant 
797

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

progress towards the rangeland health standards due to livestock concerns. Actions were taken to 

ensure significant progress.

Under all four alternatives, where rangeland health standards are not being met, grazing 

management practices would be modified in order to meet the standards. 

Figure 282. Acres available for grazing

Exposed compacted soil surfaces reduce the infiltration of rain water and snowmelt. A long, 

straight length of compacted soils such as that which occurs with off-highway vehicle use is 

conducive to the overland flow of water. When channelized, overland flow occurs, rills and 

gullies are formed and subsequent sediment delivery to streams can occur when close enough to a 

water body. Currently there are small localized areas in the planning area where this has occurred 

due to off-highway vehicle use. 

Under the Action Alternatives, there would be a reduction of 330,000 acres of area open to offhighway vehicle use. A majority of these open areas are located on steep, densely-forested terrain. 

This terrain is not conducive to cross-country motor vehicle travel, so off-highway vehicle use is 

primarily limited to existing roads and trails in these areas. In the action alternatives, off-highway 

vehicle use is predominantly limited to designated roads and trails. Under all alternatives, it is 

assumed that off highway vehicle use would not cause additional erosion beyond that caused by 

other vehicular travel (as describe in the Water section of this chapter). 

Mass soil movement, including landslides, slumps, and debris flows, are natural geologic 

processes in western Oregon. Depending on geology and soils, the risk of slope failure changes 

from site to site across the planning area. Factors that contribute to slope instability include steep 

slopes (greater than 65%), low soil strength, declining root strength, shallow soil depths, and 

high frequency, duration, and intensity of precipitation. Management actions can also contribute 

to slope failure through timber harvest and new road construction. Sites that have a high risk of 

mass movement are identified under the Timber Production Capability Classification (TPCC) 

system and withdrawn from timber management. Although high risk areas are withdrawn 

from timber management to avoid slope failures, areas that are judged to be of lower risk have 

occasionally failed in the past.

Meeting or 

Making Significant 

Progress

22%

Not Meeting or 

Making Significant 

Progress

6%

Not Assesed

48%

Not Meeting Due 

to Causes Other 

Than Livestock

24%
798

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Grazing 

This analysis examines the livestock grazing authorizations and the forage production in the Coos 

Bay and Medford districts, and the Klamath Falls Resource Area in the Lakeview District that 

would result under the alternatives. 

Key Points

•	 Under all action alternatives, there would be a decrease in livestock grazing authorizations. However this would 

not change the current level of grazing since the decrease would represent allotments that are currently vacant 

except in the Coos Bay District.

•	 Under all Alternatives there would be an increase in forage production on the west side of the Klamath Falls 

Resource Area and in the Medford District. The increase would be the highest under the No Action Alternative. 

Under all action alternatives, the increase would be the highest under Alternative 3.

•	 Under all Alternatives, the quantity of forage production in eastern Klamath Falls would not change substantially.

Livestock grazing authorizations are assessed through changes in acres available for grazing 

including number of allotments, animal unit months, and permittees/lessees. 

As shown in Table 227 (Livestock grazing authorizations by district and by alternative) all of the 

components of livestock grazing authorizations would either remain the same or decrease under 

the action alternatives.

Under the action alternatives, the amount of public land available for livestock grazing through 

the issuance of a grazing lease would decrease from 560,000 acres (22% of the planning area) to 

418,500 acres (16% of the planning area). 

Table 227. Livestock Grazing Authorizations by District and by Alternative

 Grazing

Medford Coos Bay Klamath Falls Total

No 

Action

Action

Alts

No 

Action

Action

Alts

No 

Action

Action

Alts

No

Action

Action

Alts

Allotments 95 55 0 0 96 95 191 150

Leases 0 0 4 0 0 0 4 0

Public Land 

(Acres) 352,000 217,000 16 0 208,000 202,000 560,000 419,000

Active AUMs 13,416 11,118 23 0 13,401 13,381 26,840 24,499

Permittees/

Lessees

59 59 3 0 92 92 154 151

In the Medford District and Klamath Falls Resource Area, the decrease represents allotments (in 

whole or in part) that are vacant and not currently grazed. This decrease would not reduce the 

number of allotments that have an active permit or lease. 
799

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

In the Coos Bay District, four active grazing leases with three lessees covering 16 acres and 23 

Animal Unit Months (0.08% of the total Animal Unit Months authorized in the planning area) 

would be discontinued. See Figure 283 (Change in animal unit month by alternative) and Figure 

284 (Change in the number of allotments by alternative) for a summary. 

Figure 283. Change in animal unit months by alternative

Figure 284. Change in the number of allotments by alternative

The levels of livestock grazing on U.S. Forest Service and BLM-administered lands covered by 

the Northwest Forest Plan have decreased since the early 1990’s with some allotments vacant 

since the 1970’s. Under all four Alternatives, the quantity of forage production on the west 

side of Klamath Falls Resource Area and the Medford District would increase; however, the 

demand for grazing on the BLM (representing 14% of the acres of U.S. Forest Service and BLMadministered lands) lands is expected to continue to decline. 

23 0

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

Medford Coos Bay Klamath Falls

Active 

AUMs

No Action All Action Alternatives

4 0

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Medford Coos Bay Klamath Falls

Number of 

Allotments

No Action All Action Alternatives
800

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Management actions that are needed to achieve the Standards for Rangeland Health for Oregon 

and Washington, resource management objectives, or other allotment-specific objectives would 

require adjustments in livestock numbers, season of use, or animal unit months, construction of 

range improvements or implementation of intensive grazing systems. In the Medford District, 

no allotments have required management actions to meet rangeland health standards since 1999. 

Adjustments in the next three years in the Medford District would be higher than the last eight 

years because 58% of the allotments (representing 66% of the acres) have not been assessed. 

In the Klamath Falls Resource Area, seven allotments covering 36,369 acres have required 

management actions to meet rangeland health standards since 1999. Adjustment in the next three 

years in the Klamath Falls Resource Area would be lower than the last eight years because more 

than 85% of the acres (representing 60% of the allotments) have been assessed. 

Forage production is affected by changes to vegetation. Changes to vegetation can occur due 

to range improvements, fuels treatments, timber harvest, and management of areas of critical 

environmental concern. 

Forage and water availability is generally adequate for livestock; however, there are opportunities 

to improve livestock distribution to restore riparian and upland vegetation, provide additional 

water sources, and protect riparian areas. Under the action alternatives, the construction of range 

improvements would be used to improve livestock distribution by:

•	 Shifting grazing pressure from riparian/wetlands to uplands, and 

•	 Shifting grazing distribution within the uplands including areas that are not currently used.

The construction of range improvements that would occur under the alternatives is shown in 

Table 228 (Range improvement construction by district and by alternative). 

Under all action alternatives, the construction of range improvements that would occur under 

the alternatives in the Medford District would occur at approximately the same rate as those 

constructed 1996-2006 (see the Grazing section of Chapter 3). 

Under all action alternatives, the rate of range improvement construction that would occur in the 

Klamath Falls Resource Area would increase by 245% over the next 10 years as compared to the 

rate constructed during the period of 1996-2006. There would be up to 29 reservoirs and 48 miles 

of fence constructed under the action alternatives within the Klamath Falls Resource Area. See 

Chapter 2 and Appendix L, Grazing. 

Table 228. Range Improvement Construction by District and by Alternative

Range 

Improvement

Medford Coos Bay Klamath Falls Total

No 

Action

Action 

Alts

No 

Action

Action 

Alts

No 

Action

Action 

Alts

No 

Action

Action 

Alts

Livestock 

Fences 

Constructed 

(units/miles)

18

(5 miles)

18 

(5 miles)

0 0

11 

(19 miles)

27 

(48 miles)

29

(24 miles)

45 

(53 miles)

Reservoirs 

or Springs 

Constructed/

Developed 

(units)

6 6 0 0 3 29 9 35
801

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Under all alternatives, the management actions that provide for the site-specific protection or 

restoration of habitat would exclude access (through fencing) to certain traditional watering or 

foraging areas. Exclusion of these areas from grazing would be so limited in number and so 

scattered geographically that they would not limit watering or foraging areas.

Under all alternatives, the quantity of forage production in the Medford District and the western 

part of the Klamath Falls Resource Area would not substantially change as a result of fuels 

treatments because there would be minimal fuels treatment (10,000 acres/year within the wildland 

urban interface) outside of timber harvests. 

Under all Alternatives, the quantity of forage production in the eastern part of the Klamath Falls 

Resource Area would not substantially change as a result of fuels treatments because the number 

of acres treated (1-2 % per year) would be inconsequential and scattered geographically. 

Under all alternatives, where fuels treatments would occur:

•	 In the short term (0-5 years), closures would rest these areas after fuels treatments if soil 

and vegetation are no longer capable of supporting grazing.

•	 In the long term (5+ years), treatments would result in increased forage production and 

enhanced vigor of vegetation.

Off-highway vehicle use affects livestock grazing through disturbance or harassment to livestock 

and the type and access that permittees/lessees use to manage livestock or conduct range 

improvement maintenance (see the Grazing section of Chapter 3). 

Under the action alternatives, all areas currently designated as open to off-highway vehicle use 

would be redesignated as limited in the Medford District and Klamath Falls Resource Area. This 

would decrease disturbance or harassment to livestock resulting from off-highway vehicle use. 

There would be no substantial effect to livestock operators in the type and availability of access 

because forested terrain and steep slopes limit the capability of off-highway vehicle use to move 

livestock or conduct range improvement maintenance.

Under all alternatives, the designation of off-highway vehicle emphasis areas would not affect 

livestock grazing because off-highway vehicle use would be concentrated within the emphasis 

area and livestock would avoid these areas. 

Timber management actions affect forage production through changes to vegetation structural stages. 

Timber harvest that results in the stand establishment forest structural stage classification would 

increase the amount of grasses and grass-like species that serve as forage (see the Grazing section of 

Chapter 3). The young forest structural stage classification would provide the least amount of forage. 

As shown in Figure 285 (Changes in structural stage abundance within lands allocated for 

grazing), under the No Action Alternative, the amount of the stand establishment forest structural 

stage classification within grazing areas would increase from 30,000 acres to 37,600 acres over 

the next 100 years. 

Under Alternative 1, the amount of the stand establishment forest structural stage classification 

within grazing areas would increase from 20,000 acres to 39,500 acres over the next 100 years. 
802

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Under Alternative 2, the amount of the stand establishment forest structural stage classification 

within grazing areas would increase from 18,400 acres to 47,400 acres over the next 100 years. 

Under Alternative 3, the amount of rhe stand establishment forest structural stage classification 

within grazing areas would increase from 18,000acres to 76,500 acres over the next 100 years. 

Figure 285. Changes in structural stage abundance within lands allocated for grazing

Under all action alternatives, the increase of the stand establishment forest structural stage 

classification and the decrease in the young forest structural stage classification would result 

in a corresponding increase in livestock forage production. This increase would be the highest 

under the No Action Alternative. This is because the lands allocated for grazing are higher under 

the No Action Alternative. For the action alternatives, the increase would be the highest under 

Alternative 3, as shown in Table 229 (Changes in livestock forage production by alternative) and 

Figure 286 (Changes in livestock Forage Production by Alternative).

Table 229. Changes in Livestock Forage Production by Alternative

Year Forage Production (animal unit months)

No Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

2006 24,620 16,972 16,972 16,972

2016 24,582 17,059 17,127 17,601

2026 24,400 17,066 17,006 17,892

2056 26,223 18,802 18,920 19,616

2106 28,950 19,673 19,867 22,805

No Action

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Percent of

BLM Land

Stand Establishment Young

Mature Structurally Complex

Alternative 1

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Percent of

BLM Land

Stand Establishment Young

Mature Structurally Complex

Alternative 2

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Percent of

BLM Land

Stand Establishment Young

Mature Structurally Complex

Alternative 3

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Percent of 

BLM Land Stand Establishment Young

Mature Structurally Complex
803

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Figure 286. Changes in Forage Production by Alternative 

Management of areas of critical environmental concern affects forage production by applying 

site-specific protection (exclosures) or management actions (i.e. season of use restrictions). 

Under all alternatives, the designation of areas of critical environmental concern would not affect 

livestock grazing. Even though areas designated as areas of critical environmental concern would 

decrease under all action alternatives, forage production would not be affected because sitespecific protection (exclosures) or management actions (i.e. season of use) would not change in 

these areas. This is because site-specific protection or management actions are used to meet other 

allotment objectives such as to improve livestock distribution and protect sensitive areas (i.e., 

riparian areas).

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Animal Unit 

Months

No Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
804

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Wild Horses 

This analysis examines the forage production and the appropriate management level within the 

Pokegama Herd Management Area that would occur under the alternatives. 

Key Points

•	 Under all alternatives there would be an increase in forage production in the Pokegama Herd Management Area. 

The increase would be the highest under Alternative 3.

•	 Under all alternatives, the appropriate management level of 30-50 head would be maintained.

Under all alternatives, wild horses would be excluded from certain traditional watering or foraging 

areas through fencing intended to protect or restore habitat. Exclusion of these watering areas from 

wild horses would be so limited in number and so scattered geographically that they would not 

appreciably limit overall watering or foraging areas or change herd movement and distribution.

Under all alternatives, the quantity of forage production within the Pokegama Herd Management 

Area would not substantially change as a result of fuels treatments. All fuels treatments would 

occur inside of timber harvest units. Where fuels treatments would occur:

•	 In the short term (0-5 years), closures would rest these areas after fuels treatments if soil 

and vegetation are no longer capable of supporting wild horses. 

•	 In the long term (5+ years), treatments would result in increased forage production and 

enhanced vigor of vegetation.

Under all alternatives, grazing authorizations within the Pokegama Herd Management Area 

would remain the same. Therefore, there would continue to be adequate forage for livestock 

grazing and wild horses. See the Wild Horse section of Chapter 3 for the relationship of grazing 

to the Pokegama Herd Management Area.

The construction of range improvements would vary between the No Action Alternative and 

action alternatives (See Table 228). Under all action alternatives, up to two new reservoirs and 

five new miles of fence would be constructed within the Pokegama Herd Management Area (See 

Chapter 2 maps and Appendix L, Grazing. 

Forage and water availability is not a limiting habitat factor in the Pokegama Herd Management 

Area; however, distribution of the wild horse herd is not uniform. Under the action alternatives, 

construction of range improvements would improve wild horse distribution by shifting: 

•	 Grazing pressure from riparian/wetlands to uplands 

•	 Grazing distribution within the uplands including areas that are not currently used

Off-highway vehicle use affects wild horses through disturbance or harassment. Areas designated 

as open to off-highway vehicle use would provide more opportunities for disturbance or 

harassment to the wild horse herd than areas designated as limited to off-highway use. Effects to 

the wild horse herd would be minor because the Herd Management Area would be designated as 

limited to off-highway use under all alternatives. 
805

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Timber management actions affect forage production through changes to the forest structural 

stages (see Figure 287, Changes in structural stage abundance within the Pokegema HMA). 

Timber harvest that results in the stand establishment forest structural stage classification would 

increase the amount of grasses and grass-like species that serve as forage (see the Wild Horse 

section of Chapter 3). The young forest structural stage classification would provide the least 

amount of forage. 

Under the No Action Alternative, the amount in the stand establishment forest structural stage 

classification within the Pokegama Herd Management Area would decrease from 900 acres to 700 

acres over the next 100 years. 

Under Alternative 1, the amount in the stand establishment forest structural stage classification 

within the Pokegama Herd Management Area would increase from 900 acres to 3500 acres over 

the next 100 years. 

Under Alternative 2, the amount in the stand establishment forest structural stage classification 

within the Pokegama Herd Management Area would increase from 1000 acres to 3000 acres over 

the next 100 years. 

Under Alternative 3, the amount in the stand establishment forest structural stage classification 

within the Pokegama Herd Management Area would increase from 900 acres to 5900 acres over 

the next 100 years.

Figure 287. Changes in structural stage abundance within the Pokegama HMA

No Action

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Percent of 

BLM Land

Stand Establishment Young Mature Structurally Complex

Alternative 1

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Percent of

BLM Land

Stand Establishment Young Mature Structurally Complex

Alternative 2

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Percent of 

BLM Land

Stand Establishment Young Mature Structurally Complex

Alternative 3

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Percent of 

BLM Land

Stand Establishment Young Mature Structurally Complex
806

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Under all action alternatives, the increase of the stand establishment structural stage classification 

and decrease in the young forest structural stage classification would result in a corresponding 

increase in forage production. Under the No Action Alternative, there would be a decrease of the 

stand establishment structural stage classification, a decrease in the young forest structural stage 

classification, and an increase in the structurally complex forest structural stage classification. 

This would result in an overall increase in forage production under the No Action Alternative. 

The increase in forage production would be the highest under Alternative 3. See Table 230

(Changes in wild horse forage production by alternative) and Figure 288 (Changes in wild horse 

forage production by alternative).

Increases to forage production would not change the Appropriate Management Level. The 

Appropriate Management Level is based on suitability of an area for grazing (distance from 

water, topography, temperature, forage type and availability), wild horse distribution on BLM and 

private land, and utilization (amount of forage consumed) in addition to forage production. All 

of these factors would be considered to determine when changes in wild horse numbers would be 

required (see the Wild Horses section of Chapter 3). 

Table 230. Changes in wild horse forage production by alternative

Year Forage Production (animal unit months)

No Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

2006 1,015 987 998 1,001

2016 1,019 979 976 1,147

2026 1,017 976 968 1,188

2056 1,080 1,133 1,134 1,331

2106 1,200 1,298 1,313 1,535

Figure 288. Changes in forage production by alternative 

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Animal Unit

 Months

No Action Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3
807

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

This analysis examines the designation of areas of critical environmental concern and the relevant 

and important values that would not receive special management attention under each alternative.

Key Points

The three action alternatives would maintain 65 to 75% of the relevant and important values within the existing and 

potential areas of critical environmental concern. 

Areas of critical environmental concern are established to protect the important and relevant 

values that require special management attention (see the Areas of Critical Environmental 

Concern section in Chapter 3). The lack of special management attention for those that require 

it would result in the eventual degradation or loss of those important and relevant values. 

See Appendix M. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern for information about the specific 

important and relevant values for each area of critical environmental concern. Regarding the 

relevant and important values associated with fish and wildlife, any species listed under the 

Endangered Species Act would still be protected under that act.

Although there are 132 existing and potential areas of critical environmental concern within the 

planning area (see the Areas of Critical Environmental Concern section in Chapter 3), only 124 

existing and potential areas of critical environmental concern were analyzed for designation 

under the three action alternatives. The remaining 8 of the 132 existing or potential areas did not 

meet the criteria (i.e., relevance and importance, or the need for special management) for further 

consideration. See Table 234 (Existing and potential ACEC value categories by BLM district 

within the 124 areas that were further analyzed for designation).

Under each of the three action alternatives, some areas of critical environmental concern were 

analyzed for designation excluding the O&C lands. Some of the original designations and 

nominations included only small areas of O&C lands and were expanded beyond the minimum 

area needed to protect the relevant and important values in order to create more logical units 

based on administrative boundaries or topographic features. Therefore, in some cases, the 

exclusion of the O&C lands would still allow for the effective application of special management 

attention to the relevant and important values. 

All areas of critical environmental concern that are also designated as research natural areas 

would be retained under all four alternatives.

Under the No Action Alternative, all 94 existing areas of critical environmental concern would 

continue to be designated. Special management attention would continue to be implemented in 

these areas. See Table 231 (Total existing and potential ACECs designated by alternative). The 

effect of the application of special management attention on the relevant and important values 

in the existing areas of critical environmental concern would be to maintain those values as they 

currently exist, or to change those values in a trend towards the desired condition of those values.

There are five potential areas of critical environmental concern that are currently under interim 

management. There are another 33 new potential areas of critical environmental concern that 
808

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

would not be designated under the No Action Alternative (see the Areas of Critical Environmental 

Concern section in Chapter 3). These areas would receive interim special management attention 

until a future planning decision was made to designate or not designate these areas as areas of 

critical environmental concern. The effect of the application of interim special management 

attention on the resource values in these areas would be to maintain those values as they currently 

exist, or to change those values in a trend towards the desired condition of those values.

Under Alternative 1, 92 of the 124 existing and potential areas of critical environmental 

concern would be designated. See Table 231 (Total existing and potential ACECs designated by 

alternative). The effect of the application of special management attention on the relevant and 

important values in these areas would be to maintain those values as they currently exist, or to 

change those values in a trend toward the desired condition of those values.

Under Alternative 1, 32 of the 124 existing and potential areas of critical environmental concern 

would not be designated. See Table 232 (Existing and potential ACECs not designated by 

alternative). The relevant and important values in these areas would not receive the special 

management attention needed to maintain or protect them. See Table 233 (Relevant and important 

value categories that would receive no special management attention). These values would 

eventually be degraded or lost. 

Under Alternative 2, 93 of the 124 existing and potential areas of critical environmental 

concern would be designated. See Table 231 (Total existing and potential ACECs designated by 

alternative). The effect of the application of special management attention on the relevant and 

important values in these areas would be to maintain those values as they currently exist, or to 

change those values in a trend toward the desired condition of those values.

Under Alternative 2, 31 of the 124 existing and potential Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

would not be designated. See Table 232 (Existing and potential ACECs not designated by alternative). 

The relevant and important values in these areas would not receive the special management attention 

needed to maintain or protect them. See Table 233 (Relevant and important value categories that 

would receive no special management attention). These values would eventually be degraded or lost. 

Under Alternative 3, 82 of the 124 existing and potential areas of critical environmental 

concern would be designated. See Table 231 (Total existing and potential ACECs designated by 

alternative). The effect of the application of special management attention on the relevant and 

important values in these areas would be to maintain those values as they currently exist, or to 

change those values in a trend toward the desired condition of those values.

Under Alternative 3, 42 of the 124 existing and potential areas of critical environmental 

concern would not be designated. See Table 232 (Existing and potential ACECs not designated 

by alternative). The relevant and important values in these areas would not receive the special 

management attention needed to maintain or protect them. See Table 233 (Relevant and 

important value categories that would receive no special management attention). These values 

would eventually be degraded or lost. 

The No Action Alternative would provide special management attention or interim special 

management attention to all 132 existing and potential areas of critical environmental concern. 
809

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Alternatives 1 and 2 would designate similar numbers and acres of areas of critical environmental 

concern and would provide special management attention to similar numbers of relevant and 

important values. Alternative 3 would designate the fewest number and least acres as areas of 

critical environmental concern and would provide special management attention to the least 

number of relevant and important values.

Table 231. Total existing and potential ACECs designated by alternative

BLM Districts

No Action 

Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Number Acres Number Acres Number Acres Number Acres

Salem 26 18,770 26 17,956 25 19,217 20 15,544

Eugene 14 2,791 13 2,509 15 2,393 14 2,397

Roseburg 10 10,232 9 9,412 9 9,412 9 9,412

Coos Bay 11 9,751 14 13,000 12 9,085 9 7,413

Medford 28 15,812 22 18,122 24 21,457 22 18,104

Klamath Falls 

Resource Area 

(Lakeview District)

5 10,317 8 10,776 8 10,754 8 10,748

Totals 94 67,673 92 71,775 93 72,318 82 63,618

Table 232. Existing and potential ACECs not designated by alternative

BLM Districts

No Action 

Alternative 

(interim mgmt)

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Number Acres Number Acres Number Acres Number Acres

Salem 11 4,648 9 5,459 10 4,206 15 7,874

Eugene 8 11,902 7 12,181 5 12,298 6 12,296

Roseburg 3 158 3 976 3 977 3 978

Coos Bay 5 4,053 2 804 4 4,720 7 6,391

Medford 7 8,174 11 5,864 9 2,529 11 5,882

Klamath Falls 

Resource Area 

(Lakeview District)

4 1,093 0 634 0 658 0 662

Totals 38 30,028 32 25,918 31 25,388 42 34,083
810

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Table 233. Relevant and important value categories that would receive no special management attention

Value Category No Action 

Alternative

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Number % Number % Number %

Cultural, historic, and 

scenic 0 5 16 4 13 7 22

Fish and wildlife 0 19 34 15 27 24 43

Natural process or 

system 0 34 28 33 28 43 36

Natural hazard 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Totals 0 58 27 52 25 74 35

See Table 234 (Existing and potential ACEC value categories by BLM district within the 124 

areas that were further analyzed for designation) for the number of important and relevant values 

for the 124 existing and potential areas of critical environmental concern that were analyzed for 

designation under the alternatives.

Table 234. Existing and potential ACEC value categories by BLM district within the 124 areas that 

were further analyzed for designation

Value Category Salem Eugene Coos 

Bay Roseburg Medford Klamath Falls

Totals per 

Value

Cultural, historic, and 

scenic 7 3 6 1 9 6 32

Fish and wildlife 18 14 7 2 9 6 56

Natural process or 

system 33 18 16 12 32 9 120

Natural hazard 3 0 0 0 0 0 3

Totals per BLM 

District 61 35 29 15 50 21 211
811

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Cultural Resources 

This analysis examines the damage to cultural, paleontological, and traditional use sites that 

would result from the alternatives.

Key Points

The amount of damage to cultural, paleontological, and traditional use sites would vary little between all the 

alternatives. Under all four alternatives, no more than 2% of sites would be damaged per decade across the 

planning area. 

Practices that are discussed in this analysis are the same or similar to those practices that have 

been implemented under the current RMP (the No Action Alternative). It is reasonable to assume 

that these practices would be implemented in a similar manner under all alternatives because the 

cultural, paleontological and Native American traditional use resource management objectives of 

all alternatives are essentially the same.

Nearly all impacts to cultural and paleontological sites would be reduced or eliminated under 

all alternatives through the practice of predisturbance site discovery and the use of avoidance or 

protection measures. However, site avoidance would not always be possible which would result 

in some incidental or inadvertent loss of sites or site values. Examples include:

•	 Sites that cannot be entirely avoided by project redesign without eliminating the resource 

benefits provided by the project. 

•	 Projects that cannot be relocated or redesigned. For example, a ridge saddle may be the 

only economic and engineering feasible location for an access road..

•	 Site values that are visually dependent on setting.

•	 Sites that are not fully identified prior to ground disturbing actions due to lack of surface 

manifestations or reduced surface visibility. For example, some sites are partially or 

entirely below the ground surface or surface artifacts are not visible during inventory due 

to dense ground vegetation and thick duff cover.

Sites are not evenly distributed across the landscape or across landforms. The range of site 

locations is similar for the northern and coastal areas (Salem, Eugene, and Coos Bay districts) and 

for the southern areas (Roseburg and Medford districts). The Klamath Falls Resource Area has 

the most recorded sites (See the Cultural Resources section on Chapter 3).

Over the last nine years (1998 through 2006), the number of newly discovered sites per year were 

also unevenly distributed:

•	 2 new sites in the northern and coastal areas (Eugene, Coos Bay and Salem districts),

•	 55 new sites in the southern area (Roseburg and Medford districts), and

•	 86 new sites in the Klamath Falls Resource Area.

Any ground-disturbing action which includes timber harvest, fire and fuels management, 

recreation management, and off-highway vehicle use can damage or destroy cultural, 
812

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

paleontological and traditional use resources (See the Cultural Resources section of Chapter 3). 

Site damage occurred to 22 (0.83%) out of 2,653 recorded cultural sites in the planning area from 

1998 through 2006.

•	 For timber harvest, the rate of site damage averaged one site per 7,640 harvested acres in 

the northern and coastal area, and one site per 9,125 harvested acres in the southern area 

over the past decade. There was no damage to sites in the Klamath Falls Resource Area.

•	 For road construction, no sites were reported damaged in the planning area between 1998 

and 2006 so the damage rate is 0%. However, sites damaged by road construction were 

recorded prior to 1998 so it is assumed damage would occasionally occur.

•	 For fires and fuels management, the rate of site damage averaged one site per 11,052 

treated acres in the southern area and one site per 9,775 treated acres in the Klamath 

Falls Resource Area over the past decade. No sites were damaged in the northern and 

coastal area. Fuel treatments also reduce the risk of wildfires damaging sites. While fuel 

treatments would reduce the risk of wildfires damaging sites, there is no quantified data 

on risk reduction.

•	 For recreation site development and use, a total of one site (in the Medford District) was 

damaged. Damage to one site does not provide enough data to develop a meaningful 

correlation between the number of recreation sites constructed or number of acres of 

recreation construction and the risk of damaging cultural sites. However, it is assumed 

that site damage would occasionally occur.

•	 Off-highway vehicle use that occurs on existing and designated roads does not impact 

cultural sites. Use that occurs outside of existing and designated roads, would damage 

sites. The Medford District and the Klamath Falls Resource Area have each reported 

one damaged site. The number of cultural sites damaged is too small to demonstrate 

a meaningful correlation between amount of off-highway vehicle use and rate of site 

destruction. However, it is assumed site damage would occasionally occur.

The past rate of damage is used to project the rate of damage to cultural sites that would occur 

under the alternatives.

No data is available to quantify the impacts to paleontological resources within the planning area. 

These sites have been recorded infrequently with only 45 locations documented.

Under the No Action Alternative, harvest would increase in the next decade to 97,300 acres in 

the northern and coastal areas which would result in 13 (3%) of the sites being damaged, and to 

58,700 acres in the southern area which would result in six (0.4 %) of the sites being damaged. 

There would be no sites damaged in the Klamath Falls Resource Area.

Under the No Action Alternative, damage due to road construction, recreational site development, 

and use, and off-highway vehicle use would occasionally occur.

Under the No Action Alternative, ground disturbing hazardous fuels treatments over the next 10 

years would occur on 107,000 acres in the Southern area which would result in 10 (0.7 %) of the 

sites being damaged, and on 77,000 acres in the Klamath Falls Resource Area which would result 
813

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

in 8 (0.7 %) of the sites being damaged. Fuels treatments in the northern and coastal area would 

not result in damage to sites.

Under the No Action Alternative total damage would occur to an average of 4 sites per year and 

1% of known sites would be damaged in the next decade. This includes:

•	 One site per year and 3% per decade in the northern and coastal areas, 

•	 Less than two sites per year and 1% of sites in the next decade in the southern area, and

•	 Less than one site per year and 0.7 % of sites in the next decade in the Klamath Falls 

Resource Area.

Under Alternative 1, 122,200 acres would be harvested in the next decade in the northern and 

coastal areas which would result in 16 (4%) of the sites being damaged, and 78,400 acres would 

be harvested in the southern area which would result in 9 (0.7%) of the sites being damaged. 

There would be no sites damaged in the Klamath Falls Resource Area. 

Under Alternative 1, damage due to road construction, recreational site development and use and 

off-highway vehicle use would occasionally occur.

Under Alternative 1, ground disturbing hazardous fuels treatment over the next 10 years would 

occur on 107,000 acres in the southern area which would result in 10 (0.7%) of the sites being 

damaged, and on 77,000 acres in the Klamath Falls Resource Area which would result in 8 (0.7%) 

of the sites being damaged. Fuels treatments in the northern and coastal areas would not result in 

damage to sites.

Under Alternative 1, total damage would occur to an average of 4 sites per year and 1% of known 

sites would be damaged over the next 10 years. This includes:

•	 Less than two sites per year and 4% in the northern and coastal areas,

•	 Two sites per year and 1% of sites in the southern area, and

•	 Less than one site per year and 0.7 % of sites in the Klamath Falls Resource Area.

Under Alternative 2, 126,600 acres would be harvested over the next 10 years in the northern and 

coastal areas which would result in 17 (4%) of the sites being damaged, and 90,400 acres in the 

southern area would be harvested which would result in 10 (0.7%) of the sites being damaged. 

There would be no sites damaged in the Klamath Falls Resource area.

Under Alternative 2, damage due to road construction, recreational site development and use, and 

off-highway vehicle use would occasionally occur.

Under Alternative 2, ground disturbing hazardous fuels treatment over the next 10 years would 

occur on 107,000 acres in the southern area which would result in 10 (0.7%) of the sites being 

damaged and on 77,000 acres in the Klamath Falls Resource Area which would result in 8 (0.7 

%) of the sites being damaged. Fuels treatments in the northern and coastal area would not result 

in damage to sites.

Under Alternative 2, total damage would occur to an average of 5 sites per year and 2% of known 

sites would be damaged over the next 10 years. This includes:
814

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

•	 Less than two sites per year and 4% in the northern and coastal areas,

•	 Two sites per year and 1% of sites in the southern area, and

•	 Less than one site per year and 0.7% of sites in the Klamath Falls Resource Area.

Under Alternative 3, 147,900 acres would be harvested over the next 10 years in the northern and 

coastal area which would result in 19 (5%) of the sites being damaged and 126,100 acres would 

be harvested in the southern area which would result in 14 (1%) of the sites being damaged. 

There would be no sites damaged in the Klamath Falls Resource Area.

Under Alternative 3, damage due to road construction, recreational site development and use, and 

off-highway vehicle use would occasionally occur.

Under Alternative 3, ground disturbing hazardous fuels treatment over the next 10 years would 

occur on 107,000 acres in the southern area which would result in 10 (0.7%) of the sites being 

damaged and on 77,000 acres in the Klamath Falls Resource Area which would result in 8 (0.7%) 

of the sites being damaged. Fuels treatments in the northern and coastal areas would not result in 

damage to sites.

Under Alternative 3, total damage would occur to an average of 5 sites per year and 2% of known 

sites would be damaged over the next 10 years. This includes:

•	 Two sites per year and 5% of sites in the northern and coastal areas,

•	 Two sites per year and 2% of sites in the southern area, and

•	 Less than one site per year and 0.7% of sites in the Klamath Falls Resource Area. 

A summary of the cultural resource sites projected to be damaged under the alternatives is shown 

in Table 235 (Percent of total cultural resource sites damaged under the alternatives over the next 

10 years).

Table 235. Percent of total cultural resource sites damaged under the alternatives over the next 10 years

Area No Action Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Northern and Coastal 

Areas 3% 4% 4% 5%

Southern area 1% 1% 1% 2%

Klamath Falls Resource 

Area 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7%

Total All Areas 1% 1% 2% 2%

Impacts to Native American traditional use sites include alteration of sites and site settings, 

loss of vehicular access to sites, and noise and visual intrusions to site setting. Disturbance or 

destruction of spiritual sites occurs when physical elements such as cairns, mounds or burials 

are damaged or removed. Impacts to traditional use resources include reduction or elimination 

of resources such as huckleberries, bark, hazel and other resources. Competition for special 

forest products such as berries, bear grass, firewood or greenery contributes to the reduction of 

traditional resource quantities.
815

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Management actions that would affect traditional use sites and resources include any that would 

result in ground disturbance, alterations of plant communities, and access restrictions. These 

include timber harvest, road construction and road decommissioning, fire and fuels management, 

permitting use of special forest products, and off-highway vehicle management.

Consulting with tribal governments and tribal members early in project planning to identify 

locations and resources of concern would reduce or eliminate most effects to sites and resources 

of interest to tribal members.

Under all four alternatives, avoidance of traditional use sites that are identified by tribal 

governments within the planning area would be the preferred and most common method to 

eliminate or reduce adverse impacts. However, if avoidance would not be possible, other impact 

reduction measures would be developed in consultation with the tribal government having an 

identified interest. Examples of such measures include timing the management action to occur 

during a period of time when traditional users are not present on the site and permitting use of an 

alternative location acceptable to traditional users. In those instances, when tribal governments 

would not be able to provide traditional use site locations in advance of projects, it would not be 

possible to take measures to protect the site or resource of concern.
816

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Energy and Minerals 

This analysis examines the availability, quantity, and abundance of energy and mineral resources 

under each alternative relative to demand. 

Key Points

•	 All four alternatives would maintain similar levels of availability and quantity of energy and mineral resources. 

•	 Under all four alternatives, energy and mineral resources on public land within the planning area would generally 

be abundant relative to demand.

•	 Under all four alternatives, almost all lands would remain available for the location of mining claims under the 

mining laws, but most on-the-ground activity would be limited to notice-level operations in a few areas that have 

been traditionally of interest.

•	 Under all four alternatives, common varieties of rock would continue to be available from existing quarries. A few 

quarries may be closed, reclaimed, or potentially replaced by new sites.

•	 Under all four alternatives, those parts of the Coos Bay District in the Coos geologic basin would be of special 

interest for the exploration and development of coal bed natural gas as an extension of the development that is 

already under way. As many as 77 wells may be drilled on federal land, which would result in about 525 acres 

of disturbance.

Under federal law and BLM policy, all public lands are open for energy and mineral exploration 

and development, unless specific lands are closed or withdrawn from mineral entry. An example 

of such a withdrawal would be the establishment of a federal wilderness. All four alternatives 

would provide opportunities for new exploration for all types of minerals. Most of the planning 

area would remain open to mineral entry. Such entries would be subject to certain restrictions as 

required by law or as a result of decisions supported by site-specific environmental analysis.

Under all four alternatives, almost all lands would continue to be available for oil and gas leasing 

and the exploration and development for conventional oil and gas. Although prices for oil and gas 

are expected to continue to rise relative to the costs of exploration and development, the actual 

physical occurrence of oil and gas in most parts of the planning area is speculative. 

No federal oil and gas leases have been issued within the planning area since the current resource 

management plans were adopted in 1995. Lands in the southern portion of the Salem District 

and east of the Mist gas field have the best potential to attract leasing and exploration interest for 

conventional natural gas.

Among the six districts within the planning area, there are about 370 existing quarries for 

common variety minerals. It is assumed that up to 20 of these quarries would be depleted over the 

next 10 years and would likely be replaced by the expansion of existing quarries or the opening of 

new sites. Demand for common variety material is closely correlated with population growth and 

road maintenance needs. 

Under all four alternatives, most lands would continue to be open for the location of mining 

claims under the Mining Law of 1872 (as amended). The levels and locations of activity would be 

about the same as it is currently. The highest levels of activity would continue to be in portions of 

the Medford District, followed by portions of the Roseburg and Eugene districts. See Table 236 

(Current claims, notices, and plans of operations within the planning area) for the current level of 

claims, notices, and plans of operation by district.
817

Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Table 236. Current claims, notices, and plans of operations within the planning area

BLM Districts Claims Notices Plans of Operation

Salem 133 0 0

Eugene 224 5 0

Roseburg 273 16 0

Coos Bay 304 0 0

Medford 1,363 85 1

Klamath Falls Resource Area 

(Lakeview District) 3 0 0

The current Coal Bed Natural Gas play on private and county lands, south of the city of Coos Bay, 

may eventually extend on to BLM-administered lands, although no lease nominations have been 

received to date. Based on the current level and location of activity, it is likely during the next 

10 to 15 years that leases would be issued and up to 77 wells would be drilled, which would result 

in about 525 acres of total disturbance from the construction of access roads, drill pads, and product 

gathering pipelines. Under all four alternatives, the location of well pads and roads for the purpose of 

drilling would be limited to existing roads in riparian reserves and riparian management areas. Under 

all four alternatives, most development activity would occur on existing log landings and associated 

roads. See Appendix P. Energy and Minerals for a detailed discussion of Coal Bed Natural Gas. Should 

new wells encounter excessive amounts of produced water, no water would be discharged on the 

surface and any off-site water disposal would comply with applicable state regulations. 

Biomass

It is estimated that the biomass opportunities that would result from timber sales would 

range from 5 to 10% of the standing merchantable volume of stands that would be 

harvested under each alternative. This level is based upon the assumption that only 

boles would be available for removal, as no method has been demonstrated that can 

consistently remove limbs economically and effectively except with ground-based, 

mechanized ground operations. This level would equate to between 0.35 and 0.7 dry tons 

per thousand board feet harvested. 

Several factors would interact to vary this amount depending upon the location, district, 

and type of stand. These factors include the amount of nonmerchantable hardwoods, the 

amount of submerchantable material designated for cutting and removal in fire-prone 

stands, and the level of defect within a stand. Thinnings would typically contain material 

that consists mainly of tops and submerchantable stems, while older stands would contain 

more cull material and broken pieces. In addition, with ground-based operations where 

the yarding of whole trees is required, the potential biomass in the limb component may 

be included in both the thinning and harvesting of older stands. 

Topography, vegetation, and yarding systems would affect the availability of biomass 

by reducing the recovery level of material. Areas suitable for ground-based equipment 

would have a higher recovery level, while areas of steep, dense brush would have a lower 

recovery level due to the difficulty of locating the material and bringing it to a landing 

with cable yarding systems. 

The effects of yarding additional material would largely be similar to those created by 

yarding merchantable timber. In fire-prone stands, thinning (cutting and removing) the 

submerchantable material would reduce the risk of high-severity fires. 
818

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs
Chapter 5 – Coordination and 

Monitoring

Chapter 5 describes the public participation and interagency coordination that has occurred during 

the preparation of this Draft Environmental Impact Statement. It also includes a list of staff involved 

in the Western Oregon Plan Revision. Finally, the chapter describes how the monitoring plan will be 

created for the Proposed Resource Management Plan and the role of adaptive management in the land 

use planning process.

In this chapter:

Introduction ...............................................................................................................................821

Public Contact and Scoping....................................................................................................822

Formal Cooperators ..................................................................................................................823

Government-to-Government Coordination.........................................................................825

Consistency with Other Agency Plans and Programs .......................................................826

Section 7 Consultation under the Endangered Species Act .............................................829

Preparers .....................................................................................................................................830

Monitoring .................................................................................................................................845

Adaptive Management.............................................................................................................848

819
820

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs
821

Chapter 5 – Coordination and Monitoring

Introduction

An interdisciplinary team of resource specialists from the BLM Western Oregon districts and 

Oregon State Office, and contract personnel, prepared the Western Oregon plan revision. Initial 

preparation and planning for the plan revisions began in August 2003 when the Secretary of 

Interior, the American Forest Resource Council, and the Association of O&C Counties entered 

into the Settlement Agreement. Plan evaluations conducted in 2004 showed that the timber 

harvest decisions in the 1995 Oregon RMPs were not being met. The Notice of Intent, published 

in the Federal Register on September 7, 2005, initiated the public scoping process, and notified 

the public of the intent to revise the 1995 Oregon RMPs with a single Environmental Impact 

Statement. The Analysis of the Management Situation was published in October 2005. The 

Planning Criteria was published in February 2006. The planning process involved many steps 

with public participation, as well as consultation and coordination with many agencies and 

organizations thought-out the process. 
822

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Public Contact and Scoping

Public Contact and Scoping was conducted with direct mailings, public meetings, and internet 

web sites. The current mailing list includes approximately 1600 individuals and organizations. 

Public meetings were held in the all District Offices and at other locations across the planning 

area. District and State Office personnel met with many different partnerships including the 

Applegate Partnership, Soil and Water Conservation Districts and Counsels; Watershed 

Associations; Forest Protective Associations; Wildlife groups such as Ducks Unlimited and the 

Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation; the Native Plant Society; Environmental Education Groups; 

Recreation Groups such as horsemen, all terrain vehicle users, and trail associations; and 

environmental groups such as Audubon and the Nature Conservancy. 

Some of the public contact and scoping activities that occurred just prior to and following 

the initiation of the planning process by the publication of the Notice of Intent in September 

2005 include:

Newsletter #1 – Scoping – Introduction to WOPR – August 2005 

Public Web Page Available – August 2005 

County Fair Booths, August 2005 

NOI and News Release – September 7, 2005 

Scoping Meetings – September/October 2005 

Scoping Key Contact Meetings – September/October 2005 

State Director Editorial Boards – September/October 2005 

Economic Profile System Workshops, September/November 2005 

ACEC Nomination Process – Mailed to mailing list, October 5, 2005 

Analysis of the Management Situation Printed – October 2005 

Newsletter #2 - Summary of the Analysis of the Management Situation, December 2005 

 State Director and Governor sign WOPR MOU, December 1, 2005 

Proposed Planning Criteria and State Director Guidance published February 2006 

Scoping Report issued, February 2006 

Newsletter #3 - Scoping Report, Planning Criteria, and ACEC Nominations, 

February 2006 

Planning Criteria / Alternatives – Public Meetings, March 2006 

Public Interest Environmental Law Conference – March 3-4, 2006 
823

Chapter 5 – Coordination and Monitoring

Newsletter #4 - Planning Criteria & Use of Science in Plan Revisions, April 2006 

State-of-the-Science Forum -- Corvallis, June 15, 2006 

Newsletter #5 – Summary of the Alternatives to be Analysed in the Environmental Impact 

Statement, October, 2006

Newsletter #6 – Pre Draft Environmental Impact Statement Update, April, 2007

Formal Cooperators

The Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the National Environmental Policy Act 

provide direction regarding coordination and cooperation with other agencies and governments. 

The Federal Land Policy and Management Act emphasizes the need to ensure coordination 

and consistency with the plans and policies of other relevant jurisdictions. The National 

Environmental Policy Act provides for what is essentially a cooperative relationship between a 

lead agency and cooperating agencies in the National Environmental Policy Act process.

Cooperating agency status provides a formal framework for governmental units—local, state, 

tribal, or Federal—to engage in active collaboration with a lead Federal agency to implement 

the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. Within the constraints of time and 

resources, cooperating agency staff members are encouraged to participate fully with BLM as 

members of the planning and environmental impact statement team.

The Council on Environmental Policy regulations specify that a Federal agency, state agency, 

local government, or tribal government may qualify as a cooperating agency because of “. . . 

jurisdiction by law or special expertise.”

1) Jurisdiction by law means “. . . agency authority to approve, veto, or finance all or part of the 

proposal.” (40 CFR 1508.15)

2) Special expertise means “. . . statutory responsibility, agency mission, or related program 

experience.” (40 CFR 1508.26)

Cooperators are important to successful revisions of BLM’s resource management plans, and 

therefore will be involved early and often in the planning process. They can provide expertise 

in much of the subject matter being analyzed. Some cooperators can provide advice based on 

experiences with similar planning efforts. 

The Cooperators have met with the BLM managers and planning core team and throughout the 

planning process, including the development of issues, the planning criteria and the alternatives. 
824

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Federal Cooperators are:

United States Forest Service

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration – Fisheries

United States Fish and Wildlife Service

Environmental Protection Agency

For the State of Oregon, the Governor’s Office and ten state resource agencies are under a single 

Memorandum of Understanding.

The State of Oregon Cooperators are:

Oregon Governor’s Office

Oregon Department of Forestry (Lead agency for the state)

Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

Oregon Department of Transportation

Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries

Oregon Department of Agriculture

Oregon Department of Parks and Recreation

Oregon Department of State Lands

Oregon State Marine Board

Oregon Water Resources Department

Oregon Counties that are potentially affected by a BLM Planning process qualify for cooperator 

status based on the special expertise resulting from their knowledge of the local social, economic, 

and political conditions that exist within the planning area. Sixteen Oregon Counties are 

Cooperators. While each county has a separate Memorandum of Understanding with the BLM, 

the Association of O&C Counties represents them as a group. 

Oregon County Cooperators are:

Clackamas Co. Klamath Co.

Columbia Co. Lane Co.

Coos Co. Lincoln Co.

Curry Co. Marion Co.

Douglas Co. Polk Co.

Jackson Co. Tillamook Co.

Josephine Co. Washington Co.

Linn Co. Yamhill Co.
825

Chapter 5 – Coordination and Monitoring

Government-to-Government Coordination

There are seven recognized tribes within the planning area. All of the tribes have stated that 

they want government-to-government relationships rather than cooperator relationships. The 

Coquille Tribe is directly engaged in the planning process because, by law (25 U.S.C. §715c), 

the management of their tribal lands must be consistent with the management of the surrounding 

federal lands.

Recognized tribes within the planning area are:

Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians

Coquille Indian Tribe

Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians

Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde

Confederated Tribes of Siletz

Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation

The Klamath Tribes
826

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Consistency with Other Agency Plans and 

Programs

The BLM planning regulations require that resource management plans be “. . . consistent with 

officially approved or adopted resource-related plans and the policies and procedures contained 

therein, of other federal agencies, state and local governments, and Indian tribes, so long as the 

guidance and resource management plans are also consistent with the purposes, policies, and 

programs of federal laws and regulations applicable to public lands . . . “ (43 CFR 1610.3-2). The 

alternatives are intended to be consistent with other agencies plans. A consistency review will be 

completed for the proposed RMP and Final Environmental Impact Statement. 

Federal Agencies

U.S. Department of Agriculture

•	 Forest Service 

– Forest-wide land use plans for adjacent national forests.

•	 Soil Conservation Service 

– Soil Surveys and Watershed Plans

•	 Animal and Plant Inspection Service

– Pest Management including noxious weeds

U.S. Department of the Interior

•	 Fish and Wildlife Service

– Pacific Bald Eagle Recovery Plan

– Draft Northern Spotted Owl Recovery Plan

– Draft Snowy Plover Recovery Plan

– Marbled Murrelet Recovery Plan

– Fish and Wildlife Service determination of critical habitat for northern 

spotted owl

•	 National Park Service

– National rivers inventory and related review procedures

U.S. Department of Defense

• Army Corps of Engineers

– Applicable project-specific recreation plans and navigable river 

(Sec. 404) permits
827

Chapter 5 – Coordination and Monitoring

U.S. Department of Energy

• Bonneville Power Administration

– Transmission and System Facilities Resource Program

U.S. Department of Commerce

• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - Fisheries 

• Anadromous Fish Recovery Plans and Critical Habitat

Northwest Power Planning Council

• Columbia River Basin, Fish and Wildlife Program, and subordinate speciesspecific strategies.

State Agencies

Department of Agriculture

• Weed Control Plans

• State-listed endangered plant species

Department of Environmental Quality

• Visibility Protection Plan and air quality standards

• Water Quality Management Plan

• Public use watersheds

Department of Fish and Wildlife

• Statutory Wildlife Policy

• Oregon Endangered Species Programs

• Sensitive Species Rule

• Non-game Wildlife Plan

• Big Game Population Management Objectives

• The Oregon Conservation Strategy

• Oregon Plan for Fish

Wild Fish Policy 

Coho, Steelhead Trout Plans

• Basin Fish Management Plans
828

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Department of Forestry

• Smoke Management Plan

• Oregon Forest Practices Act

• Forestry Program for Oregon

Water Resources Department

• River basin programs

• Water Resources Commission rules and statutes

Parks and Recreation Department

• State-wide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan

• State Parks and Recreation System Plan

• State Recreation Trails Plan

• State Historic Preservation Program

• Oregon Beach Law

• State-designated Scenic Waterways

Department of Transportation, Highway Division

• Oregon Highway Plan

Division of State Lands

• Removal-fill Law

• Natural Heritage Program

Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development

State-wide land use planning goals of the Oregon Land Conservation 

and Development Commission will serve as the analytical foundation for 

documenting consistency with both state-wide planning goals, approved 

county and city-wide comprehensive plans, and the Oregon Coastal 

Management Program. 
829

Chapter 5 – Coordination and Monitoring

Oregon Coastal Management Program

According to 15 CFR 930, a Federal agency may use its NEPA documents as a 

vehicle for its consistency determination or negative determination. However, a 

Federal agency’s federal consistency obligations under the Act are independent 

of those required under NEPA and are not necessarily fulfilled by submission 

of a NEPA document. The BLM will include its consistency determination or 

negative determination in the RMP/EIS and ensure that the NEPA document 

includes the information and adheres to timeframes required by the regulations.

Local Government

A brief narrative will be prepared addressing consistency with county and city 

comprehensive plans. The narrative will note any inconsistencies between RMP 

alternatives and county plans that might affect RMP implementation. Most counties 

in the planning area are participating as cooperators in the preparation of the plan to 

facilitate consistency.

Tribal Plans and Treaties

Separate narrative discussions of any relevant tribal plans, programs or policies, or treaty 

interests will be included after consulting with appropriate tribal leaders. 

Section 7 Consultation under the 

Endangered Species Act

Introduction

The revision of the Resource Management Plans with management action for western 

Oregon BLM’s resource programs constitutes a federal action that is subject to 

Endangered Species Act consultation. 

Consulting on the RMP and Environmental Impact Statement provides for an evaluation 

of whether jeopardy, or destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat are likely 

to occur at the program scale, and will facilitate the consultation process for site-specific, 

project scale management actions. Subsequent consultation at the project level would 

provide an evaluation of specific effects of individual management actions to listed 

species and critical habitat. The site-specific, project level proposals would include a 

description of all management actions, conservation measures and project level best 

management practices.
830

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Information relating to proposed and listed species and proposed and designated 

critical habitat (e.g., conclusions on how the alternatives affect listed species) has been 

incorporated into the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and will be used in the 

development of the Biological Assessment. The Federal agencies will convene an 

interagency team to conduct consultation. 

Biological Assessment

The purpose of a Biological Assessment is to assess the effects of the 

implementation of the proposed RMP as described and analyzed in the Final 

Environmental Impact Statement. 

The process used to develop the Biological Assessment will provide for early interagency 

coordination, provide the logic for conclusions on effects to species, and provide a 

mechanism for comment and input from the consulting agencies. 

The final Biological Assessment will incorporate changes to the preferred alternative 

and comments received. A Biological Opinion from the consulting agencies will only be 

prepared after the final Biological Assessment is completed.

Preparers

Steering Committee

The eight-member Steering Committee is comprised of management staff from the BLM 

Oregon/Washington State Office in Portland and the six BLM districts represented in the 

Western Oregon Plan Revisions. This committee provides leadership, on behalf of the 

BLM west-side districts and the Oregon State Office, to the Resource Management Plan 

Revisions process. 

Members of the Steering Committee are listed below: 

• Edward W. Shepard Oregon/Washington State Director

• Mike Mottice Deputy State Director, Division of Resources

• Aaron Horton District Manager, Salem

• Ginnie Grilley District Manager, Eugene

• Jay Carlson District Manager, Roseburg

• Tim Reuwsaat District Manager, Medford

• Shirley Gammon District Manager, Lakeview

• Mark E. Johnson District Manager, Coos Bay
831

Chapter 5 – Coordination and Monitoring

Key Project Staff

The following table lists the staff who prepared the Draft RMP/EIS and their specific 

area of responsibility, as well as the organization where each staff member works. 

Biographies for each staff member are included below the table.

Table 237. Key project staff for the Western Oregon Plan Revision

Key Staff and Assigned Responsibilities

Responsibility Name Oraganization

Project Manager Richard Prather Oregon State Office BLM

Lead Planner Philip Hall Mason, Bruce and Girard Inc.

Planner Anne Boeder Oregon State Office BLM

Forester/Planner Alan Wood Oregon State Office BLM

Writer-Editor Linda Chesnut Mason, Bruce and Girard Inc.

GIS/Data Analysis Duane Dippon Oregon State Office BLM

Administrative Record Coordinator Mary Ceciliani Oregon State Office BLM

Logistics Coordinator Jerry Hubbard Oregon State Office BLM

Public Involvement Coordinator Alan Hoffmeister Oregon State Office BLM

Vegetation/Land Use Allocation 

Mapping Chris Cadwell Oregon State Office BLM

Forester/Planner Paul Ausbeck Roseburg BLM

Graphics Editor Kristen Hiatt Lakeview BLM

Cartographer Paul Fyfield Oregon State Office BLM

Cultural Fran Philipek Salem BLM

Ecology Richard Hardt Eugene BLM

Energy/Minerals Patrick H. Geehan Oregon State Office BLM

Energy/Minerals Eric Hoffman Oregon State Office BLM

Fire John Dinwiddie Medford BLM

Fisheries Nikki Moore Coos Bay BLM

Fisheries Bill Hudson Coos Bay BLM

Grazing Kim Hackett Medford BLM

Hydrology Dan Carpenter Coos Bay BLM

Recreation Chris Church Coos Bay BLM

Roads, Lands John Styduhar Oregon State Office BLM

Silviculture Craig Kintop Roseburg BLM

Socio-Economic Mark Rasmussen Mason, Bruce and Girard Inc.

Soils Clif Fanning Oregon State Office BLM

Special Areas Lou Whiteaker Klamath Falls BLM

Timber Dave DeMoss Eugene BLM

Vegetation/Botany Doug Kendig Medford BLM

Vegetation/Botany Claire Hibler Salem BLM

Wildlife Chris Foster Roseburg BLM
832

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Interdisciplinary and EIS Team

Paul Ausbeck – Planner/Forester. Paul has a B.S. in Wood Technology & Utilization 

and Forest Sciences from the University of Illinois, and an M.S. in Forest Products from 

the University of Washington. He has 25 years of government service, including 8 years 

with the U.S. Forest Service on the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest In his 17 

years with the BLM in Oregon, Paul worked in timber sale planning, preparation and 

administration for 8 years and has been the Environmental Coordinator for the South 

River Field Office, Roseburg District, BLM since 1998.

Anne Boeder - Planner. Anne holds a B.A. in Cartography and Geography from the 

University of Wisconsin and a Master of Public Administration from the University of 

Utah. Anne has 23 years of government service, including 13 years with the U.S. Forest 

Service and 8 years with the BLM. She most recently served in various leadership 

roles on the interagency team for the 2004 Survey and Manage Environmental Impact 

Statement and Record of Decision. She has also worked on both the Roseburg and Coos 

Bay Districts.

Chris Cadwell - Forester/Resource Analyst. Chris served on the Forest Ecosystem 

Management Assessment Team in the estimation of probable sale quantities. He has 

coordinated probable sale quantities estimations and geographic information system 

analysis supporting development and implementation of the BLM resource management 

plans in western Oregon. He is co-author of the implementation guidance for the 15 

percent standard and guideline. Chris served as co-lead in developing interagency 

vegetation standards and served on the team that developed interagency land allocation 

standards for the Northwest Forest Plan area. He participated in the Survey and Manage 

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statements in the assessment of timber effects 

and development of late-successional forest. He is the state data steward for the forest 

operations inventory, timber production capability classifications, and land use allocations 

for the BLM. Chris has 25 years experience with the BLM in western Oregon and 

currently is employed by the BLM Oregon/Washington State Office. He holds a B.S. in 

Forest Management from Humboldt State University. 

Dan Carpenter – Hydrologist. Dan has a B.S. in Soil Science, from Washington 

State University. He has worked as a professional hydrologist, for the past 25 years 

(12 with the U.S. Forest Service and 13 with the BLM) on the Oregon Coast, Western 

Cascades and Great Basin in Nevada. His area of expertise includes watershed planning, 

modeling, and watershed restoration. His most recent assignments included working on 

an interagency Port-Orford-Cedar Environmental Impact Statement and environmental 

planning roles in the permitting of the Coos County Natural Gas Pipeline. Dan is 

currently employed as a hydrologist on the Coos Bay District.
833

Chapter 5 – Coordination and Monitoring

Mary Ceciliani – Program Assistant. Beginning October 1, 2005 Mary assumed the 

position as coordinator for the Administrative Record of the Western Oregon Plan 

Revision of the Northwest Forest Plan. Previous positions included working at the 

Oregon Federal Executive Board, where she managed all the training, coordinated Health 

Fairs for agencies during the Open Season, and assisted in preparation for numerous 

committee meetings. Mary started her career in the BLM Division of Minerals. Her 

BLM employment totals approximately 23 years.

Linda Chesnut – Linda has a B.S. in Graphic Design from Oregon State University and 

over 12 years experience as a technical writer, editor, and illustrator. Linda has edited, 

proofread, and formatted various environmental, scientific, and grant proposal documents 

for the Environmental Protection Agency. With a strong familiarity with the standards 

of ANSI, ISO, SEMI, and Six Sigma that govern operations, repeatability, safety, and 

quality, she has developed content for the semiconductor and video security equipment 

industries. Linda has also developed templates and style guidelines, as well as led crossfunctional teams to develop improved interdepartmental operating procedures. Linda’s 

expertise is in creating user-friendly end-user, process, and marketing documentation. She 

is currently employed by a contractor to the BLM.

Chris Church – Recreation, National Landscape Conservation System – Chris has 

a B.S. in Wildlife and Fisheries Science from Texas A&M University. He has nine 

years of experience developing community-based conservation and recreation-related 

projects with the BLM, University of Oregon, and the U.S. Peace Corps. Chris 

currently works for the Coos Bay BLM District, managing the Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern program.

David DeMoss – Forester. Dave is currently the district staff forester and district 

silviculturist for the Eugene BLM District. He holds a B.S. in Forestry from the 

University of California - Berkley, and has 29 years experience on the Eugene BLM 

District in timber sales and silviculture. He served as the silviculturist on the Late 

Successional Reserve # 267 Restoration Environmental Impact Statement and has 

experience in stand dynamics and modeling. 

John Dinwiddie – Fire/Fuels/Air Quality. John’s forestry education includes 2 years at 

Central Oregon Community College and completion of Technical Fire Management in 

1989. John worked in private industry for 2 years and for the U.S. Forest Service for 5 

years. His BLM employment totals 25 years.
834

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Duane Dippon – Geographic Information System/Data Team Leader. Duane earned 

a B.S. and M.S in Forestry and Forest Economics at Purdue University and a Ph.D. in 

Forest Management, with a Minor in Operations Research, from Oregon State University. 

He served as the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team co-Geographic 

Information System /Data Team Leader, building the geospatial database covering over 

24 million acres of federal lands across the Pacific Northwest and used by the Forest 

Ecosystem Management Assessment Team scientists in the development of the Northwest 

Forest Plan. Duane came to the Bureau in 1988 to integrate the use of geospatial 

data, modeling, and geographic information system technology in support of federal 

land planning. He has served as the chair or co-chair of the Interagency Resources 

Information Coordination Council from 1994-98 and 2003-04 and serves on the Oregon 

Geographic Information Council. Prior to joining the BLM, Duane was an Associate 

Professor at the University of Florida teaching Forest Management, Forest Economics 

and Quantitative Methods in Natural Resources Management.

Clif Fanning – Soil Scientist. Clif holds a B.S. in Soil Science from California 

Polytechnic State University. He has 32 years of federal service and has been working 

with the BLM since 1977. Cliff previously worked in Dillon and Butte, Montana; and in 

Cheyenne, Wyoming. He has served on numerous planning efforts over the years and has 

been the Oregon/Washington state soil scientist since 1991.

Paul Fyfield – Cartographer. Paul has been a Cartographer in the BLM Oregon State 

Office in Portland since 2001. He earned a Master’s degree in Geography from Portland 

State University in 2003

Chris Foster – Wildlife Biologist. Chris is currently the District Wildlife Biologist 

for the Roseburg BLM District. He holds a B.S. in Forest and Wildlife Management 

from the University of Maine, and an M.S. in Wildlife Management from West Virginia 

University. Chris has more than 15 years experience working for the U.S. Forest 

Service and the BLM. Chris has held positions as a Wildlife Biologist and as a forester 

specializing in watershed analysis and planning. 

Patrick H. Geehan- Mineral Economist. Patrick is the Chief, Minerals Section in 

the Oregon/Washington State Office. He has a B.A. in Economics from The Colorado 

College and a M.S. in Mineral Economics from the Colorado School of Mines. He has 

33 years experience with BLM and has been coal leasing program leader, Deputy State 

Director for Minerals; and Chief, Branch of Physical Sciences. He has managed special 

projects including the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project and the 

Umpqua Land Exchange Project.

Kimberly Hackett – Rangeland Management Specialist. Kimberly Hackett has a B.S. 

in Wildlife Science with a Range Science Emphasis from New Mexico State University. 

She has worked for the BLM for 17 years. Kimberly is currently the Medford BLM 

District Rangeland Management Specialist. She previously worked as a Rangeland 

Management Specialist for 11 years in Idaho and 5 years in Nevada.
835

Chapter 5 – Coordination and Monitoring

Phil Hall – Planner. Phil holds a B.S. in Forestry and a B.S. in Conservation from 

North Carolina State University. Phil served on the interdisciplinary team for the 

Northwest Forest Plan Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (1994) and was 

a lead planner in developing the western Oregon resource management plans tiered to 

the Northwest Forest Plan. He has served on regional teams for the development of 

watershed analysis guides and monitoring and research. Phil has provided national level 

training for the National Environmental Policy Act and Resource Management Planning. 

Phil has a broad understanding and familiarity of BLM programs and plans, including 

the Northwest Forest Plan and environmental impact statements. He has 33 years of 

federal service, including 30 years with the BLM (1976-2006) on two BLM districts and 

in several resource areas. He served on special assignments to BLM’s national office 

in Washington, DC and to other BLM districts in the western United States. He is now 

employed by a contractor to the BLM.

Richard Hardt – Ecologist. Richard has a B.A. in Natural Sciences from John Hopkins 

University, an M.L.A in Landscape Architecture from Harvard University, and a Ph.D. in 

Forest Resources from the University of Georgia. He has 11 years of experience working 

for the BLM and is currently employed at the Eugene BLM District. Richard’s expertise 

is in forest ecology, planning, and the National Environmental Polity Act.

Kristen Hiatt- Graphics Editor. Kristen has a B.S. in Environmental Science from Oregon 

Institute of Technology. She is currently pursuing a M.S. in Environmental Policy and 

Management with an emphasis in Natural Resource Management from the University of 

Denver. Kristen has been with the BLM for two years as a STEP student and currently 

works as a wildlife biological technician on the Klamath Falls Resource Area.

Claire Hibler – Botanist. Claire has served as the Lead Botanist for the Salem BLM 

District since 2001. She holds a B.S. in Forest Management from Oregon State 

University and a B.A in General Biology from Humboldt State University. Claire was a 

founding member of and participates on the steering committee for the Northwest Oregon 

Invasive Weed Management Partnership, which spans the northwest corner of Oregon 

and part of southwest Washington. She has worked in the Salem BLM District for more 

than 15 years in the botany and invasive plant programs, at both the resource area and 

district level. 

Eric Hoffman - Mining Engineer: Eric holds a B.S. in Geology from Washington 

State University with additional hours in environmental geology and engineering from 

Eastern Washington State University and George Washington University in D.C.. He has 

completed 37 years of government service, including 8 years with the former U.S. Bureau 

of Mines in Washington state and at headquarters in Washington, D.C.; 9 years with the 

U.S. Geological Survey at Grand Junction, Colorado; and 20 years with BLM in Oregon/

Washington. Eric’s career has encompassed work on mineral resource evaluation, mined 

land reclamation, and Federal/Indian mineral program management. Eric is currently 

serving as the Acting Section Chief for the OR/WA State Office Minerals Section.
836

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

R. Alan Hoffmeister - Public Involvement Coordinator. Alan is currently assigned to 

the planning staff to coordinate and support all public involvement activities for the plan 

revision effort. He holds a B.S. in Forest Science from the University of Illinois. He 

began his government career with the U.S. Forest Service and Soil Conservation Service 

and has worked for the BLM as a public affairs specialist for 27 years in California, New 

Mexico, and Oregon. Most recently he served as the Public Affairs Officer for the BLM’s 

Coos Bay District.

Jerry Hubbard – Logistics Coordinator. Jerry has a B.S. in Forest Sciences from the 

University of Washington and an M.S. in forestry (Silviculture) from Pennsylvania State 

University. Jerry has held a variety of positions in BLM in Oregon: Forester on the 

Roseburg District, Soils/Watershed Specialist on the Medford District, Public Affairs 

Specialist on the Vale District, and Management Analyst in the Oregon State Office. 

Additionally, as part of a management development curriculum, he produced a regional 

economic analysis of western Oregon’s timber and recreation economies for the period 

1972-1986.

William F. Hudson – Fishery Biologist. Bill has a B.S. in Wildlife Management and a 

M.S. in Biology (Fisheries) from Tennessee Technological University. He has worked 

for the BLM for 25 years in the Coos Bay District. Early in his career he worked as a 

resource area biologist, assisting in fisheries and wildlife management. Currently, Bill is 

the Coos Bay BLM District Fisheries Biologist and has spent the last 7 years working on 

various Endangered Species Act consultations with National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration-Fisheries, including local project consultations and regional consultations 

at the plan level for the Interior Columbia Basin and the Northwest Forest Plan. 

Recently, Bill chaired an interstate and interagency team that developed an Analytical 

Process for Developing Biological Assessments for Federal Actions Affecting Fish within 

the Northwest Forest Plan Area.

Douglas Kendig – Botanist/District Native Plant Coordinator. Doug has 21 years 

experience with the BLM and 3 years with the Peace Corps in Guatemala. He served as 

area and district botanist and resource specialist for the last 11 years, representing botany, 

native plants and restoration. Doug has been a resource area team member on numerous 

environmental assessments and watershed analysis. He holds a B.A. in International 

Studies from Southern Oregon University and graduate class work in Botany from 

Southern Oregon University and the University of Washington.

Craig Kintop – Forester. Craig is currently the District Silviculturist for the Roseburg 

BLM District. He holds a B.S. in Forest Resources Management from the University of 

Minnesota. Craig has more than 29 years experience working for the U.S. Forest Service 

and the BLM. He was a member of the silviculture/inventory team that developed 

silvicultural prescriptions and growth and yield information for the 1995 resource 

management plans.
837

Chapter 5 – Coordination and Monitoring

Nikki M. Moore – Fishery Biologist. Nikki is currently a fisheries biologist for the Coos 

Bay District BLM. She holds a B.S. in Fisheries Biology from Oregon State University. 

She has worked for the BLM and U.S. Forest Service for about 8 years. Nikki also 

worked for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration-Fisheries where she 

completed Endangered Species Act biological opinions for local and regional projects.

Frances Philipek – Archeologist. Fran holds a B.S. and M.A. in Anthropology from 

Portland State University. Fran has 28 years of government service, including 7 years 

with the U.S. Forest Service in Lakeview and Klamath Falls and 21 years with BLM 

in Idaho, North Dakota, and Oregon. Fran currently is the District Archeologist for the 

Salem BLM District. She is the state-wide lead for the Heritage Education and project 

archeology programs.

Dick Prather – Project Manager. Dick is a graduate of the Northern Arizona University 

School of Forestry in Flagstaff, Arizona. He served as team leader for the Final 

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Survey and Manage in 2001 and 

2004. He is a 34-year veteran of the BLM. Prior to his assignments on EIS teams, he 

was Field Manager in the Salem District for 18 years. He previously worked in Coeur 

d’Alene, Idaho and Coos Bay, Oregon as a forester. 

Mark Rasmussen – Economist. Mark has an MS in Forest Economics and a BS in 

Environmental Studies. Since 1997, he has been a principal at Mason, Bruce, and Girard 

where he leads the Forest Economics and Planning Group. For 25 years, Mark’s work 

has focused on land management planning for federal, state, private, and tribal land 

owners including economic analysis of land management policy. 

John Styduhar – Senior Realty Specialist. John has a B.S. in Forestry Science from 

Penn State University. He has worked for the BLM as a forester, area engineer, and 

realty specialist for 27 years: 10 years in timber sale planning and administration, 5 years 

in forest road engineering and transportation management, and 12 years as senior realty 

specialist at the BLM Oregon State Office specializing in public land law administration 

and O&C lands.

Lou Whiteaker - Botanist. Lou is the resource area botanist in the BLM Klamath Falls 

Field Office. He holds a B.S. in Finance from the University of Southern California 

and an M.S. in Botanical Sciences from the University of Hawaii. Lou has worked in 

resource management and plant ecology research in Hawaii, Florida, and Oregon. His 18 

years of federal government employment include 15 years with BLM.

Alan Wood – Planner/Forester. Alan holds a B.S. in Forestry from the University of 

Minnesota. He is a 30-year veteran of the BLM and has worked in both Idaho and 

Oregon. Alan was a forester and Operations Chief in Salmon, Idaho, and worked 

extensively on fire and fuels issues. He served for 10 years as a Field Manager in the 

Roseburg BLM District, and most recently as a forester in the BLM Oregon State Office.
838

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Science Team

A list of the members of the Science Team, along with their credentials, is provided below.

Sarah Crim – Forest Economist/Analyst, U. S. Forest Service

Area of Science Review - Timber harvest scheduling, growth and yield modeling.

Sarah works in the U.S. Forest Service Regional Office in Portland. She has a Ph.D. in 

Forest Management from the Department of Forestry at Colorado State University and 

an extensive background in timber harvest scheduling models. She provided guidance 

for Forest Service planning teams on development and use of timber harvest scheduling 

models during the forest planning effort prior to the Northwest Forest Plan, and helped 

develop the timber harvest estimates for National Forests as part of the FEMAT team. 

Sarah works extensively with National Forests on the NEPA process associated with 

timber sales, as well as on any litigation that arises.

Doug Drake - Aquatic Biologist, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

Area of Science Review - Water quality and monitoring

Doug has worked for the last 18 years in the Watershed Assessment Section of the 

Laboratory Division at the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. His most 

recent projects relevant to the BLM Science Team include: developing RIVPACS 

predictive model for state-wide stream assessment using macroinvertebrates; 

developing a draft wadeable stream sediment benchmark for use in Impaired 

Waters report (303-d listing process); team leader for data analysis and stressor tool 

development using probabilistic and targeted sampling approaches; serving on Oregon 

DEQ Numeric Biological Criteria Technical Advisory Committee; and serving on EPA 

National Sediment Criteria Workgroup.

Joan Hagar – Wildlife Ecologist, U.S. Geological Survey

Area of Science Review: Wildlife ecology

Joan works at the USGS Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center in 

Corvallis, Oregon. She has an M.S. and a Ph.D. in Forest Ecology from the Department 

of Forest Science at Oregon State University. In doing the research for both of these 

degrees, Joan investigated wildlife-habitat relationships in managed forests, specifically 

addressing the response of songbirds and their food resources to commercial thinning and 

partial harvesting in western Oregon. In addition to the research for academic degrees, 

Joan has worked extensively for the past 15 years with forest managers, silviculturists, 

and biologists on research projects and problem analyses in Pacific Northwest forests.
839

Chapter 5 – Coordination and Monitoring

Chris Jordan - Research Biologist, National Marine Fisheries Service

Area of Science Review: Fish biology

Chris is stationed at the Northwest Fisheries Science Center. His current work primarily 

involves design and implementation of large-scale monitoring programs to assess 

anadromous salmonid freshwater habitat and population status, as well as the watershedscale effect of management actions on salmonid habitat and population processes. 

The research component of these projects is the development of novel monitoring 

methods, including sampling designs, metrics and indicators, to address specific data and 

information needs for managing ESA-listed Pacific Northwest salmonid populations. To 

support the broad-scale application of monitoring research and the analysis of monitoring 

data, Chris is developing a landscape classification scheme for watersheds of the Pacific 

Northwest. The scheme is based on immutable geomorphic and climatic characteristics, 

as well as anthropogenic impacts. And finally, to test the relevance of current and future 

monitoring programs, he is collaborating with co-manager groups to evaluate ongoing 

status and effectiveness monitoring programs based on management decisions these 

programs support.

Tom Spies - Research Forester, U.S. Forest Service.

Area of Science Review: Forest ecology and landscape ecology.

Tom works for the Pacific Northwest Research Station, based in Corvallis, Oregon, and is 

also professor (courtesy) in the Department of Forest Science, Oregon State University. 

Since completing his Ph.D. at the University of Michigan in 1983, he has worked in 

western Oregon and Washington on a wide variety of forest ecology issues, including 

characterization and definition of old-growth forests. He was a participant in FEMAT 

and is currently co-team leader of CLAMS (Coastal Landscape Analysis and Modeling 

Study). His active research includes integrated regional models for ecological and socioeconomic assessments; indicators of biological diversity in forest landscapes; old-growth 

characteristics and conservation; riparian forest ecology; gap dynamics; and applications 

of remote sensing to ecosystem management.
840

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Fred Swanson – Research Geologist,U.S. Forest Service. 

Area of Science Review: Geology, landscape ecology, and watershed processes.

Fred is assigned to the Pacific Northwest Research Station, based in Corvallis, Oregon, 

and is also professor (affiliate) in the Departments of Geosciences and Forest Science, 

Oregon State University. Since completing his Ph.D. in Geology at the University of 

Oregon in 1972, he has worked at the H.J. Andrews Experimental Forest and elsewhere in 

the Northwest on a wide variety of watershed and ecosystem topics. His main focus has 

been with natural and management disturbance processes in forest and stream systems. 

Experiences relevant to participation on the BLM Science Team include: long-term, 

close working relationship with federal forest managers, most notably through the Central 

Cascades Adaptive Management Area; participant in FEMAT; co-organizer and coeditor of a conference and book on bioregional assessments (Island Press 1999) and deep 

involvement in interdisciplinary ecosystem research over more than three decades.

John Cissel – Western Oregon BLM Science Coordinator

Role on Science Team - Team Leader, Science Coordination

John works for the BLM-Oregon State Office and also holds an affiliate faculty 

appointment in the Department of Forest Science at Oregon State University. He is 

responsible for connecting the western Oregon BLM districts to science by integrating 

management needs into research projects, developing management studies to address 

management questions, sharing recent science findings with managers, and by developing 

and demonstrating applications of new science concepts and findings. John has worked in 

a science-management interface role for the last 15 years, and has particular experience 

with landscape analysis and planning. John is responsible for science support to the 

western Oregon plan revision.
841

Chapter 5 – Coordination and Monitoring

Vegetation Modeling Team Members

In addition there were numerous individuals working on teams to provide the data, 

modeling and geographic information that support the analysis in the document. Those 

individuals are:

OPTIONS Team

Kristine Allen D. R. Systems Inc.

Chris Cadwell BLM Oregon State Office

Joe Graham BLM Oregon State Office

Mark Perdue D. R. Systems Inc.

Don Reimer CEO, D. R. Systems Inc.

Growth and Yield Team

Alan Bergstrom BLM Medford District Office

Steve Brownfield BLM Salem District Office

Kevin Carson BLM Roseburg District Office

Art Emmons BLM Eugene District Office

Mark Hanus FORSight Resources, Vancouver Wa.

Frank Hoeper BLM Medford District Office

Carolina Hooper BLM Salem District Office

William Johnson BLM Lakeview District Office

Walter Kastner BLM Salem District Office

Richard Kelly BLM Eugene District Office

Craig Kintop BLM Roseburg District Office

Robert Ohrn BLM Eugene District Office

Michael Oxford BLM Coos Bay District Office

Robert Pierle BLM Medford District Office

Gregory Reddell BLM Lakeview District Office

Daniel Schlottmann BLM Salem District Office

Mark Stephen BLM Eugene District Office

Douglas Stewart BLM Medford District Office
842

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

CVS / Statistical Team 

Jim Alegria BLM Oregon State Office

Carol Apple FS PNW Region Regional Office

GIS Team

Eric Brewster Northrop Grumman, Oregon State Office

Duane Dippon BLM Oregon State Office

Craig Ducey BLM Oregon State Office 

Maria Fiorella Northrop Grumman, Oregon State Office 

Jay Flora BLM Coos Bay District Office

Paul Fyfield BLM Oregon State Office 

Dennis Glover BLM Medford District Office

Ryan Good Northrop Grumman, Oregon State Office

Dale Gough BLM Roseburg District Office

John Guetterman BLM Coos Bay District Office

Eric Hiebenthal Northrop Grumman, Oregon State Office

Jeremy Hruska Northrop Grumman, Oregon State Office

Thomas Jackson BLM Eugene District Office

Ryan Kelley Northrop Grumman, Oregon State Office

Jeanne Keyes Northrop Grumman, Oregon State Office

Mark Koski BLM Salem District Office

Mike Limb BLM Klamath Falls Field Office

Bron Macdougall Northrop Grumman, Oregon State Office

Bryant Mecklem Northrop Grumman, Oregon State Office

Arthur Miller BLM Oregon State Office 

Shelley Moore Northrop Grumman, Oregon State Office

Kiet Nguyen BLM Oregon State Office 

Jeff Nighbert BLM Oregon State Office 

Annett Parsons BLM Medford District Office

Jay Ruegger BLM Eugene District Office

Steve Salas Northrop Grumman, Oregon State Office

Alan Ward BLM Coos Bay District Office
843

Chapter 5 – Coordination and Monitoring

Ten-Year Scenario Quality Control Team

BLM Salem District Office

Carolina Hooper

Mark Koski

Phil Sjoding 

Lisa Ball

Cory Geisler 

Randy Herrin 

Michael Barger

Keith Walto

 BLM Eugene District Office

Tom Jackson

Jay Ruegger

Dave DeMoss

Jack Zwiesler

Gary Wilkinson

BLM Coos Bay District Office

Terry Evans 

Paul Fontaine 

Paul Leman

Chris Schumacher 

Alan Ward

BLM Roseburg District Office

Jay Besson

Mark Beardsley

Jim Schwab

Bruce Baumann

Dale Gough
844

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

BLM Medford District Office

John Schneider

Sarah Bickford

Vince Randall 

Jim Brown

Dave Caulfield

Terry Garner 

Laura Schaefer

Jeff Brown

Dennis Glover 

John McGlothlin

Steve Timmons 

Mike Korn

John Bergin

Phil Ritter 

John Samuelson

Bill Freeland

Klamath Falls Field Office

Rob McEnroe

Mike Limb

Mike Angell

Mike Bechdolt
845

Chapter 5 – Coordination and Monitoring

Monitoring

Monitoring provides information about whether management actions were implemented as 

directed in the resource management plan, and examines their effectiveness in achieving desired 

outcomes. Monitoring can also determine whether the analysis contained in the Environmental 

Impact Statement was accurate. 

The monitoring plan for the alternative which is selected in the record of decision would examine 

questions surrounding the implementation, effectiveness and validity of plan objectives, land use 

allocations and management actions. These items vary by alternative and therefore, a monitoring 

plan with specific management questions would not be of great utility at this stage of the planning 

process. A detailed proposed monitoring strategy is provided here for public comment. An even 

more detailed monitoring plan will be provided for the Proposed Resource Management Plans 

in the final environmental impact statement. The monitoring plan for each of the Approved 

Resource Management Plans will be published in the records of decision for this plan revision. 

Monitoring for the resource management plans would consist of three parts:

1. Implementation monitoring to determine if management actions follow RMP direction. 

2. Effectiveness monitoring to determine if RMP objectives or desired outcomes are 

being met or are likely to be met. 

3. Validation monitoring to determine if RMP objectives and management actions are 

based on correct and accurate assumptions and to validate conceptual models. 

Monitoring of the resource management plans would be carefully and reasonably designed to 

avoid prohibitive costs while effectively answering implementation, effectiveness and validation 

questions. It would not be necessary or desirable to monitor every management action. 

Components of the monitoring plans would include:

• Key monitoring questions

• Standards

• Methods

• Sample size and intervals 

Implementation monitoring would constitute most of the monitoring effort. Implementation 

monitoring ensures compliance with the plan decisions. 

Effectiveness monitoring would be another component of the monitoring plans. Many of the 

relationships and outcomes of natural resource management are well enough established as 

to not require effectiveness monitoring for all management actions. For instance, if a stream 

is fully shaded by vegetation in a riparian management area (implementation monitoring), it 

is not necessary to also apply effectiveness monitoring to determine if BLM actions on that 

stream are contributing to the maintenance of stream temperature (effectiveness monitoring). In 

addition, validation monitoring would not be necessary to address the underlying assumption 
846

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

that salmonids require stream temperatures within a certain range. The relationships of shade to 

stream temperature and salmonids to stream temperature and are well enough established as to 

not require effectiveness and validation monitoring. In addition, certain objectives do not lend 

themselves to effectiveness monitoring because they will be achieved only after many years 

or decades, such as the thinning of forest stands to accelerate the achievement of structurally 

complex characteristics. Such an objective would not be achieved within the life of the plan.

The monitoring plan would establish priorities for monitoring activities. The priority for 

monitoring would be those actions which are related closely to the purpose and need and issues 

described in chapter 1. The following are situations or circumstances that will warrant high 

priority for monitoring:

• Highly sensitive or important resource values (often related to the purpose and need and 

issues of this plan revision)

• Actions involving new or untested procedures or methods, or involving a high degree of 

uncertainty regarding the effects of the procedure or method.

• Actions of high public interest or controversy.

• Actions of high management interest

 Key monitoring questions would be employed to avoid unnecessary detail and unacceptable 

costs. A key monitoring question is a question of high management interest. Most key questions 

would be designed to provide information as to whether management direction has been followed 

while some key questions would provide information as to whether objectives have been met 

or are likely to be met. The key questions would be accompanied by standards or thresholds by 

which information would be evaluated. 

Sampling would also be employed to avoid unnecessary detail and unacceptable costs. Each key 

question would be accompanied by a sample size and interval for the monitoring item. Sampling 

would not necessarily be random or statistically based. Sampling would target projects of high 

management or public interest. Sampling would also target certain projects and areas because 

they would allow multiple monitoring questions to be addressed and therefore would be cost 

efficient to monitor. Sampling would not be specifically designed to distribute monitoring evenly 

among field offices. 

The level and intensity of implementation monitoring (sample size and interval) would vary 

depending on the sensitivity and scope of the management action, resource or area being 

monitored. In cases where implementation or effectiveness monitoring indicates very high 

compliance with the plan, the monitoring interval and sample size would be adjusted for cost and 

time efficiency. 

All applicable implementation monitoring questions would be addressed on each BLM district. 

Effectiveness and validation monitoring would not be duplicated on each district where the 

results of such monitoring can be applied to similar situations on other districts. For instance, 

if management action directs that large wood be placed in streams of high intrinsic potential, 

implementation monitoring to measure plan compliance would occur on each district which 

had that management action in its resource management plan. If it were determined that 
847

Chapter 5 – Coordination and Monitoring

effectiveness monitoring was needed to address the question of whether or not large wood 

creates fish habitat, such monitoring of general principles or relationships would not need to be 

duplicated on every district. 

The monitoring plan would be evaluated at each monitoring interval to ascertain if monitoring 

questions, standards, methods, sample size, and intervals need to be changed. As a result of 

experience, where necessary, key monitoring questions, standards, methods, sample size and 

intervals would be:

• Modified

• Discontinued

• Added

Such changes to the monitoring plan would be accomplished through plan maintenance.

Monitoring would occur at multiple administrative levels and at multiple spatial and 

temporal scales. 

Monitoring of the western Oregon resource management plans would be done in a consistent 

and coordinated manner to allow district information to be compiled and considered at the scale 

of the entire western Oregon planning area. Coordination and consistency would be the joint 

responsibility of each district and the Oregon State Office. Each district would be responsible 

for the collection, compilation, and analysis of most of the monitoring information. The BLM 

Oregon State Office would be responsible for coordinating or conducting certain effectiveness 

and validation monitoring. 

Monitoring results would be reported periodically in a Program Summary and Monitoring Report. 

The Program Summary and Monitoring Report would specifically address the questions posed in 

the monitoring plan. It would report, track and assess the progress of plan implementation; state 

the findings made through monitoring; and serve as a report to managers and the public.
848

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Adaptive Management

Adaptive management is not a stand alone program or process. Adaptive management for 

the western Oregon resource management plans would be integrated into NEPA and land use 

planning processes (see Figure 289). Identified outcomes for the resource management plan are 

described in the plan’s goals and objectives statements. Resource management plan monitoring 

would determine if the goals and objectives are being met or are likely to be met. 

In addition, new information or changed circumstances would be evaluated as to whether changes 

in resource management plan decisions or supporting NEPA analyses were warranted. Adaptive 

management tools and procedures would be used to make changes in the plan in response to 

monitoring information, new information or changed circumstances include plan maintenance, 

plan evaluations, plan amendments and plan revisions In addition to these planning instruments, 

NEPA documentation may be necessary. NEPA procedures relevant to adaptive management 

would include the use of categorical exclusions, determination of NEPA adequacy reviews, 

environmental assessments, and environmental impact statements. 

In some instances, management direction contained in the alternatives provides for a range 

of activities or resource uses. In these cases, levels of activities or resource uses would vary 

within the range prescribed by the management direction without the use of planning steps or 

NEPA analyses. The level of activities would be adapted within the range given by management 

direction, depending on variation in resource needs or organizational capability. 

In addition to the constraints or latitude provided by management direction for the alternatives, 

the ability to adapt or change management without the use of planning steps or NEPA analyses 

would also be restricted by analytical assumptions contained in the environmental impact 

statement. The conclusions of environmental consequences are derived from analytical 

assumptions. Analytical assumptions include such things as levels or methods of activities, 

number of acres treated, and miles of roads maintained. If, as a result of the need for adaptive 

management, actual implementation of the resource management plan would so alter the methods 

or levels of activities such that the environmental consequences might be substantively different 

than those anticipated in the environmental impact statement, then formal planning steps and 

NEPA procedures could be required. The determination as to when formal planning steps and 

NEPA procedures would be required would be made through the plan evaluation process. Plan 

evaluations could consist of an overall resource management plan evaluation or they could consist 

of a narrowly focused evaluation on a specific aspect of the resource management plan.
849

Chapter 5 – Coordination and Monitoring

Figure 289. Land Use Planning, Monitoring, and Adaptive Management.

* When monitoring shows the plan is being implemented as written, continue to implement. Where management direction specifically describes the 

conditions where adaptation is allowable without supplementing/revising/amending plan then adapt actions. 

Additionally, monitoring plan should be informed by areas of uncertainty and sensitivity of assumptions and relationships.

Continue or 

Adapt* 

 

New I f i

New

Revise/Amend Plan 

Supplement Analysis 

Revise/Amend Plan

Supplement Analysis

Continue or 

Adapt*

Revise/Amend Plan

Define RMP Management 

Goals 

Develop RMP LUAs/Direction 

Develop assumptions 

Describe relationships 

Predict Environmental 

Consequences 

Make Decision (Select an 

alternative) 

Implement Actions 

Test Areas of Uncertainty 

(Effectiveness or 

Validation Monitoring) 

Monitor Actions 

(Implementation/Effectiveness) 

Land Use Planning, Monitoring, and Adaptive Management 
850

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs
Acronyms

This chapter provides the main acronyms used in the document. Most of the acronyms that appear in 

the document show up in tables and figures and are used for brevity. Elsewhere, terms are generally 

spelled out in the text. 

851
852

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Acronyms

ACEC area of critical environmental concern

ASQ allowable sale quantity 

AUM animal unit month

bf board foot or board feet

BLM Bureau of Land Management

CBWR Coos Bay Wagon Road

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

cfs cubic feet per second

dbh diameter at breast height

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

ERMA extensive recreation management area

FEMAT Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team

FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act

FLTFA Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act

GIS geographical information system

km kilometer

LSMA late-successional management area 

LSR late-successional reserve

mbf thousand board feet 

mmbf million board feet

NSO northern spotted owl

NWFP Northwest Forest Plan 

O&C Oregon and California Lands Act

OHV off-highway vehicle

R&PP recreation and public purpose

RMP resource management plan
853

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

ROD record of decision

SRMA special recreation management area

VRM visual resource management

WOPR western Oregon plan revisions

Glossary

This chapter provides the definitions of terms used in this document that cannot be found in a 

standard dictionary.

855
856

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs
857

Glossary

3P fall, buck, and 

scale sampling

A sampling method that determines the volume and value of merchantable timber. The 

method starts with visual estimation of a stand using the 3P sampling method (i.e., 

PPP, or, probability proportional to prediction), which operates under the assumption 

that the probability of a tree being sampled is proportional to its predicted occurrence 

in a stand. The estimation is verified by cutting down a sampled tree (fall), cutting it into 

merchantable log lengths (buck), and measuring the logs (scale) noting indicators for 

defects and log grades. For managed second-growth stands, 3P sampling is generally 

used to develop volume tables from which stand volumes may be extrapolated. For 

uneven-aged stands, typically containing larger and often more defective timber, 3P 

sampling is useful in determining the net volume (recovery). 

acre

A measure of surface land area in U.S. customary units that is 43,560 square feet, which 

is 1/640th of a square mile (or approximately 0.4 hectares). If square, it is nearly 209 feet 

on each side.

activity fuel

Debris (wood chips, bark, branches, limbs, logs, or stumps) left on the ground after 

management actions, such as logging, pruning, thinning, or brush cutting, versus debris 

left after storms or fires.

adaptive 

management 

A forest management methodology that continually monitors, evaluates, and adjusts 

decisions and management actions to improve implementation and to ensure that the 

goals and objectives of resource management plans are being met.

adaptive 

management area

A Northwest Forest Plan term that denotes a land use allocation (or landscape unit) 

whose lands are designated for development and for testing technical and social 

approaches for achieving desired ecological, economic, and other social objectives. 

adverse modification

An Endangered Species Act term that is not specifically defined by the act but is 

generally accepted to denote a direct or indirect alteration of habitat that appreciably 

diminishes the value of an area with respect to the survival, or in some instances the 

recovery, of a listed species. In most instances, this standard is considered the same as 

or nearly identical to the jeopardy standard. 

age classification

A system that categorizes trees, forests, stands, or forest types by intervals of years. Age 

classifications differ around the U.S. by forest type (wet, dry, evergreen, deciduous, or 

succulent). For this analysis, the interval is usually 10-year increments. 

allowable sale 

quantity/annual 

productive capacity

These terms are synonymous. The timber yield that a forest can produce continuously 

under the intensity of management outlined in the RMP from those lands which are 

allocated for permanent forest production. 

alternative

One of several proposed management actions that have been studied and found to meet 

the goals and objectives of a project’s purpose and need and, as a result, is suitable to 

aid decision making. 

anadromous fish 

Fish that are born and reared in freshwater, move to the ocean to grow and mature, and 

return to freshwater to reproduce. Includes species such as salmon and steelhead. Also 

see salmonid.

analysis

The scientific evaluation of the environmental impacts of proposed planning decisions. 

The BLM employs many types of analysis (e.g., surface, linear, raster, contiguity, and 

topological overlay analysis) with a variety of data sets (e.g., inventory and GIS) and 

tools (e.g., physical, quantitative, data, and spatial modeling). 

analytical 

assumption

A judgmental decision that is based on the science and relationships of natural systems 

that are assumed to be true and from which conclusions can be drawn in order to supply 

the missing values, relationships, or societal preferences needed to proceed with an 

analysis of alternatives. 

animal unit month 

(AUM)

The amount of forage that is necessary for the sustenance of one cow (or its equivalent) 

for one month.

annual productive 

capacity

An O&C Act term denoting the volume of timber that is determined will grow in one year in 

a given area. Also see allowable sale quantity (ASQ), offer, and sustained yield capacity.

Aquatic 

Conservation 

Strategy

A Northwest Forest Plan methodology designed to restore and maintain the ecological 

health of watersheds and aquatic ecosystems, consisting of four components: riparian 

reserves, key watersheds, watershed analysis, and watershed restoration. 
858

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

aquatic habitat Habitat for vertebrate and invertebrate wildlife species and vascular and non-vascular 

plants occurring in free water, i.e. lakes, ponds, streams, rivers, springs and seeps. 

area

A generic forestry term that refers to the surface land included within specific boundaries 

and usually allocated for a specific purpose, such as a late-successional management 

area, a timber management area, a traditional use area, a recreational use area, or a 

wilderness area. Contrast with block.

Area of Critical 

Environmental 

Concern (ACEC)

Land where special management attention is needed to protect life, to provide safety 

from natural hazards, or to prevent irreparable damage to important values (historic, 

cultural, or scenic), resources (fish and wildlife), or processes (natural systems).

assessment area A subdivision of a sustained yield unit (BLM district) that has been divided by 

physiographic provinces.

at-risk species Species that are determined by a detailed assessment to be in danger of becoming 

locally or completely extinct. 

at-risk community

A group of homes or structures that exist within the vicinity of federal lands or a wildland/

urban interface for which a significant threat to human life or property exists as a result of 

a wildland fire.

authority

The right and power to make decisions and give orders such as the United States 

Congress exerts when passing legislation like the O&C Act and the Endangered Species 

Act.

awarded timber 

sales

A sale where the government has accepted a bit from a qualified high bidder, is binding 

on the government, and grants specific rights to the purchaser. 

backcountry byways A road segment designated as part of the National Scenic Byway System.

basal area

The cross-sectional area of a single stem, of all stems of a species in a stand, or of all 

plants in a stand (including the bark) that is measured at breast height (about 4.5 feet 

up from the ground) for larger plants (like trees) or measured at ground level for smaller 

plants.

baseline

The starting point for the analysis of environmental consequences, often referred to as 

the Affected Environment.. This starting point may be the condition at a point in time 

(e.g., when inventory data is collected) or may be the average of a set of data collected 

over a specified number of years. Also see analysis, environmental consequences, and 

inventory data. 

beneficial use

In general, any reasonable use of a resource for a purpose consistent with the laws and 

best interests of the people of a state. In water use law, such uses include, but are not 

limited to: instream, out of stream, and ground water uses; domestic, municipal, and 

industrial water supplies; mining, irrigation, and livestock watering; fish and aquatic life; 

wildlife watering; fishing and water contact recreation; aesthetics and scenic attraction; 

hydropower; and commercial navigation.

Best Management 

Practices 

BMPs are defined as methods, measures, or practices selected on the basis of 

site-specific conditions to ensure that water quality will be maintained at its highest 

practicable level. BMPs include, but are not limited to, structural and nonstructural 

controls, operations, and maintenance procedures. BMPs can be applied before, during, 

and after pollution-producing activities to reduce or eliminate the introduction of pollutants 

into receiving waters (40 CFR 130.2, EPA Water Quality Standards Regulation).

biological 

assessment

A biological assessment is a document that evaluates the potential effects of a proposed 

action to listed and proposed species and designated and proposed critical habitat and 

determines whether any such species or habitats are likely to be adversely affected by 

the action. It is used in determining whether formal consultation or conferencing with 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or National Marine Fisheries Service is necessary. (50 

CFR 402.12(a) ) 

biological opinion

A formal opinion by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine 

Fisheries Service as to whether or not a federal action is likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of listed species or would result in the destruction of or adverse 

modification of critical habitat. It is delivered in an environmental site assessment (ESA) 

and may also offer suggestions for mitigating any excessive impacts so that an action 

can proceed.
859

Glossary

biomass Unmerchantable and waste plant materials used as a source of renewable combustible 

fuel.

block A term that denotes an area of land that has been approved for special management, 

such as a northern spotted owl reserve or a fire suppression area. Contrast with area. 

board foot

A unit of measure for unfinished solid wood used by the lumber industry that is typically 

expressed as bf or bd. ft. and equals the volume contained in a 1-inch thick, 12-inch long, 

and 12-inch wide board.

Bureau Assessment 

Species

A special status species category established by the BLM that includes those plant and 

vertebrate species that are not presently eligible for official federal or state status but 

are of concern in Oregon or Washington and may, at a minimum, need protection or 

mitigation in BLM activities. Also see bureau sensitive species.

Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM)

A federal agency within the U.S. Department of the Interior that is responsible for 

administering 261 million surface acres of federally owned lands in accordance with all 

applicable laws to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of those lands. Most of 

the acreage is in Alaska and the western states. 

Bureau Sensitive 

Species

A special status species category established by the BLM that includes those plant 

and animal species that are eligible for status as federally listed, federal candidate, 

state listed, or state candidate (plant) species; on List 1 of the Oregon Natural Heritage 

Database or approved for this category by the BLM state director; or included under 

agency species conservation policies. Also see bureau assessment species.

candidate species

Those plant and animal species that, in the opinion of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

or the National Marine Fisheries Service, may qualify for listing as endangered or 

threatened. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recognize two categories of candidate 

species. Category 1 candidates are species for which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

has on file sufficient information to support proposals for listing. Category 2 candidates 

are species for which information available to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service indicates 

that proposing to list is possibly appropriate, but for which sufficient data are not currently 

available to support proposed rules. 

canopy

The more or less continuous cover of branches and foliage formed collectively by 

adjacent trees and other woody species in a forest stand. Where significant height 

differences occur between trees within a stand, formation of a multiple canopy (multilayered) condition can result.

canopy closure

The ground area covered by the crowns of trees or woody vegetation as delimited by 

the vertical projection of crown perimeter and commonly expressed as a percent of total 

ground area.

checkerboard land 

ownership pattern

A land ownership pattern in which square-mile sections of federal lands are typically 

intermixed, on the basis of alternating sections, with adjoining private lands. The O&C 

lands of western Oregon is an example of checkerboard ownership. This ownership 

pattern resulted from the revestment back to the federal government of lands granted by 

the federal government to early railroad companies. The checkerboard ownership pattern 

of the O&C lands creates additional access, management, and perception issues. Also 

see O&C Act.

clear-cut 

A timber harvesting method that removes essentially all of the trees in an area, whether 

merchantable or not, producing a fully exposed microclimate for the development of a 

new age class. 

coarse woody debris

That portion of trees that has naturally fallen or been cut and left in the woods. Usually 

refers to pieces that are at least 20 inches in diameter. Also see coarse woody debris 

classes.

coarse woody debris 

classes

There are four classes that are used to describe coarse woody debris. The classes 

range from Class I which has the least decay and the bark is intact, the log is hard, to 

Class four in which the coarse woody debris has decayed to the point that it is nearly 

incorporated into the forest floor. 

commercial forest 

land base

Forest lands declared suitable for producing timber and having a minimum level of 

productivity of 20 cubic feet/acre/year. Contrast with harvest land base. 
860

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

commercial thinning

Any type of thinning producing merchantable material at least equal to the value of the 

direct cost of harvesting. See thinning.

congressionally 

reserved areas 

(or congressional 

reserves)

Areas that are established by an Act of Congress or Executive Order, such as national 

parks, wild and scenic rivers, national recreation areas, wilderness, and national 

monuments. 

connectivity block A Northwest Forest Plan term that denotes a corridor that links areas of northern spotted 

owl habitat. Contrast with Connectivity/Diversity Block. 

Connectivity/ 

Diversity Block

A subdivision of the matrix land use allocation in the current Resource Management 

Plans that serves as a corridor to link late-successional and old-growth forests to facilitate 

the movement, feeding, and breeding of late-successional and old-growth species. These 

blocks are managed to maintain between 25 and 30 percent of late-successional forest 

within them. Contrast with connectivity block. 

conservation

The management of natural resources (a species, group of species, or ecosystem) such 

that plant and animal habitat is protected and resource productivity is sustainable, while 

providing for human use and ensuring that the full complement of species and processes 

will continue to exist well-distributed throughout a planning area. 

conservation 

agreement

A document of agreement between agencies that outlines conservation goals necessary 

to reduce, eliminate, or mitigate specific threats to species at risk, and provides general 

guidance on species management.

conservation 

strategy

A management plan for a species, group of species, or ecosystem that prescribes 

standards and guidelines that if implemented provide a high likelihood that the species, 

groups of species, or ecosystem, with its full complement of species and processes, will 

continue to exist well-distributed throughout a planning area.

consultation

A formal review between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or National Marine fisheries 

Service, and another federal agency when it is determined that an action by the agency 

may affect critical habitat or a species that has been listed as threatened or endangered 

to ensure that its action does not jeopardize a listed species or destroy or adversely 

modify critical habitat. Also see environment site assessment (ESA). 

cooperators 

and cooperating 

agencies

Those individuals and agencies that provide qualified information to a federal agency, 

such as the BLM, to use in formulating resource management actions and analyzing 

environmental consequences. The Council on Environmental Quality regulations 

that implement the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act define a 

cooperating agency as any agency that has jurisdiction by law or special expertise for 

proposals that are covered by the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR 1501.6). 

BLM planning regulations (43 CFR 1610.3-15(b)) further provide that eligible Federal 

agencies, state and local governments, and federally recognized Indian tribes may also 

participate as cooperating agencies.

Coos Bay Wagon 

Road (CBWR) lands

The public lands that were granted to the Southern Oregon Company, for the 

construction of a military road, and subsequently revested by the United States and later 

incorporated into the O&C Act. Also see the Oregon and California Lands (O&C) Act.

corridor

A strip of land that links areas in a fragmented landscape to facilitate the passage of 

animals, plants, people, energy, or materials between habitat or service areas. Examples 

are biological, recreation, transportation, or utility corridors. Biological corridors are 

reserved from substantial disturbance. Also see connectivity block and connectivity/

diversity block.

critical habitat

An Endangered Species Act term that denotes a specified geographic area that is 

occupied by a federally-listed species and on which the physical and biological features 

are found that are essential to the conservation and recovery of that species and that 

may require special management or protection.

crown The upper part of a tree that has live branches and foliage.
861

Glossary

crown bulk density

A measure of the fuel in a forest’s canopy that is usually calculated by dividing the 

canopy volume by the weight of the needles, leaves, and smaller branches (or calculated 

using the height-to-crown base, tree height, and basal area values). Contrast with crown 

density. 

crown density

A measure of the density of a tree’s crown that is calculated from the amount, 

compactness, and depth of the foliage in the tree’s crown. Contrast with crown bulk 

density.

crown fire Fire that moves through the crowns of adjacent trees independent of any surface fire. 

Crown fires can often move faster and ahead of ground fires.

cumulative effect

The impact on the environment that results from the incremental impacts of an action 

when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless 

of what agency or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result 

from individually minor, but collectively significant, actions taking place over a period of 

time.

determination of 

NEPA adequacy 

(DNA)

An interim step in BLM’s internal analysis process that documents that a proposed action 

is adequately analyzed in an existing NEPA document (EIS or EA). Where applicable, 

the determination also documents conformance with an approved land use plan. (BLM 

NEPA Handbook, 516 DM 11. 

dispersal habitat

Forest habitat that allows northern spotted owls to move (disperse) across the landscape, 

typically characterized by forest stands with average tree diameters of greater than11 

inches, and conifer overstory trees having closed canopies (greater than 40 percent 

canopy closure) with open space beneath the canopy to allow owls to fly.

disturbance (natural)

A force that causes significant change in structure and/or composition through natural 

events such as fire, flood, wind, or earthquake, mortality caused by insect or disease 

outbreaks.

dominant use

A land use that is the primary purpose for the land use designation, for instance, wildlife 

habitat on National Wildlife Refuges or timber production on O&C lands. Contrast with 

multiple use

environmental 

consequences

The direct, indirect and cumulative effects of a proposed action or alternative on existing 

conditions in the environment in which the action(s) would occur. >... Also see baseline. 

environmental 

impact statement

A detailed statement, required under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 

of a federal project’s environmental consequences, including adverse environmental 

consequences, including adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided, 

alternatives to the proposed action, the relationship between local short-term uses and 

long-term productivity, and any irreversibly or irretrievable commitment of resource.

Evolutionary 

Significant Unit

A population or group of populations considered “distinct”, and hence a “species” for 

purposes of the Endangered Species Act, representing an evolutionarily significant unit 

(ESU) of the biological species. A population must satisfy two criteria to be considered 

an ESU. It must be reproductively isolated from other conspecific population units, and 

it must represent an important component in the evolutionary legacy of the species. 

Isolation does not have to be absolute, but must be strong enough to permit evolutionarily 

important differences to accrue in different population units. The second criterion is met if 

the population contributes substantially to the ecological/genetic diversity of the species 

as a whole. (NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS F/NWC-194)

fifth-field watershed

One of the classifications of watersheds used by the United States Geological Survey 

that identifies some of the smallest watersheds and is useful for assessing water-related 

issues generally 20 to 200 square miles in size. For details about the classification of 

drainage areas, see http://water.usgs.gov/GIS/huc.html. Also see watershed.

forest

An ecosystem that is characterized by stands of trees varying in characteristics such as 

species composition, structure, age class, and associated processes, and commonly 

including meadows, streams, fish, and wildlife. 

floodplain Level lowland bordering a stream or river onto which the flow spreads at flood stage.

forage All browse and herbaceous matter available to grazing animals, including wildlife and 

domestic livestock.
862

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Forest Ecosystem 

Management 

Assessment Team 

The 1993 presidentially assigned team of scientists, researchers, and technicians 

from seven federal agencies that created the report that was used as the basis for the 

Northwest Forest Plan. 

forest land Land at least 10 percent stocked by forest trees of any size, and including land that 

formerly had such tree cover and that will be naturally or artificially regenerated 

Forest Operations 

Inventory (FOI)

An intensive inventory that provides managers with information regarding the age, 

species, stand location, size, silvicultural needs, and recommended treatment of stands 

based on individual stand conditions and productivity. 

fuel loading The dry weight of all accumulated live and dead woody and herbaceous material on the 

forest floor that is available for combustion, and which poses a fire hazard. 

green tree A live tree.

green tree retention

A stand management practice in which live trees as well as snags and large down wood, 

are left within harvest units to provide a legacy of habitat components over the next 

management cycle

growth and yield 

modeling

Estimations of timber volumes that are expected to be produced per unit area under a 

certain set of conditions. Also see modeling.

forest habitat

An area containing the forest vegetation with the age class, species composition, 

structure, sufficient area, and adequate food source to meet some or all of the life needs 

(foraging, roosting, nesting, breeding) of specific species.

habitat-capable 

forests

Forested stands that are capable of developing into suitable habitat specifically for the 

northern spotted owl. 

harvesting The process of on-site cutting and removing merchantable trees from a forested area. 

harvest land base

Those lands that are available for timber harvesting on a programmed sustained basis. 

Generally, a harvest land base does not include managed or other reserved lands, 

nonforested lands, or areas that the timber production capability classification inventory 

has determined are not capable of sustaining timber production. Also see timber 

production capability classification.

incidental take

An Endangered Species Act term that denotes the taking of a species that is listed 

as threatened or endangered inadvertently, rather than purposely, while carrying out 

otherwise lawful activity. Also see take.

incorporated by 

reference

Documents referenced in this draft environmental impact statement that are provided 

by the individual subject matter experts, are maintained as a part of the administrative 

record housed at a centralized location, and are available upon request. 

intensively managed 

timber stands

Forest stands that are managed to obtain a high level of timber volume and quality 

per unit area by using growth-enhancing practices, such as precommercial thinning, 

commercial thinning, and fertilization.

intrinsic potential A stream’s inherent ability to provide high-quality habitat for salmonids.

inventory data

Information collected by the use of objective sampling methods designed to quantify the 

spatial distribution, composition, and rates of change of forest parameters within specified 

levels of precision. Note, inventories may be made of all forest resources including treas 

and other vegetation, fish and wildlife etc. Also see baseline. 

jeopardy 

The endangerment of the continued existence of a species that is listed as threatened 

or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. Also a finding made through 

consultation by a federal agency under the Endangered Species Act regarding an action 

proposed by the agency that may cause such endangerment. 

key watershed

A Northwest Forest Plan term, that denotes a watershed that contains habitat for 

potentially threatened species, stocks of anadromous salmonids, or other potentially 

threatened fish, or is an area of high-quality water and fish habitat. Also see watershed.

land use allocation

A designation for a use that is allowed, restricted, or prohibited for a particular area of 

land, such as the matrix, adaptive management, late-successional reserve, or critical 

habitat land use allocations.

landscape A broad expanse of terrain up to the watershed scale of 10,000 to 20,000 acres that 

spans several ecosystems irrespective of ownership or other political boundaries. 
863

Glossary

late-successional 

forest

A forest that is in its mature stage and contains a diversity of structural characteristics, 

such as live trees, snags, woody debris, and a patchy, multilayered canopy.

late-successional 

management area

A designated area outside of the harvest land base that is actively managed to protect or 

enhance conditions of late successional forest base.

late-successional 

reserve 

A Northwest Forest Plan term that denotes a land use allocation and has been reserved 

from programmed timber harvesting and designated to maintain existing or future mature 

old-growth, or late successional habitat.

load

The amount of material entering a system, such as point source and nonpoint source 

pollutants. Typically measured as pounds per day and significant in relation to the volume 

and circulation of the water or air mass in question. Also see point source and nonpoint 

source.

long term

A period of time that is used as an analytical time frame and starts more than 10 years 

after the implementation of a resource management plan, depending on the resource 

being analyzed. Also see short term.

matrix

A Northwest Forest Plan term that denotes a land use allocation for the federal lands that 

are outside of reserves, withdrawn areas, and late-successional areas. For the purpose 

of this draft environmental impact statement, this term will apply only to the No Action 

alternative. 

mature stage

Generally begins as tree growth rates stop increasing (after culmination of mean annual 

increment), and as tree mortality shifts from density-dependent mortality to densityindependent mortality.

merchantable trees or stands having the size, quality and condition suitable for marketing under a given 

economic condition, even if not immediately accessible for logging

modeling A scientific method that operates by a structured set of rules and procedures to simulate 

current conditions and predict future conditions. Also see analysis. 

multiple use

A Federal Land Policy and Management Act term that denotes “...the management 

of the public lands and their various resource values so that they are utilized in the 

combination that will best meet the present and future needs of the American people; 

making the most judicious use of the land for some or all of these resources or related 

services over areas large enough to provide sufficient latitude for periodic adjustments 

in use to conform to changing needs and conditions; the use of some land for less than 

all of the resources; a combination of balanced and diverse resource uses that takes 

into account the long-term needs of future generations for renewable and nonrenewable 

resources, including, but not limited to, recreation, range, timber, minerals, watershed, 

wildlife and fish, and natural scenic, scientific and historical values; and harmonious and 

coordinated management of the various resources without permanent impairment of the 

productivity of the land and the quality of the environment with consideration being given 

to the relative values of the resources and not necessarily to the combination of uses that 

will give the greatest economic return or the greatest unit output.” (U.S. Code, Title 43, 

Chapter 35, Subchapter I, § 1702 (c)) Contrast with dominant use

National Marine 

Fisheries Service

A federal agency under the United States Department of Commerce that is responsible 

for working with others to conserve, protect, and enhance anadromous fish and their 

habitats.

natural fire regime 

class

A general classification of how fire would behave over time in the absence of human 

intervention.

nonpoint source 

pollution

Water or air pollutants where the source of the pollutant is not readily identified and is 

diffuse, such as the runoff from urban areas, agricultural lands, or forest lands. Also see 

point source.

Northwest Forest 

Plan

A 1994 common management approach for the 19 national forests and 7 BLM districts 

located in the Pacific Northwest ecological region and jointly approved by the Secretary 

of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior. 

overstory That portion of trees forming the uppermost canopy layer in a forest stand which consists 

of more than one distinct layer.
864

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

partial harvesting

For the purpose of defining management action in alternative three, partial harvest is a

timber harvesting method that removes a substantial portion of the stand basal 

area (50-70%) on a harvest interval that mimics the historic average return 

interval for a moderate or mixed-severity fire

physiographic 

province

A region of the landscape with distinctive geographical features. When physiographic 

provinces subdivide sustained yield units (i.e., BLM districts), assessment areas are 

created.

plan conformance

The determination that a management action is consistent with the terms, conditions, 

decisions, and within the anticipated environmental consequences of an approved 

resource management plan. 

point source An origin of water or air pollutants that is readily identified, such as the discharge or 

runoff from an individual industrial plant or cattle feedlot. Also see nonpoint source. 

preferred alternative A National Environmental Policy Act term that denotes the alternative, in a draft 

Environmental Impact Statement, that is preferred by the proposing agency.

proper functioning 

condition

The state of a riparian wetland area having the vegetation, landform, and large woody 

debris that are necessary for the species, habitat, and natural processes of an area.

public domain lands Original holdings of the United States that were never granted or conveyed to other 

jurisdictions or never reacquired by exchange for other public domain lands.

public land Land that is owned and controlled by some governmental entity (federal, state, county, or 

other municipality). 

record of decision 

(ROD)

A document required by the National Environmental Policy Act, that is separate from, 

but associated with, an environmental impact statement. The ROD publicly and officially 

discloses the responsible official’s decision on which alternative assessed in the EIS will 

be implemented.

recovery plan

A plan for the conservation and survival of an endangered species or a threatened 

species listed under the Endangered Species Act for the purpose of improving the status 

of the species to the point where listing is no longer required.

recruitment habitat A stand that is capable of becoming habitat for a designated species within a designated 

period of time.

regeneration

(n.) Tree seedlings or saplings existing in a stand. (v.) The process of re-establishing 

trees on a tract of forest land where harvest or some natural event has removed the 

existing trees. 

regeneration 

harvesting

Any removal of trees intended to assist regeneration already present or make 

regeneration possible.

replacement habitat A stand of equivalent habitat value to a designated species that is made available as a 

replacement for habitat that is lost within the same population boundary.

resource 

management plan 

(RMP)

A BLM planning document, prepared in accordance with Section 202 of the Federal Land 

Policy and Management Act that presents systematic guidelines for making resource 

management decisions for a resource area. An RMP is based on an analysis of an area’s 

resources, their existing management, and their capability for alternative uses. RMPs are 

issue oriented and developed by an interdisciplinary team with public participation. Also 

see adaptive management.

riparian area

A geographic area containing an aquatic ecosystem and adjacent upland areas that 

directly affect it. This includes floodplain, woodlands, and all areas within a horizontal 

distance of approximately 100 feet from the normal line of high water of a stream channel 

or from the shoreline of a standing body of water.

road 

decommissioning

The act of removing a road that is no longer needed for management purposes. There 

are five levels of road decommissioning practices. Decommissioning of roads always 

includes blocking vehicular access (Level 1) and may also include any combination of 

the following: removing cross drains (Level 2), seeding and mulching the road surface 

(Level 3), tilling the road surface (Level 4), and recontouring the road structure (Level 5).
865

Glossary

salmonid

Fish that are born and reared in freshwater, move to the ocean to grow and mature, and 

return to freshwater to reproduce. Includes species such as salmon and steelhead. Also 

see anadromous fish.

salvage cutting The removal of dead trees or trees damaged or dying because of injurious agents other 

than competition, to recover economic value that would otherwise be lost.

short term A period of time that is used as an analytical time frame and is within the first 10 years of 

the implementation of a resource management plan. Also see long term.

silvicultural system

A planned series of treatments for tending, harvesting, and re-establishing a stand. The 

system name is based on the number of age classes managed within a stand, e.g., evenaged, two-aged, uneven-aged.

site potential tree 

height

The average height of dominant and co-dominant trees on a given geographical area, 

expressed in terms of average tree height at a specified index or base age 

sold timber sales

Timber a sale for which there has is a qualified purchaser has been established through 

auction or negotiation, but where the BLM has yet to approve and consummate the 

timber sale contract. See awarded timber sales> 

special forest 

products

Those plant and fungi resources that are harvested, gathered, or collected by permit, 

and have social, economical, or spiritual value. Common examples include mushrooms, 

firewood, Christmas trees, tree burls, edibles and medicinals, mosses and lichens, floral 

and greenery, and seeds and cones, but not soil, rocks, fossils, insects, animal parts, or 

any timber products of commercial value. 

special status 

species

Those species that are listed by the Endangered Species Act as threatened or 

endangered (including proposed and candidate species), listed by a state as being of 

special concern (state listed species), and listed by the BLM as sensitive or needing 

assessment (i.e., Bureau sensitive species and Bureau assessment species).

stand

An aggregation of trees occupying a specific area and sufficiently uniform in composition, 

age, arrangement, and condition so that it is distinguishable from the forest in adjoining 

areas. 

stand establishment 

stage

The developmental stage extending from stand initiation until stands have reached 

canopy closure and density-dependent tree mortality begins.

standards and 

guidelines

Northwest Forest Plan rules for managing the different land use allocations. For the 

purpose of this draft environmental impact statement, this term will apply only to the 

No Action alternative. 

structurally complex 

stage

Stage at which stands develop characteristics approximating “old-growth” stands 

described in many analyses associated with the Northwest Forest Plan.

structural legacies

The large trees, down logs, snags, and other components of a forest stand that are left 

after harvesting for the purpose of maintaining site productivity and providing structures 

and ecological functions in subsequent stands. 

structural stage 

classifications of 

forests

A scheme that is used to define the structural stages of forests. It uses four broad 

classifications (stand establishment, young, mature, and structurally complex) and 

multiple subclassifications to distinguish the differences within classifications.

suitable habitat A stand that has the structures (physical and biological features) necessary to meet the 

biological requirements of a particular species.

sustainability

Sustainability can be defined as using, developing and protecting resources in a manner 

that enables people to meet current needs and provides that future generations can also 

meet future needs, from the joint perspective of environmental, economic and community 

objectives.

sustained yield

The volume of timber that a forest can produce continuously at a given intensity of 

management. The achievement and maintenance in perpetuity of a high-level annual 

or regular periodic output of the various renewable resources without impairment of the 

productivity of the land.

sustained yield 

capacity

The volume of timber that can be offered for sale each year from an area based upon 

the consistent volume of timber that a forest can produce continuously. Also see annual 

productive capacity.
866

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Sustained yield unit A BLM district. 

take

An Endangered Species Act term that denotes the act of or the attempt to harass, harm, 

pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect a species listed as threatened or 

endangered. Also see incidental take.

thinning A cultural treatment made to reduce stand density of trees primarily to improve growth, 

enhance forest health, or recover potential mortality. 

timber

Forest crops or stands, or wood that is harvested from forests and is of a character and 

quality suitable for manufacture into lumber and other wood products rather than for use 

as fuel.

timberland

Forested land that is capable of producing crops of industrial wood at a rate of at least 20 

cf/ac per year and has not been withdrawn from timber production. (Some forest lands 

are not classified by the FIA (US Forest Service Inventory and Analysis) as timberland 

because they are unproductive and some-such as national parks and wildernessesbecause by law, they are off limits to harvesting.)

timber production 

capability 

classification (TPCC)

An analytical tool that inventories and identifies sites that are capable of sustaining 

intensive timber management without it degrading their productive capacity. This 

tool evaluates a site’s soil depth, available moisture, slope, drainage, and stability to 

determine a site’s capacity for timber management activity. Sites that prove incapable 

of sustaining intensive timber management are typically not included in the harvest land 

base. Also see harvest land base.

uncharacteristic 

wildfires

Those fires that are not typical for an area in terms of frequency, size, or intensity. An 

example would be fires that burn bigger and hotter in areas where natural fires have 

been suppressed and combustibles have been allowed to accumulate.

uneven-aged 

management

A combination of actions that simultaneously maintains continuous tall forest cover, 

recurring regeneration of desirable species, and the orderly growth and development of 

trees through a range of diameter or age classes.

United States 

Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM)

A federal agency under the United States Department of the Interior that is responsible 

for administrating the nation’s public lands.

United States Fish 

and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS)

A federal agency under the United States Department of the Interior that is responsible 

for working with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, plants, and their 

habitats. 

United States Forest 

Service (USFS)

A federal agency under the United States Department of Agriculture that is responsible 

for administrating the nation’s national forests.

watershed

All of the land and water within the boundaries of a drainage area that is separated 

by land ridges from other drainage areas. Larger watersheds can contain smaller 

watersheds that all ultimately flow their surface water to a common point. Also see fifthfield watershed and key watershed. 

wildfire Any nonstructural fire, other than prescribed burns, that occurs on wildland.

wildland Lands that are not dedicated to such uses as agricultural, urban, mining, or parks.

Wildland/Urban 

Interface

The area in which structures and other human development meet or intermingle with 

undeveloped wildland.

young stage Characterized by the predominance of density-dependent tree mortality, and, in high 

density stands, a small range of tree diameters.
References

This chapter provides a list of literature and references cited in this environmental impact statement.

867
868

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs
869

References

References

Aber, J., N. Christensen, I. Fernandez, J. Franklin, L. Hidinger, M. Hunter, J. MacMahon, D. 

Mladenoff, J. Pastor, D. Perry, R. Slangen, H. van Miegroet. 2000. Applying ecological principles 

to management of U.S. national forests. Issues in Ecology No. 6.

Adams, Darius and Greg Latta. 2007. Timber Trends on Private Lands in Western Oregon and 

Washington: A New Look. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 22(1) pp 8-14

Adams, Paul. 2005. Research & Policies to Address Concerns about Soil Compaction from 

Ground-Based Timber Harvest in the Pacific Northwest: Evolving Knowledge & Needed 

Refinements. A paper presented at Council on Forest Engineering Conference on Soil, Water, and 

Timber Management: Forest Engineering Solutions in Response to Forest Regulation.

Adair, Craig. 12 February 2007. American Panel Association, pers.com. Spreadsheet of North 

American structural panel production. 

Agee, James, K. 1993. “Fire Ecology of Pacific Northwest Forests.” Island Press. Washington D.C.

Agee and Skinner. 2005. Basic Principles of Forest Fuel Reduction.

Ahlgren, Clifford E. 1979. Emergent seedlings on soil from burned and unburned red pine forest. 

Minnesota Forestry Research Notes No. 273, 4 p. [16910]. University of Minnesota, College of 

Forestry. St. Paul, MN.

Alig, R.J., D. Zheng, T.A. Spies and B.J. Butler. 2000. Forest cover dynamics in the Pacific 

Northwest west side: regional trends and projections. Research Paper PNW-RP-522. Pacific 

Northwest Research Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. Portland, OR

Allen, Karen and Katherine Hansen. 1999. Geography of exotic plants adjacent to campgrounds, 

Yellowstone National Park, USA. The Great Basin Naturalist. 59(4): 315-322. [33975]

Altman, B. 1999. Conservation strategy for landbirds in coniferous forests of western Oregon and 

Washington, Version 1.0. Oregon-Washington Partners in Flight.

Altman, B. 2000a. Conservation strategy for landbirds of the east-slope of the Cascade Mountains 

in Oregon and Washington, Version 1.0. Oregon-Washington Partners in Flight.

Altman, B. 2000b. Conservation strategy for landbirds in lowlands and valleys of western Oregon 

and Washington, Version 1.0. Oregon-Washington Partners in Flight.

American Wind Energy Association. 2007. Installed & Projected MW, Oregon Wind Energy 

Development.

Andersen Hal E. 1982. “Aids to Determining Fuel Models For Estimating Fire Behavior.” 

General Technical Report INT-122. Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. Ogden, UT.

Anderson, A.E. and O.C. Wallmo. 1984. Odocoileus hemionus. No. 219. in Mammalian Species. 

Lawlor, T.E, editor. The American Society of Mammalogists.
870

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Anderson, D.R., J. Bart, T.C. Edwards, Jr., C.B. Kepler, and E.C. Meslow. 1990. Status 

Review, Northern spotted owl Strix occidentalis caurina. 95pp. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Portland, OR.

Anderson, P.G., B.R. Taylor, and G.C. Balch. 1996. Quantifying the effects of sediment release on 

fish and their habitats. Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences No. 2346, 

Vancouver, British Columbia.

Anderson, P.D., D.J. Larson, and S.S. Chan. in press. Riparian buffer and density management 

influences on microclimate of young headwater forests of western Oregon. Forest Science 53(2)

Andrews, H.J., and R.W.Colwin. 1940. Forest Resources of the Douglas-fir Region. 

Miscellaneous Publication No. 389. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service.

Anthony, R.G., R.L. Knight, G.T. Allen, B.R. McCelland, and J.I. Hodges. 1982. Habitat use 

by nesting and roosting bald eagle in the Pacific Northwest. In: Transactions of the 47th North 

American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. pp. 332-342. Wildlife Management 

Institute. Washington, D.C. 

Anthony, R.G., E.D. Forsman, A.B. Franklin, D.R. Anderson, K.P. Burnham, G.C. White, C.J. 

Schwarz, J. Nichols, J. Hines, G.S. Olson, S.H. Ackers, S. Andrews, B.L. Biswell, P.C. Carlson, 

L.V. Diller, K.M. Dugger, K.E.Fehring, T.L. Fleming, R.P. Gerhardt, S.A. Gremel, R.J. Gutiérrez, 

P.J. Happe, D.R. Herter, J.M. Higley, R.B. Horn, L.L. Irwin, P.J. Loschl, R.R. Reid, and S.G. 

Sovern. 2006. Status and Trends in Demography of Northern Spotted Owls, 1985-2003. Wildlife 

Monographs No. 163. 

Arora, D. 1997. Mushrooms Demystified. 2nd edition. 959 pp. Ten Speed Press. Berkeley, CA. 

Ashton, D.T., S.B. Marks, and H.H. Welsh, Jr. 2006. Evidence of continued effects from timber 

harvesting on lotic amphibians in redwood forest of northwestern California. Forest Ecology and 

Management 221(2006):183-193.

Aubry, K.B. and C.M. Raley. June 2002. Ecological characteristics of fishers in the southern 

Oregon Cascade Range Final Progress Report. Pacific Northwest Research Station, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service,. Olympia, WA. 

Aubry, K.B. and J.C. Lewis. 2003. Extirpation and reintroduction of fishers (Martes pennanti) 

in Oregon: implications for their conservation in the Pacific states. Biological Conservation 

114:79-90.

Aubry, K.B., S.M. Wisely, C.M. Raley, and S.W. Buskirk. 2004. Zoogeography, spacing patterns, 

and dispersal in fishers: insights gained from combining field and genetic data. In Proceedings 

of the 3rd International Martes Symposium: Martens and fishers (Martes) in human-altered 

environments: an international perspective. pp. 211-230. D.J. Harrison and A.K. Fuller, editors. 

Springer Academic Publishers. New York, NY.

Bailey, John D. and John C. Tappeiner. 1998. Effects of Thinning on Structural Development 

in 40 to 100 years-old Douglas-fir Stands in Western Oregon. Forest Ecology and Management 

108(1998): 99-113.
871

References

Bailey, John D., Cheryl Mayrsohn, Paul S. Doescher, [and others]. 1998. Understory vegetation 

in old and young Douglas-fir forests of western Oregon. Forest Ecology and Management 112(3): 

289-302. [30086]

Bailey, V. 1936. The Mammals and Life Zones of Oregon. North American Fauna. 55:1-416.

Baker, P.J. and J.S. Wilson. 2000. A quantitative technique for the identification of canopy 

stratification in tropical and temperate forests. Forest Ecology and Management 127: 77-86.

Baker, D. and C. Palmer. [in press]. The Northwest Forest Plan – The first 10 years (1994-2003): 

implementation monitoring: accomplishments and compliance with plan requirements. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. Portland, OR.

Banci V. 1989. A Fisher Management Strategy for British Columbia. British Columbia Ministry 

of Environment, Wildlife Branch. Wildlife Bulletin No. B-63.

Barrows, C.C. 1980. Feeding ecology of the spotted owl in California. Journal of Raptor Research 

14:73-77.

Beechie, T.J. and T.H. Sibley. 1997. Relationships between channel characteristics, woody debris, 

and fish habitat in northwestern Washington streams. Transactions of the American Fisheries 

Society 126:217-229.

Beissinger, S.R. 1995. Population trends of the marbled murrelet projected from demographic 

analyses. In: Ecology and conservation of the marbled murrelet (C.J. Ralph, G.L. Hunt, 

M.G. Raphael and J. F. Piatt, editors). pp. 385-393. Pacific Southwest Research Station, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. Albany, CA.

Beissinger, S.R., and N. Nur. 1997. Appendix B: Population trends of the marbled murrelet 

projected from demographic analysis. In: Recovery plan for the threatened marbled murrelet 

(Brachyramphus marmoratus) in Washington, Oregon and California. pp. B1-B35. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. Portland, OR.

Beissinger, S.R. 2002. Analysis of the effect of a 10% reduction of population size on marbled 

murrelet population dynamics in northern California. Unpublished report. 10pp. University of 

California. Berkeley, CA.

Benda, L., D. Miller, J. Sias, D. Martin, B. Bilby, C. Veldhuisen and T. Dunne. 2003. Wood 

Recruitment Processes and Wood Budgeting. pp. 49-73. In The Ecology and Management of Wood 

in World Rivers. S. V. Gregory, K. Boyer, and A. M. Gurnell, editors. American Fisheries Society.

Bender, L.C., G.A. Schirato, R.D. Spencer, K.R. McAllister, and B.L. Murphie. 2004. Survival, 

cause-specific mortality, and harvesting of male black-tailed deer in Washington. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 68(4):870-878.

Bennett, M., Fitzgerald, S. Mechanical Fuels Reduction. Reducing Hazardous Fuels on Woodland 

Properties. Oregon Forest Resource Institute and Oregon State University. Corvallis, OR.

Bentivoglio, N., J. Baldwin, T. Max, S. Miller, C.J. Ralph, M. Raphael, C.S. Strong and C.W. 

Thompson. 2002. Marbled murrelet population monitoring program for Northwest Forest Plan 

effectiveness monitoring. Annual report. 47 pp. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Portland OR. 
872

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Beschta, R., R. Bilby, G. Brown, L. Holtby and T. Hofstra. 1987. Stream temperature and aquatic 

habitat: Fisheries and forestry interaction. pp. 191-232. University of Washington, Institute of 

Forest Resources, Contribution No. 57.

Beschta, R. 1997. Riparian shade and stream temperature: An alternative perspective. Rangelands 

19(2):25-28. Oregon State University. Corvallis, OR.

Beschta, R., M. Pyles, A. Skaugset and C. Surfleet. 2000. Peakflow responses to forest practices 

in the western cascades of Oregon, USA. Journal of Hydrology, 223 (2000) 102-120.

Beschta, R., J.J. Rhodes, J.B. Kauffman, R.E. Gresswell, G.W. Minshall, J.R. Karr, D.A. Perry, 

F.R. Hauer, and C.A. Frissell. 2004. Postfire management on forested public lands of the Western 

United States. Conservation Biology 18: 957-967.

Bevis, K.R., G.M. King, and E.E. Hanson. 1997. Spotted owls and 1994 fires on the Yakama 

Indian Reservation. In: International Association of Wildland Fire Proceedings - Fire Effects on 

Rare and Endangered Species Habitats Conference, pp. 117-22. Nov 13-16, 1995. J.M. Greenlee, 

editor. Coeur D’Alene, ID. 

Bilby, R.E. and J.W. Ward. 1989. Changes in characteristics and function of woody debris with 

increasing size of streams in western Washington. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 

118: 368-378.

Bilby, R.E. and P.A. Bisson. 1998. Function and distribution of large woody debris. In: Kantor, S., 

ed. River ecology and management: lessons from the Pacific coastal ecoregion. Springer-Verlag: 

324-346, Chapter 13. Washington, D.C.

Bisson, P.A. and R.E. Bilby. 1982. Avoidance of suspended sediment by juvenile coho salmon. 

North American Journal of Fisheries Management 2: 371-374.

Bisson, P., R. Bilby, M. Bryant, C. Dolloff, G. Grette, R. House, M. Murphy, K. Koski and J. 

Sedell. 1987. Large woody debris in forested streams in the Pacific Northwest: past, present, 

and future. In: Streamside management: forestry and fishery interactions. E. Salo and T. Cundy, 

editors. Contribution Number. 57. pp. 143-190. University of Washington, Institute of Forest 

Resources. Seattle, WA.

Boulanger, J., K. Martin, G. Kaiser and A.E. Derocher. 1999. Evaluating uncertainty in population 

trends of Marbled Murrelets. In: Biology and Conservation of Forest Birds; Proceedings of the 

Society of Canadian Ornithologists Special Science Symposium, pp. 53-62. Fredericton, New 

Brunswick 23-25 August, 1996. Diamond, A.W and D.N. Nettleship, editors. Society of Canadian 

Ornithologists Special Publication No. 1. Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada.

Boyd, M.S. 1996. Heat Source: stream temperature prediction. Master’s Thesis. Department of 

Civil and Bioresource Engineering, Oregon State University. Corvallis, OR.

Bradley, R.W. 2002. Breeding ecology of radio-marked marbled murrelets (Brachyramphus 

marmoratus) in Desolation Sound. 86 pp. Department of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser 

University. Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada.

Brake, D.; M. Molnau and J.G. King, J.G. 1997. Sediment transport distances and culvert 
873

References

spacing on logging roads within the Oregon coast mountain range. 12 pp. ASAE Annual 

International Meeting, August 10-14, 1997. Minneapolis, MN.

Brandt, J.P., T.A. Morgan, T. Dillon, G.J. Lettman, C.E. Keegan, D.L. Azuma. 2006. Oregon’s 

Forest Products Industry and Timber Harvest, 2003. Gen. Tech. Rpt. PNW-GTR-681. 53 pp. 

Pacific Northwest Research Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. 

Portland, OR:

Brazier, J. and G. Brown. 1972. Controlling thermal pollution in small streams. U.S. Government 

Printing Office, EPA-R2-72-083.

Brock, R. and R. Callagan. 2006. Siskiyou Biosurvey LLC. Site Review of Fritillaria gentneri

on Bureau of Land Management lands. 2006 Internal monitoring report. U.S Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Medford District. Medford, OR.

Brosofske, K.D., J. Chen, R.J. Naiman, J.F. Franklin. 1997. Harvesting effects on microclimatic 

gradients from small streams to uplands in western Washington. Ecological Applications 7(4): 

1188-1200.

Brown, G.W. 1969. Predicting temperatures of small streams. Water Resources Research 

5(1):68-75.

Brown, G.W. and J. Krygier. 1970. Effects of Clear-cutting on Stream temperature. Water 

Resources Research Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 1133-1139.

Brown, G.W. and J. Krygier. 1971. Clear-cut logging and sediment production in the Oregon 

Coast Range. Water Resources Research 7:1189-1199.

Brown, G.W. 1983. Forestry and Water Quality. College of Forestry, Oregon State University, 

Corvallis, OR.

Brown, J.K., E.D. Reinhardt and K.A. Kramer. 2003. Coarse woody debris: managing benefits and 

fire hazard in the recovering forest. General technical report RMRS-GTR-105. Rocky Mountain 

Research Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. Fort Collins, CO.

Brown, Richard T., James Agee and Jerry Franklin. August 2004. Forest Restoration and Fire: 

Principles in the Context of Place. Conservation Biology 18: 903-912.

Brunengo, M. J. unpublished. Estimation of snow available for melting during model rain-onsnow events. 46 pp. Washington Department of Natural Resources, Forest Practices Division. 

Olympia, WA.

Buehler, D.A. 2000. Bald Eagle (Halieaeetus leucocephalus). In The Birds of North America, No. 

506. A. Poole and F. Gill, editors. The Birds of North America, Inc. Philadelphia, PA.

Burger, A.E. 2001. Using radar to estimate populations and assess habitat associations of marbled 

murrelets. Journal of Wildlife Management 65:696-715.

Burger, A.E. 2002. Conservation assessment of marbled murrelets in British Columbia, a review 

of biology, populations, habitat associations and conservation. 168 pp. Pacific and Yukon Region, 

Canadian Wildlife Service. 
874

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Burnett, Kelly M., Gordon H. Reeves, Daniel J. Miller, Sharon Clarke, Ken Vance-Borland, and 

Kelly Christiansen. 2003. A first step toward broad-scale identification of freshwater protected 

areas for Pacific salmon and trout in Oregon, USA. In: Aquatic protected areas: What works best 

and how do we know? J.P. Beumer, A.Grant and D.C. Smith, editors. Proceedings of the world 

congress on aquatic protected areas, Cairns, Australia and North Beach, WA. Australian Society 

for Fish Biology.

Burnett, Kelly M., Gordon H. Reeves, Daniel J. Miller, Sharon Clarke, Ken Vance-Borland 

and Kelly Christiansen. 2007. Distribution of salmon-habitat potential relative to landscape 

characteristics and implications for conservation. Pacific Northwest Research Station, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. Corvallis, OR.

Burnett, K.M. and D.J. Miller. (2007). Streamside policies for headwater channels: an example 

considering debris flows in the Oregon Coastal Province. Forest Science, 53: 239-253.

Burroughs, E.R., G.R. Chalfant and M.A. Townsend. 1976. Slope Stability in Road Construction. 

A Guide to the Construction of Stable Roads in Western Oregon and Northern California. United 

States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Oregon State Office. Portland, OR.

Burroughs, E. and J. King. 1989. Reduction of soil erosion on forest roads. General Technical 

Report INT-264. Intermountain Research Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. 

Forest Service, 

Bury, R.B. and C.A. Pearl. 1999. Klamath-Siskiyou herpetofauna: Biogeographic patterns and 

conservation strategies. Natural Areas Journal 19:341-350.

Bury, B. 2005. Stream Amphibians. in Riparian zone forest mangement and the protection of 

biodiversity: a problem analysis. pp. 23-27. Sarr, D.A., D.C. Odion, D.E. Hibbs, J.Weikel, R.E. 

Gresswell, R.B. Bury, N.M. Czarnomski, R.J. Pabst, J. Shatford, and A.R. Moldenke (editors.) 

National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Technical Bulletin No. 908. Research Triangle 

Park, NC. 107+ pages.

Buskirk, S.W. and R.A. Powell. 1994. Habitat ecology of fishers and American martens. In: 

Martens, Sables and Fishers: Biology and Conservation. pp. 283-296. S.W. Buskirk, A.S. 

Harestad, M.G. Raphael, and M.G. Powell, editors. Cornell University Press. Ithaca, NY.

Busse, M.D., K.R. Hubbert, G.O. Fiddler, C.J. Shestak and R.F. Powers. 2005. Lethal soil 

temperatures during burning of masticated forest residues. International Journal of Wildland 

Fire 14(3).

Bustard, D.R. and D.W. Narver. 1975. “Preferences of juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus 

kisutch) and cutthroat trout (Salmo clarki) relative to simulated alteration of winter habitat.” 

Journal of Fisheries, Resource Board Canada 32:681-687.

Cafferata, P. 1992. Soil Compaction Research. In: Forest Soils & Riparian Zone Management: 

The Contributions of Dr. Henry A. Froehlich to Forestry. Skaugset A., editor. Forest Engineering 

Department, Oregon State University. Corvallis, OR.

Callihan, Robert H., Timothy S. Prather and Francis E. Northam. 1993. Longevity of yellow 

starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis) achenes in soil. Weed Technology 7: 33-35. [24469]
875

References

Carey, A.B., S.P. Horton and B.L. Biswell. 1992. Northern spotted owls: influence of prey base 

and landscape character. Ecological Monographs 62(2): 223-250.

Carey, A.B. 2000. Effects of new forest management strategies on squirrel populations. 

Ecological Applications 10:248-257.

Carroll, C., W.J. Zielinski, and R.F. Noss. 1999. Using presence-absence data to build and 

test spatial habitat models for the fisher in the Klamath Region, U.S.A. Conservation Biology 

13(6):1344-1359.

Carson, Sue D. 2003. Modeling genetic gain in growth in New Zealand: 1 986-2003. In: Cherry, 

Marilyn L., and Glenn T. Howe. editors. Genetics and growth modeling workshop: Pacific 

Northwest Tree Improvement Cooperative. Proceedings of a workshop; 2003 November 496. 

Vancouver, WA. 

Castellano, M.A., E. Cazares, B. Fondrick, and T. Dreisbach. 2003. Handbook to Additional 

Fungal Species of Special Concern in the Northwest Forest Plan . General Technical Report 

PNW-GTR-572. Pacific Northwest research station. USDA, U.S. Forest Service and USDI, 

Bureau of Land Management.

Cederholm, C.J., L.M. Reid and E.O. Salo. 1981. “Cumulative effects of logging road 

sediment on salmonid populations in the Clearwater River, Jefferson County, Washington.” In:

Proceedings, Conference on Salmon Spawning Gravel: A Renewable Resource in the Pacific 

Northwest? Water Research Center Report 39. Washington State University. Pullman, WA.

Cederholm, C.J., R.E., Bilby, P.A. Bisson, T.W. Bumstead, B.R. Fransen, W.J. Scarlett,and J.W. 

Ward. 1997. Response of juvenile coho salmon and steelhead to placement of large woody debris 

in a coastal Washington stream. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 17:947–963.

Chamberlin, T.W., R.D. Harr and F.H. Everest. 1991. “Timber harvesting, silviculture, and 

watershed processes.” American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19:181-205.

Chan, S., P. Anderson, J. Cissel, L. Larsen and C. Thompson. 2004. Variable density management 

in Riparian Reserves: lessons learned from an operational study in managed forests of western 

Oregon, USA. Forest Snow and Landscape Research 78(1/2):151-172. 

CH2MHill; Western Watershed Analysts. 1999. FEMAT riparian processes effectiveness 

curves: What is science-based and what is subjective judgment? Prepared for the Oregon Forest 

Industries Council by: CH2MHill, Portland OR. and Western Watershed Analysts, Lewiston, ID.

Chapman, D. and K. McLeod. 1987. Development of criteria for fine sediment in the Northern 

Rockies ecoregion. 279 pp. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Seattle, WA.

Charnley, S. 2006. Socioeconomic Monitoring Results, Volume II: Timber and Nontimber 

Resources. Northwest Forest Plan-The First Ten Years (1994-2003). General Technical Report 

PNW-GTR-649 Vol. II: 29-33. Pacific Northwest Research Station, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/22374

Chen, J., J.F. Franklin and T.A. Spies. 1995. Growing-season microclimatic gradients from 

clearcut edges into old-growth Douglas-fir forests. Ecological Applications 5: 74-86.
876

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Chen, Jiquan; Gordon Smith, [and others]. 1996. Initial response of understory plant diversity and 

overstory tree diameter growth to a green tree retention harvest. Northwest Science 70(1): 24-35. 

[26579].

Cissel, J. H., F. J. Swanson and P. J. Weisberg. 1999. Landscape management using historical fire 

regimes: Blue River, Oregon. Ecological Applications 9:1217–1231.

Clark, R. N. and G. H. Stankey. December 1979. The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum: A 

Framework for Planning, Management, and Research. General Technical Report PNW-98. 

Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. 

Forest Service.

Clarke, S. E., K. M. Burnett and D. J. Miller. In review. Modeling streams and hydrogeomorphic 

attributes in Oregon from digital and field data. Journal of the American Water Resources 

Association.

Climate Impacts Group. 2004 (updated August 2004). Overview of Climate Change Impacts in 

the U.S. Pacific Northwest. University of Washington. Seattle, WA. Available online at: http://

www.ef.org/westcoastclimate/D_PNW%20impacts.pdf

Coastal Landscape Analysis and Modeling Study (CLAMS) website: http://www.fsl.orst.edu/

clams/download/posters/ip_poster3.pdf

Cockle, K.L. and J.S. Richardson. 2003. Do riparian buffer strips mitigate the impacts of 

clearcutting on small mammals? Biological Conservation 113(2003):133-140.

Cohen, W.B., T.A. Spies, R.J. Alig, D.R. Oetter, T.K. Maiersperger, and M. Fiorella. 2002. 

Characterizing 23 years (1972-95) of stand replacement disturbance in western Oregon forests 

with Landsat imagery. Ecosystems 5:122–137.

Cole, E.K. 1996. Influence of limited access roads on Roosevelt elk in the Oregon Coast Range. 

M.S. Thesis. Oregon State University. Corvallis, OR.

Cole, E.K., M.D. Pope and R.G. Anthony. 1997. Effects of road management on movement and 

survival of Roosevelt elk. Journal of Wildlife Management 61(4):1115-1126.

Compton, J.E., M.R. Church, S.T. Larned and W.E. Hogsett. 2003. Nitrogen export from forested 

watersheds in the Oregon Coast Range: the role of N2-fixing red alder. Ecosystems 6: 773-785.

Connelly, J.W., S.T. Knick, M.A. Schroeder and S.J. Stiver. 2004. Conservation assessment of 

greater sage-grouse and sagebrush habitats. Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 

Cheyenne, WY.

Cook, J.G., L.L. Irwin, L.D. Bryant, R.A. Riggs and J.W. Thomas. 1998. Relations of forest 

cover and condition of elk: a test of the thermal cover hypothesis in summer and winter. Wildlife 

Monographs No. 141.
877

References

Cook, J.G., L.L. Irwin, L.D. Bryant, R.A. Riggs, and J.W. Thomas. 2004. Thermal cover needs of 

large ungulates: a review of hypothesis tests. In: Transaction of the Sixty-ninth North American 

and Natural Resources Conference. March 16-20, 2004. Spokane, Washington. J. Rahm, editor. 

Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, D.C.

Coombs, Eric M., Janet K. Clark, Gary L. Piper and Alfred F. Cofrancesco, Jr. 2004. Biological 

Control of Invasive Plants in the United States. Oregon State University Press. Corvallis, OR.

Copeland, S. 2005. Fire Effects on Selected Rare Plants of the Siskiyou Mountains, Oregon. A 

Senior Thesis submitted to the Department of Biology, The Colorado College. 

Cordone, A.J. and D.W. Kelley. 1961. The influences of inorganic sediment on the aquatic life 

of streams. Reprint from California Fish and Game. Vol. 47, No. 2. 41 pp. [155k]. California 

Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Branch. Sacramento, CA. 

Council on Environmental Quality. 1997. Environmental Justice Guidance Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act.

Courtney, S.P., J.A. Blakesley, R.E. Bigley, M.L. Cody, J.P. Dumbacher, R.C. Fleischer, A.B. 

Franklin, J.F. Franklin, R.J. Gutierrez, J.M. Marzluff and L. Sztukowski. 2004. Scientific evaluation 

of the status of the northern spotted owl. Sustainable Ecosystems Institute. Portland, OR.

Cram, Douglas, S., Terrell T. Baker and Jon C. Boren. 2006. “Wildland Fire Effects in 

Silviculturally Treated Vs. Untreated Stand of Arizona and New Mexico. Research Paper RMRSRP-55. Rocky Mountain Research Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. 

Fort Collins, CO.

Cullen, S.A. 2002. Using radar to monitor populations and assess habitat associations of marbled 

murrelets within the Sunshine Coast Forest District. 25 pp. Ministry of Water, Land and Air 

Protection. Surrey, British Columbia, Canada. 

Curtis, Robert O. 1982. A simple index of stand density for Douglas-fir. Forest Science (28)1: 

92-94.

Davis, Kevin Q. 17 August 2006. Association of O&C Counties to County Board of 

Commissioners. Portland, OR.

Deal, R.L. 2006. Red alder stand development and dynamics. in: Red alder-a state of knowledge. 

pp. 44-54. Deal, R.L. and C.A. Harrington, editors. 2006. General Technical Report PNW-GTR669. Pacific Northwest Research Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture U.S. Forest Service. 

Portland, OR.

DellaSala, D., S. Reid, T. Frest and J. Strittholt. 1999. A Global Perspective on the Biodiversity of 

the Klamath-Siskiyou Ecoregion. Natural Areas Journal 19:300-319.

De Santo, T.L. and M.F. Willson. 2001. Predator abundance and predation of artificial nests 

in natural and anthropogenic coniferous forest edges in southeast Alaska. Journal of Field 

Ornithology 72(1): 136-149.
878

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Dewey, Steven A. 1991. Weedy thistles of the western United States. In: Noxious range weeds. 

Westview Special Studies in Agricultural Science and Policy. pp. 247-253. [23552]. James, Lynn F., 

John O. Evans, Michael H. Ralphs, and Dennis R. Child, editors. Westview Press. Boulder, CO: 

Di Lucca, M.C., J.W. Goudie and S.C. Stearns-Smith. 2004. Variable retention yield adjustment 

factors for TIPSY. Extension Note No. 69. British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Forest Science 

Program. Victoria, British Columbia, Canada.

DiTomaso, Joseph M. and Kohn D. Gerlach, Jr. 2000. Centaurea solstitialis. In: Invasive plants 

of California’s Wildlands. 101-106. [40301]. Bossard, Carla C., John M. Randall, and Marc. C. 

Hoshovsky, editors. University of California Press. Berkeley, CA.

Dixon, G.E. (compiler). 2003. Essential FVS: A user’s guide to the forest vegetation simulator. 

Internal Report, 193 p. Forest Management Service Center, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. 

Forest Service. Fort Collins, CO. 

Dolloff C. A. 1986. Effects of stream cleaning on juvenile coho salmon and Dolly Varden in 

southeast Alaska. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 115:743–755.

Dolloff, C.A. and M.L. Warren, Jr. 2003. Fish relationships with large wood in small streams. In: 

The ecology and management of wood in world rivers. pp. 179-193. Gregory, S.V.; Boyer, K.L.; 

Gurnell, A.M. editors. American Fisheries Society. Bethesda, MD.

Donald, William W. 1994. The biology of Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense). Reviews of Weed 

Science 6: 77-101. [37298].

Donato, D.C., J.B. Fontaine, J.L. Campbell, W.D. Robinson, J.B. Kauffman and B.E. Law. 2006. 

Post-wildfire logging hinders regeneration and increases fire risk. Science 311: 352.

Doyle, Kathleen M., D.H. Knight, D.L. Taylor [and others]. 1998. Seventeen years of forest 

succession following the Waterfalls Canyon Fire in Grand Teton National Park, Wyoming. 

International Journal of Wildland Fire 8(1): 45-55.

Dugger, K.M., F. Wagner, R.G. Anthony and G.S. Olson. 2005. The relationship between habitat 

characteristics and demographic performance of northern spotted owls in southern Oregon. The 

Condor 107:863-878.

Dunbar, D.L., B.P. Booth, E.D. Forsman, A.E. Hetherington and D.J. Wilson. 1991. Status of the 

spotted owl, Strix occidentalis, and barred owl, Strix varia, in southwestern British Columbia. 

Canadian Field Naturalist 105:464-468. 

Duncan, S. 2002. Postfire Logging: Is it beneficial to a forest? Science Findings Issue 47. Pacific 

Northwest Research Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. 

Dunne, T. and L. B. Leopold. 1978. Water in environmental planning. 818 pp. W.H. Freeman and 

Co. San Francisco, CA.
879

References

Dunne, T., J. Agee, S. Bessinger, W. Dietrich, D. Gray, M. Power, V. Resh and K. Rodriques. 

2001. A scientific basis for the prediction of cumulative watershed effects. The University of 

California Committee on Cumulative Watershed Effects. Report No. 46. University of California 

Wildland Resource Center.

Ehinger, Paul F. & Associates. 2006. Forest Products Industry, Western Oregon: Analysis of 

Industry by Log Processing Capabilities, Species, Log Diameter Requirements and Constraints 

Limited by Mill Equipment and Mill Configuration.

Ellestrand, N and D. Elam. 1993. Population Genetic Consequences of Small Population Size: 

Implications for Plant Conservation. Annual Review. Ecological Systems: 24:217-42.

Energy Information Administration. 2007. Annual Energy Outlook 2006 with Projections to 2030, 

Release Date December 2005. http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/pdf/aeotab_13.pdf 

Environmental Protection Agency. 1998. Final Guidance for Incorporating Environmental Justice 

Concerns in EPA’s NEPA Compliance Analyses.

Espinosa, R. 2007. USDI, BLM, Roseburg District. personal communication with Christopher Foster. 

Everest, F.H., F.B. Lotspeich and W.R. Meehan. 1982. New perspectives on sampling, analysis, 

and interpretation of spawning gravel quality. In Acquisition and utilization of aquatic habitat 

inventory information, editor N.B. Armantrout, pp. 325-333. Western Division, American 

Fisheries Society. Portland, OR.

Everest, F.H., R.L. Beschta, J.D. Scrivener, K.V. Koski, J.R. Sedell and C.J. Cederholm. 1987. 

Fine sediment and salmonid production - a paradox. In: Streamside management and forestry and 

fishery interactions. pp. 98-142. E. Salo and T. Cundy editors. College of Forestry Resources, 

University of Washington, Cont. 57. Seattle, WA.

False-brome Working Group. (n.d.). Retrieved January 25, 2007 from: http://www.appliedeco.

org/FBWG.htm

False-brome Working Group Newsletter. January 2004. Retrieved January 25, 2007 from: http://

www.appliedeco.org/BRSYweb/finalJan2004newsletter.pdf

Federal Register. 1980. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Listing the Oregon Silverspot Butterfly as 

a Threatened Species with Critical Habitat. Vol. 45, No. 129: 44935-44938.

Federal Register. 1990. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Endangered and threatened wildlife and 

plants; determination of threatened status for the northern spotted owl; final rule. Vol. 55, No. 

123: 26114-26194.

Federal Register. 1992a. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Endangered and threatened wildlife and 

plants; determination of critical habitat for the northern spotted owl; final rule. Vol. 57, No. 10: 

1796-1835.

Federal Register. 1992b. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Endangered and threatened wildlife and 

plants; determination of threatened status for the Washington, Oregon and California population 

of the marbled murrelet. Vol. 57, No. 191: 45328-45337. 
880

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Federal Register. 1993. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and 

Plants; Determination of Threatened Status of the Pacific Coast Population of the Western Snowy 

Plover; Final Rule. Vol. 58, No. 42: 12864-12874.

Federal Register. 1996a. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Endangered and threatened wildlife and 

plants; final designation of critical habitat for the marbled murrelet. Vol. 61, No. 102: 26256-

26330.

Federal Register. 1999b. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Rule 

to Remove the Bald Eagle in the Lower 48 States from the Federal List of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Vol. 64, No. 128: 36454-36464.

Federal register. 1999d. National Marine Fisheries Service. Designated Critical Habitat; Central 

California Coast and Southern Oregon/Northern California Coasts Coho Salmon. 64(86):24049.

Federal Register. 10 December 1999c. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Final rule on listing 

Fritillaria gentneri, Vol. 64, No. 237: 69195-69203.

Federal Register. 25 January 2000a. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Endangered and threatened 

wildlife and plants; endangered status for Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens (Willamette 

daisy) and Fender’s blue butterfly (Icaricia icarioides fenderi) and threatened status for Lupinus 

sulphuerus ssp. kincaid ; Final Rule. Vol. 65, No. 16: 3875-3890.

Federal Register. 2003. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and 

Plants; Final Rule to Remove the Douglas County Distinct Population Segment of Columbian 

White-Tailed Deer from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. Vol. 68, No. 

142: 43647-43659.

Federal Register. 2004. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and 

Plants; 12-month Finding for a Petition to List the West Coast Distinct Population Segment of the 

Fisher (Martes pennanti). Vol. 69, No. 68: 18770-18792

Federal Register. 2005a. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Endangered and threatened wildlife and 

plants; 12-month finding for petitions to list the greater sage-grouse as threatened or endangered; 

proposed rule. Vol. 70, No. 8: 2244-2282. 

Federal Register. 2005b. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Pacific Coast Population of the Western Snowy 

Plover; Final Rule. Vol. 70, No. 188: 56970-57018. 

Federal Register. 2 November 2005c. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Fender’s Blue Butterfly (Icaricia 

icarioides fenderi), Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii (Kincaid’s Lupine), and Erigeron 

decumbens var. decumbens (Willamette Daisy). Proposed Rule. 70:66492-66539. 

Federal Register. 2005d. National Marine Fisheries Service. Endangered and Threatened Species; 

Designation of Critical Habitat for 12 Evolutionarily Significant Units of West Coast Salmon and 

Steelhead in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho. 70(170):52630.
881

References

Federal Register. 2006a. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Endangered and threatened wildlife and 

plants; removing the bald eagle in the lower 48 states from the list of endangered and threatened 

wildlife. Washington, D.C. Vol. 71, No. 32: 8238-8251.

Federal Register. 2006b. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a Petition to Delist the Pacific Coast Population of the Western 

Snowy Plover. Vol. 71, No. 77: 20607-20624.

Federal Register. 2006c. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and 

Plants; Designation of Critical habitat for Four Vernal Pool Crustaceans and Eleven Vernal Pool 

Plants, Final Rule. Vol. 71, No. 28: 7118-7166.

Ferns, M.L. and D.F. Huber. 1984, Mineral Resources Map of Oregon: State of Oregon 

Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Geological Map Series GMS-36, Map.

(FEMAT) USDA Forest Service, USDC National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

USDC National Marine Fisheries Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, USDI Fish and 

Wildlife Service, USDI National Park Service, and Environmental Protection Agency. 1993. 

Forest Ecosystem Management: An Ecological, Economic, and Social Assessment. Report of the 

Forest Ecosystem Management Team.

Findholt, S.L., B.K. Johnson, D.Damiran, T. DelCurto and J.G. Kie. 2004. Diet composition, 

dry matter intake and diet overlap of mule deer, elk and cattle. In: Transaction of the Sixty-ninth 

North American and Natural Resources Conference, March 16-20, 2004, Spokane, Washington. J. 

Rahm, editor. Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, D.C.

Findlay, S., G.E. Likens, L. Hedin, S.G. Fisher, and W.H. McDowell. 1977. Organic Matter 

Dynamics in Bear Brook, Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest, New Hampshire, USA. Journal of 

the North American Benthological Society, Vol. 16, No. 1 [43-46]. doi:10.2307/1468230

Fitzgerald, Stephen A. 2002. “Fire in Oregon’s Forests: Risks, Effects, and Treatment Options.” 

Extension Forestry Program, Oregon State University. Corvallis, OR.

Ford, R.G., G.K. Himes Boor, B.E. Sharp and J.L. Casey. 2002. Estimates of bird impacts resulting 

from the M/V Kure/Humboldt Bay oil spill of November 5, 1997. Final draft report prepared for 

California Department of Fish and Game. 71pp. Office of Spill Prevention and Response. 

Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team Update Team. Spring 1997. Killing them softly: Using 

natural enemies to combat exotic weeds. Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team Update 

Team. Spring 1997. Retrieved January 26, 2007: http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/technology/

news/Spring97.html

Forman, R.T.T. 1995. Land Mosaics: The Ecology of Landscapes and Regions. Cambridge 

University Press, New York, NY.

Forsight. 2006. How to handle non-uniform stand density (clumpiness) in ORGANON. The 

FORsight Resource (3)3: 1-2. FORsight Resources LLC. Vancouver, WA

Forsman, E.D., E.C. Meslow and H.M. Wight. 1984. Distribution and biology of the spotted owl 

in Oregon. Wildlife Monographs 87:1-64.
882

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Forsman, E.D., I.A. Otto, S.G. Sovern, M. Taylor, D.W. Hays, H. Allen, S.L. Roberts and D.E. 

Seaman. 2001. Spatial and temporal variation in diets of spotted owls in Washington. Journal of 

Raptor Research 35(2):141-150.

Forsman, E.D., R.G. Anthony, J.A. Reid, P.J. Loschl, S.G. Sovern, M.Taylor, B.L. Biswell, 

A. Ellingson, E.C. Meslow, G.S. Miller, K.A.Swindle, J.A. Thrailkill, F.F. Wagner, and D. E. 

Seaman. 2002. Natal and breeding dispersal of northern spotted owls. Wildlife Monographs 

No. 149.

Forsman, E.D., R.G. Anthony, E.C. Meslow and C.J. Zabel. 2004. Diets and foraging behavior of 

northern spotted owls in Oregon. Journal of Raptor Research 38(3):214-230.

Foster, S.C., C.H. Stein and K.K. Jones. 2001. A guide to interpreting stream survey reports. 

P.A. Bowers, editor. Information Reports 2001-06. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 

Portland, OR.

Franklin, Jerry F., H.H. Shugart and Mark E. Harmon. 1987. Tree death as an ecological process. 

Bioscience, Vol. 17, pp. 550-556.

Franklin, J.F. and C.T. Dyrness. 1988. Natural Vegetation of Oregon and Washington. 452 pp. 

Oregon State University Press. Corvallis, OR.

Franklin, J.F., T.A. Spies, R. Van Pelt, A.B. Carey, D.A. Thornburgh, D. Rae Berg, D.B. 

Lindenmayer. M.E. Harmon, W.S. Keeton, D.C. Shaw, K. Bible and J. Chen. 2002. Disturbances 

and structural development of natural forest ecosystems with silvicultural implications, using 

Douglas-fir forests as an example. Forest Ecology and Management 155: 399-423.

Franklin, A.B. and R.J. Guitierrez. 2002. Spotted owls, forest fragmentation, and forest 

heterogeneity. Studies in Avian Biology. 25: 203-220.

Franklin, J.F. 2004. Sudden Oak Death. Appendix 8 In: Scientific evaluation of the status of the 

northern spotted owl. Courtney, S.P., J.A. Blakesley, R.E. Bigley, M.L. Cody, J.P. Dumbacher, 

R.C. Fleischer, A.B. Franklin, J.F. Franklin, R.J. Gutierrez, J.M. Marzluff, and L. Sztukowski. 

Sustainable Ecosystems Institute. Portland, OR.

Franklin, J.F. and R. Van Pelt. 2004. Spatial aspects of structural complexity in old-growth 

forests. Journal of Forestry, April/May: pp. 22-28.

Franklin, J.F., D.R. Berg, A.B. Carey and R.A. Hardt. 2006. Old-growth conifer forests. In:

Restoring the Pacific Northwest: the Art and Science of Ecological Restoration in Cascadia. pp. 

97-121. D. Apostol and M. Sinclair, editors. Island Press. Washington, D.C.

Freidman. 2007. Personal communication with Douglas Kendig. USDI, BLM. Medford, OR.

Froehlich, H.E. and D.H. McNabb. 1984. Minimizing Soil Compaction in Pacific Northwest 

Forests. In: Forest Soils and Treatment Impacts. Stone, E.L., editor. Proceedings of Sixth 

North American Forest Soils Conference. June 1983. University of Tennessee Conferences. 

Knoxville, TN. 
883

References

Frost, E.J. and R. Sweeney. 2000. Fire Regimes, Fire History and Forest Conditions in the 

Klamath-Siskiyou Region: An Overview and Synthesis of Knowledge. World Wildlife Fund. 

Ashland, OR. 

Furniss, R.L. and V.M. Carolin. 1977. Western Forest Insects. Miscellaneous Publication No. 

1339. 654 pp. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. 

Furniss, M., T. Ledwith, M. Love, B. McFadin and S. Flanagan. 1988. Response of road-stream 

crossings to large flood events in Washington, Oregon and northern California. Six Rivers 

National forest, Pacific Southwest Region, San Dimas Technology and Development Center, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. San Dimas, CA.

Furniss, M. J., T. D. Roelofs and C. S. Yee. 1991. Road construction and maintenance. In: 

Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their habitats. American 

Fisheries Society Special Publication 19: 297-323

Gallo, Kirsten, Steven H. Lanigan, Peter Eldred, Sean N. Gordon and Chris Moyer. 2005. 

Northwest Forest Plan - the first 10 years (1994–2003): preliminary assessment of the condition 

of watersheds. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-647. 133 pp. Pacific Northwest Research 

Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. Portland, OR: 

Global Invasive Species Database. Issg Database: Ecology of Euphorbia esula. June 26, 2005. 

Retrieved July, 2006 from: http://www.issg.org/database/species/ecology.asp?si=83&fr=1&sts

Goheen, E.M., E.M. Hansen, A. Kanaskie, M.G. Williams, N. Oserbauer and W. Sutton. 2002. 

Sudden oak death caused by Phytophthora ramorum in Oregon. Plant Disease 86:441.

Golightly, R.T., P.N. Hebert and D.L. Orthmeyer. 2002. Evaluation of human-caused disturbance 

on the breeding success of marbled murrelets (Brachyramphus marmoratus) in Redwood National 

and State Parks, California. 61 pp. Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological Survey, California Department of Fish and Game, and 

California Department of Parks and Recreation. Arcata, CA.

Gomez, D.M. and R.G. Anthony. 1996. Amphibian and reptile abundance in riparian and upslope 

areas of five forest types in western Oregon. Northwest Science 70(2):109-119.

Good, T.P., R.S. Waples and P. Adams (editors). 2005. Updated status of federally listed ESUs 

of West Coast salmon and steelhead. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration. Technical Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-66, 598 p.

Gottlieb, S. 1993. Habitat Utilization and Population Characteristics of the Pokegama Wild Horse 

Herd. B.S. Thesis. State University of New York, Purchase.

Graham, R.T, Sarah McCaffrey and T.B. Jain. 2004. “Science Basis for Changing Forest Structure 

to Modify Wildfire Behavior and Severity.” General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-120. Rocky 

Mountain Research Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service.
884

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Grant, G.E., and S. Lewis, F. Swanson and J. McDonnell. 2007. In Review. Effects of forest 

practices on peak flows and consequent channel response in western Oregon: a state-of-science 

report. Pacific Northwest Research Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. 

Corvallis, OR.

Greenberg, Joanne and K.F.Welch. 1988. Hydrologic Process Identification for Western Oregon. 

18 pp. Hydrologic Services Co. prepared for Boise Cascade Corporation.

Gregg, MA., J.A. Crawford, M.S. Drut and A.K. DeLong. 1994. Vegetational cover and predation 

of sage grouse nests in Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management 58(1):162-168.

Gremel, S. 2000. Spotted owl monitoring in Olympic National Park: 2000 annual report. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Olympic National Park. Port Angeles, WA.

Guitierrez, R., M. Cody, S. Courtney and D. Kennedy. 2004. Assessment of the potential threat of 

the northern barred owl. Chapter 7. In: Scientific evaluation of the status of the northern spotted 

owl. Courtney, S.P., J.A. Blakesley, R.E. Bigley, M.L. Cody, J.P. Dumbacher, R.C. Fleischer, A.B. 

Franklin, J.F. Franklin, R.J. Gutierrez, J.M. Marzluff, and L. Sztukowski, editors. Sustainable 

Ecosystems Institute. Portland, OR.

Gurevitch, J., S. Scheiner and G. Fox. 2006. The Ecology of Plants. Second Edition. Sinauer 

Associates Inc.

Haerter, J. 23 February 1997. Personal Communications with Jim Haerter, Oil and Gas Program 

Lead, Bureau of Land Management, California State Office. 

Haerter, J. 2007. Personal Communications with Jim Haerter, Oil and Gas Program Lead, Bureau 

of Land Management, California State Office, February 23, 2007.

Hagen, C.A. 2005. Greater sage-grouse conservation assessment and strategy for Oregon: a 

plan to maintain and enhance populations and habitat. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 

Salem, OR.

Halferty, M. 20 February 2007. Personal Communications with Peggy Halferty, PE, 

Environmental Manager, Methane Energy Corporation.

Haggerty, S.M., D.P. Batzer, and C.R. Jackson. 2004. Macroinvertebrate response to logging 

in coastal headwater streams of Washington, U.S.A. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic 

Science: 61: 529-537.

Hamer, T.E., S.G. Seim and K.R. Dixon. 1989. Northern spotted owl and northern barred owl 

habitat use and home range size in Washington: preliminary report. Washington Department of 

Wildlife. Olympia, WA.

Hamer, T.E. and S.K. Nelson. 1995. Characteristics of marbled murrelet nest trees and nesting 

stands. In: Ecology and conservation of the marbled murrelet. C.J. Ralph, G.L. Hunt, Jr., M.G. 

Raphael, and J.F. Piatt, editors. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-152, Pacific Southwest Research 

Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. Albany, CA.
885

References

Hamer, T.E., D.L. Hays, C.M. Senger and E.D. Forsman. 2001. Diets of northern barred owls and 

northern spotted owls in an area of sympatry. Journal of Raptor Research 35(3):221-227.

Hann, David W. and John A. Scrivani. 1987. Dominant-Height growth and site-index equations 

for Douglas-fir and Ponderosa pine in southwest Oregon. Forest Resource Lab Research Bulletin 

59. Oregon State University, College of Forestry. Corvallis,OR..

Hann, David W. 6 July 1992. Letter to Robert Lewis, BLM Medford District. On file at the 

Roseburg BLM District.

Hann, David W. 1998. Extending southwest Oregon’s dominant height growth equation to older 

ages. Research Contribution 18. 16 pp. Oregon State University, Forest Research Laboratory. 

Corvallis,OR. 

Hann, David W. 2005. ORGANON user’s manual: Edition 8.0. 130 pp. Department of Forest 

Resources, Oregon State University. Corvallis, OR. 

Hann, Wendel, Doug Havlina and Ayn Shlisky. 2003. Interagency and The Nature Conservancy 

fire regime condition class website. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, 

U.S. Department of the Interior; The Nature Conservancy; and Systems for Environmental 

Management [frcc.gov].

Hanley, T.A. 1984. Habitat patches and their selection by wapiti and black-tailed deer in a coastal 

montane coniferous forest. Journal of Applied Ecology 21:423-436.

Hansen, Malin J., and Anthony P. Clevenger. 2005. The influence of disturbance and habitat on 

the presence of non-native plant species along transport corridors. Biological Conservation 125 

(2): 249-259. 

Hardy, Colin C. and Stephen F. Arno. 1996. “The Use of Fire in Forest Restoration.” General 

Technical Report INT-GTR-341. Inter Mountain Research Station, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. Ogden, UT.

Harr, R., W. Harper, J. Krygier and F. Hsieh. 1975. Changes in Storm Hydrographs after Road 

Building and Clear-Cutting in the Oregon Coast Range. Water Resources Research, 11(3): 436-444.

Harr, R. D. 1976. Hydrology of Small Forest Streams in Western Oregon. General Technical 

Report PNW-55. Denver Service Center, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. 

Denver, CO.

Harr, R., R. Fredriksen and J. Rothacher. 1979. Changes in Streamflow Following Timber Harvest 

in Southwestern Oregon. Research Paper PNW-249. 22 pp. Pacific Northwest Research station, 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service.

Harr, R.D. 1981. Some characteristics and consequences of snowmelt during rainfall in western 

Oregon. Journal of Hydrology 53: 277-304

Harr, R. and B. Coffin. 1992. Influence of timber harvest on rain-on-snow runoff: a mechanism 

for cumulative watershed effects: Interdisciplinary approaches to hydrology and hydrogeology. 

American Institute of Hydrology. pp. 455-469.
886

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Harrington, C.A. 2006. Biology and ecology of red alder. In: Red alder-a state of knowledge. 

pp. 21-43. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-669. Deal, R.L. and C.A. Harrington, editors. 

Pacific Northwest Research Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. 

Portland, OR.

Harris, D.D., L.L Hubbard and L.E. Hubbard. 1979. Magnitude and Frequency of Floods in 

Western Oregon. Open-File Report 79-553. 35 pp. U.S. Geological Survey.

Harris, C.C., W. McLaughlin, G. Brown and D. Becker. 2000. Rural communities in the inland 

Northwest, an assessment of small communities in the interior and upper Columbia River basins. 

General Technical Report NPW-GTR-477. 120 pp. Pacific Northwest Research Station, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. Portland, OR.

Hartman, G.F. and T.G. Brown. 1987. “Use of small, temporary, floodplain tributaries by juvenile 

salmonids in a West Coast rain-forest drainage basin, Carnation Creek, British Columbia.” 

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 44:262-270.

Hartman, G.F., J.C. Scrivener and M.J. Miles. 1996. Impacts of logging in Carnation Creek, a 

high-energy coastal stream in British Columbia, and the implication for restoring fish habitat. 

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 53(Supplement 1):237-251.

Hayden et al. 1991 In: Washington Forest Practices Board. 1997. Standard methodology for 

conducting watershed analysis, Ver. 4.0. Washington State Department of Natural Resorces. 

Olympia, WA. Online: [http://www.dnr.wa.gov/forestpractices/watershedanalysis/manual/

hydrology.pdf]

Hayner, personal communication. 2007

Hayes, J.P., J.M. Weikel and M.P. Huso. 2003. Response of birds to thinning young Douglas-fir 

forests. Ecological Applications 13:1222-1232. 

Haynes, Richard W., Bernard T. Bormann, Danny C. Lee and Jon R. Martin, Jon R., technical 

editors. 2006. Northwest Forest Plan - the first 10 years (1994-2003): synthesis of monitoring and 

research results. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-651. 292 pp. Pacific Northwest Research 

Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. Portland, OR.

Haynes, R.W., D.M. Adams, R.J. Alig, R.J., P.J. Ince, J.R. Mills and X. Zhou. 2006. (Draft) The 

2005 RPA Timber Assessment Update. http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/about/programs/hnri/index.shtml

Healy, Evelyn and Joseph DiTomaso. Febraury 20, 2002. Yellow starthistle information, Weed 

Research and Information Center (producer). University of California. Davis, CA. Retrieved 

January 29, 2007 from http://wric.ucdavis.edu/yst/biology/yst_fact_sheet.html

Hebert, P.N. and R.T. Golightly. 2003. Breeding biology, and human-caused disturbance to 

nesting of marbled murrelets (Brachyramphus marmoratus) in Northern California: progress 

report 2002. Unpublished draft report. Department of Wildlife, Humboldt State University. 

Arcata, CA.

Heckman, Charles W. 1999. The encroachment of exotic herbaceous plants into the Olympic 

National Forest. Northwest Science 73(4): 264-276. [36188]
887

References

Herter, D.R. and L.L. Hicks. 2000. Barred owl and spotted owl populations and habitat in the 

central Cascade Range of Washington. Journal of Raptor Research 34(4): 279-286.

Hessburg, Agee, and Franklin. 2005. Dry forests, & Wildland Fires of the Inland Northwest USA: 

Contrasting the landscape ecology of the pre-settlement and modern eras

Hibbs, D.E. and A.L. Bower. 2001. Riparian forests in the Oregon Coast Range. Forest Ecology 

and Management 154: 201-213.

Hicks, B. J., J. D. Hall, P. A. Bisson and J. R. Sedell. 1991. Responses of salmonids to habitat 

changes. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19:483-518.

Hickman, J., editor. 1993. The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California. University of 

California Press. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA.

Hitchcock, C.L. and A. Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington 

Press. Seattle, WA.

Hogan, C. 1991. Snowy plover and human activities at Damon Point, Washington, May 1 to June 

10, 1991. 10 pp. Unpublished report to the Washington Department of Wildlife. Olympia, WA. 

Holaday, S. 1992. Summertime water temperature trends in Steamboat Creek Basin, Umpqua 

National Forest. MS thesis. Oregon State University. Corvallis, OR.

Holloran, M.J. and S.H. Anderson. 2005. Spatial distribution of greater sage-grouse nests in 

relatively contiguous sagebrush habitats. The Condor 104:742-752.

Hoshovsky, Marc. 1986. Element Stewardship Abstract for Cystisus scoparius and Genista 

monspessulamus: Scotch broom and French broom. The Nature Conservancy. 1815 North Lynn 

Street, Arlington, VA. 22209. http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu/esadocs/documnts/cytisco.rtf

Houston, R.A. 1997. Bedrock Geology of Bacona 7.5 Min. Quadrangle, Columbia County, 

Oregon, Senior Thesis. 36 pp. Unpublished. Advising Professor Dr. Alan Niem. Department of 

Geosciences, Oregon State University. Corvallis, OR.

Houston, R. 14 December 2005. Personal Communications with Bob Houston, PetroleumGeothermal Geologist, Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries. Interagency Tour 

of Drill Sites, Coos Bay, OR. 

Houston, R. February 2007. Personal Communications with Bob Houston, Petroleum-Geothermal 

Geologist, Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries. 

Huff, M. 1995. Historical and current forest landscapes in eastern Oregon and Washington part ii: 

linking vegetation characteristics to potential fire behavior and related smoke production. General 

Technical Report PNW-GTR-355. Pacific Northwest Research Station, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service,. Portland, OR

Huff, M., P. Jodice, J. Baldwin, S. Miller, R. Young, K. Ostrom, C.J. Ralph, M. Raphael, C. 

Strong and C. Thompson. 2003. Draft Marbled murrelet effectiveness monitoring northwest forest 

plan 2002 annual summary report. 29pp.
888

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Huff, M.H., M.G. Raphael, S.L. Miller, S.K. Nelson and J. Baldwin (technical coordinators). 

2006. Northwest Forest Plan - The first 10 years (1994-2003): status and trends of populations 

and nesting habitat for the marbled murrelet. General Technical report PNW-GTR-650. Pacific 

Northwest Research Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. Portland, OR.

Hutchison, Max. 1992. Vegetation management guideline: Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense (L) 

Scop.). Natural Areas Journal 12(3): 160-161. [19441]

Hutto, R.L. 2006. Toward meaningful snag-management guidelines for postfire salvage logging in 

North American conifer forests. Conservation Biology 20(4): 984-993.

Hyatt ,Timothy L.and Robert J. Naiman . February 2001. The Residence Time of Large Woody 

Debris in the Queets River, Washington, USA. Ecological Applications, Vol. 11, No. 1: 191-202.

Ice, G. 1978. Reaeration in a turbulent stream system. 174 pp. PhD thesis. Department of Forest 

Engineering, Oregon State University. 

Ice, G. 1985. Catalog of landslide inventories for the northwest. 78 pp. Technical Bulletin Number 

456, National Council of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream Improvement. New York, NY. 

Ice, G.G., D.G. Neary, and P.W. Adams. 2004. Effects of wildfire on soils and watershed 

processes. Journal of Forestry 102(6): 16-20.

Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team (IMST). 1999. Recovery of Wild Salmonids in 

Western Oregon Forests: Oregon Forest Practices Act Rules and the Measures in the Oregon 

Plan for Salmon and Watersheds. Technical Report 1999-1 to the Oregon Plan for Salmon and 

Watersheds. Governor’s Natural Resources Office. Salem, OR.

Isaacs, F.B. and R.G. Anthony. 2005. Bald eagle nest location and history of use in Oregon and 

the Washington portion of the Columbia River Recovery Zone, 1971 through 2005. Oregon 

Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Oregon State University. Corvallis, OR.

Isaacs, F.B. and R.G. Anthony. 2007. Bald eagle nest locations and history of use in Oregon 

and the Washington portion of the Columbia River recovery zone, 1971 through 2006. Oregon 

Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR

Jensen, Mark E. 1991. Ecological classification and cumulative soil effects. In: Proceedings-

-management and productivity of western-montane forest soils. Harvey, Alan E. and Leon F. 

Neuenschwander, compilers. 1990. April 10-12; Boise, ID. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-280. 218-223. 

[15985]. Intermountain Research Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. 

Ogden, UT.

Johnson, D.H. and T.A. O’Neil. 2001. Wildlife-habitat Relationships in Oregon and Washington. 

Oregon State University Press. Corvallis, OR.

Johnston, A. 2002. Northern spotted owl survey and monitor report. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, National Park Service, Crater Lake National Park. Crater Lake, OR.
889

References

Johnson, Randy and David Marshall. 18 January 2005 (unpublished). Modeling genetic gain 

in established Douglas-fir plantations. Pacific Northwest Research Station, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, U.S. Forest service. Corvallis, OR. 

Jones, J. and G. Grant. 1996. Peak Flow Responses to Clear-Cutting and Roads in Small and 

Large Basins, Western Cascades, Oregon. Water Resources Research, 32(4):959-974.

Jones, J.A., F.J. Swanson, B.C. Wemple and K.U. Snyder. 2000. Effects of roads on hydrology, 

geomorphology, and disturbance patches in stream networks. Conservation Biology 14(1):76-85.

Jules, E.S. 1998. Habitat fragmentation and demographic change for a common plant: trillium in 

old-growth forest. Ecology 79(5):1645-1656.

Jull, Mike. 2001. Wind damage and related risk factors for interior Douglas-fir leave trees in 

Central B.C. In: Windthrow assessment and management in British Columbia; Proceedings of the 

windthrow researchers workshop in Richmond, British Columbia, Canada. January 31-February 

1, 2001. Compiled by S.J. Mitchell and J. Rodney.

Kadrmas, Tina and W. Johnson. 2002. Managing Dyer’s Woad. Fact sheet FS-02-097, University 

of Nevada Cooperative Extension.

Kanaskie, A., M. McWilliams, K. Sprengel and D. Overhulser. 2005. Swiss needle cast aerial 

surveys, 1996 to 2005. In Swiss Needle Cast Cooperative: Annual Report 2005. pp. 9-11 Oregon 

State University. Corvallis, Oregon. http://www.cof.orst.edu/coops/sncc/sncc05.pdf

Kanaskie, A., E. Goheen, N. Osterbauer, E. Hansen, M. McWilliams and B. Woosley. 2006. 

Phytophthora ramorum in Oregon forests. Spring 2006 Meeting of the California Oak Mortality 

Task Force: Phytophthora ramorum - A Management and Research Update. Carmel, CA. http://

nature.berkeley.edu/comtf/html/2006_meeting_agenda.html

Karraker, N.E., and H.H. Welsh, Jr. 2006. Long-term impacts of even-aged timber management 

on abundance and body condition of terrestrial amphibians in northwestern California. Biological 

Conservation 131(2006):132-140

Karr, J.R., J.J. Rhodes, G.W. Minshall, F.R. Hauer, R.L. Beschta, C.A.Frissell and D.A. Perry. 

2004. The effects of postfire salvage logging on aquatic ecosystems in the American west. 

BioScience 54: 1029-1033.

Kaye, T. and M. Kirkland. 1994. Population biology of Lomatium bradshawii. Unpublished report 

for the Eugene District, Bureau of Land Management and the Oregon Department of Agriculture. 

Eugene, OR.

Kaye, T.N., R.J. Meinke, J. Kagan, S. Vrilakas, K.L. Chambers, P.F. Zika and J.K. Nelson. 

1997. Patterns of rarity in the Oregon flora: implications for conservation and management. In: 

Conservation and management of native plants and fungi. Kaye, T.N., A. Liston, R.M. Love, D. 

Luoma, R.J. Meinke, and M.V. Wilson, editors. Native Plant Society of Oregon. Corvallis, OR.

Kaye, T. 2002. Lomatium cookii, Population monitoring in the Illinois Valley, Josephine County, 

Oregon. Annual progress report prepared for the Medford Bureau of Land Management on long 

term monitoring. Bureau of Land Management, Medford, Oregon.
890

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Kaye, Thomas, 2003. Invasive Plant Alert: False-brome (Brachypodium sylvaticum). False-brome 

Working Group. Institute For Applied Ecology. Retrieved January 25, 2007 from: http://www.

appliedeco.org/Reports/BRSYbrochureSmall.PDF

Kaye, T. and Thorpe, A. 2006. Lupinus sulphureous ssp. kincaidii (Kincaid’s lupine) and Icaricia 

icarioides fenderi (Fender’s blue butterfly) in the Eugene Wetlands: Population monitoring, 

reintroduction success, and an evaluation of experimental treaments. Annual Progress Report. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Eugene District. Eugene, OR.

Kaye, T. personal communication. 2007

Kellman, M. C. 1969. Plant species interrelationships in a secondary succession in coastal British 

Columbia. Syesis 2: 201-212. [6589].

Kelly, E.G., E.D. Forsman and R.G. Anthony. 2003. Are barred owls replacing spotted owls? The 

Condor 105:45-53.

Kelly, E.G. and E.D. Forsman. 2004. Recent records of hybridization between barred owls (Strix 

varia) and northern spotted owls (S. occidentalis caurina). Auk 121:806-810.

Kelly, M., D. Shaari, Q. Guo and D. Liu. 2005. Modeling risk for SOD nationwide: what are 

the effects of model choice on risk prediction? General Technical Report PSW-GTR. Pacific 

Southwest research Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. http://nature.

berkeley.edu/comtf/pdf/KellyetalSOD2-22-05.pdf

Kennedy, R.S.H. and T.A. Spies. 2005. Dynamics of hardwood patches in a conifer matrix: 54 

years of change in a forested landscape in Coastal Oregon, USA. Biological Conservation 122: 

363-374.

Keppeler, E. and R. Ziemer. 1990. Logging effects on streamflow: water yield & summer low 

flows at Caspar Creek in northwest California. Water Resources Research 26(7): 1669-1679.

King, James E. 1966. Site index curves for Douglas-fir in the Pacific Northwest. Weyerhaeuser 

Forestry Paper No. 8. Weyerhaeuser Company, Forestry Research Center. Centralia, WA.

Knighton, David. 1984. Fluvial Forms and Processes. Edward Arnold, Baltimore, Maryland.

Knorr, J. and E. Martin. 2003. Forest Plan Effectiveness monitoring. Klamath National Forest 

sensitive plant program, FY03. Unpublished Results. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest 

Service, Klamath National Forest. Yreka, CA.

Kochendorfer, J. N. and J. D. Helvey. 1984. In: Washingtion Forest Practices Board. 1997. 

Standard methodology for conducting watershed analysis, Ver. 4.0. Washington State Department 

of Natural Resources. Olympia, WA. Online: [http://www.dnr.wa.gov/forestpractices/

watershedanalysis/manual/hydrology.pdf]

Kremsater, L.L. and F.L. Bunnell. Testing responses to forest edges: the example of black-tailed 

deer. Canadian Journal of Zoology 20:2426-2435,

Kruckeberg, A.R. 1984. California serpentines: flora, vegetation, geology, soils and management 

problems. University of California publications in Botany, vol. 78. University Press. Berkeley, CA.
891

References

Lamarche, J. and F.Lettenmaier. 2001. Effects of forest roads on flood flows in the Deschutes 

River, WA. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 26:115-134.

Lank, D.B., N. Parker, E.A. Krebs and L. McFarlane-Tranquilla. 2003. Geographic distribution, 

habitat selection, and population dynamics with respect to nesting habitat characteristics of 

Marbled murrelets (Brachyramphus marmoratus). Center for Wildlife Ecology, Simon Fraser 

University. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

Landres, P.B., P. Morgan and F.J. Swanson. 1999. Overview of the use of natural variability 

concepts in managing ecological systems. Ecological Applications 9: 1179–1188.

Larson, W.E. and F.J. Pierce. 1996. Conservation and Enhancement of Soil Quality. In: The Soil 

Quality Concept. The Soil Quality Institute, editors. United States Department of Agriculture, 

Natural Resources Conservation Service. 

Lauten, D. J., K. A. Castelein, E. Seckinger and E. P. Gaines. 2006. The Distribution and 

Reproductive Success of the Western Snowy Plover Along the Oregon Coast – 2005. The Oregon 

Natural Heritage Information Center. Corvallis, OR.

Lawson, P. W., E. Bjorkstedt, M. Chilcote, C. Huntington, J. Mills, K. Moore, T. E. Nickelson, 

G. H. Reeves, H. A. Stout and T. C. Wainwright. 2004. Identification of Historical Populations 

of Coho Salmon (Onchorhynchus kisutch) in the Oregon Coast Evolutionarily Significant Unit. 

Review Draft. Oregon - Northern California Coast Technical Recovery Team. 129 p.

Lee, P., C. Smyth and S. Boutin. 2004. Quantitative review of riparian buffer width guidelines 

from Canada and the United States. Journal of Environmental Management 70:165-180.

Lemieux, Paul M., C Lutes and D.A. Santioanni. 2004. “Emissions of organic air toxics from 

open burning: a comprehensive review. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 30: 32 

Http:// www.sciencedirect.com

Lennartsson, T. 2002. Extinction Threshholds and Disrupted Plant-Pollinator Interactions in 

Fragmented Plant Populations, Ecology, 83(11),2002, pp. 3060-3072.

Leopold, L.B., M.G. Wolman and J.P Miller. 1964. Fluvial Processes in Geomorphology. W.H. 

Freeman. San Francisco, CA.

Leppig, G. and J. White. 2006. Conservation of Peripheral Plant Populations in California. 

Madrono Vol. 53, No3, pp 264-274. 

Leskiw, T. and R.J. Gutiérrez. 1998. Possible predation of a spotted owl by a barred owl. Western 

Birds 29:225–226.

Lewis, Robert A. and Robert Pierle. 1991. Adoption of an ORGANON mortality adjustment for 

green tree retention and for long rotations. Unpublished Internal Report. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, BLM, Medford District Office. Medford, OR.

Lewis, J.C. and G.E. Hayes. 2004. Feasibility assessment for reintroducing fishers to Washington. 

70 pages. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, WA. 
892

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Lindell 2006. USDI, BLM, Medford, OR. personal communication. 

Lindenmayer, D.B., D. Foster, J.F. Franklin, M. Hunter, R. Noss, F. Schiemegelow and D. Perry. 

2004. Salvage harvesting after natural disturbance. Science 303: 1303.

Lindenmayer, D.B. and R.F. Noss. 2006. Salvage logging, ecosystem processes, and biodiversity 

conservation. Conservation Biology 20(4): 949-958.

Lindsey, W. 2006. Rangeland Management Specialist, USDI Bureau of Land Management, 

Klamath Falls Resource Area. personal Ccmmunication.

Lint, J., B. Noon, R. Anthony, E. Forsman, M. Raphael, M. Collopy and E. Starkey. 1999. 

Northern spotted owl effectiveness monitoring plan for the Northwest Forest Plan. PNW-GTR440. Pacific Northwest Research Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. 

Portland, OR.

Lint, J. (technical coordinator) 2005. Northwest Forest Plan – the first 10 years (1994-2003): 

Status and trends of northern spotted owl populations and habitat. General Technical Report 

PNW-GTR-648. Pacific Northwest Research Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service. Portland, OR.

Lisle. 1981. In: Streamside Management: Forestry and Fishery Interactions. Contribution 57. 

1987. pp. 39-97. Salo, E.O and T.W. Cundy editors. University of Washington, Institute of Forest 

Resources. Seattle, WA.

Lloyd, D., J. Koenigs and J. LaPerriere. 1987. Effects of turbidity in fresh waters of Alaska. North 

American Journal of Fisheries Management. 7:18-33. 

Log Lines Log Price Reporting Service. 2006. Log Price Reports. Mount Vernon, WA.

Long, C. J., C. Whitlock, P. J. Bartlein and S. H. Millspaugh. 1998. A 9000-year fire history from 

the Oregon Coast Range, based on a high-resolution charcoal study. Canadian Journal of Forest 

Research 28: 774–787.

Luce, C. 2002. Hydrological processes and pathways affected by forest roads: what do we still 

need to learn? Hydrol. Process. 16: 2901–04.

Luginbuhl, J.M., John M. Marzluff, Jeffrey E. Bradley, Martin G. Raphael and Daniel E. Varland. 

2001. Corvid survey techniques and the relationship between corvid relative abundance and nest 

predation. Journal of Field Ornithology 72(4): 556-572.

Magnusson, Mark, U., Donald L. Wyse and Joseph M. Spitzmueller. 1987. Canada thistle 

(Cirsium arvense) propagation from stem sections. Weed Science 35: 637-639.

Maguire, D., D. Waring, K. Cromack and J. Boyle. 2000. Trends in soil and foliar nutrients across a 

range in Swiss Needle Cast severity. In: Annual Report to the Swiss Needle Cast Cooperative. pp. 

79-84. Oregon State University. Corvallis, OR. http://www.cof.orst.edu/coops/sncc/sncc00.pdf

Manley, I.A., A. Harfenist and G. Kaiser. 2001. Marbled murrelet telemetry study on Queen 

Charlotte Islands/Haida Gwaii. 24 pp. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. Smithers, 

British Columbia, Canada. 
893

References

Marshall, D.B., M.G. Hunter and A.L. Contreras. 2003. Birds of Oregon. Oregon State University 

Press. Corvallis, OR.

Marzluff, J.M. and M. Restani. 1999. The effects of forest fragmentation on rates of avian 

nest predation and parasitism. Unpublished report. College of Forest Resources, University of 

Washington. Seattle, WA. 

Maser, C. 1998. Mammals of the Pacific Northwest: From the Coast to the High Cascades. 

Oregon State University Press. Corvallis, OR.

Max, T. A., H. T. Schreuder, J. W. Hazard, D. D. Oswald, J. Teply and J. Alegria. 1996. The 

Pacific Northwest Region vegetation and inventory monitoring system. Research Paper PNWRP-493. 19pp. Pacific Northwest Research Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest 

Service.

May, C.L. and R.E. Gresswell. 2003. Large wood recruitment and redistribution in headwater 

streams of the Oregon Coast Range, U.S.A. Can. J. of Forest Res. 33: 1352-1362.

May, D. 14 December 2005. Personal Communications with David May, Geologist and Vice 

President, Methane Energy Corporation. Interagency Tour of Drill Sites, Coos Bay, OR. 

McComb, W.C., K. McGarigal, and R.G. Anthony. 1993. Small mammal and amphibian 

abundance in streamside and upslope habitats of mature Douglas-fir stands, western Oregon. 

Northwest Science 67(1):17-15.

McComb, W.C., M.T. McGrath, T.A. Spies and D. Vesely. 2002. Models for mapping potential 

habitat at landscape scales: an example using northern spotted owls. Forest Science 48(2): 203-216.

McCullough, D.R. 1960. An ecological study of the Columbian black-tailed deer in a logged 

environment. M.S. Thesis. 63pp. Oregon State College. Corvallis, OR. 

McCune B. and L. Geiser. 1997. Macrolichens of the Pacific Northwest. 386 pp. Oregon State 

University Press. Corvallis, OR. 

McDade, M.H. 1987. Source area of coarse woody debris in small streams in western Oregon and 

Washington. M.S. thesis. Oregon State University. Corvallis OR.

McDade, M.H.; F.J. Swanson, W.A. McKee, J.F Franklin and J. Van Sickle. 1990. Source 

distances for coarse woody debris entering small streams in western Oregon and Washington. 

Canadian Journal of Forest Research 20: 326-330.

McDonald, Philip M. 1976. Shelterwood cutting in a young-growth, mixed-conifer stand in north 

central California. Research Paper PSW-117. Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experimental 

Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. Berkeley, CA.

McGarigal, K. and B.J. Marks. 1995. FRAGSTATS: spatial pattern analysis program for 

quantifying landscape structure. General Technical Report PNW-351. Pacific Northwest Research 

station, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. http://www.umass.edu/landeco/

research/fragstats/fragstats.html
894

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

McIver, J. D. and L. Starr, technical editors. 2000. Environmental effects of postfire logging: 

literature review and annotated bibliography. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-486. Pacific 

Northwest Research Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. Portland, OR.

McLain, Rebecca J. and Eric T. Jones. 2005. Nontimber forest products management on 

national forests in the United States. PNW-GTR-655. Pacific Northwest Research Station, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. Portland, OR. http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/

pubs/21091

McLendon, Terry. 1992. Factors controlling the distribution of Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) 

in montane ecosystems: Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado. Annual Report: NPS Contract 

Number CA 1268-1-9002; Reporting period 17 April 1991 - 30 April 1992. 36 pp. Unpublished 

report on file with: Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. Missoula, MT. 

McShane, C., T. Hamer, H.Carter, G. Swartzman, V. Friesen, D. Ainley, R. Tressler, k. Nelson, A. 

Burger, L. Spear, T. Mohagen, R. Martin, L. Henkel, K. Prindle, C. Strong and J. Keany. 2004. 

Evaluation report for the 5-year status review of the marbled murrelet in Washington, Oregon, 

and California. Unpublished report, EDAW, Inc. Seattle, WA. Prepared for the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Region 1. Portland, OR.

Meehan, William R. 1991. Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management on Salmonid Fishes 

and Their Habitats. United States Department of Agriculture. American Fisheries Society Special 

Publication 19. Bethesda, MD. 

Megahan, W. and W. Kidd. 1972. Effects of logging and logging roads on erosion and sediment 

deposition from steep terrain. Journal of Forestry 70:136-141.

Megahan W. 1972. Subsurface road interception by a logging road in mountains of central Idaho. 

In: Watersheds in Transition: [350-356]. S. C. Csallany, T. G. McLaughlin and W. D. Striffler, 

editors. Colorado State University. Fort Collins, CO.

Megahan W. and D. Molitor. 1975. Erosional effects of wildfire and logging in Idaho. In: 

Watershed Management Symposium; 1975 August. Logan, UT: American Society of Civil 

Engineers Irrigation and Drainage Division: 423- 444.

Megahan, W., J.Ptoyondy and K. Seyedbagheri. 1992. Best management practices and cumulative 

effects from sedimentation in the South Fork Salmon River: an Idaho case study. In: Watershed 

Management: Balancing Sustainability and Environmental Change. [401-414]. R.J. Naiman, 

editor. Springer-Verlag. New York, NY.

Meier, Gretchen, and T. Weaver. 1997. Desirables and weeds for roadside management – a 

northern Rocky Mountain catalogue. Report No. RH WA/MT-97-8115. Final Report: July 1994 

– December 1997. 145 p. [29135]. State of Montana Department of Transportation, Research, 

Development, and Technology Transfer program. Helena, MT.

Meleason, M. A., S. V. Gregory and J. Bolte. 2002. Simulation of stream wood source distance 

for small streams in the western Cascades, Oregon. General Technical Report PSW-GTR-181. 

Pacific Southwest Research Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service.
895

References

Menges E., 2000. Population viability Analyses in Plants: Challenges and Opportunities.Tree 

vol.15, no. 2 Feb. 2000.

Menke, C. and Kaye, T. 2006. Population Monitoring and Effects of Grazing on Calochortus 

greenei on the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument. Annual Progress Report. Bureau of Land 

Management, Medford District. Medford, OR.

Methane Energy Corporation. 14 December 2005. Interagency Tour of Drill Sites, Coos Bay, OR.

Meyer, C.B., S.L. Miller, and C.J. Ralph. 2002. Multi-scale landscape and seascape patterns 

associated with marbled murrelet nesting areas on the U.S. west coast. Landscape Ecology 

17:95-115.

Meyer, J.M. March 2007. Personal Communications with Jack Meyer, Geologist, Northwest 

Natural Company.

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. 28 December 2001. Land and Water 

Management Division, Hydrologic Studies Unit.

Miles, Patrick D. 14 July 2006. Forest inventory mapmaker web-application version 2.1. North 

Central Research Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. St. Paul, MN. 

[Available only on internet: www.ncrs2.fs.fed.us/4801/fiadb/index.htm]

Millar, C.I. and W.B. Woolfenden. 1999. The role of climate change in interpreting historical 

variability. Ecological Applications 9:1207–1216.

Miller, G.S., R.J. Small and E.C. Meslow. 1997. Habitat selection by spotted owls during natal 

dispersal in western Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management 61(1):140-150.

Miller, R.E., W.I. Stein, R.L. Heninger, W. Scott, S.N. Little, and D.J. Goheen. 1989. Maintaining 

and Improving Site Productivity in the Douglas-Fir Region. In: Proceedings of a symposium, 

Maintaining the Long-Term Productivity of Pacific Northwest Forest Ecosystems. March, 1987. 

Perry, D.A. and others, editors.

Miller, R.E., W. Scott, and J.W. Hazard. 1996. Soil Compaction and conifer growth after tractor 

yarding at three coastal Washington locations. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 26: 225-236.

Miller, R.F., and R.J. Tausch. 2001. The role of fire in juniper and pinyon woodlands: a 

descriptive analysis. pp. 15-30. in: Proceedings invasive species workshop: the role of fire in the 

control and spread of invasive species. Galley, K.E.M. and T.P. Wilson (editors). Miscellaneous 

Publication 11. Tall Timbers Research Station, Tallahassee, FL.

Miller, D. 2003. Programs for DEM analysis. Landscape dynamics and forest management. 

General Technical Report RMRSGTR-101CD [CD-ROM]. Rocky Mountain research Station, 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. Fort Collins,CO.

Miller, D. and L. Benda. 2005. Terrain resource inventory and analysis database: Landscape 

analysis tools for watershed scientists and planners. Earth Systems Institute, Ver. 1.1. Seattle, WA. 

Miller, D.J. and K.M. Burnett. 2007. A probabilistic model of debris-flow delivery to stream 

channels, demonstrated for the Coast Range of Oregon, USA, Geomorphology
896

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Moeur, M., T.A. Spies, M. Hemstorm, J.R. Martin, J. Alegriaa, J. Browning, J. Cissel, W.B. 

Cohen, T.E. Demeo, S. Healey and R. Warbington. 2005. Northwest Forest Plan - The first 10 

years (1994-2003): status and trend of late-successional and old-growth forest. General Technical 

Report PNW-GTR-646. Pacific Northwest Research Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

U.S. Forest Service. Portland, OR.

Montgomery, D. R., J. M. Buffington, R. D. Smith, K. M. Schmidt and G. Pess. 1995. Pool 

spacing in forest channels. Water Resources Research 31:1097-1105.

Montgomery, D. and J. Buffington. 1997. Channel reach morphology in mountain drainage 

basins. Geological Society of America Bulletin 109: 596-611. From: Stillwater Sciences/NCASI.

Montgomery, D. R., B.D. Collins, T.B. Abbe and J.M. Buffington. 2003. Geomorphic effects 

of wood in rivers, In: The Ecology and Management of Wood in World Rivers, edited by S. 

V. Gregory, K. L. Boyer, and A. Gurnell. American Fisheries Society Symposium 37, [21-47]. 

Bethesda, MD.

Morken, I. and R. Ziemer. 1998. Publications related to Caspar Creek. In: Proceedings of the 

conference on coastal watersheds: the Caspar Creek story, 6 May 1998; Ukiah, California. Robert 

R. Ziemer, technical coordinator. General Technical Report PSW GTR-168. [137-149]. Pacific 

Southwest Research Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. Arcata, CA.

Muir, P.S., R.L. Mattingly, J.C. Tappeiner II, J.D. Bailey, W.E. Elliott, J.C. Hagar, J.C. Miller, 

E.B. Peterson and E.E. Starkey. 2002. Managing for biodiversity in young Douglas-fir forests of 

western Oregon. Biological Science Report USGS/BRD/BSR-2002-006. 76 pp. U.S. Geological 

Survey, Biological Resources Division, 

Muir, Patricia S. 2004. An Assessment of Commercial “Moss” Harvesting from Forested Lands 

in the Pacific Northwestern and Appalachian Regions of the United States: How Much Moss is 

Harvested and Sold Domestically and Internationally and Which Species are Involved? 80 pp. 

Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Oregon State University. Corvallis, OR, 

Murphy, M.L., et al. 1986. “Effects of clear-cut logging with and without buffer strips on juvenile 

salmonids in Alaskan streams.” Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 43:1521-

1533.

Murphy M.L. and K.V. Koski. 1989. Input and Depletion of Woody Debris in Alaska Streams 

and Implications for Streamside Management. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 

9:427-436. 

Myers, J. M., C. Busack, D. Rawding and A. Marshall. 10 May 2002. Identifying historical 

populations of Chinook and chum salmon and steelhead within the Lower Columbia River and 

Upper Willamette River evolutionarily significant units. Draft report to the comanagers from 

the Willamette/Lower Columbia River Technical Recovery Team, Northwest Fisheries Science 

Center, 2725 Montlake Blvd. E., Seattle, WA 98112.
897

References

Naiman, R.J., T.J Beechie, L.E. Benda, D.R. Berg, P.A. Bisson, L.H. McDonald, M.D. O’Conner, 

P.A. Olson and E.A. Steel. 1992. Fundamentals of ecologically healthy watersheds in the Pacific 

Northwest coastal region. In: Watershed management: balancing sustainability and environmental 

change, pp. 127-188. Naiman, R.J., editor. Springer-Verlag. New York, NY

Naiman, R.J and R.E. Bilby, editors. 1998. River Ecology and Management: Lessons From the 

Pacific Coastal Ecoregion. Springer-Verlag. New York, NY. 

Naiman, Robert J., C.A. Johnston and J.C. Kelley. December 1998. Alterations of North 

American Stream by Beaver: How Animals Shape Their Ecosystems. BioScience. Vol. 38, No. 11, 

pp. 753-762.

Naiman R.J., R.E. Bilby and P.A. Bisson. 2000. Riparian ecology and management in the Pacific 

Coastal rain forest. BioScience 50:996–1011.

National Wildfire Coordination Group. 2001. Smoke Management Guide for Prescribed 

and Wildland Fire” PMS 420-2. National Wildfire Coordinating Group, National 

Interagency Fire Center

NatureServe. 2006. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. 

Version 4.7. NatureServe. Arlington, VA. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. 

(Accessed: July 12, 2006 ).

Naugle, D. E., C. L. Aldridge, B. L. Walker, T. E. Cornish, B. J. Moynahan, M. J. Holloran, 

K. Brown, G. D. Johnson, E. T. Schmidtmann, R. T. Mayer, C. Y. Kato, M. R. Matchett, T. J. 

Christiansen, W. E. Cook, T. Creekmore, R. D. Falise, E. T. Rinkes, and M. S. Boyce. 2004. West 

Nile virus: pending crisis for greater sage-grouse. Ecology Letters 7: 704-713.

Neary, D.G., K.C. Ryan, and L.F. DeBano, editors. 2005. Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects 

of fire on soils and water. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-42-vol.4. Rocky Mountain 

Research Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. Ogden, UT: 

Neiland, Bonita J. 1958. Forest and adjacent burn in the Tillamook Burn area of northwestern 

Oregon. Ecology 39(4): 660-671.

Nelson, S.K., M.H. Huff, S.L. Miller and M.G. Raphael. 2006. Marbled murrelet biology: habitat 

relations and populations. Chapter 2 in Huff, M.H., M.G. Raphael, S.L. Miller, S.K. Nelson, and 

J. Baldwin (technical coordinators). Northwest Forest Plan---The first 10 years (1994-2003): 

status and trends of populations and nesting habitat for the marbled murrelet. General Technical 

Report PNW-GTR-650. Pacific Northwest Research Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

U.S. Forest Service. Portland, OR.

Newton, V.C. Jr. and R.E. Stewart. 1965. Oil and Gas Exploration in Oregon: State of Oregon 

Department of Geology and Mineral Industries. Miscellaneous Paper 6, 32p. and maps.

Newton, V.C. Jr. 1969. Subsurface Geology of the Lower Columbia and Willamette Basins, 

Oregon: State of Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Oil and Gas 

Investigations No. 2, 121pp. Cross-sections and Maps. 
898

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Newton, V. C. Jr. 1980. Prospects for Oil and Gas in the Coos Basin, Western Coos, Douglas, and 

Lane Counties, Oregon: Oil and Gas Investigation Number 6. 74pp. State of Oregon Department 

of Geology and Mineral Industries.

Nickelson, T. E., J.W. Nicholas, A.M. McGie, R.B. Lindsay, D.L. Bottom, R.J. Kaiser and S.E. 

Jacobs. 1992. Status of anadromous salmonids in the Oregon coastal basins. 83pp. Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife. Portland, OR.

Nickelson, Thomas E. 2001. Population Assessment: Oregon Coast Coho Salmon ESU. Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife Information Report 2001-02. 47 pp. Northwest Region Research 

and Monitoring Program. 

Niem, A.R. W.A. Niem, M.W. Martin, M.M. Kadri and D.R. McKeel. 1985. Correlation of 

Exploration Wells, Astoria Basin, Oregon: State of Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral 

Industries Oil and Gas Investigations No. 14, 8p. and Maps.

Niem, A.R. and W.A. Niem. 1990. Geology and Oil, Gas, and Coal Resources, Southern Tyee 

Basin, Southern Coast Range, Oregon. Open-File Report O-89-3. 44 pp. State of Oregon 

Department of Geology and Mineral Industries. 

Nierenberg, T. and D. Hibbs. 2000. A characterization of unmanaged riparian areas in the central 

Coast Range of western Oregon. Forest Ecology and Management 129(2000): 195-206.

Noggle, C. C. (1978). Behavioral, physiological and lethal effects of suspended sediment on 

juvenile salmonids. Zoology. University of Washington. Seattle, WA. 

Nonaka, E. and T.A.Spies. 2005. Historical range of variability in landscape structure: a 

simulations study in Oregon, USA. Ecological Applications 15(5): 1727-1746.

Norris, D. and J. Shevock. 2004a. Contributions Toward a Bryoflora of California: I. A SpecimenBased Catalogue of Mosses. Madrono, Volume 51, No. 1, pp. 1-131. 

Norris, D. and J. Shevock. 2004b. Contributions Toward a Bryoflora of California: I. A SpecimenBased Catalogue of Mosses. Madrono, Volume 52, No. 2 pp. 133-269. 

Noss, Reed F., Jerry Franklin, William Baker, Tania Schoennagel and Peter B. Moyle. February 

2006. Ecological Science Relevant to Management Policies for Fire-Prone Forests of the Western 

United States. Society for Conservation Biology Scientific panel on Fire in Western U.S. Forests.

Nuzzo, Victoria. (2000). Element stewardship abstract: Cirsium arvense. In: Weeds on the web: 

The Nature Conservancy wildland invasive species program. Retrieved September 2006 from 

http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu/esadocs/cirsarve.html [2001, July 01].

Ohmann, J.L., M.J. Gregory and T.A. Spies. 2007. Influence of environment, disturbance, and 

ownership on forest vegetation of coastal Oregon. Ecological Applications 17:18–33.

Olmstead, D.L. and M.P. Alger. 1985. Mist Gas Field: Exploration and Development 1979-1984: 

Oil and Gas Investigation 10, 36pp. Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries. 
899

References

Olmstead, D.L., V.C. Newton Jr. and R.E. Stewart. 1989. Hydrocarbon Exploration and 

Occurrences in Oregon: Oil and Gas Investigation 15, 74 pp. Oregon Department of Geology and 

Mineral Industries. 

Olson, D.H., J.C. Hagar, A.B. Carey, J.H. Cissel and F.J. Swanson. 2001. Wildlife of Westside 

and High Montane Forests. pp. 187-212. In: Wildlife-habitat Relationships in Oregon and 

Washington, Johnson, D.H. and T.A. O’Neil (managing directors). Oregon State University Press. 

Corvallis, OR.

Olson, G.S., E.M. Glenn, R.G. Anthony, E.D. Forsman, J.A. Reid, P.J. Loschl and W.J. Ripple. 

2004. Modeling demographic performance of northern spotted owls relative to forest habitat in 

Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management 68(4):1039-1053. 

Olson, G.S., R.G. Anthony, E.D. Forsman, S.H. Ackers, P.J. Loschl, J.A. Reid, K.M Dugger, E.M. 

Glenn and W.J. Ripple. 2005. Modeling of site occupancy dynamics for northern spotted owls, 

with emphasis on the effects of barred owls. Journal of Wildlife Management 69(3):918-932.

Oregon Department of Agriculture. 2001. Reintroduction of the Red Root Yampah (Perideridia 

erythrorhiza). Final Report to the BLM: Roseburg, Medford, and Lakeview Districts, Klamath 

Resource Area and Winema National Forest. 41 pp.

Oregon Department of Agriculture, Noxious Weed Control, French broom. Retrieved 1/26/2007. 

http://egov.oregon.gov/ODA/PLANT/WEEDS/profile_frenchbroom.shtml

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ). 2004a. Web page for temperature limited 

water-bodies in Oregon. www.deq.state.ok.us/WQDnew/305b_303d/

ODEQ. 2004b. Water Quality Assessment. Section 305(b) Report.

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. 2006. Water quality assessment- Oregon’s 

2004/2006 integrated report database. [Online: http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/assessment/rpt0406/

search.asp]

Oregon Department of Forestry. 1999. Storm impacts and landslides of 1996: Final report. Forest 

technical report No.4.

Oregon Department of Forestry. 2005. Swiss needle cast and the H [harvest] & H [habitat] Model 

(Draft 3/3/05). Unpublished Internal Report. 

Oregon Department of Forestry. 2006. 2005 Timber harvest reports. November 2006. http://egov.

oregon.gov/ODF/STATE_FORESTS/FRP/2005MENU.shtml#Harvest_Data

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 2003a. Oregon’s Mule Deer Management 

Plan. Portland, OR.

ODFW. 2003b. Oregon’s Elk Management Plan. Portland, OR.

ODFW. 2005a. Oregon Conservation Strategy. Salem OR.
900

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

ODFW. 2005b. The Importance of Beaver (Castor Canadensis) to Coho Habitat and Trend in 

Beaver Abundance in the Oregon Coast Coho ESU. ODFW (7) Beaver Final Report Part 4.

ODFW. 2006. Oregon Conservation Strategy. Salem, OR. 

Oregon Employment Department. Oregon Labor Market Information System (OLMIS) http://

www.olmis.org/olmisj/OlmisZine

Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries. 1985. Oregon Administrative 

Regulations (OAR): http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/rules/OARS_600/OAR_632/632_010.html; 

accessed March 2007.

Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries. 1999. Oregon Administrative 

Regulations (OAR): http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/rules/OARS_600/OAR_632/632_010.html; 

accessed March 2007.

Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries. 2003. Mist Gas Field Production Figures 

2002 and Mist Gas Field Map 2003: Open-File Report O-03-01, Tables and Maps.

Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries. 7 February 2006, Unpublished, Oil and 

Gas Program and Geothermal Program Draft Report Submitted to Governing Board. 14pp.

Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries. 2007. Mist Gas Field Production, 2006. 

http://www.oregongeology.com/sub/oil/MistProduction2006.xls

Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries: 2007. Mist Gas Field Production, 2006 

and Historic. http://www.oregongeology.com/sub/oil/oilhome.htm

Oregon Natural Heritage Information Center. 2004. Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species of 

Oregon. 105 pp. Portland, OR. 

Oregon Natural Heritage Information Center. Sept. 2006. Database. Portland, OR.

Oregon Parks and Recreation Department (OPRD). 2003. Oregon Statewide Comprehensive 

Outdoor Recreation Plan, 2003-2007.

OPRD. 2004. Draft Habitat Conservation Plan for the Western Snowy Plover. Salem, OR.

Oregon State University. 2000 Online: http://www.ocs.orst.edu/pub/maps/Precipitation/Total/

States/OR/or.gif]

Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB). 1999. Oregon watershed assessment manual. 

Available from Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board, 775 Summer St. NE, Suite 360, Salem, 

OR. 97301.

Orr, E.L. and W.N. Orr. 2000. Geology of Oregon, 5th Edition: 254 pp. Kendall/Hunt 

Publishing Company.

Outcalt, Kenneth Wayne and Edwin H. White. 1981. Phytosociological changes in understory 

vegetation following timber harvest in northern Minnesota. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 

11: 175-183.
901

References

Packer, P. 1967. Criteria for designing and locating logging roads to control sediment. Forest 

Science 13(1): 1-18.

Page, G.W., J.S. Warriner, J.C. Warriner and P.W.C. Paton. 1995. Snowy Plover (Charadrius

alexandrinus). In The Birds of North America, No. 154 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of 

Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C.

Pappajohn, S. 27 August 2002. Personal Communication with Steven Pappajohn, Principal of 

Geo Trends-Hampton International, Incorporated. Interagency Meeting. Salem, OR.

Pappajohn, S. 14 December 2005. Personal Communication with Steve Pappajohn, President and 

Director of Methane Energy Corporation, Director of Cascadia Energy Corporation. Interagency 

Tour of Drill Sites. December 14, 2005. Coos Bay, OR.

Pappajohn, S. 21 March 2007. Personal Communication with Steve Pappajohn, President and 

Director of Methane Energy Corporation, Director of Cascadia Energy Corporation.

Parendes, Laurie A. and Julia A. Jones. 2000. Role of light availability and dispersal in exotic 

plant invasion along roads and streams in the H. J. Andrews Experimental Forest, Oregon. 

Conservation Biology. 14(1): 64-75.

Park, C.S. 1993. SHADOW stream temperature management program. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region.

Park, C.S. 2005. Personnel communication with Dan Carpenter.

Pashley, D.N., C.J. Beardmore, J.A. Fitzgerald, R.P. Ford, W.C. Hunter, M.S. Morrison and 

K.V. Rosenberg. 2000. Partners in Flight Conservation of the Land Birds of the United States. 

American Bird Conservancy. The Plains, VA.

Pearson, R.R. and K.B. Livezey. 2003. Distribution, numbers, and site characteristics of spotted 

owls and barred owls in the Cascade Mountains of Washington. Journal of Raptor Research 

37(4):265-276.

Peck, M.E. 1941. A manual of the higher plants of Oregon. Binfords and Mort, Portland, OR. 

Illustrated Flora of the Pacific States, Abrams,1960

Peery, M.Z., S.R. Beissinger, B.H. Becker and S.H. Newman. 2002. Marbled murrelet 

(Brachyramphus marmoratus) demography in Central California: 2001 Progress Report. Prepared 

for the California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and California 

State Parks.

Peery, M.Z., S.R. Beissinger, S.H. Newman, E.B. Burkett and T.D. Williams. 2004 Applying the 

declining population paradigm: diagnosing causes of poor reproduction in the marbled murrelet. 

Conservation Biology 18(4):1088-1098.

Pellant, M., P. Shaver, D.A. Pyke and J.E. Herrick. 2005. Technical Ref. 1734-6 (Version 4). 

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health. USDI, BLM

Perakis, S.S., D.A. Maguire, T.D. Bullen, K. Cromack, R.H. Waring and J.R. Boyle. 2006. Coupled 

Nitrogen and Calcium Cycles in Forests of the Oregon Coast Range. Ecosystems 9: 63-74.
902

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Perry, D.A. 1998. The scientific basis of forestry. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 

29:435-466.

Peterson, D.L., M.C. Johnson, J.K. Agee, T.B. Jain. D. McKenzie and E Reinhardt. 2005. 

“Forest Structure and Fire Hazard in Dry Forests of the Western United States” General 

Technical Report PNW-GTR-628. Pacific Northwest Research Station, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. 

Petzet, A. 22 January 2007. Special Report: Water Issues Overshadow Powder River Coal Gas 

Play. Oil and Gas Journal Online, Volume 105, Issue 4. http://www.ogj.com/currentissue/index.

cfm?p=7&v=105&i=4 

Pilz, D., R. Molina and J. Mayo. 2006. Effects of Thinning Young Forests on Chanterelle 

Mushroom Production. Journal of Forestry.

Poage, N.J. unpublished. BLM Western Oregon Late-Successional and Old-Growth Conifer Data 

(1983 - 1991). On file at Eugene District, BLM. Eugene, OR.

Poage, N.J. 2000. Structure and development of old-growth Douglas-fir in central western 

Oregon. Ph.D. dissertation. 164 pp. Oregon State University. Corvallis, OR. 

Poage, N.J. and J.C. Tappeiner. 2002. Long-term patterns of diameter and basal area growth of 

old-growth Douglas-fir trees in western Oregon. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 32 (7): 

1232-1243.

Poggi, D., A. Porporato, L. Ridolfi, J. Albertson and G. Katul. 2004. The effect of vegetation 

density on canopy sub-layer turbulence. Boundary-Layer Meteorology 111: 565-587

Pollock, M.M., M. Heim and R.J. Naiman. 2003. Hydrologic and geomorphic effects of beaver 

dams and their influence on fishes. pp. 213-234. In: The ecology and management of wood 

in world rivers. Gregory, S.V., K. Boyer, and A. Gurnell, editors. American Fisheries Society, 

Bethesda, MD.

Poole, A. and F. Gill, editors. 2002. The Birds of North America. Nos. 1-716. Philadelphia, PA

Powell, R.A. and W. J. Zielinski. 1994. The Scientific Basis for Conserving Forest Carnivores: 

American Marten, Fisher, Lynx, and Wolverine in the Western United States (Chapter 3 Fisher). 

General Technical Report GTR RM-254. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. 

Proctor, Bernadette D. and Joseph Dalaker. 2002. Current Population Reports, P60-219, Poverty 

in the United States: 2001. U.S. Census Bureau.

Ralph, C.J. and S.L. Miller. 1995. Offshore population estimates of marbled murrelets in California. 

pp. 353-360. In: Ecology and Conservation of the Marbled murrelet. Ralph, C.J., G.L. Hunt, Jr., 

M. G. Raphael, and J.F. Piatt, editors. General Technical Report PSW-GTR-152. Pacific Southwest 

Experimental Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. Albany, CA.
903

References

Ralph, C.J., G.L. Hunt, Jr., M.G. Raphael and J.F. Piatt. 1995. Ecology and conservation of the 

marbled murrelet in North America: an overview. pp. 3-22. In: Ecology and conservation of the 

marbled murrelet. General Technical Report PSW-GTR-152. Pacific Southwest Experimental 

Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. Albany, CA.

Raphael, M.G., D.E. Mack and B.A. Cooper. 2002. Landscape-scale relationships between 

abundance of marbled murrelets and distribution of nesting habitat. Condor 104(2), 331-342.

Raphael, M.G., D.E. Mack, J.M. Marzluff, and J.M Luginbuhl. 2002b. Effects of forests 

fragmentation on populations of the marbled murrelet. Studies in Avian Biology 25:221-235.

Raphael, M.G., B.M. Galleher, J.H. Huff, S.L. Miller, S.K. Nelson and R.D. Young. 2006. 

Chapter 5: Spatially explicit estimates of potential nesting habitat for the marbled murrelet. In: 

Northwest Forest Plan---The first 10 years (1994-2003): status and trends of populations and 

nesting habitat for the marbled murrelet. Huff, M.H., M.G. Raphael, S.L. Miller, S.K. Nelson and 

J. Baldwin (technical coordinators). PNW-GTR-650. Pacific Northwest Research Station, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. Portland, OR.

Rapp, Valerie. 2004. Western Forests, Fire Risk and Climate Change, PNW Science Update, Issue 

6. Http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw

Rashin, E., C. Clishe, A. Loch and J. Bell. 2006. Effectiveness of timber harvest practices for 

controlling sediment related water quality impacts. Journal of the American Water Resources 

Association. Paper No. 01162.

Rasmussen, M.C. and W.J. Ripple. 1998. Retrospective analysis of forest landscape patterns in 

western Oregon. Natural Areas Journal 18(2): 151-163.

Rasmussen, Mark. personal communication. 25 August 2006. Notes of meeting hosted by the 

American Forest Resources Council. Eugene OR.

Reeves, G.H., F.H. Everest and J.R. Sedell. 1993. “Diversity of juvenile anadromous salmonid 

assemblages in coastal Oregon basins with different levels of timber harvest.” Transactions of the 

American Fisheries Society 122:309-317.

Reeves, G.H., L.E. Benda, K.M. Burnett, P.A. Bisson and J.R. Sedell. 1995. A DisturbanceBased Ecosystem Approach to Maintaining and Restoring Freshwater Habitats of Evolutionarily 

Significant Units of Anadromous Salmonids in the Pacific Northwest. American Fisheries Society 

Symposium 17:334-349. 

Reeves, G.H., P. A. Bisson, B.E. Rieman and L.E. Benda. 2006. Postfire logging in riparian areas. 

Conservation Biology 20(4): 994–1004.

Reid, L. M. 1981. Sediment Production from Gravel-Surfaced Forest Roads, Clearwater Basin, 

Washington. Fisheries Research Institute. College of Fisheries, University of Washington. Seattle, 

Washington. FRI-UW-8108.

Reid, Leslie M. and Thomas Dunne. 1984. Sediment production from forest road surfaces. Water 

Resources Research 20(11):1753-1761.
904

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Reiter, M. and R. Beschta. 1995. Effects of Forest Practices on Water in Cumulative Effects of 

Forest Practices in Oregon: Literature and Synthesis. 185 pp. Forest Engineering Department, 

College of Forestry, Oregon State University. Corvallis, OR. 

Ricca. M.A. 1999. Movements, Habitat Associations, and Survival of Columbian White-tailed 

deer in Western Oregon. M.S. Thesis. Oregon State University. Corvallis, OR.

Ricca, M.A., R.G. Anthony, D.H. Jackson and S.A. Wolfe. 2003. Spatial Use and Habitat 

Associations of Columbian White-tailed Deer Fawns in Southwestern Oregon. Northwest Science 

77(1):72-80.

Rich, T.D., C.J. Beardmore, H. Berlanga, and P.J. Blancher. 2004. Partners in Flight North 

American Landbird Conservation Plan. Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Ithaca, NY.

Richardson, H.W. 1972. Input-output and regional economics. John Wiley and Sons: New York, NY.

Ripple, W.J., K.T. Hershey and R. Anthony. 2000. Historical Forest Patterns of the Central 

Oregon Coast Range. Biological Conservation 93:127-133.

Ritchie, Martin W. 1999. A compendium of forest growth and yield simulators for the Pacific 

Coast states. General Technical Report PSW-GTR-174. 59 pp. Pacific Southwest Research 

Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture; U.S. Forest Service. Albany CA:

Ritchie, Martin W. 2006. Users guide and help system for CONIFERS: a simulator for young 

mixed-conifer stands version 3.00. Pacific Southwest Research Station, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. Albany, CA.

Rizzo, D. M., M. Garbelotto, J.M. Davidson, G.W. Slaughter and S.T. Koike. 2002. Phytophthora 

ramorum as the cause of extensive mortality of Quercus spp. and Lithocarpus densiflorus in 

California. Plant Disease 86: 205-214.

Rizzo, D. M. 2003. Sudden Oak Death: Host plants in forest ecosystems in California and

Oregon. Sudden Oak Death Online Symposium. www.apsnet.org/online/SOD 

Robichaud, P.R., J.L. Beyers and D.G. Neary. 2000. Evaluating the effectiveness of postfire 

rehabilitation treatments. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-63. Rocky Mountain Research 

Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. Fort Collins, CO.

Robison, M. Henry. 1997. Community Input/Output Models for Rural Area Analysis. Annals of 

Regional Science. Vol 31(3), pp 325-351.

Roche, Cindy Talbott and Ben F. Roche, Jr. 1988. Distribution and amount of four knapweed 

(Centaurea L.) species found in eastern Washington. Northwest Science 62(5): 242-253.

Roloff, Gary J, Stephen P. Mealy, Christopher Clay, Jeff Barry, Curt Yanish and Leon 

Neuenschwander. 2005. “A Process for modeling short and long term risk in the southern Oregon 

Cascades” Forest Ecology and Management 211 (2005) 166-190. Http://www.sciencedirect.com
905

References

Romero, Nicolas; Roberts E. Gresswell and Judith L. Li. (2005). “Changing patterns in coastal 

cutthroat trout (Onchorhynchus clarki clarki) diet and prey in a gradient of deciduous canopies.” 

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science. 62: 1797-1807.

Roni, P. 2001. Responses of fishes and salamanders to instream restoration efforts in western 

Oregon and Washington. Report to Bureau of Land Management on project completion, 

Interagency Agreement No. 1422H952-A98-3007. 132 pp. National Marine Fisheries Service, 

Northwest Fisheries Science Center. Seattle, WA. 

Rooney, B. 22 June 2006. Oregon’s forestry and logging industry: particularly important to rural 

areas. 6 pp. Oregon Employment Department. 

Rosenberg, D.K., K.A. Swindle and R.G. Anthony. 2003. Influence of prey abundance on 

northern spotted owl reproductive success in western Oregon. Canadian Journal of Zoology 

81:1715-1725.

Rothacher, J. 1973. Does harvest in west slope Douglas-fir increase peak flow in small streams? 

Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. 

Forest Service. Portland, OR.

Rowland, M.M., M.J. Wisdom, B.K. Johnson and J.G. Kie. 2000. Elk distribution and modeling 

in relation to roads. Journal of Wildlife Management 64(3):672-684.

Rowland, M.M., M.J. Wisdom, B.K. Johnson and J.G. Kie.2004. Effects of roads on elk: 

implications for management in forested ecosystems. In: Transaction of the Sixty-ninth North 

American and Natural Resources Conference held March 16-20, 2004, in Spokane, Washington. 

J. Rahm, editor. Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, D.C.

Ryu, I. C., A.R. Niem, W.A. Niem, R.E. Wells and P.O. Hales. 1996. Oil and Gas Potential of 

the Southern Tyee Basin, Southern Oregon Coast Range. Oil and Gas Investigation 19. Cross 

Sections and 141pp. State of Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries.

Sandberg, D.V., R.D. Ottmar and J.L. Peterson. 2002. “Wildland Fire in Ecosystems: effects of 

fire on air” General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-42-Vol. 5. Rocky Mountain Research Station, 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. Fort Collins, CO.

Schemske, D., Husband, B., Ruckelshaus, Goodwillie, C., Parker, I., Bishop, J. 1994. Evaluating 

Approaches to the Conservation of Rare and Endangered Plants. Ecology, 75(3) pp. 584-606.

Schmidt, Karen, J.P. Menakis, C.C. Hardy, W.J. Hann, D.L. Bunnell. 2002 “Development of 

Coarse-Scale Spatial Data for Wildland Fire and Fuel Management.” General Technical Report 

RMRS-87. Rocky Mountain Research Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest 

Service. Missoula, Montana

Schoenberger, M. D. Meyer and A. Perry. 1982. The effect of soil disturbance on growth and 

ectomycorrhizae of Douglas-fir and western hemlock seedlings: a greenhouse bioassay. Canadian 

Journal of Forest Research 12: 343-353.
906

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Scientific Consensus Statement on the Likely Impacts of Climate Change on the Pacific 

Northwest. Oregon State University, October 12, 2004. Available online at: http://www.ef.org/

westcoastclimate/E_OSU%20Consensus%20Statement.pdf

Seaber, P., F. Kapinos and G. Knapp. 2007. Hydrologic Unit Maps. U.S. Geological Survey, 

Water Supply Paper 2294. Online: [http://pubs.usgs.gov/wsp/wsp2294/]

Sedell, J.R. and K.J. Luchessa. 1981. Using the historical record as an aid to salmonid 

habitat enhancement. pp. 210-223. In: Acquisition and utilization of aquatic habitat inventory 

information. N.B. Armantrout, editor. Proceedings of symposium, 28-30 October 1981. 376 pp. 

Portland, OR. 

Sedell, James R. and Judith L. Froggatt. 1984. Importance of streamside forests to large rivers: 

the isolation of the Willamette River, Oregon, U.S.A., from its floodplain by snagging and 

streamside forest removal. Verhandlungen International Verein Limnologie 22: 1828-1834.

Sedell, J. R. and K. J. Luchessa. 1984. Using the historical record as an aid to salmonid habitat 

enhancement. In: Acquisition and Utilization of Aquatic Habitat Inventory Information. [210-

222]. N.B. Armantrout, editor. American Fisheries Society, Western Division. Bethesda, MD.

Sedell, J.R. and C.N. Dahm. 1984. “Catastrophic disturbances to stream ecosystems: Volcanism 

and clear-cut logging.” In: Current Perspectives in Microbial Ecology. M.J. Klug and C.A. Reddy, 

editors. Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI. and American Society of Microbiology, 

Washington, DC.

Seiger, Leslie. 1991. Element Stewardship Abstract for Polygonum cuspidatum: Japanese 

knotweed, Mexican bamboo. The Nature Conservancy. 1815 North Lynn Street, Arlingon, VA. 

22209. http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu/esadocs/documnts/polycus.rtf Retrieved September, 2006.

Sensenig, T.S. 2002. Development, Fire History and Current and Past Growth, of Old-Growth and 

Young-Growth Forest Stands in the Cascade, Siskiyou and Mid-Coast Mountains of Southwestern 

Oregon. Ph.D. Dissertation. Oregon State University. Corvallis, OR. 

Sessions, J., P. Bettinger, R. Buckman, M. Newton and J. Hamann. 2004. Hastening the return of 

complex forests following fire: the consequences of delay. Journal of Forestry 102: 38–45.

Sheley, Roger L.; James S. Jacobs and Michael F. Carpinelli. 1998. Distribution, biology, 

and management of diffuse knapweed (Centaurea diffusa) and spotted knapweed (Centaurea 

maculosa). Weed Technology. 12(2): 353-362.

Shelton, J. M. and R. D. Pollock. 1966. Siltation and egg survival in incubation channels. 

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 95(2):183-187.

Sigler, John. W., T. C. Bjornn and Fred H. Everest. 1984. “Effects of chronic turbidity on density 

and growth of steelheads and coho salmon.” Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 113: 

142-150.

Skaugset, Arne. 1997. Review of Earlier Soil Compaction Studies: A paper presented at a Society 

of American Foresters Conference on Understanding and Managing Soil Compaction to Maintain 

Ecosystem Productivity. Bend, OR.
907

References

Smith, W.P. 1987. Dispersion and Habitat Use by Sympatric Columbian White-Tailed Deer and 

Columbian Black-Tailed Deer. Journal of Mamma logy 68(2):337-347.

Smith, J. 2004. A Synthesis of Potential Climate Change Impacts on the U.S. Pew Center on 

Global Climate Change. Arlington, VA. 

Smith, W.P. 1987. Dispersion and Habitat Use by Sympatric Columbian White-Tailed Deer and 

Columbian Black-Tailed Deer. Journal of Mammalogy 68(2):337-347.

Soll, Jonathon; D. Kruezer, K. Strauss, and J. Dumont. 2007. Sandy River Riparian Habitat 

Protection Project Report 2006. The Nature Conservancy. The Global Invasive Species Initiative. 

Retrieved January, 2007 from http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu/moredocs/polspp03.pdf

Sorenson, D. L., M. M. McCarth, E.J. Middlebrooks and D.B. Porcella. 1977. Suspended and 

dissolved solids effects on biota: A review. EPA-600/3-77-042. 64 pp. U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory. Corvallis, OR.

Speich, S.M. and T.R. Wahl. 1995. Marbled murrelet populations of Washington – marine 

habitat preferences and variability of occurrence. pp. 313-326 In: Ecology and conservation of 

the marbled murrelet. C.J. Ralph, G.L. Hunt, Jr., M.G. Raphael, and J.F. Piatt, editors. General 

Technical Report PSW-GTR-152. Pacific Southwest Research Station, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. Albany CA.

Spies, T.A. and J.F. Franklin. 1988. Old-growth and forest dynamics in the Douglas-fir region of 

western Oregon and Washington. Natural Areas Journal 8:190–201.

Spies, T.A. and J.F. Franklin. 1991. The structure of natural young, mature, and old-growth 

Douglas-fir forests in Oregon and Washington. In: Ruggiero, L.F., K.B. Aubrey, A.B. Carey, and 

M.H. Huff, technical coordinators. Wildlife and Vegetation of Unmanaged Douglas-fir Forests. 

pp. 91-109. General Technical Report PNW-285. Pacific Northwest Research Station, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. Portland, OR.

Spies, T.A. and W.B. Cohen. 1992. An index of canopy height diversity. COPE Report 5(3): 5-7. 

Spies, T.A. 2004. Ecological concepts and diversity of old-growth forests. Journal of Forestry 

April/May: 14-20.

Spies, T.A. 2006. Maintaining old-growth forests. Chapter 6 in R.W. Haynes, B.T. Bormann, D.C. 

Lee, J.R. Martin, tech. eds. Northwest Forest Plan - The First 10 Years (1994-2003): Synthesis of 

Monitoring and Research Results. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-651. Pacific Northwest 

Research Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. Portland, OR.

Sproule Associates, Inc. 2004. Letter Report to John Carlson, Geo Trends-Hampton International 

from Leslie S. O’Connor, U.S. Manager and John P. Seidle, Senior Reservoir Engineer; date May 

3, 2004. 8pp. (Used with written permission of Methane Energy Corporation, February 14, 2007). 

Sproule Associates, Inc. 2005. Letter Report to John Carlson, Director, Torrent Energy 

Corporation from Leslie S. O’Connor, U.S. Manager and John P. Seidle, Senior Reservoir 

Engineer; date June 17, 2005. 26p. (Used with written permission of Methane Energy 

Corporation, February 14, 2007). 
908

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Sproule Associates, Inc., 2006, Letter Report to John Carlson, Director, Torrent Energy 

Corporation from Leslie S. O’Connor, U.S. Manager and John P. Seidle, Senior Reservoir 

Engineer; date April 12, 2006. 4p. (Used with written permission of Methane Energy Corporation, 

February 14, 2007).

Stallman, J., R. Bowers, N. Cabrera, R. Real de Asus and J. Wooster. 2005. Sediment dynamics 

in the upper McKenzie River Basin, central Oregon coast range. American Geophysical Union 

#H51E-0411.

Stephens, Scott Lewis. 1998. “Evaluation of the effects of silvicultural and fuels treatments on 

potential fire behavior in Sierra Nevada mixed conifer forests” Forest Ecology and Management 

105(1998) 21-35)

Sterns, M.A., J.S. McIVer and G.A. Rosenberg. 1990. Investigations of the western snowy plover 

at the Coos Bay North Spit and adjacent sites in Coos and Curry Counties, Oregon. 33pp. Report 

to the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Nongame Program. 

Steventon, J.D. and N.L. Holmes. 2002. A radar-based inventory of marbled murrelets 

(Brachyramphus marmoratus), northern Mainland Coast of British Columbia. 40 pp. Prince 

Rupert Forest Region, British Columbia Ministry of Forests. 

Storck, P., T. K. Kern and S. Bolton. 1997. Measurement of differences in snow accumulation, 

melt, and micrometeorology between clearcut and mature forest stands. University of 

Washington, Department of Civil Engineering. Presented at the Western Snow Conference. Banff, 

Alberta, Canada.

Strang, R. M.; K.M. Lindsay and R.S, Price. 1979. Knapweeds: British Columbia’s undesirable 

aliens. Rangelands 1(4): 141-143.

Strathers, R.J., T.P. Rollerson and S.J. Mitchell. 1994. Windthrow handbook for British 

Columbia forests. Working Paper 9401. British Columbia Ministry of Forests. Victoria, British 

Columbia, Canada.

Strong, C.S. and T.M. Carten. 2000. Marbled murrelets at sea in Oregon: status of abundance and 

reproduction during 1999. Draft final report to the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 17 

pp. Portland, OR. 

Strong, C.S. 2003a. Decline of the marbled murrelet population on the central Oregon coast 

during the 1990’s. Northwestern Naturalist 84: 31-37. 

Strong, C.S. 2003b. Marbled murrelet abundance and reproductive indices in Oregon during 

2002. Unpublished report. 14 pp. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, and U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. Portland, OR. 

Sullivan, K.; T. Lisle, C. Dollof, G. Grant and L. Reid. 1987. Stream channels: the link between 

forests and fish. In: Streamside management: forestry and fishery interactions. Contribution 

Number 57. E.O. Salo and T.W. Cundy, editors. University of Washington, Institute of Forest 

Resources. 39-97. Seattle, WA.
909

References

Sullivan, K. and S. Duncan. 1980. Sediment yield from road surfaces in response to truck traffic 

and rainfall. Weyerhaeuser Technical Report 042-4402/80. Weyerhaeuser Company, Technical 

Center. Tacoma, WA. 

Suring, L.H. 1975. Habitat use and activity patterns of the Columbian white-tailed deer along the 

lower Columbia River. M.S. Thesis. 59pp. Oregon State University. Corvallis, OR. 

Suring, L.H. and P.A. Vohs, Jr. 1979. Habitat use by Columbian white-tailed deer. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 43:610-619.

Swanson, F. 1981. Fire and geomorphic process. In: Proceedings, fire regimes and ecosystems 

conference. Dec. 11-15, 1979. Honolulu, HI. General Technical Report WO-26. U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. Washington, D.C.

Swanson, F., R. Fredriksen and F. McCorison. 1982. Material Transfer in a Western Oregon 

Forested Watershed. In: Analysis of coniferous forest ecosystems in western United States. 

[233-266]. R. Edmonds, editor. US/IBP Synthesis Series 14. Hutchinson Ross Publishing Co. 

Stroudsburg, PA.

Swanson, F., R. Graham and G. Grant. 1985. Some effects of slope movements on river channels. 

In: International symposium on erosion, debris flow and disaster prevention: Proceedings: [273-

278]. 3-5 September 1985. Tsukuba, Japan. 

Swanston, D. and F. Swanson. 1976. Timber harvesting, mass erosion, and steepland forest 

geomorphology in the Pacific Northwest. In: Geomorphology and engineering: [199-221]. D.R. 

Coates, editor. Dowden, Hutchinson, and Ross, Inc. Stroudsburg, PA.

Swift, L. 1986. Filter strip widths for forest roads in the southern Appalachians. Southern Journal 

of American Forestry 10 (1986): 27-34.

Tappeiner, J.C., D. Huffman, D. Marshall, T.A. Spies and J.D. Bailey. 1997. Density, ages, and 

growth rates in old growth and young forests in coastal Oregon. Canadian Journal of Forest 

Research 27: 638–648.

Taylor, A.H. and C.N. Skinner. 2003. Spatial patterns and controls on historical fire regimes and 

forest structure in the Klamath Mountains. Ecological Applications 13(3): 704-719.

The Nature Conservancy; U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service; and the U.S. 

Department of the Interior. 2005. LANDFIRE Rapid Assessment Modeling Manual, Version 2.1. 

Boulder, CO.

The Nature Conservancy. The Global Invasive Species Initiative. Weed Alert!: Brachypodium 

sylvaticum (Huds.) P. Beauv. (slender false-brome, false brome). Retrieved January 25, 2007 

from: http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu/alert/alrtbrac.html

Theirrault, Shannon. 2001.” Wildfire Smoke a Guide for Public Officials”
910

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Thomas, J.W., E.D. Forsman, J.B. Lint, E.C. Meslow, B.R. Noon and J. Verner. 1990. A 

conservation strategy for the northern spotted owl. A report by the Interagency Scientific 

Committee to address the conservation of the northern spotted owl. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service and U. S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Bureau of Land Management, and National Park Service. Portland, OR. 

Thomas, R. and W. Megahan. 1988. Peak flow responses to clear-cutting and roads in small and 

large basins, western Cascades, Oregon: A second opinion. Water Resources Research Vol. 34, 

No. 12, [3393-3403].

Thomas, J., J. Franklin, J. Gordon and N. Johnson. 2006. The Northwest Forest Plan: Origins, 

Components, Implementation Experience, and Suggestions for Change. Conservation Biology, 

Vol. 20, No 2, pp. 277-287.

Thorpe, A.S. and T.N. Kaye. 2006. Experimental habitat manipulation of wayside aster (Aster 

vialis). Institute for Applied Ecology, Corvallis, Oregon and USDI Bureau of Land Management, 

Eugene District.

Titus, Jonathan H.; Scott Moore, Mildred Arnot and Priscilla J. Titus. 1998. Inventory of the 

vascular flora of the blast zone, Mount St. Helens, WA. Madrono. 45(2): 146-161.

Torrent Energy Corporation. 2005. Coos Bay Basin Project: Webpage: http://www.torrentenergy.

com/s/CoosBayBasin.asp

Toth, S. 1991. A road damage inventory for the upper Deschutes River basin. Timber-FishWildlife Report. TFW-SH14-91-007.

Tschaplinski, P.J. and G.F. Hartman. 1983. “Winter distribution of juvenile coho salmon 

(Oncorhynchus kisutch) before and after logging in Carnation Creek, British Columbia, and 

some implications for overwinter survival.” Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 

40:452-461.

Turner, Monica G., William H. Romme, Robert H. Gardner and William W. Hargrove. 1997. 

Effects of fire size and pattern on early succession in Yellowstone National Park. Ecological 

Monographs 67(4): 411-433.

Turner, Nancy J. 1999. “Time to burn”: Traditional use of fire to enhance resource production by 

aboriginal peoples in British Columbia. In: Indians, fire and the land in the Pacific Northwest. pp. 

185-218. Boyd, Robert, editor. Oregon State University Press. Corvallis, OR.

Tweten, R.G. 1992. Narratives of final critical habitat units for the northern spotted owl in 

Oregon. Administrative Record. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Portland, OR.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1956. Snow hydrology-summary report of the snow 

investigations. 473 pp. North Pacific Division. Portland, OR.

U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1998. Runoff from snowmelt. Engineering Manual EM 1110-2-

1406. online: [http://www.usace.army.mil/publications/eng-manuals/em1110-2-1406/c-5.pdf]
911

References

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000 -2006. DP 1 Profiles of General Demographic Characteristics and DP 

3 Profile of selected economic characteristics.

U.S. Global Change Research Program, National Assessment Synthesis Team. 2001. US National 

Assessment of the Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change Educational 

Resources. Regional Paper: Pacific Northwest. U.S. Climate Change Science Program/U.S. 

Global Change Research Program. Washington D.C. Available online at: http://www.usgcrp.gov/

usgcrp/nacc/education/pnw/default.htm

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Soil Conservation Service. 1971. Guide to range 

condition class and/or forage quality for the Siskiyou and Klamath Land Resource Areas. Jackson 

County, OR.

USDA, Pacific Northwest Research Station, U.S. Forest Service and Oregon Department of 

Forestry. 2002. Land Conservation and Development, and Agriculture: Forests, Farms and People 

- Land Use Change on non-Federal Land in Western Oregon, 1973-2000.

USDA, U.S. Forest Service. 1988. Final supplement to the environmental impact statement for an 

amendment to the Pacific Northwest Regional Guide. Pacific Northwest Region. Portland, OR.

USDA, U.S. Forest Service. 2005a. Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program: Preventing 

and Managing Invasive Plants. Final Environmental Impact Statement. Volume 1.

USDA, U.S. Forest Service. 28 July 2005b. Letter from L.E. Friedman, Director, Resource 

Planning and Monitoring to Forest Supervisor, Colville National Forest and Forest Supervisor, 

Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests.

USDA, U.S. Forest Service. 2006a. Northwest Forest Plan: The First Ten Years. Socioeconomic 

Monitoring Results. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-649, Vol. III, pp. 37 – 76. Pacific 

Northwest Research Station.

USDA, U.S. Forest Service. 2006b. Modeling genetic gain in established Douglas-fir plantations. 

Research proposal; submitted by Randy Johnson, PNW Research Station, Corvallis, OR; Peter 

Gould, PNW Research Station, Olympia, WA; and David Marshall, Weyerhaeuser Company. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/about/programs/rmp/Agenda2020-collaboration.shtml

USDA, U.S. Forest Service. 2006c. Considering Communities in Forest Management Planning in 

Western Oregon. Donoghue E., N. Sutton and R. Haynes. General Technical report PNW-GTR693. Pacific Northwest research Station.

USDA, U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Department of the Interior (USDI), Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM). 1993a. Pacific Yew, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Record of Decision.

USDA, U. S. Forest Service; Umpqua, Willamette, and Rogue-Siskiyou National Forests; and 

USDI BLM; Medford and Eugene Districts. 1993b. Conservation Strategy Frasera umpquaensis

(Green Gentian or Umpqua swertis).

USDA, U.S. Forest Service; Mt. Hood and Willamette National Forests; and USDI, BLM; Salem 

District. 1994a. Conservation Strategy for Aster gormanii.
912

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

USDA, U.S. Forest Service and USDI, BLM. February 1994b. 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. Washington, D.C.

USDA, U.S. Forest Service; Umpqua National Forest; and USDI, BLM; Roseburg and Medford 

Districts; and USDI, USFWS. 1995. Conservation Agreement for Calochortus umpquaensis

(Umpqua Mariposa Lily).

USDA, U.S. Forest Service; Winema, Shasta-Trinity, Modoc and Lassen National forests; USDI, 

BLM; Lakeview, Burns and Spokane Districts; USDI, USFWS; Klamath Basin National Wildlife 

Refuge; and California Department of Fish and Game. 1996a. Conservation Strategy for Rorippa 

columbiae (Columbia cress).

USDA, U.S. Forest Service; Umpqua, Mt Hood, Willamette and Rogue River-Siskiyou National 

Forests; and USDI, BLM, Roseburg, Eugene, Salem and Medford Districts; and U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers, Willamette Valley Project. 1996b. Conservation Strategy Cimicifuga elata (Tall 

bugbane).

USDA, U.S. Forest Service and USDI, Bureau of Land Management. 1997. Survey and Manage 

Draft Management Recommendations – Bryophytes. Installment 1. IM OR1997-027 Transmittal 

IM. Unpublished report. On file with: Regional Ecosystem Office, P.O. Box 3623, Portland, OR. 

97208

USDA, U.S Forest Service and USDI, Bureau of Land Management. 1998. Management 

recommendations for vascular plants. Unpublished report. On file with: Regional Ecosystem 

Office, P.O. Box 3623, Portland, OR. 97208.

USDA, U.S. Forest Service and USDI, BLM. Interagency Wild and Scenic Rivers Coordinating 

Council. December 1999. The Wild and Scenic River Study Process.

USDA, U.S. Forest Service and USDI, Bureau of Land Management. 2000a. Management 

recommendations for lichens, Version 2.0. IM OR2000-042, Transmittal IM. Unpublished report. 

On file with: Regional Ecosystem Office, P.O. Box 3623, Portland, OR. 97208

USDA, U.S. Forest Service and USDI, Bureau of Land Management. 2000b. Management 

recommendations for lichens, Version 2.0. IM OR2000-042, Transmittal IM. Unpublished report. 

On file with: Regional Ecosystem Office, P.O. Box 3623, Portland, Oregon 97208.

USDA, U.S. Forest Service and USDI, BLM. 2002. Results of landscape level protocol survey of 

survey zones 1 and 2 for marbled murrelet. A memo from T. Riley, USFS, and R. Wenker, BLM, 

to K. McMaster, USFWS. March 4, 2002. 

USDA, U.S. Forest Service and USDI, BLM. July 2003. Gerber-Willow Valley Watershed 

Analysis. Klamath Falls, OR. 

USDA, U.S. Forest Service and USDI, BLM. 2004a. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact 

Statement to Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and 

Guidelines in Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the 

Range of the Northern Spotted Owl.
913

References

USDA, U.S. Forest Service and USDI, BLM. 2004b. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact 

Statement: Management of Port-Orford-Cedar in Southwest Oregon. Portland, Oregon.

USDA, U.S. Forest Service and USDI, BLM. 2004c. The Healthy Forests Initiative and Healthy 

Forests Act Interim Field Guide. 

USDA, U.S. Forest Service and USDI, BLM. 2004d. Biscuit Fire Recovery Project Final 

Environmental Impact Statement. Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest and Medford District, 

BLM. Medford, OR.

USDA, U.S. Forest Service; Siuslaw National Forest; USDI, BLM; Coos Bay District; 

USDI, National Park Service; Redwood National Park; and Redwood State Park, CA. 2004. 

Conservation Strategy for Pink Sand-verbena (Abronia umbellata ssp. breviflora).

USDA, U.S. Forest Service and USDI, BLM. 2005a. Draft Rapid Assessment Reference 

Condition Models. Available online at: http://www.reo.gov/ecoshare/news-issues/ram-issues.asp

USDA, U.S. Forest Service and USDI, BLM. 2005b. Northwest Forest Plan Temperature TMDL 

Implementation Strategies. U.S. Forest Service, R-6 Regional Office and BLM Oregon State 

Office. Portland, OR. 

USDA, U.S. Forest Service, Umpqua National Forest; USDI, BLM, Roseburg District, and U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Programmatic Conservation Agreement for Kincaid’s Lupine 

(Lupinus sulphureus spp. kincaidii) in Douglas County, OR.

USDA, U. S. Forest Service; Six Rivers and Rogue-Siskiyou National Forests; USDI, BLM; 

Medford and Coos Bay Districts; and USDI, USFWS; Arcata and Roseburg Field Offices. 

2006. Conservation Agreement for Hastingsia bracteosa, H. atropurpurea, Gentiana setigera, 

Epilobium oreganum, and Viola primulifolia ssp. Occidentalis and serpentine Darlingtonia 

wetlands and fens from Southwestern Oregon and Northwestern California.

USDA USDI. 2006a. Protecting People and Natural Resources, A Cohesive Fuels Treatment Strategy.

USDA, USDI. 2006b. Surface Operating Standards and Guidelines for Oil and Gas Exploration 

and Development. BLM/WO.ST-06/021+3071. 84 pp. Denver, CO. 

USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service. August 1995. RCA III Effects of Sediment on 

the Aquatic Environment: Potential NRCS Actions to Improve Aquatic Habitat Working Paper. 

No. 6 Janine Castro and Frank Reckendorf. Department of Geosciences, Oregon State University. 

Corvallis, OR. 

U.S. Department of Commerce (USDC), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA), National Weather Service. 1973. Precipitation-frequency atlas of the western United 

States, Volume X, Oregon. Atlas 2, 43 plates. Prepared by J.F. Miller, R.H. Frederick and R.J. 

Tracey. Silver Spring, Md. 

USDC, NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1996. Making Endangered Species 

Act Determinations of Effect for Individual or Grouped Actions at the Watershed Scale. August 

1996. http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/1habcon/habweb/habguide/matrix_1996.pdf
914

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

USDC, NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service. 18 March 1997. Biological Opinion and 

Conference Opinion. Implementation of Land and Resource Management Plans and Resource 

Management Plans. Northwest Region. 

USDC, NOAA, Fisheries Office of Protected Resources. Pacific Salmonids: Major Threats and 

Impacts website: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/salmon.htm

USDC, Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2006. Regional accounts data. November 2006. www.bea.

gov/bea/regional/data.htm.

USDI, BLM. 1960. Statistical Appendix to the Annual Report of the Director, Bureau of Land 

Management to the Secretary of the Interior for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1960.

USDI, BLM. Manual Handbook H-1741-1 - “Fencing.”

USDI, BLM. Manual Handbook H-1741-2 - “Water Developments.”

USDI, BLM. Manual Section 8110.42. “Management Use Categories.”

USDI, BLM. 1970. Public Land Statistics.

USDI, BLM. April 1979. Wilderness Proposed Initial Inventory. Roadless Areas and Islands 

Which Clearly Do Not Have Wilderness Characteristics in Oregon and Washington.

USDI, BLM. August 1979. Wilderness Review, Initial Inventory. Final Decision on Public 

Lands Obviously Lacking Wilderness Characteristics and Announcement of Public Lands to be 

Intensively Inventoried for Wilderness Characteristics in Oregon and Washington.

USDI, BLM. March 1980. Wilderness Review, Intensive Inventory. Final Decision on 30 Selected 

Units in Southeast Oregon and Proposed Decisions on other Intensively Inventoried Units in 

Oregon and Washington.

USDI, BLM. November 1980. Wilderness Inventory. Oregon and Washington. Final Intensive 

Inventory Decisions.

USDI, BLM. 1986. Timber Productivity Classification - TPCC Handbook 5251-1

USDI, BLM. 1991. Summary of the Analysis of the Management Situation, for the Salem, 

Eugene & Coos Bay (January, 1991), Roseburg & Medford (February, 1991) District Office 

Resource Management Plans.

USDI, BLM. 1994a. Salem District Proposed Resource Management Plan/Final Environmental 

Impact Statement.

USDI, BLM. 1994b. Eugene District Proposed Resource Management Plan/Environmental 

Impact Statement.

USDI, BLM. 1994c. Roseburg District Proposed Resource Management Plan/Environmental 

Impact Statement.

USDI, BLM. 1994d. Coos Bay District Proposed Resource Management Plan/Environmental 

Impact Statement.
915

References

USDI, BLM. 1994e. Medford District Proposed Resource Management Plan/Environmental 

Impact Statement.

USDI, BLM. 1994f. Klamath Falls Resource Area Resource Management Plan/Environmental 

Impact Statement.

USDI, BLM, Coos Bay District. 1995. Conservation Strategy for Phacelia argentea.

USDI, BLM. 1996a. Partners Against Weeds: An Action Plan for the Bureau of Land 

Management. Washington, D.C.

USDI, BLM. 1996b. Updated 2002. Western Oregon Districts. Transportation Management Plan.

USDI. BLM. 1996c. Topsy/Pokegama Landscape Analysis. Lakeview District, Klamath Falls 

Resource Area. Klamath Falls, OR.

USDI, BLM. August 12, 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, BLM. January 16, 2001a. Inventory & Monitoring System: Current Vegetation Survey 

Field Procedures, Natural Resource Inventory Oregon/Washington. 173pp.

USDI, BLM. Release 6-121. January 19, 2001b. BLM Manual 6840 Regulations - Special Status 

Species Management.

USDI, BLM. 2001c. North Bank Habitat Management Area/ACEC Record of Decision, Habitat 

Management Plan and Monitoring Plan. Roseburg District, BLM. Roseburg, OR.

USDI, BLM. 2001d. Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario for Oil and Gas 

Development in the Buffalo Field Office Area, Campbell, Johnson, and Sheridan Counties, 

Wyoming. 25pp. Wyoming State Office-Reservoir Management Group. 

USDI, BLM. 2002. Pokegama Wild Horse Herd Management Area Plan. Lakeview District, 

Klamath Falls Resource Area. Klamath Falls, OR.

USDI, BLM. March 25, 2003. BLM-Instructional Memorandum No. OR-2003-054. Oregon/

Washington Special Status Species Policy.

USDI, BLM. 2004a. New River Area of Critical Environmental Concern Management Plan. Coos 

Bay District, BLM. North Bend, OR.

USDI, BLM. 2004b. Timbered Rock Fire Salvage and Elk Creek Watershed Restoration Final 

Environmental Impact Statement. Medford District, BLM. Medford, OR.

USDI, BLM. 2004c. Implementation of Special Status Species Policies for the Former Survey 

and Manage Species. BLM-Information Bulletin No. OR-2004-145. 4 pp

USDI, BLM. 2004d. Implementation of Special Status Species Policies for the Former Survey 

and Manage Species. BLM-Information Bulletin No. OR-2004-145. 4 pp
916

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

USDI, BLM. 2004e. Implementation of the 2004 Record of Decision to Remove Survey and 

Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines, BLM-Information Bulletin No. OR2004-121.

USDI, BLM; Roseburg District and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS); Roseburg Field 

Office. 2004f. Conservation Agreement for Calochortus coxii (Crinite Mariposa Lily).

USDI, BLM; Medford District; USFWS; and The Nature Conservancy of Oregon. 2004g. 

Draft Conservation Agreement for Limnanthes floccose Howell ssp. pumila (Dwarf Woolly 

Meadowfoam).

USDI, BLM. 2005a. Draft Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on Bureau of Land 

Management Lands in 17 Western States Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. 

Washington, D.C.

USDI, BLM. 2005b. North Spit Management Plan. Coos Bay District, BLM. North Bend, OR.

USDI, BLM. 2006. County Budget Data for FY2005 - BLM Western Oregon Plan Revision. 

Portland, OR.

USDI, BLM. 2006a. Unpublished rare plant database: GeoBob. Portland, OR.

USDI, BLM. 2006b. Recreation Management Information System. Data retrieved from http://

rmis.blm.gov/

USDI, BLM. 2007. Geographic Information System (GIS) Data Layers. Oregon State Office. 

Portland, OR.

USDI, USFWS. 1983. Columbian White-Tailed Deer Recovery Plan. Portland, OR.

USDI, USFWS. 1986. Recovery plan for the Pacific bald Eagle. Portland, OR.

USDI, USFWS. 1990. McDonald’s Rock-cress, (Arabis mcdonaldiana Easwood) Recovery Plan. 

40 pp. Portland, OR. 

USDI, USFWS. 1992. Draft final recovery plan for the northern spotted owl. Portland, OR.

USDI, USFWS. 1993. Lomatium bradshawii, (Bradshaw’s lomatium) Recovery Plan. 47 pp. 

Portland, OR. 

USDI, USFWS. 1996. Water Howellia (Howellia aquatilis) Recovery Plan. 52 pp. Helena, MT. 

USDI, USFWS. 1997. Recovery plan for the threatened marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus 

marmoratus) in Washington, Oregon and California. Region 1. Portland, OR.

USDI, USFWS. 1998a. Recovery Plan for the Threatened Nelson’s Checker-mallow (Sidalcea 

nelsoniana). 61 pp. Portland, OR. 

USDI, USFWS. 1998b. Recovery Plan for the Endangered Western Lily (Lilium occidentale). 82 

pp. Portland, OR. 
917

References

USDI, USFWS. 1998c. Recovery Plan for the Applegate’s Milk-vetch (Astragalus applegate). 41 

pp. Portland, OR. 

USDI, USFWS. 2000. Recovery Plan for the Golden Paintbrush (Castilleja levisecta). 51 pp. 

Portland, OR. 

USDI, USFWS. 2001a. Western Snowy Plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus) Pacific Coast 

Population Draft Recovery Plan. Region 1. Sacramento, CA. 

USDI, USFWS. 2001b. Oregon Silverspot Butterfly (Speyeria zerene hippolyta) Revised 

Recovery Plan. Region 1. Portland, OR. 

USDI, USFWS. 2003a. Recovery Plan for the Rough Popcornflower (Plagiobothrys hirtus). 60 

pp. Portland, OR. 

UDSI, USFWS. 2003b. Recovery plan for Fritillaria gentneri (Gentner’s fritillary). viii + 89 pp. 

Portland, OR. 

UDSI, USFWS. 2003c. Recovery Outline for Lomatium cookii (Cook’s Lomatium) and Limnanthes 

floccosa ssp. grandiflora (Large-flowered Woolly Meadowfoam). 19 pp. Portland, OR. 

USDI, USFWS. 2003d. Website for Lost river and Shortnose suckers. Created by: Oregon Fish 

and Wildlife Office. http://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/EndSpp/FactsFish/LRsucker.htm

http://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/EndSpp/FactsFish/Shortnose.htm

USDI, USFWS. 2004a. Northern spotted owl five-year review: summary and evaluation. 

Portland, OR.

USDI, USFWS. 2004b. Marbled murrelet 5-year review process. Region 1. Portland, OR.

USDI, USFWS. 2005. Recovery Plan for Vernal Pool Ecosystems of California and Southern 

Oregon. Region 1. Portland, OR.

USDI USFWS. 2006a. Recovery Outline for Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii (Kincaid’s lupine). 

23 pp. Portland, OR. 

USDI, USFWS. 2006b. Draft Recovery Plan for Listed Species of the Rogue Valley Vernal Pool 

and Illinois Valley Wet Meadow Ecosystems. Portland, OR.

USDI, USFWS. Roseburg Field Office. 2006. personal communication from Lynn Gemlo, copy 

of latest state of the species section for the northern spotted owl. 

USDI, U.S. Geological Service. USGS web page for suckers: http://wfrc.usgs.gov/research/

fish%20populations/STShively2.htm

http://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout/final/pdf/BT_combined_revised100605.pdf

USDI, U.S. Geological Survey. 2007. Mineral Commodity Summaries.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2000. The history of drinking water treatment. 

Office of Water, EPA-816-F-00-006. 
918

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

United States International Trade Commission. 2006. http://www.usitc.gov/

University of Washington (Salo, E. and T. Cundy, editors). 1997. In: Streamside management: 

forestry and fishery interactions. Institue of Forest Research No. 57-1987, Chapter 2. E. Salo and 

T. Cundy, editors. College of Forest Resources, University of Washington. Seattle, WA. 

Vance, Nan C., Melissa Borsting, David Pilz and Jim Freed. 2001. Special forest products: 

species information guide for the Pacific Northwest. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-513. 

169 pp. Pacific Northwest Research Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. 

Portland, OR. http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/3075

Vander Schaaf, D., M. Schindel, D. Borgias, C. Mayer, D. Tolman, G. Kittel, J. Kagan, T. KeelerWolf, L. Serpa, J. Hak and K. Popper. 2004. Klamath Mountains Ecoregional Conservation 

Assessment. The Nature Conservancey. Portland OR.

Van Sickle, J. and S.V. Gregory. 1990. Modeling inputs of large woody debris from falling trees. 

Canadian Journal of Forest Research 20: 1593-1601.

Verts, B.J. and L.N. Carraway. 1998. Land Mammals of Oregon. University of California Press. 

Berkeley, CA.

Vessely, D., W.C. McComb, J.M. Weikel and D. Bigger. 2001. Wildlife and coarse-filter 

biodiversity assessment. In: Umpqua Land Exchange Project Multi-Resource Land Allocation 

Model Handbook. Umpqua Land Exchange Project. Portland, OR.

Vessely, D.G. and W.C. McComb. 2002. Salamander abundance and amphibian species richness 

in riparian buffer strips in the Oregon Coast Range. Forest Science 48(2):291-297.

Wagner, E., E. Hansen, S. Leavengood, J. Punches and S. Bowers. 2003. The Big Log Project. 

Wood Science and Engineering. 101 pp. Oregon State University. Corvallis, OR.

Walburger, K., T. DelCurto and M. Vavra. 2005. The effects of herbivory and timber harvest on 

understory production in northeastern Oregon. Papers presented at Range Field Day. Union, OR.

Walker, G. and P. King. 1969. Geologic map of Oregon: U.S. geological Survey, Map 1-595.

Wallin, D.O., F.J. Swanson and B. Marks. 1994. Landscape pattern response to changes in pattern 

generation rules: land-use legacies in forestry. Ecological Applications 4:569-580.

Ward, J. W. Jr. 1990. Spotted owl reproduction, diet and prey abundance in northwest California. 

M.S. Thesis. Humboldt State University. Arcata, CA.

Ward, J. W. Jr., R.J. Gutiérrez and B.R. Noon. 1998. Habitat selection by northern spotted owls: 

the consequences of prey selection and distribution. The Condor 100:79-92. 

Warren, Debra D. 2006. Production, Prices, Employment and Trade in Northwest Forest 

Industries. Pacific Northwest Research Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest 

Service. Portland, OR.
919

References

Washington State Department of Natural Resources. 1997a. Standard methodology for conducting 

watershed analysis, version 4.0, Appendix C hydrologic change. online: [http://www.dnr.wa.gov/

forestpractices/watershedanalysis/manual/]

Washington State Department of Natural Resources. 1997b. Surface Erosion Module vs. 4.0. 

Online: [http://www.dnr.wa.gov/forestpractices/watershedanalysis/manual/hydrology.pdf]

Washington State Department of Natural Resources. 2005. Definition and Inventory of Old 

Growth Forests on DNR-Managed State Lands. Olympia, WA.

Watterson, Nicholas A. and J. Jones. 2006. Flood and debris flow interactions with roads promote 

the invasion of exotic plants along steep mountain streams, western Oregon. Geomorphology 78 

(2006) 107-123.

Weaver, W. and D. Hagans. 1996. Aerial reconnaissance evaluation of 1996 storm effects 

on upland mountainous watersheds of Oregon and southern Washington. Pacific Watershed 

Associates. Arcata, CA.

WeedMapper Team, Dept. of Rangeland Resources, Oregon State University. Copyright, 2004a. 

Retrieved July, 2006 from: http://www.weedmapper.org/maps.html

WeedMapper Team, Department of Rangeland Resources, Oregon State University. Copyright, 

2004b. Retrieved September 5, 2006 from: http://www.weedmapper.org/eues.html

WeedMapper Team, Dept. of Rangeland Resources, Oregon State University. Copyright, 2004c. 

Meadow knapweed (Centaurea pratensis Thuill., non Salilsb.). Retrieved January 25, 2007: 

http://www.weedmapper.org/cede5.html

WeedMapper Team, Dept. of Rangeland Resources, Oregon State University. Copyright, 2004d. 

Spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa auct. non Lam.). Retrieved January 29, 2007 from:

http://www.weedmapper.org/cebi2.html

Weir, R.D. and A.S. Harestad. 2003. Scale-dependent habitat selectivity by fishers in south-central 

British Columbia. Journal of Wildlife Management 67:73-82.

Weisberg, P.J. and F.J. Swanson. 2003. Regional synchroneity in fire regimes of western Oregon 

and Washington. Forest Ecology and Management 172:17-28.

Wemple, B.C. 1994. Assessing the role of logging-access roads in two large forested basins in the 

western cascades of Oregon. M.S. thesis. Oregon State University. Corvallis, OR.

Wemple, B.C., J. Jones and G. Grant. 1996. Channel network extension by logging roads in 

two basins, western Cascades, Oregon. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 

32(6):1195.

Wemple, B.C. 1998. In: Jones, J.; F. Swanson, B. Wemple, and K. Snyder. 2000. Effects of Roads 

on Hydrology, Geomorphology, and Disturbance Patches in Stream Networks. Conservation 

Biology. 14(1):76-85.

Wemple, B.C. and J. Jones. 2003. Runoff production on forest roads in a steep mountain 

catchment. Water Resources Research 39(8)1220.
920

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Western Wood Products Association. 2006. 2005 Statistical Yearbook of the Western Lumber 

Industry. Portland, OR.

Whiteaker, personal com. 2007

Whitney, L.W. 2002. Ecological Relationships Between Columbian White-tailed and Black-tailed 

Deer in Southwest Oregon. M.S. Thesis. Oregon State University. Corvallis, OR.

Wiley, T. 2006. Personal Communications with Tom Wiley, Geologist, State of Oregon 

Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Southwest Oregon Section Leader.

Willard, E. Earl; Ronald H. Wakimoto and Kevin C. Ryan. 1995. Vegetation recovery in sedge 

meadow communities within the Red Bench Fire, Glacier National Park. In: Fire in wetlands: a 

management perspective: Proceedings, 19th Tall Timbers fire ecology conference, November 3-6; 

1995. pp. 102-110. Cerulean, Susan I.; Engstrom, R. Todd, editors. Tall Timbers Research Station. 

Tallahassee, FL. 

Williamson, Richard L. 1973. Results of shelterwood harvesting of Douglas-fir in the western 

Cascades. Research Paper PNW-161. Pacific Northwest and Range Experimental Station, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. Portland, OR.

Wimberly, M.C., T.A. Spies, C.J. Long and C. Whitlock. 2000. Simulating historical variability in 

the amount of old forests in the Oregon Coast Range. Conservation Biology 14(1): 167-180.

Wimberly, M.C. 2002. Spatial simulation of historical landscape patterns in coastal forests of the 

Pacific Northwest. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 32: 1316–1328.

Wimberly, M.C. and J.L. Ohmann. 2004. A multi-scale assessment of human and environmental 

constraints on forest land cover change on the Oregon (USA) coast range. Landscape Ecology 19: 

631-646. 

Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the United States. 2007. Chapter 3: Regional Summaries, the 

Northwest Region, Oregon and Washington Coast.

Winter, L.E., L.B. Brubaker, J.F. Franklin, E.A. Miller and D.Q. DeWitt. 2002. Initiation of an 

old-growth Douglas-fir stand in the Pacific Northwest a reconstruction from tree ring records. 

Canadian Journal of Forest Research 32: 1039-1056.

Wisdom, M.J., N.J. Cimon, B.K. Johnson, E.O. Garton and J.W. Thomas. 2004. Spatial 

partitioning by mule deer and elk in relation to traffic. In: Transaction of the Sixty-ninth North 

American and Natural Resources Conference held March 16-20, 2004, in Spokane, WA. J. Rahm, 

editor. Wildlife Management Institute. Washington, D.C.

With, K.A. and T.O. Crist. 1995. Critical thresholds in species’ response to landscape structure. 

Ecology 76(8): 2446-2459.

Witmer, G. and M. Wisdom. 1986. Some important elk-forest habitat relationships for western 

Oregon and Washington. In: Proceedings of the 1986 Western States and Provinces Elk Workshop 

held March 17-19, 1986 in Coos Bay, Oregon. Eastman, D.L., editor. Oregon Department of Fish 

and Wildlife. Portland, OR.
921

References

Wright, K., K. Sendek, R. Rice and R. Thomas. 1990. Logging effects on streamflow: Storm 

runoff at Casper Creek in northwestern California. Pacific Southwest Forest and Range 

Experiment Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. Arcata, CA.

Wringler, N.H. and J.D. Hall. 1975. Effects of logging on water temperature and dissolved 

oxygen in spawning beds. TransAmerican Fisheries Society 104(1):111-121.

Yaeger, J. Scott. 2005. Habitat at Fisher Resting Sites in the Klamath Province of Northern 

California. Thesis presented to Humboldt University. Arcata, CA.

Young, J.A., D.W. Hedrick and R.F. Keniston. 1967. Forest cover and logging--herbage and 

browse production in the mixed coniferous forest of northeastern Oregon. Journal of Forestry 65: 

807-813. 

Zabel, C.J., K.M. McKelvey and J.P. Ward, Jr. 1995. Influence of primary prey on home-range 

size and habitat-use patterns of northern spotted owls (Strix occidentalis caurina). Canadian 

Journal of Zoology 73:433-439.

Zenner, E. 2000. Do residual trees increase structural complexity in Pacific Northwest coniferous 

forests? Ecological Applications 10(3): 800–810.

Zenner, E.K. 2005. Development of tree size distributions in Douglas-fir forests under differing 

disturbance regimes. Ecological Applications 15(2): 701–714.

Zielinski, William J., Neil Duncan, Emma C. Farmer, Richard L. Truex, Anthony P. Clevenger 

and Reginald Barrett. 1999. Diet of Fishers (Martes Pennanti) at the Southernmost Extent of their 

Range. Journal of Mammalogy 80(3):961-971, 1999.

Zielinski, William J., Richard L. Truex, Gregory A. Schmidt, Frederick V. Schlexer, Kristin N. 

Schmidt, and Reginald H. Barrett. 2004. Resting Habitat Selection by Fishers in California. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 68(3):475-492.

Ziemer, R. R. 1981. Storm flow response to road building and partial cutting in small streams of 

Northern California. Water Resources Research 17(4): 907-917.

Ziemer, R. R. and E.T. Keppeler. 1996. Hydrologic consequences of logging second-growth 

redwood watersheds. Conference on coast redwood forest ecology and management. Humboldt 

State University. Arcata, CA.

Ziemer, R. R. 6 May 1998. Proceedings of the conference on coastal watersheds: the Caspar Creek 

story. 6 May 1998; Ukiah, California. Coastal watersheds: the Casper Creek story. 149 pp. Pacific 

Southwest Research Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture. U.S. Forest Service. Albany, CA.
922

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs
923

Index

Index

Symbols

303(d) listed streams 365 A

Adaptive management 848

Air quality 401

Anadromous fish 335

Areas of concern 294 B

Bald eagle 310, 694

Bald eagle management areas 312

Barred owls 296

Best management practices57, 761

Biological Assessment 830

Biological Opinion 830

Biomass31

Bull Run Watershed Management Unit45

C

Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument 44

Clean Water Act 11, 365

Climate Change 491

Coal bed methane 465

Columbian white-tailed deer 329, 683

Communication sites43, 446

Conservation needs of the northern spotted owl 292

Cooperating agency 823

Coquille Forest84

Coquille Tribe 20, 825

Cumulative effects 484

D

Debris-Flow Prone Intermittent Streams 79

Deer management areas 331, 684

Direct and indirect effects 484

E

Early-successional forests 199

Effective shade 368, 750

Elk 329, 689

Elk management areas 333, 689

Endangered Species Act3, 261, 282, 336, 479, 593, 719, 829

Environmental Justice 554

F

Federal Land Policy and Management Act 10, 13, 4, 417

FEMAT 192, 211

Fire regime 392

Fire resiliency 394, 766

Fire severity 392, 765
924

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Fisher 323, 698

Fish productivity 351, 733

Forest fragmentation 208

G

General landscape area 90

Geothermal energy 465

H

Habitat groups 266, 321, 595, 712

Hardwood stands 207, 510

Harvest land base 476

High intrinsic potential 338, 734

Historic fuel conditions 393

I

Indian tribes 20, 444, 814, 825

Instream restoration 355, 740

Invasive plants 48, 268, 611

J

Jordan Cove Energy Liquid Natural Gas Terminal and Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline 447, 466, 485

L

Land tenure zones 41, 445

Large wood model 348

Late-successional forests 192

Listed fish species 336

M

Marbled murrelet 68, 76, 94, 297, 674

Mature forests 200

Mitigation 492, 610, 632, 689, 694, 743, 758, 772, 788, 697

Monitoring 845

Mt. Hood Corridor 45

Mule deer 329

N

National Energy Policy 466

National Environmental Policy Act 19, 483, 492

National Landscape Conservation System 43, 422, 793

Natural disturbance 201, 211, 259, 283, 370, 392, 487, 510, 634, 512

Nonharvest land base 476

Northwest Forest Plan 10-year monitoring 283, 476

O

O&C Act 3, 9, 12, 15, 226

O&C lands 183, 226, 446

OPTIONS model 480

Oregon listed species 262

Oregon Smoke Management Plan 30, 773

Organon growth and yield model 481

Owl activity centers 93
925

Index

P

Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail 44

Peak flow 358, 383, 743, 745

Port-Orford cedar root rot 214

R

Rangeland health 34, 430, 800

Reasonably Foreseeable Mineral Development 31, 479

Reference analyses 483

Research natural area 436

Right-of-ways 40

S

Sage Grouse 309, 709

Salvage 69, 81, 371, 489

Secure Rural School and Community Self Determination Act 219, 228, 229, 537

Sediment delivery 356, 372, 741, 758

Settlement agreement 22

Soil compaction 425, 388, 794

Source water watersheds 389, 764

Special status species 47, 257, 316, 335, 712, 598

Stream temperature 366, 357, 743, 745

Structural stage classifications 198

Sudden Oak Death 291, 491

Survey and Manage 265, 322, 485, 596, 716

Swiss needle cast 212

T

Temperature standards for fish species 357

Temporary use permits 42, 447

Timber Production Capability Classification (TPCC) 63, 378, 762, 797, 729

Traditional use sites 30, 439, 811, 814

Travel management plans 50, 777

U

Utility corridors 42

V

Visual resource management 52, 420, 789

W

Water quality 57, 359, 365, 745

Western Snowy Plover 313, 708

West Nile virus 297

Westwide Energy Corridor Project 485

Wildland urban interface 396, 765

Wind energy 465

Y

Yaquina Head Outstanding Natural Area 45

PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300

OFFICIAL BUSINESSPortland, Oregon 97204333 S.W. 1st AvenueOregon State OfficeBureau of Land ManagementUnited States Department of the Interior PRIORITY MAIL

POSTAGE AND FEES PAID

Bureau of Land Management

Permit No. G-76

BLM/OR/WA/PL-07/046+1792
October 2005

Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement

for the Revision of the 

Resource Management Plans of the 

Western Oregon Bureau of Land 

Management Districts 

of Salem, Eugene, Roseburg, Coos Bay, and 

Medford Districts, and the Klamath Falls Resource 

Area of the Lakeview District

Volume III

Salem, Eugene, Roseburg, Coos Bay, Medford, and Klamath Falls Offices August 2007

BLM
As the Nation’s principal 

conservation agency, the Department 

of the Interior has responsibility for 

most of our nationally owned public 

lands and natural resources. This 

includes fostering the wisest use 

of our land and water resources, 

protecting our fish and wildlife, 

preserving the environmental and 

cultural values of our national 

parks and historical places, and 

providing for the enjoyment of life 

through outdoor recreation. The 

Department assesses our energy 

and mineral resources and works to 

assure that their development is in 

the best interest of all our people. 

The Department also has a major 

responsibility for American Indian 

reservation communities and for 

people who live in Island Territories 

under U.S. administration. 
Appendix A. Legal Authorities

This appendix provides the background on the legal authorities and major court rulings that are 

related to this draft environmental impact statement.

In this appendix:

Settlement Agreement .............................................................................................................929

Major Court Rulings ................................................................................................................930

Major Legal Authorities ..........................................................................................................933

A – 927
A – 928

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs
A – 929

Appendix A. Legal Authorities

Settlement Agreement

In 1997, timber industry groups, county governments, and others filed a lawsuit (AFRC v. 

Clarke, Civil No. 94-1031-TPJ (D.D.C.)) in the United States District Court for the District of 

Columbia (D.C. District Court). This lawsuit alleged that the O&C Act had not been appropriately 

considered in applying the Northwest Forest Plan’s management direction to the O&C lands. The 

allegation was that the Northwest Forest Plan’s system of large reserves and its standards and 

guidelines, which restrict timber harvesting for the purpose of achieving conservation principles, 

differs from the ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit 

Court) regarding the statutory direction for managing the O&C lands. The ruling from the 

Ninth Circuit Court (Headwaters, Inc. v. BLM, 914 F.2d 1174, 1183 (9th Cir., 1990)) stated that 

“exempting certain timber resources from harvesting to serve as wildlife habitat ... is inconsistent 

with the principles of sustained yield”. The AFRC v. Clarke lawsuit also alleged that the specific 

contribution of the BLM lands to the overall conservation strategy of the Northwest Forest 

Plan was not sufficiently analyzed in the Northwest Forest Plan’s supplemental environmental 

impact statement to determine whether the extensive reservation of the O&C lands from timber 

harvesting in the Northwest Forest Plan was required in order to comply with the Endangered 

Species Act. 

To resolve the lawsuit, the Secretary of Interior, the American Forest Resource Council, and the 

Association of O&C Counties entered into a settlement agreement that was approved by the 

United States District Court for the District of Columbia (D.C. District Court) on August 28, 

2003. At the time of the settlement, the case was pending review in the United States Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit Court) for the D.C. District Court’s 

dismissal of the case as res judicata. Under the settlement agreement, 

the BLM agreed to revise its resource management plans in western 

Oregon and in that revision the BLM would consider an alternative 

that would not create any reserves on the O&C lands, except those 

reserves required to avoid jeopardy to species listed as threatened or 

endangered under the Endangered Species Act. The BLM also agreed 

that all resource management plan revisions shall be consistent with the O&C Act as interpreted 

by the Ninth Circuit Court.

Res judicata

A rule of civil law that says 

an issue cannot be relitigated 

after a final judgment has been 

rendered.
A – 930

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Major Court Rulings

The following are descriptions of the court rulings that are the most relevant to the decisions that 

must be made in revising the resource management plans for the BLM lands in western Oregon.

Headwaters, Inc. v. BLM, 914 F.2d 1174 

(9th Cir. 1990)

In a 1990 lawsuit by Headwaters, Inc., the plaintiffs argued that the O&C Act requires 

the BLM to manage the O&C lands for multiple uses, including wildlife conservation, 

rather than for the dominant use of timber production. There were several issues in this 

case, including compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act. The issue most 

relevant to this revision of the resource management plans, however, is the interpretation 

of the O&C Act’s reference to forest production.

In ruling on this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth 

Circuit Court) stated that “the primary purpose of the O&C Act lands is for timber 

production in conformity with the provision of sustained yield.” Even more explicitly, 

the Ninth Circuit Court held that “exempting certain timber resources from harvesting to 

serve as wildlife habitat is inconsistent with the principle of sustained yield.” The court 

also stated that “[i]t is entirely consistent with these goals to conclude that the O&C Act 

envisions timber production as a dominant use.” The court further stated that “[t]he 

purposes of the O&C Act were twofold. First, the O&C Act was intended to provide the 

counties ... with [a] stream of revenue ... Second, the O&C Act was intended to halt 

previous practices of clear-cutting without reforestation” (Headwaters, Inc. v. BLM, 

914 F.2d 1174 (9th Cir. 1990)). Citing the legislative history of the O&C Act, the Ninth 

Circuit Court explained that “[t]his type of [sustained-yield] management will make for a 

more permanent type of community, contribute to the local dependent industries, protect 

watersheds, and aid in regulating streamflow.” In other words, protecting watersheds, 

regulating stream flow, and contributing to the economic stability of local communities 

and industries were expected outcomes of managing these lands under the principles of 

sustained-yield management. The Ninth Circuit Court found nothing in the legislative 

history to “suggest that wildlife habitat conservation or conservation of old growth forest 

is a goal on a par with timber production, or indeed that it is a goal of the O&C Act at all” 

Headwaters, Inc. v. BLM, 914 F.2d 1183-84 (9th Cir. 1990). 

This opinion was not the first to rule on the management of the BLM lands under the 

O&C Act, however, it is the most explicit. It followed previous rulings of the Ninth 

Circuit Court on the purposes of the O&C Act, specifically: O’Neal v. United States, 814 

F.2d 1285, 1287 (9th Cir. 1987); and Skoko v. Andrus, 638 F.2d 1154, 1156 (9th Cir.), 

cert. denied, 444 U.S. 927, 62 L. Ed. 2d 183, 100 S. Ct. 266 (1979).
A – 931

Appendix A. Legal Authorities

Portland Audubon Society v. Babbitt, 998 F.2d 

705 (9th Cir. 1993)

In this case, environmental groups challenged a decision made by the BLM to not 

supplement timber management plans with new information concerning the plan’s 

effect on the northern spotted owl and asked the court to issue an injunction against 

logging operations in BLM forests that contained northern spotted owl habitat until a 

supplemental environmental impact statement was prepared. The BLM argued that the 

holding of the Ninth Circuit Court in Headwaters, Inc. v. BLM, 914 F.2d 1174, 1178-

80 (9th Cir. 1990), reh’g denied, 940 F.2d 435 (1991), supports the conclusion that the 

BLM’s decision not to supplement the environmental impact statements was reasonable, 

that the O&C Act requires the BLM to sell 500 million board feet of timber per year, 

and that relief provided by the court must not conflict with this congressional direction. 

The court, however, found that the National Environmental Policy Act (passed after the 

O&C Act) does apply to all government actions having significant environmental impact, 

even though the actions may be authorized by other legislation. The court also found 

that the O&C Act did not establish a minimum volume that must be offered every year 

notwithstanding any other law. Therefore, compliance with the National Environmental 

Policy Act, or enjoining timber harvests until the BLM complies with the National 

Environmental Policy Act, is not inconsistent with either the volume requirements of the 

O&C Act or the management of the lands entrusted to its care. 

Seattle Audubon Society v. Lyons, 871 F. Supp. 

1291, 1314 (W.D. Wash., 1994)

This case was a challenge to the Northwest Forest Plan and was filed soon after the filing 

of AFRC v. Clarke.

1

 In the challenge of the Northwest Forest Plan in the United States 

District Court for the Western District of Washington (Western Washington District 

Court), the court found that the management decision made about the O&C lands was 

a lawful exercise of the discretion of the Secretary of the Interior under the O&C Act 

because of the broad mandate to manage federal lands to conserve habitat for species 

listed for protection under the Endangered Species Act. The Western Washington District 

Court, however, did not identify the Northwest Forest Plan as the only decision that 

would meet the requirements of the Endangered Species Act (Seattle Audubon Society v. 

Lyons, 871 F. Supp. 1291, 1313-1314 (W.D. Wash., 1994)). 

1 AFRC v. Clarke, Civil No. 94-1031-TPJ (D.D.C.)
A – 932

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, 378 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2004)

In this case, the Ninth Circuit Court2 rejected the regulatory definition of “destruction or 

adverse modification of critical habitat” and directed consulting agencies to consider the 

effects of an action on the critical habitat network without reference to other conservation 

programs, such as the late-successional reserves in the Northwest Forest Plan. The court 

stated that critical habitat must provide for both the survival and the recovery of a listed 

species and that the analysis of whether there is adverse modification always requires 

consideration of the impacts on the recovery of a species. This case highlighted the issue 

that resulted from the difference in the Northwest Forest Plan’s late-successional reserves 

and the designated critical habitat for the northern spotted owl. 

2 United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit Court)
A – 933

Appendix A. Legal Authorities

Major Legal Authorities

The following is a list of the major legal authorities that are relevant to the BLM land use 

planning process. It is not an inclusive list.

•	 The Oregon and California Railroad and Coos Bay Wagon Road Grant Lands Act (O&C 

Act) (43 U.S.C. §1181a, et seq.) provides the legal authority for the management of 

O&C lands by the Secretary of the Interior. The O&C Act requires that the O&C lands be 

managed “for permanent forest production, and the timber thereon shall be sold, cut, and 

removed in conformity with the principal of sustained yield for the purpose of providing 

a permanent source of timber supply, protecting watersheds, regulating stream flow, and 

contributing to the economic stability of local communities and industries, and providing 

recreational facilities” (43 U.S.C. §1181a)

•	 The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), as amended, 43 U.S.C. 

1701 et seq., provides the authority for the BLM land use planning.

– Sec. 102 (a) (7) and (8) sets forth the policy of the United States concerning the 

management of the public lands.

– Sec. 201 requires the Secretary of the Interior to prepare and maintain an 

inventory of the public lands and their resource and other values, giving priority 

to areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs), and, as funding and 

workforce are available, to determine the boundaries of the public lands, 

provide signs and maps to the public, and provide inventory data to State and 

local governments.

– Sec. 202 (a) requires the Secretary, with public involvement, to develop, 

maintain, and when appropriate, revise land use plans that provide by tracts or 

areas for the use of the public lands.

– Sec. 202(c)(1-9) requires that, in developing land use plans, the BLM shall use 

and observe the principles of multiple use and sustained yield; use a systematic 

interdisciplinary approach; give priority to the designation and protection of 

areas of critical environmental concern; rely, to the extent it is available, on the 

inventory of the public lands; consider present and potential uses of the public 

lands; consider the relative scarcity of the values involved and the availability 

of alternative means and sites for realizing those values; weigh long-term 

benefits to the public against short term benefits; provide for compliance with 

applicable pollution control laws, including State and Federal air, water, noise, or 

other pollution standards or implementation plans; and consider the policies of 

approved State and tribal land resource management programs, developing land 

use plans that are consistent with State and local plans to the maximum extent 

possible consistent with Federal law and the purposes of this Act.
A – 934

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

– Sec. 202 (d) provides that all public lands, regardless of classification, are subject 

to inclusion in land use plans, and that the Secretary may modify or terminate 

classifications consistent with land use plans.

– Sec. 202 (f) and Sec. 309 (e) provide that Federal, State, and local governments 

and the public be given adequate notice and an opportunity to comment on the 

formulation of standards and criteria for, and to participate in, the preparation and 

execution of plans and programs for the management of the public lands.

– Sec. 302 (a) requires the Secretary to manage BLM lands under the principles 

of multiple use and sustained yield, in accordance with available land use plans 

developed under Sec. 202 of FLPMA. There is one exception: where a tract of 

the BLM lands has been dedicated to specific uses according to other provisions 

of law, it shall be managed in accordance with such laws.

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

while directing the Secretary to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of the 

public lands.

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

et seq., requires the consideration and public availability of information regarding the 

environmental impacts of major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of 

the human environment. This includes the consideration of alternatives and mitigation 

of impacts.

•	 The Clean Air Act of 1990, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 7418, requires Federal agencies 

to comply with all Federal, State and local requirements regarding the control 

and abatement of air pollution. This includes abiding by the requirements of State 

Implementation Plans.

•	 The Clean Water Act of 1987, as amended, 33 U.S.C. 1251, establishes objectives to 

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

•	 The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. 1323, requires Federal land managers 

to comply with all Federal, State, and local requirements, administrative authorities, 

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

manner and to the same extent as any nongovernmental entity.

•	 The Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. 201, is designed to make the Nation’s waters 

“drinkable” as well as “swimmable.” Amendments in 1996 establish a direct connection 

between safe drinking water and watershed protection and management.

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

– Provides a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered and threatened 

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

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

– Requires all Federal agencies to seek to conserve endangered and threatened 

species and utilize applicable authorities in furtherance of the purposes of the 

Endangered Species Act (Sec. 1531 (c) (1), Policy).
A – 935

Appendix A. Legal Authorities

– Requires all Federal agencies to avoid jeopardizing the continued existence of 

any species that is listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered or 

destroying or adversely modifying its designated or proposed critical habitat 

(Sec. 1536 (a), Interagency Cooperation).

– Requires all Federal agencies to consult (or confer) in accordance with Sec. 

7 of the ESA with the Secretary of the Interior, through the Fish and Wildlife 

Service and/or the National Marine Fisheries Service, to ensure that any 

Federal action (including land use plans) or activity is not likely to jeopardize 

the continued existence of any species listed or proposed to be listed under the 

provisions of the ESA, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of 

designated or proposed critical habitat (Sec. 1536 (a), Interagency Cooperation, 

and 50 CFR 402).

•	 The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq., requires Federal 

land management agencies to identify potential river systems and then study them for 

potential designation as wild, scenic, or recreational rivers.

•	 The Wilderness Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq., authorizes the President to 

make recommendations to the Congress for Federal lands to be set aside for preservation 

as wilderness.

•	 The Antiquities Act of 1906, 16 U.S.C. 431-433, protects cultural resources on Federal 

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

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

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

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

on properties eligible for or included in the National Register of Historic Places. It also 

directs the pro-active management of historic resources.

•	 The American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978, 42 U.S.C. 1996, establishes 

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

traditional Indian religious beliefs or practices.

•	 The Recreation and Public Purposes Act of 1926, as amended, 43 U.S.C. 869 et seq., 

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

public purposes under specified conditions.

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

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

•	 The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq., 

requires application of unsuitability criteria prior to coal leasing and also to proposed 

mining operations for minerals or mineral materials other than coal.

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

development and conservation of oil and gas resources.

•	 The Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987, 30 U.S.C. 181 et seq., provides 

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

General that results in recommendations for improvements which may be necessary to 
A – 936

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

ensure the following are adequately addressed in Federal land use plans:

– Potential oil and gas resources are identified;

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

development of oil and gas resources are determined; and

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

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

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

•	 The Mining and Mineral Policy Act of 1970, 30 U.S.C. 21a, establishes a policy of 

fostering the orderly development of economically stable mining and minerals industries 

and studying methods for reclamation and the disposal of waste.

•	 The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, 43 U.S.C. 315, authorizes the Secretary of the Interior 

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

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

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

The Act also provides for the classification of lands for particular uses.

•	 Executive Orders 11644 (1972) and 11989 (1997) establish policies and procedures to 

ensure that off-road vehicle use shall be controlled so as to protect public lands.

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

Populations and Low-Income Populations), 49 Fed. Reg. 7629 (1994), requires that 

each Federal agency consider the impacts of its programs on minority and low-income 

populations.

•	 Executive Order 13007 (Indian Sacred Sites), 61 Fed. Reg. 26771 (1996), requires 

Federal agencies to the extent practicable, permitted by law, and not clearly inconsistent 

with essential agency functions to:

– Accommodate access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites by Indian 

religious practitioners; and

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

•	 Executive Order 13084 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments) 

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

consultation and collaboration with Indian tribal governments in developing regulatory 

practices on Federal matters that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.

•	 Executive Order 13112 (Invasive Species) provides that no Federal agency shall 

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

introduction or spread of invasive species unless, pursuant to guidelines that it has 

prescribed, the agency has determined and made public its determination that the benefits 

of such actions clearly outweigh the potential harm caused by invasive species; and that 

all feasible and prudent measures to minimize risk or harm will be taken in conjunction 

with the actions.
A – 937

Appendix A. Legal Authorities

•	 Secretarial Order 3175 (incorporated into the Departmental Manual at 512 DM 2) 

requires that if Department of the Interior (DOI) agency actions might impact Indian trust 

resources, the agency must explicitly address those potential impacts in planning and 

decision documents, as well as consult with the tribal government whose trust resources 

are potentially affected by the Federal action.

•	 Secretarial Order 3206 (American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust 

Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act) requires DOI agencies to consult with 

Indian tribes when agency actions to protect a listed species, as a result of compliance 

with ESA, affect or may affect Indian lands, tribal trust resources, or the exercise of 

American Indian tribal rights.

•	 Secretarial Order 3215 (Principles for the Discharge of the Secretary’s Trust 

Responsibility) guides DOI officials by defining the relatively limited nature and 

extent of Indian trust assets, and by setting out the principles that govern the Trustee’s 

fulfillment of the trust responsibility with respect to Indian trust assets.

Appendix B. Ecology

This appendix provides background on the analysis of forest ecological conditions.

In this appendix:

Structural Stage Classification................................................................................................941

Interagency Vegetation Mapping Project Data...................................................................946

Average Historical Conditions and the Historic Range of Variability ..........................947

FRAGSTATS..............................................................................................................................949

B – 939
B – 940

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs
B – 941

Appendix B. Ecology 

Structural Stage Classification

Conifer forests within the planning area are classified in this analysis by a four-stage 

structural classification: 

Stand Establishment 

Young 

Mature

Structurally Complex.

These four structural classes are further sub-divided by additional structural divisions and by tree 

species composition groupings. 

Vegetation Series (by plant series)

•	 Western Hemlock and Tanoak: Western Hemlock, Sitka Spruce, Pacific 

Silver Fir, Tanoak

•	 Douglas-fir: Douglas-fir, Grand Fir, White Fir, Shasta Red Fir, Mountain 

Hemlock, Ponderosa Pine

•	 Non-forest: Jeffrey Pine, Oregon White Oak, Juniper, Sagebrush, Grassland, Water

These vegetation series are groupings that have been made for this analysis based on plant series 

and do not exactly correspond to mapped plant series or plant association groupings. The data 

on plant series was modeled at a very fine scale and has been coarsened in scale for this analysis. 

Adjustments have been made to the geographic boundaries of these vegetation series grouping to 

provide explicit boundaries without interspersion.

Classification 

Each class appended with Vegetation Series: 

• Western Hemlock and Tanoak

• Douglas-fir

1) Stand Establishment 

<200 years old in current Forest Operations Inventory

Average tree height <50 feet

1a.) Without Structural Legacies 

<6 trees per acre ≥20 inches diameter breast height

1b.) With Structural Legacies 

≥6 trees per acre ≥20 inches diameter breast height
B – 942

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

The Stand Establishment stage extends from stand initiation until stands have reached canopy 

closure and density-dependent tree mortality begins. Average tree height reflects the influence of 

site productivity on tree growth. At an average tree height of 50 feet, stands have passed the point 

at which they are typically pre-commercial thinned. The minimum density of structural legacies 

is set at 6 trees per acre to maintain consistency with the minimum green tree requirements in the 

No Action alternative.

2) Young 

<200 years old in current Forest Operations Inventory

Average tree height ≥50 feet

Western Hemlock and Tanoak

<24 trees per acre ≥20 inches diameter breast height

Douglas-fir 

<12 trees per acre ≥20 inches diameter breast height

2a.) Young High Density 

relative density ≥ 25 

2a1.) Without Structural Legacies 

Descended from Stand Establishment without Structural Legacies

2a2.) With Structural Legacies 

Descended from Stand Establishment with Structural Legacies

2b.) Young Low Density 

relative density < 25

2b1.) Without Structural Legacies 

Descended from Stand Establishment without Structural Legacies

2b2.) With Structural Legacies 

Descended from Stand Establishment with Structural Legacies

The Young stage is characterized by the predominance of density-dependent tree mortality, and, 

in high density stands, a small range of tree diameters. Young stands have not yet acquired the 

density of large diameter trees that characterize Mature stands. Young Low Density stands are 

those with a tree density sufficiently low to largely eliminate the influence of density-dependent 

tree mortality. 

3) Mature 

<200 years old in current Forest Operations Inventory

Western Hemlock and Tanoak

≥24 trees per acre ≥20 inches diameter breast height

Douglas-fir

≥12 trees per acre ≥20 inches diameter breast height

3a.) Single Canopy 

Western Hemlock and Tanoak

Coefficient of Variation of tree diameters > 10 inches diameter breast 
B – 943

Appendix B. Ecology 

height (CVgt(10)) < 0.35

Douglas-fir

CVgt(10) < 0.34

3b.) Multiple Canopy 

Western Hemlock and Tanoak

CVgt(10) ≥ 0.35

<4.7 trees per acre ≥40 inches diameter breast height

Douglas-fir 

CVgt(10) ≥ 0.34

<2.1 trees per acre ≥40 inches diameter breast height

The Mature stage generally begins as tree growth rates stop increasing (after culmination of 

mean annual increment), as tree mortality shifts from density-dependent mortality to densityindependent mortality. The threshold values for the Mature stage are derived from Poage 

(unpublished), which comprises BLM timber cruise data for timber sales in the late 1980s and 

early 1990s. This data presents a precise and accurate sample of the population of trees in 

timber sale areas. Because timber harvest during that period was predominately in Mature and 

Structurally Complex forest, this data set, described in Poage (2000), provides a characterization 

of Mature and Structurally Complex forest on BLM-administered lands. 

The thresholds presented here for Mature forest are intended to establish a threshold that 

represents the structural conditions of most Mature forests, but not necessarily absolute minimum 

conditions found in all Mature forests. Therefore, the density of large trees (greater than 20 

inches in diameter) was derived from the 66th percentile of sample values from the Poage dataset, 

separating the data for the Western Hemlock and Tanoak, and Douglas-fir vegetation series. 

The threshold for canopy layering was derived from the coefficient of variation in tree diameters, 

inferring that variation in tree diameters is reflected by variation in tree heights. The threshold 

here was derived by the mean coefficient of variation of tree heights minus one standard deviation 

from the Poage dataset. 
B – 944

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

This analysis initially examined other measures of canopy layering, included a Canopy Height 

Diversity index (Spies and Cohen 1992), a Diameter Diversity Index (McComb et al. 2002), and a 

canopy classification technique in Baker and Wilson (2000). 

The Canopy Height Diversity index uses data on tree heights directly, but classified most 

existing stands over 200 years old in this analysis as “single canopy,” and therefore would be too 

restrictive. 

The Diameter Diversity Index infers canopy height diversity from weighted values of tree 

diameters. The weighting values produce results that may be more effective at classifying 

existing stands than evaluating modeled stands. The Diameter Diversity Index results do not 

appear to accurately reflect future changes in canopy layering resulting from thinning or partial 

disturbance and would classify relatively young, even-aged stands as “multiple canopy.” 

The technique in Baker and Wilson (2000) uses tree height and canopy measurements, but would 

classify almost all stands in this analysis as “multiple canopy.” 

Coefficient of variation in tree diameters provides greater discrimination among the stands in this 

analysis than the other measures and appears to be sensitive to future changes in stand conditions. 

Coefficient of variation in tree diameters could provide misleading results in strongly bi-modal 

stands (i.e., very large trees and very small trees), which would be a concern if this analysis were 

attempting to provide continuous values of canopy layering. But this analysis is only attempting 

to classify stands as either single canopy layered or multiple canopies.

4) Structurally Complex 

4a.) Existing Structurally Complex

4a1.) Existing Old Forest 

200-399 years old in current Forest Operations Inventory

4a2.) Existing Very Old Forest

≥400 years old in current Forest Operations Inventory

4b.) Developed Structurally Complex 

<200 years old in current Forest Operations Inventory

Western Hemlock and Tanoak

CVgt(10) ≥0.35

≥24 trees per acre ≥20 inches diameter breast height

≥4.7 trees per acre ≥40 inches diameter breast height

Douglas-fir

CVgt(10) ≥0.34

≥12 trees per acre ≥20 inches diameter breast height

≥2.1 trees per acre ≥40 inches diameter breast height

This analysis assumes that stands identified as 200 years old or older in the current stand 

inventory are Structurally Complex forest. In addition, stands that are not 200 years old or older 

but meet threshold values for Developed Structurally Complex described above are identified 

as Structurally Complex forest. Threshold values for Developed Structurally Complex include 
B – 945

Appendix B. Ecology 

density of very large trees (greater than 40 inches in diameter) derived from the 66th percentile of 

sample values from the Poage dataset, separating data for the Western Hemlock and Tanoak and 

Douglas-fir vegetation series. 

Structurally Complex stands approximate “old-growth” stands described in many analyses (see, 

e.g., District RMP/EISs), “Medium/large Conifer Multi-story” stands described in the FEMAT 

Report, and “Large, Multi-storied Older Forest” stands described in the LSOG Monitoring 

Report. In this analysis, “late-successional forest” encompasses both Mature and Structurally 

Complex stands, similar to how the Northwest Forest Plan FSEIS used “late-successional forest” 

to encompass mature and old-growth forests (p. Glossary-9). The LSOG Monitoring Report 

summarized the difficulties in describing and classifying older forest conditions (pp. 9-10). 

Table 238. Comparison of different stand classification schemes and the structural stage classification used in 

this RMP/EIS. A more extensive comparison of classification schemes can be found in Franklin et al. 2002.

Typical 

stand age1

(years)

Oliver (1981) 

stand development 

stages

Franklin et al. (2002) 

structural stage

1994 RMP/EIS 

Seral stage

Structural 

stages 

(This RMP/EIS) 

0 Disturbance and legacy creation

20

Stand Initiation

Cohort establishment

Early seral Stand 

Establishment

Stem Exclusion

Mid seral

30 Canopy Closure Young

50 Biomass accumulation/ 

competitive exclusion

Late seral

80 Understory Reinitiation Maturation Mature

150

Old Growth

Vertical diversification Mature seral

Structurally 

300 Horizontal diversification Complex

Old-growth

800-1200

Pioneer cohort loss

1

 Stand ages are provided as references. However, stands can achieve structural classes at different stand ages, depending on disturbance and site conditions
B – 946

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Interagency Vegetation Mapping Project 

Data

Existing vegetation mapping for the planning area was based on the Interagency Vegetation 

Mapping Project (IVMP), which provides maps of existing vegetation, canopy cover, size, and 

cover type for the entire range of the Northern Spotted Owl using satellite imagery from Landsat 

Thematic Mapper (TM). The LSOG Monitoring Report contains detailed descriptions of the 

IVMP data and evaluations of IVMP map accuracy (Moeur et al. 2005, pp. 18-30, 108-109, 123-

128). Those descriptions and evaluations are incorporated here by reference. 

The IVMP was initiated in 1998 under joint program management and funding by the Bureau 

of Land Management-Oregon and the Forest Service-Region 6. The project’s goal was to 

provide consistent spatial data for monitoring older forests within the portions of the Plan area 

in Washington and Oregon. The IVMP mapped existing vegetation in the nine physiographic 

provinces in Washington (Eastern and Western Cascades, Olympic Peninsula, and Western 

Lowlands) and Oregon (Eastern and Western Cascades, Coast Range, Willamette Valley, and 

Klamath Mountains).

The IVMP modeling approach combined remotely sensed satellite imagery (25-m Landsat TM), 

digital elevation models, interpreted aerial photos, and inventory information collected on the 

ground to classify existing vegetation. Landsat scenes used in the IVMP project ranged from fall 

1992 through summer 1996. Of the 17 scenes, 2 were acquired in 1992, 1 each in 1994 and 1995, 

and 13 in 1996. A regression modeling approach was used to predict vegetation characteristics 

from this Landsat data.

Inventory plot data were used as reference information for IVMP model building and accuracy 

assessment. Almost 10,000 plots were used for model building and testing, and another 2,800 

plots were held out for an independent accuracy assessment. These data came primarily from 

Current Vegetation Survey (CVS) plots maintained by Forest Service-Region 6 and Bureau 

of Land Management-Oregon on Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management lands in 

Washington and Oregon, and from Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) plots administered by 

Pacific Northwest Research Station on nonfederal lands.

All IVMP map data and supporting documentation are available online at 

http://www.or.blm.gov/gis/projects/ivmp.asp
B – 947

Appendix B. Ecology 

Average Historical Conditions and the 

Historic Range of Variability

The description of the Affected Environment and the analysis of effects include a comparison of 

current and future conditions to the Historic Range of Variability. Characterization of historic 

landscape conditions can provide a reference point for comparison in the analysis of effects 

of different land management strategies. Historic landscape conditions were dynamic, which 

requires characterization of landscape conditions as a range, rather than a discrete point. 

There are several challenges in describing the Historic Range of Variability: 

1. Selecting metrics 

Historic Range of Variability is often described by abundance of habitat types and 

frequency of disturbance, such as mean fire return interval. Some descriptions 

have included spatial pattern of habitats, such as patch size. Because the 

Historic Range of Variability is a range, it is not easily quantified, and at many 

spatial scales, the range is very broad (see, e.g., Wimberly et al. 2000). Simply 

describing an upper and lower bound of historic conditions may overemphasize 

the rare, extreme events that defined the bounds (Landres et al. 1999). However, 

more sophisticated descriptions may be difficult to communicate to decisionmakers and the public, and may be difficult to compare to the effects of different 

land management strategies. 

2. Selecting the portion of history

Historical conditions varied not only in a range of natural disturbance 

frequencies, but with patterns of pre-European anthropogenic disturbances and 

with climate changes. The selection of the portion of history to characterize can 

strongly influence the resulting “range” that is described (Millar and Woolfenden 

1999, Long et al. 1998). 

3. Incomplete and unavailable information

Our knowledge of historical landscape conditions is fragmentary at best. 

Descriptions of Historic Range of Variability have been built from pollen 

deposits in lake sediments, tree-ring data, fire-scar data, even animal deposits, 

such as pack-rat middens. These records are incomplete. Reconstructions from 

such data sources require inference and modeling to derive a description of 

Historic Range of Variability. 
B – 948

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

4. Change from historical conditions

Some biological and physical characteristics have changed irreversibly from 

historic conditions and may distort any comparison to Historic Range of 

Variability. Climate conditions have changed and are continuing to change at a 

rapid rate. Species introductions and species extirpations have altered biological 

relationships. 

These challenges should be considered in interpreting the Historic Range of Variability and 

caution against using it as an explicit target or management objective. 

Several commentors have hypothesized that a landscape that reflects the abundance and 

arrangement of habitats within the Historic Range of Variability will support the species and 

processes that were historically present, and that the further the landscape lies outside the Historic 

Range of Variability, the less likely it will support those species and processes (see, e.g., Landres 

et al. 1999). These hypotheses remain largely untested, but several studies have characterized 

the historic range of variability in western Oregon and used it as a reference point to compare the 

effects of management strategies (Nonaka and Spies 2005, Wimberley 2002, Wimberley et al. 

2000, Cissel et al. 1999, Rasmussen and Ripple 1998).

This analysis uses the description of habitat abundances and mean fire return intervals from the 

draft Rapid Assessment Reference Condition Models (USFS and BLM 2005). These models 

derived historic abundances by modeling disturbance probabilities generated from mean fire 

return intervals combined with the probabilities of other disturbances such as wind, insect and 

pathogens. These models described the average amount of the landscape that would be expected 

in each of the broad vegetation classes, which are roughly equivalent to the structural classes used 

in this analysis.

This analysis used the description of spatial patterns of habitat types from Nonaka and Spies 

(2005), which modeled historic spatial pattern in the Coast Range. Although this research applies 

to only a portion of the planning area, it presents an available description of historic spatial 

pattern. The historic spatial pattern in the other provinces in the planning area likely differed 

from the Coast Range, and therefore the comparative value of this description of Historic Range 

of Variability is limited and must be used with caution.
B – 949

Appendix B. Ecology 

FRAGSTATS

FRAGSTATS is a computer software program designed to compute a wide variety of landscape 

metrics for categorical map patterns. The original software (version 2) was released in the public 

domain during 1995 in association with the publication of a USDA Forest Service General 

Technical Report (McGarigal and Marks 1995). 

The following discussion is summarized from the FRAGSTATS website (http://www.umass.

edu/landeco/research/fragstats/fragstats.html), which describes FRAGSTATS in detail, those 

descriptions incorporated here by reference. 

FRAGSTATS is a spatial pattern analysis program for categorical maps. The landscape subject 

to analysis is user-defined and can represent any spatial phenomenon. FRAGSTATS simply 

quantifies the areal extent and spatial configuration of patches within a landscape; it is incumbent 

upon the user to establish a sound basis for defining and scaling the landscape (including 

the extent and grain of the landscape) and the scheme upon which patches are classified and 

delineated. The output from FRAGSTATS is meaningful only if the landscape mosaic is 

meaningful relative to the phenomenon under consideration.

FRAGSTATS computes 3 groups of metrics. For a given landscape mosaic, it computes 

several metrics for: (1) each patch in the mosaic; (2) each patch type (class) in the mosaic; 

and (3) the landscape mosaic as a whole. The FRAGSTATS website contains a detailed 

description of the metrics. 

The FRAGSTATS website includes a discussion on the conceptual background of FRAGSTATS 

analysis, including advice and caveats about use of the software. Key points from that discussion 

are summarized here. 

A landscape is not necessarily defined by its size; rather, it is defined by an interacting mosaic of 

patches relevant to the phenomenon under consideration (at any scale). It is incumbent upon the 

investigator or manager to define landscape in an appropriate manner. The essential first step in 

any landscape-level research or management endeavor is to define the landscape, and this is of 

course prerequisite to quantifying landscape patterns.

Classes of Landscape Pattern

Real landscapes, at any scale, contain complex spatial patterns in the distribution of 

resources that vary over time. Quantifying these patterns and their dynamics is the 

purview of landscape pattern analysis. Landscape patterns can be quantified in a variety 

of ways depending on the type of data collected, the manner in which it is collected, 

and the objectives of the investigation. Broadly considered, landscape pattern analysis 

involves four basic types of spatial data corresponding to different representations of 

landscape pattern. These look rather different numerically, but they share a concern with 

the relative concentration of spatial variability:
B – 950

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

(1) Spatial point patterns represent collections of entities where the geographic 

locations of the entities are of primary interest, rather than any quantitative or 

qualitative attribute of the entity itself. 

(2) Linear network patterns represent collections of linear landscape elements that 

intersect to form a network. 

(3) Surface patterns represent quantitative measurements that vary continuously across 

the landscape; there are no explicit boundaries (i.e., patches are not delineated). 

Here, the data can be conceptualized as representing a three-dimensional surface, 

where the measured value at each geographic location is represented by the height of 

the surface. 

(4) Categorical (or thematic; choropleth) map patterns represent data in which the 

system property of interest is represented as a mosaic of discrete patches. From 

an ecological perspective, patches represent relatively discrete areas of relatively 

homogeneous environmental conditions at a particular scale. The patch boundaries 

are distinguished from their surroundings by abrupt discontinuities (boundaries) 

in environmental character states of magnitudes that are relevant to the ecological 

phenomenon under consideration

Patch-Corridor-Matrix Model

Patch must be defined relative to the phenomenon under investigation or management; 

regardless of the phenomenon under consideration (e.g., a species, geomorphological 

disturbances, etc), patches are dynamic and occur at multiple scales; and patch boundaries 

are only meaningful when referenced to a particular scale. 

It is incumbent upon the investigator or manager to establish the basis for delineating 

among patches and at a scale appropriate to the phenomenon under consideration.

Corridors are distinguished from patches by their linear nature and can be defined on 

the basis of either structure or function or both. If a corridor is specified, it is incumbent 

upon the investigator or manager to define the structure and implied function relative to 

the phenomena (e.g., species) under consideration.

It is incumbent upon the investigator or manager to determine whether a matrix element 

exists and should be designated given the scale and phenomenon under consideration.
B – 951

Appendix B. Ecology 

The Importance of Scale

One of the most important considerations in any landscape ecological investigation or 

landscape structural analysis is (1) to explicitly define the scale of the investigation or 

analysis, (2) to describe any observed patterns or relationships relative to the scale of the 

investigation, and (3) to be especially cautious when attempting to compare landscapes 

measured at different scales.

Landscape Context

A landscape should be defined relative to both the patch mosaic within the landscape as 

well as the landscape context. Moreover, consideration should always be given to the 

landscape context and the openness of the landscape relative to the phenomenon under 

consideration when choosing and interpreting landscape metrics.

Appendix C. Socioeconomics

This appendix provides background on the analysis of socioeconomic conditions.

In this appendix:

Analysis of Socioeconomic Effects........................................................................................955

C – 953
C – 954

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs
C – 955

Appendix C. Socioeconomics

Analysis of Socioeconomic Effects

The socioeconomic analysis describes the impacts of the alternatives in terms of:

Employment – full time equivalent jobs by economic sector.

Income – wages associated with employment.

Payments to Counties – Counties’ share of the revenues paid to BLM.

BLM budget – Money spent for BLM personnel, services, equipment, etc.

Contract costs – Money spent on contracting certain silvicultural costs.

Present net value – Sum of discounted revenues and costs associated with the 

timber sale program.

Employment, income and payments to counties were calculated at the County level, for each of 

the eighteen O&C Counties. BLM budgets and contract costs were calculated at the BLM District 

level. The present net value was calculated for the entire planning area.

Process Overview

The OPTIONS model provided data about the volume and size of timber in each 

harvest unit, and the type of harvest (regeneration, partial cut, thinning). Historic BLM 

timber sale data were used to estimate species mix and log grade for each proposed 

harvest unit and values by grade and species. A stumpage value was estimated for each 

harvest unit, based on the volume and grade of timber, logging costs and average road 

costs. For the first decade, the estimated stumpage was reduced 3.5 percent based on 

an analysis of the market price impact of selling additional BLM timber. The adjusted 

estimated stumpage value formed the basis for calculating total BLM timber revenues 

and BLM payments to counties.

Harvest by county was allocated to specific manufacturing centers using the Western 

Oregon Model, described below. In addition, the Western Oregon Model projected the 

impact of additional BLM timber on the market price of timber, and the effect on private 

harvest levels. This model also projected the value of the products produced at each 

manufacturing center – data used in the county-level input output models. 

County-level Input/Output (I/O) models were built for each of the O&C Counties, and 

calibrated to local economies based on field visits and additional research. Given the 

value of wood products production in each County, and the federal payments to each 

County, changes to employment and income were projected.

Changes to the BLM budget were estimated using a unit cost associated with timber 

harvest. Contractor costs were based on the amount and type of harvest specified by the 

OPTIONS model.
C – 956

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

The present net value calculation is based on the stumpage values derived from the 

OPTIONS model for five decades, and the estimated cost of the BLM timber program.

Information about County budgets, how reliant each County is on BLM payments, and how 

each County spends the BLM payments was based on a survey of the 18 O&C Counties.

The following sections describe each of these processes in more detail. More complete 

descriptions can be found in the references.

The Western Oregon Model

The Western Oregon Model was developed at Oregon State University by Darius Adams 

and Greg Latta. It is used to analyze questions about timber supply, public policies and 

how markets might respond to changes in fundamental factors.

The Western Oregon Model has five basic components: (i) inventory data describing 

private lands; (ii) assumptions about likely future silvicultural regimes to be applied 

to those lands; (iii) projections of future timber yields under the several regimes; (iv) 

assumptions about changes in timberland area through gains or losses to other uses 

or owners; and (v) a model that projects future harvests based on inventory and other 

assumptions, applies the management regimes, and updates the inventory over time. 

Inventory 

The approach involved projecting and harvesting the plots in a simulation system 

designed to mimic actual growth and harvest. Inventories were brought to a 

common starting point (2003) using a harvest scheduling model that selected 

plots (condition classes in western Oregon) for harvest to maximize the present 

net worth of timber returns over the period from the inventory date to 2003. 

Simulated harvesting was constrained to mimic actual historical cut by year and 

owner at the county level. Cut by species group, period-to-period changes in 

harvest per acre, and the area partial cut were constrained at the half-state level 

(the finest scale for which historical data are available). In this process, tree lists 

from the original plots were updated using a version of the Forest Vegetation 

Simulator (Dixon 2003).

Management Intensity Classes 

A Management Intensity Class is a regime of silvicultural activities applied over 

the life of a stand. In this analysis, stands are classified as either: (i) “existing,” 

those that are part of the original inventory at the start of the projection, or 

(ii) “new,” those that are regenerated during the projection. There are seven 

Management Intensity Classes for existing stands and eight for new stands.
C – 957

Appendix C. Socioeconomics

Yield Projections 

Yields for each Management Intensity Class in each stand were generated using 

one of three regional variants of the Forest Vegetation Simulator. It is assumed 

that, by ecoregion, the stems per acre and species composition in new naturally 

regenerated stands were the same as that derived from averages for all young 

stands from the Forest Inventory Analysis database. 

Land Area Changes 

It is assumed that the general direction of past area trends will continue over the 

next 15 years but at reduced rates. The recent historical gain in western Oregon’s 

private base was small, and a constant timberland area for that region is assumed.

Market Model 

Timber harvest is a measure of the processing activity on the supply side of the 

regional log market. A model of the western Oregon log market that explicitly 

recognizes the spatial dispersion of log processing facilities and the forested lands 

that supply logs was constructed. Demand is derived from lumber and plywood 

production and log exports, all of which are sensitive to the delivered price of logs. 

The supply of logs in the short term is based on private owners’ decisions about 

harvest timing to optimize the value of their timber investments given stand growth 

and interest rates. In the longer term, it depends on management (silvicultural) 

investments because these are influenced by anticipated yield increments, 

management costs, interest rates, and price expectations. 

Log processing is grouped into specific milling or processing centers in the 

region. Mills generate a demand for delivered logs at these centers, which varies 

with log price up to the point of capacity. Log demand would shift depending on 

product prices, technology, non-wood costs, and capacity. Capacity itself is not 

fixed but varies with product prices, equipment costs, depreciation, and interest 

rate. Potential sources of private log supply lie at various distances from the 

processing center and have varying cost characteristics depending on the types of 

forest management, logging conditions, haul distances, and the interest rate.

Additional Assumptions 

In the projections, assumptions about future prices of products and of 

labor and “other” variable inputs were derived from the 2005 Resource 

Planning Act Timber Assessment Update (U.S. Forest Service 2005, Timber 

Assessment Update)1

. 

1

 Draft available online at www.fs.fed.us/pnw/about/programs/hnri/index.shtml ; last accessed Jan. 27, 2006.
C – 958

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Harvest from public lands is determined by policies within the respective 

managing agencies and generally is not sensitive to log price over the five-year 

time interval used in this analysis. Consequently, public log supply is treated as 

exogenous and it is assumed that it will remain constant at recent (2000–2002) 

average levels throughout the projection. Alternative scenarios of BLM timber 

harvest were constructed by varying the exogenous levels of BLM cut according 

to the conditions of the scenario. 

Public harvest is set at the county level in the model and the costs of moving logs 

from public lands to mills estimated using an average haul distance from each 

county to each milling center.

County level Input Output models

Input/output models (I/O) are automated process models that scale national-level 

economic relationships to fixed-structure county databases. Critical input/output data was 

abstracted from published source data and active field surveys. The general approach 

contains four analytical phases:

1. Collection of secondary economic indicator data for the county level from a 

combination of published and on-line data sources. 

Those data sources form a large database for each separate county model. The 

data matrix is recalibrated from field survey data for key sectors such as wood 

products and major manufacturers. Data on unearned income, including transfer 

payments and property income comes from the U.S. Bureau of Economic 

Analysis’ Regional Economic Information System database. Data on seasonal 

homes in the study area, population and household comes from the U.S. Census 

Bureau website and Portland State University. County-level wage rates are found 

in the Oregon Labor Market Information System (OLMIS). 
C – 959

Appendix C. Socioeconomics

2. Comparison of similar data from multiple sources (including cooperators and 

other BLM contractors) and refining it with our field calibration surveys. 

We received primary source records of BLM harvests, budget allocations and 

practices as well as historical payments to counties2

. BLM payments were put 

in context to all county budget sources.3

 We used secondary state historical 

data to establish the relative BLM harvest contribution.4

 Spatial log flows are 

proportioned based on an earlier flow survey.5

 For loggers, we gathered logger 

data6

, found discrepancies in association estimates7 and logger safety records8, so 

we augmented these estimates from federal proprietor data9

. Industrial production 

data came from numerous surveys and models. These estimates were tested and 

augmented by ForestEcon, Inc. field surveys. We used two sources of log using 

mill location and activities10,

11, which were later adjusted to compromise with 

other estimates. 12

3. Conducting field surveys to gather detailed data on socio-economic conditions. 

Field interviews are augmented by follow-up telephone surveys. In each county, 

Dr. Dan Green, regional economist, and Maryann Green, resource biologist, 

both of Economic Analysis Systems contacted county government leaders, wood 

products industry employers, and businessmen in leading or potentially sensitive 

economic sectors. Their objective was to test the accuracy of secondary data, add 

detail to quantitative descriptions of each county’s total economy and selective 

precision for expected critical sectors and ensure that revised data are generally 

acknowledged as accurate and representative.

3. Analysis of data, including supplemental analyses mostly completed by other 

contractors and cooperators.

The Timber Assessment Market Model provided regional estimates of stumpage 

price and owner harvest substitution estimates.13 These estimates are used to 

estimate alternative payments to counties.14 The Western Oregon timber model 

runs generate new spatial log use, and wood products production patterns by 

BLM alternative.15

2 BLM records, Association of O&C Counties Tabulation 10/5/2006, and USFS ASR payments to counties by national 

forest tabulation 12/22/2006

3 Kevin Davis, Association of O&C Counties 4 Gary Lettman, Oregon Department of Forestry forest economist 5 Jason Brandt, Montana Bureau of Business and Economic Research 6 Oregon Department of Labor 7 Oregon Association of Loggers 8 Oregon Dept of Logger Safety 9 US Department of Commerce 10 Oregon State University 11 Ehinger, Paul. 2006. Western Oregon Wood Products Mill survey 12 Western Oregon Model ibid 13 Darius Adams, Oregon State University 14 Mark Rassmussen, Mason, Bruce and Girard Inc. 15 Greg Latta, Oregon State University
C – 960

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Model Development Process

Dr. Green, our Economic Analysis Systems cooperator, uses a field survey 

calibration of county economic data bases and builds unique selective 

precision spreadsheet Input/Output model. The Economic Analysis Systems 

modeling process is based on a unique resource economy representation 

technique.16 The methodology was developed for USDA-Forest Service 

spatially-sensitive community impact analyses where canned I/O models 

obscure or misrepresent impacts. 

Establish model geography and resolution

We chose a county level of resolution so that most O&C impacts would be captured. 

That required a set of 17 county models as we decided to represent counties where 

O&C lands were few, but that O&C operations had economic influences.

Develop County-level databases

A database for each of the models is first assembled from published, on-line 

data sources, and survey data collected in 2006. The county databases included 

employment, wage and salary earnings, total industry output, unearned income, 

seasonal home spending, population, households, commuting patterns, wage 

rates, residency, employment status, tax rates, and savings and consumption rates 

(marginal and average propensity to consume locally).

Construct preliminary county models

A preliminary county model for the model areas is constructed from the 

secondary data sources. Its content and structure are similar to that used by 

IMPLAN. Employment and earnings totals in the models are controlled to 

Regional Economic Information System totals for each county. Industrial output 

by industry for each of the county models was derived using employment/output 

ratios obtained from the respective county models. The Economic Analysis 

Systems approach used the “selective precision” approach.17 With this approach, 

on-the-ground verification focuses on a select number of sectors that are expected 

to play a significant role in the analysis. Each of the county models is constructed 

using a combination of spreadsheet programs along with a mathematical software 

program, GAUSS18, which handles complex mathematical operations.

16 Robison, M. Henry. 1997. Community Input/Output Models for Rural Area Analysis. Annals of Regional Science. 

Vol 31(3) pp 325-351

17 Richardson. 1972. 18 Aptech Systems Software. GAUSS mathematical and statistical system
C – 961

Appendix C. Socioeconomics

Calibrate County models

In general, data and relationships for sectors that play an important role in the 

local economy and that are a key component of the economic base were adjusted 

with on-the-ground verified data as appropriate.

Modify export base in Key Economic Sectors

Use of mechanical techniques typically results in local absorption of the output 

of a variety of local industries that export all of their output (i.e., an extreme case 

of underestimating exports). Export sales are adjusted based on survey data for 

all key sectors in the analysis (such as wood products) and other sectors such as 

agriculture that are principal components of the economic base.

Perform sensitivity analyses and adjustments

Preliminary runs of the models using a range of input variables are undertaken 

to determine whether the model’s projections of impacts were reasonable. This 

procedure focuses on the wood products sector of the county model. Multipliers 

from the model are also compared to multipliers developed by the U.S. Bureau 

of Economic Analysis Regional Input-Output Modeling multipliers and for 

IMPLAN models of the area and to a county model (Western Oregon).

Timber Assessment Market Model

The Timber Assessment Market Model focuses on the solid wood products sector and 

also provides the linkage between products markets (solid wood and pulpwood) and the 

timber inventory. Since its inception in the late 1970s, the model has undergone a number 

of extensions and revisions designed to improve the realism of its projections and the 

utility of its output to resource analysts and policymakers.

The Timber Assessment Market Model is a special model of the solid wood and timber 

inventory elements of the United States forest products sector and of softwood lumber 

and OSB production in Canada. The Timber Assessment Market Model provides annual 

projections of volumes and prices in the solid wood products and sawtimber stumpage 

markets, and estimates of total timber harvest and inventory by geographic region for 

periods of up to 50 years. 

The demand module for softwood solid wood products uses Spelter’s diffusion analysis 

of demands for softwood lumber, softwood plywood, and oriented strand board/

waferboard. The current wood products supply module assumes that product output is 

obtained in fixed proportions to log input (the product recovery factor linkage) but in 

variable proportions to all other factors, implying that logs are separable from other 

inputs in production. Given the assumptions of fixed log input-product output relations 

in the Timber Assessment Market Model, the derived demand for logs is simply the 
C – 962

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

product of recovery factors times output. The supply of wood to processing facilities is 

modeled as a mixture of price-sensitive relations, and exogenous flows describing the 

volumes of timber available for immediate harvest and the volumes of logs delivered 

to mills. The Timber Assessment Market Model also includes a program module that 

provides linkage to the ATLAS timber inventory system for the solid wood, paper and 

board, and fuelwood models.

Survey of counties

To better understand County budgets, and the role that BLM payments play in 

those budgets, MB&G sent a questionnaire to each of the 18 O&C Counties. 

Follow up phone calls clarified unclear answers. 

County Budget Data for FY2005 – BLM Western Oregon Plan Revision

County: ________________________________

Contact Person: ________________________________

Phone: ________________________________

PART 1 – FISCAL YEAR 2005 BUDGET

Fiscal Year 2005

County Expenditures 

(see following page for definition of categories)

Total Budget 

(including 

Discretionary 

Budget)

Discretionary 

Budget Only

Health & Community Services

Public Safety

Economic Dev., Natural Res. & Recreation

Transportation & Land Use

Other Community Services

Debt Service

Other (Specify):

 __________________________________

 __________________________________

 

Total Expenditures

County Revenues

State Transfers & Reimbursements

Property Taxes

Safety Net Payments associated with O&C Lands

Safety Net Payments associated with USFS Lands

Other Federal Grants & Payments
C – 963

Appendix C. Socioeconomics

Fees, Charges for Services

City, Special District & Other County Payments & 

Reimbursements

Interest Earnings

Bonding or other borrowing

Other (Specify):

 __________________________________

 __________________________________

 __________________________________

Total Revenues

PART 2 – HISTORIC COUNTY EXPENDITURES

Fiscal Year

Total Budget 

(including 

Discretionary 

Budget)

Discretionary 

Budget Only

1985

1990

1995

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Part 3 - Describe primary expenditures of discretionary funding

Please describe in as much detail as possible the specific uses for discretionary funds in your 

County. Your responses to Part 1 above puts expenditures in general categories. It would be very 

helpful to have more detail about specific programs and projects supported by O&C and other 

discretionary funds in recent years. Please feel free to attach graphs, charts, or other descriptive 

budget documents that help explain how your County uses its discretionary funds.

BLM Budget

To calculate changes to the BLM budget, the non-timber portion of each District’s 

budget was calculated from the FY 2006 budget data. The timber portion of the 

budget was calculated using a fixed rate of $159/Mbf. This figure was based on 

historic budget information. 
C – 964

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Timber Program Costs

Timber program costs for the present net value calculation were based on historic BLM 

budget data as $200/Mbf. This includes overhead at the District and State offices.

Expenditure Categories

Health & Community Services

• Aging Services

• Alcohol & Drug Addiction Services

• Services for Children & Families

• Developmentally Disabled

• Mental Health Services

• Oregon Health Plan Services

• Veterans Services

• Public Health Services

• Environmental Health Services

• Housing Services

• Medical Examiner

• Solid Waste Disposal/Recycling

Public Safety

• Trial Courts

• District Attorney

• County Jail

• 911/Emergency Communications

• Emergency Management

• Homeland Security

• Community Corrections

• Court Security

• Juvenile Services

• County Law Library

• Sheriff Patrol

• Animal Control

Economic Development, Natural 

Resources and Recreation

• Oregon Plan Implementation

• State Forest Management

• Federal Land Policy

• Extension Services

• Telecommunications

• County Fair

• Watermaster

• County Forests

• County Library

• County Parks

• County Museums

Transportation & Land Use

• Highway & Road Systems

• Land Use Planning & Coordination

• Senior & Disabled Transportation

• Development Services

• Engineering

• Building Permitting & Inspections

• Surveying

• Capital Projects

Other Community Services

• Management & Administration

• Elections

• Assessment & taxation

• Human Resources & Employee 

Relations

• Property & Facilities Management

• Procurement

• Recording Public Documents
Appendix D. Timber

This appendix provides background on the analysis of timber valuation effects and the process for 

completing a 10 year scenario to verify the practicality of harvest scheduling the OPTIONS modeling 

results and to assist in estimating the effects of the alternatives. 

In this appendix:

Timber Valuation......................................................................................................................967

Ten-Year Scenario Quality Check .........................................................................................971

D – 965
D – 966

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs
D – 967

Appendix D. Timber

Timber Valuation

 The estimate of values which would be produced by the different alternatives must take into 

account the volume and quality of the timber offered, and the cost of harvest and transportation. 

The estimate of stumpage is being completed as a portion of the analysis of effects of the 

alternatives the first 10 years. As the alternatives are projected forward beyond the first 10 years, 

changes are expected in the receipt levels as the mix of sizes, quality and species changes in 

response to the harvest of different stand types, growth of other stands, and the application of 

silvicultural practices. 

Stumpage and receipts will be generally be calculated in following manner:

Stumpage = Pond value – harvest and transportation costs. 

•	 Pond value will be a weighted pond value inclusive of both the species mix and grade 

of logs anticipated from the different levels and types of harvest. 

•	 Harvest and transportation costs will be an average by harvest type for each district. 

Receipts will be the sum of all stumpage prices multiplied by the corresponding log volumes.

Analytical assumptions

Prices and costs will be calculated in constant dollars, set at 2005. 

Costs, species composition, recovery and grade will be developed using an historical 

reconstruction approach with a variety of base periods. 

Costs were developed for each district by two harvest types, thinning and regeneration 

harvest. Sales were selected from a base period of 1996 thru 2006. The first year of the 

forest plan, 1995 was not used due to expected bias since watershed analysis had not 

yet been completed on the majority of BLM-managed lands and no road construction 

could be undertaken in Riparian Reserves until the completion of watershed analysis for 

individual watersheds. 

Sales which were actually offered were included as provided by the districts, in response 

to a data query. Sales where data was incomplete were excluded. 

Sales were included regardless of award and execution or litigation. Volume weighted 

averages by thinning and regeneration harvest were developed for each district to obtain a 

“standing tree to mill” cost including cutting, yarding, road construction, transportation, 

maintenance, miscellaneous and other costs used in the standard BLM appraisal methods. 

All costs were expressed in dollars per thousand board feet (MBF) for 16-foot shortlog, Scribner scale. Costs varied considerably by district with the cost of hauling logs 

to the mills one of the more variable. Costs for thinnings were generally higher than for 

regeneration harvest. 
D – 968

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Costs for thinning will be used in the analysis for the thinning, uneven-age harvest, and 

partial harvest treatments described in Alternative 3.

A base size of approximately 1,100 million board feet was included in order to estimate 

costs, with a total cost of over $390 million in 2005 dollars. 

Species composition

Commercially valuable species compositions for the analysis were developed for each 

district, using an historical reconstruction technique. Volumes and percentages of volume 

by species were developed using the period 1990 thru 2006(in part) as the base period.

Analysis of the data contained in the species data base of TSIS (Timber Sale Information 

System), the BLM accounting and record keeping system for timber sales, indicates a 

high level of similarity of species between districts with the exception of the Klamath 

Falls Resource Area. 

Douglas-fir is the dominant commercial species with all districts having a harvest 

percentage of Douglas-fir by volume at or near 80 percent. Stratifying the base period 

into pre-Northwest Forest Plan, (1990-1995), early Northwest Forest Plan (1996-2000), 

and current Northwest Forest Plan era (2001-2006) yields only minor changes in species 

composition of sales. This species percentage composition has remained generally 

constant despite a substantial change in the harvest types and ages harvested over these 

three periods.

No formal sampling method was used to select a sample of sales available for use. Sales 

with missing or incomplete information were excluded. Some sales from the base period 

had been archived from TSIS, and were not included, as information was not available. 

Emphasis was placed on including large sales, as well as those from pre-Northwest Forest 

Plan years. Sales of less than one million board feet and those consisting of primarily fire 

salvage were excluded.

Log Quality

Log quality was estimated using historical reconstruction of log grades weighted by 

volume. Few sales were available in older forest types across the districts for the 

Northwest Forest Plan era, so sales from 1985-1990 were used to develop estimates for 

harvest of older timber, with the exception of Coos Bay district, where no records of this 

time could be located. For the Coos Bay district the base period of 1970-1975 was used. 

Sales were included when the data was available, complete and legible. Sales of less 

than one million board feet were excluded as were certain salvage sales where species 

bias was likely. With the exception of the Klamath Falls resource area, 150-300+ MMBF 

were included in the reconstruction base for each district. 
D – 969

Appendix D. Timber

District cruiser estimates were used for grade breaks in thinnings where the price 

differences between lower sawlog grades are low. 

Four types of forest stands were used to estimate quality by percent of volume. First 

are thinning stands. These were typically commercial thinning or density management 

treatments designed to remove/prevent suppression mortality and improve stand 

composition, vigor or value. Cruiser estimates of sawlog grade percentages will be 

used for these stands, in particular the DF 4 sawlog. The second type is regeneration or 

clearcut treatment in young stands, typically less than 80-100 years of age depending 

upon site quality. A modest number of pre-Northwest Forest Plan stands are available 

for this estimation, and some Northwest Forest Plan regeneration harvests fall within 

this category. The third type is mature stands, generally older than 80-100 years, 

typically dominated by one species, and generally of higher overall density. These 

stands correspond to the mature structural stage. Fourth are stands older than 150-

200 years corresponding to the structurally complex classification. A more complete 

description of these structural stages is contained in Appendix 12: Ecology, Section I – 

Structural Stage Classification.

For each district, average percentages by log grade for each of these structural classes 

will be prepared for Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, white fir, and sugar pine. Other species 

will be estimated using a camp run method with no grade differentiation. Analysis of the 

data indicates that higher log grades in other than these four species are rare.

The sales used as a basis were classified by structural stage class, described above, using 

a combination of local knowledge, species composition, average log size in board feet, 

and average number of Douglas-fir trees per acre.. Typically, stands with more than 100 

trees per acre and an average log volume of less than 100 board feet would be in the 

“young” stand classification. The “structurally complex” class would contain stands with 

less than 40 trees/acre of the dominant species and average log volume generally greater 

than 200 board feet. The “mature” stand class would lie between these figures. These 

levels will differ by district based on differences in site productivity. Volume weighted 

percentages of grades were then developed by structural classes and by district. 

Preparation of weighted pond values

Species composition will be assumed to be similar between regeneration harvest and thinning. 

Species were consolidated into commonly used groups for which prices are available. 

For example, true firs and hemlocks were consolidated into “white wood” 

For Douglas-fir, sugar pine and ponderosa pine, prices will be a weighted average by 

grade for the stand categories of young, mature and structurally complex. 

Prices for species and grades, where applicable, were averaged levels for calendar 

year 2005 for commonly priced groups, using data obtained from Log Lines Log 

Price Reporting Service (published monthly) PO Box 2215 Mount Vernon WA 98273, 

loglines@fidalgo.net).” 
D – 970

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Weighted pond values for each district were then prepared for young, mature and 

structurally complex stand classes using the pricing groups, grade weighted prices for 

Douglas-fir, sugar pine, and ponderosa pine, and consolidated percentages for grouped 

species such as true firs and hemlocks with their associated camp run prices. Log 

volumes and prices published in Log Lines are based on 32 foot long-log volumes. BLM 

volumes are expressed in 16-foot short-log, Scribner scale. Conversion factors used to 

adjust prices to 16-foot short-log were 0.8 for sawlog grades and 0.85 for peeler grades 

The above matrix of weighted pond values will be held in 2005 dollars for the 10 year 

estimate of stumpage and receipts, as will costs. 

Calculation of bid ratio

The period between 1990 and 2006 was used to calculate an average bid ratio for each 

district. This information was extracted from the BLM’s TSIS database system and was 

volume weighted. 

Preparation of stumpage and receipt estimation

For each district, each harvest type and each stand structural stage matrix will be prepared 

which will subtract harvesting costs from weighted pond values. Thinning costs will be 

used for the partial harvest in Alternative 3 due to the anticipated difficulties associated 

with this type of harvest in mature and structurally complex stands. 

Once a matrix of stumpage values for the various treatments and stand categories has 

been prepared, anticipated receipts are calculated by multiplying the stumpage value per 

thousand board feet by the corresponding harvest level by structural stage to obtain a total 

expected price for the 10 years. 

No correction for the “delay” in harvest after sale will be made. After a sale is sold and 

executed, a delay in sale receipts will normally occur since receipts are not generated 

until harvest occurs. This may be immediately after execution, or may be delayed 

depending upon seasonal requirements, sale specifications such as required construction 

or market conditions. In a similar manner, no delay will be assumed for litigation of 

individual sales. 
D – 971

Appendix D. Timber

Ten-Year Scenario Quality Check

The ten-year scenario is a method of both verifying the practicality of the harvest 

scheduling as modeled, and a method of estimating the effects to soils and hydrology by 

developing estimates of road construction and acres harvested by harvesting method. 

The ten-year scenario is a simulation, and is a single solution to harvest scheduling in 

the first ten years. There may be a large number of solutions to implementation in the 

first 10 years in terms of both harvest locations and harvest types. It is intended to be 

representative of the implementation of the plan for the first 10 years, but is not intended 

to be used to predict or decide locations of actual harvest units.

Procedure

Once harvest units are modeled by OPTIONS as harvested in the first 10 years, the 

locations and harvest types are mapped with accompanying tables of information. These 

maps are distributed to the districts for analysis. District planners and others familiar 

with harvest unit design and road systems develop road locations and harvest methods 

for the selected units. These designs are captured in a Geographic Information System 

mapping database and assembled for analysis. 

The OPTIONS model selects units for harvest based on a WOPR ID number. These 

WOPR ID units are polygons in the Geographic Information System database used 

for analysis of alternatives. They are typically subdivisions of the Forest Operations 

Inventory polygons, and are formed by the intersection and overlay of a variety of 

Geographic Information System layers or themes such as roads, streams, etc. (See 

Appendix Q - Vegetative Modeling for further information). 

Planners examine the sampled (see below) WOPR ID units as these ID units are formed 

into logical larger harvest units where the WOPR ID units are contiguous. Planners 

then use a variety of Geographic Information System themes such as elevation contours, 

streams, ownership boundaries, etc. to create a “paper plan” for each harvest unit. 

Once harvest units are determined, planners use local knowledge and the Geographic 

Information System theme layers to locate and document the existing roads and new road 

construction needed for access, location of landings to be constructed, and the harvest 

method (ground based, cable/skyline or helicopter) to be used.

Once these Geographic Information System themes have been completed, the layers are 

assembled and are overlaid in order to perform operations to assemble the information at 

a variety of scales. 
D – 972

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Sampling

Since the ten-year scenario is a simulation, these methods provide an estimate of such 

effects as miles of new road construction, acres of ground-based harvest, and number of 

new stream crossings. 

In order to develop the estimates in a reasonable time and with a reasonable level of effort, 

a sampling method was developed to select a portion of the simulated units for analysis. 

Sections where harvest occurs within the ten-year scenario are sampled at a 1 in 3 random 

sample. Results from this sampling are developed as ratios such as miles of new road 

construction per million board feet, by thinning or regeneration harvest. These ratios 

are then expanded to the entire population to yield estimates of the amount for the entire 

harvest over the 10 years. 

Sampling a particular township, range, and section is not stratified. That is to say that 

all sections where at least one WOPR ID unit is harvested have an equal chance of being 

sampled independent of the size of harvest within that section and independent of the 

acres of BLM land within that section. 

Although units are selected by section, examination of the results show that many metrics 

such as acres sampled or volume sampled are within a few percent of the expected values 

of 33 percent. Actual expansion is based upon the sampled volume level. 

The ratios developed are split by district, alternative, harvest type (thinning/regeneration 

harvest), and road type (temporary/permanent and surfaced/natural). These ratios are 

then expanded to estimate the total miles of road by road and harvest type, the acres 

disturbed from construction, etc. Once these ratios are developed, they are prorated to 

other units for expansion. 
Appendix E. Botany

This appendix provides a list of federally listed and candidate plant species and actions and plans 

related to federally listed and BLM special status plant species. It also includes a list of special 

status plants by habitat group. The analysis of effects for plant species is based on using these 

habitat groups.

In this appendix:

Federally Listed and Candidate Plant Species................................................................... 975

Digest of Actions Contained in Individual Recovery Plans for 

Federally-Listed Plant Species .............................................................................................. 977

Digest of Conservation Plans for Special Status Plants................................................... 980

Habitat Groups......................................................................................................................... 984

E – 973
E – 974

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs
E – 975

Appendix E. Botony

Federally Listed and Candidate Plant 

Species

The following table and maps show the federally listed and candidate plant species in the 

planning area.

Table 239. Federally Listed and Candidate Plant Species

Federal 

Status Species Common Name Critical Habitat Designation

Recovery 

Plan

Conservation 

Agreement

FTO Castilleja levisecta Golden Paintbrush Not Designated August-00

FTO Howellia aquatilis Water Howellia Not Designated September-96

FTO Lupinus sulphureus 

ssp. kincaidii Kincaid’s Lupine Not Designated April-06

FTO Sidalcea nelsoniana Nelson’s 

Checker-mallow Not Designated September-98

FEO Arabis macdonaldiana MacDonald’s 

Rock-Cress Not Designated February-84

FEO Astragalus applegate Applegate’s 

Milk-Vetch Not Designated April-98

FEO Erigeron decumbens 

var. decumbens

Willamette Valley 

Daisy Not Designated

FEO Fritillaria gentneri Gentner’s Fritillary Not Designated July-03

FEO Lilium occidentale Western Lily Not Designated March-98

FEO Limnanthes floccosa 

ssp. grandiflora

Large-Flowered 

Wooly Meadowfoam Not Designated Draft 2006

FEO Lomatium bradshawii Bradshaw’s Desert 

Parsley Not Designated August-93

FEO Lomatium cookii Cook’s Lomatium Not Designated Draft 2006

FEO Plagiobothrys hirtus Rough Popcorn 

Flower Not Designated July-03

FCO Calochortus 

persistens Siskiyou Mariposa lily Not Designated

FTO = Federally Threatened Oregon 

FEO = Federally Endangered Oregon 

FCO = Federal Candidate Oregon
976

Map 35. Federally Listed Plants
E – 977

Appendix E. Botony

Digest of Actions Contained in Individual 

Recovery Plans for Federally-Listed Plant 

Species

Recovery Plans for nine (9) federally-listed plant species have been completed and approved by 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The individual recovery plans are incorporated by reference, 

and each stands on its own with a complete list of recovery actions.

The bulleted lists of conservation actions for each species are excerpts from the individual 

recovery plans. The key elements vary by species and by recovery plans, and are not intended 

to be a comprehensive list of all potential actions. Writing style and vocabulary differ as these 

recovery plans have been written by numerous authors over a period of 20 years. 

Nelson’s checker-mallow (Sidalcea nelsoniana) 

(USDI, USFWS 1998a)

• Establish reserves to manage for the recovery of the species;

• Actively manage habitat within reserves to achieve natural recruitment, 

population size and age structure;

• Manage reserves to maintain suitable habitat, to reduce succession and 

competition threats; and

• Augment populations, collect seed, and propagate seedlings.

Rough popcorn flower (Plagiobothrys hirtus) 

(USDI, USFWS 2003a)

• Conserve all existing populations and manage reserves within recovery areas for 

long-term viability of the species;

• Protect habitat within reserves including habitat for pollinators;

• Manage existing sites by reducing competition and impacts from native and nonnative species; and

• Develop new populations in recovery units by planting or seeding areas.
E – 978

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Kincaid’s lupine (Lupinus sulphureus spp. kincaidii) 

(Conservation Agreement applicable to the Roseburg District, 

BLM only) (USDI USFWS 2006a)

• Maintain stable populations by protecting and restoring habitat of each 

population;

• Maintain viable populations by reducing threats;

• Conserve a minimum of two meta-populations within the recovery zone in 

Douglas County;

• Conserve a minimum of 5,000 m2 of occupied habitat;

• Survey suitable habitat for new populations and manage habitat to meet 

recovery goals; 

• Select, protect and manage reserve populations to address threats and increase 

the population; and

• Introduce and/or augment populations into suitable habitat.

Western lily (Lilium occidentale) (USDI, USFWS 1998b) 

• Search for additional sites and potential suitable habitat;

• Protect all known populations;

• Establish, delineate and secure management areas that include all necessary 

habitat and plants to sustain a viable population;

• Manage sites to enhance the habitat so that existing populations will naturally 

increase. Remove over-topping vegetation;

• Reintroduce or augment populations as prudent; and

• Allow grazing with minimal negative effects to the lily, or suspend during the 

flowering and fruiting season as prudent. 

Gentener’s fritillary (Fritillary gentneri) (UDSI, USFWS 2003b)

•	 Establish 8 management areas within 4 recovery units to provide for long-term 

maintenance or improvement of habitat;

•	 Develop protection strategies to reduce successional encroachment and 

shading, curtail new roads in habitat, control and prevention of invasive weed 

colonization, reduction of herbivory by deer and livestock, prevention of public 

bulb collection;

•	 Augment populations as needed to meet recovery criteria;

•	 Collect and cultivate bulblets for augmentation within management areas; and

•	 Survey for undiscovered populations in suitable habitat.
E – 979

Appendix E. Botony

Bradshaw’s lomatium (Lomatium bradshawii) 

(UDSI, USFWS 2003c)

•	 Secure and manage habitat within 4 recovery areas;

•	 Establish 10 management areas, develop management plans, secure and protect 

the habitat supporting each population, and implement site specific plans;

•	 Enhance populations within management areas by reducing threats to the species. 

Manage secondary succession, habitat modification, competition from native and 

introduced species, removal of trees altering soil conditions, insect and fungal 

diseases, human impacts, herbicide impacts, and grazing impacts; and

•	 Locate additional sites by identifying potential habitat and conducting searches 

for additional populations.

McDonald’s rock-cress (Arabis mcdonaldiana) 

(USDI, USFWS 1990)

•	 Protect and conserve all existing populations and habitat;

•	 Identify and protect essential habitat;

•	 Survey additional suitable habitat; and

•	 Withdraw lands from mining, designate as “special areas”, and acquire suitable 

habitat where possible.

Golden paintbrush (Castelleja levisecta) (USDI, USFWS. 2000)

•	 Maintain the current geographic distribution of the species by maintaining 

habitat integrity;

•	 Implement habitat management that includes; protection of sites with the best 

potential for providing long-term stable habitat, and maintenance of unoccupied, 

potential habitat in suitable condition;

•	 Establish new populations within the historic range of the species;

•	 Conduct inventory surveys for undiscovered populations in suitable habitat; and

•	 Reintroduce populations into unoccupied habitat in its former range.
E – 980

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Applegate’s milk-vetch (Astaragalus applegate) 

(USDI, USFWS 1998c)

•	 Conserve natural and introduced populations;

•	 Establish 6 recovery areas and develop management strategies for long-term stability;

•	 Manage the habitat of each population to achieve the desired population size 

and age structure, to encourage natural population recruitment and to minimize 

adverse impacts to populations;

•	 Inventory for undiscovered populations;

•	 Select population preservation and establishment sites;

•	 Secure extant populations and establishment sites; and

•	 Establish introduced populations and augment populations.

Water howellia (Howellia aquatilis) (USDI, USFWS 1996)

•	 Maintain the extant geographic range and habitat integrity that include 

the following key components; the maintenance of the natural vegetation, 

hydrologic, and geomorphologic conditions that determine the natural habitat 

succession rates and seasonal inundation and drying patterns of the habitat;

•	 Implement habitat management that will sustain occurrences and maintain habitat 

integrity to ensure functioning of meta-population dynamics;

•	 Provide protection on federal lands through special management designations 

such as Research Natural Areas or other designations;

•	 Conduct inventories in suitable habitat throughout the range of the species; and

•	 Develop and implement a reintroduction plan.

Digest of Conservation Plans for Special 

Status Plants

The lists below summarize the primary actions described in the agreements and strategies for 

Bureau sensitive species that would be applied on BLM managed lands. These lists are not 

intended to be complete and comprehensive. The conservation agreements and conservation 

strategies of each species are the documents that provide complete details and guide the 

management of the species.
E – 981

Appendix E. Botony

Conservation Strategies

Gorman’s Aster (Aster gormanii) (USDA, USDI 1994a)

•	 Maintain healthy reproductive populations at a variety of sites;

•	 Protect populations from immediate threats to their existence, such as: grazing 

by livestock or wildlife, habitat loss from timber harvest operations, road 

construction, and recreation; and

•	 Inventory suitable habitat of the species and collect baseline data on habitat 

requirements and vegetation community characteristics.

Silvery Phacelia (Phacelia argentea) 

(USDI, BLM, Coos Bay District 1995)

•	 Survey suitable habitat for new populations and update information of existing 

populations including threats and habitat;

•	 Improve occupied habitat and protect known populations from OHV use, 

European beachgrass infestation; and

•	 Collect seed for long term conservation.

Green Gentian (Frasera umpquaensis) (USDA, USDI 1993b)

•	 Ensure the continued viability of the species by designating all populations on 

BLM lands as critical to maintain viable, genetically stable populations;

•	 Protect populations from timber harvest operations, encroachment of trees into 

meadows, and fire suppression; and

•	 Field reconnaissance and survey for F. umpquaensis populations in 

potential habitat.

Columbia cress (Rorippa columbiae) (USDA, USDI 1996a)

•	 Employ one or more of the following actions to protect this species from 

livestock grazing and trampling: fence habitat and known populations, provide 

alternative water sources for cattle, alter grazing schedules to avoid the growing 

season of R. columbiae (April-October), and reduce or eliminate the number of 

livestock in the grazing unit;

•	 Allow higher water levels in early spring to reproduce the scouring effects of 

floods to help control the establishment of woody and weedy species.

•	 Provide populations with a 200-300 foot buffer near timber harvest sites;

•	 Install gates and signs to manage access by vehicles;

•	 Conduct inventory for potential habitat and undiscovered populations;
E – 982

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

•	 Protect local hydrologic function by avoiding habitat changes when implementing 

erosion control, timber harvests and road construction projects; and

•	 Control competing herbaceous vegetation and invading tree species.

Tall Bugbane (Cimicifuga elata) (USDA, USDI 1996b)

•	 Selected sites will be managed to:

• Maintain and enhance site viability. 

• Mitigate direct and indirect impacts, including: alterations in hydrology, 

canopy closure, changes in habitat from timber harvest, and road building 

in order to create and maintain conditions favorable for the C. elata.

•	 Management for non-selected populations is discretional;

•	 Improve the quality of existing habitat through broadcast burning and thinning to 

create and maintain forest gaps;

•	 Collect seeds and fruits for long term storage and potential future propagation;

•	 Install signs and protect populations within road right of ways. Restrict blading 

and ditching activities that would harm populations;

•	 Salvage plants for relocation when protection is not possible;

•	 Identify suitable habitat where reintroductions would benefit the species; and

•	 Inventory in suitable habitat.
E – 983

Appendix E. Botony

Conservation Agreements

Large-flowered rush lily (Hastingsia bracteosa), Purple-flowered 

rush lily (Hastingsia atropurpurea, Mendocino gentian (Gentiana 

setigera), Oregon willow-herb (Epilobium oreganum), and Western 

bog violet (Viola primulifolia ssp. occidentalis) (USDA, USDI 2006)

•	 Provide conservation for five rare plant species and their serpentine wetland 

habitat, known as Darlingtonia californica fens; 

•	 Inventory to identify new suitable and/or occupied habitat;

•	 Manage the Darlingtonia fens and protect their significant biological and 

ecological functions and values; and

•	 Protect Darlingtonia fens from threats such as: mining activities, road construction 

and maintenance, up slope logging, OHV use, fire suppression activities, water 

siphoning, over utilization for commercial, recreational, scientific or educational 

purposes, and from several invasive and noxious weed species.

Crinite Mariposa Lily (Calochortus coxii) (USDI, BLM and 

USFWS 2004f)

•	 Restore Calochortus coxii meadow habitat with native bunchgrasses and/or 

prescribe burn on a frequency matching natural fire return level. Thin or girdle 

trees to produce gaps in forest habitat;

•	 Inventory and control invasive and noxious weeds using integrated pest 

management (mechanical, manual, biological, and chemical methods);

•	 Exclude livestock inside habitat of C. coxii; and

•	 Collect seeds for long term conservation and propagation.

Umpqua Mariposa Lily (Calochortus umpquaensis) 

(USDA, USDI BLM and USFWS 1995)

•	 Acquire habitat on private lands to increase the amount of habitat in 

Federal ownership;

•	 Mitigate impacts from energy right of way and corridors; 

•	 Manage livestock grazing and vehicle access inside habitat by installing gates 

and fences;

•	 Maintain and restore Calochortus umpquaensis meadow habitat with native 

bunchgrasses or other native species; 

•	 Conduct prescribed burning and thinning to produce gaps in forest habitat; and

•	 Conduct inventories of potential habitat.
E – 984

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Habitat Groups

For the analysis of effects, special status plant species were categorized based on habitat relationships 

as shown in Table 240. A species can occur in more than one habitat group. Survey and Manage 

Species under No Action were also categorized by habitat and are shown in Table 241.

Habitat Groups and Abbreviations are as follows:

MG=Meadows/Grassland, SC=Shrub Community, OHW=Oak/Hardwood Woodlands, CF=Conifer/Mixed Evergreen 

Forest, SW=Seasonal Wetland Fends/Vernal Pools, RI=Riparian and Aquatic, SE=Serpentine Areas, RK=Rocky 

Areas Outcrops/Scree, MZ=Maritime Zone

Bureau Status and abbreviations are as follows:

SEO= State Endangered Oregon, STO=State Threatened Oregon, BAO=Bureau Assessment Oregon, BSO=Bureau 

Sensitive Oregon, FEO=Federally Endangered Oregon, FTO=Federally Threatened Oregon.

Taxon and abbreviations are as follows:

VA=Vascular, FU=Fungi, BR=Bryophyte, LI=Lichen 
E – 985

Appendix E. Botony

Table 240. Special Status Plant Species Habitat Groups

Habitat 

Groups Scientific Name Common Name Bureau Status Taxon Life Form Habitat Description

MZ ABRONIA UMBELLATA 

SSP. BREVIFLORA

PINK SANDVERBENA SEO VA forb Sandy areas, coastal 

dunes and scrub

CF, RK ADIANTUM JORDANII* CALIFORNIA 

MAIDEN-HAIR BAO VA fern

Shaded seeps, 

hillsides, moist woods, 

rocky outcrops, vertical 

cliffs, forest openings, 

rocky banks in mists, in 

falls spray. Suspected 

– only a historic site on 

the UW RA.

MG AGOSERIS ELATA TALL AGOSERIS BAO VA forb

Meadows, shrubby 

slopes and open 

woodlands to mid 

elevation. 1200 ft near 

Roseburg

MG AGROSTIS 

HENDERSONII

HENDERSON’S 

BENTGRASS BSO VA graminoid Vernal pools

RK AGROSTIS HOWELLII* HOWELL’S 

BENTGRASS BSO VA graminoid moist cliffs, Columbia Gorge

MZ, CF ALBATRELLUS 

AVELLANEUS BSO FU FUNGUS

Terrestrial in chaparell, 

hardwood and conifer 

habitat, mycorrhizal 

with pines 

SE ALLIUM PENINSULARE PENINSULAR 

ONION BAO VA forb dry slopes and flats

CF ALPOVA ALEXSMITHII BSO FU FUNGUS buried in humus soil, 

near alders

RI, RK ANDREAEA 

SCHOFIELDIANA BAO BR MOSS acidic rock, granite

MG

ANDROSACE 

ELONGATA SSP. 

ACUTA

LONG-STEMMED 

ANDROSACE BAO VA forb dry grassy slopes

MG ANEMONE OREGANA 

VAR. FELIX BOG ANEMONE BAO VA forb bogs in shady woods

RK ARABIS KOEHLERI 

VAR. KOEHLERI*

KOEHLER’S 

ROCKCRESS BSO VA subshrub Dry, rocky cliffs

SE,RK ARABIS 

MACDONALDIANA

MACDONALD’S 

ROCK-CRESS FEO VA forb

Serpentine or granitic 

slopes ridges and rock 

outcrops, crevices and 

openings in Jeffery pine 

forests

SE,RK ARABIS MODESTA ROGUE CANYON 

ROCKCRESS BAO VA forb

Serpentine soils, deep 

soil on steep slopes, 

cliffs, shaded canyon 

ledges

RK ARABIS SPARSIFLORA 

VAR. ATRORUBENS

SICKLE-POD 

ROCKCRESS BAO VA forb Rocky slopes, valleys

* Species with 20 or fewer populations
E – 986

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Habitat 

Groups Scientific Name Common Name Bureau Status Taxon Life Form Habitat Description

RK

ARABIS 

SUFFRUTESCENS 

VAR. HORIZONTALIS

CRATER LAKE 

ROCKCRESS BSO VA subshrub Gravelly or stony slopes, dry pumice

CF ARCANGELIELLA 

CAMPHORATA* BSO FU FUNGUS in duff under conifers and mixed hardwoods

SE,SC ARCTOSTAPHYLOS 

HISPIDULA

HAIRY 

MANZANITA BAO VA shrub

Rocky serpentine soils 

or sandstone, open 

shrub and forests, not 

fire tolerant

RK ARNICA VISCOSA SHASTA ARNICA BAO VA subshrub Open, rocky, subalpine 

to alpine sites

MZ ARTEMISIA 

PYCNOCEPHALA

COASTAL 

SAGEWORT BAO VA forb Rocky or sandy soils, coastal strand

CF ASARUM WAGNERI

GREENFLOWERED WILDGINGER

BSO VA forb

Open boulder fields 

under White-fir/Red fir 

conifer stands near Mt 

McGlofflin at timberline, 

RK ASPLENIUM 

SEPTENTRIONALE GRASS-FERN BAO VA Spleen

wort

Crevices of granite 

rocks

CF ASTER BREWERI BREWER’S ASTER BAO VA subshrub Subalpine meadows, 

open woods

MG,SW ASTER CURTUS 

(Sericocarpus rigidus)

WHITE-TOPPED 

ASTER STO VA forb

wet prairies, low 

elevations (humid and 

arid tranzition zone - 

Abrams)

RK ASTER GORMANII GORMAN’S 

ASTER BSO VA forb dry, rocky slopes, 

boreal zone

SW ASTRAGALUS 

APPLEGATEI

APPLEGATE’S 

MILK-VETCH

FEO/

SEO VA forb Moist meadows, 

MG ASTRAGALUS 

CALIFORNICUS

CALIFORNIA MILKVETCH BAO VA forb Dry, open areas in 

scrub, woodland

RK ASTRAGALUS PECKII PECK’S MILKVETCH STO VA forb dry, sandy ground

RI BACCHARIS 

DOUGLASII

MARSH 

BACCHARIS BAO VA forb Moist salt marshes, 

stream edges

MG BALSAMORHIZA 

HOOKERI VAR. LANATA

WOOLLY 

BALSAMROOT BSO VA forb Open woods, grassy 

slopes

SW,RI,

CF

BENSONIELLA 

OREGANA BENSONIA BSO VA forb

Wet meadows, bogs 

and streams in deep 

soils under conifer 

forests

RK BOLANDRA OREGANA OREGON 

BOLANDRA BSO VA subshrub

 Near streams and 

moist rock crevices, 

wet cliffs in deep shade 

to open areas, lower 

Columbia river gorge

CF BOLETUS 

PULCHERRIMUS BSO FU FUNGUS mixed woods and conifers
E – 987

Appendix E. Botony

Habitat 

Groups Scientific Name Common Name Bureau Status Taxon Life Form Habitat Description

CF BOTRYCHIUM 

MONTANUM

MOUNTAIN 

GRAPE-FERN BAO VA grape-fern

Shady coniferous 

forests, edges of bogs, 

cedar swamps

RK BOTRYCHIUM 

PUMICOLA

PUMICE GRAPEFERN STO VA grape-fern

fine pumice gravel on 

open slopes,dense 

lodgepole pine stands, 

high elevation

RK BRACHYDONTIUM 

OLYMPICUM BAO BR MOSS rock, tiny

CF BRIDGEOPORUS 

NOBILISSIMUS BSO FU FUNGUS conifer forests, true firs, Silver fir zone

MZ BRODIAEA 

TERRESTRIS

DWARF 

BRODIAEA BAO VA forb Grassland, open woodlands

SW BRUCHIA FLEXUOSA BAO BR MOSS

Wet prairie habitat, 

mud flats around 

reservoir, low elevation 

grasslands

MZ, CF BRYORIA 

PSEUDOCAPILLARIS BSO LI Lichen

Picea sitchensis 

forests, exposed sites 

along the immediate 

coast, canopy, bark and 

wood, 

MZ, CF BRYORIA SPIRALIFERA BSO LI Lichen

 mostly conifers but 

also hardwoods, 

canopy, bark and 

wood, spiralling around 

branches, within 2 

miles of coast

MZ, CF BRYORIA SUBCANA* BAO LI Lichen

Picea sitchensis 

forests,mostly conifers 

but also hardwoods 

and shrubs, canopy, 

bark and wood, 

spiralling around 

branches, along coastal 

bays and streams, 

ridges and summits in 

CA

RI,RK BRYUM 

CALOBRYOIDES* BAO BR MOSS

montane to alpine 

elevations in the Coast 

Ranges and the Rocky 

Mountains

SW BULBOSTYLIS 

CAPILLARIS SAND SEDGE BAO VA forb Meadows, grassy 

clearings

RI CALAMAGROSTIS 

BREWERI

BREWER’S 

REEDGRASS BAO VA grass

Moist subalpine and 

alpine meadows, lake 

margins, streambanks

CF CALICIUM 

ADSPERSUM BAO LI Lichen

Highly textured bark on 

the boles of old growth 

conifer trees

SW CALLIERGON 

TRIFARIUM BAO BR MOSS wetland sites, bogs and fens
E – 988

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Habitat 

Groups Scientific Name Common Name Bureau Status Taxon Life Form Habitat Description

SE,MG,

CF

CALOCHORTUS COXII* CRINITE 

MARIPOSA-LILY SEO VA forb ultramafic slopes, open woodlands

SC,MG CALOCHORTUS 

GREENEI

GREENE’S 

MARIPOSA-LILY BSO VA forb

Dry rocky hillsides, 

bluffs and flats in 

openings and margins 

of shrubs and conifer 

woodlands

SE CALOCHORTUS 

HOWELLII

HOWELL’S 

MARIPOSA-LILY STO VA forb

ultrmafic soils in 

meadows, open 

woodlands

SE CALOCHORTUS 

INDECORUS

SEXTON MT. 

MARIPOSA-LILY SEO VA forb ultramafics, open slopes, 

RK,MG CALOCHORTUS 

MONOPHYLLUS*

ONE-LEAVED 

MARIPOSA-LILY BAO VA forb Wooded slopes, clayloam soils

RK CALOCHORTUS 

NITIDUS*

BROAD-FRUIT 

MARIPOSA-LILY BAO VA forb grasslands and meadows

RK CALOCHORTUS 

PERSISTENS*

SISKIYOU 

MARIPOSA-LILY FCO VA forb Open, dry rocky ridgetops

SE,MG,

CF

CALOCHORTUS 

UMPQUAENSIS

UMPQUA 

MARIPOSA-LILY SEO VA forb open forests and grasslands

RI, SW CALYPOGEIA 

SPHAGNICOLA BAO BR LIVERWORT

Wetland bogs 

containing sphagnum

MG,SE CAMASSIA HOWELLII HOWELL’S CAMAS BSO VA forb serpentine slopes, 

open woodlands

OHW,MG CAMISSONIA 

GRACILIFLORA

SLENDERFLOWERED 

EVENINGPRIMROSE

BAO VA forb

Open or shrubby 

slopes, generally clay 

soils, grasslands, oak 

woodlands

MZ, RI CAMPYLOPUS 

SCHMIDII* BAO BR MOSS

Wetlands along the 

coast, In partiallystabilized coastal sand 

dunes w/in one mile of 

ocean. In open stands 

of shore pine, cedar 

& cypress; shaded to 

exposed sand around 

the edges of vernal 

pools, and in deflation 

plains

RK CARDAMINE 

PATTERSONII

SADDLE 

MOUNTAIN 

BITTERCRESS

BSO VA forb

Moist, mossy rocks, 

cliffs, open slopes with 

shallow soil.

RI CAREX ABRUPTA ABRUPT-BEAKED 

SEDGE BAO VA sedge Generally moist meadows, open forest

MZ, RI CAREX BREVICAULIS SHORT STEMMED 

SEDGE BAO VA sedge

Rocky or sandy soil; 

sand dunes in Festuca 

rubra community; 

coastal

RI

CAREX 

BRUNNESCENS SSP. 

BRUNNESCENS

BROWNISH 

SEDGE BAO VA sedge wet places, banks and open woods
E – 989

Appendix E. Botony

Habitat 

Groups Scientific Name Common Name Bureau Status Taxon Life Form Habitat Description

RI CAREX CAPITATA CAPITATE SEDGE BAO VA sedge Generally wet places

RI,SW CAREX COMOSA BRISTLY SEDGE BAO VA sedge Marshes, lakeshores 

and wet meadows

MZ, RI CAREX CRAWFORDII CRAWFORD’S 

SEDGE BAO VA sedge open places

RI CAREX DIANDRA LESSER 

PANICLED SEDGE BAO VA sedge Marshy meadows

RI, MG,

CF, SW

CAREX GYNODYNAMA HAIRY SEDGE BAO VA sedge Wet meadows; open 

forests; <600m

RI CAREX LASIOCARPA 

VAR. AMERICANA SLENDER SEDGE BAO VA sedge

Lake, pond shores, 

generally in standing 

water

RI CAREX LIVIDA PALE SEDGE BAO VA sedge

Bogs, swampy 

woods, OR coast and 

Cascades, extirpated 

in CA

RI CAREX RETRORSA RETRORSE 

SEDGE BAO VA sedge

Edges of sloughs and 

lakes, swamps, bogs, 

wet meadows; in 

foothills and lowlands

SE, RI,

SW

CAREX 

SCABRIUSCULA SISKIYOU SEDGE BAO VA sedge

marshy meadows, 

swamps, bogs, moist 

rocky slopes

OHW, 

SW, RI

CAREX 

SERRATODENS

SAW-TOOTH 

SEDGE BAO VA sedge Moist places

SW,RI CAREX SP. NOV. A SEDGE BSO VA sedge

CF CASTILLEJA 

CHLOROTICA

GREEN-TINGED 

PAINTBRUSH BSO VA forb

SW, MG CASTILLEJA 

LEVISECTA

GOLDEN 

PAINTBRUSH

FTO/

SEO VA forb lowland meadows and 

along water

MZ, SC CASTILLEJA 

MENDOCINENSIS

MENDOCINO 

COAST INDIAN 

PAINTBRUSH

BSO VA forb

coastal bluffs, coastal 

praire, scrub and 

conifer forests

RK CASTILLEJA 

RUPICOLA

CLIFF 

PAINTBRUSH BAO VA forb rock cliffs in Cascades

RI CERATOPHYLLUM 

ECHINATUM

PRICKLY 

HORNWORT BAO VA aquatic 

forb

Lakes, ponds, 

marshes. More acidic 

and oligotrophic water 

than common hornwort.

RK CHEILANTHES 

COVILLEI

COVILLE’S LIPFERN BAO VA fern Crevices, bases of 

rocks, sun or shade

RK CHEILANTHES 

INTERTEXTA

COASTAL 

LIPFERN BAO VA fern Crevices, bases of rocks

RI CHILOSCYPHUS 

GEMMIPARUS BSO BR LIVERWORT

Attached to rocks in 

the bed of cold water 

streams, submerged or 

emergent in the splash 

zone (known from 2 

localities in OR) 
E – 990

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Habitat 

Groups Scientific Name Common Name Bureau Status Taxon Life Form Habitat Description

OHW CHLOROGALUM 

ANGUSTIFOLIUM*

NARROW-LEAVED 

AMOLE BAO VA forb Heavy soils of grassland or woodland

RI, OHW, 

SW,MG,

RK

CICENDIA 

QUADRANGULARIS* TIMWORT BAO VA forb

Crevices, bases 

of rocks, coastal 

wetlands, vernal pools, 

moist valley grasslands 

and oak woodland

RI CICUTA BULBIFERA BULB-BEARING 

WATER-HEMLOCK BAO VA forb marshes and lake borders

CF CIMICIFUGA ELATA TALL BUGBANE BSO VA forb

Moist shady woods, 

open canopy, at lower 

elevations, often 

with big leaf maple 

in overstory, always 

dominant swordfern 

ground cover; north to 

northeast-facing steep 

slopes; mid-slope: near 

creeks

OHW,MG CIRSIUM CILIOLATUM ASHLAND 

THISTLE BSO VA forb Open woodland

MZ, RK CLADIDIUM 

BOLANDERI BAO LI Lichen

Crustose microlichen, 

rock outcrops in coastal 

prairies, Bodega Bay, 

CA

OHW CLARKIA 

HETERANDRA

SMALL-FRUIT 

CLARKIA BAO VA forb Shady sites, woodland, 

yellow-pine forest

MZ COCHLEARIA 

OFFICINALIS SPOONWORT BAO VA

forb, 

maritime 

succulent

Open woodland, 

coastal headlands and 

offshore rocks

CF,RI,

MG

COLLOMIA MAZAMA MT. MAZAMA 

COLLOMIA BSO VA forb open forests, rock 

outcrops

RI, CF COPTIS TRIFOLIA THREE-LEAF 

GOLDTHREAD BAO VA forb cool, moist conifer 

forests

RI

CORDYLANTHUS 

MARITIMUS SSP. 

PALUSTRIS

POINT REYES 

BIRD’S BEAK SEO VA forb Coastal salt marshes

RI, CF CORYDALIS AQUAEGELIDAE

COLD-WATER 

CORYDALIS BSO VA aquatic 

forb

margins of springs, 

streams and gravel 

bars, gravel substrate, 

riparian, intermediate 

canopy closure

RI,RK CRUMIA LATIFOLIA BAO BR MOSS

On wet rocks and cliff 

faces, riparian, often on 

calcareous substrates. 

May be submerged in 

streams. 

MZ CRYPTANTHA 

LEIOCARPA

SEASIDE 

CRYPTANTHA BAO VA forb Stabile and shifting sand dunes
E – 991

Appendix E. Botony

Habitat 

Groups Scientific Name Common Name Bureau Status Taxon Life Form Habitat Description

RK CRYPTANTHA MILOBAKERI

MILO BAKER’S 

CRYPTANTHA BAO VA forb

Rocky or gravelly soils, 

generally coniferous 

forest

RK CRYPTOGRAMMA 

STELLERI

STELLER’S ROCKBRAKE BAO VA fern moist shaded cliffs, mid 

to upper montane

 CF CRYPTOMITRIUM 

TENERUM BAO BR LIVERWORT

Partly shady slope 

with Lithocarpus and 

Umbrellularia on soil in 

trail cut. Abundant with 

capsules.

CF CUPRESSUS BAKERI* BAKER’S 

CYPRESS BAO VA tree

Mixed-evergreen 

forests, open slopes, 

flats, basalt or 

serpentine

RI CYPERUS 

ACUMINATUS

SHORT-POINTED 

CYPERUS BAO VA forb

Wet,low places in 

valley and lowlands, 

edges of temporary 

pools, ponds, streams, 

ditches

CF CYPRIPEDIUM 

FASCICULATUM

CLUSTERED 

LADY’S-SLIPPER BSO VA forb Open coniferous forest

MG, RK DELPHINIUM 

LEUCOPHAEUM

WHITE ROCK 

LARKSPUR SEO VA forb low, moist meadows, rocky banks

RK,CF,

OHW

DELPHINIUM 

NUDICAULE RED LARKSPUR BAO VA forb Common. Moist talus, 

wooded, rocky slopes:

RI, MG DELPHINIUM 

NUTTALLII

NUTALL’S 

LARKSPUR BAO VA forb low, moist meadows

MG, 

OHW

DELPHINIUM 

OREGANUM

WILLAMETTE 

VALLEY 

LARKSPUR

BSO VA forb open plains and 

hillsides

OHW DELPHINIUM 

PAVONACEUM

PEACOCK 

LARKSPUR SEO VA forb meadows

MZ, CF DERMOCYBE 

HUMBOLDTENSIS* BSO FU FUNGUS

on ground under 

conifers, particularly 

pines

CF DESTUNTZIA RUBRA BSO FU FUNGUS

buried in soil or duff 

in mixed woods or 

conifers, favors Dougfir

RK DICENTRA 

PAUCIFLORA

FEW-FLOWERED 

BLEEDINGHEART BAO VA forb Gravelly areas, high 

elevation coastal range

RI,CF DIPLOPHYLLUM 

PLICATUM BAO BR LIVERWORT

Cool, moist habitats, 

decayed wood, downed 

logs, trunks, soil and 

rocks, moist shaded 

cliffs, along rivers and 

stream banks

RI, CF DODECATHEON 

AUSTROFRIGIDUM*

FRIGID 

SHOOTINGSTAR BSO VA forb

open or shaded 

vernally moist areas, 

cliffs or rock slopes
E – 992

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Habitat 

Groups Scientific Name Common Name Bureau Status Taxon Life Form Habitat Description

RK DRABA HOWELLII HOWELL’S 

WHITLOW-GRASS BSO VA forb Rock crevices

RI ELEOCHARIS 

PARVULA

SMALL 

SPIKERUSH BAO VA forb

Wet saline or alkaline 

sites; marshes. 

Coastal in OR, 

including deflation 

plains.

RI

ENCALYPTA 

BREVICOLLA VAR. 

CRUMIANA

BSO BR MOSS

exposed rocky areas 

, cost range, high 

elevation

MG, RI,

OHW

ENTOSTHODON 

FASCICULARIS* BAO BR MOSS

growing on rock 

outcrops, soil, dry,open 

habitats

SW EPILOBIUM 

OREGANUM

OREGON 

WILLOW-HERB BSO VA forb

Ultramafics, wet 

meadows, bogs, small 

streams, ditches, full 

sun or part shade

OHW, SC ERICAMERIA 

ARBORESCENS GOLDEN FLEECE BAO VA shrub Foothill woodland and chaparral

SE, MG,

RK

ERIGERON CERVINUS SISKIYOU DAISY BAO VA forb

Open, rocky slopes, 

meadows, pine to fir 

woods and serpentine 

areas

MG, 

OHW,

SW

ERIGERON 

DECUMBENS VAR. 

DECUMBENS

WILLAMETTE 

VALLEY DAISY

FEO/

SEO VA forb Woodland, open forest

RK, MG ERIGERON HOWELLII HOWELL’S DAISY BSO VA forb moist often rocky 

places

RI, MG

ERIGERON 

PEREGRINUS VAR. 

PEREGRINUS

WANDERING 

DAISY BAO VA forb

moist meadow, 

streamsides or bogs 

in mts

MZ, CF ERIODERMA 

SOREDIATUM* BAO LI Lichen

costal fog zone, bark 

or wood of hardwoods 

and conifers

RK ERIOGONUM LOBBII LOBB’S 

BUCKWHEAT BAO VA forb Common. Open, rocky 

slopes and ridges

MG

ERIOGONUM 

UMBELLATUM VAR. 

GLABERRIMUM

GREEN 

BUCKWHEAT BSO VA forb Sand or gravel

RI ERIOPHORUM 

CHAMISSONIS

RUSSET COTTONGRASS BAO VA sedge

Bogs, swamps and wet 

places. Open, rocky 

slopes and ridges, also 

coastal bogs

MG ERODIUM 

MACROPHYLLUM

LARGE-LEAVED 

FILAREE BAO VA forb Open sites, grassland, 

scrub

SW ERYNGIUM 

ALISMIFOLIUM

INLAND COYOTETHISTLE BAO VA forb Vernal pools, flooded 

meadows

MZ ERYSIMUM MENZIESII 

SSP. CONCINNUM

PACIFIC 

WALLFLOWER BAO VA forb

Open sites, grassland, 

scrub, coastal bluffs, 

headlands, and cliffs
E – 993

Appendix E. Botony

Habitat 

Groups Scientific Name Common Name Bureau Status Taxon Life Form Habitat Description

MG, CF,

RK

ERYTHRONIUM 

ELEGANS

COAST RANGE 

FAWN-LILY STO VA forb

Northern Coast Range 

in Oregon, in open 

meadows, rocky cliffs, 

brushland, edges 

of sphagnum bogs 

(Grenier 1991).old & 

second growth conifer 

& hardwood forests w/ 

open canopies; also in 

shaded woods where 

plants smaller and 

may not flower; forest 

edges, roadsides; 

south facing dry sites 

w/ poison oak

SE,CF ERYTHRONIUM 

HOWELLII

HOWELL’S 

ADDER’STONGUEBSO VA forb

serpentine influence, 

meadows open 

woodlands, mixed 

evergreen 

RK,MG ESCHSCHOLZIA 

CAESPITOSA* GOLD POPPY BAO VA forb Open chaparral, rocky slopes

CF, ME,

MG, 

OHW

EUCEPHALUS VIALIS WAYSIDE ASTER STO VA forb rocky hilsides, open 

woodland, chaparrel

RI EUCLADIUM 

VERTICILLATUM BAO BR MOSS

seeps and springs, 

high calcareous or 

alkaline, areas of tufa 

precipitation

OHW, 

MG FESTUCA ELMERI ELMER’S FECSUE BAO VA grass Moist, wooded slopes, 

under trees in rich soil

RI, CF FILIPENDULA 

OCCIDENTALIS

QUEEN-OF-THEFOREST BSO VA forb Riparian along streams

MG,CF FRASERA 

UMPQUAENSIS

UMPQUA 

SWERTIA BSO VA forb

open woodlands, 

meadows in mid to 

upper elevations

MG, RI FRITILLARIA 

CAMSCHATCENSIS INDIAN RICE BAO VA forb moist areas, tideflats to 

mt meadows

OHW,MG, 

SC,CF

FRITILLARIA 

GENTNERI

GENTNER’S 

FRITILLARY

FEO/

SEO VA forb open woods and thickets

SE, RK FRITILLARIA GLAUCA SISKIYOU 

FRITILLARIA BAO VA forb Serpentine, rocky dry ridges and slopes

RK FRITILLARIA PURDYI PURDY’S 

FRITILLARY BAO VA forb Serpentine, rocky dry ridges and slopes

CH,RK,

MG, SC

FUNARIA 

MUHLENBERGII BAO BR MOSS

rock outcrops, open 

canopy Medford Dist, 

desert areas

CF GASTROBOLETUS 

IMBELLUS BSO FU FUNGUS

buried in soil or duff 

in mixed woods or 

conifers

SW GENTIANA 

NEWBERRYI

NEWBERRY’S 

GENTIAN BAO VA forb MT meadows, banks, sub-alpine
E – 994

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Habitat 

Groups Scientific Name Common Name Bureau Status Taxon Life Form Habitat Description

SW GENTIANA 

PLURISETOSA

ELEGANT 

GENTIAN BSO VA forb UNCOMMON. Wet mtn meadows

SW GENTIANA SETIGERA WALDO GENTIAN BSO VA forb Wet mtn meadows and 

bogs, sometimes scree

MZ GILIA MILLEFOLIATA SEASIDE GILIA BSO VA forb Stabilized or shifting 

coastal dunes

CF GYMNOMYCES 

NONDISTINCTA BSO FU FUNGUS buried in soil or duff in conifers stands

MG HACKELIA BELLA BEAUTIFUL 

STICKSEED BAO VA forb

Streambanks, 

roadsides, forest 

openings

SW

HASTINGSIA 

BRACTEOSA VAR. 

ATROPURPUREA

PURPLEFLOWERED 

RUSH-LILY

BSO VA forb Serpentine mountain 

meadows and springs

SW

HASTINGSIA 

BRACTEOSA VAR. 

BRACTEOSA

LARGEFLOWERED 

RUSH-LILY

STO VA forb Serpentine mountain 

meadows and springs

SW HELIOTROPIUM 

CURASSAVICUM

SALT 

HELIOTROPE BAO VA forb Moist to dry, saline soils

SW HELODIUM 

BLANDOWII BAO BR MOSS bogs and fens

RK HERBERTUS 

ADUNCUS BAO BR LIVERWORT

wet shady cliffs and 

bark of trees, basalt 

outcrops

RI HERBERTUS SAKURAII BAO BR LIVERWORT shaded cliffs

MZ, CF HETERODERMIA 

LEUCOMELOS BAO LI Lichen

coast fog zone, on 

conifers hardwoods 

and occasionaly rock

CF HETERODERMIA 

SITCHENSIS BAO LI Lichen immediat coast

MG HORKELIA CONGESTA 

SSP. CONGESTA

SHAGGY 

HORKELIA BSO VA forb

Vernally moist,sparsly 

wooded areas, 

meadows and 

grasslands on rocky 

clay, generally 

ultramafic

OHW

HORKELIA 

TRIDENTATA SSP. 

TRIDENTATA

THREE-TOOTHED 

HORKELIA BAO VA forb Granitic or volcanic 

soils

RI HOWELLIA AQUATILIS WATER HOWELLIA FTO VA aquatic 

forb

In stagnant ponds and 

sloughs.

MZ, RI HYDROCOTYLE 

VERTICILLATA

WHORLED 

MARSHPENNYWORTBAO VA forb

Along edges of coastal 

and inland lakes 

ongranitic or volcanic 

soils, swampy ground, 

wetlands

MZ, CF HYPOGYMNIA 

PULVERATA BAO LI Lichen coastal OR
E – 995

Appendix E. Botony

Habitat 

Groups Scientific Name Common Name Bureau Status Taxon Life Form Habitat Description

MZ, CF HYPOGYMNIA 

SUBPHYSODES BAO LI Lichen

Shore pine forest on 

Oregon coast, only 

known location

CF, MZ HYPOTRACHYNA 

REVOLUTA BAO LI Lichen

coastal, on trees and 

rocks, Cascades in 

WA, near Seattle.

CF,SC ILIAMNA BAKERI BAKER’S GLOBEMALLOW BSO VA forb

UNCOMMON. Mtn 

slopes, pine forests, 

juniper woodland, lava 

beds

CF,RI ILIAMNA 

LATIBRACTEATA

CALIFORNIA 

GLOBE-MALLOW BAO VA forb

Moist ground and 

stream sides in conifer 

forests, often on shady, 

disturbed ground

CF IWATSUKIELLA 

LEUCOTRICHA BAO BR MOSS conifer tree trunks on fog drenched ridges

RI

JAMESONIELLA 

AUTUMNALIS VAR. 

HETEROSTIPA

BSO BR LIVERWORT

Apparently an obligate 

aquatic, on stones, 

in moving water or in 

deep, ultra-oligotrophic 

lakes, bottom of Waldo 

Lake OR

RK KALMIOPSIS 

FRAGRANS

FRAGRANT 

KALMIOPSIS - 

(DOUGLAS CO. 

POP.)

BSO VA forb

CF KECKIELLA LEMMONII BUSH 

BEARDTONGUE BAO VA subshrub 

or shrub

Rocky slopes, 

coniferous and mixed 

forests, chaparral

RI KURZIA MAKINOANA* BAO BR LIVERWORT

in forests, rocky cliffs 

and ledges, shaded 

moist sites,bogs

MZ

LASTHENIA 

MACRANTHA SSP. 

PRISCA

LARGEFLOWERED 

GOLDFIELDS

BSO VA forb Coastal headlands

OHW,CF

MG

LATHYRUS 

HOLOCHLORUS

THIN-LEAVED 

PEAVINE BSO VA forb

open forests and 

thickets, margins of 

woods; roadsides, 

fencerows and near 

farmlands

CF, MZ LEIODERMA 

SOREDIATUM BAO LI Lichen

coastal fog zone, 

stabilized dunes in old 

Picea sitchensis and 

Pinus contorta forests, 

stems of hardwoods 

and conifers, semiopen habitat, dune 

woodlands

MZ, CF LEPTOGIUM 

BREBISSONII BAO LI Lichen

costal fog zone, bark 

or wood of hardwoods 

and conifers
E – 996

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Habitat 

Groups Scientific Name Common Name Bureau Status Taxon Life Form Habitat Description

CF LEUCOTHOE DAVISIAE SIERRA LAUREL BAO VA shrub, 

small tree

Uncommon. Bogs, wet 

areas

RK LEWISIA COLUMBIANA 

VAR. COLUMBIANA

COLUMBIA 

LEWISIA BAO VA forb Granite slopes, cliffs

RK LEWISIA COTYLEDON 

VAR. PURDYI PURDY’S LEWISIA BSO VA forb

Granitic or serpentine 

rock outcrops, sun or 

shade, oak or pine 

forests

CF LILIUM KELLOGGII KELLOGG’S LILY BAO VA forb Gaps and roadsides in 

conifer forest

MZ LILIUM OCCIDENTALE WESTERN LILY FEO/

SEO VA forb

Coastal bogs and 

marshes, scrub near 

cost

MZ, RI, 

CF LIMBELLA FRYEI BSO BR MOSS

On wet, rotten wood, 

leaf litter and lower 

trunks of tall shrubs in 

dense coastal shrub 

swamps, wetland site, 

coastal OR, 

SW

LIMNANTHES 

FLOCCOSA SSP. 

BELLINGERIANA

BELLINGER’S 

MEADOW-FOAM BSO VA forb

vernal pools, seasonaly 

wet rocky areas and 

meadows, volcanic 

origin

SW

LIMNANTHES 

FLOCCOSA SSP. 

GRANDIFLORA

LARGEFLOWERED 

WOOLY 

MEADOWFOAM

FEO/

SEO VA forb

seasonaly wet 

meadows, open areas, 

local endemic, Upper 

and Lower Taqble Rock 

Medford

SW

LIMNANTHES 

FLOCCOSA SSP. 

PUMILA*

DWARF MEADOWFOAM STO VA forb

edges of deep 

vernal pools and wet 

meadows, open areas, 

local endemic, summits 

of Upper and Lower 

Taqble Rock Medford

SW

LIMNANTHES 

GRACILIS SSP. 

GRACILIS

SLENDER 

MEADOW-FOAM BSO VA forb

seasonaly wet 

meadows, open areas, 

serpentine

RI LIMONIUM 

CALIFORNICUM

WESTERN 

MARSHROSEMARYBAO VA forb coastal salt marshes

RI LIPOCARPHA 

MICRANTHA

SMALLFLOWERED 

LIPOCARPHA

BAO VA sedge Beaches, sand bars, 

wet bottomlands.

CF, RK LOBARIA LINITA BAO LI Lichen

trees, shrubs, mossy 

rocks, alpine sod, 

montane (var. linita 

is arctic, alpine, and 

montane rock outcrops; 

sterile. Var. tenuior 

is epiphytic, higher 

elevation old growth 

stands; apotheciate.)
E – 997

Appendix E. Botony

Habitat 

Groups Scientific Name Common Name Bureau Status Taxon Life Form Habitat Description

MG, SW LOMATIUM 

BRADSHAWII

BRADSHAW’S 

DESERTPARSLEY

FEO/

SEO VA forb

Wet prairies; grassy 

swales; along 

waterways at low 

elevations in areas 

that are seasonally wet 

and void of shrubs and 

trees

MG,OHW LOMATIUM COOKII COOK’S 

LOMATIUM

FEO/

SEO VA forb

open valley 

bottomlands and 

woodlands, local 

endemic

SE LOMATIUM 

ENGELMANNII*

ENGLEMANN’S 

DESERT-PARSLEY BAO VA forb Gravelly slopes in coniferous forest

MZ, SW, 

RI LOPHOZIA LAXA BAO BR LIVERWORT

 growing among and 

over branches of 

sphagnum in welldeveloped peatlands, 

coastal areas and in 

Cascade Mts.

CF/RI LOTUS STIPULARIS* STIPULED 

TREFOIL BAO VA forb

Open pine forests, 

streambeds, ditches, 

thickets, chaparral, 

logged areas

CF LUPINUS BREWERI 

VAR. BREWERI

BREWER’S 

LUPINE BAO VA forb Common. Generally open montane forest

MG, 

OHW,

CF

LUPINUS 

SULPHUREUS SSP. 

KINCAIDII

KINCAID’S LUPINE FTO/

STO VA forb

 Open montane forest, 

dry, open woods, valley 

prairie grasslands, oak 

forests, often in sandy 

soil

CF LUPINUS TRACYI TRACY’S LUPINE BAO VA forb UNCOMMON. Dry, 

open montane forest

RI LUZULA ARCUATA SSP. 

UNALASCHCENSIS

ALASKA CURVED 

WOODRUSH BAO VA forb

Mossy banks, boggy 

shores, rocky areas. 

At 3000’, Hood River 

Co., also reported 

1000-1600’ Douglas 

Co. (rocky rideges, 

high elevation, glacial 

moraines, Peck)

MZ, RI LYCOPODIELLA 

INUNDATA BOG CLUB-MOSS BAO VA CLUBMOSS

Coastal wetlands, 

moist areas in lake and 

pond margins, muddy 

depressions, peat 

bogs, fends, edge, and 

coastal habitats

CF LYCOPODIUM 

COMPLANATUM GROUND CEDAR BAO VA forb in woods and thickets

CF MARTELLIA 

IDAHOENSIS BSO FU FUNGUS buried in soil or duff in conifers stands

OHW, 

MG, SW

MECONELLA 

OREGANA*

WHITE 

FAIRYPOPPY BSO VA forb Open ground, moist, sandy, gravelly areas
E – 998

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Habitat 

Groups Scientific Name Common Name Bureau Status Taxon Life Form Habitat Description

MG MEESIA ULIGINOSA* BAO BR MOSS wetland sites, often 

bogs and fens

RK MELICA STRICTA NODDING MELIC BAO VA forb

Open sites, coniferous 

forest, rocky areas in 

alpine

CF, MZ METZGERIA 

TEMPERATA BAO BR LIVERWORT

Hypermaritime, on 

tree trunks, usually 

shaded, near coast; 

growing in dense mats 

or mixed among other 

bryophytes

CF MICROCALICIUM 

ARENARIUM BAO LI Lichen

boles of large trees, 

partically on a small 

selection of lichens on 

aged bark or wood, 

humid rock cliffs, 

(on farinose lichens, 

e.g., Chaenotheca 

furfuracea, on rocks or 

tree trunk bases. Old 

growth PSME, TSHE, 

TABR.)

RI, SW MICROMITRIUM 

SYNOICUM BAO BR MOSS

MZ, RI MICROSERIS 

BIGELOVII

COAST 

MICROSERIS BAO VA forb

Open, moist sandy, 

gravelly areas, in 

coastal headlands

MG

MICROSERIS 

DOUGLASII SSP. 

DOUGLASII

DOUGLAS’ 

MICROSERIS BAO VA forb

Inland clay soils, 

grassland, often 

near vernal pools or 

serpentine outcrops

SE MICROSERIS 

HOWELLII

HOWELL’S 

MICROSERIS STO VA forb

Serpentine soils on flat 

or sloped moist to rocky 

areas

SC,MG

MICROSERIS 

LACINIATA SSP. 

DETLINGII

DETLING’S 

MICROSERIS BSO VA forb

Open grassland, 

meadows, rocky 

slopes, forest edge

RK MIMULUS BOLANDERI* BOLANDER’S 

MONKEYFLOWER BAO VA forb

Burns, openings in 

chaparral, disturbed 

areas

RK MIMULUS CONGDONII* CONGDON’S 

MONKEYFLOWER BAO VA forb

Disturbed areas or 

seepage, runoff areas 

on slopes, generally 

granitic soils

RI MIMULUS 

EVANESCENS*

DISAPPEARING 

MONKEYFLOWER BSO VA forb

juniper plant 

associations, among 

rocky rubble and 

boulders in vernally 

moist, heavy gravel; 

stream edges, reservoir 

margins
E – 999

Appendix E. Botony

Habitat 

Groups Scientific Name Common Name Bureau Status Taxon Life Form Habitat Description

RI, CF,

SW

MIMULUS TRICOLOR THREE-COLORED 

MONKEY-FLOWER BAO VA forb

Vernally wet 

depressions, 

streamanks

SE, RK MONARDELLA 

PURPUREA

SISKIYOU 

MONARDELLA BAO VA forb

Serpentine, in 

open areas in rock, 

chaparral, woodland, 

montane forest

SW NAVARRETIA 

HETERANDRA

TEHAMA 

NAVARRETIA BAO VA forb

UNCOMMON. Heavy 

soil, vernal pools, wet 

or drying flats

SW NAVARRETIA 

WILLAMETTENSIS

WILLAMETTE 

NAVARRETIA BSO VA forb Wetland prairie, vernal pools, roadsides.

RK NEMACLADUS 

CAPILLARIS

SLENDER 

NEMACLADUS BAO VA forb Dry slopes, burned areas

CF, MZ NIEBLA CEPHALOTA* BAO LI Lichen

trees, shrubs, rocks, 

coastal fog belt, 

exposed coastal trees, 

less often rock

CF OCTAVIANINA 

MACROSPORA BSO FU FUNGUS

buried in soil or duff 

in mixed woods or 

conifers, favors Dougfir

MZ OENOTHERA WOLFII WOLF’S EVENINGPRIMROSE STO VA forb Coastal bluffs

MZ, RI OPHIOGLOSSUM 

PUSILLUM

ADDER’STONGUE BAO VA fern

Wet meadows, marsh 

edges, deflation plains 

along the coast

MZ, CF PANNARIA 

RUBIGINOSA* BAO LI Lichen

bark or wood, 

hardwoods shrubs or 

conifers in wetlands 

and riparian areas

RK PELLAEA 

ANDROMEDIFOLIA* COFFEE FERN BAO VA fern Rocky outcrops, noncalcareous rock

RK PELLAEA MUCRONATA 

SSP. MUCRONATA*

BIRD’S-FOOT 

FERN BAO VA fern Rocky outcrops

CF PENSTEMON 

GLAUCINUS

BLUE-LEAVED 

PENSTEMON BSO VA forb pine forests

MG,CF,

OHW, 

SW

PERIDERIDIA 

ERYTHRORHIZA

RED-ROOTED 

YAMPAH BSO VA forb

moist meadows, poor 

drained soils, and open 

woodlands and pine 

forests

MZ PHACELIA ARGENTEA SILVERY 

PHACELIA STO VA forb sand dunes

CF PHACELIA LEONIS SISKIYOU 

PHACELIA BSO VA forb

Often ultramafics, rocky 

to sandy openings in 

conifer forests

CF PHAEOCOLLYBIA 

CALIFORNICA BSO FU FUNGUS

on ground or duff 

in mixed woods or 

conifers, favors Dougfir
E – 1000

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Habitat 

Groups Scientific Name Common Name Bureau Status Taxon Life Form Habitat Description

MZ, CF PHAEOCOLLYBIA 

GREGARIA* BSO FU FUNGUS

on ground or duff 

in mixed woods or 

conifers

CF PHAEOCOLLYBIA 

OLIVACEA BSO FU FUNGUS

on ground or duff 

in mixed woods or 

conifers

CF PHAEOCOLLYBIA 

OREGONENSIS* BSO FU FUNGUS under conifers

SW PHYSCOMITRELLA 

PATENS BAO BR MOSS

mud laid bare from 

retreating water of 

lakes and ponds, 

Willamette Valley wet 

prairies

RK,CF PILOPHORUS 

NIGRICAULIS* BAO LI Lichen

noncalcareous rock 

substrate (volcanic), 

cool, moist areas on 

stable talus slopes; 

coniferous forests that 

are especially humid: 

riverbanks, canyons, 

coast.

SW PILULARIA 

AMERICANA

AMERICAN 

PILLWORT BAO VA forb aquatic

Vernal pools, mud 

flats, lake margins, 

reservoirs, etc

SW PLAGIOBOTHRYS 

AUSTINIAE*

AUSTIN’S 

PLAGIOBOTHRYS BAO VA forb Vernal pools, wet sites

SW, RI

PLAGIOBOTHRYS 

FIGURATUS SSP. 

CORALLICARPUS

CORAL SEEDED 

ALLOCARYA BSO VA forb wet meadows, riparian 

areas, valley floor

SW, RI PLAGIOBOTHRYS 

GLYPTOCARPUS

SCULPTURED 

ALLOCARYA BAO VA forb Moist places, 

grasslands, woodlands

SW, RI PLAGIOBOTHRYS 

GREENEI

GREENE’S 

POPCORN 

FLOWER

BAO VA forb Wet sites, grassland to 

woodland

SW,OHW PLAGIOBOTHRYS 

HIRTUS*

ROUGH 

POPCORN 

FLOWER

FEO/

STO VA forb Moist places, 

grasslands, woodlands

SW, RI PLAGIOBOTHRYS 

LAMPROCARPUS

SHINY-FRUITED 

ALLOCARYA SEO VA forb Moist places, 

grasslands, woodlands

CF,MG POA RHIZOMATA* TIMBER 

BLUEGRASS BAO VA grass

UNCOMMON. Shady 

moist slopes in forest, 

in rich loose soils, over 

granitics

MZ POA UNILATERALIS SAN FRANCISCO 

BLUEGRASS BAO VA grass

Coastal headlands and 

prairires in +/- saline 

soils

SW POGOGYNE 

FLORIBUNDA*

PROFUSEFLOWEREED 

MESA MINT

BSO VA forb UNCOMMON. Vernal 

pools, seasonal lakes

MZ, SW,

RI

POHLIA SPHAGNICOLA BAO BR MOSS sphagmum hummocks
E – 1001

Appendix E. Botony

Habitat 

Groups Scientific Name Common Name Bureau Status Taxon Life Form Habitat Description

CF, RI,

RK

POLYSTICHUM 

CALIFORNICUM*

CALIFORNIA 

SWORD-FERN BAO VA fern

Woods, streambanks, 

to rocky open slopes 

with moisture

RK POLYTRICHUM 

SPHAEROTHECIUM BAO BR MOSS montane and coastal bogs

OHW PORELLA BOLANDERI BAO BR LIVERWORT

on rocks and bark of 

living trees QUGA4 

forest, PSME forest on 

rock outcrops. Maple 

bark, tree trunk bases 

in CA. 

RI PORELLA VERNICOSA 

VAR. FAURIEI BAO BR LIVERWORT

Columbia Gorge, 1 

known site

RI POTAMOGETON 

DIVERSIFOLIUS

RAFINESQUE’S 

PONDWEED BAO VA forb aquatic

Uncommon. Shallow 

water, ditches, ponds, 

lakes

RI

POTAMOGETON 

FOLIOSUS VAR. 

FIBRILLOSUS

FIBROUS 

PONDWEED BAO VA forb aquatic

Shallow water, small 

streams

RK POTENTILLA VILLOSA VILLOUS 

CINQUEFOIL BAO VA forb

CF PSEUDOCYPHELLARIA 

MALLOTA* BAO LI Lichen

old conifers or 

understory harwoods, 

(TABR2, RHMA3 

branches in late 

successional forests, 

also branches, young 

ALRU2 or PSME 

forest). 

RK, SE PSEUDOLESKEELLA 

SERPENTINENSIS BAO BR MOSS serpentine endemic, 

found on rock

SW, MZ

PYRROCOMA 

RACEMOSA VAR. 

RACEMOSA

RACEMOSE 

PYRROCOMA BAO VA forb

Wet meadows and 

open places, coastal 

valleys, marshes, 

sometimes in saline 

soils

RI RACOMITRIUM 

DEPRESSUM BAO BR MOSS

plants growing in 

streams, mostly high 

montane

RK RADULA BRUNNEA BAO BR LIVERWORT

north-facing basalt 

breccia cliffs, peaty 

ledges, sheltered and 

open sites just below 

the ridgetop, grows in 

thick mats

MZ, RI RAMALINA 

POLLINARIA* BAO LI Lichen

bark and wood of 

various trees and 

shrubs, especially old 

ones, shaded rocks, 

low elevation moist 

areas, swamps

CF RAMARIA SPINULOSA BSO FU FUNGUS conifers
E – 1002

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Habitat 

Groups Scientific Name Common Name Bureau Status Taxon Life Form Habitat Description

CF, MZ RAMARIA SPINULOSA 

VAR. DIMINUTIVA* BSO FU FUNGUS on ground or duff in conifers stands

OHW, 

MG

RANUNCULUS 

AUSTROOREGANUS

SOUTHERN 

OREGON 

BUTTERCUP

BSO VA forb open meadows, 

chaparrel, valley floor

SC RHAMNUS ILICIFOLIA REDBERRY BAO VA shrub, 

small tree

Chaparral, montane 

forests

CF RHIZOMNIUM NUDUM BAO BR MOSS

moist soil in woods and 

along streams, mid to 

high elevation moist 

conifer forests

CF RHIZOPOGON 

CHAMALEONTINUS BSO FU FUNGUS buried in soil or duff in conifers stands

CF RHIZOPOGON 

ELLIPSOSPORUS* BSO FU FUNGUS buried in soil or duff in conifers stands

MZ, CF RHIZOPOGON 

EXIGUUS BSO FU FUNGUS buried in soil or duff in conifers stands

SW RHYNCHOSPORA 

CAPITELLATA

BROWNISH 

BEAKRUSH BAO VA sedge Marshes, seeps

RK RHYTIDIUM RUGOSUM BAO BR MOSS

Forming loose mats on 

dry soil or rock, usually 

on the sloping sides 

and tops of dry bluffs 

and cliffs, at middle to 

higher elevations west 

of Cascade Range, 

usually calcareous 

regions.

MG,SW,

RK, RI

ROMANZOFFIA 

THOMPSONII

THOMPSON’S 

MISTMAIDEN BSO VA forb

 moist rocky areas, 

wet cliffs, south facing 

slopes steep, well 

drained slopes.

RI, SW RORIPPA COLUMBIAE* COLUMBIA CRESS BSO VA forb

Meadows, playas, 

seasonal stream 

bottoms, river margins

RI ROTALA RAMOSIOR TOOTHCUP BAO VA forb

 Lake and pond 

margins, streamsWet 

places, lake and pond 

margins, streams, 

sloughs, vernal 

pools, irrigated fields, 

<1900m. 

SE,RI SALIX DELNORTENSIS DEL NORTE 

WILLOW BAO VA shrub Serpentine riparian areas

RK SAXIFRAGOPSIS 

FRAGARIOIDES*

JOINT-LEAVED 

SAXIFRAGE BAO VA forb Uncommon. Rock crevices

RK SCAPANIA 

GYMNOSTOMOPHILA BAO BR LIVERWORT

RI

SCHEUCHZERIA 

PALUSTRIS VAR. 

AMERICANA

SCHEUCHZERIA BAO VA aquatic or 

terrestrial

Floating mats, 

bogs, lake margins, 

Cascades
E – 1003

Appendix E. Botony

Habitat 

Groups Scientific Name Common Name Bureau Status Taxon Life Form Habitat Description

CF SCHISTOSTEGA 

PENNATA BAO BR MOSS

humid lowland forests, 

intensly shaded 

recesses, rock or 

mineral soil, riparian old 

growth or near lakes 

on the Cascade crest 

floresces

RI SCIRPUS PENDULUS DROOPING 

BULRUSH BAO VA sedge Marshes, wet meadows, ditches

RI, MZ SCIRPUS 

SUBTERMINALIS

WATER 

CLUBRUSH BAO VA sedge

Fress water lake 

margins, ponds, 

marshes, shallow water

RK SEDUM MORANII ROGUE RIVER 

STONECROP BSO VA subshrubs, fleshy

Rock outcrops, local 

endemic, Rogue River 

(serpentine??)

RK SEDUM 

OBLANCEOLATUM

APPLEGATE 

STONECROP BSO VA subshrubs, fleshy Rocky slopes

SE SENECIO HESPERIUS WESTERN 

SENECIO BSO VA forb

serpentine areas, open 

meadows, chaparrel, 

Jeffery Pine

MG SIDALCEA 

CAMPESTRIS

MEADOW 

SIDALCEA BSO VA forb grassy meadows and hillsides uplands

RI SIDALCEA 

HENDERSONII

HENDERSON’S 

SIDALCEA BSO VA forb Coastal tideland and marshes

RK,SC SIDALCEA HICKMANII 

SSP. NOV.*

HICKMAN’S 

CHECKERBLOOM BSO VA forb

Chaparral, open conifer 

forest, sometimes on 

serpentine

MZ, MG, 

CF, SE, 

ME

SIDALCEA 

MALVIFLORA SSP. 

PATULA

COAST CHECKER 

BLOOM BSO VA forb

Open coastal forest, 

prairie, mixed 

evergreen forest, 

grassy coastal 

headlands and 

meadows, often 

serpentine soils 

MG SIDALCEA 

NELSONIANA

NELSON’S 

HECKERMALLOW

FTO/

STO VA forb moist open meadows 

and woodlands

OHW SILENE HOOKERI SSP. 

BOLANDERI

BOLANDER’S 

CATCHFLY BAO VA forb

Serpentine, rocky 

slopes, open areas, 

oak woodland, 

coniferous forest

MG SISYRINCHIUM 

HITCHCOCKII*

HITCHCOCK’S 

BLUE-EYED 

GRASS

BSO VA forb

Willamette Valley 

and Umpqua Valley 

grasslands and oak 

woodlands

MG, RI SISYRINCHIUM 

SARMENTOSUM

PALE BLUE-EYED 

GRASS BSO VA forb wet meadows and 

stream margins

OHW SOLANUM PARISHII PARISH’S HORSENETTLE BAO VA forb Dry chaparral, oak/pine 

woodland, pine forest

OHW, 

CF SOPHORA LEACHIANA WESTERN SOPHORA BSO VA forb ultramafics, open to sparsely wooded areas
E – 1004

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Habitat 

Groups Scientific Name Common Name Bureau Status Taxon Life Form Habitat Description

RI SPHAEROCARPOS 

HIANS BSO BR LIVERWORT

On mud of river bank, 

seasonal ephemeral 

which is evident in 

summer (Pullman) 

and fall (Corvallis) 

when water levels are 

low (3 known disjunct 

localities)

RI SPLACHNUM 

AMPULLACEUM BAO BR MOSS

Forming green sods on 

old dung of herbivores, 

or on soil enriched by 

dung, in peatlands or 

wetlands. 

MZ STELLARIA HUMIFUSA CREEPING 

CHICKWEED BAO VA forb Known from Alsea Bay Island

CF,RK STEREOCAULON 

SPATHULIFERUM BAO LI Lichen

siliceous rock, northfacing talus slopes, 

cool moist habitats, 

subalpine to alpine in 

the Cascades

SE,CF,

OHW

STREPTANTHUS 

HOWELLII

HOWELL’S 

STREPTANTHUS BSO VA forb

ultramafics, sparsely 

wooded areas, open 

conifer and hardwood 

forests

CF STREPTOPUS 

STREPTOPOIDES KRUHSEA BAO VA forb alpine forests

CF,OHW SULCARIA BADIA BAO LI Lichen

Bark and limbs, 

canopy, pendulus, 

hardwoods mostly 

and conifers; dry open 

conifer forests, coastal 

pine forest

RK SULLIVANTIA 

OREGANA

OREGON 

SULLIVANTIA BSO VA forb wet rocks and cliffs

CF TAYLORIA SERRATA BAO BR MOSS

sphagnum wetlands, 

high nitrogen 

substrates of dung 

and long decayed 

carcasses.

MZ TELOSCHISTES 

FLAVICANS* BAO LI Lichen

coastal headlands, 

fog belt, on bark and 

wood of conifers and 

hardwoods

CF TETRAPHIS 

GENICULATA BAO BR MOSS

humid conifer forests, 

coastal areas to sub 

alpine, on large rotten 

logs and wood or peaty 

soil, rarely rock
E – 1005

Appendix E. Botony

Habitat 

Groups Scientific Name Common Name Bureau Status Taxon Life Form Habitat Description

CF TETRAPLODON 

MNIOIDES* BAO BR MOSS

lowland moist forests, 

on old dung or soil and 

rotten wood enriched 

by dung or carcasses, 

in peatlands as well as 

drier uplands.

SC, MG TEXOSPORIUM 

SANCTI-JACOBI BAO LI Lichen

biotic crust, arid to 

semi-arid grasslands, 

shrublands, or 

savannas, intolerance 

of calcareous, saline, 

and heavily disturbed 

sites

MZ, CF THAXTEROGASTER 

PAVELEKII BSO FU FUNGUS buried in soil or duff in conifers stands

SW THELYPODIUM 

BRACHYCARPUM

SHORT-PODDED 

THELYPODY BAO VA forb

UNCOMMON. Alkaline 

soils, adobe flats, pond 

margins

CF THOLURNA 

DISSIMILIS* BAO LI Lichen

 branches of exposed 

conifers, rarely on rock, 

subalpine and alpine 

habitats. Occasionally 

lower elevation where 

cool, moist.

RI,CF TREMATODON BOASII BSO BR MOSS

 tiny, moist soil along 

streams, ponds, 

subalpine, Central 

Cascades

CF, SC TRILLIUM 

KURABAYASHII

SISKIYOU 

TRILLIUM BAO VA forb

Moists forest, montane 

coniferous forest, 

foothill woodland, and 

chaparral

RK, CF TRIPTEROCLADIUM 

LEUCOCLADULUM BAO BR MOSS

Forming mats on 

shaded to exposed 

rocks, cliffs and bark 

of hardwoods such as 

oak and bigleaf maple, 

mostly at low elevations

MZ, CF TRIQUETRELLA 

CALIFORNICA BSO BR MOSS

coastal grasslands 

downslope of rock 

outcrops, within 10 

miles of coast.

RK, MG, 

CF

TRITELEIA 

HENDERSONII VAR. 

LEACHIAE

LEACH’S 

BRODIAEA BSO VA forb

Rocky areas, forest 

edges, wooded or 

open slopes and brush, 

meadow edges

CF TRITELEIA IXIOIDES 

SSP. ANILINA

SIERRA 

BRODIAEA BAO VA forb Coniferous forest edge, often in gravel or sand

MG, SC, 

ME TRITELEIA LAXA ITHURIEL’S SPEAR BAO VA forb

Meadows in mixed 

evergreen, foothill 

woodland, and 

chaparral
E – 1006

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Habitat 

Groups Scientific Name Common Name Bureau Status Taxon Life Form Habitat Description

CF, RI TRITOMARIA 

EXSECTIFORMIS BAO BR LIVERWORT

decaying wood in 

contact with water, mid 

elevation riparian areas

CF USNEA NIDULANS BAO LI Lichen

On both conifers and 

hardwoods, immediate 

coast and coast 

ranges. Found in 

stand of PSME, TSHE, 

THPL, ALRU2.; TSHE/

POMU Association

SW, MZ, 

RI UTRICULARIA GIBBA* HUMPED BLADDERWORT BAO VA forb

 Ponds, shallow 

lakes, bogs, wetlands, 

creeping over moss or 

mud

SW, MZ, 

RI UTRICULARIA MINOR LESSER BLADDERWORT BAO VA forb

Wetlands, ponds, 

shallow lakes, margins, 

sphagnum bogs

RI UTRICULARIA 

OCHROLEUCA

NORTHERN 

BLADDERWORT BAO VA forb

Wetlands, ponds, 

shallow lakes, margins, 

sphagnum bogs

SE, SW VIOLA PRIMULIFOLIA 

SSP. OCCIDENTALIS

WESTERN BOG 

VIOLET BSO VA forb Serpentine marshes, bogs and fens

RI WOLFFIA BOREALIS DOTTED WATERMEAL BAO VA forb Freshwater ponds, 

sloughs; <100m

RI, SW WOLFFIA 

COLUMBIANA

COLUMBIA 

WATER-MEAL BAO VA forb Freshwater ponds, 

sloughs; <100m

SC ZYGADENUS 

FONTANUS*

SMALLFLOWERED 

DEATH CAMAS

BAO VA forb

Meadows in foothill 

woodland, and 

chaparral

Table 241. Survey and Manage Species Habitat Groups

SPECIES 

GROUP

HABITAT 

GROUPS SCIENTIFIC NAME

Bryophyte CF Brotherella roelli

Bryophyte CF,RI Buxbaumia viridis

Bryophyte CF Diplophyllum albicans

Bryophyte CF Diplophyllum plicatum

Bryophyte CF,RK Encalypta brevicolla var. crumiana

Bryophyte CF,RK Herbertus aduncus

Bryophyte CF Iwatsukiella leucotricha

Bryophyte CF,RI Kurzia makinoana

Bryophyte RI Marsupella emarginata var. aquatica

Bryophyte CF Orthodontium gracile

Bryophyte CF Racomitrium aquaticum

Bryophyte CF,RI Rhizomnium nudum

Bryophyte CF,RI Schistostega pennata

Bryophyte CF Tetraphis geniculata

Bryophyte CF,RI Tritomaria exsectiformis
E – 1007

Appendix E. Botony

SPECIES 

GROUP

HABITAT 

GROUPS SCIENTIFIC NAME

Bryophyte RI,RK Tritomaria quinquedentata

Fungus CF Acanthophysium farlowii

Fungus CF Albatrellus avellaneus

Fungus CF Albatrellus caeruleoporus

Fungus CF Albatrellus ellisii

Fungus CF Albatrellus flettii

Fungus CF Alpova alexsmithii

Fungus CF Alpova olivaceotinctus

Fungus CF Arcangeliella camphorata

Fungus CF Arcangeliella crassa

Fungus CF Arcangeliella lactarioides

Fungus CF Asterophora lycoperdoides

Fungus CF Asterophora parasitica

Fungus CF Baeospora myriadophylla

Fungus CF Balsamia nigrens

Fungus CF Boletus haematinus

Fungus CF Boletus pulcherrimus

Fungus CF Bondarzewia mesenterica

Fungus CF Bridgeoporus nobilissimus

Fungus CF Cantharellus subalbidus

Fungus CF Catathelasma ventricosa

Fungus CF Chalciporus piperatus

Fungus CF Chamonixia caespitosa

Fungus CF Choiromyces alveolatus

Fungus CF Choiromyces venosus

Fungus CF Chromosera cyanophylla

Fungus CF Chroogomphus loculatus

Fungus CF Chrysomphalina grossula

Fungus CF Clavariadelphus ligula

Fungus CF Clavariadelphus occidentalis

Fungus CF Clavariadelphus sachalinensis

Fungus CF Clavariadelphus subfastigiatus

Fungus CF Clavariadelphus truncatus

Fungus CF Clavulina castanopes var. lignicola

Fungus CF Clitocybe senilis

Fungus CF Clitocybe subditopoda

Fungus CF Collybia bakerensis

Fungus CF Collybia racemosa

Fungus CF Cordyceps capitata

Fungus CF Cordyceps ophioglossoides

Fungus CF Cortinarius barlowensis

Fungus CF Cortinarius boulderensis

Fungus CF Cortinarius cyanites

Fungus CF Cortinarius depauperatus

Fungus CF Cortinarius magnivelatus

Fungus CF Cortinarius olympianus

Fungus CF Cortinarius speciosissimus
E – 1008

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

SPECIES 

GROUP

HABITAT 

GROUPS SCIENTIFIC NAME

Fungus CF Cortinarius tabularis

Fungus CF Cortinarius umidicola

Fungus CF Cortinarius valgus

Fungus CF Cortinarius variipes

Fungus CF Cortinarius verrucisporus

Fungus CF Cortinarius wiebeae

Fungus CF Craterellus tubaeformis

Fungus CF Cudonia monticola

Fungus CF Cyphellostereum laeve

Fungus CF Dermocybe humboldtensis

Fungus CF Destuntzia fusca

Fungus CF Destuntzia rubra

Fungus CF Dichostereum boreale

Fungus CF Elaphomyces anthracinus

Fungus CF Elaphomyces subviscidus

Fungus CF Endogone acrogena

Fungus CF Endogone oregonensis

Fungus CF Entoloma nitidum

Fungus CF Fayodia bisphaerigera

Fungus CF Fevansia aurantiaca

Fungus CF Galerina atkinsoniana

Fungus CF Galerina cerina

Fungus CF Galerina heterocystis

Fungus CF Galerina sphagnicola

Fungus CF Galerina vittaeformis

Fungus CF Gastroboletus imbellus

Fungus CF Gastroboletus ruber

Fungus CF Gastroboletus subalpinus

Fungus CF Gastroboletus turbinatus

Fungus CF Gastroboletus vividus

Fungus CF Gastrosuillus amaranthii

Fungus CF Gastrosuillus umbrinus

Fungus CF Gautieria magnicellaris

Fungus CF Gautieria otthii

Fungus CF Gelatinodiscus flavidus

Fungus CF Glomus radiatum

Fungus CF Gomphus bonarii

Fungus CF Gomphus clavatus

Fungus CF Gomphus kauffmanii

Fungus CF Gymnomyces abietis

Fungus CF Gymnomyces nondistincta

Fungus CF Gymnopilus punctifolius

Fungus CF Gyromitra californica

Fungus CF Gyromitra esculenta

Fungus CF Gyromitra infula

Fungus CF Gyromitra melaleucoides

Fungus CF Gyromitra montana
E – 1009

Appendix E. Botony

SPECIES 

GROUP

HABITAT 

GROUPS SCIENTIFIC NAME

Fungus CF Hebeloma olympianum

Fungus CF Helvella crassitunicata

Fungus CF Helvella elastica

Fungus CF Helvella maculate

Fungus CF Hydnotrya inordinata

Fungus CF Hydnotrya subnix

Fungus Hydnum umbilicatum

Fungus CF Hydropus marginellus

Fungus CF Hygrophorus caeruleus

Fungus CF Hygrophorus karstenii

Fungus CF Hygrophorus vernalis

Fungus CF Hypomyces luteovirens

Fungus CF Leucogaster citrinus

Fungus CF Leucogaster microsporus

Fungus CF Macowanites chlorinosmus

Fungus CF Macowanites lymanensis

Fungus CF Macowanites mollis

Fungus CF Marasmius applanatipes

Fungus CF Martellia fragrans

Fungus CF Martellia idahoensis

Fungus CF Mycena hudsoniana

Fungus CF Mycena monticola 

Fungus CF Mycena overholtsii

Fungus CF Mycena quinaultensis

Fungus CF Mycena tenax

Fungus CF,RI Mythicomyces corneipes

Fungus CF Neolentinus adhaerens

Fungus CF Neolentinus kauffmanii

Fungus CF Neournula pouchetii

Fungus CF Nivatogastrium nubigenum

Fungus CF Octavianina cyanescens

Fungus CF Octavianina macrospora

Fungus CF Octavianina papyracea

Fungus CF Otidea leporina

Fungus CF Otidea onotica

Fungus CF Otidea smithii

Fungus CF Phaeocollybia attenuata

Fungus CF Phaeocollybia californica

Fungus CF Phaeocollybia dissiliens

Fungus CF Phaeocollybia fallax

Fungus CF Phaeocollybia gregaria

Fungus CF Phaeocollybia kauffmanii

Fungus CF Phaeocollybia olivacea

Fungus CF Phaeocollybia oregonensis

Fungus CF Phaeocollybia piceae

Fungus CF Phaeocollybia pseudofestiva

Fungus CF Phaeocollybia scatesiae
E – 1010

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

SPECIES 

GROUP

HABITAT 

GROUPS SCIENTIFIC NAME

Fungus CF Phaeocollybia sipei

Fungus CF Phaeocollybia spadicea

Fungus CF Phellodon atratus

Fungus CF Pholiota albivelata

Fungus CF Pithya vulgaris

Fungus CF Plectania melastoma

Fungus CF Plectania mIlleri

Fungus CF Podostroma alutaceum

Fungus CF Polyozellus multiplex

Fungus CF Pseudaleuria quinaultiana

Fungus CF Ramaria abietina

Fungus CF Ramaria amyloidea

Fungus CF Ramaria araiospora

Fungus CF Ramaria aurantiisiccescens

Fungus CF Ramaria botryis var. aurantiiramosa

Fungus CF Ramaria celerivirescens

Fungus CF Ramaria claviramulata

Fungus CF Ramaria concolor f. marrii

Fungus CF Ramaria concolor f. tsugina

Fungus CF Ramaria conjunctipes var. sparsiramosa

Fungus CF Ramaria coulterae

Fungus CF Ramaria cyaneigranosa

Fungus CF Ramaria gelatiniaurantia

Fungus CF Ramaria gracilis

Fungus CF Ramaria hilaris var. olympiana

Fungus CF Ramaria largentii

Fungus CF Ramaria lorithamnus

Fungus CF Ramaria maculatipes

Fungus CF Ramaria rainierensis

Fungus CF Ramaria rubella var. blanda

Fungus CF Ramaria rubribrunnescens

Fungus CF Ramaria rubrievanescens

Fungus CF Ramaria rubripermanens

Fungus CF Ramaria spinulosa var. diminutiva

Fungus CF Ramaria stuntzii

Fungus CF Ramaria suecica

Fungus CF Ramaria thiersii

Fungus CF Ramaria verlotensis

Fungus CF Rhizopogon abietis

Fungus CF Rhizopogon atroviolaceus

Fungus CF Rhizopogon brunneiniger

Fungus CF Rhizopogon chamaleontinus

Fungus CF Rhizopogon ellipsosporus

Fungus CF Rhizopogon evadens var. subalpinus

Fungus CF Rhizopogon exiguus

Fungus CF Rhizopogon flavofibrillosus

Fungus CF Rhizopogon inquinatus
E – 1011

Appendix E. Botony

SPECIES 

GROUP

HABITAT 

GROUPS SCIENTIFIC NAME

Fungus CF Rhizopogon truncatus

Fungus CF Rhodocybe speciosa

Fungus CF Rickenella swartzii

Fungus CF Russula mustelina

Fungus CF Sarcodon fuscoindicus

Fungus CF Sarcodon imbricatus

Fungus CF Sarcosoma latahense

Fungus CF Sarcosoma mexicana

Fungus CF Sarcosphaera eximia

Fungus CF Sedecula pulvinata

Fungus CF Sowerbyella rhenana

Fungus CF Sparassis crispa

Fungus CF Spathularia flavida

Fungus CF Stagnicola perplexa

Fungus CF Thaxtoerogaster pavelekii

Fungus CF Tremiscus helvelloides

Fungus CF Tricholoma venenatum

Fungus CF Tricholomopsis fulvescens

Fungus CF Tuber asa

Fungus CF Tuber pacificum

Fungus CF Tylopilus porphyrosporus

Lichen CF,MZ Bryoria pseudocapillaris

Lichen CF,MZ Bryoria spiralifera

Lichen CF Bryoria subcana

Lichen CF,OHW Bryoria tortuosa

Lichen CF,MZ Buellia oidalea

Lichen CF,OHW Calicium abietinum

Lichen CF Calicium adspersum

Lichen CF Calicium glaucellum

Lichen CF Calicium viride

Lichen CF Cetrelia cetrarioides

Lichen CF Chaenotheca chrysocephala

Lichen CF,OHW Chaenotheca ferruginea

Lichen CF Chaenotheca furfuracea

Lichen CF Chaenotheca subroscida

Lichen CF Chaenothecopsis pusilla

Lichen CF Cladonia norvegica

Lichen CF Collema nigrescens

Lichen CF,OHW Dendriscocaulon intricatulum

Lichen CF,RI Dermatocarpon meiophyllizum (ex. luridum)

Lichen CF,MZ Fuscopannaria saubinetii

Lichen CF Heterodermia sitchensis

Lichen CF Hypogymnia duplicata

Lichen CF Hypogymnia oceanica

Lichen CF,MZ Hypogymnia vittata

Lichen CF Hypotrachyna revoluta

Lichen CF Leptogium burnetiae var. hirsutum
E – 1012

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

SPECIES 

GROUP

HABITAT 

GROUPS SCIENTIFIC NAME

Lichen CF Leptogium cyanescens

Lichen CF,RI Leptogium rivale

Lichen CF Leptogium teretiusculum

Lichen CF Lobaria linita

Lichen CF,RK Microcalicium arenarium

Lichen CF Nephroma bellum

Lichen CF Nephroma isidiosum

Lichen CF Nephroma occultum

Lichen CF,MZ Niebla cephalota

Lichen CF Pannaria rubiginosa

Lichen CF Pannaria saubinettii

Lichen CF Peltigera pacifica

Lichen CF Platismatia lacunosa

Lichen CF Pseudocyphellaria rainierensis

Lichen CF Pseudocyphellaria perpetua

Lichen CF,MZ Pyrrhospora quernea

Lichen CF,MZ Ramalina pollinaria

Lichen CF,OHW Ramalina thrausta

Lichen CF Stenocybe clavata

Lichen CF,OHW,MZ Teloschistes flavicans

Lichen CF,MZ Tholurna dissimilis

Lichen CF,SH Usnea hesperina

Lichen CF Usnea longissima

Vascular_Plant CF Botrychium minganense

Vascular_Plant CF Botrychium montanum

Vascular_Plant CF Coptis asplenifolia

Vascular_Plant CF Coptis trifolia

Vascular_Plant CF,RI Corydalis aquae-gelidae

Vascular_Plant CF Cypripedium fasciculatum

Vascular_Plant CF Cypripedium montanum

Vascular_Plant CF Eucephalus vialis

Vascular_Plant CF Galium kamtschaticum

Vascular_Plant CF Platanthera orbiculata var. orbiculata
Appendix F. Invasive Plants

This appendix provides background on the methodology used in the analysis of invasive plants.

In this appendix:

Analytical methods used to determine relative risk to introduce 

invasive plant species between the alternatives.............................................................. 1015

F – 1013
F – 1014

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs
F – 1015

Appendix F. Invasive Plants

Analytical methods used to determine 

relative risk to introduce invasive plant 

species between the alternatives.

Analytical assumptions used for the effects analysis are integrated into the invasive plants portion 

of Chapters 3 and 4. The analytical methods used to determine the relative risk to introducing 

and spreading invasive plant species between the alternatives are described in this appendix. 

The condition of invasive plant infestations on BLM managed lands in western Oregon can 

be characterized by analyzing a few invasive species. The following representative sample of 

invasive species is used to describe the condition of invasive plants on BLM managed lands in 

western Oregon on BLM managed lands:

•	 Yellow starthistle

•	 Knotweeds

•	 False brome

•	 Spotted and diffuse knapweeds 

•	 Meadow knapweed

•	 Scotch and French brooms

•	 Dyer’s woad

•	 Canada thistle. 
F – 1016

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Step 1 

Determined the current Invasive Species Distribution Category at the fifth-field 

watershed level: 

The sample invasive species distribution data was imported from WeedMapper in January 

2007 and reported species presence was evaluated for each square mile in a grid applied 

to the planning area. All of the sample invasive species distribution data was pooled for 

the analysis.

Invasive Species Distribution Categories of abundant, limited, and low were based on the 

known species distribution in the fifth-field watersheds:

Abundant 

The sample invasive species were reported from more than 25% of the square 

miles within the fifth-field watershed.

Limited 

The sample invasive species were reported from between less than 25% and more 

than 1% of the square miles within the fifth-field watershed.

Low

The sample invasive species were reported in no more than 1% of the square 

miles in the fifth-field watershed.

Figure XX to show Invasive Plant Distribution of selected species in the planning area. 

Step 2

Determined the relative risk of introducing invasive plant species into fifth-field 

watersheds over the first ten years of plan implementation as a by-product of timber 

harvest activities for each alternative.

Step 2a - 

Weights of 1or 5 were assigned to the four timber harvest types based on their 

respective post-harvest light levels. Regeneration and partial harvests were 

assigned a weight of 5. Commercial thinning and uneven aged management 

activities were assigned a weight of 1. 

Step 2b - 

Weights of 1, 3 and 5 were assigned to logging methods based on their respective 

levels of soil disturbance. Aerial harvests were assigned a weight of 1, cable 

yarding systems a weight of 3, and ground based methods a weight of 5.
F – 1017

Appendix F. Invasive Plants

Step 2c - 

A combined timber harvest activity weighted value was calculated by multiplying 

the weights from Steps 2a and 2b.

Step 2d - 

These combined timber harvest activity weights were multiplied by the number 

of acres modeled for harvest in the first ten years, to generate a set of values 

describing the level of susceptibility for invasive plant introduction as a result of 

probable timber harvest activities. 

Step 2e – 

The susceptibility values were evenly divided into three categories: high, 

medium and low.

Zero values were assigned to fifth field watersheds where there is no BLM ownership.

Figure X (Relative susceptibility of fifth field watersheds to invasive plant introduction, 

as a result of timber harvest activities in the first ten years) to show which watersheds 

would generate the most and least post-harvest light and soil disturbance from timber 

harvest activities. 

Step 2f - 

Combining invasive species presence with susceptibility generated by timber 

harvest activities to determine relative risk of introduction.

For each alternative a matrix, use Figure below to determine relative risk of invasive 

species introduction associated with timber harvest activities in the first ten years for 

each fifth field watershed in the planning area. Within the matrix invasive plant species 

distribution categories (Low, Limited, and Abundant) and the susceptibility categories 

from timber harvest activities (Low, Moderate, High) are related to determine relative 

risk of introducing invasive plants in the fifth field watersheds as a result of timber 

harvest activities in the first ten years. 

Watersheds with a combination of Low invasive species distribution and Low or 

Moderate susceptibility for introduction of invasive plants from timber harvest activities 

would have the lowest risk of invasion. Fifth field watersheds with the highest category 

for either distribution or susceptibility would have a greater risk of invasive species 

introduction than watersheds with lower categories. 
F – 1018

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

The greatest risk of invasion would be in fifth field watersheds where both invasive 

species are Abundant and where the susceptibility of introducing invasive plants 

associated timber harvest activities would be High. 

Species distribution 

categories

Susceptibility categories for introduction of invasive plants 

from timber harvest activities

Low Moderate High 

Low Low Low Moderately Low

Limited Low Moderate Moderate

Abundant Moderately Low Moderate High

Use a figure to show by alternative the relative risk of invasive plant introduction, from 

timber harvest activities in the first ten years, for each fifth field watershed. 

The relative risk of invasive species introduction associated with timber harvest activities 

in the first ten years is summarized across the alternatives in Figure A where stacked 

columns show the relative amounts of fifth field watersheds in each of the risk categories. 

Step 3 

Determined the relative risk of introducing invasive plant species into riparian habitats 

over the first ten years of plan implementation as a result of timber harvest and associated 

management activities 

A similar analytical process as the one used to determine risk associated with timber 

harvest activities under all alternatives is used to compare the risk of introducing invasive 

plants into riparian habitats. 

Step 3a - 

Weights were applied to the different Riparian Management Area prescriptions to 

compare the relative risk of invasive plant introduction into riparian areas as an 

inadvertent by-product of timber harvest activities. 

Thinning would occur within the Riparian Management Areas and is a constant 

proportion of the total thinning acres under all alternatives. Therefore, the thinning 

acres used to determine the relative risk of introducing invasive plants into fifth field 

watersheds in the first ten years was also be used for the riparian habitat risk analysis. 
F – 1019

Appendix F. Invasive Plants

Under Alternatives 2 and 3 Riparian Management Area (RMA) widths are 25 feet wide 

on either side of the intermittent streams which would result in the highest post-harvest 

shade levels. The analytical assumption for risk of invasive plant introduction in the 

intermittent RMAs under Alternative 2 and 3 is the shade levels in these intermittent 

RMAs would mimic the levels in the surrounding timber harvest units. The intermittent 

stream post-harvest shade levels would be lower under Alternatives 2 and 3 than under 

the No action alternative and Alternative 1.

Susceptibility weights for invasive plant introduction to riparian habitats associated with 

timber harvest activities under all alternatives were assigned using Table 242. 

Table 242. Susceptibility weights for harvest activity types for introduction of invasive 

species into riparian areas 

Alternative Timber harvest type Susceptibility 

weight

All Alts Thinnings 1

Alts 2 & 3 Uneven age management Klamath Falls 1

Alt 3 Uneven age management Medford south of Grants Pass 1

Alts 2 Regeneration harvest 2

Alt 3 Partial Harvest 2

Step 3b - 

For each alternative, the weights were multiplied by the number of acres modeled 

for harvest in the first ten years for each harvest type to generate a set of values 

describing the level of susceptibility for invasive plant introduction into riparian 

areas from the different timber harvest types.

Step 3c – 

Likewise, for each alternative, the logging methods used for these harvesting 

activities were also be considered to generate riparian habitat susceptibility to 

invasion associated with these activities in riparian habitats. 

Step 3d - 

Together, the riparian susceptibility values associated with harvest types and 

logging methods determine the overall riparian susceptibility to invasion in the 

first ten years of plan implementation under each alternative. 

These two values were multiplied together to generate a comprehensive 

susceptibility value. These values ranged between E and F and were divided into 

three equal categories: high, medium and low. 
F – 1020

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Step 3e - 

The riparian susceptibility category and invasive plant distribution category were 

used to determine the relative risk of introducing invasive species in riparian 

habitats for the first ten years of plan implementation using the same methods 

described for timber harvest activities in Step 2e above. 

Step 4

Determined the relative susceptibility of off-highway vehicle designation areas of 

having invasive plant introductions as a by-product of the designation. 

Step 4a -

Assigned off-highway vehicle designation weights, as identified below, to each 

part of the fifth field watershed having a different off-highway vehicle designation.

Off-Highway Vehicle Designation Susceptibility weights:

Open/limited Off-Highway Vehicle emphasis and potential emphasis areas = 5

Limited = 3

Closed = 0

Step 4b - 

Determine the relative susceptibility for inadvertent introduction of invasive 

species related to off-highway vehicle use as a by-product of the off-highway 

vehicle designations. 

For the No action and Action alternatives, the susceptibility weights were 

multiplied by the number of acres modeled for each designation to generate a 

set of susceptibility values for the fifth field watersheds. These values ranged 

between E and F and were divided into three equal categories: high, medium

and low. 

Step 4c - 

The riparian susceptibility category and invasive plant distribution category were 

used to determine the relative risk of introducing invasive species in fifth field 

watersheds using the same methods described for timber harvest activities in Step 

2e above. 
F – 1021

Appendix F. Invasive Plants

Step 5

Determined the susceptibility of fifth field watersheds to roadside invasive plant 

introductions from what we know about road densities, on all ownerships, and current 

invasive plant distribution categories. 

Step 5a – 

Divided road densities into classes based on the number of miles of road: 

< 2 miles/section, 2 – 4 miles/section, 4- 8 miles/section, >8 miles/section

Step 5b – 

Used Table 243 to derive roadside susceptibility categories based on invasive 

plant distribution and road densities in fifth field watersheds. 

Table 243. Roadside susceptibility categories based on invasive plant distribution and road 

densities in fifth field watersheds.

Species distribution 

categories

Road Densities

< 2 miles/

section

2 – 4 miles/

section

4 – 8 miles/ 

section

> 8 miles/

section

Low Low Low Moderately 

Low

Moderate

Limited Low Moderate Moderately 

High

High

Abundant Moderately Low Moderately High High High

Step 5c –

Figure R shows the relative roadside susceptibility categories for invasive plant 

introduction, for each fifth field watershed. 

The relative susceptibility of invasive species introduction associated with road densities 

and current invasive plant distribution is shown in Figure V where columns show the 

relative amounts of fifth field watersheds in each of the susceptibility categories. 
F – 1022

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Step 6 

Determined the risk to fifth field watersheds of roadside invasive plant introductions 

from their invasive plant distribution categories and the relative amounts of new road 

construction and road related activities, by alternative. 

Step 6a – 

Divide the amount of new road construction and road related activities evenly 

into three categories, high, moderate and low. 

Step 6b – 

Used the matrix in Table 244 to determine the relative risk categories of invasive 

plant introduction from the amounts of new road construction and road related 

activities and species distribution categories. 

Table 244. Matrix to determine the relative risk categories of invasive plant introduction from new 

road construction and related activities 

Species distribution 

categories

Relative Levels of Road Construction and Related Activities 

Low Moderate High 

Low Low Low Moderately Low

Limited Low Moderate Moderate

Abundant Moderately Low Moderate High

Step 6c - 

A figure will show the relative risk of invasive plant introduction from new road 

construction and road related activities based on species distribution categories, 

for each fifth field watershed and by alternative. 

The relative risk of invasive species introduction associated with new road 

construction and related activities and species distribution categories to be shown 

in a figure. 
Appendix G. Wildlife

This appendix provides background on the analysis of wildlife including detailed data from 

recovery plans, critical habitat for the northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet, and special 

status animal species. 

In this appendix:

Management Opportunities on BLM-Administered Lands 

in the Recovery Plans for the Columbia White-tailed Deer 

(Columbia River population), Marbled Murrelet, and Bald Eagle.............................. 1025

Data in Support of Northern Spotted Owl Analysis ...................................................... 1037

Marbled Murrelet Critical Habitat. .................................................................................... 1060

Special Status Animal Species ............................................................................................ 1065

G – 1023
G – 1024

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs
G – 1025

Appendix G. Wildlife

Management Opportunities on BLMAdministered Lands in the Recovery 

Plans for the Columbia White-tailed Deer 

(Columbia River population), Marbled 

Murrelet, and Bald Eagle.

Columbia white-tailed deer (Columbia River 

population)

The focus of the recovery strategy is on the national wildlife refuge lands and 

surrounding privately owned lands. Nothing has been excerpted from the recovery plan.

Marbled Murrelet

Portions excerpted from Recovery Plan For The Threatened Marbled Murrelet 

(Brachyramphus marmoratus) In Washington, Oregon, And California (pages 125-160 in 

USFWS 1997).

D. Narrative Outline for Recovery Actions.

1. Implement management plans for each Marbled Murrelet Conservation Zone

1.3 Oregon Coast Range Zone (Zone 3).

The Oregon Coast Range Zone extends from the Columbia River, south toNorth 

Bend, Coos County, Oregon. This Zone includes waters within 2 kilometers 

(1.2 miles) of the Pacific Ocean shoreline and extends inland a distance of up to 

56 kilometers (35 miles) from the Pacific Ocean shoreline and coincides with 

the “Zone 1” boundary line described by the Forest Ecosystem Management 

Assessment Team, with minor adjustments (U.S. Department of Agriculture et 

al. 1993). The boundary encompasses all of the marbled murrelet critical habitat 

units designated (the boundary extends slightly beyond 56 kilometers (35 miles) 

in certain areas.

This Zone includes the majority of known marbled murrelet occupied sites 

in Oregon. Marbled murrelet occupied sites along the western portion of the 

Tillamook State Forest are especially important to maintaining well distributed 

marbled murrelet populations. Efforts should focus on maintaining these 

occupied sites, minimizing the loss of unoccupied but suitable habitat, and 
G – 1026

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

decreasing the time for development of new habitat. Relatively few known 

occupied sites occur north of the Tillamook State Forest. Recovery efforts 

should be directed at restoring some of the north-south distribution of marbled 

murrelet populations and habitat in this Zone. Maintenance of suitable and 

occupied marbled murrelet nesting habitat in the Elliott State Forest, Tillamook 

State Forest, Siuslaw National Forest, and Bureau of Land Managementadministered forests is an essential component for the stabilization and 

recovery of the marbled murrelet.

1.4 Siskiyou Coast Range Zone (Zone 4).

The Siskiyou Coast Range Zone extends from North Bend, Coos County, 

Oregon, south to the southern end of Humboldt County, California. It includes 

waters within 2 kilometers (1.2 miles) of the Pacific Ocean shoreline (including 

Humboldt and Arcata bays) and, in general, extends inland a distance of 56 

kilometers (35 miles) from the Pacific Ocean shoreline and coincides with 

the “Zone 1” boundary line described by the Forest Ecosystem Management 

Assessment Team with minor adjustments (U.S. Department of Agriculture et 

al. 1993). The boundary encompasses all of the marbled murrelet critical habitat 

units designated (the boundary extends slightly beyond 56 kilometers (35 miles) 

in certain areas.

This Zone includes the marbled murrelet population occupying sites in Redwood 

National Park and several state parks (Jedediah Smith, Del Norte, Prairie Creek, 

Grizzly Creek, and Humboldt) in California. In addition, this Zone includes 

nesting habitat on private lands in southern Humboldt County. Additional 

marbled murrelet nesting habitat occurs at lower elevations in western portions 

of the Smith River National Recreation Area. State policies regarding protection 

of marbled murrelet occupied sites on private lands differ in the Oregon and 

California portions of this Zone.

Recovery actions should be focused on preventing the loss of occupied nesting 

habitat, minimizing the loss of unoccupied but suitable habitat, and decreasing 

the time for development of new suitable habitat. Much marbled murrelet 

nesting habitat is found in state and national parks that receive considerable 

recreational use. The need to maintain high quality marbled murrelet terrestrial 

habitat should be considered in planning any modifications to state or national 

parks for recreational purposes. Both highway and campground construction, 

including picnic areas, parking lots, and visitors centers, could present threats to 

the marbled murrelet through loss of habitat, nest disturbance, and/or increasing 

potential predation from corvids associated with human activities such as 

Steller’s jays and crows. Implementing appropriate garbage/trash disposal may 

help decrease potential predator populations in high human use areas such as 

county, state and national parks.
G – 1027

Appendix G. Wildlife

This Zone has large blocks of suitable habitat critical to the three-state marbled 

murrelet population recovery over the next 100 years. However, the amount of 

suitable habitat protected in parks is probably not sufficient by itself to guarantee 

long-term survival of marbled murrelets in this Zone. On the other hand, a 

considerable amount of habitat is preserved in parks such that survival may be 

more likely in this Zone than in several other Zones. Private lands at the southern 

end of this Zone are important for maintaining the current distribution of the 

species. There is already a considerable gap in distribution between this area and 

the central California population in Zone 6. Efforts should be implemented to, at 

a minimum, not expand the current distribution gap.

2. Delineate and protect areas of habitat within each Zone.

Areas within each Zone that are essential for marbled murrelet recovery should be 

delineated and protected, using a variety of means (e.g., designation as critical habitat, 

protection through Habitat Conservation Plans, management [as reserves] under the 

Forest Plan, other existing regulatory mechanisms, etc.).

2.1 Protect terrestrial habitat essential for marbled murrelet recovery.

There appears to be little opportunity for increases in marbled murrelet 

productivity as a result of forest maturation in the near future. Even under 

optimum conditions and with the successful use of various silvicultural 

techniques, it will take 50 to 100 years or more to develop new suitable nesting 

habitat within most reserve areas. Any further substantial reduction in occupied 

nesting habitat for the marbled murrelet would hamper efforts to stabilize the 

population and the recovery of the species.

Marbled murrelet population trends described above (also see Appendix B) 

have led the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to conclude that a number of 

areas, including nesting areas and feeding sites well-distributed throughout its 

terrestrial and marine range, are essential to the conservation of the species. 

Late-Successional Reserves, as described in the Forest Plan and the final rule 

designating critical habitat for marbled murrelets, will eventually contribute 

to recovery. However, these areas alone are insufficient to reverse the decline 

and maintain a well-distributed population. Thus, additional areas, including 

non-Federal lands and marine areas, should be protected using a variety of 

means including critical habitat, Habitat Conservation Plans, and other existing 

regulatory mechanisms as described below. If these areas are protected, there is a 

high likelihood that populations will stabilize.

A. Essential nesting habitats that occur on forest lands managed by the Federal 

government include:

(1) Any suitable habitat in Late-Successional Reserves located in the 

Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team Zone 1 (see pages 

IV-23 and IV-24 in U.S. Department of Agriculture et al. 1993 for a 

description of Zone 1);
G – 1028

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

(4) Other large areas of suitable nesting habitat outside of LateSuccessional Reserves on Federal lands. For example, large areas 

of suitable nesting habitat occur on the Siskiyou National Forest, 

Oregon, the Six Rivers National Forest, California, and in Redwood 

National and State Park, California.

2.3 Develop and implement a landscape management strategy for each of the six 

Conservation Zones.

Although many of the factors that have contributed to the decline of marbled 

murrelet populations in the three-state area are common to all zones, each zone 

presents unique challenges to the recovery of the species. For example, mortality 

resulting from incidental capture in net fisheries is a major concern in Zone 1, 

mortality from oil spills is a major concern in Zones 2 and 6, and potential loss 

of key suitable nesting habitat on non-Federal lands is of major concern for all 

Zones. A landscape management plan that addresses the unique circumstances 

of each Zone should be developed, taking into consideration all affected parties 

(Federal, state, tribal, private, etc.).

2.3.1 Develop and implement management plans that incorporate the needs of 

the marbled murrelet for each protected habitat area on Federal lands.

Each protected habitat area within a particular Zone may have unique ecological 

features and exists in a unique spatial context with lands that may be managed 

for a variety of values. It is important that these unique characteristics be 

addressed in the context of a management plan for each of these areas, including 

the development of appropriate definitions of suitable marbled murrelet habitat 

for each Zone. In the development of these plans for each Zone, all managers 

should have an opportunity to be involved, regional issues must be considered, 

and recovery objectives must be addressed in a consistent manner throughout 

the range. In some cases, these management plans could be developed using 

information from the Late-Successional Reserve assessments called for in the 

Forest Plan Record of Decision.

Management plans should be based on the best available information on the 

biology and recovery needs of the marbled murrelet and should be able to 

adapt to new information as it becomes available. For example, a variety of 

management activities could decrease predation mortality at marbled murrelet 

nests (e.g., silvicultural practices designed to provide shelter to nest sites or 

to speed development of murrelet habitat; garbage removal from state and 

national parks). Efforts to reduce or eliminate these manmade food sources in 

state and national parks are currently being discussed. As successful strategies 

are developed to reduce predation at the nest, they should be incorporated into 

management plans for specific secured areas. An outline of specific management 

recommendations is provided in task 3.
G – 1029

Appendix G. Wildlife

3. Incorporate management recommendations for protected habitat areas.

Management recommendations for the marbled murrelet need to address two different 

biological time frames, which reflect (1) aspects o the murrelet’s life history and 

demographic trends, and (2) the length of time required to develop the majority of new 

nesting habitat or improve current forest habitat conditions. Short-term actions must 

address the apparent rapid decline of current populations and the need for immediate 

stabilization. The ability of marbled murrelet populations to recover rapidly is low due to 

the low reproductive potential of the species. Long-term actions address the long timeframes required to cultivate or enhance mature forest habitat conditions or to improve 

marine habitat quality because of the nature and complexity of these ecosystems. Little 

additional older forest habitat will become available until after 2040.

3.1 Implement short-term actions to stabilize and increase the population.

3.1.1 Maintain/protect occupied nesting habitat and minimize loss of 

unoccupied but suitable nesting habitat.

3.1.1.1 Maintain occupied nesting habitat.

The loss of occupied nesting habitat appears to be the primary 

cause of marbled murrelet population declines in Washington, 

Oregon, and California. The low reproductive potential of 

this species, and lack of knowledge concerning its ability to 

locate and reestablish new nesting areas after elimination of 

nesting habitat, makes it imperative to maintain all occupied 

nesting habitat, as is being done, for the most part, through 

implementation of the Forest Plan on Forest Service and Bureau 

of Land Management lands.

On non-Federal lands the maintenance of all occupied sites 

also should be the goal. However, it is realized that through the 

Habitat Conservation Plan process, there may be some limited 

loss of occupied sites or unsurveyed suitable habitat. In the 

short-term (the next 5 - 10 years), until additional information 

is obtained, loss of any occupied sites or unsurveyed suitable 

habitat should be avoided or the potential impacts significantly 

reduced through a habitat evaluation and ranking process 

outlined in the Habitat Conservation Plan. 

Short term trade-offs for long-term benefits should be evaluated 

very carefully at this early stage of marbled murrelet recovery 

and should be done on a case-by-case basis.

3.1.1.2 Maintain potential and suitable habitat in larger 

contiguous blocks while maintaining current north/south and 

east/west distribution of nesting habitat.
G – 1030

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

By maintaining occupied sites and suitable habitat in larger 

blocks with low levels of fragmentation, several objectives will 

be met. Larger stands will (1) have more nesting and hiding 

opportunities, (2) provide for multiple alternative nesting sites 

for individual pairs of birds over time, (3) facilitate nesting 

for multiple pairs of birds (and thus promote increased social 

contact), and (4) provide greater interior forest habitat conditions 

(to reduce potential nest and adult predation, increase protection 

of nests from windstorms and environmental changes, and 

reduce loss of habitat from windthrow and fire). Larger stands 

also may provide a core of birds to attract or develop sufficient 

activity and eventual nesting by subadults or nonbreeding adult 

birds to replace breeding adults lost from this habitat over time 

due to natural causes or human activities. The more contiguous 

the habitat distribution, the lower the likelihood of future large 

gaps in distribution of the species due to catastrophic events 

such as oil spills or large wildfires. Preventing further erosion of 

the already patchily-distributed nesting habitat is a key element 

in buffering the species against such catastrophic events. This 

is especially important in areas where gaps already occur. 

Furthermore, it is currently unknown how nesting success differs 

with distance from the coast, and far inland habitats may be as 

important to species survival as those nearer to shore. Therefore, 

it is important to maintain both north/south and east/west 

distribution of suitable habitat.

3.1.1.3 Maintain and enhance buffer habitat surrounding 

occupied habitat.

Maintaining buffers around occupied habitat will mediate the 

effects of edge by helping to reduce environmental changes 

within the stand, reduce loss of habitat from windthrow and 

fire, reduce fragmentation levels, increase the amount of interior 

forest habitat available, and potentially help reduce predation at 

the nest. To have the greatest benefits, buffer widths should be 

a minimum of 300-600 feet and should consist of whatever age 

stand is present, including existing plantations (which should be 

managed to provide replacement.

3.1.3 Minimize nest disturbances to increase reproductive success.

Low juvenile:adult ratios have been documented throughout the threestate range of the marbled murrelet (Appendix B). Current evidence 

suggests that the cause of this low reproductive rate may be due to 

high rates of predation on eggs, young, and possibly adults at the nest 

site. Population modeling indicates that adjusted juvenile:adult ratios 

should be 15 - 22 percent at a minimum to result in stable or increasing 
G – 1031

Appendix G. Wildlife

populations. Current best estimates of unadjusted ratios average 5 percent 

(range 0.1 - 13.8 percent) and it is unlikely that adjustment will result in 

4 - 10 times larger ratios. Breeding adult alcids in general are sensitive to 

nest site disturbance during the incubation period and the first few days 

of chick rearing. Disturbances near marbled murrelet nest sites that flush 

incubating or brooding adults from the nest site may expose adults and 

young to increased predation or accidental loss of eggs or nestlings by 

falling or being knocked out of nests. Human activities near nesting areas 

that result in an increase in the number of predators also could lead to a 

greater likelihood of nest predation. The timing of disturbances should 

be adjusted to avoid disruption of marbled murrelet activities, such as 

courtship, mating, and nesting. Human activities should be modified to 

reduce attraction of predators to specific forest areas although this action 

may not reduce actual predator numbers over wider areas. Higher-than 

normal predation levels are likely to occur in nesting habitat due to forest 

fragmentation and other causes in many cases.

3.2 Implement long-term actions to stop population decline and increase 

population growth.

3.2.1 Increase the amount and quality of suitable nesting habitat.

An increase in amount and quality of suitable nesting habitat is important 

in all zones. However, it is especially important in the western Washington 

Coast Range and the northern portions of the Oregon Coast Range Zones. In 

these areas, remaining patches of suitable nesting habitat are relatively small 

and fragmented, involve private and state lands, and are vitally important for 

maintaining the current small populations in these areas; thus, blocking up habitat 

is needed to increase patch size. It also would be desirable to increase and block 

up suitable nesting habitat in the Mendocino and Santa Cruz Mountains Zones. 

Little habitat remains outside parks in these two zones, such that an increase in 

the short term does not appear feasible.

3.2.1.1 Decrease fragmentation by increasing the size of suitable stands 

to provide a larger area of interior forest conditions.

The majority of suitable nest stands currently exist as small islands 

within a matrix of younger forests. Although these fragments will 

provide critically important habitat during the several decades 

required for younger stands to develop structural characteristics 

suitable for marbled murrelet nesting, they cannot be considered high 

quality habitat because of vulnerability to wildfire and windthrow, 

and perhaps a higher abundance of avian predators. Research is 

needed to develop judicious ways to use silvicultural techniques such 

as thinning in young (nonhabitat) stands to hasten development of 

large trees and decrease vulnerability of habitat fragments to fire, 

wind, and perhaps predators. Consistent with the Forest Plan Record 
G – 1032

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

of Decision, thinning within Late-Successional Reserves should be 

restricted to stands younger than 80 years. However, the Record of 

Decision also permits thinning within Late-Successional Reserves 

up to age 110 in Coast Range lands administered by the Bureau of 

Land Management (Nestucca block) and in the Oregon and California 

Klamath Provinces (U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service 1994b). Unthinned buffers should be left around 

any occupied stands. Precautions should be taken to reduce fire 

hazard from thinning slash and avoid soil compaction.

3.2.1.2 Protect “recruitment” nesting habitat to buffer and enlarge 

existing stands, reduce fragmentation, and provide replacement 

habitat for current suitable nesting habitat lost to disturbance events.

Stands (currently 80 years old or older) that will produce suitable 

habitat within the next few decades are the most immediate source of 

new habitat and may be the only replacement for existing habitat lost to 

disturbance (e.g., timber harvest, fires, etc.) over the next century. Such 

stands are particularly important because of the vulnerability of many 

existing habitat fragments to fire and wind and the possibility that climate 

change will increase the effects of the frequency and severity of natural 

disturbances. Such stands should not be subjected to any silvicultural 

treatment that diminishes their capacity to provide quality nesting habitat 

in the future. Within secured areas, these “recruitment” stands should 

not be harvested or thinned. In the matrix (on Federal lands), harvest in 

younger-aged stands should adhere to the techniques discussed in the 

following task (3.2.1.3) to more quickly develop into marbled murrelet 

habitat.

3.2.1.3 Use silvicultural techniques to increase speed of development of 

new habitat.

Nesting marbled murrelets select stands with large trees that provide 

suitable nesting platforms (large, protected branches, preferably with 

moss). When available, large stands appear to be preferred over small 

ones. Nests have been located in stands with a wide range of stocking 

densities, however the low rate of nesting success raises considerable 

uncertainty regarding what constitutes quality habitat. It is expected 

that since marbled murrelets require very specific structures in order to 

successfully nest, silvicultural techniques may be available to speed the 

development of these structures in stands of younger forest.

Several silvicultural techniques may be appropriate to increase the 

area of suitable nesting stands and the rate at which they develop 

(e.g., thinning, long rotations, etc.). Thinning accelerates tree growth 

and can be used as a tool to produce large trees more quickly than in 

normal stand development. However, simply growing large trees is not 
G – 1033

Appendix G. Wildlife

sufficient to obtain suitable marbled murrelet habitat. Trees must have 

large moss-covered, or mistletoed branches that provide nest platforms, 

something that is likely to be achieved only by growing at least some 

trees on long rotations. There are two alternatives for doing that (1) 

“Green-tree retention” designates approximately 20 - 40 trees per hectare 

to be retained at harvest, with a new crop of younger trees established 

beneath the older tree canopy. Leaving trees on site and allowing them to 

grow to an older age will likely produce marbled murrelet nest trees and 

eventually produce coarse woody debris (important habitat for numerous 

other species). As younger trees mature, a multilayered canopy develops, 

which is also an important structural attribute of older forest habitat; and 

(2) evidence available at this time indicates that growing whole stands 

on long rotations will produce higher quality habitat in the long-term 

than green tree retention, which may create sink habitat for a number of 

bird species. Long rotations have other ecological and economic benefits 

as well. Landscapes with a higher proportion of older stands should be 

less susceptible to catastrophic wildfire (providing reduced hazard from 

thinning slash). Because thinned Douglas-fir maintains good growth well 

into its second century, silviculturists now conclude that long rotations 

are economically viable in the Douglas-fir region. 

3.2.2 Improve Distribution of Nesting Habitat.

3.2.2.1 Improve and develop north/south distribution of nesting habitat.

Improving the distribution of nesting habitat helps to buffer existing 

populations against poor breeding success and catastrophic loss and 

probably facilitates gene flow among separated populations. Three major 

gaps in existing habitat are particularly apparent: (1) from the southern 

Olympic Peninsula in Washington to Tillamook in northwestern Oregon; 

(2) between Patrick’s Point and southern Humboldt Bay in northern 

California (see Figure 1); and (3) throughout most of the Mendocino 

Zone and the northern part of the Santa Cruz Mountains Zone (between 

southern Humboldt County and central San Mateo County). These three 

geographic gaps represent probable partial barriers to gene flow across 

them. They include large areas of second-growth forests that originated 

after logging, from fire (parts of northwestern Oregon), or from natural 

discontinuities of nesting habitat (especially parts of northern and 

central California). Gap areas often have a high proportion of private 

lands and little or no Federal land. State lands cover significant portions 

of northwest Oregon (the Tillamook and Clatsop State Forests) and 

southwest Washington. Silvicultural techniques to create suitable habitat 

at both the stand and landscape level (discussed in task 3.2.1.3) may be 

particularly beneficial to marbled murrelet recovery in the long term if 

applied in these areas.
G – 1034

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Portions of the Mendocino Zone and Santa Cruz Mountains Zone also 

contain blocks of unsuitable habitat that probably naturally created small 

gaps in the murrelet’s terrestrial range. Again, loss of suitable habitat 

around these small natural gaps has greatly widened them. These gaps 

have probably grown together and eliminated suitable nesting habitat 

over a large section of their range. The existence of small natural gaps in 

suitable habitat must be recognized when designing ways to improve and 

develop north/south distribution of nesting habitat.

3.2.2.2 Improve and develop east/west distribution of nesting habitat.

Improving east-west distribution means filling in habitat gaps within 

the Conservation Zone boundaries described earlier. Many portions 

of the species range no longer have large amounts of suitable nesting 

habitat close to the coast and marbled murrelets must fly considerable 

distances inland to nest. In addition to the north-south gaps discussed 

above, opportunities exist on the Olympic Peninsula, Puget trough, and 

along virtually the entire California coast within the murrelet’s range to 

improve the current east/west distribution of habitat. An important step 

in developing methods to improve this distribution will be the complete 

identification of the inland boundary of suitable nesting habitat for the 

three-state area and identification of factors determining these boundaries 

in different regions.

Bald Eagle

Portions excerpted from Recovery Plan for the Pacific Bald Eagle (pages 73-83 in USFWS 1985).

1. Provide Secure Habitat

Providing secure habitat for eagles involves identifying important habitat, arranging for its longterm protection, and managing it to ensure that its components (e.g., food, nest sties, roost trees) 

are maintained and enhanced. 

1.2 Secure Breeding and Nonbreeding Habitat

Much of the bald eagle habitat in the Pacific recovery area is threatened by development 

and is not adequate protected by legal statutes. Land use and zoning policies can provide 

protection in some situations. In others, transfer from private to public ownership must 

be considered. Habitats in public ownership should be recognized and give priority 

consideration by agencies. Local working teams (see step 1.26) should play a strong role 

in all efforts to secure habitat.

1.2.2 Establish Reserves and Management Areas Where Necessary

This approach may be most suitable where human disturbance is a limiting factor 

for eagles; where intensive, long-term management activities are needed; or 

where eagle management is being featured over other land management options.
G – 1035

Appendix G. Wildlife

1.2.3 Incorporate Eagle Habitat Guidelines in Agency Land Use Plans

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) should retain and manage habitat on 

BLM-administered public lands to benefit bald eagles and compatible uses in 

accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA). These 

lands should be identified as important eagle habitat in the Resource Management 

Planning (RMP) process. The BLM should seriously consider designating all or 

parts of these areas as “Areas of Critical Environmental Concern”.

1.2.5 Design and Implement Plans to Secure Individual Nest Sites, Roosts, and 

Foraging Areas

Plans must be developed on a site-specific basis throughout the recovery area. 

Plans should describe the human activities that can be permitted as well as those 

that must be prohibited. They should also describe the steps needed to protect 

and secure hey habitat such as nests, roosting trees and food resources. Each 

plan should include a map outlining the important eagle use areas and a list of 

appropriate methods for protecting suitable nesting, foraging, and roosting habitat 

over time.

1.3.2 Maintain and Improve Forested Habitat in Bothe the Breeding and Wintering Range 

Timber stands should be managed to promote habitat characteristics required by eagles 

for long-term nesting and roosting. In most cases, this requires management for oldgrowth stands. Silvicultural techniques, such as thinning or selective harvest, can help 

to create proper tree species composition and stand structure. The important element of 

any silvicultural plan should be to maintain an old growth overstory in the vicinity of nest 

sties and communal roosts. Development and maintenance of potential eagle habitat is as 

important as protection and maintenance of habitat currently used by eagles.

1.3.2.1 Maintain Forested Habitat that is Presently Used by Eagles

Habitat loss is currently the most significant threat to bald eagle populations in 

the 7-state recovery area. The increasing disappearance of old growth stands 

makes it imperative that existing habitat be protected. In some cases special 

actions must be taken to maintain existing habitat.

1.3.2.1.1 Prohibit Logging of Known Nest Trees, Perch Trees, and 

Winter Roost Trees

Trees used by eagles should be clearly identified and protected from 

logging. In addition, trees that provide wind breaks, that visually 

shield eagles from disturbances, or that are needed for long-term 

viability of eagle sue areas must be maintained. Trees with unoccupied 

nests in suitable habitat and trees which formerly had nests should 

also be protected because these sites are sometimes used after several 

years of abandonment and will be important in providing habitat for 

expanding populations.
G – 1036

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

1.3.3 Restrict Human Disturbance at Eagle Use Areas

Human activities are known to disrupt eagle activity patterns and in some cases cause 

reproductive failure. In spite of this, any eagles nest and winter near human population 

centers. Many types of human disturbances at the right distances are compatible with 

eagles. Regulation of human activity is a critical part of eagle habitat management.

1.3.3.1 Establish Buffer Zones Around Nest Sites

Buffer zones should be established for individual nest territories based 

on the location of nest trees, perch trees, and flight paths, as well as stand 

characteristics, known individual tolerances, and weather patterns. 

Until site specific plans are available or until guidelines can be developed by 

local groups or agencies, guidelines prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Region 1 should serve as minimum protective measures.

1.3.3.2 Exclude Logging, Construction, Habitat Improvement, and Other 

Activities During Critical Periods of Eagle Use

Picnicking, camping, blasting, firearm use, timber harvest, and low level aircraft 

operations should not be allowed within 400 meters of nests and roosts during 

periods of eagle use. These activities should also be regulated up to 800 meters 

from nests and roosts where eagles have line-of-sight vision. Critical nesting 

periods vary throughout the recover area but generally fall between 1 January 

an 31 August. Key wintering areas need protection from disturbance from 

approximately 15 November to 15 March.
G – 1037

Appendix G. Wildlife

Data in Support of Northern Spotted Owl 

Analysis

The following section contains background information regarding the northern spotted owl 

analysis found in Chapter 4. It includes a description of the suitable habitat addressed in section 

7 consultations from 1994 to April 12, 2004; available nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat on 

BLM-administered lands, a description of how the alternatives affect individual critical habitat 

units; and how lands were classified as owl habitat under Alternative 3.

Suitable habitat addressed in Section 7 

Consultation from 1994 – April 12, 2004
G – 1038

Table 245. Aggregate results of all adjusted, suitable habitat (NRF1) acres addressed in section 7 consultation (both formal and informal) for the northern spotted owl; baseline and summary of effects by State, physiographic province and land use function from 1994 to April 12, 2004 (the first decade of the Northwest Forest Plan) (USFWS pers com. 2006).

Physiographic Province4

Evaluation Baseline2 Habitat Removed/Downgraded3 % Provincial 

Baseline Affected 

% Rang

Reserves5 Non- wide A

Reserves6

Total Reserves5 NonReserves6 Total

WA

Olympic Peninsula 548,483 11,734 560,217 67 24 91 -0.02 0.05

Eastern Cascades 506,340 200,509 706,849 1,746 4,222 5,968 -0.84 3.13

Western Cascades 864,683 247,797 1,112,480 249 10,952 11,201 -1.01 5.88

Western Lowlands 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

OR

Coast Range 422,387 94,190 516,577 399 4,145 4,544 -0.88 2.39

Klamath Mountains 448,509 337,789 786,298 2,434 80,394 82,828 -10.53 43.5

Cascades East 247,624 196,035 443,659 1,813 12,216 14,029 -3.16 7.37

Cascades West 1,012,426 1,033,337 2,045,763 2,926 52,514 55,440 -2.71 29.11

Willamette Valley 593 5,065 5,658 0 0 0 0 0

CA

Coast 47,566 3,928 51,494 181 69 250 -0.49 0.13

Cascades 61,852 2,6385 88,237 0 4,808 4,808 -5.45 2.52

Klamath 734,103 345,763 1,079,866 1,470 9,800 11,270 -1.04 5.92

Total 4,894,566 2,502,532 7,397,098 11,285 179,144 190,429 -2.57 100

1 Nesting, roosting, foraging habitat. In California, suitable habitat is divided into two components; nesting – roosting (NR) habitat, and foraging (F) 

habitat. The NR component most closely resembles NRF habitat in Oregon and Washington. Due to differences in reporting methods, effects to suitabhabitat compiled in this, and all subsequent tables include effects for nesting, roosting, and foraging (NRF) for 1994-6/26/2001. After 6/26/2001, suitable habtat includes NRF for Washington and Oregon but only nesting and roosting (NR) for California.

2 1994 FSEIS baseline (USDA and USDI 1994).3 Includes both effects reported by USDI FWS (2001) and subsequent effects compiled in the Northern Spotted Owl Consultation Effects Tracking 

System (web application and database).

4 Defined by the NWFP as the twelve physiographic provinces, as presented in Figure 3&4-1 on page 3&4-16 of the FSEIS.5 Land-use allocations intended to provide large blocks of habitat to support clusters of breeding pairs.6 Land-use allocations intended to provide habitat to support movement of spotted owls among reserves.
G – 1039

Appendix G. Wildlife

Table 246. Change in suitable spotted owl habitat from 1994 to April 12, 2004, resulting from Federal management 

actions (Mgmt) and natural events by physiographic province (USFWS pers. com. 2006). 

Physiographic 

Province

Range of 

Northwest 

Forest Plan 

(Acres)

Causes of Habitat Loss Total 

Change in 

Acres

Percent 

change by 

Province

Percent 

of Total 

Effects3

Mgmt1 Natural 

Events2

Olympic Peninsula 560,217 -91 -299 -390 -0.07 0.10

WA East Cascades 706,849 -5,968 -5,754 -11,722 -1.66 3.14

WA West Cascades 1,112,480 -11201 0 -11,201 -1.01 3.00

Western Lowlands 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00

OR Coast 516,577 -4,544 -66 -4,610 -0.89 1.23

OR Klamath Mountains 786,298 -82,828 -117,622 -200,450 -25.49 53.61

OR Cascades East 443,659 -10,595 -22,638 -33,233 -7.49 8.89

OR Cascades West 2,045,763 -55,440 -24,583 -80,023 -3.91 21.40

Willamette Valley 5,658 0 0 0 0.00 0.00

CA Coast 51,494 -250 -100 -350 -0.68 0.09

CA Cascades 88,237 -4,808 0 -4,808 -5.45 1.29

CA Klamath 1,079,866 -11,270 -15,869 -27,139 -2.51 7.26

TOTAL 7,397,098 -186,995 -186,931 -373,926 -4.85 100.00

1 Estimates from the NSO consultation effects tracker (Service 2005). 2 Data compiled by the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Northern Spotted Owl Coordination Group. 3 Provincial effect expressed as percentage of total range-wide effects.
G – 1040

Table 247. Aggregate results of all adjusted, suitable critical habitat acres affected by Section 7 Consultation for the Northern spotted owl; ba

and summary of effects by state, Physiographic Province and land use function from 1994 to July 19, 2005 (USFWS pers. comm. 2006).

Physiographic Province3

Evaluation Baseline1 Habitat Removed/Downgraded2

% Provincial Baseline Affected

% RangAffected Reserves4 Non- Reserves5 Total Reserves4 Non- Reserves5 Total

WA

Olympic Peninsula 193,081 3,928 197,009 -12 -59 -71 -0.04 0.15

Eastern Cascades 225,855 100,737 326,592 -87 -4,549 -4,636 -1.42 9.88

Western Cascades 424,273 90,305 514,578 -3 -4,991 -4,994 -0.97 10.64

Western Lowlands 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

OR

Coast Range 332,562 16,155 348,717 -50 -1,200 -1,250 -0.36 2.66

Klamath Mountains 228,112 85,157 313,269 -4 -12,923 -12,927 -4.13 27.54

Cascades East 86,882 51,802 138,684 -334 -1,372 -1,706 -1.23 3.63

Cascades West 532,571 361,563 894,134 -122 -19,959 -20,081 -2.25 42.78

Willamette Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

CA

Coast 2,589 27 2,616 0 0 0 0 0

Cascades 47,947 2,740 50,687 0 -472 -472 -0.93 1.01

Klamath 322,372 33,329 355,701 0 -808 -808 -0.23 1.72

Total 2,396,244 745,743 3,141,987 -612 -46,333 -46,945 -1.49 100

1 1994 FSEIS baseline (USDA and USDI 1994). 2 Includes both effects reported in USDI FWS 2001 and subsequent effects reported in the Northern Spotted Owl Consultation Effects Tracking Systeapplication and database.) 3 Defined by the Northwest Forest Plan as the twelve physiographic provinces, as presented in Figure 3&4-1 on page 3&4-16 of the FSEIS. 4 Land-use allocations intended to provide large blocks of habitat to support clusters of breeding pairs. 5 Land-use allocations intended to provide habitat to support movement of spotted owls among reserves. 
G – 1041

Table 248. Change in northern spotted owl suitable critical habitat from 1994 to December 10, 2004, resulting from Federal management actinatural events by physiographic province. (USFWS pers. comm. 2006)

Physiographic Province

1994 FSEIS Provincial Critical Habitat Baseline

Critical Habitat (acres) Removed/Downgraded, 1994-2004 Percent of 1994 

FSEIS Provincial Critical Habitat Baseline

Percent of alRangewide 

Management Fire Habitat Effec

Insect/ Disease Total

WA:Olympic Peninsula 197,009 71 0 0 71 0.04 0.08

East Cascades 326,592 1,035 6,9251,2 532 8,492 2.60 9.67

West Cascades 514,578 4,994 0 0 4,994 0.97 5.69

Western Lowlands 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00

OR:Coast Range 348,717 1,224 0 0 1,224 0.35 1.39

Klamath Mountains 313,269 13,912 17,453 0 31,365 10.01 35.72

Cascades East 138,684 1,706 6,8782 0 8,584 6.18 9.78

Cascades West 894,134 21,003 1,216 0 22,219 2.48 25.31

Willamette Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00

CA:Coast Range 2,616 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00

Cascades 50,687 365 0 0 365 0.72 0.41

Klamath 355,701 808 9,675 0 10,483 2.95 11.95

Total 3,141,987 45,118 42,147 532 87,797 2.79 100.00

1 Habitat effects from some 1994 fires were included in the 2001 update, and thus, appear as consulted-on effects in the NSO Consultation Effects TraDatabase. For the purpose of this critical habitat update, habitat effects associated with those fires are included in the fire effects column. 2 Includes fires in 2003.
G – 1042

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Northern Spotted Owl Critical Habitat Units

The Endangered Species Act requires the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to designate 

critical habitat to the maximum extent prudent and determinable concurrently with listing 

a species as endangered or threatened. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed the 

northern spotted owl as a threatened species on June 28, 1990, primarily due to concern 

over widespread habitat loss and modification, and inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service designated as critical habitat for the 

northern spotted owl 3,257,000 acres of federal lands in Oregon, including 1,009,000 

acres of BLM-administered land (Federal Register. 1992a). 

Critical habitat is defined in the Endangered Species Act as: “(i) the specific areas within 

the geographic area occupied by a species ... on which are found those physical and 

biological features (I) essential to the conservation of the species, and (II) that may 

require special management considerations or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside 

the geographical area occupied by a species ... upon determination by the Secretary that 

such areas are essential for the conservation of the species” (Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended, Sec. 3(5)(A)). 

The Endangered Species Act directs Federal agencies to insure that their actions are not 

likely to result in the “destruction or adverse modification” of designated critical habitat 

(Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, Sec. 7(a)(2)). 

None of the alternatives align land use allocations with designated critical habitat units 

or include management direction specific to designated critical habitat units. Therefore, 

the amount of suitable habitat within the critical habitat units would result from the land 

use allocations and management direction in each alternative as it overlays the designated 

critical habitat units. . As a result, the development of suitable habitat within critical 

habitat units would not show consistent patterns for any of the alternatives.

Currently, critical habitat units average suitable habitat on 55% of the habitat-capable 

acres on BLM-administered lands. The only critical habitat units that have more than 

90% suitable habitat are two units which have less than 5 acres of BLM-administered 

lands each. 

Under the No Action alternative, the average suitable habitat on BLM-administered 

lands in critical habitat units would steadily increase to an average of 82% of the habitatcapable acres on BLM-administered lands by 2106. 25 of the 51 critical habitat units 

would have more than 90% suitable habitat by 2106. On 10 of the 51 critical habitat 

units, the amount of suitable habitat would decrease from current amounts at some time 

over the next 100 years.

Under Alternative 1, the average suitable habitat on BLM-administered lands in critical 

habitat units would decline to 54% in 2016, and then steadily increase to 72% of the 

habitat-capable acres on BLM-administered lands by 2106. 22 of the 51 critical habitat 

units would have more than 90% suitable habitat by 2106. On 20 of the 51 critical habitat 

units, the amount of suitable habitat would decrease from current amounts at some time 

over the next 100 years.
G – 1043

Appendix G. Wildlife

Under Alternative 2, the average suitable habitat on BLM-administered lands in critical 

habitat units would decline to 51% in 2016, and then fluctuate until reaching an average 

of 54% of the habitat-capable acres on BLM-administered lands by 2106. 12 of the 51 

critical habitat units would have more than 90% suitable habitat by 2106. On 30 of the 51 

critical habitat units, the amount of suitable habitat would decrease from current amounts 

at some time over the next 100 years.

Under Alternative 3, the average suitable habitat on BLM-administered lands in critical 

habitat units would decline to 54% in 2016, and then fluctuate until reaching an average 

of 53% of the habitat-capable acres on BLM-administered lands by 2106. 3 of the 51 

critical habitat units would have more than 90% suitable habitat by 2106. On 33 of the 51 

critical habitat units, the amount of suitable habitat would decrease from current amounts 

at some time over the next 100 years.
G – 1044

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Table 249. Suitable Habitat within Critical Habitat Units OR-9 – OR-23, by alternative

Critical 

Habitat 

Unit

Habitatcapable 

acres

% of habitat-capable

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

OR-9 18

No Action 11 17 17 72 94

Alt 1 11 22 22 72 94

Alt 2 11 22 22 67 94

Alt 3 11 22 22 72 94

OR-10 201

No Action 69 57 57 37 49

Alt 1 69 53 27 20 23

Alt 2 69 64 55 37 17

Alt 3 69 51 32 19 35

OR-12 22,988

No Action 66 67 67 83 95

Alt 1 66 66 67 80 94

Alt 2 66 56 54 62 56

Alt 3 66 60 52 66 63

OR-14 35,522

No Action 60 60 62 83 92

Alt 1 60 56 58 78 85

Alt 2 60 49 41 46 32

Alt 3 60 47 43 51 46

OR-16 4,339

No Action 70 76 73 73 74

Alt 1 70 57 47 49 42

Alt 2 70 43 18 24 39

Alt 3 70 76 68 40 78

OR-18 2

No Action 100 50 50 50 100

Alt 1 100 50 50 50 100

Alt 2 100 50 50 50 50

Alt 3 100 100 50 50 100

OR-20 9,572

No Action 31 43 53 72 71

Alt 1 31 37 45 57 37

Alt 2 31 42 44 39 29

Alt 3 31 44 53 79 53

OR-21 1,894

No Action 43 47 48 80 66

Alt 1 43 26 25 49 39

Alt 2 43 37 34 45 22

Alt 3 43 51 51 71 48

OR-22 5,050

No Action 30 47 54 75 59

Alt 1 30 40 40 50 28

Alt 2 30 40 40 47 22

Alt 3 30 49 58 73 47

OR-23 8,310

No Action 26 34 52 68 54

Alt 1 26 29 46 38 30

Alt 2 26 36 56 82 96

Alt 3 26 36 54 65 39
G – 1045

Appendix G. Wildlife

Table 250. Suitable Habitat within Critical Habitat Units OR-24 – OR-38, by alternative

Critical 

Habitat 

Unit

Habitatcapable 

acres

Alternative

% of habitat-capable

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

OR-24 6,436

No Action 32 34 40 51 49

Alt 1 32 30 32 48 42

Alt 2 32 36 35 44 28

Alt 3 32 33 37 51 61

OR-25 53,731

No Action 62 62 63 79 95

Alt 1 62 60 61 75 92

Alt 2 62 57 54 64 70

Alt 3 62 53 45 47 53

OR-27 12,903

No Action 58 51 57 60 52

Alt 1 58 46 47 50 48

Alt 2 58 56 44 47 36

Alt 3 58 55 61 51 51

OR-29 11,122

No Action 71 64 62 57 49

Alt 1 71 66 63 40 37

Alt 2 71 65 57 22 23

Alt 3 71 56 47 20 21

OR-31 1,608

No Action 65 61 56 59 55

Alt 1 65 45 44 36 44

Alt 2 65 60 60 14 29

Alt 3 65 58 56 51 59

OR-32 64,955

No Action 53 56 57 69 86

Alt 1 53 56 57 66 82

Alt 2 53 53 50 55 60

Alt 3 53 51 46 53 47

OR-34 35,982

No Action 57 66 64 71 89

Alt 1 57 60 57 61 81

Alt 2 57 53 38 23 37

Alt 3 57 55 53 62 44

OR-36 7,093

No Action 61 60 52 44 47

Alt 1 61 52 46 41 18

Alt 2 61 58 49 24 11

Alt 3 61 60 49 46 29

OR-37 27,864

No Action 71 74 70 60 61

Alt 1 71 70 63 42 32

Alt 2 71 69 63 47 31

Alt 3 71 60 47 40 41

OR-38 34,740

No Action 61 70 72 76 78

Alt 1 61 66 65 67 72

Alt 2 61 65 64 65 70

Alt 3 61 66 66 72 87
G – 1046

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Table 251. Suitable Habitat within Critical Habitat Units OR-39 – OR-50, by alternative

Critical 

Habitat 

Unit

Habitatcapable 

acres

Alternative

% of habitat-capable

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

OR-39 7,207

No Action 57 64 70 94 100

Alt 1 57 64 70 90 99

Alt 2 57 56 56 62 53

Alt 3 57 62 64 69 60

OR-40 34

No Action 0 0 0 100 100

Alt 1 0 0 0 100 100

Alt 2 0 0 0 100 35

Alt 3 0 0 0 100 35

OR-41 36,989

No Action 50 53 56 88 100

Alt 1 50 53 56 87 100

Alt 2 50 52 55 91 100

Alt 3 50 50 48 65 57

OR-43 224

No Action 12 31 92 99 100

Alt 1 12 31 92 99 61

Alt 2 12 33 90 67 68

Alt 3 12 33 88 74 36

OR-44 26,418

No Action 22 33 63 92 98

Alt 1 22 30 52 89 98

Alt 2 22 32 55 90 98

Alt 3 22 34 60 84 46

OR-45 6,651

No Action 41 50 61 91 100

Alt 1 41 49 58 90 100

Alt 2 41 49 60 94 99

Alt 3 41 48 63 83 54

OR-46 226

No Action 80 83 83 83 100

Alt 1 80 83 83 83 100

Alt 2 80 66 41 26 31

Alt 3 80 63 63 26 66

OR-47 25,518

No Action 58 65 72 88 99

Alt 1 58 64 71 86 98

Alt 2 58 63 71 89 97

Alt 3 58 63 65 60 56

OR-48 40,555

No Action 54 65 73 91 99

Alt 1 54 64 71 89 98

Alt 2 54 57 64 74 69

Alt 3 54 60 62 63 56

OR-50 17,657

No Action 54 57 61 89 100

Alt 1 54 57 61 87 100

Alt 2 54 56 61 88 97

Alt 3 54 52 53 67 59
G – 1047

Appendix G. Wildlife

Table 252. Suitable Habitat within Critical Habitat Units OR-51 – OR-60, by alternative

Critical 

Habitat Unit

Habitatcapable 

acres

Alternative

% of habitat-capable

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

OR-51 3,640

No Action 35 35 37 67 77

Alt 1 35 35 37 60 77

Alt 2 35 32 37 61 50

Alt 3 35 35 36 73 65

OR-52 33,768

No Action 40 48 59 86 98

Alt 1 40 48 58 85 98

Alt 2 40 40 45 59 61

Alt 3 40 45 49 64 63

OR-53 49,004

No Action 47 51 58 82 91

Alt 1 47 50 57 77 87

Alt 2 47 50 58 81 93

Alt 3 47 46 49 54 52

OR-54 8,183

No Action 49 49 56 84 95

Alt 1 49 48 57 82 96

Alt 2 49 47 50 36 29

Alt 3 49 41 40 57 41

OR-55 15,799

No Action 61 64 71 90 99

Alt 1 61 64 69 88 99

Alt 2 61 44 43 40 33

Alt 3 61 64 71 91 59

OR-56 6,031

No Action 56 55 58 70 79

Alt 1 56 54 57 63 78

Alt 2 56 51 36 22 22

Alt 3 56 49 41 30 39

OR-57 9,848

No Action 59 60 61 71 82

Alt 1 59 60 61 71 79

Alt 2 59 41 29 19 20

Alt 3 59 52 41 26 32

OR-58 48,334

No Action 54 57 60 87 96

Alt 1 54 57 61 85 95

Alt 2 54 56 59 85 94

Alt 3 54 53 49 59 40

OR-59 4,728

No Action 59 61 63 79 86

Alt 1 59 61 63 76 90

Alt 2 59 56 56 26 20

Alt 3 59 56 44 27 40

OR-60 68,751

No Action 52 57 65 86 93

Alt 1 52 56 62 84 92

Alt 2 52 55 60 72 76

Alt 3 52 56 61 76 52
G – 1048

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Table 253. Suitable Habitat within Critical Habitat Units OR-61 – OR-76, by alternative

Critical 

Habitat Unit

Habitatcapable acres Alternative

% of habitat-capable

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

OR-61 2,462

No Action 71 72 77 83 96

Alt 1 71 72 78 84 100

Alt 2 71 60 57 20 13

Alt 3 71 59 55 14 10

OR-62 45,760

No Action 59 61 61 71 89

Alt 1 59 61 62 69 87

Alt 2 59 60 62 71 91

Alt 3 59 54 51 57 41

OR-63 8,004

No Action 66 64 65 61 59

Alt 1 66 64 61 46 50

Alt 2 66 51 39 30 37

Alt 3 66 66 65 76 61

OR-64 5,338

No Action 60 56 59 63 70

Alt 1 60 57 53 45 39

Alt 2 60 43 35 34 41

Alt 3 60 57 58 57 42

OR-65 82,184

No Action 74 77 78 83 90

Alt 1 74 77 77 83 89

Alt 2 74 75 76 80 84

Alt 3 74 71 70 72 62

OR-66 4

No Action 100 100 100 100 100

Alt 1 100 100 100 100 100

Alt 2 100 100 100 100 100

Alt 3 100 100 100 100 100

OR-67 18,555

No Action 61 60 70 77 75

Alt 1 61 59 68 73 58

Alt 2 61 54 56 56 41

Alt 3 61 56 64 66 55

OR-72 48,573

No Action 70 76 78 86 93

Alt 1 70 74 76 81 91

Alt 2 70 74 75 77 79

Alt 3 70 61 55 53 62

OR-74 26,891

No Action 55 63 64 57 59

Alt 1 55 57 58 51 48

Alt 2 55 58 62 52 39

Alt 3 55 52 52 42 57

OR-75 16,985

No Action 47 56 55 43 57

Alt 1 47 48 50 37 41

Alt 2 47 48 52 43 40

Alt 3 47 48 46 38 60

OR-76 418

No Action 86 91 94 94 100

Alt 1 86 83 82 23 11

Alt 2 86 48 82 86 95

Alt 3 86 89 85 40 62
G – 1049

Appendix G. Wildlife

Northern Spotted Owl Dispersal Habitat by 

District/Province Divisions

The following graphs display the quantity and quality of dispersal habitat by District/Province 

Divisions over time for each alternative. The quantity of dispersal habitat is the total amount of 

suitable habitat and dispersal habitat only. The quality of dispersal habitat is the portion of total 

dispersal habitat that is suitable habitat.
G – 1050

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Figure 290. Northern spotted habitat by District and Province. 
G – 1051

Appendix G. Wildlife
G – 1052

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs
G – 1053

Appendix G. Wildlife
G – 1054

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs
G – 1055

Appendix G. Wildlife
G – 1056

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Northern Spotted Owl Habitat Classification 

for Alternative 3

For Alternative 3 in 2056 and 2106, stands are classified as northern spotted owl suitable 

habitat if they either are classified as such by the habitat classification or are classified as 

dispersal habitat and are also classified as Mature with Multiple Canopies or Structurally 

Complex forest by the structural stage classification. 

The habitat classification used alone would underestimate the suitable habitat in 

Alternative 3, because the habitat classification depends in part on measurement of the 

average diameter of trees in the stand. In Alternative 3, partial harvest would create 

multi-cohort stands, and the resultant large number of understory trees would depress the 

average tree diameter of the stand as a whole, causing these partially harvested stands 

to be classified as dispersal habitat only (Figure 291 - Stand Conditions Resulting from 

Partial Harvests in Alternative 3 Compared to Regeneration Harvest in No Action). These 

partially harvested stands would continue to be classified only as dispersal habitat until 

the understory would grow large enough to no longer depress the average tree diameter 

of the stand as a whole, which would typically take at least 50 years. The structural 

stage classification does not use average diameter of trees in the stand, but instead 

uses the density of trees above a certain diameter (see Ecology Appendix – Structural 

Stage Classification). As a result, the understory trees do not cause misclassification of 

stands, as long as the stand retains enough large trees. The structural stage classification 

automatically reclassifies partially harvested stands to Stand Establishment forest until 

the understory would grow tall enough to pass out of the Stand Establishment stage 

(usually 20 – 30 years), after which the partially harvested stand is classified based on the 

overall stand characteristics. Therefore, even using this combing classification scheme 

for Alternative 3, stands that had been partially harvested in Alternative 3 would not be 

classified as suitable habitat for several decades after partial harvest. 

This combined classification is only used for results from the years 2056 and 2106; in 

the earlier years the results of the two different classification approaches are similar 

because the difference in classification is not apparent for several decades after the 

partial harvesting applied in Alternative 3. For example, in 2026, using the combined 

classification would increase the total amount of suitable habitat by 3.3%, which would 

represent 1.7% of habitat-capable acres.
G – 1057

Appendix G. Wildlife

Figure 291. Stand Conditions Resulting from Partial Harvests in Alternative 3 Compared to 

Regeneration Harvest in No Action

A. Alternative 3 Partial Harvest 

Spotted owl habitat rating = Dispersal habitat (according to standard classification) 

Structural stage = Mature with multiple canopies 

B. No Action - Regeneration Harvest with Green Tree Retention 

 

Spotted owl habitat rating = Dispersal habitat 

Structural stage = Young with Structural Legacy 
G – 1058

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

The combined classification might be expected to overestimate the amount of suitable 

habitat compared to other alternatives, because it expands the definition of suitable habitat 

wider than the other alternatives. However, in No Action, Alternative 1, and Alternative 2, 

Mature with Multiple Canopies and Structurally Complex forest is generally a subset of 

suitable habitat: the amount of Mature with Multiple Canopies and Structurally Complex 

forest is always lower than the amount of suitable habitat. Therefore, it is unlikely that 

the combined classification for Alternative 3 substantially overestimates the amount of 

suitable habitat compared to the other alternatives, and does not overestimate it enough to 

alter the overall trends and relative results of the alternatives.

No Action provides the best comparison to Alternative 3 for classification of suitable 

habitat, because No Action includes green tree retention which complicated the 

classification. Under No Action, the amount of Mature with Multiple Canopies and 

Structurally Complex forest is very similar to, but always lower, than the amount of 

suitable habitat in the first decades. In 2056, the amount of Mature with Multiple 

Canopies and Structurally Complex forest is more substantially lower than the amount of 

suitable habitat. But in 2056, Mature with Multiple Canopies and Structurally Complex 

forest is very strongly a subset of suitable habitat: 93% of Mature with Multiple Canopies 

forest and 94% of Structurally Complex forest in 2056 under No Action is also classified 

as suitable habitat.

Figure 292. Comparison of Classification of Mature with Multiple Canopies and Structurally 

Complex Forest with Classification of Suitable Habitat – No Action

No Action

0

200000

400000

600000

800000

1000000

1200000

1400000

1600000

1800000

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Acres MMC&SC Suitable
G – 1059

Appendix G. Wildlife

This close correlation between Mature with Multiple Canopies and Structurally Complex 

forest and suitable habitat in No Action, Alternative 1, and Alternative 2, is in contrast to 

the poor correlation between the two classifications in Alternative 3. Note that the two 

classifications have a different trend over time under Alternative 3.

Figure 293. Comparison of Classification of Mature with Multiple Canopies and Structurally 

Complex Forest with Classification of Suitable Habitat – Alternative 3

Alternative 3

0

200000

400000

600000

800000

1000000

1200000

1400000

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

Acres MMC&SC Suitable
G – 1060

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Marbled Murrelet Critical Habitat.

There are 29 marbled murrelet critical habitat units that include BLM administered lands. Critical 

habitat was designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 1996 to encompass existing 

Late-successional Reserves, as defined in the Northwest Forest Plan. Critical habitat units would 

be managed as late-successional reserves under the no action alternative and as late-successional 

management areas under alternative 1. By 2106 under the no action alternative and alternative 

1, BLM administered lands in 14 and 19 of 29 critical habitat units would be comprised of more 

than 90 percent murrelet nesting habitat. All except one of these units would have increasing 

amounts of murrelet nesting habitat. The one exception to this upward trend would be unit CA01-e, in which the BLM administers 14 acres. It is assumed in this analysis that the marbled 

murrelet critical habitat which is designated as late-successional reserves on U.S. Forest Service 

lands would follow similar trends to those exhibited by habitat on BLM administered lands under 

the no action alternative and Alternative 1.

Marbled murrelet nesting habitat would increase under alternative 2 from 218,000 acres to 

287,000 acres, or from 47 to 63 percent of habitat capable forest in critical habitat units. The latesuccessional management areas under alternative 2 would not completely encompass marbled 

murrelet critical habitat and as a result 6 of 29 critical habitat units would contain greater than 

90 percent nesting habitat by 2106, compared to 14 critical habitat units under the no action 

alternative. Marbled murrelet nesting habitat would increase 10 percent, or more, in one critical 

habitat unit from 2006 to 2016 while 20 critical habitat units would decrease in habitat during 

this time period. Nine of these 20 units would decrease in habitat more than 10 percent. Nesting 

habitat would decrease between 2016 and 2026 in 20 critical habitat units. Two of these 20 

critical habitat units would decrease more than 10 percent. From 2006 to 2106, marbled murrelet 

nesting habitat would increase in 14 critical habitat units. Thirteen of these 14 critical habitat 

units would increase in habitat more than 10 percent. Murrelet nesting habitat would decrease in 

15 critical habitat units, 10 of these units would decrease more than 10 percent.

Marbled murrelet nesting habitat would increase under alternative 3 from 217,000 acres to 

269,000 acres, or from 47 to 59 percent of habitat-capable forest on BLM administered lands. 

Under alternative 3, with the exception of Congressionally-withdrawn lands and riparian 

management areas, almost all marbled murrelet critical habitat units would be subject to 

regeneration harvests and partial harvests that would remove marbled murrelet nesting habitat. 

Under alternative 3, there would be 3 of 29 critical habitat units which would contain greater than 

90 percent nesting habitat by 2106, compared to 14 units under the no action alternative and 19 

units under alternative 1 and 6 units under alternative 2. Under alternative 3, marbled murrelet 

nesting habitat would increase more than 10 percent in one critical habitat unit from 2006 to 2106 

while habitat would decrease in 14 critical habitat units in the first decade. Three of these 14 units 

would decrease more than 10 percent. Nesting habitat would decrease between 2016 and 2026 in 

23 critical habitat units. One of these 23 units would decrease more than 10 percent. From 2006 

to 2106, marbled murrelet nesting habitat would increase in 20 critical habitat units, in 10 of 

these units habitat would increase more than 10 percent, while habitat would decrease in 9 critical 

habitat units, habitat would decrease more than 10 percent in two of those nine units. Although 

alternative 3 opens almost all of the critical habitat units to vegetative management compared 
G – 1061

Appendix G. Wildlife

to alternative 2, retention tree requirements in both the partial and regeneration harvests provide 

for much more rapid redevelopment of murrelet nesting habitat. Murrelet nesting habitat would 

develop up to 70 years sooner in alternative 3 compared to alternative 2, because of the role of 

retention trees in habitat development.

Table 254. Marbled murrelet nesting habitat summarized by critical habitat unit and alternative.

Critical 

Habitat 

Unit

Alternative

Habitatcapable 

(ac)

Marbled murrelet nesting habitat (ac)

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

CA-01-e

Alt 1 14 10 7 6 10 8

Alt 2 14 10 3 3 9 7

Alt 3 14 10 10 10 8 12

No Action 14 10 14 14 14 9

OR-01-b

Alt 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Alt 2 1 1 1 1 1 1

Alt 3 1 1 1 1 1 1

No Action 1 1 1 1 1 1

OR-01-c

Alt 1 7217 4472 4874 4903 5089 5680

Alt 2 7217 4472 4340 3973 2991 3076

Alt 3 7217 4472 4792 4465 3081 4497

No Action 7217 4472 4873 4903 5089 5297

OR-02-a

Alt 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Alt 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

Alt 3 0 0 0 0 0 0

No Action 0 0 0 0 0 0

OR-02-b

Alt 1 11 1 1 1 1 4

Alt 2 11 1 1 1 1 1

Alt 3 11 1 1 1 1 1

No Action 11 1 1 1 1 1

OR-02-c

Alt 1 3139 969 1332 1557 1910 2742

Alt 2 3139 969 985 1206 1355 2148

Alt 3 3139 969 1027 963 557 1077

No Action 3139 969 1332 1557 1910 2114

OR-02-d

Alt 1 25584 4948 6082 6700 9143 23955

Alt 2 25584 4948 6579 7391 11258 23667

Alt 3 25584 4948 7041 7414 10653 17785

No Action 25584 4948 6874 8201 14458 23688

OR-02-e

Alt 1 37256 13750 16475 17692 20158 34639

Alt 2 37256 13750 15532 16625 18578 31857

Alt 3 37256 13750 14709 13997 9737 18669

No Action 37256 13750 16613 17883 20232 30462
G – 1062

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Critical 

Habitat 

Unit

Alternative

Habitatcapable 

(ac)

Marbled murrelet nesting habitat (ac)

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

OR-03-a

Alt 1 39 39 41 41 41 41

Alt 2 39 39 39 39 39 39

Alt 3 39 39 39 39 15 15

No Action 39 39 41 41 41 41

OR-03-c

Alt 1 8087 3158 3992 3819 4165 7892

Alt 2 8087 3158 3593 3521 4100 6786

Alt 3 8087 3158 3624 3652 3188 5207

No Action 8087 3158 3988 4051 5047 7542

OR-04-a

Alt 1 1283 711 729 736 803 1165

Alt 2 1283 711 658 661 612 694

Alt 3 1283 711 628 605 294 537

No Action 1283 711 728 736 803 1039

OR-04-b

Alt 1 1083 893 964 1076 1076 1080

Alt 2 1083 893 960 1072 1072 1072

Alt 3 1083 893 959 1071 721 1068

No Action 1083 893 964 1076 1076 1076

OR-04-c

Alt 1 13378 7560 7575 7575 7701 12059

Alt 2 13378 7560 7452 7450 7432 10999

Alt 3 13378 7560 6755 6465 5458 6851

No Action 13378 7560 7582 7580 7724 11177

OR-04-d

Alt 1 20059 10832 10945 11251 11340 17555

Alt 2 20059 10832 7755 6723 4092 5535

Alt 3 20059 10832 10834 11156 11069 10642

No Action 20059 10832 10945 11283 11407 16553

OR-04-e

Alt 1 50508 26602 27244 27615 29639 46806

Alt 2 50508 26602 26780 26336 27211 42963

Alt 3 50508 26602 24887 21442 17695 30230

No Action 50508 26602 27429 27968 29840 46945

OR-04-f

Alt 1 20099 12133 12220 13014 13512 17531

Alt 2 20099 12133 9482 7901 3248 3423

Alt 3 20099 12133 11148 9212 5219 13302

No Action 20099 12133 12220 13040 13743 18431

OR-04-g

Alt 1 15352 7374 7280 7287 7405 12759

Alt 2 15352 7374 7034 6437 3319 4064

Alt 3 15352 7374 6294 4901 3355 8483

No Action 15352 7374 7082 7146 7912 12618
G – 1063

Appendix G. Wildlife

Critical 

Habitat 

Unit

Alternative

Habitatcapable 

(ac)

Marbled murrelet nesting habitat (ac)

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

OR-04-i

Alt 1 79203 34727 38319 41145 46096 71373

Alt 2 79203 34727 33995 34037 32619 47235

Alt 3 79203 34727 34184 32490 29996 51010

No Action 79203 34727 38410 41538 49490 70351

OR-04-j

Alt 1 55887 25062 27390 29112 32083 51859

Alt 2 55887 25062 23712 23768 21026 25494

Alt 3 55887 25062 25354 24338 20163 33843

No Action 55887 25062 27740 30180 33584 50827

OR-04-k

Alt 1 25526 13379 14524 15283 16322 23694

Alt 2 25526 13379 14234 14956 15706 21771

Alt 3 25526 13379 13701 13541 8513 14137

No Action 25526 13379 14637 15656 16724 22211

OR-06-a

Alt 1 39 26 26 26 26 36

Alt 2 39 26 7 7 7 7

Alt 3 39 26 4 4 4 26

No Action 39 26 26 26 26 36

OR-06-b

Alt 1 49888 26052 27344 28484 29942 43864

Alt 2 49888 26052 27034 28113 27242 38638

Alt 3 49888 26052 26873 26206 25836 22602

No Action 49888 26052 27509 28719 30299 42247

OR-06-c

Alt 1 4608 3508 3406 3444 3543 4447

Alt 2 4608 3508 1526 1238 1189 1543

Alt 3 4608 3508 2932 2461 1896 3652

No Action 4608 3508 3486 3523 3543 4389

OR-06-d

Alt 1 16177 8407 8445 8494 9627 15545

Alt 2 16177 8407 6551 5041 3045 3569

Alt 3 16177 8407 6347 4959 3961 8965

No Action 16177 8407 8405 8611 9843 15324

OR-07-a

Alt 1 2364 1466 1227 1227 1752 2127

Alt 2 2364 1466 998 749 719 750

Alt 3 2364 1466 1534 1580 918 1289

No Action 2364 1466 1218 1289 1801 2114

OR-07-b

Alt 1 2168 1073 1304 1304 2047 2047

Alt 2 2168 1073 1300 1300 2166 2167

Alt 3 2168 1073 1302 1302 2167 2167

No Action 2168 1073 1428 1428 2171 2171
G – 1064

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Critical 

Habitat 

Unit

Alternative

Habitatcapable 

(ac)

Marbled murrelet nesting habitat (ac)

2006 2016 2026 2056 2106

OR-07-d

Alt 1 1839 836 836 868 1194 1723

Alt 2 1839 836 509 442 1021 1469

Alt 3 1839 836 837 868 1086 1565

No Action 1839 836 836 876 1231 1752

OR-07-f

Alt 1 15595 8577 9459 9706 11030 14908

Alt 2 15595 8577 6635 5982 6803 7271

Alt 3 15595 8577 8589 7816 7344 10621

No Action 15595 8577 11472 11711 13467 15016

OR-07-g

Alt 1 2078 984 1085 1085 1097 1469

Alt 2 2078 984 829 450 367 394

Alt 3 2078 984 1034 999 1248 835

No Action 2078 984 1085 1085 1085 1514
G – 1065

Appendix G. Wildlife

Special Status Animal Species

The following table shows the Bureau Special Status Animal Species in the planning area 

by their habitat group and location.

Table 255. Documented and suspected occurrence of Bureau special status animal species (as of March 14, 2005) 

within the planning area of the Western Oregon Plan Revision.

Scientific Name Common Name

District Status 1

Coos BayEugeneKlamath FallsMedfordRoseburgSalem

Amphibians and Reptiles

Rana pretiosa* Oregon spotted frog FC D D

Batrachoseps wrighti* Oregon slender 

salamander BS D D

Chrysemys picta Painted turtle BS S S

Clemmys marmorata 

marmorata Northwestern pond turtle BS D D D D D S

Plethodon stormi* Siskiyou mountains 

salamander BS D

Rhyacotriton kezeri Columbia torrent 

salamander BS D

Aneides flavipunctatus Black salamander BA D

Ascaphus montanus Inland tailed frog BA S

Batrachoseps attenuatus California slender 

salamander BA D

Dicamptodon copei Cope’s giant salamander BA D

Plethodon larselli Larch mountain 

salamander BA S

Rana boylii* Foothill yellow-legged frog BA D D D D S

Rhyacotriton cascadae* Cascade torrent 

salamander BA D D

Birds

Pelecanus occidentalis 

californicus California brown pelican FE D S S

Brachyramphus marmoratus 

maroratum* Marbled murrelet FT D D S D D

Charadrius alexandrinus 

nivosus

Western snowy plover 

(coastal population) FT D

Haliaeetus leucocephalus* Bald eagle FT D D D D D D

Strix occidentalis caurina* Northern spotted owl FT D D D D D D

Eremophila alpestris strigata Streaked horned lark 

(oregon cr , wv, km) FC D S D

Accipiter gentilis* Northern goshawk BS D D D D D D

Anser albifrons elgasi Tule goose BS S S

Athene cunicularia hypugaea Burrowing owl (wv, km, hp, 

cb, bm) BS D S
G – 1066

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Bartramia longicauda Upland sandpiper BS D

Branta canadensis 

leucopareia

Aleutian canada goose 

(wintering) BS D S

Branta canadensis 

occidentalis Dusky canada goose BS S D

Buteo regalis Ferruginous hawk BS D D

Centrocercus urophasianus Greater sage-grouse BS S

Chordeiles minor Common nighthawk (wv) BS D D D

Coturnicops noveboracensis Yellow rail BS D

Falco peregrinus anatum* American peregrine falcon BS D D D D D D

Falco peregrinus tundrius Arctic peregrine falcon BS D S S S

Glaucidium gnoma Northern pygmy-owl (Blue 

Mtns) BS D

Icteria virens Yellow-breasted chat (wv) BS D D D

Melanerpes lewis Lewis’ woodpecker (wv, 

km, wc, ec, cb) BS D D D D D D

Otus flammeolus* Flammulated owl (ec, bm, 

br, wc, km) BS D D

Picoides albolarvatus White-headed woodpecker 

(km, wc, ec, bm) BS D D

Picoides arcticus Black-backed woodpecker 

(km, wc, ec, bm) BS D D

Picoides tridactylus Three-toed woodpecker 

(wc, ec, bm) BS D D

Podiceps grisegena Red-necked grebe 

(breeding pops: wc, ec) BS D D

Pooecetes gramineus affinis Oregon vesper sparrow 

(wv, km, cr) BS D D D S

Progne subis* Purple martin (cr, wv, km, 

wc, ec) BS D D S D D

Sturnella neglecta Western meadowlark (wv) BS D

Agelaius tricolor

Tricolored blackbird 

(breeding pop: wv, km, ec, 

hp, cb) BA D D

Ammodramus savannarum Grasshopper sparrow (wv) BA D

Cerorhinca monocerata Rhinoceros auklet BA S S

Cygnus buccinator Trumpeter swan BA S D D

Dolichonyx oryzivorus Bobolink BA D

Elanus leucurus White-tailed kite BA D D D D

Falco columbarius Merlin (possible breeding 

pop: ec, cb, br) BA S

Fratercula cirrhata Tufted puffin BA S D

Histrionicus histrionicus Harlequin duck (breeding 

pops: wc, ec, bm) BA D D D

Melanerpes lewis Lewis’ woodpecker BA D S D D D S

Oceanodroma furcata Fork-tailed storm petrel 

(breeding population) BA S

Pelecanus erythrorhynchos American white pelican 

(breeding pops: ec, br) BA D

Ptychoramphus aleuticus Cassin’s auklet BA S
G – 1067

Appendix G. Wildlife

Invertebrates

Icaricia icarioides fenderi Fender’s blue butterfly FE D S

Branchinecta lynchi Vernal pool fairy shrimp FT D

Speyeria zerene hippolyta Oregon silverspot butterfly FT S

Euphydryas editha taylori

Whulge checkerspot 

(butterfly) FC S S

Polites mardon* Mardon skipper (butterfly) FC S S D

Acetropis americana American grass bug BS S S

Algamorda newcombiana Newcomb’s littorine snail BS D

Allomyia scotti Scott’s apatanian caddisfly BS S

Anodonta wahlametensis Willamette floater (mussel) BS S

Chloealtis aspasma

Siskiyou short-horned 

grasshopper BS S D S

Cryptomastix devia Puget oregonian (snail) BS D

Cryptomastix populi Hells canyon land snail BS

Deroceras hesperium Evening fieldslug BS S D D S

Driloleirus macelfreshi Oregon giant earthworm BS S S

Fluminicola sp. nov. Fall creek pebblesnail BS D

Fluminicola sp nov. Keene creek pebblesnail BS D

Fluminicola sp nov. Toothed pebblesnail BS D

Fluminicola sp. nov. 1* Klamath pebblesnail BS D S

Fluminicola sp. nov. 11 Nerite pebblesnail BS S D

Fluminicola sp. nov. 3 Diminutive pebblesnail BS D

Gliabates oregonius Salamander slug BS D S D

Helisoma newberryi 

newberryi

Great basin ramshorn 

(snail) BS D

Helminthoglypta hertleini* Oregon shoulderband 

(snail) BS S D D

Hesperarion mariae* Tillamook westernslug BS S 2 D D

Hochbergellus hirsutus Sisters hesperian (snail) BS S

Incisalia polia maritima Hoary elfin (butterfly) BS S S S

Lanx klamathensis Scale lanx (snail) BS D S

Lanx subrotunda Rotund lanx (snail) BS S D

Mitoura johnsoni Johnson’s hairstreak 

(butterfly) BS S

Monadenia chaceana* Chase sideband (snail) BS S D D

Monadenia fidelis beryllica Green sideband (snail) BS S D

Monadenia fidelis celeuthia Travelling sideband (snail) BS D

Monadenia fidelis ssp. nov. Modoc sideband (snail) BS D

Pisidium ultramontanum Montane peaclam BS S S

Plebejus saepiolus littoralis Insular blue butterfly BS D S

Pomatiopsis binneyi Robust walker BS S

Pomatiopsis californica Pacific walker BS S S

Pristiloma articum crateris* Crater lake tightcoil (snail) BS S S S D S

Pristiloma pilsbryi Crowned tightcoil (snail) BS S

Prophysaon sp. nov. Klamath tail-dropper BS S S
G – 1068

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Prophysaon vanattae 

pardalis Spotted tail-dropper BS D S S D

Pterostichus rothi Roth’s blind ground beetle BS S S

Rhyacophila haddocki Haddock’s rhyacophilan 

caddisfly BS S D

Vespericola sierrana Siskiyou hesperian BS D

Vespericola sp. nov. Bald hesperian BS D

Vespericola sp. nov. Oak springs hesperian BS D

Mammals

Balaenoptera musculus Blue whale FE S

Eschrichtius robustus Gray whale FE S

Megaptera novaeangliae Humpback whale FE S

Odocoileus virginianus 

leucurus

Columbian white-tailed 

deer FE S

Eumetopias jubatus Steller sea lion FT S

Martes pennanti pacifica* Fisher FC S D S D

Arborimus longicaudus 

silvicola

Oregon red tree vole (nw or 

coast) BS D

Corynorhinus townsendii Townsend’s big-eared bat BS D D D D D D

Odocoileus virginianus 

leucurus

Columbian white-tailed 

deer (Douglas County only) BS D

Antrozous pallidus Pallid bat BA S S D D D S

Antrozous pallidus pacificus Pacific pallid bat BA S S D D

Brachylagus idahoensis Pygmy rabbit BA S

Euderma maculatum Spotted bat BA S

Myotis thysanodes Fringed myotis BA D S D D D S

Thomomys bottae detumidus Pistol river pocket gopher BA S

Thomomys mazama helleri Gold beach pocket gopher BA S

* Species known from more than 20 sites

1

 Status Codes: FE - Federally listed as endangered; FT - Federally listed as threatened; FC -- Candidate for federal listing; 

BS - Bureau Sensitive; BA - Bureau Assessment.

2

 Occurrence Codes: D - Documented to occur within the district; S - Suspected to occur in the district
Appendix H. Fish

This appendix provides background on the analysis and modeling for fisheries including special status 

fish species, status of threatened and endangered salmonids, and intrinsic potential and large wood 

delivery models.

In this appendix:

Special Status Fish Species in the Planning Area ............................................................1071

Status Summaries and Evolutionary Significant Units 

for Threatened or Endangered Salmonids........................................................................ 1073

Intrinsic Potential Model and Large Wood Delivery Model .........................................1082

H – 1069
H – 1070

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs
H – 1071

Appendix H. Fish

Special Status Fish Species in the 

Planning Area

Fish species designated as Federally-Threatened or Endangered under the Endangered Species 

Act within the Planning Area, and the present status of Critical habitat designation are displayed 

in Table 256.

Table 256. Federally Threatened or Endangered Fish Species and Critical Habitat Designation within the 

Planning Area.

Species ESU Species Status Critical Habitat Status

Chinook Salmon

Lower Columbia River Threatened Critical Habitat Designated

Upper Willamette 

River Threatened Critical Habitat Designated

Coho Salmon

Southern Oregon/

Northern California Threatened Critical Habitat Designated

Lower Columbia River Threatened Critical Habitat Designated

Oregon Coast Not warranted N/A

Chum Salmon Lower Columbia River Threatened Critical Habitat Designated

Steelhead

Lower Columbia River Threatened Critical Habitat Designated

Upper Willamette 

River Threatened Critical Habitat Designated

Shortnose Sucker Klamath Basin, 

Oregon Endangered Critical Habitat Proposed

Lost River Sucker Klamath Basin, 

Oregon Endangered Critical Habitat Proposed

Bull Trout Columbia River & 

Klamath River Threatened Critical Habitat Not Designated on Federal lands

Oregon Chub Willamette River 

Valley Endangered Critical Habitat not designated
H – 1072

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Fish species designated by the Bureau of Land Management as Bureau Sensitive or Bureau 

Assessment species are displayed in Table 257. For a complete list of non-status fish species 

endemic to the Planning Area, refer to the Oregon Natural Heritage Program website at 

(http://oregonstate.edu/ornhic/areas.html).

Table 257. Bureau Sensitive and Bureau Assessment Fish Species Present in the Planning Area. 

Species Status*

Millicoma Dace Bureau Sensitive

Jenny Creek Redband Trout Bureau Sensitive

Jenny Creek Sucker Bureau Sensitive

Umpqua Oregon Chub Bureau Sensitive

Miller Lake Lamprey Bureau Sensitive

Coastal Cutthroat Trout 

(Columbia River/Southwest Washington) Bureau Sensitive

Oregon Coast Coho Salmon Bureau Sensitive

Fall Chinook Salmon 

(Southern Oregon Coast/California Coast) Bureau Sensitive

Chum Salmon (Pacific Coast) Bureau Sensitive

Spring Chinook Salmon 

(Southern Oregon Coast/California Coast) Bureau Assessment

Steelhead 

(Klamath Mountains Province, Winter Run) Bureau Assessment

Steelhead 

(Klamath Mountains Province, Summer Run) Bureau Assessment

* Information from BLM Special Status Species List 8/10/06.
H – 1073

Appendix H. Fish

Status Summaries and Evolutionary 

Significant Units for Threatened or 

Endangered Salmonids

The following are summaries of the status of listed fish species within the plan area. Summaries 

for salmon and steelhead are from the National Marine Fisheries Service “Updated Status of 

Federally Listed ESU’s of West Coast Salmon and Steelhead” (June 2005). The specific listing 

status of the species and the threats to the species, are given in the specific Federal Register notice 

for each species or group of species covered by the notice. The Federal Register notices can be 

found at the NMFS web site http://www.nwr.noaa.gov for anadromous fish and the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service web site http://www.fws.gov/pacific/ for resident fish. Federal Register notices 

for rules regarding the designation of critical habitat can also be found at these web sites. The 

Federal register notices give the basic life history requirements for the listed species, the threats 

that caused the listing, and for critical habitat those basic requirements necessary for the survival 

and recovery of the species.

Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon 

Evolutionary Significant Unit

The Willamette and Lower Columbia Technical Recovery Team estimated that 8 to10 

historical populations in this ESU have been extirpated, most of them spring-run 

populations. Near loss of that important life history type remains an important Biological 

Review Team concern. High hatchery production continues to pose genetic and 

ecological risks to natural populations and to mask their performance. Most populations 

in this ESU have not seen as pronounced increases in recent years as occurred in many 

other geographic areas.
H – 1074

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Figure 294. Historical independent Lower Columbia River Evolutionary Significant Unit early and 

late-fall-run Chinook salmon populations. Source: Myers et al. (2002).

Columbia

River

Willamette

River

Rogue

River

Umpqua

River

 Klamath

River

Fifth-Field Watershed

 Containing Listed Fish

BLM Administered Land

BLM Administrative Boundary

Lower Columbia Chinook

M06-12-02

S

E

N

W

25 0 25 50 75

Miles
H – 1075

Appendix H. Fish

Upper Willamette River Chinook Salmon 

Evolutionary Significant Unit

Updated status reviews and technical reports preliminary analysis indicate that most 

natural-origin spring-run Chinook populations are likely extirpated, or nearly so. 

Figure 295. Historical populations of spring-run Chinook salmon in the Upper Willamette River 

Evolutionary Significant Unit. Source: Myers et al. (2002).

Columbia

River

Willamette

River

Rogue

River

Umpqua

River

 Klamath

River

Fifth-Field Watershed

 Containing Listed Fish

BLM Administered Land

BLM Administrative Boundary

Upper Willamette Chinook

M06-12-02

S

E

N

W

25 0 25 50 75

Miles
H – 1076

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast 

Coho Salmon Evolutionary Significant Unit

Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast coho salmon Evolutionary Significant Unit 

exhibit low population abundance relative to historical numbers and long-term downward 

trends in abundance. A reliable time series of adult abundance is available only for the 

Rogue River. These data indicate that long-term (22-year) and short-term (10-year) trends 

in mean spawner abundance are trending upward in the Rogue, however, the positive 

trends reflect effects of reduced harvest rather than improved freshwater conditions, 

because trends in pre-harvest recruits are flat. 

The relatively strong 2001 broodyear, likely the result of favorable conditions in both 

freshwater and marine environments, was viewed as a positive sign, but was a single 

strong year following more than a decade of generally poor years. On the positive side, 

extant populations can still be found in all major river basins within the Evolutionary 

Significant Unit, and the relatively high occupancy rate of historical streams observed in 

broodyear 2001 suggests that much habitat remains accessible to coho salmon. 

Figure 296. Historical populations of the Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast Coho 

Evolutionary Significant Unit
H – 1077

Appendix H. Fish

Lower Columbia River Coho Salmon 

Evolutionary Significant Unit

In the only two populations with significant natural production (Sandy and Clackamas 

rivers), short- and long-term trends are negative, and productivity is down sharply from 

recent (1980s) levels. On the positive side, adult returns in 2000 and 2001 were up 

noticeably in some areas, and evidence for limited natural production has been found in 

some areas outside the Sandy and Clackamas rivers.

Figure 297. Tentative historical populations of the Lower Columbia River coho salmon 

Evolutionary Significant Unit. Source: based on work by Willamette/Lower Columbia Technical 

Recovery Team for Chinook salmon and steelhead (Myers et al. 2002).

Columbia

River

Willamette

River

Rogue

River

Umpqua

River

 Klamath

River

Fifth-Field Watershed

 Containing Listed Fish

BLM Administered Land

BLM Administrative Boundary

Lower Columbia Coho

M06-12-02

S

E

N

W

25 0 25 50 75

Miles
H – 1078

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Lower Columbia River Steelhead Evolutionary 

Significant Unit

Abundance of most populations is relatively low, and those populations for which there 

is adequate modeling data are estimated to have a relatively high extinction probability. 

Some populations, particularly summer run, have shown higher returns in the last 2 to 3 

years. The Willamette and Lower Columbia Technical Review Team (Myers et al. 2002) 

has estimated that at least four historical populations are now extinct. 

Figure 298. Historical populations of winter-run steelhead in the Lower Columbia River 

steelhead ESU.Source: Myers et al. (2002).

Columbia

River

Willamette

River

Rogue

River

Umpqua

River

 Klamath

River

Fifth-Field Watershed

 Containing Listed Fish

BLM Administered Land

BLM Administrative Boundary

Lower Columbia Steelhead

M06-12-02

S

E

N

W

25 0 25 50 75

Miles
H – 1079

Appendix H. Fish

Upper Willamette River Steelhead 

Evolutionary Significant Unit

After a decade in which overall abundance (Willamette Falls count) hovered around the 

lowest levels on record, adult returns for 2001 and 2002 were up significantly, on par with 

levels seen in the 1980s. Still, the total abundance is small for an entire ESU, resulting in 

a number of populations that are each at relatively low abundance. 

Figure 299. Map of historical Upper Willamette River steelhead Evolutionary Significant 

Unit populations

Columbia

River

Willamette

River

Willamette

River

Rogue

River

Umpqua

River

 Klamath

River

Fifth-Field Watershed

 Containing Listed Fish

BLM Administered Land

BLM Administrative Boundary

Upper Willamette Steelhead

M06-12-02

S

E

N

W

25 0 25 50 75

Miles
H – 1080

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Columbia River Chum Salmon Evolutionary 

Significant Unit

Chum salmon spawn on the Oregon side of the lower Columbia Gorge in the Multnomah 

area, but appear to be essentially absent from other populations in the Oregon portion 

of the Columbia River chum salmon Evolutionary Significant Unit. With the exception 

of the lower Columbia Gorge population, Columbia River chum salmon are considered 

extirpated, or nearly so, in Oregon.

Figure 300. Historical chum salmon populations in the Columbia River chum salmon ESU. 

Columbia

River

Willamette

River

Rogue

River

Umpqua

River

 Klamath

River

Fifth-Field Watershed

 Containing Listed Fish

BLM Administered Land

BLM Administrative Boundary

Columbia River Chum

M06-12-02

S

E

N

W

25 0 25 50 75

Miles
H – 1081

Appendix H. Fish

Shortnose and Lost River Suckers 

The Lost River and shortnose sucker are endemic to the Upper Klamath Basin of 

California and Oregon. Declining population trends for both species were noted as early 

as the mid-1960s, but the severity of the population declines was not evident until the 

early 1980s. In 1988, both Lost River and shortnose suckers were listed as endangered by 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

The adult sucker monitoring program (USGS) has provided valuable information on the 

current status of sucker populations in the Upper Klamath Basin. Monitoring indicates there 

has been no significant recruitment into the adult population in the last few years (USGS).

Bull Trout

Bull trout were historically found in about 60 percent of the Columbia River Basin, 

but now occupy less than half of their historic range. Populations remain in portions of 

Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana and Nevada. In the Klamath River Basin, bull trout 

occupy only 21 percent of their historic range. While bull trout exist over a large area, 

their distribution and abundance has declined with several local extinctions documented. 

Many remaining populations are small and isolated from each other, making them more 

susceptible to local extinctions.

Oregon Chub

Oregon chub are endemic to the Willamette River Valley of western Oregon. Although 

information is scarce, historically the Oregon chub probably existed throughout the 

lower elevations of the Willamette River valley. The current distribution is limited 

to approximately 20 naturally occurring populations and 4 recently reintroduced 

populations. The populations are found in the Santiam River, Middle Fork Willamette 

River, Coast Fork Willamette River, McKenzie River, and several tributaries to the 

Mainstem Willamette River downstream of the Coast Fork/Middle Fork confluence. 

Almost all of the populations are small and isolated.

Recovery Planning

Recovery Plans for Willamette/Lower Columbia River chinook, coho, chum, and 

steelhead are underway. The status of the plans is currently available on the NMFS web 

site. Recovery Plans for Lost River and Shortnose suckers are available USFWS web site. 

The updated status of the various populations, a discussion of the existing limiting factors 

and threats to the populations will be developed in the various plans.
H – 1082

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Intrinsic Potential Model and Large Wood 

Delivery Model

Intrinsic Potential Model

Intrinsic potential is a scientific, topographical approach used to determine the potential 

of a stream to provide high-quality habitat for salmonids. Comprehensive information on 

the location of stream reaches with the greatest potential to provide high-quality habitat 

for salmonids was generally missing for the planning area. The intrinsic potential of 

stream channels to provide high-quality rearing habitat was modeled for juvenile coho 

salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), juvenile steelhead (O. mykiss), and juvenile chinook 

salmon (O. tshawytscha). The initial research was conducted in the Coastal Landscape 

Analysis and Modeling Study (CLAMS) and was expanded for coho, steelhead and 

chinook on all ownerships within the planning area. 

Spatial models were developed that estimate the potential of streams to provide highquality rearing habitat for coho, steelhead and chinook. The calculated metric, termed 

intrinsic potential, reflects species-specific associations between fish use and persistent 

stream attributes; stream flow, valley constraint, and stream gradient. 

The intrinsic potential for each stream reach was modeled independently for juvenile 

steelhead, coho, and chinook salmon from stream attributes of mean annual stream 

flow, valley constraint, and channel gradient. These attributes were produced in 

conjunction with the digital stream network from 10-m digital elevation models 

(DIGITAL ELEVATION MODELs) (Miller 2003). The stream network output was 

in an ArcView shape file format and then imported into ArcInfo (version 8.3; ESRI, 

Redlands, California, USA) for all subsequent processing. Stream attribute values were 

translated into index scores for each species (Figure 301. Relationship between values of 

the three stream attributes (mean annual stream flow, calibrated valley-width index, and 

channel gradient) and the index scores that were used to calculate intrinsic potential for 

steelhead, coho, and chinook salmon). 

The index scores were based on empirical evidence from published studies regarding 

the relationship between a stream attribute and juvenile fish use. Following the most 

commonly applied approaches for modeling habitat suitability (Morrison et al. 1998 and 

Vadas and Orth 2001 in Burnett et al in press), intrinsic potential for each stream reach 

was calculated by multiplying the un-weighted species-specific index scores together and 

then taking the geometric mean of the product. This approach reflects the assumption 

that the three stream attributes are of approximately equal importance and only partially 

compensatory, and that the smallest index score has the greatest influence on the intrinsic 

potential. The index scores and intrinsic potential can range from zero to one; larger 

values indicating a greater potential for providing high-quality rearing habitat. Stream 

reaches were classified with a high species-specific intrinsic potential when the calculated 
H – 1083

Appendix H. Fish

value was 0.75. Intrinsic potential is reported for a species only below naturally occurring 

barriers to migrating adults. (Burnett et al, in press)

Figure 301. Examples of relationship between values of the three stream attributes and the index 

scores used to calculate intrinsic potential.
H – 1084

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Large Wood Delivery Model

The large wood delivery model is a spatially explicit, Geographic Information Systembased wood recruitment model developed for this analysis to determine the potential large 

wood contribution to fish bearing streams from BLM-administered lands. The model 

determines the large wood contribution from each recruitment source: 

• Riparian tree fall

• Channel migration

• Debris flow

For the wood recruitment model, metrics were developed to compare wood input rates 

by recruitment process and by location. A simplified set of stand types were used: Stand 

Establishment, Young, and Mature and Structurally Complex. For each stand type, three 

size classes were specified: 0-10”dbh, 10-20” dbh, and > 20” dbh. For each size class, 

a single average tree height was specified. As a measure of wood input, the number of 

trees from the large size class (dbh > 20”) from the Mature and Structurally Complex size 

class entering any stream was used. Inputs from smaller size classes or from the other two 

stand types were not included. 

The distance from which falling trees could enter the channel was determined using 

the average tree height. To determine the input of large wood to streams the Stand 

Establishment and Young stand types have few or no large trees, so excluding these stand 

types did not affect the overall spatial and temporal patterns predicted by the models. 

Likewise, exclusion of the smaller size classes did not alter predicted patterns of input of 

large wood. 

The size of the wood entering the channel is not tracked in order to simplify interpretation 

of model results; only trees of a particular size class, from a particular stand type, are 

tracked to channels. These simplifications highlight the primary spatial and temporal 

patterns predicted by the stand growth and wood recruitment models. 

The model estimates average annual wood inputs, with no indication of temporal 

variability in input rates. This enables the identification of potential source areas for each 

recruitment processes, channel reaches potentially receiving wood from each process, 

and for examining spatial differences in average recruitment rates. However, the spatial 

pattern found for actual in-channel wood loads are very different than the pattern found 

for average recruitment rate: debris flow inputs, for example, occur only rarely. Hence, 

for any reach, the relative importance of debris flow inputs can vary dramatically 

over time depending on how long it has been since the last debris flow occurred. The 

stochastic nature of wood recruitment processes causes wood inputs to be episodic, 

punctuated in time a space. Patterns indicated by the wood recruitment model show 

where certain processes are active and how long-term average rates differ from location 

to location, but cannot predict how actual rates differ from year to year.
H – 1085

Appendix H. Fish

Methods

The stream channel network was traced using 10-meter Digital Elevation Models and the 

Western Oregon Plan Revision Geographic Information System stream fish distribution 

layer and Ground Transportation Road Network was used to determine fish bearing 

stream channels and all road and stream crossings. 

Figure 302. Using Digital Elevation Models to delineate stream. For each Digital Elevation Model 

point, all stream-edge segments are found within one tree height.

For each stream-edge segment, the probability that a tree at the Digital Elevation Model 

point hits the segment when it falls was determined. Input information included the 

following and was repeated for every Digital Elevation Model point:

• Fall direction (closest edge segment) 

• Angle subtended

• Distance to stream edge

• Slope at Digital Elevation Model point 

 



Tree Height

DIGITAL

ELEVATION

MODEL point

Pixel

Traced

stream

Stream edge

Active

channel

width
H – 1086

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Figure 303. Determining tree fall using DEMs.

Figure 304. Probability that a falling tree at a DEM point hits a stream segment.

Angle subtended

StreamͲedge

segment Most likely

fall direction
H – 1087

Appendix H. Fish

From these inputs, the following is determined for every Digital Elevation Model point: 

• A list of every stream segment potentially hit by a falling tree from that point

• For each segment, the probability that the falling tree will cross the 

channel edge

For each stream-edge segment, the probability that a tree at the Digital Elevation Model 

point hits the segment when it falls was determined. Input information included the 

following and was repeated for every Digital Elevation Model point:

• Fall direction (closest edge segment) 

• Angle subtended

• Distance to stream edge

• Slope at Digital Elevation Model point 

From these inputs, the following is determined for every Digital Elevation Model point: 

• A list of every stream segment potentially hit by a falling tree from that point

• For each segment, the probability that the falling tree will cross the 

channel edge

For each stream segment the following is determined:

• A list of every Digital Elevation Model point from which a falling tree might 

cross the segment

Each Digital Elevation Model point is associated with a 100-m2 pixel, and each pixel has 

an associated forest cover type (from OPTIONS growth and yield model):

• Stand Establishment

• Young

• Mature

• Structurally Complex 

Each forest cover type has an associated stand table divided into tree-size classes. For 

each tree-size class the following is used: 

• stem density, 

• diameter at breast height range

• average tree height

• mortality rate

With this information, for each corner of the pixel, the probability that a tree falls and that 

it hits a stream-edge segment is calculated. This probability is integrated over the area 

of the pixel to calculate the annual probability that a tree within the pixel falls and hits a 

stream-edge segment and is repeated for every segment potentially hit by a falling tree 

from within the pixel.
H – 1088

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Figure 305. Tree fall from riparian areas dependent on: forest cover, hillslope gradient, distance to 

stream channel, and channel planform geometry.

Channel Migration

To determine the large wood input from a channel migration zone the following 

factors were determined:

• Valley floor extent

• Valley floor composition and vegetation

To determine the channel migration zone, potential floodplain areas were 

delineated and a constant probability was applied of floodplain occupation 

(e.g. channel migration across the entire floodplain every 100 years). Wood 

recruitment was determined from stand tables with trees available for recruitment 

from each valley-floor pixel and assigning each valley-floor pixel a specified 

annual probability of being exhumed by the migrating channel (e.g., 0.01).

High (0.005)

Low (0.0)

Pieces per year
H – 1089

Appendix H. Fish

Figure 306. Identification of valley-floor pixels: within a specified elevation of the channel; within a 

specified slope relative to the channel slope; all pixels flagged meeting these criteria with the identification of 

the reach to which they drain.

Debris Flow

The model uses topographic characteristics from 10-meter Digital Elevation 

Models to identify all debris-flow initiation points across the landscape (Miller 

and Burnett, 2007) and identify the travel path from each source pixel to a fish 

bearing stream channel (Burnett and Miller, 2007; Miller and Burnett, in review). 

The Ground Transportation Road Network Geographic Information System 

layer was used with the travel path to determine road stream crossings and wood 

routing barriers. Each conditional probability that each Digital Elevation Model 

pixel was traversed by a debris flow was determined. All relative probabilities 

were multiplies to give a specified mean recurrence interval for all 3rd and 

higher-order channels (350 years). 

For each Digital Elevation Model pixel, a mean annual probability of being 

traversed by a debris flow is determined. Starting from each debris-flow source 

pixel, the potential wood is accumulated pixel by pixel along each debris-flow 

source track

The proportion of wood taken from each pixel is determined by: 

• Mean debris flow track width (from Oregon Department of 

Forestry data)

• The probability of no debris-flow deposition in the pixel
H – 1090

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

The proportion of accumulated wood deposited in each pixel is determined by the 

relative downslope decrease in debris-flow traversal probability (e.g., if traversal 

probability decreases by 20%, 20% of the accumulated wood is deposited)

Sources for debris flow wood:

• Standing trees (from stand tables)

• Down wood (calculated as per riparian)

• Wood deposited by previous debris flows

The amount of deposited wood that gets picked up by the next debris flow is 

determined by the probability that the wood is still in the channel when the next 

debris flow comes along (1 – (1-PDF)R); where PDF is annual probability of 

debris flow traversal and R is (1/PDF), the recurrence interval. This is equal to 

~0.63 for all values of PDF. The assumption is that only buried wood survives 

(surface wood decays) and that 30% of the wood is buried. That gives ~20% of 

previously deposited wood available for future debris flow scour. This amount 

was multiplied by the probability of scour to estimate the amount of previously 

deposited wood picked up by debris flows.

Figure 307. Debris flow source areas for wood are widely distributed, but most of the wood 

accumulated by debris flows is scoured from low-order channels.
H – 1091

Appendix H. Fish

Figure 308. Debris flow inputs to fish-bearing streams occur at these low-order channel junctions.

 Fish Productivity Index

A fish productivity index was developed for assessing the effects of wood 

recruitment on fish habitat. The index is used to assess potential fish habitat 

within a basin. The index is based on the assumption that available habitat is 

proportional to available channel area; (e.g., large channels can support more fish 

than small channels). Channel surface area is estimated as the product of channel 

width and channel length, determined from channel courses traced from a 10-m 

Digital Elevation Model. The available channel area is then modified using a 

species-specific measure of intrinsic habitat potential (Burnett et al. in press): 

an index that varies between zero and one as a function of channel gradient, 

mean annual flow, channel width, and valley width. (Both mean annual flow 

and channel width are calibrated functions of drainage area and mean annual 

precipitation, (Clarke et al. in review)).

A similar approach was used by Lawson et al. (Lawson et al. 2004) to estimate 

channel area available for coho production for basins in western Oregon. 

Summed over all channels in a basin, this index provides a simple, albeit course, 

measure of available habitat. It takes into account the channel length within 

a basin (channel density) and the habitat potential of those channels (via the 

intrinsic potential index). It can be used to rank basins in terms of potential 

habitat availability as discerned from these simple, topographically based criteria.
H – 1092

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

The potential effects of wood are incorporated into the index by the proportion 

of estimated wood recruitment relative to a potential maximum recruitment rate. 

This maximum rate is calculated for all forested areas in mature and structurally 

complex stands. This proportion, calculated for each reach, varies between zero 

and one. This proportion is related to effects on habitat based on the role of wood 

in creating pools. Although this is not the only function served by woody debris, 

it is an important one for which data exists from which to infer effects of wood 

on one aspect of habitat. 

Pool spacing varies inversely with the number of pieces of large wood found in a 

channel (Montgomery et al. 1995, Beechie and Sibley 1997). Beechie and Sibley 

(1997), using data from northwest Washington, report a relationship between 

mean pool spacing, the number of pieces of wood per unit channel length, and 

channel gradient:

pool spacing (pools per channel width) = 2.7 - 4.6(slope x LWD/m) + 1.6(slope)

A minimum spacing of two pools per channel width occurred at a wood loading 

of 0.4 pieces per meter. Higher wood loadings did not result in smaller pool 

spacing. The assumption is that the maximum potential wood recruitment rate, 

obtained when all forested areas are in mature and structurally complex stands, 

results in this minimum spacing, which corresponds to the maximum number of 

pools. The maximum pool spacing, corresponding to the minimum number of 

pools, occurs when there is no wood. These endpoints, a minimum spacing of 

two pools per channel width and a maximum given by 2.7 + 1.6(slope) provide 

the potential range in the number of pools within a reach. This equation implies 

that the proportional change in the number of pools in a reach between full wood 

loading and no wood loading is:

Pmin = 2/(2.7+1.6*slope). Where: pmin is the proportion of the maximum 

number of pools expected in a reach; the maximum occurs when the reach is 

fully loaded with wood, the minimum (Pmin) occurs when there is no wood. 

At zero slope this ratio is 74%; for a 5% channel, the ratio is approximately 

19%. The ratio is an index of wood recruitment. If wood recruitment for a reach 

is equal to that calculated for a uniform mature and structurally complex forest 

cover (the maximum value), the index value is one. If recruitment is zero, the 

index value is given by Pmin. The index value for recruitment rates between the 

maximum and zero varies linearly from one to Pmin based on the proportion of 

the maximum recruitment rate. Potential habitat availability for each reach is then 

multiplied by the resulting wood index value. As wood recruitment rate goes to 

zero, the potential habitat availability is reduced by Pmin.
Appendix I. Water

 This appendix provides supplemental material for the topics discussed within the chapters of this 

draft environmental impact statement that are related to water resources and riparian areas that are on 

BLM-administrated lands.

In this appendix:

Water Planning Criteria.........................................................................................................1095

Source Water Watersheds for Public Water Systems ......................................................1120

Best Management Practices...................................................................................................1132

I – 1093
I – 1094

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs
I – 1095

Appendix I. Water

Water Planning Criteria

Analytical Question # 1

How do the alternatives affect peak flow estimates that exceed detection limits within the 

rain dominated hydroregion? 

Analytical Assumptions

•	 Hydroregions are a physical classification of landscapes based on the form of 

precipitation with elevation, as predominantly rain, rain and snow, or snow. In the rain 

dominated hydroregion, removal of basal area is used as a surrogate for reductions in leaf 

area. Removal of basal area is expected to affect peak flows to varying degrees (Grant et 

al 2007 In Review). 

•	 Ziemer (1981, 1998) found a non-statistical increase (4%) in peak flow for 80 year old 

conifer stands that were harvested where, 50% of the basal area was retained.

•	 Within the rain dominated hydroregion the effect of increased peakflow is roughly 

proportional to area cut. Patch size or arrangement is not a factor in explaining greater 

flow volume or differences in timing. In this analysis, 40% basal area removed is set as a 

6th field watershed response threshold for events with return periods of >2years, where the 

percent change in peakflow is expected to be greater than the detection limit (Grant et al 

2007 In Review). 

•	 Research indicates the largest percent increases in peak flows apply to 100% regeneration 

harvested watersheds where all the basal area is removed, within the rain dominated 

hydroregion. For partial reductions in basal area by thinning, the inter-relationships 

of forest tree size, stocking, distribution and age affect leaf area, but not necessarily 

hydrologic processes. The 6th field watershed response threshold of 40% basal area 

removed, will be calculated by using the following assumptions:

• For BLM lands, the 10-year projection derived data layers will be used as a surrogate 

to determine basal area removed, using the acres of the ecology description attributes of 

stand establishment with legacy and stand establishment without legacy. For other lands, 

acres of less than 30% vegetative crown closure reclassed from the 1996 Interagency 

Vegetation Mapping Project TM will be used as a surrogate for removal of basal area. 

Any cell meeting this description is binned as basal area removed. 

•	 For other lands, it is assumed that the percentage of basal area removed is the same for all 

planning time periods by 6th field watershed.

•	 This analytical procedure is viewed as a screening process to determine probable 

watersheds at risk for peak flow enhancement from removal of basal area in the 

precipitation dominated hydroregion. The output changes, depending on the climate, 

elevation and forest cover relationships.
I – 1096

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Analytical Methodology and Technique

The technique relies on ARC GIS processes for analyzing spatial data. Logical 

and mathematical operations will be written as scripts, based on watershed 

analysis methodologies.

Step 1 – 

Using the Hydroregions derived data layer (Planning Criteria #2 step 3), exclude any 6th

field watersheds from further analysis that contain < 70% rain dominated areas. Mask 

the area of the remaining 6th filed watersheds that are not rain dominated. Build a new 

selected set labeled “Rain Dominated”.

Step 2 – 

For other lands, determine “Existing Condition Hydrologic Maturity” for forest 

vegetation by reclassing the 1996 classified Interagency Vegetation Mapping Project 

TM (IVMP) imagery. Table 258 will be used to construct the derived data layer. 

Table 258. Vegetation Hydrologic Maturity Assignment to Land Cover Class.

Hydrologic Maturity Land Cover Classes

Minimum Hydrologic Maturity <30% total crown closure

Step 3 – 

Intersect “Current Condition Hydrologic Maturity” (step 2) with the Rain Dominated 

6th field watersheds selected set (step 1). Intersect the alternatives’ 10-year 

projections vegetation structural stages with the Rain Dominated 6th field watersheds 

selected set (step 1). 

Step 4 – 

For BLM, use the alternatives’ 10-year projections, to calculate the acres of basal area 

removed. Include the stand establishment ecology polygons (acres), with the attributes 

stand establishment with legacy and stand establishment without legacy for each rain 

dominated 6th field watershed. 

Step 5 – 

For other lands, calculate the acres of each rain dominated 6th field watershed that is 

minimum hydrologic maturity (step #2, Table 258).

Step 6 – 

Sum the total basal area removed in acres, by each 6th field watershed, for the existing 

condition and each alternative (steps 4 and 5). Calculate total 6th field watershed acres, 

and basal area removed as a percent of the total. 

Step 7 – 

Conduct reference analysis. Replace the alternatives’ 10-year projections coverage with 

the same attributes in step-4 with the no harvest and maximum harvest on commercial 

forest lands projections.
I – 1097

Appendix I. Water

Analytical Conclusions

Rank the precipitation dominated 6th field watersheds that exceed 40% basal area 

removed as sensitive for peak flow increase. 

Data Needs

• Classified 1996 imagery from the Interagency Vegetation Mapping Project TM 

(IVMP), including new openings under 10 years of age, current to 2005. 

• GIS-derived data layer of hydroregions.

• GIS-derived data layer of vegetation hydrologic maturity.

• Watershed GIS coverage (for determining area and 6th field watersheds)

• By alternative, GIS-derived spatial data layer of 10-year projections stand 

establishment (acres). 

Data Display

•	 Figure showing 6th field watersheds where basal area removed exceeds 40%, for the 

existing condition and with the application of each alternative’s 10-year projection.

Analytical Question # 2

How do the alternatives affect peak flow estimates that exceed detection limits within the 

rain-on-snow hydroregion? 

Analytical Assumptions

•	 Hydroregions are a physical classification of landscapes based on the form of 

precipitation with elevation, as predominantly rain, rain and snow, or snow. Rain-onsnow areas where shallow snow accumulations can come and go have been reported 

by Harr (1981, 1992) to be in the elevation range of 1200-3600 feet in western Oregon 

and from 2500 to 5000 feet in the southern Oregon Cascades (Lindell, pers.com.). 

•	 The subwatershed level (USGS Sixth-field Hydrologic Unit Code) was chosen 

for the analysis, because it better approximates the BLM forest land pattern, and 

tributary streams are more sensitive to vegetation and runoff-related changes. This 

analysis level can also be viewed as an additional margin of safety in terms of 

describing effects.

•	 Forest openings commonly receive greater snow accumulation (2 to 3 times more 

snow water equivalent) than adjacent forests (Harr 1992). These openings also 

receive greater wind speeds and twice the amount of heat during rain-on-snow 

events, which provides greater melt compared to the mature forest (Harr 1981, 1992; 
I – 1098

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Storck 1997). Regeneration harvest or forest conversion will provide additional melt 

contributions under rain-on-snow conditions (Harr 1981, Storck 1997). 

•	 Rain-on-snow occurrences normally correspond with a streamflow return period of 

2 to 8 to years where pre-logging and post-logging regressions were significantly 

different (Harr 1992). 

•	 Basin characteristics regression analysis with gauged watersheds of long-term record 

is an appropriate method of describing peak flows of various exceedance probabilities 

for unregulated streams in ungauged watersheds. Harris and Hubbard (1979) flood 

frequency equations were chosen as reference points; because they cover the various 

hydrologic regions in the plan area and have long-term records (10-70 years). 

The base period of streamflow data collection for use in the analysis was prior to 

maximum forest conversion in many watersheds. The data set may include some 

chance rain-on-snow events. 

•	 The 2-year, 24-hour precipitation intensity is assumed to coincide with the 2-year, 24- 

hour discharge. 

•	 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers studies (USACE 1956, 1998) show that the principal 

melt component in a rain-on-snow event is convection/condensation melt. This 

component is far larger than long-wave and short-wave radiation melt, rain melt, and 

ground melt. In a typical USACE rain-on-snow example, convection/condensation 

melt accounts for 70 percent of daily snowmelt quantities. Ground wind speed, warm 

air temperatures and nearly equivalent dewpoint temperatures are the drivers in the 

convection/condensation melt term. 

•	 Basin characteristics regression analysis with gauged watersheds of long-term record 

is an appropriate method of describing peak flows of various exceedance probabilities 

for unregulated streams in ungauged watersheds. Harris and Hubbard (1979) flood 

frequency equations were chosen as reference points; because they cover the various 

hydrologic regions in the plan area and have long-term records (10-70 years). 

The base period of streamflow data collection for use in the analysis was prior to 

maximum forest conversion in many watersheds. The data set may include some 

chance rain-on-snow events. 

•	 For other lands, it is assumed that the percentage of basal area removed is the same 

for all planning time periods by 6th field watershed.

•	 This analytical procedure is viewed as a screening process to determine probable 

watersheds at risk for peak flow enhancement from rapid melt of shallow 

snowpacks. The output changes, depending on the climate, elevation and forest 

cover relationships.
I – 1099

Appendix I. Water

Analytical Methodology and Technique

The technique relies on ARC GIS GRID processes for analyzing spatial data. Logical 

and mathematical operations were written as scripts, based on watershed analysis 

methodologies. The analytical technique is an empirical approach patterned in part 

from the Washington State Department of Natural Resources Standard Methodology for 

Conducting Watershed Analysis 1997, (v. 4.0), Appendix C. 

Step 1 - 

Construct “Flood-Frequency Precipitation” data layer. Obtain precipitation frequency 

data for the 2-year 24-hour storm for the plan area (NOAA 1973) in raster format 

available online: [http://www.nws.noaa.gov/ohd/hdsc/noaaatlas2.htm]

Step 2 - 

Intersect watershed boundaries with “Flood-Frequency Precipitation” data. Intersect the 

BLM watershed GIS theme with the flood-frequency precipitation derived data layer at 

the 6th-field HUC level. 

Step 3 - 

Determine “Hydroregions.” Construct a derived data layer to include elevation bands 

of rain-dominated areas that are below the rain-on-snow zone; rain-on-snow zone (also 

called transitional) and snow-dominated zone that are above the rain-on-snow zone. 

District hydrologists will assign lower and upper elevation bounds for the rain-on-snow 

zone for all 6th-field watersheds wholly or partly contained in the plan area, based on the 

following criteria: 

Lower Bounds of the Rain-On-Snow Zone

Use National Resources Conservation Service SNOWTEL data for 

January 1 snow accumulation elevation (Greenburg and Welch 1998), 

and local hydrologist observation, which may vary from 1200-2500 feet.

Upper Bounds of the Rain-On-Snow Zone

Use regionally established upper limit from hydrologist observation or 

literature or the onset of frozen soils, which may vary from 3600-5000 feet. 

Step 4 - 

Filter the “Hydroregions” derived data layer. Filter by 6th-field watershed, and exclude 

any subwatersheds from further analysis that contain only rain areas or only permanent 

snow areas or <10% rain-on-snow (transitional) areas. Make a new derived data layer 

labeled “Rain-on-Snow” selected from the set.

Step 5 – 

Using the Rain-on-Snow selected set to separate the remaining 6th field watersheds by 

flood region (Harris and Hubbard 1979), online: [http://water.usgs.gov/software/nff_

manual/or/oregon_AFrame_3.gif]
I – 1100

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Step 6 - 

Calculate 2-Year 24-Hour Streamflow, and the 5-Year 24-Hour Streamflow from 

USGS basin characteristics regression analysis method (Harris and Hubbard 1979) 

using GIS scripts.

2-Year 24-Hour Streamflow 

Coast Region: Q0.5=4.59A0.96(ST+1)-0.45I1.91

Willamette Region: Q0.5=8.70A0.87I1.71

Rogue-Umpqua Region: Q0.5=24.2A0.86(ST+1)-1.16I1.15

High Cascades: Q0.5=4.75A0.90(ST+1)-0.62 (101-F)0.11 I 1.17

where: Q0.5= discharge in cubic feet per second (CFS) for a 

2-year 24-hour recurrence interval event: 

A = drainage area in square miles

ST = area of lakes and ponds in percent

F = forest cover in percent

I = 2-year 24-hour precipitation intensity in inches

5-Year 24-Hour Streamflow 

Coast Region: Q0.2=6.27A0.95(ST+1)-0.45I1.95

Willamette Region: Q0.2=15.6A0.88I1.55

Rogue-Umpqua Region: Q0.2=36A0.88(ST+1)-1.25I1.15

High Cascades: Q0.2=8.36A0.86(ST+1)-0.81 (101-F)0.08 I 1.30

where: Q0.2= discharge in cubic feet per second (CFS) for a 

5-year 24-hour recurrence interval event,

A = drainage area in square miles

ST = area of lakes and ponds in percent

F = forest cover in percent

I = 2-year 24-hour precipitation intensity in inches

Area of lakes and ponds include natural lakes, ponds, and impoundments. 

Forest cover is the watershed area greater than 10% forest cover, and is 

the hydrologic maturity cover classes A and B (step 7).
I – 1101

Appendix I. Water

Step 7 – 

Determine “Existing Condition Hydrologic Maturity” for forest vegetation, by reclassing 

the 1996 classified Interagency Vegetation Mapping Project TM (IVMP) imagery. The 

table below will be used to construct the derived data layer. 

Table 259. Vegetation Hydrologic Maturity Assignment to Land Cover Class.

Hydrologic Maturity Land Cover Classes

A Hydrologically Mature

>70% total crown closure AND

<75% of the crown in hardwoods or shrubs

B Intermediate Hydrologic Maturity

10%-70% total crown closure AND

<75% of the crown in hardwoods or shrubs

C Minimum Hydrologic Maturity

<10% total crown closure

AND/OR

>75% of the crown in hardwoods or shrubs

D Non-Forested

Agricultural and Grazing Lands

Open Water Lakes, Ponds, Reservoirs

Inundated Wetlands

Other naturally occurring open areas

Source: Department of Natural Resources, Hydrologic Change Module 

Step 8 - 

Intersect “Existing Condition Hydrologic Maturity” with the “Rain-on-Snow” 6th field 

watersheds selected set (step 4). 

Step 9 - 

Estimate snow depth and snow water equivalent to create an “Estimated Snow-water 

Equivalent” derived data layer. 

Obtain the Topographic Data theme for Rain-on-Snow” 6th field watersheds 

selected set (step 4) and build a raster (cell) derived data layer. 

Solve the following two snow water equivalent (SWE) equations for the 

topographic data theme by writing scripts (Greenburg and Welch 1998):

Northwest Oregon SWE =0.009*Elevation-21.66 *R

Southwest Oregon SWE =0.006*Elevation-19.53*R

where: SWE = February 1 snow-water equivalent in inches. 

Elevation = elevation in feet. 

R = snowwater equivalent ratio to adjust for cover types
I – 1102

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

The division between northwest and southwest Oregon regions (for equations) 

will be determined by an eastward line following the southern edge of the 

Siuslaw subbasin in the Coast Range to the southern edge of the Willamette 

subbasin through the Willamette Valley and the Cascades. The line is formed 

by watersheds: 

Lower Siuslaw River 1710020608

Upper Siuslaw River 1710020601

Upper Coast Fork Willamette 1709000203

Row River 1709000201

Hills Creek Reservoir 1709000105

Upper Middle Fork Willamette 1709000101

Snow water equivalent (SWE) values calculated are assumed to represent snow 

accumulation in hydrologically mature forests; these must be modified to account 

for variations in accumulation between different land use/cover types. 

Table 260. Vegetation hydrologic maturity and snow water equivalent ratios.

 Vegetation Hydrologic Maturity (step 7) Snow-water Equivalent Ratio (R)

A Hydrologically Mature 1

B Intermediate Hydrologic

Maturity

1.5

C Minimum Hydrologic Maturity 2

D Non-Forested 2

Populate the two snow water equivalent scripts with the snow-water equivalent 

ratios (R) for the existing condition for the northwest and southwest Oregon areas 

using classified IVMP data (Step 7), as seen in the table above. 
I – 1103

Appendix I. Water

Step 10 - 

Determine One-Day Snowmelt for a 24 hour design storm for the existing condition 

by writing scripts. This procedure uses equations from the U.S. Army Corp of 

Engineers (1998). 

For heavily forested or partly forested areas (step 7 land cover classes A and B):

M = (0.074 + 0.007P )(T -32) + 0.05

For minimum forest or open areas (step 7 land cover classes C and D):

M = (0.029 + 0.0084kv + 0.007P ) (T -32) + 0.09

where: M = snowmelt, in/day 

v = wind velocity, miles per hour 

Pr = rate of precipitation, in./day 

Ta = temperature of saturated air, at 10-feet level, °F

k = basin wind coefficient. Use 0.4 for heavily to partly 

forested areas (hydrologic maturity land cover classes A, 

and B), and 0.9 for open areas (hydrologic maturity land 

cover class C and D).

Calculate snowmelt in each hydrologic maturity land cover cell for the existing 

condition. If the calculated snowmelt (M) for a given scenario exceeds the 

estimated snow equivalent (SWE), set M = SWE; also, if Ta

 is ≤ 32 °F, M = 0. 

Temperature

Storm temperature varies primarily with elevation. Determine the 

average storm temperature (Ta °F ) for each cell area based on 

generalized regional lapse-rate equations:

Western Oregon = 50 - (.0033 * E)

where: E = elevation in feet

Wind speed

Local wind speed primarily depends on the vegetative cover, with mature 

forest canopies significantly reducing the wind speed at the interface 

between the snowpack and the air. Daily average windspeed (mph) with 

a 50% exceedance rate (% of days) for an average storm for western 

Oregon will be used. This corresponds to an estimated 15 mph.

Precipitation

Rate of precipitation is calculated, using the 2 year 24 hour 

precipitation, in. (step 1).
I – 1104

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Step 11 – 

Calculate water available for runoff. 

Perform a zonal mean for each 6th field watershed: 

M = A1M1+A2M2+...AnMn

 A1+A2+...An

where: M = snowmelt, in.

A = area, acres

Calculate water available for runoff for the existing condition by:

WAR = M + P

where: WAR = water available for runoff, in./day 

M = snowmelt, in./day

P = 2-year 24-hour precipitation, in.

Add the snowmelt (M) to the 2-year 24-hour precipitation (P) and track for each 

6th-field watershed in the ‘Rain-on-Snow” derived data layer (step 4). 

Step 12 – 

Estimate peak flow for the existing condition. Estimate peak flows for each 6th field 

watershed (filtered set, step 4) by substituting the water available for runoff value (step 

11) for the existing condition into the 2-year 24-hour streamflow regression equations 

(step 6) for the precipitation term. Compare the result with the 5-year 24-hour streamflow 

and indicate where it is exceeded.

Step 13 – 

Estimate peak flow for the alternatives. Repeat steps 7 to 12 for the 10-year projection 

by reclassing the expected condition of vegetation (step 7). Intersect the ecology stand 

establishment with attribute without legacy from the Options model derived data layer 

for the 10-year projection for each alternative with the “Existing Condition Hydrologic 

Maturity” for forest vegetation. Substitute cover class C for these areas.

Step 14 – 

Conduct reference analysis. Replace the alternatives 10-year projections with the no 

harvest and maximum harvest on commercial forest lands reference analysis derived data 

layers. Order the analysis as in step 13.

Step 15 – 

As a sensitivity analysis for the design storm, one standard error of the estimate will 

be applied to the USACE snowmelt equation for temperature and wind speed. For 

temperature, use 55 - (.0033 * E), where E = elevation in feet. For windspeed, use 25 

mph. Modify scripts and rerun the analysis.
I – 1105

Appendix I. Water

Analytical Conclusions

•	 Rank those subwatersheds that exceed the 5-year 24-hour peakflow as sensitive for 

estimated peak flow increase. 

Data Needs

•	 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 2-year 24-hour 

Precipitation Frequency map of Oregon. Available in GIS raster format online: 

[http://www.nws.noaa.gov/ohd/hdsc/noaaatlas2.htm]

•	 USGS Flood Regions. Available in GIS raster format online: [http://water.usgs.

gov/software/nff_manual/or/oregon_AFrame_3.gif]

•	 U.S. Weather Service Windspeed Frequency.

•	 Classified 1996 imagery from the Interagency Vegetation Mapping Project TM 

(IVMP), including new openings under 10 years of age, existing to 2005. 

•	 GIS-derived data layer of hydroregions.

•	 GIS-derived data layer of vegetation hydrologic maturity.

•	 GIS-derived data layer of snow-water equivalent.

•	 GIS-derived data layer of snowmelt.

•	 Topography GIS coverage. 

•	 Watershed GIS coverage. 

•	 Waterbodies GIS coverage. 

•	 By alternative, GIS derived data layer of 10-year projection stand establishment. 

Data Display

•	 Figure of hydroregions for the plan area.

•	 Figure showing 6th-field subwatersheds where the 2-year 24-hour peakflow 

exceeds the 5-year 24-hour peakflow for the existing condition, for each 

alternative’s 10-year projection.
I – 1106

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Analytical Question #3

How will the alternatives affect road sources of fine sediment delivery to stream channels? 

Analytical Assumptions

This analysis is based on use of a reference road. The analytical technique is an empirical 

approach patterned in part from the Washington State Department of Natural Resources 

Standard Methodology for Conducting Watershed Analysis 1997, (v. 4.0), Appendix B. 

The reference road will use the following assumptions: An in-sloped road with a ditch; 

moderate traffic (pickups sedans, and log haul <50% of the time); cut-slope gradient 1:1 

(horizontal to vertical) and fill-slope gradient 1.5:1; initial ground cover density of zero 

on cut and fill slopes; sustained grade of 5-7 percent; and an average cross-drain spacing 

of 500 feet. 

Proportions of the total long-term average road erosion rates attributed to the components 

of the standard road prism (Swift 1984, Burroughs and King 1989, Sullivan and Duncan 

1980, Megahan unpublished data) are:

•	 Road Tread 40%

•	 Cutslope and Ditch 40%

•	 Fillslope 20%

Roads differ in their inherent erodibility, or erosion potential, due to the geology, or parent 

material on which they are constructed as seen in Table 261. Sediment yields from older 

roads with undisturbed ditches are much smaller than sediment yields from newer roads or 

roads with disturbed ditches. Maintenance of ditchlines can increase sediment yields.

Table 261. Basic Erosion Rates.

Road Age

General Category Geologic Parent Material New 0-2 Years Old > 2 Years

High Mica schist, Volcanic ash, 

Highly weathered sedimentary 110 60

High/Moderate Quartzite, Course-grained 

granite 110 30

Moderate

Fine-grained granite 

Moderately weathered rock 

Sedimentary rocks

60 30

Low

Competent granite, Basalt, 

Metamorphic rocks, Relatively 

unweathered rocks

20

10

(Note: Numbers represent erosion rates in tons/acre of road prism/year.)

Sources: Kochendorfer, J. N. and J. D. Helvey 1984; Hayden et al. 1991; Megahan and Kidd 1972; Reid and Dunne 1984; Sullivan and Duncan, U.S. Forest 

Service unpublished data.
I – 1107

Appendix I. Water

The basic erosion rate for road erodibility is decreased by vegetative cover and surface roughness 

on cut and fills slopes. Table 262 shows reduction factors from the basic erosion rate.

Table 262. Groundcover Correction Factor for Cut and Fill Slopes

Ground Cover Density Factor Factor

>80% 0.18

50% 0.37

30% 0.53

20% 0.63

10% 0.77

0% 1.00

Sources: Megahan 1991, Burroughs and King 1989, Megahan unpublished data.

The basic erosion rate for road erodibility is decreased by road tread surfacing. Table 263 shows 

reduction factors based on types of surfacing.

Table 263. Factors for Road Tread Surfacing.

Surfacing Material Factor Factor

Paved 0.03

Gravel, greater than 6 inches deep 0.2 

Native soil/rock 1.00

The basic erosion rate for road erodibility is increased by road traffic and wet weather haul 

on natural surface and gravel roads. Table 264 shows erodibility increase factors based on 

precipitation bands and traffic level.

Table 264. Traffic and Precipitation Factor.

Annual Precipitation

Traffic Use/Road 

Category <47 inches 47 inches – 118 inches >118 inches

Heavy Traffic/Active 

Mainline 20 50 120

Moderate Traffic/Active 

Secondary 2 4 10

Light Traffic/Non Active 1 1 1

Sources: Reid and Dunne 1984; Sullivan and Duncan unpublished

Sediment Delivery

•	 Sediment delivery to streams is affected by the road drainage system design 

including road prism shape, proximity of the road to the stream channel, and 

length of road draining directly into a stream at crossings. 

•	 Sediment delivery to streams by road segment: Assume that a road segment does 

not deliver if the road does not cross a stream channel.

•	 Sediment delivery to streams by ditches: Assume 100% delivery of sediment to 

streams from the road prism and cutslope before application of factors.
I – 1108

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

•	 Sediment delivery to streams by diffuse sources: Assume 10% delivery of 

sediment to streams from the cutslope before application of factors.

•	 Best Management Practices can substantially reduce sediment delivery 

from roads.

Sediment Delivery Distance 

•	 Roads near ridges have little direct effect on sediment delivery to streams.

•	 Generalized distances for sediment filtration effectiveness occur much sooner 

(25-100 feet) for diffuse sources of sediment delivery compared to concentrated 

sources (200 feet), such as road ditch lines draining into the riparian area 

(CH2MHill 1999). 

•	 Wemple (1998 cited in Jones et al 2000) found that road segments that have 

stream connection pathways such as roadside ditches have potential to deliver 

surface eroded sediment to streams. Road segments not connected to streams 

by ditch lines or gullies or having more than 25 to 100 feet of filtering forest 

floor duff and vegetation (depending on slope, soil properties, and surface 

roughness) between them and a stream are usually not at risk of delivering 

sediment to streams.

•	 Below culverts, sediment travel distance in streams decreases with increasing 

roughness, such as debris and obstructions (Brake et al. 1997).

•	 Concentrated and diffuse sources of sediment delivery in this analysis are 

assumed to be within 200 feet of stream channels.

Road Traffic

•	 Frequent heavy truck traffic can grind resistant road surfacing such as 

gravels into smaller particles that can wash into ditchlines during rainstorms. 

Material type, traffic level and rate determine the quantity of sediment 

available for transport, while the rainfall determines the transport capacity 

(Reid and Dunne 1984).
I – 1109

Appendix I. Water

Analytical Methodology and Technique

The technique relies on ARC GIS GRID processes for analyzing spatial data. Logical 

and mathematical operations were written as scripts, based on watershed analysis 

methodologies. The analysis is performed by fifth-field watersheds within the plan area. 

Step 1 - 

Build a basic erosion rate (BER) data layer from the BLM GIS Geology theme by 

matching the parent materials in the Table 261 Basic Erosion Rates, to the theme mapped 

designations with input from Geologist and Soil Scientist.

Step 2 - 

Build a derived data layer labeled “Streams” from the BLM GIS Watercourses data theme 

that includes all intermittent and perennial streams. 

Step 3 - 

Buffer the Streams derived data layer (Step 2) to 200 feet and make a new derived data 

layer labeled “Sediment Delivery Buffer”.

Step 4 - 

Intersect and clip BLM GIS GTRN (roads) data theme with the sediment delivery 

buffer derived data layer (step 3) for all lands. Label new derived data layer “Stream 

Proximity Roads”. 

Step 5 – 

Refine the stream proximity roads derived data layer (step 4) and exclude road segments 

that do not cross stream channels. Road segment origin must be further than 30 feet from 

streams to be excluded.

Step 6 - 

Build a table of specific vegetative correction factors by fifth-field watershed using Table 

262 Groundcover Correction Factor for Cut and Fill Slopes. 

Step 7 - 

Use selected Prism Climate Model outputs to build a derived data layer labeled “Average 

Annual Precipitation” by fifth-field watershed. From the Oregon Climate Service PRISM 

Products page, online: [http://www.ocs.orst.edu/prism/products/] select the 30-arcsec 

(800m) normal grids for precipitation for the period 1971-2000.

Step 8 - 

Calculate the traffic factor from Table 261, Traffic and Precipitation Factors by 

intersecting the precipitation dominated and rain-on-snow hydro region (from peakflow 

planning criteria) with the average annual precipitation data layer (step 7) and develop 

a new data layer labeled “Traffic factors.” Classify into three precipitation bands: <47”, 

47-118” and >118” from Table 264. Assign traffic factors for moderate traffic where <47” 

equal 2, 47-118” equal 4, and >118” equal 10.
I – 1110

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Step 9 – 

For each road segment, add attributes to the data tables for the stream proximity roads 

derived data layer selected set (step5). Calculate the road segment lengths by surface type 

within the BLM GIS GTRN roads data layer for BLM and other ownerships and add to 

the data tables. BLM includes BLM controlled roads and private roads in the planning 

area from BLM GIS GTRN (roads) theme.

Step 10 - 

For each road segment within the stream proximity roads derived data layer selected set 

(step5) build a logical calculation sequence as scripts to determine potential sediment 

delivery from the cut slope, road tread and fill slope (calculations 1, 2 and 3) by: 

Existing Condition

Return basic erosion rate (BER) value from the basic erosion rate derived data 

layer of > two year old road age (step 1).

Return road surface type factor (RST) (from Table 178).

Return ground cover density (GCD) factor (step 6).

Return traffic factor (TF) (step 8).

Calculate:

1 [BER * PCD * GCD] * [((cutslope width) + (ditch width) + (road prism width - 

road tread width / 2)) * road length]/ 43560

2 where RST = 0.03: [BER * RT * road surface type factor * [road tread width * 

road length]/43560

else: [BER * RT * RST] * [TF] * [road tread width * road length]/43560

3 [(BER * FS * GCD) * 0.10] * [((fillslope width) + (road prism width - road tread 

width / 2)) * road length]/43560 

Sum 1, 2 and 3. 
I – 1111

Appendix I. Water

Alternative 10 Year Projection

Repeat existing condition calculation except:

Step 1, 

Table 258. Return basic erosion rate (BER) value from the basic erosion rate derived data 

layer of < 2 year old road age.

Step 9. 

Calculate the road segment lengths for permanent aggregate and natural surface road for 

the 10 year projection. No paved roads are planned.

Develop a ratio:

length of road in the sediment delivery buffer (step 3)

length of road in the 10 year projection sample

Multiply this ratio by: 

Table 265. Projected Permanent Roads by Alternative1

Alternative Rocked Roads (miles) Natural Roads (miles)

No Action 250.31 94.49

Alternative 1 384.98 128.44

Alternative 2 494.55 109.64

Alternative 3 393.66 131.95

1

 Based on Dave DeMoss road construction estimates for timber volume per foot of road for sum of 

regeneration harvests, thinning and partial cuts for all districts.

Develop a ratio: 

potential sediment delivery in the sediment delivery buffer

length of road in the sediment delivery buffer (feet)

Multiply this ratio by the adjusted road length. Convert to potential sediment delivery; 

tons/mile/year. 

Step 11 – 

Calculate data for display table. 

Sum miles of stream proximity roads (inside the sediment delivery buffer) for each 

Alternative by surface type; paved, aggregate and natural for BLM and other land 

ownerships for each watershed. Sum all watersheds.

Calculate potential sediment delivery for each alternative in tons per mile of road by 

surface type: paved, aggregate and natural for BLM and other land ownerships for each 

watershed. Sum categories for all watersheds.

Calculate potential sediment delivery in tons mile2

/year for BLM and other land 

ownerships for each watershed. Sum potential sediment delivery for all watersheds for 

BLM and other land ownerships and divide by the respective landbase.
I – 1112

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Table 266. Factor definition table.

Factor Factor Definition

BER Basic erosion rate in tons/acre/year

PCD Proportion of cutslope and ditch erosion to the roaded cross section; 

0.40

RT Proportion of road tread erosion to the roaded cross section; 0.40

FS Proportion of fill slope erosion to the roaded cross section; 0.20

GCD Groundcover density factor (0.18-1.0)

RST Road surface type factor; 0.03 paved, 0.2 gravel and 1.0 native surface

TF Traffic factor within precipitation dominated area for annual precipitation 

<47 inches equal 20, 47-118 inches equal 50 , >118 inches equal 120

Cut slope width Cut slope width in feet; generalized 15 feet

Ditch width Ditch width in feet; generalized 3 feet

Road tread width Road tread width in feet; generalized 14 feet

Road prism width Road prism width in feet; generalized 20 feet

Fill slope width Fill slope width in feet; generalized 10 feet

Road length Road length in feet, up gradient of stream crossings to the buffer limit 

43560 Factor to convert ft2

 to acres

Analytical Conclusions

•	 Rank of alternatives by their effect on road sources of fine sediment delivery to 

stream channels. 

•	 Comparison of sediment delivery to that which occurs under the existing condition. 

Data Needs

•	 Proposed new road 10-year projection, by alternative. 

•	 GIS derived data layer of basic erosion rate.

•	 GIS derived data layer of stream proximity roads derived data layer for the 

existing condition.

•	 GIS derived data layer of stream proximity 10-year projection roads for 

each alternative.

•	 Prism Model of average annual precipitation for the precipitation hydro region.
I – 1113

Appendix I. Water

Data Display

Populate the following table:

Table 267. Potential sediment delivery, by Alternative from roads.

Alternative

Roads Contributing to 

Sediment Delivery2 

miles

Potential Sediment 

Delivery3

tons/mile/year

Potential Sediment 

Delivery4

tons/mile2/year 

Existing1 BLM Other BLM Other BLM Other

Natural

Aggregate

Paved

Total

No Action

New Roads, 10-year 

projection

BLM BLM BLM

Natural

Aggregate

Paved

Total

Alternative 1

New Roads, 10-year 

projection

Natural

Aggregate

Paved

Total

Alternative 2 

New Roads, 10-year 

projection

Natural

Aggregate

Paved

Total

Alternative 3 

New Roads,10-year 

projection

Natural

Aggregate

Paved

Total

1

 BLM includes BLM controlled roads and private roads in the planning area from BLM GIS GTRN (roads) theme.

2

 Includes road segments within 200 feet of a stream channel.

3

 Averaged per mile of road by surface type for each 5th field watershed and averaged for the planning area. 4

 Potential sediment delivery in tons/year for each 5th field watershed divided by each 5th field watershed area for BLM and other 

lands and averaged for the planning area.
I – 1114

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Analytical Question # 4

To what extent will each alternative maintain effective shade along streams, 

lakes and wetlands?

Analytical Assumptions

•	 Maintaining streamside shade is a surrogate for meeting the Department of 

Environmental Quality (DEQ) temperature standard. Northwest Forest Plan Temperature 

Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Implementation Strategies (2005) demonstrate 

how retention and variable retention areas meet shade goals and the DEQ temperature 

standard. These are described as primary and secondary shade zones. The derivation 

of these zones is based on factors including seasonality of streams, topography, forest 

vegetation, and solar physics.

•	 Perennial streams are considered in this analysis, because of the influence that forest 

shade has on maintaining cool water temperatures during the summer.

•	 Mountainous topography can block solar radiation through parts of the day along many 

stream segments.

•	 Forest trees near stream channels and dense stands can block solar radiation and cast 

shadows across the stream. Angular canopy density (ACD) is the measure of canopy 

closure as projected in a straight line from the stream surface to the sun, as it varies 

through the day. The ACD value for a given buffer depends on the spacing of forest 

crowns. As vegetation becomes more open through wider spacing, more width of 

vegetation is needed to achieve the same ACD for the similar vegetation with closer 

spacing. Higher ACD is achieved with lower sun angles and higher canopy density.
I – 1115

Appendix I. Water

Figure 309. Angular canopy density (ACD) and buffer widths for small streams in western Oregon 

(Brazier and Brown 1972). It illustrates that a buffer strip width of 60 feet will result in an angular 

canopy density of 65 percent.

Effective shade is the total amount of radiant energy prevented from reaching a stream in 

a solar day. Because sun path and azimuth changes throughout the day forest vegetation 

has different efficiencies in blocking radiation for different time periods. As seen in 

Figure 312 (below), most solar heating occurs between 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. Park 

(1993) has shown that the width of primary riparian streamside areas will vary as a 

function of tree height and terrain slope as viewed in the Primary Shade Zone Table, 

included below after Figure 312.

The planning criteria assume the secondary shade zone is defined as the outer edge of 

the primary shade zone to 100 feet. There is marginal improvement of ACD past 100 feet 

(Figure 309 above). Significant temperature rises do not occur when effective shade is ≥ 

80% (Figures 310 and 311 below). 
I – 1116

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Figure 310. Angular canopy density (ACD) and stream shade (Park 1991).

Figure 311. Effective Stream Shade and Change in Stream Temperature
I – 1117

Appendix I. Water

Figure 312. Solar Pathfinder (43° to 49° N Lat., Boyd 1999).

Table 268. Primary Shade Zone Distance of Riparian Trees (In Feet)

height of tree Hill slope 

<30%

Hill slope 

30 to 60%

Hill slope

>60%

Trees < 20 feet 12 14 15 feet

Trees 20 to 60 feet 28 33 55 feet

Trees >60 to 100 feet 50 55 60 feet

Source: Northwest Forest Plan Temperature TMDL Implementation Strategies, 2005. 

Forest treatments are assumed to fully meet effective shade and water quality standards 

within primary and secondary shade zones along streams, lakes, and wetlands when the 

following criteria are met:

•	 Table 268 will be used to determine the width of the primary shade zone. 

Vegetation thinning in the primary shade zone will not result in less than 80% 

effective shade. 

•	 Vegetation thinning in the secondary shade zone will not result in less than 50% 

canopy closure post harvest. 

For modeling purposes, 60 feet width will be used to define the boundary of the primary 

shade zone for all combinations of topography and vegetation, and 100 feet will be used 

to define the boundary of the secondary shade zone.

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

% Solar Radiation

Hour of the Day

Secondary Hours Primary Hours Secondary Hours

58%

21% 21%
I – 1118

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Analytical Methodology and Technique

Step 1 - 

Reclassify the watercourses GIS theme to derive a perennial stream data layer.

Step 2 - 

Buffer the perennial streams, lakes, and wetlands to 60 feet. Label this derived data layer 

“Primary Shade Zone”.

Step 3 - 

Buffer the perennial streams, lakes, and wetlands to 100 feet. 

Step 4 - 

Intersect the Primary Shade Zone derived data layer (step 2) with the derived data layer 

derived (step 3). Label the difference between the Primary Shade Zone and the boundary 

of 100 feet “Secondary Shade Zone”.

Step 5 - 

Intersect the Primary Shade Zone with each alternative’s primary riparian retention area. 

Calculate the miles of perennial stream not meeting the primary shade zone. 

Step 6 - 

Intersect the Secondary Shade Zone with each alternative riparian variable management 

riparian area that meets 50% canopy closure post harvest. Calculate the miles of perennial 

stream not meeting the secondary shade zone. 

Analytical Conclusion

•	 Rank of alternatives by the extent that each alternative riparian area meets the primary 

and secondary shade zones on BLM-managed lands. 

Data Needs

•	 GIS Watercourses data theme 

•	 GIS derived data layer or detailed description of each alternative’s full riparian 

retention and variable retention areas.
I – 1119

Appendix I. Water

Data Display 

Table 269. Comparison of Alternatives Not Meeting Effective Shade for Perennial Streams.

Alternative

Perennial 

Streams Not 

Meeting Primary 

Shade Zones

(Miles)

% of Total 

Perennial 

Stream

Perennial 

Stream Not 

Meeting 

Secondary 

Shade Zones

(Miles)

%of Total 

Perennial 

Stream

No Action

Alternative 1

Alternative 2

Alternative 3
I – 1120

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Source Water Watersheds for Public Water 

Systems 

The following table contains a list of source water watersheds for public water systems in the 

planning area. In many cases, the BLM administers a small portion of the watersheds.

Table 270. Source water watersheds with BLM-administered lands in the planning area.

PWS_ID1 PWS NAME SOURCE POPULATION 

SERVED

BLM 

ACRES

OTHER 

ACRES

4100003 ADAIR VILLAGE WATER 

SYSTEM WILLAMETTE RIVER 8144

4100003 ADAIR VILLAGE WATER 

SYSTEM WILLAMETTE RIVER 226461

4100003 ADAIR VILLAGE WATER 

SYSTEM SUBTOTAL 650 8144 226461

4100152 CITY OF BROWNSVILLE CALAPOOIA RIVER 5254

4100152 CITY OF BROWNSVILLE CALAPOOIA RIVER 94920

4100152 CITY OF BROWNSVILLE SUBTOTAL 1500 5254 94920

4100157 CANBY UTILITY BOARD MOLALLA RIVER 2892

4100157 CANBY UTILITY BOARD MOLALLA RIVER 84687

4100157 CANBY UTILITY BOARD SUBTOTAL 12000 2892 84687

4100169 CITY OF CANYONVILLE CANYON CREEK 13247

4100169 CITY OF CANYONVILLE CANYON CREEK 9408

4100169 CITY OF CANYONVILLE SUBTOTAL 1265 13247 9408

4100171 CITY OF CARLTON PANTHER CREEK 1070

4100171 CITY OF CARLTON PANTHER CREEK 1003

4100171 CITY OF CARLTON SUBTOTAL 1570 1070 1003

4100187 CLACKAMAS RIVER 

WATER-CLACKAMAS CLACKAMAS RIVER 8399

4100187 CLACKAMAS RIVER 

WATER-CLACKAMAS CLACKAMAS RIVER 159669

4100187 CLACKAMAS RIVER 

WATER-CLACKAMAS SUBTOTAL 90000 8399 159669

4100199 BEAVER WATER 

DISTRICT BEAVER CREEK 1649

4100199 BEAVER WATER 

DISTRICT BEAVER CREEK 17000

4100199 BEAVER WATER 

DISTRICT SUBTOTAL 500 1649 17000

4100202 COLTON WATER 

DISTRICT JACKSON CREEK 598
I – 1121

Appendix I. Water

PWS_ID1 PWS NAME SOURCE POPULATION 

SERVED

BLM 

ACRES

OTHER 

ACRES

4100202 COLTON WATER 

DISTRICT JACKSON CREEK 1536

4100202 COLTON WATER 

DISTRICT SUBTOTAL 1200 598 1536

4100213 CITY OF COQUILLE COQUILLE RIVER 67076

4100213 CITY OF COQUILLE RINK CREEK 0

4100213 CITY OF COQUILLE COQUILLE RIVER 248930

4100213 CITY OF COQUILLE RINK CREEK 429

4100213 CITY OF COQUILLE SUBTOTAL 4300 67076 249359

4100225 CITY OF CORVALLIS SOUTH FORK ROCK 

CREEK 52

4100225 CITY OF CORVALLIS GRIFFITH CREEK 1051

4100225 CITY OF CORVALLIS NORTH FORK 

ROCK CREEK 2155

4100225 CITY OF CORVALLIS SOUTH FORK ROCK 

CREEK 3177

4100225 CITY OF CORVALLIS WILLAMETTE RIVER 40593

4100225 CITY OF CORVALLIS SUBTOTAL 50101 52 46975

4100236 CITY OF COTTAGE 

GROVE LAYING CREEK 80

4100236 CITY OF COTTAGE 

GROVE ROW RIVER 37205

4100236 CITY OF COTTAGE 

GROVE LAYING CREEK 36989

4100236 CITY OF COTTAGE 

GROVE PRATHER CREEK 3482

4100236 CITY OF COTTAGE 

GROVE ROW RIVER 160279

4100236 CITY OF COTTAGE 

GROVE SUBTOTAL 8500 37285 200750

4100239 LONDON WATER CO-OP BEAVER CREEK 253

4100239 LONDON WATER CO-OP BEAVER CREEK 615

4100239 LONDON WATER CO-OP SUBTOTAL 50 253 615

4100246 CITY OF CRESWELL COAST FORK 

WILLAMETTE RIVER 26141

4100246 CITY OF CRESWELL COAST FORK 

WILLAMETTE RIVER 96969

4100246 CITY OF CRESWELL SUBTOTAL 3380 26141 96969

4100248 CITY OF DALLAS RICKREAL CREEK 2874

4100248 CITY OF DALLAS RICKREAL CREEK 15092
I – 1122

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

PWS_ID1 PWS NAME SOURCE POPULATION 

SERVED

BLM 

ACRES

OTHER 

ACRES

4100248 CITY OF DALLAS SUBTOTAL 12900 2874 15092

4100250 MILO ACADEMY LICKEY CREEK 227

4100250 MILO ACADEMY SOUTH UMPQUA 

RIVER 10090

4100250 MILO ACADEMY LICKEY CREEK 251

4100250 MILO ACADEMY SOUTH UMPQUA 

RIVER 11365

4100250 MILO ACADEMY SUBTOTAL 195 10317 11616

4100254 CITY OF DEPOE BAY NORTH DEPOE BAY 

CREEK 7

4100254 CITY OF DEPOE BAY SOUTH DEPOE BAY 

CREEK 29

4100254 CITY OF DEPOE BAY NORTH DEPOE BAY 

CREEK 521

4100254 CITY OF DEPOE BAY ROCKY CREEK 3396

4100254 CITY OF DEPOE BAY SOUTH DEPOE BAY 

CREEK 2736

4100254 CITY OF DEPOE BAY SUBTOTAL 1060 36 6653

4100260 CITY OF DRAIN ALAN CREEK 235

4100260 CITY OF DRAIN BEAR CREEK 1133

4100260 CITY OF DRAIN ALAN CREEK 415

4100260 CITY OF DRAIN BEAR CREEK 2235

4100260 CITY OF DRAIN SUBTOTAL 1145 1368 2650

4100276 CITY OF ELKTON UMPQUA RIVER 64481

4100276 CITY OF ELKTON UMPQUA RIVER 251660

4100276 CITY OF ELKTON SUBTOTAL 170 64481 251660

4100279 CITY OF ESTACADA CLACKAMAS RIVER 

(ESTACADA) 5714

4100279 CITY OF ESTACADA CLACKAMAS RIVER 

(ESTACADA) 341992

4100279 CITY OF ESTACADA SUBTOTAL 1910 5714 341992

4100287 EUGENE WATER & 

ELECTRIC BOARD MCKENZIE RIVER 25805

4100287 EUGENE WATER & 

ELECTRIC BOARD MCKENZIE RIVER 708818

4100287 EUGENE WATER & 

ELECTRIC BOARD SUBTOTAL 150,000 25805 708818

4100297 FALLS CITY WATER 

DEPARTMENT GLAZE CREEK 360
I – 1123

Appendix I. Water

PWS_ID1 PWS NAME SOURCE POPULATION 

SERVED

BLM 

ACRES

OTHER 

ACRES

4100297 FALLS CITY WATER 

DEPARTMENT TEAL CREEK 186

4100297 FALLS CITY WATER 

DEPARTMENT GLAZE CREEK 288

4100297 FALLS CITY WATER 

DEPARTMENT TEAL CREEK 2386

4100297 FALLS CITY WATER 

DEPARTMENT SUBTOTAL 1045 546 2674

4100301 HECETA WATER 

DISTRICT CLEAR LAKE 615

4100301 HECETA WATER 

DISTRICT SUBTOTAL 4500 615

4100302 SILTCOOS HEIGHTS SILTCOOS LAKE 825

4100302 SILTCOOS HEIGHTS SILTCOOS LAKE 38863

4100302 SILTCOOS HEIGHTS SUBTOTAL 125 825 38863

4100317 CITY OF GATES NORTH SANTIAM 

RIVER 2624

4100317 CITY OF GATES NORTH SANTIAM 

RIVER 238707

4100317 CITY OF GATES SUBTOTAL 535 2624 238707

4100323 CITY OF GLENDALE COW CREEK 37197

4100323 CITY OF GLENDALE MILL CREEK 42

4100323 CITY OF GLENDALE SECTION CREEK 426

4100323 CITY OF GLENDALE COW CREEK 80664

4100323 CITY OF GLENDALE MILL CREEK 429

4100323 CITY OF GLENDALE SECTION CREEK 575

4100323 CITY OF GLENDALE SUBTOTAL 37665 81669

4100324 KERNVILLE-GLENEDENLINCOLN BCH W D DRIFT CREEK 1861

4100324 KERNVILLE-GLENEDENLINCOLN BCH W D DRIFT CREEK 20376

4100324 KERNVILLE-GLENEDENLINCOLN BCH W D SUBTOTAL 1861 20376

4100326 GLIDE WATER 

ASSOCIATION

NORTH UMPQUA 

RIVER 60943

4100326 GLIDE WATER 

ASSOCIATION

NORTH UMPQUA 

RIVER 367586

4100326 GLIDE WATER 

ASSOCIATION SUBTOTAL 900 60943 367586

4100333 CITY OF GOLD HILL ROGUE RIVER 34045

4100333 CITY OF GOLD HILL ROGUE RIVER 249777

4100333 CITY OF GOLD HILL SUBTOTAL 1,115 34045 249777
I – 1124

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

PWS_ID1 PWS NAME SOURCE POPULATION 

SERVED

BLM 

ACRES

OTHER 

ACRES

4100342 CITY OF GRANTS PASS ROGUE RIVER 69042

4100342 CITY OF GRANTS PASS ROGUE RIVER 101888

4100342 CITY OF GRANTS PASS SUBTOTAL 26,000 69042 101888

4100359 CORBETT WATER 

DISTRICT

NORTH FORK 

GORDON CREEK 324

4100359 CORBETT WATER 

DISTRICT

SOUTH FORK 

GORDON CREEK 46

4100359 CORBETT WATER 

DISTRICT

NORTH FORK 

GORDON CREEK 1773

4100359 CORBETT WATER 

DISTRICT

SOUTH FORK 

GORDON CREEK 1761

4100359 CORBETT WATER 

DISTRICT SUBTOTAL 2910 370 3534

4100379 HILLSBORO-FOREST 

GROVE-BEAVERTON

NORTH FORK 

TRASK RIVER 

(BARNEY 

RESERVOIR)

600

4100379 HILLSBORO-FOREST 

GROVE-BEAVERTON TUALATIN RIVER 2817

4100379 HILLSBORO-FOREST 

GROVE-BEAVERTON

NORTH FORK 

TRASK RIVER 

(BARNEY 

RESERVOIR)

4681

4100379 HILLSBORO-FOREST 

GROVE-BEAVERTON TUALATIN RIVER 112489

4100379 HILLSBORO-FOREST 

GROVE-BEAVERTON SUBTOTAL 65100 3416 117170

4100408 CITY OF JEFFERSON NORTH SANTIAM 

RIVER 30953

4100408 CITY OF JEFFERSON NORTH SANTIAM 

RIVER 223196

4100408 CITY OF JEFFERSON SUBTOTAL 2245 30953 223196

4100466 LANGLOIS WATER 

DISTRICT FLORAS CREEK 3099

4100466 LANGLOIS WATER 

DISTRICT FLORAS CREEK 35926

4100466 LANGLOIS WATER 

DISTRICT SUBTOTAL 250 3099 35926

4100473 CITY OF LEBANON

SOUTH SANTIAM 

CANAL 4508

4100473 CITY OF LEBANON SOUTH SANTIAM 

CANAL 73732

4100473 CITY OF LEBANON SUBTOTAL 11000 4508 73732
I – 1125

Appendix I. Water

PWS_ID1 PWS NAME SOURCE POPULATION 

SERVED

BLM 

ACRES

OTHER 

ACRES

4100483 LINCOLN CITY WATER 

DISTRICT SCHOONER CREEK 310

4100483 LINCOLN CITY WATER 

DISTRICT SCHOONER CREEK 9284

4100483 LINCOLN CITY WATER 

DISTRICT SUBTOTAL 13527 310 9284

4100493 LYONS MEHAMA WATER 

DISTRICT

NORTH SANTIAM 

RIVER 15262

4100493 LYONS MEHAMA WATER 

DISTRICT

NORTH SANTIAM 

RIVER 73059

4100493 LYONS MEHAMA WATER 

DISTRICT SUBTOTAL 1670 15262 73059

4100497 MCMINNVILLE WATER 

AND LIGHT

HASKINS 

RESERVOIR 691

4100497 MCMINNVILLE WATER 

AND LIGHT

MCGUIRE 

RESERVOIR 20

4100497 MCMINNVILLE WATER 

AND LIGHT

HASKINS 

RESERVOIR 1235

4100497 MCMINNVILLE WATER 

AND LIGHT

MCGUIRE 

RESERVOIR 4259

4100497 MCMINNVILLE WATER 

AND LIGHT SUBTOTAL 2100 711 5494

4100513 MEDFORD WATER 

COMMISSION ROGUE RIVER 69729

4100513 MEDFORD WATER 

COMMISSION ROGUE RIVER 231481

4100513 MEDFORD WATER 

COMMISSION SUBTOTAL 83,454 69729 231481

4100520 MILL CITY WATER 

DEPARTMENT

NORTH SANTIAM 

RIVER 1594

4100520 MILL CITY WATER 

DEPARTMENT

NORTH SANTIAM 

RIVER 17810

4100520 MILL CITY WATER 

DEPARTMENT SUBTOTAL 1800 1594 17810

4100534 CITY OF MOLALLA MOLALLA RIVER 43125

4100534 CITY OF MOLALLA MOLALLA RIVER 86867

4100534 CITY OF MOLALLA SUBTOTAL 3100 43125 86867

4100548 CLARKS BRANCH WTR. 

ASSOCIATION

SOUTH UMPQUA 

RIVER 31450

4100548 CLARKS BRANCH WTR. 

ASSOCIATION

SOUTH UMPQUA 

RIVER 52653

4100548 CLARKS BRANCH WTR. 

ASSOCIATION SUBTOTAL 140 31450 52653
I – 1126

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

PWS_ID1 PWS NAME SOURCE POPULATION 

SERVED

BLM 

ACRES

OTHER 

ACRES

4100549 TRI-CITY WATER 

DISTRICT

SOUTH UMPQUA 

RIVER 36492

4100549 TRI-CITY WATER 

DISTRICT

SOUTH UMPQUA 

RIVER 70005

4100549 TRI-CITY WATER 

DISTRICT SUBTOTAL 3500 36492 70005

4100550 CITY OF MYRTLE CREEK SOUTH UMPQUA 

RIVER 424

4100550 CITY OF MYRTLE CREEK SPRINGBROOK 

SPRINGS A 100

4100550 CITY OF MYRTLE CREEK SPRINGBROOK 

SPRINGS B 67

4100550 CITY OF MYRTLE CREEK SOUTH UMPQUA 

RIVER 3804

4100550 CITY OF MYRTLE CREEK SPRINGBROOK 

SPRINGS A 187

4100550 CITY OF MYRTLE CREEK SPRINGBROOK 

SPRINGS B 228

4100550 CITY OF MYRTLE CREEK SUBTOTAL 3,460 591 4219

4100551 CITY OF MYRTLE POINT NORTH FORK 

COQUILLE RIVER 81975

4100551 CITY OF MYRTLE POINT NORTH FORK 

COQUILLE RIVER 98932

4100551 CITY OF MYRTLE POINT SUBTOTAL 2715 81975 98932

4100581 CITY OF OAKLAND CALAPOOYA 

CREEK 5056

4100581 CITY OF OAKLAND CALAPOOYA 

CREEK 59857

4100581 CITY OF OAKLAND SUBTOTAL 954 5056 59857

4100603 PANTHER CREEK 

WATER DISTRICT PANTHER CREEK 35

4100603 PANTHER CREEK 

WATER DISTRICT PANTHER CREEK 1071

4100603 PANTHER CREEK 

WATER DISTRICT SUBTOTAL 550 35 1071

4100624 CITY OF PHILOMATH 

PUBLIC WORKS MARY’S RIVER 1084

4100624 CITY OF PHILOMATH 

PUBLIC WORKS MARY’S RIVER 84926

4100624 CITY OF PHILOMATH 

PUBLIC WORKS SUBTOTAL 4000 1084 84926
I – 1127

Appendix I. Water

PWS_ID1 PWS NAME SOURCE POPULATION 

SERVED

BLM 

ACRES

OTHER 

ACRES

4100657 PORTLAND BUREAU OF 

WATER WORKS BULL RUN 60

4100657 PORTLAND BUREAU OF 

WATER WORKS BULL RUN 65523

4100657 PORTLAND BUREAU OF 

WATER WORKS SUBTOTAL 831000 60 65523

4100672 CITY OF POWERS BINGHAM CREEK 16

4100672 CITY OF POWERS SOUTH FORK 

COQUILLE RIVER 234

4100672 CITY OF POWERS BINGHAM CREEK 163

4100672 CITY OF POWERS SOUTH FORK 

COQUILLE RIVER 93877

4100672 CITY OF POWERS SUBTOTAL 700 250 94039

4100706 CITY OF RIDDLE COW CREEK 83338

4100706 CITY OF RIDDLE COW CREEK 109130

4100706 CITY OF RIDDLE SUBTOTAL 1,303 83338 109130

4100707 LAWSON ACRES WATER 

ASSOCIATION COW CREEK 2363

4100707 LAWSON ACRES WATER 

ASSOCIATION COW CREEK 4661

4100707 LAWSON ACRES WATER 

ASSOCIATION SUBTOTAL 75 2363 4661

4100712 CITY OF ROGUE RIVER ROGUE RIVER 25273

4100712 CITY OF ROGUE RIVER ROGUE RIVER 43689

4100712 CITY OF ROGUE RIVER SUBTOTAL 2000 25273 43689

4100717 ROBERTS CREEK 

WATER DISTRICT

SOUTH UMPQUA 

RIVER 3095

4100717 ROBERTS CREEK 

WATER DISTRICT SUBTOTAL 6500 0 3095

4100719 UMPQUA BASIN WATER 

ASSOCIATION

NORTH UMPQUA 

RIVER 1214

4100719 UMPQUA BASIN WATER 

ASSOCIATION

NORTH UMPQUA 

RIVER 32269

4100719 UMPQUA BASIN WATER 

ASSOCIATION SUBTOTAL 8500 1214 32269

4100720 CITY OF ROSEBURGWINCHESTER

NORTH UMPQUA 

RIVER 24682

4100720 CITY OF ROSEBURGWINCHESTER

NORTH UMPQUA 

RIVER 106472

4100720 CITY OF ROSEBURGWINCHESTER SUBTOTAL 30000 24682 106472
I – 1128

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

PWS_ID1 PWS NAME SOURCE POPULATION 

SERVED

BLM 

ACRES

OTHER 

ACRES

4100731 SALEM PUBLIC WORKS NORTH SANTIAM 

RIVER AND IG 934

4100731 SALEM PUBLIC WORKS NORTH SANTIAM 

RIVER AND IG 16221

4100731 SALEM PUBLIC WORKS SUBTOTAL 170000 934 16221

4100789 CITY OF SANDY ALDER CREEK 633

4100789 CITY OF SANDY ALDER CREEK 3769

4100789 CITY OF SANDY SUBTOTAL 5030 633 3769

4100792 CITY OF SCAPPOOSE GOURLAY 550

4100792 CITY OF SCAPPOOSE LAZY CREEK 377

4100792 CITY OF SCAPPOOSE SOUTH FORK 

SCAPPOOSE CREEK 1477

4100792 CITY OF SCAPPOOSE GOURLAY 879

4100792 CITY OF SCAPPOOSE LAZY CREEK 337

4100792 CITY OF SCAPPOOSE

SOUTH FORK 

SCAPPOOSE 

CREEK

2413

4100792 CITY OF SCAPPOOSE SUBTOTAL 3500 2404 3629

4100808 COUNTRY VIEW MH 

ESTATES ROGUE RIVER 94370

4100808 COUNTRY VIEW MH 

ESTATES ROGUE RIVER 639475

4100808 COUNTRY VIEW MH 

ESTATES SUBTOTAL 112 94370 639475

4100811 CITY OF SHERIDAN SOUTH YAMHILL 

RIVER 14950

4100811 CITY OF SHERIDAN SOUTH YAMHILL 

RIVER 120465

4100811 CITY OF SHERIDAN SUBTOTAL 5200 14950 120465

4100821 CITY OF SILETZ SILETZ RIVER 13670

4100821 CITY OF SILETZ TANGERMAN 

CREEK 1

4100821 CITY OF SILETZ SILETZ RIVER 117918

4100821 CITY OF SILETZ TANGERMAN 

CREEK 296

4100821 CITY OF SILETZ SUBTOTAL 1100 13671 118214

4100823 CITY OF SILVERTON ABIQUA CREEK 1776

4100823 CITY OF SILVERTON ABIQUA CREEK 29894

4100823 CITY OF SILVERTON SUBTOTAL 5480 1776 29894

4100843 STAYTON WATER 

SUPPLY

NORTH SANTIAM 

RIVER 0
I – 1129

Appendix I. Water

PWS_ID1 PWS NAME SOURCE POPULATION 

SERVED

BLM 

ACRES

OTHER 

ACRES

4100843 STAYTON WATER 

SUPPLY

NORTH SANTIAM 

RIVER 4537

4100843 STAYTON WATER 

SUPPLY SUBTOTAL 5630 0 4537

4100847 CITY OF SUTHERLIN CALAPOOYA 

CREEK NON-PAREIL 5055

4100847 CITY OF SUTHERLIN COOPER CREEK 480

4100847 CITY OF SUTHERLIN CALAPOOYA 

CREEK NON-PAREIL 49629

4100847 CITY OF SUTHERLIN COOPER CREEK 2456

4100847 CITY OF SUTHERLIN SUBTOTAL 6360 5535 52086

4100851 CITY OF SWEET HOME SOUTH SANTIAM 

RIVER 31600

4100851 CITY OF SWEET HOME SOUTH SANTIAM 

RIVER 329872

4100851 CITY OF SWEET HOME SUBTOTAL 7235 31600 329872

4100926 CITY OF WALDPORT ECKMAN CREEK 40

4100926 CITY OF WALDPORT NORTH FORK 

WEIST CREEK 29

4100926 CITY OF WALDPORT ECKMAN CREEK 2756

4100926 CITY OF WALDPORT NORTH FORK WEIST 

CREEK 169

4100926 CITY OF WALDPORT SOUTH FORK 

WEIST CREEK 193

4100926 CITY OF WALDPORT SUBTOTAL 3000 69 3118

4100953 CITY OF WILLAMINA 

WATER DEPARTMENT WILLAMINA CREEK 15010

4100953 CITY OF WILLAMINA 

WATER DEPARTMENT WILLAMINA CREEK 37480

4100953 CITY OF WILLAMINA 

WATER DEPARTMENT SUBTOTAL 1760 15010 37480

4100957 WINSTON-DILLARD 

WATER DISTRICT

SOUTH UMPQUA 

RIVER 28316

4100957 WINSTON-DILLARD 

WATER DISTRICT

SOUTH UMPQUA 

RIVER 83243

4100957 WINSTON-DILLARD 

WATER DISTRICT SUBTOTAL 6500 28316 83243

4100958 CITY OF YONCALLA ADAMS CREEK 494

4100958 CITY OF YONCALLA ADAMS CREEK 709

4100958 CITY OF YONCALLA WILSON CREEK 474

4100958 CITY OF YONCALLA SUBTOTAL 1095 494 1183
I – 1130

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

PWS_ID1 PWS NAME SOURCE POPULATION 

SERVED

BLM 

ACRES

OTHER 

ACRES

4100968 CITY OF YAMHILL TURNER CREEK 963

PWS_ID1 PWS NAME SOURCE POPULATION 

SERVED

BLM 

ACRES

OTHER 

ACRES

4100968 CITY OF YAMHILL TURNER CREEK 1955

4100968 CITY OF YAMHILL SUBTOTAL 1500 963 1955

4100971 CITY OF CAVE 

JUNCTION

EAST FORK 

ILLINOIS RIVER 15476

4100971 CITY OF CAVE 

JUNCTION

EAST FORK 

ILLINOIS RIVER 107511

4100971 CITY OF CAVE 

JUNCTION SUBTOTAL 1,440 15476 107511

4100985 HILLSBORO-CHERRY 

GROVE TUALATIN RIVER 952

4100985 HILLSBORO-CHERRY 

GROVE TUALATIN RIVER 14613

4100985 HILLSBORO-CHERRY 

GROVE SUBTOTAL 250 952 14613

4101092 USFS TILLER RANGER 

STATION

USFS TILLER 

RANGER STATION 10566

4101092 USFS TILLER RANGER 

STATION

USFS TILLER 

RANGER STATION 277963

4101092 USFS TILLER RANGER 

STATION SUBTOTAL 1092 10566 277963

4101095 USFS WOLF CREEK JOB 

CORPS LITTLE RIVER 2405

4101095 USFS WOLF CREEK JOB 

CORPS LITTLE RIVER 55405

4101095 USFS WOLF CREEK JOB 

CORPS SUBTOTAL 250 2405 55405

4101174 BUELL-RED PRAIRIE 

WATER ASSN

GOOSENECK 

CREEK 959

4101174 BUELL-RED PRAIRIE 

WATER ASSN

GOOSENECK 

CREEK 98

4101174 BUELL-RED PRAIRIE 

WATER ASSN SUBTOTAL 980 959 98

4190416 FORT JAMES 

OPERATING CO. COLUMBIA RIVER 819

4190416 FORT JAMES 

OPERATING CO. COLUMBIA RIVER 86153
I – 1131

Appendix I. Water

PWS_ID1 PWS NAME SOURCE POPULATION 

SERVED

BLM 

ACRES

OTHER 

ACRES

4190416 FORT JAMES 

OPERATING CO. SUBTOTAL 750 819 86153

4192139 TILLER ELEMENTARY, 

SD #15

SOUTH UMPQUA 

RIVER 386

4192139 TILLER ELEMENTARY, 

SD #15

SOUTH UMPQUA 

RIVER 54592

4192139 TILLER ELEMENTARY, 

SD #15 SUBTOTAL 60 386 54592

PWS_ID1 PWS NAME SOURCE POPULATION 

SERVED

BLM 

ACRES

OTHER 

ACRES

4192152 POPE & TALBOT, INC., WILLAMETTE RIVER 77011

4192152 POPE & TALBOT, INC., WILLAMETTE RIVER 1167276

4192152 POPE & TALBOT, INC., SUBTOTAL 800 77011 1167276

4192674 USFS STAR RANGER 

STATION APPLEGATE RIVER 4402

4192674 USFS STAR RANGER 

STATION APPLEGATE RIVER 115722

4192674 USFS STAR RANGER 

STATION SUBTOTAL 25 4402 115722

4194300 ROSEBURG FOREST 

PROD-DILLARD

SOUTH UMPQUA 

RIVER 3823

4194300 ROSEBURG FOREST 

PROD-DILLARD

SOUTH UMPQUA 

RIVER 25041

4194300 ROSEBURG FOREST 

PROD-DILLARD SUBTOTAL 2000 3823 25041

1 Department of Environmental Quality Public Water System identification number for surface drinking water watersheds.
I – 1132

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Best Management Practices

Introduction

This section defines the best management practices (i.e., methods and measures) that 

were developed for the needs of the lands within the western Oregon planning area to 

comply with the requirements of the Clean Water Act.

Purpose

Best management practices (BMPs) are required by the federal Clean Water Act 

to reduce nonpoint source pollution to the maximum extent practicable. BMPs 

are considered the primary mechanisms for achieving Oregon’s water quality 

standards. Oregon’s narrative criteria, which include numeric standards, are 

designed to protect designated beneficial uses (such as salmonid spawning and 

rearing, resident fish and aquatic life, domestic water supplies, and water-contact 

recreation).

BMPs are defined as methods, measures, or practices selected on the basis of 

site-specific conditions to ensure that water quality will be maintained at its 

highest practicable level. BMPs include, but are not limited to, structural and 

nonstructural controls, operations, and maintenance procedures. BMPs can be 

applied before, during, and after pollution-producing activities to reduce or 

eliminate the introduction of pollutants into receiving waters (40 CFR 130.2, EPA 

Water Quality Standards Regulation).

These BMPs are commonly employed practices used in a variety of situations 

to maintain or improve water quality. Selection of specific BMPs needed to 

meet the Clean Water Act are made by soil and water professionals during 

project-level analyses.

Organization and Use

The BMPs in this appendix are organized by the following management activities:

•	 roads and landings

•	 timber harvest activities

•	 silvicultural activities

•	 fire and fuels management

•	 surface source water for drinking water

•	 recreation

•	 grazing
I – 1133

Appendix I. Water

•	 minerals exploration and development

•	 spill prevention and abatement

•	 restoration

The tables that follow this introduction identify the input variables, causal 

mechanisms, and water quality standards (referenced by the Oregon 

Administrative Rules number) that are associated with 

each BMP. Those BMPs that are necessary for typical situations have been 

included. When applied, BMPs are expected to prevent water quality degradation 

and to meet water quality standards.

Causal mechanisms help explain the outcomes or the 

process through which an outcome occurs. 

Resource aspects of land management activities 

normally have many facets that require site-specific 

BMP design. Therefore, there may be some repetition 

of the BMPs between sections of the following tables as some BMPs stand alone 

while others are used in combination or reference another section in order to 

address the needs of individual management activities.

Management of locatable minerals is governed by regulations found in 

43 CFR 3809. BMPs for locatable minerals include language from 43 CFR 3809 

that requires operators to prevent unnecessary and undue degradation from 

mining operations.

Some BMPs that relate to instream activities involving removal/fill may 

coincidently be similar to applicable practices in DEQ water quality permits 

and 401 certifications. These BMPs are not specific permit requirements, 

but rather demonstrate the process by which nonpoint source pollution from 

instream activities would be controlled. Appropriate practices in this appendix 

could be selected by the permitting agencies and included in specific permits or 

401 certifications. 

Narrative criteria

For information about Oregon’s 

water quality standards and 

narrative criteria, start at http://

www.blm.gov/nstc/WaterLaws/

oregon2.html. 
I – 1134

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Application of Best Management Practices

It is not intended that all of the BMPs listed will be selected for any specific 

management action. BMPs are selected and 

implemented as necessary and practical, based on sitespecific conditions. BMPs at times require adjustment 

to meet project and soil conditions within differing 

climatic and physiographic regions. Specialists may 

consider baseline environmental conditions, type of 

activity, proximity to water, disturbance level, direct, indirect, and cumulative 

effects and timing. Therefore, BMPs may be modified in order to match effective 

BMP controls to the project design.

BMPs must be applied in a manner that is consistent with all Resource 

Management Plan objectives. The overall goal is not to adhere strictly to a 

particular set of BMPs, but to meet water quality objectives when implementing 

management actions. Describing non-point pollution causal mechanisms allows 

specialists to exercise discretion as to what will work 

best in a particular situation. While this Appendix 

does not provide an exhaustive list of BMPs, the 

included BMPs are believed to cover most project 

activity situations in the Plan area. Additional nonpoint 

source control measures may be identified during the 

interdisciplinary process when evaluating site-specific 

management actions. 

BMPs will be adjusted as necessary with feedback from monitoring or other 

sources of information. 

Review and update of this Appendix will be accomplished through 

plan maintenance.

Oregon Administrative Rules

For the rules related to water 

quality standards, search at 

http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/

banners/rules.htm. 

43 CFR 3809

For the complete BLM 

regulation, search for 3809 at 

http://www.blm.gov/search 

or see 

http://www.blm.gov/nhp/news/

regulatory/3730/3809.html. 
I – 1135

Appendix I. Water

Roads and Landings

See Summary of Water Quality Standards for additional details about the 

standards and regulations that are associated with the best management practices.

Table 271. Best management practices for roads and landings

Best Management Practices 

for Roads and Landings

Input Variables and 

Causal Mechanisms

Water Quality Standards 

and Regulations

Location

Locate roads on stable 

locations without sediment 

delivery potential to streams 

(e.g., ridge tops, stable 

benches or flats, and gentleto-moderate side-slopes). And 

avoid headwalls, old slump 

benches, geologic bedding 

planes, seeps, and steep 

channel-adjacent side slopes. 

•	 Coarse Sediment, Fine 

Sediment, and Organic 

Debris: 

Failures from roads built 

across unstable landforms 

that may slide into stream 

channels

•	 Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Alters channel form, which 

warms stream temperatures 

due to either increased 

widening or deepening 

(incising) channels becoming 

disconnected from the flood 

plain hyporheic zone

•	 Statewide Narrative Criteria 

Road Building Waste 

Materials 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Temp 

OAR 340-041-0028

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Locate new permanent 

roads outside of Riparian 

Management Areas, unless 

construction is under existing 

reciprocal road right-of-way 

agreements. 

•	 Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Surface erosion or ravel, due 

to lack of adequate vegetative 

cover, or nearness to stream 

channels that may deliver. 

•	 Temperature: 

Roads located adjacent to 

streams, causing opening in 

forest canopy that may reduce 

local stream shade.

•	 Temperature 

OAR 340-041-0028

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Locate temporary road 

construction outside of 

Riparian Management Areas. 

Do not locate temporary roads 

parallel to stream channels 

and avoid new stream 

crossings.

•	 Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Surface erosion or ravel, due 

to lack of adequate vegetative 

cover, or nearness to stream 

channels that may deliver.

•	 Temperature: 

Roads located adjacent to 

streams, causing opening in 

forest canopy that may reduce 

local stream shade.

•	 Temp 

OAR 340-041-0028

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Locate roads so as to lower 

cutbank heights and slope angles 

where ditchlines deliver run-off 

directly to stream channels. 

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Erosion from exposed soils on cut 

banks 

•	 Statewide Narrative Criteria 

Road Building Waste 

Materials 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036
I – 1136

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Best Management Practices 

for Roads and Landings

Input Variables and 

Causal Mechanisms

Water Quality Standards 

and Regulations

Locate roads and landings outside 

of Jurisdictional Wetlands.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Surface erosion or ravel, due to 

lack of adequate vegetative cover, 

or nearness to stream channels 

that may deliver

•	 Antidegradation 

OAR 340-04l-0004

•	 Statewide Narrative Criteria 

Road Building Waste 

Materials 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Locate new landings outside 

of Riparian Management 

Areas or at least 200 ft from 

waterbodies (whichever is 

greater) and avoid expanding 

existing landings in Riparian 

Management Areas when 

sediment delivery to stream 

channels could occur.

•	 Coarse Sediment, Fine 

Sediment, and Temperature: 

Surface erosion or ravel, due 

to lack of adequate vegetative 

cover or nearness to stream 

channels that may deliver

•	 Temperature: 

Increase landing size or 

shape, causing opening in 

forest canopy that may reduce 

local stream shade

•	 Statewide Narrative Criteria 

Road Building Waste 

Materials 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Temperature 

OAR 340-041-0028

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Locate landings in areas with low 

risk for landslides.

Coarse Sediment, Fine Sediment, 

and Organic Debris: 

Failures from landings sited on 

unstable landforms that may slide 

into stream channels

•	 Statewide Narrative Criteria 

Road Building Waste 

Materials 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Locate excavated material 

disposal areas outside Riparian 

Management Areas, floodplains, 

and unstable areas that 

could transport sediment to 

waterbodies.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Surface erosion or ravel, due to 

lack of adequate vegetative cover, 

or nearness to stream channels 

that may deliver

•	 Statewide Narrative Criteria 

Road Building Waste 

Materials 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

General Construction

Design roads no wider than 

needed for the specific use.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Surface erosion from wet weather, 

due to lack of adequate vegetative 

cover that may deliver to a stream 

channel

•	 Statewide Narrative Criteria 

Road Building Waste 

Materials 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Limit road and landing 

construction, reconstruction, or 

renovation activities to the dry 

season, generally from May 

into October. When conditions 

permit operations outside of the 

dry season, keep erosion control 

measures concurrent with ground 

disturbance to the extent that 

the affected area can be rapidly 

stormproofed if weather conditions 

deteriorate.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Surface erosion from wet weather, 

due to lack of adequate vegetative 

cover that may deliver to a stream 

channel

•	 Statewide Narrative Criteria 

Road Building Waste 

Materials 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036
I – 1137

Appendix I. Water

Best Management Practices 

for Roads and Landings

Input Variables and 

Causal Mechanisms

Water Quality Standards 

and Regulations

End-haul excavated material 

to minimize side-casting of 

waste material if side slopes 

generally exceed 60 percent, or 

where side-cast material may 

enter waterbodies, wetlands, or 

floodplains. 

Coarse Sediment, Fine Sediment, 

and Organic Debris: 

Fill run-out or failures from roads 

built across steep landforms that 

may slide into stream channels

•	 Statewide Narrative Criteria 

Road Building Waste 

Materials 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Conduct pioneer road construction 

to avoid the deposition of 

materials in waterbodies, 

floodplains, or wetlands.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Pioneer road construction 

earthwork, with some downslope 

movement or drifting of 

unconsolidated soil medium 

towards waterbodies, floodplains, 

or wetlands

•	 Statewide Narrative Criteria 

Road Building Waste 

Materials 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Use controlled blasting 

techniques. 

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Blasting with radial movement 

of unconsolidated soil medium 

or rock fragments, towards 

waterbodies, floodplains, or 

wetlands

•	 Statewide Narrative Criteria 

Road Building Waste 

Materials 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Use only soil and rock materials in 

permanent road fills. Build up fills 

by layering; compact between 85 

and 95 percent maximum density. 

Provide for additional fill drainage 

(e.g. use geo-textile fabrics, etc.) 

in landslide prone areas.

Coarse Sediment, Fine Sediment, 

and Organic Debris: 

Failures from roads with 

inadequate fill construction, or 

without proper drainage, that may 

slide into stream channels

•	 Statewide Narrative Criteria 

Road Building Waste 

Materials OAR 340-041-

0007

•	 Turbidity OAR 340-041-

0036

Use temporary sediment 

containment structures (e.g. silt 

fencing). 

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

New earthwork, lacking vegetative 

cover, that may erode and deliver 

to waterbodies, floodplains, or 

wetlands

•	 Statewide Narrative Criteria 

Road Building Waste 

Materials 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Statewide Narrative 

Criteria Sediment, Adverse 

Deposits 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Surface roads if they would 

be subject to traffic during wet 

weather. 

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Road tread erosion, increased 

by traffic, especially during wet 

weather on susceptible soil types, 

causing rilling or rutting, and 

delivery to a stream channel

•	 Statewide Narrative Criteria 

Road Building Waste 

Materials 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

 Stabilize bare soil from 

construction prior to fall rains. 

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Vegetative and organic 

ground cover, decreasing soil 

detachment, transport and 

delivery to stream channels

•	 Statewide Narrative Criteria 

Road Building Waste 

Materials 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Seed and mulch cut and fill 

slopes, ditchlines, and waste 

disposal areas where soil will 

support seed growth upon 

construction completion.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Vegetative and organic 

ground cover, decreasing soil 

detachment, transport and 

delivery to stream channels

•	 Statewide Narrative Criteria 

Road Building Waste 

Materials 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036
I – 1138

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Best Management Practices 

for Roads and Landings

Input Variables and 

Causal Mechanisms

Water Quality Standards 

and Regulations

Clear channels/ditches above 

culverts prior to fall rains. 

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Culvert inlets becoming plugged 

with floatable organic debris, 

resulting in water ponding against 

the road fill, and headcutting and 

loss of the fill at the crossing or 

diversion and/or gullying down 

the road ditchline and loss of 

the road fill at another site, with 

sediment delivery to waterbodies, 

floodplains, or wetlands

•	 Statewide Narrative Criteria 

Road Building Waste 

Materials 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Statewide Narrative 

Criteria Sediment, Adverse 

Deposits 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Correct special drainage problems 

(e.g., high water table, seeps) that 

effect stability of road subgrade 

through the use of perforated 

drains, geotextiles, or drainage 

bays.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Saturated fills or wet areas that 

could fail or erode and deliver 

sediment to waterbodies, 

floodplains and wetlands

•	 Statewide Narrative Criteria 

Road Building Waste 

Materials 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Conduct slope rounding on tops 

of cut slopes in clayey soils to 

reduce sloughing and surface 

ravel. 

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Erosion from exposed soils on 

cut and fill slopes. Road tread 

erosion, increased by traffic, 

especially during wet weather on 

susceptible soil types, causing 

rilling or rutting, and delivery to a 

stream channel.

•	 Antidegradation 

OAR 340-041-0004(1)

•	 Biocriteria 

OAR 340-041-0011

•	 Statewide Narrative 

OAR 340-041-0007(1)&(13)

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Windrow slash at the base of 

newly constructed fill slopes to 

catch sediment.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Erosion from exposed soils on 

cut and fill slopes. Road tread 

erosion, increased by traffic, 

especially during wet weather on 

susceptible soil types, causing 

rilling or rutting, and delivery to a 

stream channel.

•	 Antidegradation 

OAR 340-041-0004(1)

•	 Biocriteria 

OAR 340-041-0011

•	 Statewide Narrative 

OAR 340-041-0007(1)&(13)

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Surface Drainage

Provide effective drainage 

away from the road surface in 

maintained ditches on crown and 

ditch roads.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Effective road surface drainage 

to the forest floor, preventing 

sediment delivery to stream 

channels

•	 Statewide Narrative Criteria 

Road Building Waste 

Materials 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Statewide Narrative 

Criteria Sediment, Adverse 

Deposits 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

In-slope low traffic volume 

roads where the road footprint 

or underlying soil formation 

is very rocky, not erodible or 

subject to failure.

Coarse and Fine Sediment:

Effective road surface drainage 

to the forest floor, preventing 

sediment delivery to stream 

channels

•	 Statewide Narrative Criteria 

Road Building Waste 

Materials 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Statewide Narrative 

Criteria Sediment, Adverse 

Deposits 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036
I – 1139

Appendix I. Water

Best Management Practices 

for Roads and Landings

Input Variables and 

Causal Mechanisms

Water Quality Standards 

and Regulations

Out-slope low traffic volume 

roads to provide surface drainage 

on road gradients less than 8 

percent, where an inside ditch is 

not planned.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Effective road surface drainage 

to the forest floor, preventing 

sediment delivery to stream 

channels

•	 Statewide Narrative Criteria 

Road Building Waste 

Materials 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Statewide Narrative 

Criteria Sediment, Adverse 

Deposits 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Use rolling drainage dips and/or 

lead-off ditches as options in lieu 

of culverts for low traffic volume 

roads with less than 10 percent 

gradient or where blocking roads 

is a road management objective.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Effective road surface drainage 

to the forest floor, preventing 

sediment delivery to stream 

channels

•	 Statewide Narrative Criteria 

Road Building Waste 

Materials 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Statewide Narrative 

Criteria Sediment, Adverse 

Deposits 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Locate surface water drainage 

measures (water bars, rolling 

dips, etc.) where water might 

accumulate, or where there is 

an outside berm that prevents 

drainage from exiting the roadway. 

Install during the dry season.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Effective surface drainage to the 

forest floor, preventing sediment 

delivery to stream channels

•	 Statewide Narrative Criteria 

Road Building Waste 

Materials 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Statewide Narrative 

Criteria Sediment, Adverse 

Deposits 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Roll the grade in erodible 

and unstable soils to reduce 

surface water volume and 

velocities.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Effective surface drainage to the 

forest floor, preventing sediment 

delivery to stream channels

•	 Statewide Narrative Criteria 

Road Building Waste 

Materials 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Statewide Narrative 

Criteria Sediment, Adverse 

Deposits 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Divert road and landing runoff 

water away from headwalls or 

unstable areas adjacent to stream 

channels.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Water volume concentration 

resulting in headwall saturation 

with possible failures to 

waterbodies, floodplains and 

wetlands

•	 Statewide Narrative Criteria 

Road Building Waste 

Materials 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Statewide Narrative 

Criteria Sediment, Adverse 

Deposits 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036
I – 1140

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Best Management Practices 

for Roads and Landings

Input Variables and 

Causal Mechanisms

Water Quality Standards 

and Regulations

Shape landings to spread surface 

water runoff to natural, wellvegetated, stable ground. 

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Effective surface drainage to the 

forest floor, preventing sediment 

delivery to stream channels

•	 Statewide Narrative Criteria 

Road Building Waste 

Materials 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Statewide Narrative 

Criteria Sediment, Adverse 

Deposits 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Prevent diversion of water from 

streams into road ditches.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Concentrated water flow from 

streams causing ditch erosion, 

and sediment delivery to another 

stream channel. Dewatering of 

a stream channel with negative 

effects on fishes and aquatic life.

•	 Antidegradation 

OAR 340-041-0004(1)

•	 Biocriteria 

OAR 340-041-0011 

•	 Statewide Narrative

OAR 340-041-0007(1)&(13)

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

For roads involving very 

erodible soils near streams:

•	 Construct 75 feet lead-in 

ditch to catchbasins

•	 Require rock armoring of 

lead-in ditch for through fills 

greater than 6 feet in height

•	 Design catch basins in 

a manner that would settle 

out transported sediments. 

Maintain these basins.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Concentrated water flow from 

roads and subsequent soil 

movement to streams

•	 Antidegradation 

OAR 340-041-0004(1)

•	 Biocriteria 

OAR 340-041-0011

•	 Statewide Narrative 

OAR 340-041-0007(1)&(13)

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Cross Drains

Locate cross drains at intervals 

sufficient to prevent water volume 

concentration and accelerated 

ditch erosion. 

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Water volume concentration, 

resulting greater erosive energy, 

rilling and gullying road ditchlines 

and delivery to waterbodies, 

floodplains and wetlands

•	 Statewide Narrative Criteria 

Road Building Waste 

Materials 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Statewide Narrative 

Criteria Sediment, Adverse 

Deposits 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Increase cross drain frequency 

through unstable areas.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Water volume concentration, 

resulting in headwall saturation 

with possible failures to 

waterbodies, floodplains and 

wetlands

•	 Statewide Narrative Criteria 

Road Building Waste 

Materials 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Statewide Narrative 

Criteria Sediment, Adverse 

Deposits 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036
I – 1141

Appendix I. Water

Best Management Practices 

for Roads and Landings

Input Variables and 

Causal Mechanisms

Water Quality Standards 

and Regulations

Use cross drainage culverts that 

are a minimum of 18 inches in 

diameter.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Cross drain restricted size 

that can plug with sediments 

and debris, causing water flow 

volume concentration in ditchlines 

resulting in gullying with materials 

delivered to waterbodies, 

floodplains and wetlands

•	 Statewide Narrative Criteria 

Road Building Waste 

Materials 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Statewide Narrative 

Criteria Sediment, Adverse 

Deposits 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Construct cross drainage culverts 

or drainage dips immediately 

upgrade of stream crossings 

to prevent ditch sediment from 

entering the stream.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Concentrated ditch flow from 

storm events or snowmelt, 

causing erosion of the ditchline or 

carrying sediment sloughed from 

the cutbank, that if left unchecked 

may deliver to a stream channel

•	 Statewide Narrative Criteria 

Road Building Waste 

Materials 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Statewide Narrative 

Criteria Sediment, Adverse 

Deposits 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Site cross drains to exit on convex 

slopes and avoid discharge onto 

erodible and/or unstable ground, 

(such as headwalls, slumps, or 

block failure zones), or directly 

into stream channels. Provide 

a buffer or sediment basin 

between the cross drain outlet 

and waterbodies, floodplains, or 

wetlands.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Water volume concentration, 

resulting in headwall saturation 

with possible failures to 

waterbodies, floodplains and 

wetlands

•	 Statewide Narrative Criteria 

Road Building Waste 

Materials 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Statewide Narrative 

Criteria Sediment, Adverse 

Deposits 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Armor drainage dips. Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Effective surface drainage to 

the forest floor, preventing 

water volume concentration and 

sediment delivery to waterbodies, 

floodplains and wetlands 

•	 Statewide Narrative Criteria 

Road Building Waste 

Materials 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Statewide Narrative 

Criteria Sediment, Adverse 

Deposits 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Install downspout structures and/

or energy dissipators (e.g., rock 

material) at cross drain outlets 

or drain dips where water is 

discharged onto loose material 

or erodible soils, fills, or steep 

slopes.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Concentrated ditch flow from 

storm events or snowmelt, 

causing erosion of the ditchline or 

carrying sediment sloughed from 

the cutbank that if left unchecked, 

may deliver to a stream channel

•	 Statewide Narrative Criteria 

Road Building Waste 

Materials 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Statewide Narrative 

Criteria Sediment, Adverse 

Deposits 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036
I – 1142

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Best Management Practices 

for Roads and Landings

Input Variables and 

Causal Mechanisms

Water Quality Standards 

and Regulations

Extend all downspout structures 

to the toe of fill onto undisturbed 

ground.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Convey surface water safely 

off fills, preventing erosion and 

sediment delivery to waterbodies, 

floodplains and wetlands

•	 Statewide Narrative Criteria 

Road Building Waste 

Materials 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Statewide Narrative 

Criteria Sediment, Adverse 

Deposits 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Cut protruding “cannon” 

culverts at the fill surface, install 

downspout and/or energy 

dissipators on erodible fills.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Convey surface water safely 

off fills, preventing erosion and 

sediment delivery to waterbodies, 

floodplains and wetlands

•	 Statewide Narrative Criteria 

Road Building Waste 

Materials 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Statewide Narrative 

Criteria Sediment, Adverse 

Deposits 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Place protective rock at culvert 

entrance.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Prevent scour or road fills causing 

sediment delivery to waterbodies, 

floodplains and wetlands

•	 Statewide Narrative Criteria 

Road Building Waste 

Materials 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Statewide Narrative 

Criteria Sediment, Adverse 

Deposits 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Use slotted risers, over-sized 

culverts or build catch basins. 

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Culvert plugging causing road 

fill failure and slug injections 

of sediments to waterbodies, 

floodplains and wetlands

•	 Statewide Narrative Criteria 

Road Building Waste 

Materials 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Statewide Narrative 

Criteria Sediment, Adverse 

Deposits 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Stream Crossings

Install all crossings during the low 

flow period (generally June 15 to 

September 15).

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

 Sediment movement downstream 

during periods of low turbidities 

with possible effects on aquatic 

life

•	 Biocriteria 

OAR 340-041-0011

•	 Statewide Narrative 

Criteria Sediment, Adverse 

Deposits 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036
I – 1143

Appendix I. Water

Best Management Practices 

for Roads and Landings

Input Variables and 

Causal Mechanisms

Water Quality Standards 

and Regulations

Stream Crossings: Permanent Stream Crossings

Size culverts, bridges, and other 

stream crossings for the 100-year 

flood event (including allowance 

for bed load and small floatable 

debris) without exceeding capacity 

or diversion. Match culvert width 

with active channel width. 

Coarse Sediment, Fine Sediment, 

nd Organic Debris: 

Floodwaters exceeding pipe 

capacity, causing overtopping 

of pipe and fills, with ensuing 

headcutting and loss of road fill.

•	 Statewide Narrative Criteria 

Road Building Waste 

Materials 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Statewide Narrative 

Criteria Sediment, Adverse 

Deposits 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Limit the number of new stream 

crossings.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Sediment entry of road related 

run-off

•	 Statewide Narrative Criteria 

Road Building Waste 

Materials 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Statewide Narrative 

Criteria Sediment, Adverse 

Deposits 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Construct the stream crossing 

approach at a right angle (or as 

near a right angle as possible) to 

the stream.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Earthwork near waterbodies, 

floodplains and wetlands causing 

sediment delivery.

•	 Biocriteria 

OAR 340-041-0011

•	 Statewide Narrative Criteria 

Road Building Waste 

Materials 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Statewide Narrative 

Criteria Sediment, Adverse 

Deposits 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Locate culvert placement on a 

well defined, unobstructed, and 

straight reach of stream. Avoid 

locations that require a stream 

channel to be straightened 

beyond the length of a culvert.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Earthwork near waterbodies, 

floodplains and wetlands causing 

sediment delivery.

•	 Biocriteria 

OAR 340-041-0011

•	 Statewide Narrative Criteria 

Road Building Waste 

Materials 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Statewide Narrative 

Criteria Sediment, Adverse 

Deposits 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Do not install culverts on 

fill material in ephemeral or 

intermittent channels.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Floodwater piping or eroding 

unconsolidated road fill, causing 

failures with sediment delivery 

to waterbodies, floodplains and 

wetlands.

•	 Statewide Narrative Criteria 

Road Building Waste 

Materials 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Statewide Narrative 

Criteria Sediment, Adverse 

Deposits 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036
I – 1144

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Best Management Practices 

for Roads and Landings

Input Variables and 

Causal Mechanisms

Water Quality Standards 

and Regulations

Divert (e.g., coffer dam, pumping 

etc.) the stream around the work 

area. Maintain diversion until all 

instream work is completed. Pump 

seepage water that may escape 

the containment to off-stream 

filtration area.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

rosion at the instream construction 

site causing sediment movement 

downstream during periods of low 

turbidities with possible effects on 

aquatic life.

•	 Biocriteria 

OAR 340-041-0011

•	 Statewide Narrative Criteria 

Road Building Waste 

Materials 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Statewide Narrative 

Criteria Sediment, Adverse 

Deposits 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Use containment and filtering 

techniques (e.g., bladder barriers, 

silt curtains etc.) if diversion is not 

possible. Place sediment controls 

along or immediately downstream 

of the instream work.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Sediment movement downstream 

during periods of low turbidities 

with possible effects on aquatic 

life.

•	 Biocriteria 

OAR 340-041-0011

•	 Statewide Narrative Criteria 

Road Building Waste 

Materials 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Statewide Narrative 

Criteria Sediment, Adverse 

Deposits 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Limit activities of mechanized 

equipment to streambank areas 

or temporary platforms when 

installing or removing structures.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Erosion at the instream 

construction site causing sediment 

movement downstream

•	 Biocriteria 

OAR 340-041-0011

•	 Statewide Narrative Criteria 

Road Building Waste 

Materials 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Statewide Narrative 

Criteria Sediment, Adverse 

Deposits 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Countersink culvert below the 

streambed. Increase culvert 

diameters accordingly.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Scour of streambed at culvert 

outlet, causing entrainment 

of sediment in flowing water 

and delivery to waterbodies, 

floodplains and wetlands.

•	 Biocriteria 

OAR 340-041-0011

•	 Statewide Narrative Criteria 

Road Building Waste 

Materials 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Statewide Narrative 

Criteria Sediment, Adverse 

Deposits 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036
I – 1145

Appendix I. Water

Best Management Practices 

for Roads and Landings

Input Variables and 

Causal Mechanisms

Water Quality Standards 

and Regulations

Use stream crossing protection 

(e.g., hardened crossing, fill 

armoring, grade dipping, etc.) 

where high debris loads are 

expected (such as debris torrent 

channels) to allow overflow 

without loss of the fill.

Coarse Sediment, Fine Sediment, 

and Organic Debris: 

Debris flows plugging culverts 

or removing road fills with 

high delivery of sediments 

and materials to waterbodies, 

floodplains and wetlands.

•	 Statewide Narrative Criteria 

Road Building Waste 

Materials 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Statewide Narrative 

Criteria Sediment, Adverse 

Deposits 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Provide adequate stream bank 

protection using bioengineering 

techniques (e.g., rock and/or 

organic material) where bank 

erosion would occur.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Stream scour of road fill, causing 

entrainment of sediment in flowing 

water and delivery to waterbodies, 

floodplains and wetlands.

•	 Biocriteria 

OAR 340-041-0011

•	 Statewide Narrative Criteria 

Road Building Waste 

Materials 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Statewide Narrative 

Criteria Sediment, Adverse 

Deposits 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Provide structural erosion control 

measures (e.g., rip-rap, wing 

walls, etc.) on erosion-prone fills, 

inlets, and outlets.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Scour of streambed at culvert 

outlet, causing entrainment 

of sediment in flowing water 

and delivery to waterbodies, 

floodplains and wetlands.

•	 Biocriteria 

OAR 340-041-0011

•	 Statewide Narrative Criteria 

Road Building Waste 

Materials 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Statewide Narrative 

Criteria Sediment, Adverse 

Deposits 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Place energy dissipators (e.g., 

large rock) at the outlet of culverts 

on streams.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Stream scour of road fill, causing 

entrainment of sediment in flowing 

water and delivery to waterbodies, 

floodplains and wetlands.

•	 Biocriteria 

OAR 340-041-0011

•	 Statewide Narrative Criteria 

Road Building Waste 

Materials 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Statewide Narrative 

Criteria Sediment, Adverse 

Deposits 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036
I – 1146

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Best Management Practices 

for Roads and Landings

Input Variables and 

Causal Mechanisms

Water Quality Standards 

and Regulations

Stabilize fill material over stream 

crossing structures immediately 

after construction has been 

completed, normally before 

October 15. Exposed soils 

would be seeded and mulched. 

Temporarily suspend activity if rain 

saturates soils to the extent that 

there is potential for movement 

of sediment from the road to the 

stream. Soils must be covered or 

temporarily stabilized during work 

suspension. 

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Surface erosion with sediment 

delivery to waterbodies, 

floodplains and wetlands.

•	 Statewide Narrative Criteria 

Road Building Waste 

Materials 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Statewide Narrative 

Criteria Sediment, Adverse 

Deposits 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Incorporate additional design 

criteria (e.g., rock blankets, 

buttressing, relief pipes higher in 

the fill, etc.) for deep fills to lesson 

the susceptibility of fill failures.

Coarse Sediment, Fine Sediment, 

and Organic Debris: 

Floodwaters exceeding pipe 

capacity, causing overtopping 

of pipe, possible piping through 

fills with possible collapse 

or overtopping, with ensuing 

headcutting, loss of road fill, and 

possible dam break flood scouring 

downstream reaches.

•	 Biocriteria 

OAR 340-041-0011

•	 Statewide Narrative Criteria 

Road Building Waste 

Materials 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Statewide Narrative 

Criteria Sediment, Adverse 

Deposits 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Use slotted risers, trash racks, 

or over-sized culverts to prevent 

culvert plugging in areas of active 

debris movement.

Coarse Sediment, Fine Sediment, 

and Debris: Mobile debris and 

materials plugging culverts with 

overtopping and failure of the road 

fill, and possible dam break flood, 

scouring downstream reaches

•	 Biocriteria 

OAR 340-041-0011

•	 Statewide Narrative Criteria 

Road Building Waste 

Materials 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Statewide Narrative 

Criteria Sediment, Adverse 

Deposits 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Install permanent stream 

crossing structures before heavy 

equipment moves beyond the 

crossing area. Where this is 

not feasible, install temporary 

crossings.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Sediment movement downstream 

during periods of low turbidities 

with possible effects on aquatic 

life

•	 Biocriteria 

OAR 340-041-0011

•	 Statewide Narrative Criteria 

Road Building Waste 

Materials 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Statewide Narrative 

Criteria Sediment, Adverse 

Deposits 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036
I – 1147

Appendix I. Water

Best Management Practices 

for Roads and Landings

Input Variables and 

Causal Mechanisms

Water Quality Standards 

and Regulations

Stream Crossings: Temporary Stream Crossings for Roads and Skid Trails

Design temporary structures to 

keep vehicles/equipment out of 

the stream. 

Coarse Sediment, Fine Sediment, 

Oil, and Toxins: 

Vehicles wheel tracks breaking 

down banks, to access stream 

channel bottoms, driving through 

stream water column, disturbing 

fish habitat, with possible release 

of oil, and asbestos from brake 

linings and similar toxins.

•	 Biocriteria 

OAR 340-041-0011

•	 Statewide Narrative Criteria 

Oil and Floating Solids 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Statewide Narrative Criteria 

Toxics 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Limit the number of new 

temporary crossings on a stream.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Sediment movement downstream 

during periods of low turbidities 

with possible effects on aquatic 

life.

•	 Biocriteria 

OAR 340-041-0011

•	 Statewide Narrative 

Criteria Sediment, Adverse 

Deposits 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Use washed river rock as backfill 

material or crushed rock over geotextile fabric, as fill over temporary 

culverts. 

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Higher than anticipated 

streamflows, washing over or 

through temporary road crossing.

•	 Biocriteria 

OAR 340-041-0011

•	 Statewide Narrative 

Criteria Sediment, Adverse 

Deposits 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Use methods other than fill first, 

or use the least amount of fill 

possible to facilitate the temporary 

stream crossing structure if a nonfill structure is not possible.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Higher than anticipated 

streamflows, washing over or 

through temporary road crossing.

•	 Biocriteria 

OAR 340-041-0011

•	 Statewide Narrative 

Criteria Sediment, Adverse 

Deposits 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

No driving of mechanized 

equipment in the stream channel 

to the area that is necessary 

for installation and removal 

operations. Work from bank or 

temporary platforms. 

Coarse Sediment, Fine Sediment, 

Oil, and Toxins: 

Mechanized equipment working 

within the stream channel, 

disturbing fish habitat, causing 

turbidity, and possible release of 

oil, and similar toxins.

•	 Biocriteria 

OAR 340-041-0011

•	 Statewide Narrative Criteria 

Oil and Floating Solids 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Statewide Narrative Criteria 

Toxics 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Limit the installation and 

removal of temporary crossing 

structures to only one time during 

the same year and within the 

prescribed work period where 

possible. Follow practices under 

the Closure/Decommissioning 

section for removing stream 

crossing drainage structures and 

reestablishing natural drainage 

configuration.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Fall or winter streamflows 

washing over temporary road and 

high stream energies washing 

a portion or all of the crossing 

downstream.

•	 Biocriteria 

OAR 340-041-0011

•	 Statewide Narrative 

Criteria Sediment, Adverse 

Deposits 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036
I – 1148

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Best Management Practices 

for Roads and Landings

Input Variables and 

Causal Mechanisms

Water Quality Standards 

and Regulations

Stream Crossings: Low-Water Ford Stream Crossings

Use materials that would 

withstand 100-year flow events 

(e.g., concrete, well anchored 

concrete mats, etc.) on permanent 

crossings.

Coarse Sediment, Fine Sediment, 

and Toxins: 

High streamflow undermining or 

twisting structure, with possible 

channel shifts, and partial collapse 

or loss of structure.

•	 Statewide Narrative Criteria 

Toxics 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Harden approaches with nonerodible materials on permanent 

crossings. Provide relief drainage 

on approaches. 

Coarse Sediment, Fine Sediment, 

and Toxins: 

Loose road surfacing, washing 

into the stream during storms. 

Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Use washed rock/gravel in 

temporary crossings, where a 

non-fill structure is not possible.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Higher than anticipated 

streamflows, washing over or 

through temporary road crossing.

•	 Biocriteria 

OAR 340-041-0011

•	 Statewide Narrative 

Criteria Sediment, Adverse 

Deposits 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Restrict access to temporary 

crossings.

Coarse Sediment, Fine Sediment, 

Oil, and Toxins: 

Vehicles driving through stream 

water column, disturbing fish 

habitat, with possible release 

of oil, and asbestos from brake 

linings and similar toxins.

•	 Biocriteria 

OAR 340-041-0011

•	 Statewide Narrative Criteria 

Oil and Floating Solids 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Statewide Narrative Criteria 

Toxics 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Use ramped low water fords in 

debris flow susceptible streams.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Debris flows piling against 

road fills, plugging culverts and 

overtopping and loss of road 

prism, or dam break flood wave 

scouring downstream habitat.

Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Road Use and Dust Abatement

Apply durable rock surfacing to 

withstand expected loads and 

traffic volume.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Road rock breaking down to 

fines, and washing from roads to 

ditchlines to stream channels.

Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Avoid wet season (generally, 

November through April) hauling 

on unsurfaced roads.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Road surface becoming soft and 

eroding and washing from roads 

to ditchlines to stream channels.

Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Apply structural treatments (i.e., 

adjust frequency of cross-drain 

spacing, sediment barriers or 

catch basins, gravel lifts or asphalt 

road surfacing at stream crossing 

approaches, and clean and armor 

ditchlines) for winter hauling.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Road ditchlines gaining 

water volume concentration, 

transporting soil material to 

stream channels, or sediment 

sources near channels that can 

flow overland during storms 

by sheetwash or rill erosion, 

depositing soil material into 

stream channels.

Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036
I – 1149

Appendix I. Water

Best Management Practices 

for Roads and Landings

Input Variables and 

Causal Mechanisms

Water Quality Standards 

and Regulations

Suspend timber hauling during 

wet weather when road surface 

degradation results in sediment 

delivery to waterbodies, 

floodplains and wetlands. Hauling 

could resume when ditch flow 

subsides or turbidity standards 

are met.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Road erosion with potential 

transport to the channel and 

floodplain. 

Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Suspend timber hauling during 

wet weather when road runoff delivers sediment at higher 

concentrations than the existing 

conditions in the receiving stream. 

Hauling could resume when ditch 

flow subsides, or when conditions 

allow turbidity standards to be 

met. 

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Road erosion with potential 

transport to the channel and 

floodplain.

Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Remove snow on haul roads 

in a manner that will protect 

roads and adjacent resources. 

Remove or place snow berms to 

prevent water concentration on 

the roadway or on erodible sideslopes or soils.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Road erosion with potential 

transport to the channel and 

floodplain.

Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Wash equipment at sites with 

no potential for run-off into 

waterbodies, floodplains, or 

wetlands. 

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Soil erosion with potential 

transport to the channel and 

floodplain.

Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Use water or approved surface 

stabilizers/dust palliatives to 

reduce surfacing material loss 

and buildup of fine sediment that 

may wash off into waterbodies, 

floodplains, or wetlands.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Road surfacing becoming 

detached and blowing or washing 

from roadways to ditchlines to 

stream channels.

Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Maintenance

Avoid routine machine 

cleaning of ditches during 

the wet season (generally, 

November through April).

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Removing vegetation or fill 

material from ditches in the 

wet season would increase 

bare soils susceptible to 

erosion, with potential delivery 

to stream channels.

Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Avoid undercutting of cut-slopes 

when cleaning ditchlines. Seed 

and mulch bare soils. 

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Removing vegetation or 

fill material from ditches or 

undercutting backslopes would 

increase bare soils susceptible to 

erosion, with potential delivery to 

stream channels.

Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Promptly remove slide material 

when it is obstructing road surface 

and ditchline drainage. 

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Slide material, being eroded by 

ditch streamflow and routing 

to stream channels, especially 

during storms.

Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036
I – 1150

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Best Management Practices 

for Roads and Landings

Input Variables and 

Causal Mechanisms

Water Quality Standards 

and Regulations

End-haul sloughed or excavated 

materials to a stable site outside 

Riparian management areas with 

no potential to reach waterbodies, 

wetlands and floodplains. Avoid 

wasting loose ditch or surface 

material over the shoulder where 

it can cause stream sedimentation 

or weaken slump prone areas. 

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Wasting soil material on steep 

slopes, may trigger a debris 

avalanche that could enter 

a stream channel, delivering 

sediment and debris.

•	 Statewide Narrative Criteria 

Road Building Waste 

Materials 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Keep road inlet and outlet ditches, 

catch basins, and culverts free of 

obstructions, particularly before 

and during winter precipitation 

and spring run-off. 

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Plugged culverts by sediment and 

debris, leading to los of road fill 

and movement of road sediment 

downstream.

Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Repair damaged inlets and 

downspouts to maintain drainage 

design capacity.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Plugged culverts by sediment and 

debris, leading to los of road fill 

and movement of road sediment 

downstream.

Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Blade and shape roads to 

conserve existing aggregate 

surface material, retain the 

original crowned or out-sloped 

self-draining cross section, 

prevent or remove eroding berms 

(except those designed for slope 

protection) and other irregularities 

that retard normal surface runoff. 

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Road erosion with potential 

transport to the channel and 

floodplain.

Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Eliminate undesirable berms that 

retard surface runoff.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Road erosion with potential 

transport to the channel and 

floodplain.

Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Retain low-growing, herbaceous 

ground cover and brush on 

cut-and-fill slopes and ditchlines 

during the wet season (generally, 

November through April).

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Increased vegetative cover 

rapidly diminishes surface erosion 

potential, and delivery of sediment 

to stream channels.

Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Cut roadside vegetation rather 

than pulling it out and disturbing 

the soil.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Pulling vegetation near ditchlines, 

creates loose soil material that 

may fall or wash into ditchlines 

and then route to stream 

channels.

Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Closure and Decommissioning

•	 Decommission new roads 

not included in the permanent 

road system upon completion 

of use, or stormproof if 

needed the following season. 

•	 Decommission older, under 

used roads that require high 

maintenance where regular 

maintenance is unlikely 

to occur due to lack of 

resources.

•	 Decommission to Level 1 

and any other appropriate 

level as described below.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Surface erosion with delivery 

to waterbodies, floodplains 

and wetlands.

•	 Biocriteria 

OAR 340-041-0011

•	 Statewide Narrative 

Criteria Sediment, Adverse 

Deposits 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036
I – 1151

Appendix I. Water

Best Management Practices 

for Roads and Landings

Input Variables and 

Causal Mechanisms

Water Quality Standards 

and Regulations

Level 1:

Gate or block roads not 

needed, but not recommended 

to be fully decommissioned.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Wheel track formation and 

rilling/gullying with delivery to 

waterbodies, floodplains and 

wetlands.

•	 Biocriteria 

OAR 340-041-0011

•	 Statewide Narrative 

Criteria Sediment, Adverse 

Deposits 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Level 2:

Convert existing drainage 

structures such as ditches 

and cross drain culverts to 

a long-term no maintenance 

drainage configuration such 

as large dips, outsloped road 

surface, and well drained, 

high-capacity waterbars.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Sediment accumulation or debris 

plugging cross drains causing 

road erosion.

•	 Biocriteria 

OAR 340-041-0011

•	 Statewide Narrative 

Criteria Sediment, Adverse 

Deposits 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Remove stream crossing 

culverts and in-channel fill 

material during low flow 

(generally, June 15 to 

September 15) and prior to 

fall rains. Pull back road fill 

to match channel widths and 

establish former drainageways 

when removing culverts.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Sediment accumulation or 

debris plugging stream culverts, 

causing road gully erosion or 

stream crossing failure. Stream 

channels readjusting to active 

channel width, entraining road fill 

materials.

•	 Biocriteria 

OAR 340-041-0011

•	 Statewide Narrative Criteria 

Road Building Waste 

Materials 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Statewide Narrative 

Criteria Sediment, Adverse 

Deposits 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Place excavated material from 

removed stream crossings 

in a stable location where it 

would not reenter the stream. 

If necessary, place sediment 

and erosion controls around 

all stockpiled material.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Surface erosion delivering to 

waterbodies, floodplains and 

wetlands.

•	 Biocriteria 

OAR 340-041-0011

•	 Statewide Narrative 

Criteria Sediment, Adverse 

Deposits 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Reestablish stream crossings 

to the natural stream gradient. 

Reestablish stream side 

slopes to the natural contour.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Stream bed nickpoints traveling 

upstream, scouring below 

the armor layer in gravel bed 

streams causing excessive 

channel erosion. Surface 

erosion delivering to waterbodies, 

floodplains and wetlands.

•	 Biocriteria 

OAR 340-041-0011

•	 Statewide Narrative Criteria 

Road Building Waste 

Materials 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Statewide Narrative 

Criteria Sediment, Adverse 

Deposits 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036
I – 1152

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Best Management Practices 

for Roads and Landings

Input Variables and 

Causal Mechanisms

Water Quality Standards 

and Regulations

Seed (with native or approved 

seed), mulch, and plant 

(with native tree species) 

streambanks and side 

slopes as soon as possible 

after culvert removal has 

been completed, and before 

October 15.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Surface erosion delivering to 

waterbodies, floodplains and 

wetlands.

•	 Biocriteria 

OAR 340-041-0011

•	 Statewide Narrative 

Criteria Sediment, Adverse 

Deposits 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Place sediment trapping 

materials (such as straw 

bales) at the toe of the stream 

adjacent side slopes.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Surface erosion delivering to 

waterbodies, floodplains and 

wetlands.

•	 Biocriteria 

OAR 340-041-0011

•	 Statewide Narrative 

Criteria Sediment, Adverse 

Deposits 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Waterbar decommissioned 

roads on each side of stream 

crossings.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Surface erosion delivering to 

waterbodies, floodplains and 

wetlands.

•	 Biocriteria 

OAR 340-041-0011

•	 Statewide Narrative 

Criteria Sediment, Adverse 

Deposits 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Level 3:

Seed and mulch the road 

surface, where erosion could 

occur.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Surface erosion delivering to 

waterbodies, floodplains and 

wetlands.

•	 Biocriteria 

OAR 340-041-0011

•	 Statewide Narrative 

Criteria Sediment, Adverse 

Deposits 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Level 4:

Till the roadbed, landings, and 

construction areas.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Water concentration eroding 

compacted surfaces resulting to 

sediment delivery to waterbodies, 

floodplains and wetlands.

•	 Biocriteria 

OAR 340-041-0011

•	 Statewide Narrative 

Criteria Sediment, Adverse 

Deposits 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Level 5:

Pull back road fill and 

recontour to the natural 

slopes.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Water concentration eroding 

compacted surfaces resulting 

to sediment delivery to 

waterbodies, floodplains and 

wetlands.

•	 Biocriteria 

OAR 340-041-0011

•	 Statewide Narrative 

Criteria Sediment, Adverse 

Deposits 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036
I – 1153

Appendix I. Water

Best Management Practices 

for Roads and Landings

Input Variables and 

Causal Mechanisms

Water Quality Standards 

and Regulations

Suspend decommissioning 

work if rain saturates soils to the 

extent that there is potential for 

environmental damage, including 

movement of sediment from the 

road to the stream.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Surface erosion delivering to 

waterbodies, floodplains and 

wetlands.

•	 Biocriteria 

OAR 340-041-0011

•	 Statewide Narrative 

Criteria Sediment, Adverse 

Deposits 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Stormproof open roads 

not scheduled for planned 

maintenance.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Surface erosion with delivery 

to waterbodies, floodplains and 

wetlands.

•	 Biocriteria 

OAR 340-041-0011

•	 Statewide Narrative 

Criteria Sediment, Adverse 

Deposits 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Place woody material or other 

appropriate barriers to discourage 

off-highway vehicle use on 

decommissioned roads, unless 

specifically designated for this 

use.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Surface erosion delivering to 

waterbodies, floodplains and 

wetlands.

•	 Biocriteria 

OAR 340-041-0011

•	 Statewide Narrative 

Criteria Sediment, Adverse 

Deposits 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Water Source Development and Use

Construct water sources during 

low flows (generally, August 

through October).

Coarse Sediment, Fine Sediment, 

and Aquatic Habitat: 

Changing or removing stream 

habitat and associated stream 

turbidity.

•	 Biocriteria 

OAR 340-041-0011

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Locate road approaches 

to in-stream water source 

developments so as to limit 

disturbance to vegetation. Surface 

these approaches with rock. 

Coarse Sediment, Fine Sediment, 

and Toxins: 

Road surfacing, washing into the 

stream during storms. 

Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Avoid use of road fills for water 

impoundment dams unless 

specifically designed for that 

purpose. Existing road fill 

impoundments are required 

to pass 100-year flood events 

without failure.

Coarse Sediment, Fine Sediment, 

and Toxins: 

Road fill washout, leading to 

stream sedimentation

•	 Biocriteria 

OAR 340-041-0011

•	 Statewide Narrative Criteria 

Road Building Waste 

Materials 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Statewide Narrative 

Criteria Sediment, Adverse 

Deposits 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Direct overflow from off-channel 

water developments back into the 

stream as long as overflow water 

characteristics remain the same.

Low Flows: 

Decreasing low flows, potentially 

causing increased stream water 

temperatures, and decreased 

stream oxygen levels.

•	 Dissolved Oxygen 

OAR 340-041-0016

•	 Temperature 

OAR 340-041-0028
I – 1154

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Best Management Practices 

for Roads and Landings

Input Variables and 

Causal Mechanisms

Water Quality Standards 

and Regulations

Do not construct temporary pump 

chances. When necessary, use 

temporary plastic dams to create 

chances and remove these dams 

when not actively pumping.

Low Flows: 

Decreasing low flows, potentially 

causing increased stream water 

temperatures, and decreased 

stream oxygen levels.

•	 Dissolved Oxygen 

OAR 340-041-0016

•	 Temperature 

OAR 340-041-0028

Suspend pump intakes near the 

deepest/highest quantity of flow 

of the stream. Do not place pump 

intakes on the substrate or edges 

of the stream channel.

Coarse Sediment, Fine Sediment, 

and Stream Habitat: 

Changing or removing stream 

habitat and associated stream 

turbidity.

•	 Biocriteria 

OAR 340-041-0011

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Timber Harvest Activities

See Summary of Water Quality Standards for additional details about the 

standards and regulations that are associated with the best management practices.

Table 272. Best management practices for timber harvest activities

Best Management Practices 

for Timber Harvest 

Activities

Input Variables and 

Causal Mechanisms

Water Quality Standards 

and Regulations

Cable Yarding

Yard away from riparian 

management areas

•	 Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Yarding operations can 

cause compaction, 

displacement and exposure 

of soils and sediment 

sources in zones with 

potential for transport and 

delivery of sediment to 

water bodies and wetlands 

resulting in turbidity.

•	 Water Temperature: 

Yarding operations in 

RMA’s can result in 

vegetation canopy loss due 

to removal for safety and 

operations. Decreases in 

canopy can result in losses 

of effective shade and 

exposure of stream channel 

to solar radiation, resulting 

in heating of the waterbody.

•	 Antidegradation 

OAR 340-041-0004(1)

•	 Statewide Narrative 

OAR 340-041-0007(1)

and(13)

•	 Temperature 

OAR 340-041-0028

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Remove introduced slash into 

waterbodies within before the next 

precipitation and runoff event.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Debris jams can form damming 

the stream and directing 

streamflow against banks, 

leading to bank erosion , or a 

dam break flood.

•	 Antidegradation 

OAR 340-041-0004(1)

•	 Statewide Narrative 

OAR 340-041-0007(1)

and(13)

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036
I – 1155

Appendix I. Water

Best Management Practices 

for Timber Harvest 

Activities

Input Variables and 

Causal Mechanisms

Water Quality Standards 

and Regulations

Design yarding corridors so as 

to limit canopy loss in riparian 

management areas and to 

meet shade targets. Techniques 

include limiting the number of 

such corridors, using narrow 

widths, and using a perpendicular 

orientation to the stream. 

Water Temperature: 

Yarding corridors in RMA’s can 

result in vegetation canopy loss 

due to removal for safety and 

yarding operations. Decreases 

in canopy can result in 

losses of effective shade and 

exposure of stream channel 

to solar radiation, resulting 

in heating of the waterbody. 

Removal of more than 80% 

effective shade can exceed 

criteria and TMDL Targets

•	 Antidegradation 

OAR 340-041-0004(1)

•	 Statewide Narrative 

OAR 340-041-0007(1)

and(13)

•	 Temperature 

OAR 340-041-0028

Require full suspension over 

flowing streams, non-flowing 

streams with erodible bed and 

bank, and jurisdictional wetlands.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Log yarding through waterbodies 

can cause direct introduction of 

sediment into water or channels 

resulting in accumulation of 

sediment and turbidity. 

Displacement of stream and 

wetland bed and banks exposing 

soil to erosion resulting in 

sedimentation and turbidity.

•	 Antidegradation 

OAR 340-041-0004(1)

•	 Statewide Narrative

OAR 340-041-0007(1)

and(13)

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Limit downhill logging into riparian 

management areas or where 

yarding trails can expand the 

stream or ditch network.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Downhill logging into RMA’s could 

result in converging skid paths 

intersecting stream channels, 

and less than full suspension, 

which could result in sediment 

accumulation, delivery and 

turbidity

•	 Antidegradation 

OAR 340-041-0004(1)

•	 Statewide Narrative 

OAR 340-041-0007(1)

and(13)

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Widely space yarding corridors or 

new road crossings within riparian 

management areas if no practical 

alternative exists to treat adjacent 

uplands, or to avoid building more 

roads or landings.

Temperature and Sediment: 

Site specific acceptance of 

RMA entry can reduce overall 

displacement of soils and 

canopy losses in riparian areas, 

floodplains and wetlands. 

Cumulative increases in sediment 

and temperature can be reduced 

through tradeoffs with local site 

specific impacts. 

•	 Antidegradation 

OAR 340-041-0004(1)

•	 Statewide Narrative 

OAR 340-041-0007(1)

and(13)

•	 Temperature 

OAR 340-041-0028

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Where slopes exceed 60 percent 

along stream channels, yard 

with full suspension, one-end 

suspension using seasonal 

restrictions, or one-end 

suspension using a standing 

skyline with lateral yarding 

capacity. Yard remaining areas 

using one-end suspension

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Slopes greater than 65% present 

a high risk of soil displacement 

and transport downslope to 

RMAs due to gravitational forces. 

Increased displacement from 

lack of log suspension can cause 

excessive displacement, exposure 

of sediment sources and delivery 

to waterbodies and wetlands.

•	 Antidegradation 

OAR 340-041-0004(1)

•	 Statewide Narrative 

OAR 340-041-0007(1)

and(13)

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Implement erosion control 

measures such as water-barring, 

slash placement and seeding in 

cable yarding corridors where the 

potential for erosion and delivery 

to waterbodies, floodplains and 

wetlands exists.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Exposure of soils to erosive forces 

of water with potential delivery to 

waterbodies and wetlands.

•	 Antidegradation 

OAR 340-041-0004(1)

•	 Statewide Narrative 

OAR 340-041-0007(1)

and(13)

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036
I – 1156

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Best Management Practices 

for Timber Harvest 

Activities

Input Variables and 

Causal Mechanisms

Water Quality Standards 

and Regulations

Ground-Based Yarding

Exclude ground-based yarding on 

hydric soils. 

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Displacement and exposure of 

soils through equipment operation 

with potential delivery of sediment 

to waterbodies resulting in 

sedimentation and turbidity 

•	 Antidegradation 

OAR 340-041-0004(1)

•	 Statewide Narrative 

OAR 340-041-0007(1)

and(13)

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

When operating within riparian 

management areas:

•	 Avoid construction of new 

skid trails by preferentially 

using existing skid trails. 

•	 In previously un-entered 

stands, use designated skid 

trails to limit soil compaction 

to no more than 12 percent of 

the harvest area.

•	 Site-specific conditions, 

such as shade retention or 

soil erodibility, may require 

a ground-based equipment 

exclusion zone (50 to 75 feet) 

adjacent to waterbodies, 

floodplains, and wetlands to 

provide filtration and shade 

retention.

•	 Limit width and attain one 

end suspension. 

•	 Restrict ground-based 

harvest and skidding 

operations to periods of low 

soil moisture when soils 

have the most resistance to 

compaction and displacement.

•	 Use “one-pass” harvest 

techniques.

•	 Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Displacement and exposure 

of soils through equipment 

operation with potential 

delivery of sediment to 

waterbodies resulting in 

sedimentation and turbidity

•	 Temperature: 

Loss of vegetation canopy 

due to removal during 

yarding operations. 

Decreased shade and 

exposure of stream channel 

to solar radiation and 

increased heating.

•	 Antidegradation 

OAR 340-041-0004(1)

•	 Statewide Narrative 

OAR 340-041-0007(1)

and(13)

•	 Temperature 

OAR 340-041-002

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Limit mechanical track equipment 

to slopes less than 35 percent and 

nontrack mechanized equipment 

to slopes less than 20 percent.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Displacement and exposure of 

soils through equipment operation 

with potential delivery of sediment 

to waterbodies resulting in 

sedimentation and turbidity 

•	 Antidegradation 

OAR 340-041-0004(1)

•	 Statewide Narrative 

OAR 340-041-0007(1)

and(13)

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036
I – 1157

Appendix I. Water

Best Management Practices 

for Timber Harvest 

Activities

Input Variables and 

Causal Mechanisms

Water Quality Standards 

and Regulations

Designate skid trails where 

water from trail surface would 

not be channeled into unstable 

areas adjacent to waterbodies, 

floodplains, and wetlands.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Compaction of skid trails resulting 

in additional surface flow to 

unstable areas. Increases in 

water to unstable areas can 

elevate pore pressure and weight 

of unstable area causing mass 

wasting and delivery of sediment 

and turbidity to waterbodies and 

wetlands.

•	 Antidegradation 

OAR 340-041-0004(1)

•	 Statewide Narrative

OAR 340-041-0007(1)

and(13)

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Directionally fall trees towards 

skid trails. 

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Minimize compaction of skid trails 

resulting in loss of infiltration, 

surface water flow and erosion of 

exposed soils.

Potential delivery to waterbodies 

and wetlands resulting in 

sedimentation and turbidity.

•	 Antidegradation 

OAR 340-041-0004(1)

•	 Statewide Narrative 

OAR 340-041-0007(1)

and(13)

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Apply erosion control practices 

to all disturbed areas (eg., skid 

trails) with potential for erosion 

and delivery to waterbodies, 

floodplains, or wetlands. These 

practices could include tillage, 

water barring, seeding, mulching, 

and woody debris placement.”

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Exposure of soils to erosive forces 

of water with potential delivery to 

waterbodies and wetlands.

•	 Antidegradation 

OAR 340-041-0004(1)

•	 Statewide Narrative 

OAR 340-041-0007(1)

and(13)

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Allow logging on snow when snow 

depth is greater than 18 inches or 

over frozen ground.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Displacement, compaction, 

and exposure of soils through 

equipment operation with 

potential delivery of sediment 

to waterbodies resulting in 

sedimentation and turbidity.

•	 Antidegradation 

OAR 340-041-0004(1)

•	 Biocriteria 

OAR 340-041-0011

•	 Statewide Narrative 

OAR 340-041-0007(1)&(13)

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Block skid roads that intersect 

haul roads at the end of seasonal 

use.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Displacement, compaction, 

and exposure of soils through 

equipment operation with 

potential delivery of sediment 

to waterbodies resulting in 

sedimentation and turbidity.

•	 Antidegradation 

OAR 340-041-0004(1)

•	 Biocriteria 

OAR 340-041-0011

•	 Statewide Narrative 

OAR 340-041-0007(1)&(13)

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036
I – 1158

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Best Management Practices 

for Timber Harvest 

Activities

Input Variables and 

Causal Mechanisms

Water Quality Standards 

and Regulations

Helicopter

Use helicopter yarding in 

waterbodies, floodplains, and 

wetlands when other BMP’s will 

not meet water quality standards/

criteria.

•	 Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Soil exposure due to 

yarding operations resulting 

in soil erosion with potential 

transport to the waterbody 

resulting in sedimentation 

and turbidity.

•	 Temperature: 

Loss of vegetation canopy 

due to removal during 

yarding operations. 

Decreased shade and 

exposure of stream channel 

to solar radiation and 

increased heating.

•	 Antidegradation 

OAR 340-041-0004(1)

•	 Statewide Narrative 

OAR 340-041-0007(1)

and(13)

•	 Temperature 

OAR 340-041-0028

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Horse

Limit horse logging in riparian 

management area’s to slopes less 

than 20 percent.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Soil on skid trails exposed to 

water erosion with potential 

delivery to waterbodies , 

floodplains, and wetlands 

resulting in sedimentation and 

turbidity.

•	 Antidegradation 

OAR 340-041-0004(1)

•	 Statewide Narrative 

OAR 340-041-0007(1)

and(13)

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Construct waterbars on horse 

skid trails when there is potential 

for soil erosion and delivery to 

waterbodies, floodplains, and 

wetlands.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Soil on skid trails exposed to 

water erosion with potential 

delivery to waterbodies , 

floodplains, and wetlands 

resulting in sedimentation and 

turbidity.

•	 Antidegradation 

OAR 340-041-0004(1)

•	 Statewide Narrative 

OAR 340-041-0007(1)

and(13)

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036
I – 1159

Appendix I. Water

Silvicultural Activities

See Summary of Water Quality Standards for additional details about the 

standards and regulations that are associated with the best management practices.

Table 273. Best management practices for silvicultural activities

Best Management 

Practices 

for Silvicultural Activities

Input Variables and 

Causal Mechanisms

Water Quality Standards and 

Regulations

General

During active silvicultural 

management of riparian 

management areas, retain 

dominant site potential species 

within primary shade zones.

Temperature: 

Persistent stream canopy 

provides consistent effective 

shade over time and will 

contribute to meeting shade 

targets and temperature criteria.

•	 Antidegradation 

OAR 340-041-0004(1)

•	 Statewide Narrative 

OAR 340-041-0007(1) and 

(13)

•	 Temperature 

OAR 340-041-0028

Limit crossing stream channels 

with motorized support vehicles 

(e.g., ATV’s) and mechanized 

equipment to existing road 

crossings.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Vehicle and equipment crossing 

streams can cause breakdown 

of bed and banks exposing soil 

to water erosion and resulting 

turbidity.

•	 Antidegradation 

OAR 340-041-0004(1)

•	 Statewide Narrative 

OAR 340-041-0007(1) and 

(13)

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Thinning

Fell thinned trees away from 

steams when possible.

Coarse and Fine Sediment:

Accumulation of slash in 

channels can redirect flows out 

of the stream channel, increasing 

stress on banks and resulting in 

streambank and floodplain erosion 

and increases in local turbidity 

•	 Antidegradation 

OAR 340-041-0004(1)

•	 Statewide Narrative 

OAR 340-041-0007(1) and 

(13)

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Use manual techniques (includes 

chainsaws) for thinning within 

riparian management areas.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Avoiding soil exposure from 

the use of ground based 

equipment, and the possible 

erosion and delivery of sediment 

to waterbodies and wetlands 

resulting in turbidity increases.

•	 Antidegradation 

OAR 340-041-0004(1)

•	 Statewide Narrative 

OAR 340-041-0007(1) and 

(13)

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Retain as much down, woody 

material in riparian management 

areas as possible.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

RMA’s function as filtration 

barriers to fine sediment if the soil 

surface and organic material is 

retained on the soil surface.

•	 Antidegradation 

OAR 340-041-0004(1)

•	 Statewide Narrative 

OAR 340-041-0007(1) and (13)

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Remove excess slash from steep 

headwalls (e.g., gross yard). 

Embedded logs or other logs that 

contribute to channel or slope 

stability will not be removed. 

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Accumulation of slash in unstable 

areas associated with channels 

can over weight slope surface 

causing translational sliding 

and debris torrents , delivering 

sediment and resulting in 

downstream turbidity.

•	 Antidegradation 

OAR 340-041-0004(1)

•	 Statewide Narrative 

OAR 340-041-0007(1) and 

(13)

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036
I – 1160

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Best Management 

Practices 

for Silvicultural Activities

Input Variables and 

Causal Mechanisms

Water Quality Standards and 

Regulations

Scatter treatment debris on 

disturbed soils and water bar any 

yarding trails that could erode 

and deposit in water bodies , 

floodplains, and wetlands

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Erosion of exposed soil and 

delivery to waterbodies and 

wetlands resulting in turbidity 

increases.

•	 Antidegradation 

OAR 340-041-0004(1)

•	 Statewide Narrative 

OAR 340-041-0007(1) and 

(13)

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Fertilization

Avoid applying fertilizer to riparian 

management areas, floodplains, 

and wetlands.

Nutrient Enrichment:

Application of Nitrate to 

potentially nitrogen rich riparian 

areas, leading to leaching and 

delivery of nitrates through local 

groundwater to and water bodies.

•	 0.5 mg/L toxic to rainbow 

trout

•	 Biocriteria 

OAR 340-041-0011

Locate storage, transfer, and 

loading sites outside riparian 

management areas and away 

from streams and road ditches 

that are linked to stream 

channels. 

Nutrient Enrichment:

Spilling of fertilizer with 

potential delivery of nutrients 

to waterbodies and wetlands 

through leaching or direct surface 

water transport.

•	 0.5 mg/L toxic to rainbow 

trout

•	 Biocriteria 

OAR 340-041-0011

Apply fertilizer when climate 

conditions (wind and rain) 

minimize risk of application to 

water bodies, floodplains, and 

wetlands.

Nutrient Enrichment:

Application of Nitrate to 

potentially nitrogen rich riparian 

areas, leading to leaching and 

delivery of nitrates through local 

groundwater to and water bodies.

•	 0.5 mg/L toxic to rainbow 

trout

•	 Biocriteria 

OAR 340-041-0011

Stand Conversion

Klamath Falls:

•	 Use mechanical treatments 

in aspen stands during the 

dry season (generally, May 

through September).

•	 Where slopes along 

streams are less than 30%, 

limit mechanical equipment 

to 25 feet from the edge of 

the riparian zone.

•	 Where slopes along streams 

are greater than 30%, limit 

mechanical equipment to 

50 feet from the edge of the 

riparian zone.

•	 Limit mechanical entry 

to within 50 feet from the 

edge of wetlands riparian 

indicators.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Displacement and exposure 

of soils through equipment 

operation with potential delivery 

of sediment to waterbodies 

resulting in sedimentation and 

turbidity. 

•	 Antidegradation 

OAR 340-041-0004(1)

•	 Statewide Narrative 

OAR 340-041-0007(1) and 

(13)

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036
I – 1161

Appendix I. Water

Fire and Fuels Management

See Summary of Water Quality Standards for additional details about the 

standards and regulations that are associated with the best management practices.

Table 274. Best management practices for fire and fuels management

Best Management Practices 

for Fire and Fuels Management

Input Variables and 

Causal Mechanisms

Water Quality 

Standards and 

Regulations

Fuels Management

Fuels Management: Underburn, Concentration Burn, and Broadcast Burn

•	 Allow low intensity underburns 

to back into riparian 

management areas; however 

no ignition would occur 

within riparian management 

areas, unless prescribed for 

restoration purposes.

•	 Keep concentration and 

broadcast burns at least 

100 feet away from riparian 

management areas, unless 

prescribed for restoration 

purposes.

•	 Locate ignition lines above 

large open meadows 

associated with stream 

channels. 

Coarse Sediment, Fine Sediment, 

and Temperature:

•	 Bare soil in RMA is subject to 

surface erosion and potential 

sediment delivery to adjacent 

waterbody. 

•	 Loss of riparian vegetation 

due to wildfire could reduce 

shade and increase water 

temperature. 

•	 Antidegradation 

OAR 340-041-0004(1)

•	 Biocriteria 

OAR 340-041-0011

•	 Statewide Narrative 

OAR 340-041-0007(1) 

and (13)

•	 Temperature 

OAR 340-041-0028

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Avoid ignition of large woody material 

that is touching the high water mark of 

a waterbody or that may be affected 

by high flows.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Large wood provides channel 

stabilization and energy dissipation, 

thus reducing channel erosion and 

subsequent sedimentation.

•	 Antidegradation 

OAR 340-041-0004(1)

•	 Biocriteria 

OAR 340-041-0011

•	 Statewide Narrative 

OAR 340-041-0007(1) 

and (13)

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

•	 Avoid delivery of foam or 

additives to waterbodies, 

floodplains, or wetlands.

•	 Store and dispose of ignition 

devices/materials (e.g., flares, 

plastic spheres, etc.) outside 

riparian management areas 

or a minimum of 100 feet from 

waterbodies, floodplains, and 

wetlands.

•	 Maintain and refuel equipment 

(e.g., drip torches, chainsaws, 

and portable pumps) a 

minimum of 100 feet from 

waterbodies, floodplains, and 

wetlands.

Chemicals: 

Direct contamination of 

waterbodies.

Toxic Substances 

OAR 340-041-0033
I – 1162

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Best Management Practices 

for Fire and Fuels Management

Input Variables and 

Causal Mechanisms

Water Quality 

Standards and 

Regulations

•	 Limit hand constructed firelines 

inside riparian management 

areas and prohibit machine 

constructed firelines in riparian 

management areas.

•	 Construct firelines by hand 

on all slopes greater than 

35 percent.

•	 Use erosion control techniques 

such as tilling, waterbaring, or 

debris placement on firelines. 

Construct waterbars on tractor 

and hand firelines. 

•	 Avoid placement of any fireline 

where water would be directed 

into waterbodies, floodplains, 

wetlands, headwalls, or areas 

of instability.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Firelines can channel water and 

sediment into waterbodies.

•	 Antidegradation 

OAR 340-041-0004(1)

•	 Biocriteria 

OAR 340-041-0011

•	 Statewide Narrative 

OAR 340-041-0007(1) 

and (13)

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Fuels Management: Pile and Burn

•	 Prohibit mechanical piling 

within riparian management 

areas.

•	 Prohibit tractor piling in areas 

that could deliver sediment 

to waterbodies, floodplains, 

wetlands.

Coarse and Fine Sediment:

Ground disturbance reduces 

infiltration and increases surface 

runoff with subsequent soil 

movement. Erosion more likely on 

steeper slopes.

•	 Antidegradation 

OAR 340-041-0004(1)

•	 Biocriteria 

OAR 340-041-0011 

•	 Statewide Narrative 

OAR 340-041-0007(1) 

and (13)

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Use temporary stream crossings if 

necessary for equipment to access 

the opposite side. Follow Temporary 

Stream Crossing practices under 

Roads section. 

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Equipment can damage 

streambeds and banks causing 

turbidity and sedimentation.

•	 Antidegradation 

OAR 340-041-0004(1)

•	 Biocriteria 

OAR 340-041-0011 

•	 Statewide Narrative 

OAR 340-041-0007(1) 

and (13)

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Locate hand piles outside riparian 

management areas for fish-bearing 

or perennial streams, and springs/

seeps/wetlands, unless prescribed for 

restoration purposes.

Coarse Sediment, Fine Sediment, 

and Temperature:

•	 Bare soil is subject to surface 

erosion.

•	 Loss of riparian vegetation 

due to fire could reduce 

shade and increase water 

temperature.

•	 Antidegradation 

OAR 340-041-0004(1)

•	 Biocriteria 

OAR 340-041-0011

•	 Statewide Narrative 

OAR 340-041-0007(1) 

and (13)

•	 Temperature 

OAR 340-041-0028

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036
I – 1163

Appendix I. Water

Best Management Practices 

for Fire and Fuels Management

Input Variables and 

Causal Mechanisms

Water Quality 

Standards and 

Regulations

Locate hand piles outside of riparian 

management areas for intermittent 

streams or above the first slope 

break, whichever is greater, unless 

prescribed for restoration purposes.

Bare soil is subject to surface 

erosion. 

•	 Antidegradation 

OAR 340-041-0004(1)

•	 Biocriteria 

OAR 340-041-0011 

•	 Statewide Narrative 

OAR 340-041-0007(1) 

and (13)

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Fuels Management: Mechanical and Manual Fuel Treatments

•	 No mechanical fuel reduction 

equipment within 75 feet of 

streams and other waterbodies, 

unless prescribed to meet 

specific land management 

objectives.

•	 Limit mechanical fuel reduction 

equipment to slopes less than 

35 percent. Restrict non-track 

mechanized equipment to 

slopes less than 20 percent.

Ground-based equipment reduces 

infiltration and increases surface 

runoff with subsequent soil 

movement. 

•	 Antidegradation 

OAR 340-041-0004(1)

•	 Biocriteria 

OAR 340-041-0011

•	 Statewide Narrative 

OAR 340-041-0007(1) 

and (13)

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Use temporary stream crossings if 

necessary to access the opposite 

side with any equipment or vehicles 

(including ATVs). Follow Temporary 

Stream Crossing practices under 

Roads section.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Stream crossings subject to 

streambank damage and erosion.

•	 Antidegradation 

OAR 340-041-0004(1)

•	 Biocriteria 

OAR 340-041-0011

•	 Statewide Narrative 

OAR 340-041-0007(1) 

and (13)

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Place residual slash on disturbed 

areas and seed upon completion 

when appropriate.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Bare soil areas are subject to 

erosion and subsequent sediment 

delivery to waterbody.

•	 Antidegradation 

OAR 340-041-0004(1)

•	 Biocriteria 

OAR 340-041-0011

•	 Statewide Narrative 

OAR 340-041-0007(1) 

and (13)

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Maintain and refuel equipment 

(e.g., drip torches, chainsaws, and 

portable pumps) at least 100 feet 

from waterbodies, floodplains, and 

wetlands.

Petroleum Products: 

Direct contamination of 

waterbodies.

Toxic Substances 

OAR 340-041-0033

Wildfire

Wildfire: Suppression
I – 1164

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Best Management Practices 

for Fire and Fuels Management

Input Variables and 

Causal Mechanisms

Water Quality 

Standards and 

Regulations

•	 Limit hand constructed 

firelines and prohibit machine 

constructed firelines inside 

riparian management areas.

•	 Where hand constructed 

firelines are necessary in 

riparian management areas, 

angle the approach rather than 

have it perpendicular to the 

riparian management area.

•	 Exclude ground-based 

equipment within riparian 

management areas. Limit use 

of heavy equipment adjacent 

to riparian management areas 

and on slopes greater than 

35 percent.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Ground-based equipment reduces 

infiltration and increases surface 

runoff with subsequent soil 

movement. Soil disturbance causes 

soil erosion and potential for soil 

movement to waterbody. 

•	 Antidegradation 

OAR 340-041-0004(1)

•	 Biocriteria 

OAR 340-041-0011 

•	 Statewide Narrative 

OAR 340-041-0007(1) 

and (13)

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

•	 Prevent cutting of logs or 

woody material if any portion of 

that material extends into the 

stream channel.

•	 Fall snags in the riparian 

management area towards the 

stream channel when felling 

is necessary for safety or fire 

suppression activities.

Coarse and Fine Sediment:

Large wood stabilizes channels and 

prevents channel erosion.

•	 Antidegradation 

OAR 340-041-0004(1)

•	 Biocriteria 

OAR 340-041-0011

•	 Statewide Narrative 

OAR 340-041-0007(1) 

and (13)

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Do not locate incident bases, 

camps (including spike/remote 

camps), helibases, staging areas, 

constructed helispots, and other 

centers for incident activities in 

riparian management areas or within 

200 feet of any waterbody, floodplain, 

or wetland.

Coarse Sediment, Fine Sediment, 

Temperature, and Petroleum 

Products: 

Riparian disturbance from 

equipment and people could 

increase sediment. Removal of 

riparian vegetation could cause 

water temperature increases. 

Accidental spillage of fuel and other 

chemicals could enter waterways. 

•	 Antidegradation 

OAR 340-041-0004(1)

•	 Biocriteria 

OAR 340-041-0011

•	 Statewide Narrative 

OAR 340-041-0007(1)

•	 Temperature 

OAR 340-041-0028

•	 Toxic Substances 

OAR 340-041-0033

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Locate and maintain portable 

sanitation facilities at incident 

bases, camps (including spike/

remote camps), helibases, staging 

areas, constructed helispots, and 

other centers for incident activities 

in accordance with state and local 

regulations.

Bacteria: 

Contamination from human waste.

Bacteria 

OAR 340-041-0009

•	 Keep chemical retardant, foam, 

or additives out of waterbodies, 

floodplains, or wetlands.

•	 Do not use chemical retardants 

within the riparian management 

area.

•	 Apply aerial retardant adjacent 

to riparian management areas 

by making parallel passes.

Chemical Retardants: 

Contamination of waterbodies from 

chemical retardant.

•	 Antidegradation 

OAR 340-041-0004(1)

•	 Biocriteria 

OAR 340-041-0011

•	 Statewide Narrative 

OAR 340-041-0007(1)

•	 Toxic Substances 

OAR 340-041-0033
I – 1165

Appendix I. Water

Best Management Practices 

for Fire and Fuels Management

Input Variables and 

Causal Mechanisms

Water Quality 

Standards and 

Regulations

Wildfire: Rehabilitation

Implement emergency fire 

rehabilitation treatments to accomplish 

erosion control as quickly as possible 

and before the wet season. 

Examples include:

•	 Use native or other ecologically 

appropriate vegetation for 

short-term cover development 

and long-term recovery.

•	 Mulch with straw or other 

suitable material.

•	 Use straw wattles.

•	 Install log erosion barriers.

•	 Spread slash on bare soils.

•	 Place channel stabilization 

structures.

•	 Place sediment retention 

structures in channel.

•	 Place trash racks above road 

drainage structures.

•	 Install drainage structures, 

such as water bars or drainage 

dips, on firelines, fire roads, 

and other cleared areas 

according to guidelines in 

Table 5 (Waterbar spacing by 

gradient and erosion class).

•	 Repair damaged road drainage 

facilities.

•	 Block or decommission roads 

and trails.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Bare soil areas are subject to 

erosion and subsequent sediment 

delivery to waterbody.

•	 Antidegradation 

OAR 340-041-0004(1)

•	 Biocriteria 

OAR 340-041-0011

•	 Statewide Narrative 

OAR 340-041-0007(1) 

and (13)

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036
I – 1166

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Best Management Practices 

for Fire and Fuels Management

Input Variables and 

Causal Mechanisms

Water Quality 

Standards and 

Regulations

Wildfire: Fuel/Retardant Transport

If more than 42 gallons of fuel or 

combined quantity of petroleum 

product and chemical substances 

would be transported to a project site, 

the following precautions would be 

implemented.

1. Plan a safe route and transfer sites 

that could contain the transported 

volume.

2. Plan an active dispatch system 

that can relay the information to 

appropriate resources.

3. Ensure a spill containment kit that 

can adsorb and contain 55 gallons 

of petroleum product and chemical 

substances is readily available.

4. Provide for immediate notification 

in the event of a spill. Have a radio 

equipped vehicle lead the chemical 

or fuel truck to the project site.

5. Assemble a spill notification list 

that includes the district hazardous 

materials coordinator, DEQ, and 

spill clean-up contractors. 

6. Construct a water user contact list 

with address and phone numbers.

7. When operating within Source 

Water Watersheds, pre-estimate 

travel times through the watershed 

to predict downstream arrival 

times.

8. Be prepared to sample water and 

carry sample containers. 

Petroleum and Chemical 

Substances: 

Spillage into waterbodies with 

chemical contamination of 

waterbodies.

•	 Antidegradation 

OAR 340-041-0004(1)

•	 Biocriteria 

OAR 340-041-0011

•	 Statewide Narrative 

OAR 340-041-0007(1) 

and (13)

•	 Toxic Substances 

OAR 340-041-0033

Table 275. Waterbar spacing by gradient and erosion class

Gradient (%) Waterbar Spacing (feet)1 Per Erosion Class2

High Class Moderate Class Low Class

2 to 5% 200 ft. 300 ft. 400 ft.

6 to 10% 150 ft. 200 ft. 300 ft.

11 to 15% 100 ft. 150 ft. 200 ft.

16 to 20% 75 ft. 100 ft. 150 ft.

21 to 35% 50 ft. 75 ft. 100 ft.

36+% 50 ft. 50 ft. 50 ft.

1

Spacing is determined by slope distance and is the maximum allowed for the grade.

2

The erosion classes include the following rock types: 

	 •	 High: granite, sandstone, andesite porphyry, glacial or alluvial deposits, soft matrix conglomerate, volcanic ash, 

	 	 and pyroclastics

	 •	 Moderate: basalt, andesite, quartzite, hard matrix conglomerate, and rhyolite

• Low: metasediments, metavolcanics, and hard shale
I – 1167

Appendix I. Water

Surface Source Water for Drinking Water

See Summary of Water Quality Standards for additional details about the standards and 

regulations that are associated with the best management practices.

Table 276. Best management practices for surface source water for drinking water

Best Management 

Practices for Surface 

Source Water for 

Drinking Water

Input Variables and 

Causal Mechanisms

Water Quality Standards 

and Regulations

Sanitary facilities would be 

planned, located, designed, 

constructed, operated, 

inspected, and maintained to 

minimize possibilities of water 

contamination.

Bacteria: 

Fecal Coliform enrichment of local 

groundwater and surface water with 

delivery to downstream drinking water 

diversion.

•	 Antidegradation 

OAR 340-041-0004(1)

•	 Bacteria 

OAR 340-041-0009

•	 Statewide Narrative 

OAR 340-041-0007(1) and 

(13)

Locate contractor camps 

outside Oregon Department 

of Environmental Quality 

sensitive zones in surface 

source water watersheds. If 

this is not possible, require 

self-contained sanitary 

facilities.

Bacteria: 

Fecal Coliform enrichment of local 

groundwater and surface water with 

delivery to downstream drinking water 

diversion.

•	 Antidegradation 

OAR 340-041-0004(1) 

•	 Bacteria 

OAR 340-041-0009

•	 Statewide Narrative 

OAR 340-041-0007(1) and 

(13)

Require self-contained 

sanitary facilities in surface 

source water watersheds, 

when long-term camping 

(greater than 14 days) 

is involved with contract 

implementation.

Bacteria:

Fecal Coliform enrichment of local 

groundwater and surface water with 

delivery to downstream drinking water 

diversion.

•	 Antidegradation 

OAR 340-041-0004(1)

•	 Bacteria 

OAR 340-041-0009

•	 Statewide Narrative 

OAR 340-041-0007(1) and 

(13)

Provide self-contained 

sanitary facilities when 

there is high recreational 

use (almost continuous 

occupancy) within Oregon 

Department of Environmental 

Quality sensitive zones 

or along streams above 

domestic water diversions of 

record.

Bacteria: 

Fecal Coliform enrichment of local 

groundwater and surface water with 

delivery to downstream drinking water 

diversion.

•	 Antidegradation 

OAR 340-041-0004(1)

•	 Statewide Narrative

OAR 340-041-0007(1)

and(13)

•	 Bacteria 

OAR 340-041-0009

Locate pack, riding, 

restoration, and logging stock 

facilities 200 feet away from 

watercourses upstream of 

source drinking diversions.

Bacteria: 

Fecal Coliform enrichment of local 

groundwater and surface water with 

delivery to downstream drinking water 

diversion.

•	 Antidegradation 

OAR 340-041-0004(1)

•	 Bacteria 

OAR 340-041-0009

•	 Statewide Narrative 

OAR 340-041-0007(1) and 

(13)
I – 1168

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Best Management 

Practices for Surface 

Source Water for 

Drinking Water

Input Variables and 

Causal Mechanisms

Water Quality Standards 

and Regulations

Do not allow surface 

occupancy within 200 feet of 

a recorded domestic or public 

drinking water diversion.

Bacteria: 

Fecal Coliform enrichment of local 

groundwater and surface water with 

delivery to downstream drinking water 

diversion.

•	 Antidegradation 

OAR 340-041-0004(1)

•	 Bacteria 

OAR 340-041-0009

•	 Statewide Narrative 

OAR 340-041-0007(1) and 

(13)

•	 Toxic Substances 

OAR 340-041-0033

Do not apply sewage 

sludge as a soil amendment 

in surface source water 

watersheds, above Domestic 

Water diversions of record, or 

within riparian management 

areas.

Toxic Pollutants: 

Leaching and surface water 

movement can transport toxics and 

bacteria downstream to water supply 

diversions. Some domestic supplies 

have no ability to detect or treat this 

pollution.

•	 Antidegradation 

OAR 340-041-0004(1)

•	 Bacteria 

OAR 340-041-0009

•	 Statewide Narrative 

OAR 340-041-0007(1) and 

(13)

•	 Toxic Substances 

OAR 340-041-0033

Do not load, transfer, or store 

chemical, fuel, or fertilizer in 

sensitive zones in surface 

source water watersheds.

Toxic Pollutants, Oil, Gas, and 

Nutrients:

Leaks, spills, and improper handling of 

pesticides, herbicides and petroleum 

products can leach or be transported 

by surface water to drinking water 

diversion points.

•	 Antidegradation 

OAR 340-041-0004(1)

•	 Statewide Narrative 

OAR 340-041-0007(1)

and(13)

•	 Toxic Substances 

OAR 340-041-0033

Conduct equipment 

maintenance outside sitespecific sensitive zones 

in surface source water 

watersheds.

Toxic Pollutants, Oil, and Gas: 

Leaks, spills, and improper handling 

petroleum products can leach or 

be transported by surface water to 

drinking water diversion points.

•	 Antidegradation 

OAR 340-041-0004(1)

•	 Statewide Narrative 

OAR 340-041-0007(1) and 

(13)

•	 Toxic Substances 

OAR 340-041-0033

Use non-oil-based dust 

suppressants in surface 

source water watersheds.

Toxic Pollutants, Oil, and Gas: 

Leaks, spills, and improper application 

of oil based dust control products 

can introduce petroleum products to 

surface water and to drinking water 

diversion points.

•	 Antidegradation 

OAR 340-041-0004(1)

•	 Statewide Narrative

OAR 340-041-0007(1) and 

(13)

•	 Toxic Substances 

OAR 340-041-0033

Do not allow mineral lease 

surface occupancy within 

sensitive zones in surface 

source water watersheds.

Toxic Pollutants, Oil, and Gas: 

Leachate from mineral operations or 

equipment use may contain chemicals 

and wastes which is transported and 

delivered to drinking water diversion 

points. 

•	 Antidegradation 

OAR 340-041-0004(1)

•	 Statewide Narrative 

OAR 340-041-0007(1) and 

(13)

•	 Toxic Substances 

OAR 340-041-0033
I – 1169

Appendix I. Water

Best Management 

Practices for Surface 

Source Water for 

Drinking Water

Input Variables and 

Causal Mechanisms

Water Quality Standards 

and Regulations

Use fire retardant and 

surfactants as a last resort 

in fire suppression activities 

in surface source water 

watersheds.

Toxic Pollutants: 

Direct application of fire retardant 

and surfactants to waterbodies 

above drinking water intakes can 

cause delivery of Nitrate reaching 

concentrations as high as 33 mg/L, 

well above the primary water quality 

standard of 1 mg/L. The main chemical 

of concern in streams 24 hours after a 

retardant drop is un-ionized ammonia 

(NH3) is the principal toxic component 

to aquatic species.

•	 Antidegradation 

OAR 340-041-0004(1)

•	 Statewide Narrative 

OAR 340-041-0007(1) and 

(13)

•	 Toxic Substances 

OAR 340-041-0033

Recreation

See Summary of Water Quality Standards for additional details about the 

standards and regulations that are associated with the best management practices.

Table 277. Best management practices for recreation

Best Management Practices 

for Recreation

Input Variables and 

Causal Mechanisms

Water Quality 

Standards and 

Regulations

All Recreation Facilities

Implement erosion control measures 

on all recreation sites to stabilize 

exposed soils.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Minimize sediment delivery to 

wetlands, floodplains, and waterbodies.

Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Locate new recreational facilities, 

developed and dispersed sites, 

outside of the water influence area or 

100 feet from wetlands, floodplains, 

or waterbodies, whichever is greater. 

Low impact uses, such as hiking 

trails, picnic sites, or water dependant 

facilities (e.g., boat ramps or docks), 

are excluded.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Minimize sediment delivery resulting 

from surface erosion.

•	 Bacteria 

OAR 340-041-0009

•	 Temperature 

OAR 340-041-0028

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Developed Recreation Sites

Sealed vault toilets will be used 

at all developed recreational 

facilities, unless a sewage system 

and drainfield is approved by the 

Department of Environmental Quality.

Bacteria: 

Bacterial pollution from improperly 

constructed sanitation facilities could 

be injurious to the health of humans 

and aquatic organisms.

Bacteria 

OAR 340-041-0009

Construct and maintain refuse 

disposal sites to avoid water 

contamination.

Bacteria: 

Bacteria could enter surface and 

groundwater if garbage is not disposed 

of properly.

Bacteria 

OAR 340-041-0009
I – 1170

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Best Management Practices 

for Recreation

Input Variables and 

Causal Mechanisms

Water Quality 

Standards and 

Regulations

When conducting recreation site 

maintenance, do not cut logs or 

coarse woody debris if any portion 

of that material extends in the active 

stream channel.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Sediment storage, streambank stability, 

and reduction of turbidity.

•	 Antidegradation 

OAR 340-041-

004(1)

•	 Biocriteria 

OAR 340-041-0011

•	 Statewide Narrative 

OAR 340-041-

0007(1) and (13)

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Water Dependent Facilities

Construct boat ramps and approaches 

with hardened surfaces.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Impacts to streambanks, turbidity

Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) Trails

Avoid construction of trails within 

RMAs.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Surface erosion from trail tread to 

streams, floodplains, or wetlands.

Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Use existing hardened stream 

crossings to the extent possible when 

constructing trails through RMAs.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Old roads converted to trails with rock 

surfacing at stream crossings reduce 

sedimentation for OHV trails.

Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

When constructing or maintaining 

trails within Riparian Management 

Areas, do not cut logs or coarse 

woody debris if any portion of that 

material extends into the active 

stream channel. 

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Sediment storage, streambank stability, 

and reduction of turbidity.

•	 Antidegradation 

OAR 340-041-

004(1)

•	 Biocriteria 

OAR 340-041-0011

•	 Statewide Narrative 

OAR 340-041-

0007(1) and (13)

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Prohibit vehicle and off-highway 

vehicle use in streams, ponds, 

wetlands, and other waters.

Coarse Sediment, Fine Sediment, and 

Toxic Pollutants: 

Direct delivery of sediment and/or 

petroleum based fluids from vehicles is 

unnecessary degradation of waters of 

the State.

•	 Toxic substances 

OAR 430-041-0033

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Stream crossings would be designed 

to accommodate active channel width, 

bed load, and fish passage without 

exceeding capacity or diversion for the 

100-year flood event.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Floodwaters exceeding crossing 

capacity, causing overtopping of fills, 

with ensuing headcutting and loss of 

trail fill.

•	 Statewide Narrative 

Criteria Sediment, 

Adverse Deposits 

OAR 340-041-0007

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Construct or maintain trails prior to the 

wet season.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Sediment from trail related run-off.

Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Locate staging areas outside 

riparian management areas. 

Design or upgrade staging areas 

to prevent sediment/pollutant 

delivery to wetlands, floodplains, 

and waterbodies (e.g., rocking or 

hardening)

Coarse Sediment, Fine Sediment, and 

Toxic Pollutants: 

Stop sediment or petroleum products or 

from reaching streams.

•	 Toxic substances 

OAR 430-041-0033

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036
I – 1171

Appendix I. Water

Best Management Practices 

for Recreation

Input Variables and 

Causal Mechanisms

Water Quality 

Standards and 

Regulations

Harden trail approaches to stream 

crossings using materials such as 

geotextile fabric and crushed rock 

aggregate. 

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Sediment from trail related run-off. 

Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Drain dips will be installed on 

approaches to stream crossings and 

reinforced with rock for longevity. 

Drain dips would be placed within 

100 feet of a stream. Large wood 

would be placed on both sides of the 

tread to keep riders on the trail and to 

contain any sediment movement. 

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Sediment from trail related run-off.

Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Do not use pressure treated wood in 

construction of bridges over streams 

where materials are in contact with 

the stream or may leach into the soil 

or water. 

Toxic Pollutants: 

Leaching of chemicals from treated 

wood into adjacent streams.

Toxic substances 

OAR 430-041-0033

During construction, perennial stream 

crossings may require a temporary 

flow diversion structure through the 

work area. (See Roads Section for 

Stream Crossing BMPs) 

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Exposed soils may be vulnerable to 

erosion and sediment deposition into 

streams.

Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Prevent vehicle access to nearby 

wetlands by using suitable barriers. 

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Defining trail route may prevent 

development of new trails into fragile 

areas susceptible to compaction and 

sediment transport to water resources.

Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Where trails intersect road ditches, 

provide hardened crossings. Divert 

water from the trail to keep from 

reaching wetlands, floodplains, and 

waterbodies.

Coarse and Fine Sediment - Exposed 

soils may be vulnerable to erosion, 

resulting in deposition to road ditches 

that could flow into nearby streams.

Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

If trail width is deemed excessive for 

designated use (such as old roads 

converted to trails) one side of the trail 

will be tilled, covered with brush, and 

seeded or planted. 

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Wider trails more prone to erosion and 

sediment delivery to waterbodies.

Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Repair rills and gullies using 

appropriately sized equipment or by 

hand.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Unless tread erosion is maintained 

regularly, erosion escalates and can 

route sediment to waterbodies nearby.

Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Waterbars, drain dips, and lead off 

ditches will be constructed or repaired 

as needed. These features may 

need rock reinforcement to promote 

longevity. Drain dips or lead-off 

features are the preferred design. 

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Drainage features can route run-off 

to stable vegetated land and avoid 

impacts on water quality.

Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Drain dips or lead off ditches will be 

constructed on steeper gradient trails 

and approaches to stream crossings. 

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Drainage features protect steep trails 

from chronic erosion as well as leading 

off surface water before it could reach 

waterbodies.

Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036
I – 1172

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Best Management Practices 

for Recreation

Input Variables and 

Causal Mechanisms

Water Quality 

Standards and 

Regulations

Trails (Hiking)

When constructing or maintaining 

trails within riparian management 

areas, do not cut logs or coarse 

woody debris if any portion of that 

material extends into the active 

stream channel. Use alternative 

passage options, such as earthen 

ramps, small notch steps, or slight trail 

realignments, to facilitate maintenance 

of intact logs. 

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Sediment storage, streambank stability, 

and reduction of turbidity.

•	 Antidegradation 

OAR 340-041-

004(1)

•	 Biocriteria 

OAR 340-041-0011

•	 Statewide Narrative 

OAR 340-041-

0007(1) and (13)

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Trail Closure

Remove existing stream crossings or 

bridges. (See Road Decom. BMPs)

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Unmaintained crossings can fail and 

deliver sediment to streams.

Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Position fill or waste material in a 

location that would avoid direct or 

indirect sediment discharges to 

streams or wetlands. 

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Until vegetation is established, 

or erosion control measures are 

undertaken, waste material is 

vulnerable to erosion.

Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Restored stream banks would be 

planted with native vegetation, straw 

mulched, and planted with water 

tolerant species where appropriate.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Exposed soils are vulnerable to erosion 

in storm events and/or periods of high 

stream flows.

Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Barricade and brush in closed trails 

with nearby vegetation.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Unrestricted access to unmaintained or 

abandoned trails can result in rill and 

gully erosion and sediment delivery to 

waterbodies.

Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Dispersed Recreation

Site camps for permitted group 

overnight camping would be greater 

than 100 feet from surface water.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Soil disturbance close to streams 

can result in sedimentation. Lack of 

developed and maintained sanitation 

facilities poses a risk of fecal coliform 

contamination.

•	 Bacteria 

OAR 340-041-0009

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036
I – 1173

Appendix I. Water

Grazing

See Summary of Water Quality Standards for additional details about the 

standards and regulations that are associated with the best management practices.

Table 278. Best management practices for grazing

Best Management Practices 

for Grazing

Input Variables and 

Causal Mechanisms

Water Quality 

Standards and 

Regulations

Fence water developments, including 

springs and seeps, unless other 

methods are available. Pipe overflow 

away from the developed source area. 

Coarse Sediment, Fine Sediment, 

Bacteria, Dissolved Oxygen, 

Temperature, and Biocriteria: 

Concentrated livestock use near/

within spring, seep areas resulting in 

overgrazing and subsequent loss of 

riparian vegetation, soil erosion, loss 

of shade and increases in summer 

stream water temperature, reduction 

in summer dissolved oxygen, delivery 

of bacteria and nutrients, with potential 

effects upon aquatic communities.

•	 Antidegradation 

OAR 340-04l-0004

•	 Bacteria 

OAR 340-041-0009

•	 Biocriteria 

OAR 340-041-0011

•	 Dissolved Oxygen 

OAR 340-041-0016

•	 Temperature 

OAR 340-041-0028

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Do not locate salting areas within 

1⁄4 mile of permanent water sources or 

riparian management areas.

Coarse Sediment, Fine Sediment, 

Bacteria, Dissolved Oxygen, 

Temperature, and Biocriteria: 

Concentrated livestock use near/

within spring, seep areas resulting in 

overgrazing and subsequent loss of 

riparian vegetation, soil erosion, loss 

of shade and increases in summer 

stream water temperature, reduction 

in summer dissolved oxygen, delivery 

of bacteria and nutrients, with potential 

effects upon aquatic communities

•	 Antidegradation 

OAR 340-04l-0004

•	 Bacteria 

OAR 340-041-0009

•	 Biocriteria 

OAR 340-041-0011

•	 Dissolved Oxygen 

OAR 340-041-0016

•	 Temperature 

OAR 340-041-0028

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

•	 Locate new livestock handling 

or management facilities (corrals, 

pens, or holding pastures) outside 

riparian management areas or 

200 eet from waterbodies and 

on level ground where drainage 

would not enter surface waters. 

•	 If existing livestock handling 

facilities inside riparian 

management areas, do not 

meet water quality through use 

of BMPs, relocate or remove 

such facilities away from riparian 

management areas. 

Coarse Sediment, Fine Sediment, 

Bacteria, Dissolved Oxygen, 

Temperature, and Biocriteria:

Concentrated livestock use near/

within spring, seep areas resulting in 

overgrazing and subsequent loss of 

riparian vegetation, soil erosion, loss 

of shade and increases in summer 

stream water temperature, reduction 

in summer dissolved oxygen, delivery 

of bacteria and nutrients, with potential 

effects upon aquatic communities

•	 Antidegradation 

OAR 340-04l-0004

•	 Bacteria 

OAR 340-041-0009

•	 Biocriteria 

OAR 340-041-0011

•	 Dissolved Oxygen 

OAR 340-041-0016

•	 Temperature 

OAR 340-041-0028

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036
I – 1174

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Best Management Practices 

for Grazing

Input Variables and 

Causal Mechanisms

Water Quality 

Standards and 

Regulations

Apply specific grazing strategies for 

riparian wetland areas, including 

timing, intensity, or exclusion for 

maintenance of proper functioning 

condition. Use one or more of the 

following features: 

•	 Inclusion of the waterbodies, 

floodplains, and wetlands within a 

separate pasture. 

•	 Fence or herd livestock out 

of waterbodies, floodplains, and 

wetlands for as long as necessary 

to allow vegetation to recover.

•	 Control the timing of grazing to 

keep livestock off streambanks 

when they are most vulnerable to 

damage and to coincide with the 

physiological needs of target plant 

species.

•	 Add more rest to the grazing 

cycle to increase plant vigor, allow 

streambanks to revegetate, or 

encourage more desirable plant 

species composition.

•	 Limit grazing intensity to a level 

that will maintain desired species 

composition and vigor.

•	 Permanently exclude livestock 

from those waterbodies, 

floodplains, and wetlands areas 

that are at high risk and have 

poor recovery potential, and when 

there is no practical way to protect 

them while grazing adjacent 

uplands. 

Coarse Sediment, Fine Sediment, 

Bacteria, Dissolved Oxygen, 

Temperature, and Biocriteria: 

Concentrated livestock use near/

within spring, seep areas resulting in 

overgrazing and subsequent loss of 

riparian vegetation, soil erosion, loss 

of shade and increases in summer 

stream water temperature, reduction 

in summer dissolved oxygen, delivery 

of bacteria and nutrients, with potential 

effects upon aquatic communities

•	 Antidegradation 

OAR 340-04l-0004

•	 Bacteria 

OAR 340-041-0009

•	 Biocriteria 

OAR 340-041-0011

•	 Dissolved Oxygen 

OAR 340-041-0016

•	 Temperature 

OAR 340-041-0028

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Recover degraded waterbodies 

through adjustments to forage 

utilization levels, improved livestock 

distribution, and management through 

fencing, vegetation treatments, water 

source developments, or changes in 

season of use or livestock numbers. 

Coarse Sediment, Fine Sediment, 

Bacteria, Dissolved Oxygen, 

Temperature, and Biocriteria: 

Concentrated livestock use near/

within spring, seep areas resulting in 

overgrazing and subsequent loss of 

riparian vegetation, soil erosion, loss 

of shade and increases in summer 

stream water temperature, reduction 

in summer dissolved oxygen, delivery 

of bacteria and nutrients, with potential 

effects upon aquatic communities

•	 Antidegradation 

OAR 340-04l-0004

•	 Bacteria 

OAR 340-041-0009

•	 Biocriteria 

OAR 340-041-0011

•	 Dissolved Oxygen 

OAR 340-041-0016

•	 Temperature 

OAR 340-041-0028

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036
I – 1175

Appendix I. Water

Minerals Exploration and Development

See Summary of Water Quality Standards for additional details about the 

standards and regulations that are associated with the best management practices.

Table 279. Best management practices for minerals exploration and development

Best Management Practices 

for Minerals Exploration and 

Development

Input Variables and 

Causal Mechanisms

Water Quality 

Standards and 

Regulations

All Minerals

Locate, design, operate, and maintain 

settling ponds to contain sediment 

discharges. 

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Sediment could be transported to 

nearby streams from improperly 

designed or overflowing settling ponds.

Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Use existing roads, skid trails, and 

stream crossings.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Potential sedimentation is reduced by 

minimizing new soil disturbance near 

streams.

Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Storm proof all natural surface roads 

and trails when an operation halts 

for the wet season. See Roads and 

Landings section for guidelines.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Bare soil is subject to surface erosion 

and potential sediment delivery to 

adjacent waterbody.

Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Locate and maintain sanitation 

facilities where overflow or discharges 

would not enter surface water. Where 

possible, locate these facilities 

outside of riparian management 

areas.

Bacteria: 

Bacterial pollution from improperly 

constructed sanitation facilities could be 

injurious to the health of humans and 

aquatic organisms.

Bacteria 

OAR 340-041-0009

Locate structures and support 

facilities, including new roads, at 

least 200 feet from water bodies, 

floodplains, and wetlands.

Coarse Sediment, Fine Sediment, and 

Temperature: 

Developed sites can channel water 

and sediment into nearby waterbodies. 

Loss of riparian vegetation due to 

development could reduce shade and 

increase water temperature.

•	 Temperature 

OAR 340-041-0028

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Design, locate, and construct stream 

crossings in conformance with 

practices described in Roads and 

Landings section.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Earthwork near streams can 

expose erodible soils and result in 

sedimentation to streams.

Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

If roads are used during wet seasons 

with potential for sediment delivery 

to stream channels, rock aggregate 

would be used to surface those roads.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Use of native surfaced roads during wet 

weather could result in unnecessary and 

undue degradation of water quality in 

nearby streams.

Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Prior to fall rains, reclaim all roads 

and trails constructed for exploratory 

purposes that are unnecessary for the 

mineral access.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Bare soil is subject to surface erosion 

and potential sediment delivery to 

adjacent waterbody.

Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Retain an undisturbed riparian buffer 

strip between mineral operations 

and water bodies, floodplains, and 

wetlands. 

Coarse Sediment, Fine Sediment, and 

Temperature: 

Protect integrity of streambanks, provide 

for water temperature control and for 

filtration of sediment from surface runoff 

•	 Temperature 

OAR 340-041-0028

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036
I – 1176

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Best Management Practices 

for Minerals Exploration and 

Development

Input Variables and 

Causal Mechanisms

Water Quality 

Standards and 

Regulations

Stockpile available topsoil for use 

during reclamation of the site. 

Stockpiled topsoil would be stabilized 

to prevent erosion and contamination 

of other resources in the area.

Coarse and Fine Sediment:

Bare soil is subject to surface erosion 

and potential sediment delivery to 

adjacent waterbodies.

Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

On access roads to mineral sites 

where no future entry is planned, 

reclaim these access roads. This may 

include tilling, water barring, blocking, 

recontouring, fertilization, planting, 

mulching, and seeding. 

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Soil erosion of exposed surfaces with 

potential transport to the channel, 

floodplain, or wetlands.

Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Reclaim depleted or closed mineral 

sites by stabilizing and contouring 

the mining area. Replace topsoil and 

mulch, seed, and plant.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Bare soil is subject to surface erosion 

and potential sediment delivery to 

adjacent waterbodies.

Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Locate exploratory drill sites next to 

or on existing roads. Install erosion 

control structures to limit sediment 

transport off-site.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Minimize soil disturbance to reduce 

potential for erosion and sediment 

delivery to streams.

Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Protect exposed soils from erosion 

by seeding, mulching, etc when 

constructing wells. 

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Bare soil is subject to surface erosion 

and potential sediment delivery to 

adjacent waterbodies.

Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Locatable Minerals

Comply with seasonal restrictions on 

suction dredging identified in Oregon 

Guidelines for Timing of In-Water 

Work to Protect Fish and Wildlife 

Resources when discharging to 

Oregon’s surface waters.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Suction dredging can deposit fine 

sediment in gravels which is deleterious 

to fish and aquatic life. It can also be 

injurious to public health and recreation.

•	 Biocriteria 

OAR 340-041-0011

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Design new projects to contain 

waste products and prevent leaching 

contaminants from entering surface 

and ground water. 

Toxic Substances: 

Mine generated waste and runoff 

can negatively impact surface or 

groundwater quality and impair aquatic 

habitat.

•	 Biocriteria 

OAR 340-041-0011

•	 Toxic substances 

OAR 430-041-0033

Do not locate toxic mine waste (e.g., 

waste rock, spent ore, or tailings) in 

riparian management areas.

Toxic Substances: 

Mine generated waste and runoff 

can negatively impact surface or 

groundwater quality and impair aquatic 

habitat.

Toxic substances 

OAR 430-041-0033

Reclaim mine waste after operations 

to ensure chemical and physical 

stability according to DOGAMI 

requirements.

Toxic Substances: 

Mine generated waste and runoff 

can negatively impact surface or 

groundwater quality and impair aquatic 

habitat.

•	 Toxic substances 

OAR 430-041-0033

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Stabilize exposed soils by seeding 

and mulching and provide for nonerosive drainage from disturbed areas 

that were constructed or renovated 

for mining activities. 

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Bare soil is subject to surface erosion 

and potential sediment delivery to 

adjacent waterbodies.

Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

When operating during the wet 

season, stabilize disturbed areas that 

will not be mined for at least 30 days. 

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Bare soil is subject to surface erosion 

and potential sediment delivery to 

adjacent waterbodies.

Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036
I – 1177

Appendix I. Water

Best Management Practices 

for Minerals Exploration and 

Development

Input Variables and 

Causal Mechanisms

Water Quality 

Standards and 

Regulations

Prohibit surface occupancy within 

200 feet of streams or other 

waterbodies.

Coarse Sediment, Fine Sediment, 

Temperature, and Bacteria: 

Developed sites can channel water 

and sediment into nearby waterbodies. 

Loss of riparian vegetation due to 

development could reduce shade and 

increase water temperature. Bacterial 

pollution could be injurious to the health 

of humans and aquatic organisms.

•	 Bacteria 

OAR 340-041-0009

•	 Temperature 

OAR 340-041-0028

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Salable Minerals

Locate stockpile sites on stable 

ground where the material would not 

move into waterbodies, floodplains, 

and wetlands.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Placement of soil and rock stockpiles 

on unstable landforms can result in 

landslides with drainage of sedimentladen water to streams.

Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Locate, design, and construct 

salable mineral sites to minimize 

sedimentation to streams. Close 

roads, excavations and crusher 

pads in accordance with Roads and 

Landings section when the salable 

mineral site is depleted.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Bare soil is subject to surface erosion 

and potential sediment delivery to 

adjacent waterbodies. 

Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Do not develop or expand quarries 

within the riparian management area 

or within 200 feet of waterbodies, 

floodplains, and wetlands, whichever 

is greater. 

Coarse Sediment, Fine Sediment, and 

Temperature: 

Developed sites can channel water 

and sediment into nearby waterbodies. 

Loss of riparian vegetation due to 

development could reduce shade 

and increase water temperature. 

Sedimentation in streams from road 

related runoff can impair aquatic habitat.

•	 Biocriteria 

OAR 340-041-0011

•	 Temperature 

OAR 340-041-0028

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Use culverts and rip-rap for crusher 

pad drainage when necessary.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Effective drainage of surface runoff 

prevents sediment delivery to streams.

Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Use erosion-reduction practices, such 

as seeding, mulching, and woody 

debris placement, to limit erosion and 

transport of sediment to streams from 

quarries or other common variety 

mineral sites. Provide drainage 

from stockpiles and salable mineral 

sites that is dispersed over stable 

vegetated areas rather than directly 

into stream channels.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Soil erosion of exposed surfaces with 

potential transport to the channel, 

floodplain, or wetlands.

Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036
I – 1178

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Best Management Practices 

for Minerals Exploration and 

Development

Input Variables and 

Causal Mechanisms

Water Quality 

Standards and 

Regulations

Limit collection of decorative rock to 

outside of riparian management areas 

and floodplains.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Removing rock from the RMA or 

floodplain affects channel structure 

and results in a reduction in energy 

dissipation capability, potentially 

decreasing bank and floodplain stability 

during flood events, releasing stored 

fine sediment, and increasing the 

proportion of fine sediments in streams 

(removing the rocks, leaving the fines). 

Also, removal of large rocks within 

the RMA may necessitate the use of 

ground-based equipment that would 

cause soil disturbance and the potential 

for sediment delivery.

Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Leasable Minerals

Stabilize roads, drill sites, and 

excavation areas to a free draining 

and non eroding condition from 

disturbed areas that are constructed 

or renovated for leasable mineral 

activities (e.g., roads, drill sites, and 

excavation areas). 

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Bare soil is subject to surface erosion 

and potential sediment delivery to 

adjacent waterbodies.

Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

When operating during the wet 

season, stabilize disturbed areas 

that will remain inactive for at least 

30 days.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Bare soil is subject to surface erosion 

and potential sediment delivery to 

adjacent waterbodies.

Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Line all mud pits that contain drilling 

fluid to prevent leaking. 

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Drilling fluid can leak from unlined pits to 

surface and groundwater resources.

•	 Toxic substances 

OAR 430-041-0033

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036

Limit drill site construction and access 

through riparian management areas 

to established roadways unless 

the operator submits a plan that 

demonstrates that impacts to water 

quality from the proposed action can 

be adequately mitigated.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Protect integrity of streambanks, 

provide for water temperature control 

and for filtration of sediment from 

surface runoff. Drilling and equipment 

fluids can negatively impact surface or 

groundwater quality and impair aquatic 

habitat.

•	 Temperature 

OAR 340-041-0028

•	 Toxic substances 

OAR 430-041-0033

•	 Turbidity 

OAR 340-041-0036
I – 1179

Appendix I. Water

Spill Prevention and Abatement

See Summary of Water Quality Standards for additional details about the 

standards and regulations that are associated with the best management practices.

Table 280. Best management practices for spill prevention and abatement

Best Management Practices 

for Spill Prevention and 

Abatement

Input Variables and 

Causal Mechanisms

Water Quality 

Standards and 

Regulations

Heavy Equipment Use

•	 Require inspection and 

cleaning as necessary of heavy 

equipment prior to moving 

onto the project site in order to 

remove oil and grease, noxious 

weeds, and excessive soil.

•	 Ensure that hydraulic fluid and 

fuel lines on heavy-mechanized 

equipment are in proper 

working condition.

•	 Maintain and refuel equipment 

a minimum of 100 feet away 

from streams and other 

waterbodies.

•	 In the event of a spill or 

release, all reasonable and 

safe actions to contain the 

material will be taken. Specific 

actions are dependent on the 

nature of the material spilled. 

•	 Use spill containment booms 

or as required by DEQ. Have 

booms and other absorbent 

containment materials on site 

and ready to deploy. 

•	 Immediately remove waste or 

spilled hazardous materials 

(including but not limited to 

diesel, oil, hydraulic fluid) and 

contaminated soils near any 

stream or other waterbody, 

and dispose of it/them in 

accordance with the applicable 

regulatory standard. Notify 

OERS of any spill over the 

material RQ, and any spill 

not totally cleaned up after 

24 hours

•	 Store equipment containing 

toxic fluids away from streams 

or other waterbodies.

Toxic Substances: 

Contaminants from equipment leaking 

into waterbodies.

•	 Antidegradation 

OAR 340-041-

0004(1)

•	 Biocriteria 

OAR 340-041-0011 

•	 Statewide Narrative 

OAR 340-041-

0007(1) and (13)

•	 Toxic Substances 

OAR 340-041-0033
I – 1180

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Best Management Practices 

for Spill Prevention and 

Abatement

Input Variables and 

Causal Mechanisms

Water Quality 

Standards and 

Regulations

Fuel and Chemical Transport

If more than 42 gallons of fuel or 

combined quantity of petroleum 

product and chemical substances 

would be transported to a project 

site, the following precautions will be 

implemented.

1. Plan a safe route and material 

transfer sites so that all spilled 

material will be contained easily at 

that designated location.

2. Plan an active dispatch system 

that can relay the information to 

appropriate resources.

3. Ensure a spill containment kit that 

can adsorb and contain 55 gallons 

of petroleum product and chemical 

substances is readily available.

4. Provide for immediate notification to 

OERS in the event of a spill. Have 

a radio-equipped vehicle lead the 

chemical or fuel truck to the project 

site.

5. Assemble a spill notification list 

that includes the district hazardous 

materials coordinator, DEQ, and 

spill clean-up contractors. 

6. Construct a downstream water user 

contact list with addresses and 

phone numbers.

7. When operating within Source 

Water watersheds, pre-estimate 

water flow travel times through the 

watershed to predict downstream 

arrival times.

8. Be prepared to sample water and 

carry sample containers. 

9. Be prepared to assist OSP and 

ODFW assess wildlife impacts of 

any material spilled.

Toxic Substances: 

Chemical contamination of 

waterbodies. 

•	 Antidegradation 

OAR 340-041-

0004(1)

•	 Biocriteria 

OAR 340-041-0011 

•	 Statewide Narrative 

OAR 340-041-

0007(1) and (13)

•	 Toxic Substances 

OAR 340-041-0033

Spill Abatement

Spill Prevention, Control, and 

Countermeasure Plan (SPCC): All 

operators shall develop a modified 

SPCC plan prior to initiating project 

work if there is a potential risk of 

chemical or petroleum spills near 

water bodies. The SPCC plan will 

include the appropriate containers to 

be used and design of the material 

transfer locations. No interim fuel 

depot or storage location other than a 

manned transport vehicle.

Toxic Substances: 

Chemical or petroleum product routing 

to water bodies.

[40 CFR 112]

42 U.S. Gallons for 

reportable quantities not 

involving waterways, 

a visible sheen where 

waterways are involved
I – 1181

Appendix I. Water

Best Management Practices 

for Spill Prevention and 

Abatement

Input Variables and 

Causal Mechanisms

Water Quality 

Standards and 

Regulations

Spill Containment Kit (SCK): All 

operators shall have a SCK as 

described in the SPCC plan on-site 

during any operation with potential for 

run-off to adjacent water bodies. The 

SCK will be appropriate in size and 

type for the oil or hazardous material 

carried by the operator.

Toxic Substances: 

Chemical or petroleum product routing 

to water bodies.

OAR-340-142-[0030] 

Operators shall be responsible for 

the clean-up, removal, and proper 

disposal of contaminated materials 

from the site.

Toxic Substances: 

Chemical or petroleum product routing 

to water bodies.

•	 OAR-340-102-

[inclusive]

•	 OAR-340-122-

[inclusive]

Restoration

See Summary of Water Quality Standards for additional details about the 

standards and regulations that are associated with the best management practices.

Table 281. Best management practices for restoration

Best Management Practices 

for Restoration

Input Variables and 

Causal Mechanisms

Water Quality 

Standards and 

Regulations

Confine work in the stream channels 

to the low flow period.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Concentrated turbidity and 

sedimentation potential due to channel 

disturbance during low flow conditions.

•	 Accumulation of 

bottom deposits 

OAR-340-041-0007

•	 Turbidity 

OAR-340-041-0036

In stream channels that are sensitive 

to disturbance (e.g., meadow 

streams), do not drive heavy 

equipment in flowing channels and 

floodplains. 

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Disturbance of stream channel and 

streambanks resulting in erosion, 

sedimentation, turbidity, and loss of 

channel stability.

•	 Accumulation of 

bottom deposits 

OAR-340-041-0007

•	 Turbidity 

OAR-340-041-0036

In well armored channels that are 

resistant to damage (e.g., bedrock, 

small boulder, or cobble dominated), 

consider conducting the majority of 

heavy-equipment work from within 

the channel to minimize damage to 

sensitive riparian areas. 

Coarse Sediment, Fine Sediment, and 

Temperature: 

Disturbance of floodplain and 

streambanks resulting in erosion, 

sedimentation, turbidity, and loss of 

stream shade.

•	 Turbidity 

OAR-340-041-0036

•	 Water Temperature 

OAR-340-041-0028

Design access routes for individual 

work sites to reduce exposure of 

bare soil and extensive streambank 

shaping. 

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Soil erosion with potential transport to 

the channel and floodplain.

Turbidity 

OAR-340-041-0036

Confine heavy-equipment use in the 

streambed to the area necessary by 

working from the bank or a temporary 

structure for installation of structure to 

avoid flowing water. 

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Excess disturbance of streambed 

and banks resulting in erosion, 

sedimentation and turbidity.

Turbidity 

OAR-340-041-0036

Limit the number and length of 

equipment access points through 

riparian management areas.

Coarse Sediment, Fine Sediment, and 

Temperature: 

Disturbance of floodplain and 

streambanks resulting in erosion, 

sedimentation, turbidity, and loss of 

stream shade.

•	 Turbidity 

•	 OAR-340-041-0036

•	 Water Temperature 

OAR-340-041-0028
I – 1182

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Best Management Practices 

for Restoration

Input Variables and 

Causal Mechanisms

Water Quality 

Standards and 

Regulations

Limit the amount of streambank 

excavation to the minimum necessary 

to ensure stability of enhancement 

structures. Provide isolation from 

flowing water during excavation. Place 

excavated material above the flood 

prone area and cover or place a berm 

to avoid its reentry into the stream 

during high flow events. 

 

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Sedimentation during high flow events 

resulting in erosion, sedimentation and 

turbidity.

•	 Accumulation of 

bottom deposits 

OAR-340-041-0007

•	 Turbidity 

OAR-340-041-0036

Obtain logs for habitat restoration 

structures from outside the riparian 

management area or at least 100 feet 

from the stream channel. 

Temperature: 

Removal of stream shade and future 

source of large woody material, loss of 

root stability on stream banks.

Water Temperature 

OAR-340-041-0028

Inspect all mechanized equipment 

daily for leaks and clean as necessary 

to help ensure that toxic materials, 

such as fuel and hydraulic fluid, do not 

enter the stream.

Oil, Gas, and Chemical Fluids: 

Direct entry of oil and gas into 

waterbody

Statewide Narrative 

Criteria Oil and Floating 

Solids 

OAR 340-041-0007

Equipment will not be stored in stream 

channels when not in use.

Oil, Gas, and Chemical Fluids: 

Direct entry of oil and gas into 

waterbody 

Statewide Narrative 

Criteria Oil and Floating 

Solids 

OAR 340-041-0007

When using heavy equipment in 

or adjacent to stream channels 

during restoration activities, develop 

and implement an approved spill 

containment plan that includes having 

a spill containment kit on-site and 

at previously identified containment 

locations. 

Oil, Gas, and Chemical Fluids: 

Direct entry of oil and gas into 

waterbody 

Statewide Narrative 

Criteria Oil and Floating 

Solids 

OAR 340-041-0007

Refuel equipment, including 

chainsaws and other hand power 

tools, at least 100 feet from water 

bodies (or as far as possible from the 

water body where local site conditions 

do not allow a 150-foot setback) to 

prevent direct delivery of contaminants 

into a water body.

Oil, Gas, and Chemical Fluids: 

Direct entry of oil and gas into 

waterbody 

Statewide Narrative 

Criteria Oil and Floating 

Solids 

OAR 340-041-0007

Use waterbars, barricades, seeding, 

and mulching to stabilize bare soil 

areas along project access routes 

prior to the wet season.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Excessive turbidity and sedimentation 

to downstream areas due to erosion of 

disturbed soils.

Turbidity 

OAR-340-041-0036

Rehabilitate and stabilize disturbed 

areas where soil will support seed 

growth by seeding and planting with 

native seed mixes or plants, or using 

erosion control matting.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Excessive turbidity and sedimentation 

to downstream areas due to erosion of 

disturbed soils.

Turbidity 

OAR-340-041-0036

When replacing culverts, install grade 

control structures (e.g., boulder vortex 

weirs or boulder step weirs). 

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Excessive turbidity and sedimentation 

to downstream areas due to erosion of 

upstream sand/gravel/cobble deposits.

•	 Accumulation of 

bottom deposits 

OAR-340-041-0007

•	 Turbidity 

OAR-340-041-0036
I – 1183

Appendix I. Water

Best Management Practices 

for Restoration

Input Variables and 

Causal Mechanisms

Water Quality 

Standards and 

Regulations

Rehabilitate headcuts and gullies. Coarse and Fine Sediment:

Excessive turbidity and sedimentation 

to downstream areas due to erosion of 

upstream sand/gravel/cobble deposits. 

•	 Accumulation of 

bottom deposits 

OAR-340-041-0007

•	 Turbidity 

OAR-340-041-0036

Install turbidity control structures (e.g., 

isolation, diversioin, or silt curtains) 

immediately downstream of in-stream 

restoration work areas. Remove these 

structures following completion of 

turbidity generating activities.

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Excessive turbidity to downstream 

areas generated during instream 

structure placement.

Turbidity 

OAR-340-041-0036

Klamath Falls:

During restoration projects involving 

juniper control or prescribed burns, 

design projects so that adequate soil 

cover remains (either by leaving cut 

trees in place for many years or by 

lopping and scattering branches); 

and adequate herbaceous seed 

source or seed bed is available (either 

naturally or through seeding), and 

ensure that subsequent management 

of the site addresses other limiting 

factors caused by management (e.g., 

livestock use or recreation). 

Coarse and Fine Sediment: 

Soil erosion with potential transport to 

the channel and floodplain.

Turbidity 

OAR-340-041-0036
I – 1184

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Summary of Oregon Water Quality Standards

This section summarizes the Oregon standards and regulations for water quality that are 

associated with the best management practices. 

Statewide Narrative Criteria

The following are the Oregon administrative rules (OARs) for the statewide 

narrative criteria for water quality by name, number, and descriptive excerpt.

•	 Antidegradation (OAR 340-04l-0004) 

“The purpose of the Antidegradation Policy is to guide decisions that 

affect water quality such that unnecessary further degradation from new 

or increased point and nonpoint sources of pollution is prevented, and to 

protect, maintain, and enhance existing surface water quality to ensure 

the full protection of all existing beneficial uses.” 

Note: The antidegradation policy applies to all 303(d) listed waterbodies when 

a project could further degrade the water quality.

•	 Statewide Narrative Criteria Biological Criteria 

(OAR 340-041-0007) 

“(11) The development of fungi or other growths having a deleterious 

effect on stream bottoms, fish or other aquatic life, or that are injurious to 

health, recreation, or industry may not be allowed.” 

•	 Statewide Narrative Criteria Oil and Floating Solids 

(OAR 340-041-0007) 

“(14) Objectionable discoloration, scum, oily sheens, or floating solids, 

or coating of aquatic life with oil films may not be allowed.” 

•	 Statewide Narrative Criteria Road Building Waste Materials 

(OAR 340-041-0007) 

“(9) Road building and maintenance activities must be conducted in a 

manner so as to keep waste materials out of public waters and minimize 

erosion of cut banks, fills, and road surfaces.” 

•	 Statewide Narrative Criteria Sediment, Adverse Deposits 

(OAR 340-041-0007) 

“(13) The formation of appreciable bottom or sludge deposits or the 

formation of any organic or inorganic deposits deleterious to fish or other 

aquatic life or injurious to public health, recreation, or industry may not 

be allowed.” 
I – 1185

Appendix I. Water

•	 Statewide Narrative Criteria Summary (OAR 340-041-0007) 

“(1) Notwithstanding the water quality standards contained in this 

Division, the highest and best practicable treatment and/or control of 

wastes, activities, and flows must in every case 

be provided so as to maintain dissolved oxygen 

and overall water quality at the highest possible 

levels and water temperatures, coliform bacteria 

concentrations, dissolved chemical substances, 

toxic materials, radioactivity, turbidities, color, 

odor, and other deleterious factors at the lowest 

possible levels.” 

•	 Statewide Narrative Criteria Toxics (OAR 

340-041-0007) 

“(12) The creation of tastes or odors or toxic or other conditions that are 

deleterious to fish or other aquatic life or affect the potability of drinking 

water or the palatability of fish or shellfish may not be allowed.” 

Statewide Numeric Criteria

The following are the Oregon administrative rules (OARs) for the statewide 

numeric criteria for water quality by name, number, and descriptive excerpt.

•	 Bacteria (OAR 340-041-0009) 

“(1) Numeric Criteria: Organisms of the coliform group commonly 

associated with fecal sources (MPN) or equivalent membrane filtration 

using a representative number of samples) may not exceed the criteria 

described in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this paragraph:

(a) Freshwaters and Estuarine Waters Other than Shellfish Growing Waters:

(A) A 30-day log mean of 126 E. coli organisms per 100 milliliters, based 

on a minimum of five (5) samples;

(B) No single sample may exceed 406 E. coli organisms per 

100 milliliters.”

•	 Biocriteria (OAR 340-041-0011) 

“Waters of the State must be of sufficient quality to support aquatic 

species without detrimental changes in the resident biological 

communities.” 

•	 Dissolved Oxygen (OAR 340-041-0016) 

“Dissolved oxygen (DO): No wastes may be discharged and no activities 

must be conducted that either alone or in combination with other wastes 

or activities will cause violation of the following standards: The changes 

adopted by the Commission on January 11, 1996, become effective 

July 1, 1996. Until that time, the requirements of this rule that were in 

effect on January 10, 1996, apply: 

(1) For waterbodies identified as active spawning areas in the places and 

Oregon Water Quality

For information about Oregon’s 

water quality standards and 

a complete list of Oregon’s 

administrative rules (OARs) for 

water quality, see http://www.

deq.state.or.us/regulations/

rules.htm. and http://www.

deq.state.or.us/wq/standards/

stanards.htm. 
I – 1186

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

times indicated on the following Tables and Figures set out in OAR 340-

041-0101 to 340-041-0340: Tables 101B, 121B, 180B, 201B and 260B, 

and Figures 130B, 151B, 160B, 170B, 220B, 230B, 271B, 286B, 300B, 

310B, 320B, and 340B, (as well as any active spawning area used by 

resident trout species), the Rules of this Division as last modified by the 

EQC 05/20/2004 following criteria apply during the applicable spawning 

through fry emergence periods set forth in the tables and figures:

(a) The dissolved oxygen may not be less than 11.0 mg/l. However, if the 

minimum intergravel dissolved oxygen, measured as a spatial median, is 

8.0 mg/l or greater, then the DO criterion is 9.0 mg/l; 

(b) Where conditions of barometric pressure, altitude, and temperature 

preclude attainment of the 11.0 mg/l or 9.0 mg/l criteria, dissolved 

oxygen levels must not be less than 95 percent of saturation;

(c) The spatial median intergravel dissolved oxygen concentration must 

not fall below 8.0 mg/l.

(2) For waterbodies identified by the Department as providing cold-water 

aquatic life, the dissolved oxygen may not be less than 8.0 mg/l as an 

absolute minimum. Where conditions of barometric pressure, altitude, 

and temperature preclude attainment of the 8.0 mg/l, dissolved oxygen 

may not be less than 90 percent of saturation. At the discretion of the 

Department, when the Department determines that adequate information 

exists, the dissolved oxygen may not fall below 8.0 mg/l as a 30-day 

mean minimum, 6.5 mg/l as a seven-day minimum mean, and may not 

fall below 6.0 mg/l as an absolute minimum (Table 21);

(3) For waterbodies identified by the Department as providing coolwater aquatic life, the dissolved oxygen may not be less than 6.5 mg/l 

as an absolute minimum. At the discretion of the Department, when the 

Department determines that adequate information exists, the dissolved 

oxygen may not fall below 6.5 mg/l as a 30-day mean minimum, 

5.0 mg/l as a seven-day minimum mean, and may not fall below 4.0 mg/l 

as an absolute minimum (Table 21);

(4) For waterbodies identified by the Department as providing warmwater aquatic life, the dissolved oxygen may not be less than 5.5 mg/l 

as an absolute minimum. At the discretion of the Department, when the 

Department determines that adequate information exists, the dissolved 

oxygen may not fall below 5.5 mg/l as a 30-day mean minimum, and 

may not fall below 4.0 mg/l as an absolute minimum (Table 21);

(5) For estuarine water, the dissolved oxygen concentrations may not be 

less than 6.5 mg/l (for coastal waterbodies).” 
I – 1187

Appendix I. Water

•	 Temperature (OAR 340-041-0028) 

“A. The seven-day-average maximum temperature of a stream 

identified as having salmon and steelhead spawning use may not 

exceed 55.4 degrees Fahrenheit. B. The seven-day-average maximum 

temperature of a stream identified as having core cold water habitat use 

may not exceed 60.8 degrees Fahrenheit. C. The seven-day-average 

maximum temperature of a stream identified as having salmon 

and trout rearing and migration use may not exceed 64.4 degrees 

Fahrenheit. D. The seven-day-average maximum temperature of a 

stream identified as having a migration corridor use may not exceed 

68.0 degrees Fahrenheit.” 

•	 Turbidity (OAR 340-041-0036) 

“No more than a ten percent cumulative increase in natural stream 

turbidities may be allowed, as measured relative to a control point 

immediately upstream of the turbidity causing activity.”
I – 1188

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs
Appendix J. Recreation

This appendix provides supplemental material for the recreational topics discussed in this draft 

environmental impact statement.

In this appendix:

Interim Off-highway Vehicle Management Guidelines ................................................1191

Planning Frameworks for Special Management Areas ...................................................1208

J – 1189
J – 1190

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs
J – 1191

Appendix J. Recreation

Interim Off-highway Vehicle 

Management Guidelines

This section provides interim off-highway vehicle (OHV) management guidelines that would be 

implemented until subsequent transportation management plans are completed. These interim 

guidelines have been developed at the district level, for OHV emphasis areas, and for the Heceta 

Dunes ACEC on the Eugene District. These guidelines are presented in the order of Salem, 

Eugene, Roseburg, Coos Bay, Medford (the five western Oregon BLM districts), and Klamath 

Falls (one of the resource areas of the Lakeview District). 

Maps associated with these interim OHV management guidelines are available at BLM district 

offices. These maps show OHV area designations, a preliminary road and trail network, and BLM 

lands that have secured legal public access. See Chapter 2 for a listing of individual closed areas 

and OHV emphasis areas by district.

BLM road maintenance levels that pertain to limitations on types of OHV use are described below.

Level 1 – This level is assigned to roads where minimum maintenance is required to protect 

adjacent lands and resource values. Emphasis is given to maintaining drainage and runoff patterns 

as needed to protect adjacent lands. Grading, brushing, or slide removal is not performed unless 

roadbed drainage is being adversely affected, causing erosion. Closure and traffic restrictive 

devices are maintained as needed.

Level 2 – This level is assigned to roads that are passable by high clearance vehicles. Drainage 

structures are to be inspected within a 3-year period and maintained as needed. Grading is 

conducted as necessary to correct drainage problems. Brushing is conducted as needed to allow 

access. These are typically low standard, low volume, single lane, natural and aggregate surfaced, 

and are functionally classified as a resource road.

Level 3 – This level is assigned to roads where management objectives require the road to be 

open seasonally or year-round for commercial, recreational, or administrative access. Typically, 

these roads are natural or aggregate surfaced, but may include low use bituminous surfaced 

road. These roads have a defined cross section with drainage structures (e.g., rolling dips, 

culverts, or ditches). These roads may be negotiated by passenger cars traveling at prudent 

speeds. User comfort and convenience are not considered a high priority. Drainage structures 

are to be inspected at least annually and maintained as needed. Grading is conducted to provide 

a reasonable level of riding comfort at prudent speeds for the road conditions. Brushing is 

conducted as needed to improve sight distance. 

Level 4 – This level is assigned to roads where management objectives require the road to be 

open all year (except may be closed or have limited access due to snow conditions) and which 

connect major administrative features (recreational sites, local road systems, administrative 

sites, etc.) to County, State, or Federal roads. Typically these roads are single or double lane, 

aggregate, or bituminous surface, with a higher volume of commercial and recreational traffic 

than administrative traffic.
J – 1192

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Salem District

OHV Designations:

Limited to designated roads and trails: 291,969 acres

Limited to designated roads: 85,165 acres

Closed: 26,208 acres

Description: 

Includes all BLM lands located within the Salem District. See additional interim 

guidelines for the Upper Nestucca OHV Emphasis Area.

Limited Area Management Guidelines: 

•	 Limited OHV areas are managed in accordance with all applicable federal and 

state off-highway vehicle regulations.

•	 Motor vehicle use will be limited to administrative, commercial, and passenger 

vehicle traffic where not specifically signed or gated. 

•	 Until road and trail designations are complete, all motorized vehicles will be 

limited to the interim road and trail network as mapped unless closed or restricted 

under a previous planning effort or due to special circumstances as defined below.

•	 Routes may be closed or their use limited under seasonal or administrative 

restrictions. These restrictions may include, but are not limited to, fire danger, 

wet conditions, special requirements for wildlife species, protection of cultural 

resources, or for public safety.

•	 Vehicles may pull off roads or trails to park or allow others to pass, up to 25 feet 

from centerline of roads or up to 15 feet from centerline of trails.

•	 Limitations apply to all Class I (ATVs), Class II (4WDs) and Class III 

(motorcycles) vehicles and to all activity types (recreational, commercial, etc.) 

unless authorized by the BLM for administrative purposes.

Closed Area Management Guidelines: 

•	 All motorized vehicles are prohibited from entering closed OHV areas unless 

authorized by the BLM for administrative purposes.

Process for on-going public collaboration/outreach: 

•	 The principle venue for public collaboration is through public outreach and 

scoping during future travel management planning efforts, special projects, and 

local partnership. 
J – 1193

Appendix J. Recreation

•	 Press releases will be sent out as needed informing the public of OHV 

opportunities and restrictions. Signs will be posted where appropriate.

•	 Upon completion of the transportation management plan, maps and brochures 

shall be available to the public at the main office illustrating designations, 

describing specific restrictions, and defining opportunities.

Process for selecting a final road and trail network: 

Route designations have been completed for the Upper Nestucca OHV 

Emphasis Area. Final route designations for the rest of the district will be 

accomplished in a comprehensive, interdisciplinary travel and transportation 

management plan scheduled to be complete no later than five years after 

completion of the RMP revision. 

BLM’s geo-database will provide information for identifying roads and trails for 

both motorized and non-motorized activities. On-the-ground inventories will be 

conducted if a reasonable determination can not be made using remote-sensing 

techniques. Proposed designations will be analyzed through public scoping and a 

NEPA analysis. Amendments to the designated system will be considered during 

the transportation management planning process.

Road and trail construction and maintenance standards: 

Construction and maintenance will be done in accordance with the standards in 

BLM Manual H-9114-1 and other professional sources. 

Upper Nestucca OHV Emphasis Area

Acres: 9,579

OHV Designation: 

Limited to designated roads and trails

Niche: Located 20 miles northwest of McMinnville, Oregon, this area provides 

Class I (ATVs) and Class III (motorcycles) OHV riding experience along a 

designated road and trail network. 

Management Guidelines:

•	 Designated trails and maintained roadways are limited to Class I and Class III 

motor vehicle use within the boundaries of the OHV emphasis area.
J – 1194

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

•	 All Class I and Class III vehicles must be equipped with approved spark 

arresters, an Oregon ATV sticker for the appropriate vehicle class, and must meet 

posted noise requirements.

•	 Class II vehicle use is only authorized on Level 3 and Level 4 roadways.

•	 Motorized use on the trail system may be restricted during summer months due 

to fire hazard conditions.

•	 Areas and trails may be permanently or temporarily closed for administrative 

use, extreme wet conditions, construction/reconstruction requirements, or other 

environmental concerns.

Process for on-going public collaboration/outreach:

The principle venue for public collaboration on the trail system is through local 

partnership with the Applegate Rough Riders Motorcycle Club. A trail map is 

available to the public at the Salem District Office and Tillamook Field Office. 

The trail system is marked on the ground with regulatory and directional signage.

Process for selecting a final road and trail network:

Route designations have been completed through the Upper Nestucca Motorcycle 

Trail System Environmental Assessment (EA OR 086-97-05). Adaptive 

management is used to adjust the system for timber management, user needs, and 

resource protection.

Road and trail construction and maintenance standards: 

Construction and maintenance are completed in accordance with the design 

features identified in the Monitoring and Maintenance Plan for the Upper 

Nestucca OHV Trail System. Trail maintenance will be a priority within this 

OHV emphasis area to ensure a quality riding experience for trail users and to 

conserve natural resource values.

Eugene District

OHV Designations:

Limited to designated roads and trails: 308,595 acres

Closed: 5,187 acres
J – 1195

Appendix J. Recreation

Description: 

Includes all BLM lands located within the Eugene District. See additional interim 

guidelines for the Shotgun Creek OHV Emphasis Area and the Heceta Dunes 

Area of Critical Environmental Concern.

Limited Area Management Guidelines: 

•	 Limited OHV areas are managed in accordance with all applicable federal and 

state off-highway vehicle regulations.

•	 Motor vehicle use will be limited to administrative, commercial, and passenger 

vehicle traffic where not specifically signed or gated. 

•	 Until road and trail designations are complete, all motorized vehicles will be 

limited to the interim road and trail network as mapped unless closed or restricted 

under a previous planning effort or due to special circumstances as defined below.

•	 Routes may be closed or limited under seasonal or administrative restrictions. 

These restrictions may include, but are not limited to, fire danger, wet conditions, 

special requirements for wildlife species, to protect cultural resources, or for 

public safety.

•	 Vehicles may pull off roads or trails to park or allow others to pass, up to 25 feet 

from centerline of roads or up to 15 feet from centerline of trails.

•	 Limitations apply to all Class I (ATVs), Class II (4WDs) and Class III 

(motorcycles) vehicles and to all activity types (recreational, commercial, etc.) 

unless authorized by the BLM for administrative purposes.

Closed Area Management Guidelines: 

•	 All motorized vehicles are prohibited from entering closed OHV areas unless 

authorized by the BLM for administrative purposes.

Process for on-going public collaboration/outreach: 

• The principle venue for public collaboration is through public outreach and 

scoping during future travel management planning efforts, special projects, and 

local partnership. 

• Press releases will be sent out as needed informing the public of OHV

opportunities and restrictions. Signs will be posted where appropriate.

• Upon completion of the transportation management plan, maps and brochures 

shall be available to the public at the main office illustrating designations, 

describing specific restrictions, and defining opportunities.
J – 1196

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Process for selecting a final road and trail network: 

Route designations have been completed for the Upper Lake Creek Special 

Recreation Management Area and the Shotgun Creek OHV Emphasis Area. 

Final route designations for the rest of the district will be accomplished in a 

comprehensive, interdisciplinary travel and transportation management plan 

scheduled to be complete no later than five years after completion of the 

RMP revision. 

BLM’s geo-database will provide information for identifying roads and trails for 

both motorized and non-motorized activities. On-the-ground inventories will be 

conducted if a reasonable determination can not be made using remote-sensing 

techniques. Proposed designations will be analyzed through public scoping and a 

NEPA analysis. Amendments to the designated system will be considered during 

the transportation management planning process.

Road and trail construction and maintenance standards: 

Construction and maintenance will be done in accordance with the standards in 

BLM Manual H-9114-1 and other professional sources.

Shotgun Creek OHV Emphasis Area

Acres: 8,090

OHV Designation: 

Limited to designated roads and trails

Niche: Offers a multiple-use, single-track trail riding experience for motorcycle 

riders, ATV riders, and four-wheel drive enthusiasts.

Management Guidelines:

•	 The trail system is available to Class I (ATVs), Class II (4WDs) and Class III 

(motorcycles) motorized vehicles with Oregon ATV permits.

•	 Routes open to OHV use will be signed and mapped.

•	 Routes available for OHV use may change periodically due to timber harvest 

activity or trail rehabilitation.

Process for on-going public collaboration/outreach: 

The principle venue for public collaboration on the trail system is through local 

partnership relationships with the Emerald Trail Riders Association, the Junction 
J – 1197

Appendix J. Recreation

City Jeepers, and other user groups. A trail map is available to the public at the 

Eugene District Office and will be updated as trail routes change. The trail system 

is marked on the ground with regulatory and directional signs.

Process for selecting a final road and trail network: 

Route designations were completed through two Shotgun OHV Trail System 

Environmental Assessments (EA OR 090-00-04 and EA OR 090-06-04). 

Adaptive management will be used to adjust the system for approved timber 

harvesting, user needs, and resource protection. These modifications will be 

accomplished in collaboration with trail partners and users.

Road and trail construction and maintenance standards: 

Trail maintenance will be a priority within this OHV emphasis area to ensure 

quality riding experiences for trail users and to conserve natural resource values.

Heceta Dunes Area of Critical Environmental 

Concern

Acres: 200

OHV Designation: 

Open: 77 acres 

Closed: 133 acres

Niche: Offers an open sand dune riding experience for OHV riders within a 

portion of the ACEC.

Management Guidelines:

•	 OHV use is limited to an open sand dune areas and connector routes between 

open dunes, as mapped. All other portions of the ACEC are closed to OHV use.

•	 Supplemental rules regulating other activities, such as camping, may be 

established in coordination with the USFS.

Process for on-going public collaboration/outreach: 

Signs will be installed and maps made available to the public that clearly 

delineate the open OHV area. BLM shall coordinate outreach efforts with the 

U.S. Forest Service.
J – 1198

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Process for selecting a final road and trail network: 

The area open to OHV use will be delineated to avoid rare plant habitats and 

private land. The “open” area delineation will be coordinated with the adjacent 

open area on U.S. Forest Service lands.

Roseburg District

OHV Designations:

Limited to designated roads and trails: 415,658 acres

Closed: 10,643 acres

Description: 

Includes all BLM lands located within the Roseburg District. See additional 

interim guidelines for the Hubbard Creek OHV Emphasis Area.

Limited Area Management Guidelines: 

•	 Limited OHV areas are managed in accordance with all applicable federal and 

state off-highway vehicle regulations.

•	 Motor vehicle use will be limited to administrative, commercial, and passenger 

vehicle traffic where not specifically signed or gated. 

•	 Until road and trail designations are complete, all motorized vehicles will 

be limited to the interim road and trail network as mapped unless closed or 

restricted under a previous planning effort or due to special circumstances as 

defined below.

•	 Routes may be closed or limited under seasonal or administrative restrictions. 

These restrictions may include, but are not limited to, fire danger, wet conditions, 

special requirements for wildlife species, to protect cultural resources, or for 

public safety.

•	 Vehicles may pull off roads or trails to park or allow others to pass, up to 25 feet 

from centerline of roads or up to 15 feet from centerline of trails.

•	 Limitations apply to all Class I (ATVs), Class II (4WDs) and Class III 

(motorcycles) vehicle use and to all activity types (recreational, commercial, etc.) 

unless authorized by the BLM for administrative purposes.
J – 1199

Appendix J. Recreation

Closed Area Management Guidelines: 

•	 All motorized vehicles are prohibited from entering closed OHV areas unless 

authorized by the BLM for administrative purposes.

Process for on-going public collaboration/outreach: 

•	 The principle venue for public collaboration is through public outreach and 

scoping during future travel management planning efforts, special projects, and 

local partnership. 

•	 Press releases will be sent out as needed informing the public of OHV 

opportunities and restrictions. Signs will be posted where appropriate.

•	 Upon completion of the transportation management plan, maps and brochures 

shall be available to the public at the Roseburg District office illustrating 

designations, describing specific restrictions, and defining opportunities.

Process for selecting a final road and trail network: 

Final route designations for the district will be accomplished in a comprehensive, 

interdisciplinary travel and transportation management plan scheduled to be 

complete no later than five years after completion of the RMP revision. 

BLM’s geo-database will provide information for identifying roads and trails for 

both motorized and non-motorized activities. On-the-ground inventories will be 

conducted if a reasonable determination can not be made using remote-sensing 

techniques. Proposed designations will be analyzed through public scoping and a 

NEPA analysis. Amendments to the designated system will be considered during 

the transportation management planning process.

Road and trail construction and maintenance standards:

Construction and maintenance will be done in accordance with the standards in 

BLM Manual H-9114-1 and other professional sources.

Hubbard Creek OHV Emphasis Area

Acres: 12,041

OHV Designation: 

Limited to designated roads and trails

Niche: Offers a multiple-use trail riding experience for motorcycles, ATVs, and 

4X4 vehicles.
J – 1200

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Management Guidelines:

•	 Paved roads are limited to licensed, street-legal vehicles only.

•	 Level 1and 2 routes are open to Class I (ATVs), Class II (4X4s) and Class III 

(motorcycles) vehicles according to width. Trails under 50 inches wide are 

restricted to Class I and Class III vehicles. 

•	 ATVs and motorcycles must have Oregon ATV permits.

•	 Non-motorized travel (horseback riding, hiking, and mountain biking) is 

allowed on all access routes, but is not encouraged due to potential conflicts 

and safety hazards.

•	 Motorized use on the trail system may be restricted during the summer due to fire 

hazard conditions, as determined by Douglas Forest Protective Association.

Process for on-going public collaboration/outreach: 

The principle venue for public collaboration on the trail system is through 

partnerships with the local motorcycle and 4X4 associations.

Process for selecting a final road and trail network:

No route designations were made in the previous planning effort since it was 

designated as limited to existing roads and trails. After completion the RMP 

revision, a road and trail inventory and designation process for the area will 

be developed.

Road and trail construction and maintenance standards: 

Trail maintenance will be a priority within this OHV emphasis area to ensure 

a quality riding experience for trail users, to minimize user conflicts, promote 

safety for users, and conserve resource values.

Coos Bay District

OHV Designations:

Limited to designated roads and trails: 318,674 acres

Closed: 3,489 acres

Description: 

Includes all BLM lands located within the Coos Bay District. See additional 

interim guidelines for the Blue Ridge OHV Emphasis Area. 
J – 1201

Appendix J. Recreation

Limited Area Management Guidelines: 

•	 Limited OHV areas are managed in accordance with all applicable federal and 

state off-highway vehicle regulations.

•	 Motor vehicle use will be limited to administrative, commercial, and passenger 

vehicle traffic where not specifically signed or gated. 

•	 Until road and trail designations are complete, all motorized vehicles will be 

limited to the interim road and trail network as mapped unless closed or restricted 

under a previous planning effort or due to special circumstances as defined below.

•	 Routes may be closed or limited under seasonal or administrative restrictions. 

These restrictions may include, but are not limited to, fire danger, wet conditions, 

special requirements for wildlife species, to protect cultural resources, or for 

public safety.

•	 Vehicles may pull off roads or trails to park or allow others to pass, up to 25 feet 

from centerline of roads or up to 15 feet from centerline of trails.

•	 Limitations apply to all Class I (ATVs), Class II (4WDs) and Class III 

(motorcycles) vehicle use and to all activity types (recreational, commercial, etc.) 

unless authorized by the BLM for administrative purposes.

Closed Area Management Guidelines: 

•	 All motorized vehicles are prohibited from entering closed OHV areas unless 

authorized by the BLM for administrative purposes.

Process for on-going public collaboration/outreach:

•	 The principle venue for public collaboration is through public outreach and 

scoping during future travel management planning efforts, special projects, and 

local partnership. 

•	 Press releases will be sent out as needed informing the public of OHV 

opportunities and restrictions. Signs will be posted where appropriate.

•	 Upon completion of the transportation management plan, maps and brochures 

shall be available to the public at the Coos Bay District office illustrating 

designations, describing specific restrictions, and defining opportunities.

Process for selecting a final road and trail network: 

Route designations have been completed for the New River ACEC and the 

Blue Ridge OHV Emphasis Area. Final route designations for the rest of the 

district will be accomplished in a comprehensive, interdisciplinary travel and 

transportation management plan scheduled to be complete no later than five years 

after completion of the RMP revision. 
J – 1202

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

BLM’s geo-database will provide information for identifying roads and trails for 

both motorized and non-motorized activities. On-the-ground inventories will be 

conducted if a reasonable determination can not be made using remote-sensing 

techniques. Proposed designations will be analyzed through public scoping and a 

NEPA analysis. Amendments to the designated system will be considered during 

the transportation management planning process.

Road and trail construction and maintenance standards: 

Construction and maintenance will be done in accordance with the standards in 

BLM Manual H-9114-1 and other professional sources.

Blue Ridge OHV Emphasis Area

Acres: 1,609

OHV Designation: 

Limited to designated roads and trails

Niche: Offers a multiple-use, single-track trail riding experience for hikers, 

equestrians, mountain bikers, and motorcycle riders. 

Management Guidelines

•	 Level 3 and 4 BLM roads are limited to street-legal vehicles only.

•	 The single-track trail system is available to Class III (motorcycles) vehicles with 

Oregon ATV permits and all non-motorized modes of travel.

•	 Motorized, mechanized, and equestrian use is prohibited between December and 

April to prevent excessive damage to the trail tread when soil moisture conditions 

are high. Motorized use on the trail system may be restricted during summer 

months due to fire hazard conditions.

Process for on-going public collaboration/outreach: 

The principle venue for public collaboration on the trail system is through local 

partnership relationships with the South Coast Trail Riders, Oregon Equestrian Trails, 

and the Coos Regional Trail Partnership. A printed trail map is available to the public 

at the Coos Bay District office and on the Coos Regional Trail Partnership webpage. 

The trail system is marked on the ground with regulatory and directional signage.
J – 1203

Appendix J. Recreation

Process for selecting a final road and trail network: 

Route designations were completed through the Blue Ridge Multiple Use Trail 

System environmental assessment (EA OR-125-98-18). Adaptive management 

will be used to adjust the system for commercial timber production demands, 

user needs and resource protection. These modifications will be accomplished in 

collaboration with trail partners and users and through amendments to the Blue 

Ridge Trail system plan and EA.

Road and trail construction and maintenance standards: 

Construction and maintenance shall be done in accordance with the design 

features identified in the EA and standards in BLM Manual H-9114-1 and other 

professional sources. Trail maintenance will be a priority within this OHV 

emphasis area to ensure a quality riding experience for trail users and to conserve 

natural resource values.

Medford District

OHV Designations:

Limited to designated roads and trails: 825,188 acres

Closed: 42,298 acres

Description: 

Includes all BLM lands located within the Medford District. See additional 

interim guidelines for that apply to all OHV emphasis areas within the district. 

Limited Area Management Guidelines: 

•	 Limited OHV areas are managed in accordance with all applicable federal and 

state off-highway vehicle regulations.

•	 Motor vehicle use will be limited to administrative, commercial, and to passenger 

vehicle traffic where not specifically signed or gated. 

•	 Until road and trail designations are complete, all motorized vehicles will be 

limited to the interim road and trail network as mapped unless closed or restricted 

under a previous planning effort or due to special circumstances as defined below.

•	 Routes may be closed or limited under seasonal or administrative restrictions. 

These restrictions may include, but are not limited to, fire danger, wet conditions, 

special requirements for wildlife species, to protect cultural resources, or for 

public safety.
J – 1204

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

•	 Vehicles may pull off roads or trails to park or allow others to pass, up to 25 feet 

from centerline of roads or up to 15 feet from centerline of trails.

•	 Limitations apply to all Class I (ATVs), Class II (4WDs) and Class III 

(motorcycles) vehicle use and to all activity types (recreational, commercial, etc.) 

unless authorized by the BLM for administrative purposes.

Closed Area Management Guidelines: 

•	 All motorized vehicles are prohibited from entering closed OHV areas unless 

authorized by the BLM for administrative purposes.

Process for on-going public collaboration/outreach:

•	 The principle venue for public collaboration is through public outreach and 

scoping during future travel management planning efforts, special projects, and 

local partnership. 

•	 Press releases will be sent out as needed informing the public of OHV 

opportunities and restrictions. Signs will be posted where appropriate.

•	 Upon completion of the transportation management plan, maps and brochures 

shall be available to the public at the main office illustrating designations, 

describing specific restrictions, and defining opportunities.

Process for selecting a final road and trail network:

Final route designations for the district will be accomplished in a comprehensive, 

interdisciplinary travel and transportation management plan scheduled to be 

complete no later than five years after completion of the RMP revision. 

BLM’s geo-database will provide information for identifying roads and trails for 

both motorized and non-motorized activities. On-the-ground inventories will be 

conducted if a reasonable determination can not be made using remote-sensing 

techniques. Proposed designations will be analyzed through public scoping and a 

NEPA analysis. Amendments to the designated system will be considered during 

the transportation management planning process.

Road and trail construction and maintenance standards: 

Construction and maintenance will be done in accordance with the standards in 

BLM Manual H-9114-1 and other professional sources.
J – 1205

Appendix J. Recreation

Medford District OHV Emphasis Areas

The following interim management guidelines would apply to OHV emphasis areas on 

the Medford District if designated in the RMP revision.

Anderson Butte: 11,742 acres

Coyote Creek: 14,597 acres

East Howard: 6,812 acres

Elderberry Flats: 3,393 acres

Elliot Creek: 3,931 acres

Ferris Gulch: 2,222 acres

Illinois Valley: 4,681 acres

Lake Creek: 8,561 acres

Quartz Creek: 6,867 acres

Salt Creek: 4,692 acres

Spencer Creek: 7,468 acres

Timber Mountain/ Johns Peak: 16,375 acres

Worthington Road/Obenchain: 9,410 acres

Niche: These OHV emphasis areas offer a multiple-use trail riding experience 

for users of Class I (ATVs), Class II (4WDs) and Class III (motorcycles) 

vehicles. The transportation system of these areas also supports commercial and 

administrative access.

Management Guidelines:

•	 Paved roads are limited to licensed, street-legal vehicles only.

•	 Level 1 and 2 routes are open to Class I (ATVs), Class II (4WDs) and Class III 

(motorcycles) vehicles. Trails less than 50 inches wide are restricted to ATVs 

and motorcycles. 

•	 ATVs and motorcycles must have valid Oregon ATV permits.

•	 Non-motorized travel is allowed on all access routes (e.g. horseback riding, 

hiking, and mountain biking) but is not encouraged due to potential conflicts and 

safety hazards.

•	 Motorized use on the road and trail system may be restricted during the summer 

due to fire hazard conditions.
J – 1206

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Process for on-going public collaboration/outreach: 

The principle venue for public collaboration within these emphasis areas is through 

local partnership relationships with local motorcycle and 4X4 associations. 

Process for selecting a final road and trail network:

Criteria shall be established for future route designations. No route designations 

were made in the previous RMP planning effort.

Road and trail construction and maintenance standards: 

Trail maintenance would be a priority within these OHV emphasis areas to 

ensure a quality riding experience for trail users, to minimize user conflicts, 

promote safety for users, and conserve natural resource values.

Klamath Falls Resource Area

OHV Designations:

Limited to designated roads and trails: 213,747 acres

Closed: 10,970 acres

Description: 

Includes all BLM lands located within the Klamath Falls Resource Area.

Limited Area Management Guidelines: 

•	 Limited OHV areas are managed in accordance with all applicable federal and 

state off-highway vehicle regulations.

•	 Motor vehicle use will be limited to administrative, commercial, and passenger 

vehicle traffic where not specifically signed or gated. 

•	 Until road and trail designations are complete, all motorized vehicles will be 

limited to the interim road and trail network as mapped unless closed or restricted 

under a previous planning effort or due to special circumstances as defined below.

•	 Routes may be closed or limited under seasonal or administrative restrictions. 

These restrictions may include, but are not limited to, fire danger, wet conditions, 

special requirements for wildlife species, to protect cultural resources, or for 

public safety.
J – 1207

Appendix J. Recreation

•	 Vehicles may pull off roads or trails to park or allow others to pass, up to 25 feet 

from centerline of roads or up to 15 feet from centerline of trails.

•	 Limitations apply to all Class I (ATVs), Class II (4WDs) and Class III 

(motorcycles) vehicles and to all activity types (recreational, commercial, etc.) 

unless authorized by the BLM for administrative purposes.

Seasonal restrictions: 

•	 The Eastside seasonal OHV closure is in effect from November 1 to April 15. 

Applies to all BLM lands located within deer winter range cooperative wildlife 

areas, including the majority of Stukel and Bryant Mountain and portions of the 

Gerber block as mapped.

•	 The Pokegema wildlife area seasonal OHV closure is in effect from November 

20 to April 1.

•	 For designated snowmobile trails, wheeled vehicles are prohibited once 

grooming of trails begins for winter season.

•	 OHV use may be limited in other areas on a seasonal basis due to special 

conditions such as temporary fire restrictions, special wildlife requirements, etc.

Closed Area Management Guidelines: 

•	 All motorized vehicles are prohibited from entering closed OHV areas unless 

authorized by the BLM for administrative purposes.

Process for on-going public collaboration/outreach:

•	 The principle venue for public collaboration is through public outreach and 

scoping during future travel management planning efforts, special projects, and 

local partnership. 

•	 Press releases will be sent out as needed informing the public of OHV 

opportunities and restrictions. Signs will be posted where appropriate.

•	 Upon completion of the transportation management plan, maps and brochures 

shall be available to the public at the main office illustrating designations, 

describing specific restrictions, and defining opportunities.

•	 BLM will continue to participate with other land managers in the cooperative 

management of the Pokegema wildlife area and deer winter range areas.

Process for selecting a final road and trail network: 

Route designations have been completed for the New River ACEC and the 

Blue Ridge OHV Emphasis Area. Final route designations for the rest of the 

district will be accomplished in a comprehensive, interdisciplinary travel and 
J – 1208

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

transportation management plan scheduled to be complete no later than five years 

after completion of the RMP revision. 

BLM’s geo-database will provide information for identifying roads and trails for 

both motorized and non-motorized activities. On-the-ground inventories will be 

conducted if a reasonable determination can not be made using remote-sensing 

techniques. Proposed designations will be analyzed through public scoping and a 

NEPA analysis. Amendments to the designated system will be considered during 

the transportation management planning process.

Road and trail construction and maintenance standards: 

Construction and maintenance will be done in accordance with the standards in 

BLM Manual H-9114-1 and other professional sources.

Planning Frameworks for Special 

Management Areas

This section presents district-specific management guidelines for management areas that would 

be carried forward under all three action alternatives. For a complete list of special recreation 

management areas, see the Tables section in Chapter 2. The management guidelines are presented 

in the order of Salem, Eugene, Roseburg, Coos Bay, Medford (the five western Oregon BLM 

districts), and Klamath Falls (one of the resource areas of the Lakeview District).

Salem District

Alsea Falls SRMA

Primary Market Strategy: Community

Niche: Overnight camping, picnicking, hiking and mountain biking, 

horse-back riding, and leisurely driving opportunities in a coastal 

mountain setting. 

Management Objectives: Manage the area to provide overnight camping, 

hiking, mountain biking, and equestrian opportunities in a coastal 

mountain setting.
J – 1209

Appendix J. Recreation

Targeted Outcomes:

Activities: Camping, hiking, picnicking, viewing natural landscapes, 

mountain biking, equestrian trail riding, and resting at a stop along a 

national backcountry byway

Experiences: Sense of achievement by developing personal skills and 

abilities; savoring the total sensory experience of a natural landscape; 

enjoying the closeness of family; relishing group affiliation and 

togetherness; bringing back pleasant memories; enjoying getting some 

needed physical exercise or rest; and escaping from personal-social, 

physical, or family pressures for awhile

Benefits: Improved mental health and health maintenance; restored body 

from fatigue, improved capacity for outdoor physical activity, improved 

fitness and health; greater family bonding, opportunity for a more 

well-rounded childhood development, enhanced lifestyle; and greater 

retention of distinctive natural landscape features

Prescribed Setting Character:

Physical: Primarily front country and middle country landscaping varies from 

un-modified forest to highly modified timber actions throughout the 

SRMA and along the byway

Social: Accommodates 16 families with up to 100 people in the 

campground and 22 families and up to 150 people in the picnic area 

when at full capacity. Encounters are highly expected during the high-use 

season. A group size of up to 10 in the rest of Alsea Falls Area SRMA 

with a less likelihood of encounters

Administrative: Brochures are available. Agency presence lessens as 

remoteness increases, mostly non-motorized recreation in and around the 

recreation site. The remaining SRMA is limited to mapped designated 

roads and trails. Resident summer staff and camp hosts during the open 

season. Site is closed during the low-use season of October through 

April, while allowing walk-in day use access during that time. Rules are 

clearly posted throughout the park.

Activity Planning Framework:

Management: Continue to provide for a developed camping and day use 

experience and associated facilities with an emphasis on maintaining a 

front and middle country recreation setting in the SRMA.

Marketing: Use information and interpretation to lessen visitor conflicts 

and resource impacts in the recreation area and SRMA. 

Monitoring: Monitor visitor satisfaction.
J – 1210

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Administrative: Apply administrative actions as needed to maintain safe 

and enjoyable recreation experience and to conserve and restore the 

natural setting.

Fishermen’s Bend

Primary Market Strategy: Community

Niche: Offers a wide variety of safe and high-quality family and group 

facilities and outdoor recreational opportunities in a forested setting 

along the scenic North Santiam River, within 30 miles of larger rural 

communities and densely populated urban communities.

Management Objectives: To provide highly developed, clean, safe, 

enjoyable, and accessible facilities and outdoor recreation opportunities 

in a forested setting. To provide outdoor nature study programs and 

activities for children and adults. 

Targeted Outcomes: 

Activities: Individual and group camping and picnicking, non-motorized 

boating, fishing, nature study, water-play, biking, walking, and athletic 

field sports

Experiences: Enjoying closeness of family and friends and group 

affiliation and togetherness, enjoying easy access to natural landscapes, 

participating in outdoor events, getting some needed physical exercise, 

getting some needed physical rest, and releasing or reducing built-up 

mental tensions

Benefits: Improved mental health and health maintenance, stronger 

ties with family and friends, greater appreciation for parks and how 

managers care for them, and positive economic contribution to nearby 

rural communities 

Prescribed Setting Character:

Physical: The overall physical setting is rural with a relatively natural 

appearing mature conifer forest setting along the scenic North Santiam 

River. The level of development and visitor amenities is high with paved 

roads, developed campsites (water, sewer and electrical hook-ups), 

cabins, flush restrooms with showers, accessible trails, and a boat ramp. 

Large group camping and picnic facilities are present with athletic fields, 

playgrounds, and basketball courts. Nature study facilities include a 

nature center and interpretive nature trail.

Social: High density with family, friends, and group interactions
J – 1211

Appendix J. Recreation

Administrative: Park staff presence high with seasonal staff and 

volunteer hosts staying onsite and conducting frequent fee compliant 

checks and maintaining park facilities and cleanliness. Rules are clearly 

posted throughout site. Nature study programs and activities for both 

children and adults are provided on a weekly basis.

Activity Planning Framework:

Management: Continue to manage the park’s facilities for a high level 

of facility maintenance, safety, cleanliness, and accessibility. To the 

extent possible, maintain the park’s desirable mature forest and native 

vegetation. Expand site use for environmental educational activities, 

especially in the shoulder season. 

Marketing: Work with interested groups to provide visitor information 

both on and off site. 

Monitoring: Continue recreation staff/law enforcement patrols, resource 

monitoring, and seek input from visitors. 

Administrative: To provide high-quality visitor service and to ensure 

compliance with park rules and resource protection, continue to 

use efficient mix of seasonal and volunteer staff to provide onsite 

management presence. To participate in partnerships that help meet 

management objectives.

Little North Santiam River 

Primary Market Strategy: Community

Niche: Offers a wide variety of safe and high-quality outdoor recreational 

opportunities in a forested setting along the scenic Little North Santiam 

River, within 40 miles of larger rural communities and densely populated 

urban communities. Rugged and remote backcounty experiences are 

available in the Elkhorn Creek Wild and Scenic River (WSR).

Management Objectives: To provide a wide range of outdoor recreation 

opportunities and protect Elkhorn Creek WSR. To provide facilities, 

river access and administrative control that support resource protection, 

visitor safety, health, and enjoyment. To provide recreation visitor 

with education, information and interpretation designed to encourage 

stewardship and minimize user impacts and conflicts.

Targeted Outcomes:

Activities: Swimming, camping, picnicking, fishing, hiking, hunting, and 

recreational mining
J – 1212

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Experiences: Enjoying closeness of family and friends and group 

affiliation and togetherness; enjoying easy access to natural landscapes, 

participating in outdoor events and getting some needed physical 

exercise; getting some needed physical rest and reducing built-up mental 

tensions; and enjoying more strenuous exercise and escaping crowds 

Benefits: Improved mental health and health maintenance, stronger ties 

with family and friends, greater appreciation for parks and how managers 

care for them, personal growth and development with greater selfreliance associated with improved outdoor skills, and positive economic 

contribution to nearby rural communities

Prescribed Setting Character:

Physical: Modifications such as paved roads, utilities, houses, a golf 

course, and forest management are frequently observable along county 

roads and the Little North Santiam River. BLM lands along Elkhorn 

Creek WSR are much more rugged and remote with little to no 

observable modifications.

Social: Moderate to high levels of visitor interaction occurs in most of 

the SRMA with very low to no encounters expected along in the Elkhorn 

Creek WSR. 

Administrative: Park staff presence high with seasonal staff and 

volunteer hosts staying onsite and conducting frequent fee compliant 

checks and maintaining park facilities and cleanliness. Rules are clearly 

posted in sites and areas. Much less agency presence and signage for 

Elkhorn Creek WSR.

Activity Planning Framework:

Management: Continue to manage park’s facilities for a high level of 

facility maintenance, safety, cleanliness, and accessibility. To the extent 

possible, maintain desirable mature forest and native vegetation at parks.

Marketing: Work with interested groups to provide visitor information 

both on and off site. 

Monitoring: Continue recreation staff/law enforcement patrols, resource 

monitoring, and seek input from visitors.

Administrative: Provide high-quality visitor service and to ensure 

compliance with park rules and resource protection, continue to 

use efficient mix of seasonal and volunteer staff to provide onsite 

management presence. Participate in partnerships that help meet 

management objectives.
J – 1213

Appendix J. Recreation

Molalla River/Table Rock

Primary Market Strategy: Community

Niche: Offers a wide variety of settings and recreation activities 

within 10 miles of a large rural community and 60 miles of large 

urban populations. Uplands provide year round non-motorized trail 

opportunities and the Molalla River is popular for summer fishing, 

swimming, and rafting. Table Rock Wilderness (TRW) offers more 

remote opportunities with scenic overlooks, mountain meadows and 

forested non-motorized trails.

Management Objectives: To provide the facilities and visitors services 

needed for resource protection and a wide spectrum of outdoor 

recreational and nature study opportunities in a variety of natural settings 

from rural to primitive and social settings from highly interactive to more 

remote. To provide a variety of visitor information media and support 

to special events that promote “Leave No Trace” use practices, public land 

stewardship, and partnerships. 

Targeted Outcomes: 

Activities: Hiking, biking, equestrian use, camping, picnicking, 

swimming, fishing, boating, hunting, and natural resource education

Experiences: Enjoying closeness of family and friends and group 

affiliation and togetherness, enjoying having access to hands-on outdoor 

natural resource educational facilities and activities, and getting some 

needed physical rest and reducing built-up mental tensions and escaping 

everyday responsibilities for awhile in both developed and remote areas

Benefits: Improved mental health and health maintenance, stronger ties 

with family and friends; personal growth and development with greater 

self-reliance associated with improved outdoor skills, and positive 

economic contribution to nearby rural communities

Prescribed Setting Character:

Physical: The entire area is characterized by a forested setting of various 

ages. The Molalla River is more developed where timber management, 

roads, designated campsites, vaulted restrooms, and signs are frequently 

observable. Aquila Vista Environmental Education Site has trails, 

shelters, and a vaulted restroom for use in outdoor natural resource 

educational programs by schools and other groups. The uplands along the 

Molalla River are less developed with gravel roads and single-track trails 

and minimal signage and TRW more primitive with trailhead parking, 

signs, and single-track trails. 
J – 1214

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Social: Encounters with others along the Molalla River is more frequent 

and intensive than in the uplands along the trail system with the most 

remote area being within the wilderness.

Administrative: Regular patrols and visitor contact are made by agency 

recreation staff and law enforcement along the Molalla River with lower 

levels of agency presence in the uplands. 

Activity Planning Framework:

Management: Continue to provide agency presence and facility 

management for resource protection and a variety of recreation 

opportunities. Consider new facility and program development as needed.

Marketing: Work with interested groups to provide visitor information 

both on and off site.

Monitoring: Continue recreation staff/law enforcement patrols, resource 

monitoring, and seek input from visitors.

Administrative: Complete a SRMA plan to help identify future facility 

and program needs. To participate in partnerships that help meet 

management objectives.

Nestucca River 

Primary Market Strategy: Community

Niche: Developed overnight camping, water-based day use recreation, 

and scenic driving opportunities

Management Objectives: With increasing public use of the Nestucca 

River corridor, it is necessary to manage the recreation resource to not 

only accommodate increased use but to protect or enhance recreation, 

watershed, and wildlife values present.

Targeted Outcomes:

Activities: Camping, picnicking, swimming, fishing, and scenic driving

Experiences: Relaxation, family and group bonding, escape from 

personal and social pressures, and opportunity to enjoy the sights and 

sounds nature has to offer

Benefits: Personal – better mental health and health maintenance, and 

restored sense of self; Psycho-physiological – enhanced feeling of freedom 

and refinement; Household and Community – greater family bonding, 

opportunity for more well-rounded childhood development, learning and 
J – 1215

Appendix J. Recreation

passing on of outdoor skills, and fulfilling the desire of simple living; and 

Economic – positive contribution to regional economic stability

Prescribed Setting Character:

Physical: Four semi-developed campgrounds. Three with paved roads 

and parking surfaces and one walk-in site. The campgrounds border the 

Nestucca River, which is a free-flowing State Scenic Waterway through 

the Oregon Coast Range. The Nestucca Back Country Byway parallels 

the river winding through steep canyon walls of the coast range. It is 

located within a mature forest dominated primarily by Douglas fir. 

Social: Medium visitor density. The campgrounds are approximately 5 

acres in size each and range between 5 and 11 sites per campground. The 

larger campgrounds at full capacity can accommodate 11 families. 

Administrative: Self-service fee booth at information kiosk. Regularly 

patrolled during summer months by law enforcement and other agency 

staff. Rules are clearly posted at fee station/information kiosk.

Activity Planning Framework:

Management: Continue to provide for a semi-developed camping 

experience and associated facilities with an emphasis on maintaining a 

front country recreational setting.

Marketing: Use visitor information to disperse recreation use throughout 

the recreation season to reduce crowding during peak-use periods 

and enhance the overall visitor experience. Use information and 

interpretation to lessen visitor conflicts and resource impacts in the 

recreation area. Inform visitor how user fees are being used in the 

operation of the recreation area. Solicit feedback from users and user 

groups on how they would like to see their fees used in the future.

Monitoring: Monitor visitor satisfaction.

Administrative: Apply administrative actions as needed to maintain a 

safe and enjoyable recreation experience and to conserve and restore the 

natural environment (i.e., visitor services, law enforcement presence, 

restoration, permitting, and fees).
J – 1216

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Sandy River/Mt. Hood Corridor

Primary Market Strategy: Destination

Niche: Only 40 miles from the Portland metropolitan area, this SRMA

offers a scenic corridor with a unique mix of both high-quality developed 

recreation and interpretive facilities and river greenway open space. Key 

features include the Sandy and Salmon Wild and Scenic Rivers (WSR), 

Wildwood Recreation Site, and the Barlow National Historic Trail.

Management Objectives: At developed sites provide clean, safe, 

enjoyable, and accessible facilities and outdoor recreational opportunities 

in a forested setting, and in undeveloped areas provide less developed 

open space for a variety of outdoor recreation and nature study 

opportunities. To provide recreation visitor with education, information, 

and interpretation designed to encourage stewardship and minimize user 

impacts and conflicts.

Targeted Outcomes:

Activities: Hiking, swimming, biking, fishing, non-motorized 

boating, individual, nature study, picnicking, scenic driving, historic 

study, and hunting

Experiences: Enjoying closeness of family and friends and group 

affiliation and togetherness, enjoying easy access to natural landscapes 

and getting some needed to strenuous physical exercise, enjoying having 

access to hands-on outdoor natural resource educational facilities and 

activities, and getting some needed physical rest and reducing built-up 

mental tensions

Benefits: Improved mental health and health maintenance, stronger 

ties with family and friends, positive economic contribution to nearby 

rural communities

Prescribed Setting Character:

Physical: Modifications such as paved roads, utilities, houses, businesses, 

and some forest management are readily observable along U.S. Highway 

26. Wildwood Recreation Site is a highly developed park located along 

the Salmon WSR in a forested setting that features an interpretive 

watershed and fisheries trail with a unique in-stream fish viewing 

window, an interpretive wetlands boardwalk, flush restrooms, and group 

facilities. The Sandy River and uplands offer less developed areas.
J – 1217

Appendix J. Recreation

Social: Wildwood has more frequent and intensive interaction with some 

groups, while less developed areas along the Sandy River have less 

intensive interaction and may include low to moderate encounters with 

other visitors.

Administrative: Park staff presence high with seasonal staff and 

volunteer hosts staying onsite and conducting frequent fee compliant 

checks and maintaining park facilities and cleanliness. Rules are clearly 

posted in sites and areas.

Activity Planning Framework:

Management: Manage park facilities for a high level of facility 

maintenance, safety, cleanliness, and accessibility. To the extent possible, 

maintaining park’s desirable mature forest and native vegetation. 

Continue to support environmental education activities. As needed, 

address management issues on less developed areas.

Marketing: Work with interested groups to provide visitor information 

both on and off site.

Monitoring: Continue recreation staff/law enforcement patrols and work 

with volunteers to meet resource monitoring needs and seek input from 

visitors.

Administrative: Complete an SRMA plan to help identify future 

facility and program needs. Participate in partnerships that help meet 

management objectives.

Yaquina Head Outstanding Natural Area

Primary Market Strategy: Destination

Niche: Access to a unique coastal headland setting with historic 

lighthouse and ocean front settings for traditional recreation uses, 

resource appreciation, education, and interpretation

Management Objectives: Promote the conservation and development of 

the area’s scenic, natural, and cultural resource values; protect the area’s 

wildlife habitat; and make use of the area for education, scientific study, 

and public recreation activities.
J – 1218

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Targeted Outcomes:

Activities: Access to the ocean for bird watching, whale and harbor seal 

watching, nature study, tide pooling, visiting an historic lighthouse, 

hiking, interpretive programs, and environmental education 

Experiences: Learning about and enjoying nature, enjoying the 

closeness of family, relishing group affiliation and togetherness, 

enjoying having easy access to natural landscapes, exercise and 

physical fitness, escaping everyday responsibilities for awhile, learning 

more about wildlife and the marine environment, and learning more 

about northwest coastal maritime history

Benefits: Improved mental health and health maintenance; personal 

development and growth; supporting a more outdoor-oriented lifestyle; 

improved opportunity to view wildlife; improved fitness and health; 

greater family bonding, more well-rounded child development, 

enhanced lifestyle, access to low cost recreation opportunities; positive 

contributions to local economic stability; and maintenance of distinctive 

recreation setting character, greater community ownership of recreation 

and natural, cultural and heritage resources, and greater protection of 

wildlife habitats

Prescribed Setting Character:

Physical: Developed recreation and interpretive site with paved roads 

and parking lot surfaces, a large interpretive center on a marine coastal 

headland. Landscape varies from ocean front beach and tide pool 

environment to unmodified coastal forest to urban park-like settings. The 

overall physical setting character is rural.

Social: High visitor density – approximately 340,000 visitors annually

Administrative: Controlled access entrance station. Patrolled daily by 

agency staff. Rules and regulations are clearly posted throughout the 

park. High presence of regulatory and interpretive signs. High degree of 

visitor control.

Activity Planning Framework:

Management: Continue to provide for a high-quality day use interpretive 

experience and maintain the associated facilities with an emphasis on 

maintaining a rural recreation setting. 

Marketing: Use interpretation to increase visitor awareness of coastal 

marine wildlife habitat and maritime history, disperse use throughout the 

season to reduce crowding at peak periods to enhance the overall visitor 

experience and lessen visitor conflicts and resource impacts. 
J – 1219

Appendix J. Recreation

Monitoring: Monitor visitor satisfaction on a periodic basis to determine 

the appropriateness of management activities, signage, fees, etc.

Administrative: Apply administrative actions as needed to maintain a 

safe and enjoyable recreation experience and to conserve and restore the 

natural and historical setting.

Yellowstone

Primary Market Strategy: Community

Niche: Features the scenic Quartzville Creek Wild and Scenic River 

(WSR), which is easily accessed by the paved Quartzville National Back 

Country Byway (BCB) Road. A unique feature includes large stands of 

old-growth forest. 

Management Objectives: To provide a wide range of outdoor recreation 

opportunities and protect Quartzville Creek WSR. To provide facilities, 

river access and administrative control that support resource protection, 

visitor safety, health, and enjoyment. To provide recreation visitor 

with education, information, and interpretation designed to encourage 

stewardship and minimize user impacts and conflicts.

Targeted Outcomes:

Activities: Hiking, biking, camping, picnicking, swimming, fishing, 

boating, hunting, scenic driving, recreational mining, and mining history

Experiences: Enjoying closeness of family and friends and group 

affiliation and togetherness and enjoying easy access to natural 

landscapes, enjoying having access to hands-on outdoor natural resource 

educational facilities and activities, getting some needed physical rest 

and reducing built-up mental tensions, and enjoying more strenuous 

exercise and exercise and escaping crowds

Benefits: Improved mental health and health maintenance, stronger ties 

with family and friends, personal growth and development with greater 

self-reliance associated with improved outdoor skills, and positive 

economic contribution to nearby rural communities
J – 1220

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Prescribed Setting Character:

Physical: The entire area is characterized by a forested setting of various 

ages, but with old-growth forest dominating BLM lands. Lands along 

Quartzville Creek Wild and Scenic River are more developed, including three developed 

recreation sites and other modifications such as paved roads, designated river campsites, 

and visitor signs. The uplands in the northern part of the SRMA are less 

developed with gravel roads and very little evidence of human activities 

except past timber management activities.

Social: The social setting along Quartzville Creek has more frequent and 

intensive interaction with some group interaction, while the uplands have 

less intensive use and lower encounters. 

Administrative: Regular patrols and visitor contact are made by agency 

recreation staff and law enforcement along the Quartzville Creek with 

low levels of agency presence in uplands.

Activity Planning Framework:

Management: Continue to manage recreation sites for a high level 

of facility maintenance, and sites and the corridor for visitor safety, 

cleanliness, and resource protection. To the extent possible, maintain 

desirable mature forest and native vegetation at parks. 

Marketing: Work with interested groups to provide visitor information 

both on and off site. 

Monitoring: Continue patrolling with recreation and law 

enforcement staff, continue monitoring resources, and continue 

seeking input from visitors. 

Administrative: To provide high-quality visitor service and to ensure 

compliance with park and corridor rules and resource protection, 

continue to use efficient mix of seasonal and volunteer staff to provide 

park and corridor management presence. To participate in partnerships 

that help meet management objectives.
J – 1221

Appendix J. Recreation

Eugene District

Lower Lake Creek 

Primary Market Strategy: Destination

Niche: Opportunities for swimming and water play in a natural setting; 

hiking, mountain biking

Management Objectives: Improve visitor safety and decrease health 

hazards; enhance visitors’ recreation experience and appreciation of 

natural resources.

Targeted Outcomes:

Activities: 

• Water play, hiking, mountain biking, primitive camping

Experiences: 

• Enjoy socializing with friends and families in a scenic area

• Physical activity (hiking and mountain biking) in a 

scenic area

Benefits: 

• Relaxation, physical exertion; interaction with family 

and friends

Prescribed Setting Character:

Physical: Adjacent to a state highway; rustic amenities away from 

developed parking lot

Social: High levels of visitation; no possibility for solitude. Crowding 

expected on high-use weekends.

Administrative: Regulations posted; regular visitor services and law 

enforcement presence. 

Activity Planning Framework:

Management: Continue to provide for improved visitor safety and health 

as described in the Lower Lake Creek RAMP (1997). 

Marketing: Use information and interpretation to increase visitor 

awareness of safety and health issues in the SRMA.
J – 1222

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Monitoring: Monitor visitor satisfaction.

Administrative: Apply administrative actions as needed to maintain a 

safe and enjoyable experience. 

McKenzie River 

Primary Market Strategy: Destination

Niche: Opportunities for nonmotorized boating, fishing, environmental 

education.

Management Objectives: Provide river-oriented recreation opportunities 

in coordination with other recreation providers along the river corridor.

Targeted Outcomes:

Activities: Fishing, boating, scenic viewing, resource interpretation

Experiences: Water-based physical activity in a roaded natural setting

Benefits: Outdoor skills development, exercise, relaxation, enjoyment of 

forested surroundings

Prescribed Setting Character:

Physical: Mostly natural appearing environment as viewed from sensitive 

roads and trails. Some obvious onsite controls of visitors. Access and 

travel is conventional motorized vehicles (e.g., sedans, RVs, etc.) and 

watercraft (primarily non-motorized).

Social: Visitor encounters common, but some chance for privacy

Administrative: Regular BLM staff patrols during high-use season (MaySeptember). Interagency maintenance agreement continued to address 

routine maintenance needs of some developed sites.

Activity Planning Framework:

Management: Manage for continued water-based recreation activities. 

Incorporate interpretive/educational opportunities to strengthen visitor 

understanding and appreciation of the natural environment. Maintain 

river access opportunities.

Marketing: Continue to work with other agencies and private partners to 

promote responsible recreational use of the river corridor.
J – 1223

Appendix J. Recreation

Monitoring: Monitor for visitor compliance, capacity and satisfaction. 

Draw upon university resources for periodic surveying.

Administrative: Provide visitor services and law enforcement presence.

Row River Trail 

Primary Market Strategy: Destination

Niche: Opportunities for bicycle riding on paved trail, horseback riding

Management Objectives:

• Provide a broad spectrum of resource-dependent 

recreation opportunities to meet the needs and demands of 

public land visitors.

• Foster interagency efforts to improve service to the 

visiting public.

• Maintain high-quality recreation facilities to meet public 

needs and enhance the image of the agency.

• Improve public understanding and support of the Bureau 

by effectively communicating the agency’s multiple use 

management programs to the recreation visitor.

Targeted Outcomes:

 Activities: Bicycle riding, walking, horseback riding

Experiences: Physical activity in a rural setting

Benefits: Exercise, appreciation of natural surroundings, feelings of 

accomplishment

Prescribed Setting Character:

Physical: Rural—adjacent to heavily traveled paved county road

Social: Rural—small group size, but encounters with others are 

commonplace; traffic noise prevalent

Administrative: Rural—A substantial amount of information is provided 

along the trail; BLM presence daily during the high-use season.

Activity Planning Framework:

Management: Continue to provide hard-surface non-motorized riding 

opportunities; provide trailheads with parking lots and basic amenities. 

Provide interpretive signage along the trail.
J – 1224

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Marketing: Include on printed and web-based media generated by BLM; 

work with partners to promote the trail.

Monitoring: Monitor for visitor compliance and satisfaction

Administrative: Provide visitor services and law enforcement presence. 

Maintain OHV closure on trail.

Shotgun Creek 

Primary Market Strategy: Destination

Niche: Opportunities for organized group events, swimming, picnicking, 

and hiking.

Management Objectives:

• Provide resource-based, nonmotorized recreation activities.

• Promote organized group gatherings.

• Maintain facilities that offer convenience to visitors.

• Minimize visitor conflicts between groups.

Targeted Outcomes:

Activities: Group events, picnicking, hiking, competitive sport activities

Experiences: Physical activity, comport in a developed setting

Benefits: Exercise, companionship, appreciation of natural surroundings

Prescribed Setting Character:

Physical: Natural forested setting containing facilities/amenities typical 

of those found in urban recreation sites, including opportunities for 

competitive sporting events

Social: Small to large group accommodations offered. Opportunity to 

observe/affiliate with others.

Administrative: BLM staff and volunteer presence daily. Low cost/low 

maintenance fee collection procedures established.

Activity Planning Framework:

Management: Provide group event and nonmotorized trail opportunities

Marketing: Distribute print and internet-based media, partner with 

independent newspaper media to promote recreation site.
J – 1225

Appendix J. Recreation

Monitoring: Monitor for visitor compliance and safety.

Administrative: Provide high level of visitor services from May-October; 

collect recreation use fees from May-October; maintain OHV closure; 

administer group shelter rental program.

Upper Lake Creek 

Primary Market Strategy: Destination

Niche: Regionally important opportunities for fishing, horseback riding, 

camping, and nonmotorized boating

Management Objectives:

Roaded natural): Protect natural and scenic qualities of the SRMA around 

Hult Reservoir while allowing for rustic recreation facility development.

Semi-primitive motorized: Maintain existing semi-primitive setting, 

natural appearing environment, and allow for development of multiple 

use nonmotorized trails.

Targeted Outcomes:

Activities:

• Roaded natural: Fishing, camping, boating (lake), hiking, 

horseback riding

• Semi-primitive motorized: Hiking, horseback riding, OHV 

use on designated roads.

Experiences: 

• Enjoyment of natural settings and scenic values Benefits:

• Offer comfort in an outdoor setting

• Improved health and safety of visitors

• Enhanced appreciation of natural settings 

Prescribed Setting Character:

Physical: RN – adjacent to all-weather paved road, small dam, bridge, and 

fish ladder readily apparent. SPM – roads available for motorized vehicle 

use are generally graveled surface, relatively high density of roads.

Social: RN – relatively small group size, but mostly within sight and 

sound of others; high traffic level on paved road. SPM – small group 

size, less likely to encounter others.
J – 1226

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Administrative: RN – rules posted; BLM presence on most summer 

weekends. SPM: occasional regulatory signage; some BLM presence.

Activity Planning Framework:

Management: Provide for rustic day use and overnight facilities as 

described in the Upper Lake Creek RMP (2005). 

Marketing: Provide visitor use and experience opportunity information 

through a variety of media including web-based, brochures and onsite 

information. 

Monitoring: Monitor visitor satisfaction.

Administrative: Apply administrative actions as needed to maintain a 

safe and enjoyable recreation experience and to conserve and restore 

the natural setting (e.g., visitor services, law enforcement, volunteer 

organizations for trail maintenance)

Roseburg District

Cow Creek 

Primary Market Strategy: Destination

Niche: Back Country Byway; semi-developed day-use and river access; 

potential for overnight camping..

Management Objectives:

• Provide a broad spectrum of resource dependent recreation 

opportunities to meet the needs and demands of visitors as 

prescribed in the Cow Creek Rec. Area Management Plan.

• Withdraw developed sites from mineral entry. Monitor and 

deter vandalism.

• Operate in accord with adjacent landowners and manage 

backcountry byway.

 • Develop camping opportunities within the scenic corridor, 

including the Island Recreation Site..

Targeted Outcomes:

Activities: Driving for pleasure, watchable wildlife, historical 

interpretation, camping, picnicking, recreational gold panning, other river 

activities, biking, and hiking.
J – 1227

Appendix J. Recreation

Experiences: Group and family affiliations, escape from social pressure, 

physical exercise, developing outdoor skills, exploration and enjoying 

outdoor resources and viewsheds.

Benefits: Personal – Increased physical fitness, obtaining greater 

self confidence, savoring the senses of the natural environment, 

enjoying participation in desired activities in preferred outdoor setting, 

experiencing a greater sense of independence and exploration.

Psychological – Better mental health, reducing built up tensions, feeling 

of personal freedom and exhilaration, enjoying a risk taking adventure, 

improved outdoor skills.

Economic – Increased local tourism revenue, reduced health 

maintenance costs.

Environmental – Increased commitment to maintain quality natural, 

greater local community support to manage natural resources to be 

enjoyed by prosperity.

Prescribed Setting Character:

Physical: Varies from small developed recreation sites to natural areas 

of river and rolling forested hills. Landscaping varies from forest to 

managed park like environments. The overall physical setting character 

is rural.

Social: The social setting varies on three areas of the SRMA: 1) Cow 

Creek Back Country Byway – Moderate visitor density; 2) Cow Creek 

River – Low visitor density; 3) Developed recreation sites – Moderate 

visitor density during use season.

All settings are within a narrow corridor, but due to length, crowding 

seems diminished. 

Administrative: The SRMA is mainly accessed from the south and north 

ends of the byway, however, other access points are available. 

Activity Planning Framework:

Management: Provide for quality recreation settings and facilities to 

support a wide variety of recreation opportunities for preferred benefit 

outcomes. Strengthen partnerships with local and other federal agencies. 

Utilize volunteers. Maintain a middle country to rural recreation setting.

Marketing: Disseminate brochures, post information on the internet, and 

post news releases. 
J – 1228

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Monitoring: Conduct patrols to sites within the area. Collect visitor use 

statistics and user preferences. Perform safety inventories annually. 

Administrative: Determine and apply administrative actions as needed to 

promote quality recreation experiences, protect the character of settings, 

minimize user conflicts, promote safety of visitors and protect the natural 

resources. Issue Special Recreation Permits.

North Umpqua

Primary Market Strategy: Destination

Niche: Developed overnight and day-use recreation; non-motorized river 

recreation, undeveloped non-motorized use area, and a paved access 

corridor.

Management Objectives:

• Enhance recreation opportunities through management plans, 

including: North Bank Ranch, North Umpqua Wild and 

Scenic River, and North Umpqua National Scenic Byway.

• Provide recreational opportunities compatible with the 

management of Columbia White Tail deer within the North 

Bank Habitat Management Area.

• Maintain high-quality recreation facilities to meet public needs 

and provide for quality recreation experiences in preferred 

settings. Withdraw developed sites from mineral entry. 

• Coordinate volunteer host program and recreation 

partnerships with Umpqua National Forest.

Targeted Outcomes:

Activities: Camping, picnicking, hiking, wildlife viewing, rafting, 

kayaking, swimming, fishing, hunting, driving for pleasure, group 

gatherings, collecting forest products.

Experiences: Individual, family and group affiliations, escape from 

personal social pressure, achievement and challenge from adventure, 

physical exercise, enjoying outdoor resources.

Benefits: Personal – Increased physical fitness, learning outdoor skills, 

testing endurance, obtaining self confidence, experiencing a greater sense 

of independence and exploration. 

Psychological – Better mental health, personal satisfaction achieved in 

outdoor quests, releasing or reducing built up tensions or stress, feeling 

of personal freedom and exhilaration.
J – 1229

Appendix J. Recreation

Economic – Increased local tourism revenue, increased work 

productivity after experiences.

Environmental – Increased commitment to maintain quality natural 

settings for future recreation activities and opportunities, greater 

community support to manage natural resources.

Prescribed Setting Character: 

Physical: Varies from developed recreation sites to natural areas of 

forested to semi-forested hills. The overall physical setting character is 

rural.

Social: 1) North Umpqua River – Low visitor density on W&SR section, 

high use in bait fishing area of Swiftwater; 2) North Umpqua Trail – Low 

visitor density; 3) North Umpqua Scenic Byway – High visitor density 

during summer use season; 4) Developed Recreation Sites – High visitor 

density during camping season; 5) North Bank Ranch – Low density.

Administrative: The entire area is accessed through specific areas 

where visitors can be monitored. Regular patrols and field presence are 

common. Rules are posted at sites. Brochures are available. Volunteer 

hosts reside seasonally or year round at seven sites.

Activity Planning Framework:

Management: Provide for quality recreation settings and facilities 

to support a wide variety of recreation opportunities. Strengthen 

partnerships. Utilize volunteers. Maintain rural setting.

Marketing: Disseminate brochures, post information on the internet, post 

news releases. Implement tourism actions from management plans of the 

byway and Wild and Scenic River.

Monitoring: Conduct regular field patrols. Collect visitor use statistics 

and preferences. Conduct safety inventories. Document river activities in 

the annual North Umpqua Wild & Scenic River Monitoring Report. 

Administrative: Apply administrative actions to promote quality 

recreation, protect settings, minimize user conflicts, promote visitor 

safety, and protect natural resources. Partner with the Umpqua National 

Forest on management of the North Umpqua Wild and Scenic River and 

National Scenic Byway.
J – 1230

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Umpqua 

Primary Market Strategy: Community

Niche: Developed overnight and day-use recreation sites along 

river corridor 

Management Objectives:

• Manage recreation use to protect natural resources, provide 

visitor safety, and minimize user conflicts. Withdraw 

developed sites from mineral entry.

• Maintain high-quality recreation facilities to meet public 

needs and provide for quality recreation experiences in a 

preferred setting. 

• Cultivate quality volunteer hosts who provide service to 

users of recreation sites and river.

Targeted Outcomes:

Activities: Camping, picnicking, wildlife viewing, water play/swimming, 

fishing, driving for pleasure, viewing scenery, organized group gathering 

and socializing, off-highway vehicles.

Experiences: Individual, family and group affiliations, developing 

outdoor skills.

Benefits: Personal – Increased physical fitness, learning outdoor skills, 

testing endurance, obtaining self confidence, enjoying desired activities 

in preferred outdoor setting.

Psychological – Better mental health, personal satisfaction achieved in 

outdoor quests, releasing or reducing built up tensions or stress, feeling 

of personal freedom and exhilaration.

Economic – Increased local tourism revenue, reduced health 

maintenance costs.

Environmental – Increased commitment to maintain quality natural 

settings, greater local community support to manage natural resources.

Prescribed Setting Character:

Physical: Varies from highly developed recreation sites to forested areas. 

Landscaping includes managed park like environments. The overall 

physical setting character is rural.
J – 1231

Appendix J. Recreation

Social: The social setting varies on three areas of the SRMA: 1) The 

Umpqua River – Low visitor density; 2) Developed recreation sites – 

High visitor density during camping season.

Administrative: Parts of the SRMA are accessed through areas where 

visitors can be monitored. Regular patrols are common. Rules are posted 

at sites and brochures are available. Volunteer hosts reside year-round at 

two recreation sites.

Activity Planning Framework:

Management: Provide for quality recreation settings and facilities to 

support a wide variety of recreation opportunities. Utilize volunteers. 

Maintain a rural recreation setting.

Marketing: Provide brochures, post information on the internet, and post 

news releases about recreation opportunities, rules, and special events. 

Monitoring: Conduct patrols to use sites and collect use statistics and 

preferences. Perform safety inventories annually. Monitor volunteer efforts. 

Administrative: Apply administrative actions as needed to promote 

quality recreation experiences, protect the character of settings, 

minimize user conflicts, promote safety of visitors and protect the natural 

resources. Issue Special Recreation Permits as needed.

 Coos Bay District

Coos Bay Shorelands

Primary Market Strategy: Community

Niche: Access for ocean, coastal, and bay-front dependant recreation 

activities.

Management Objectives:

• Promote awareness of and appreciation for the many 

resource values and recreational opportunities, and support 

a minimum impact land use ethic through educational 

programs such as Leave No Trace and Tread Lightly.

• Manage the area to provide for a range of recreational 

opportunities that contribute to meeting recreation demand 

while protecting natural, cultural, and scenic resources.
J – 1232

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

• Provide and maintain visitor facilities, services, 

signage, and programs that are appropriate for the area’s 

recreational opportunity setting that serves to protect the 

sensitive resources.

Targeted Outcomes:

Activities: Access to the ocean and bay for clamming, fishing, crabbing, 

boating, surfing, and wind sports. Four-wheel drive and off-highway 

vehicle touring, hunting, hiking, horseback-riding, mushroom hunting, 

bird watching, dispersed camping.

Experiences: Developing outdoor skills; experiencing a greater sense of 

independence, exploring, closeness of family, and group affiliation; easy 

access to natural landscapes; exercise and physical fitness; and an ability 

to utilize natural resources for personal enjoyment.

Benefits: Psychological – better mental health, personal development and 

growth, supporting an outdoor-oriented lifestyle, and greater freedom 

from urban living; Household and Community – greater family bonding, 

more well-rounded children, enhanced lifestyle, easy access to low-cost 

recreation opportunities; Economic – positive contributions to local 

economic stability, maintenance of community’s distinctive recreationtourism market, increased desirability as a place to live or retire; 

Environmental – maintenance of distinctive recreation setting character, 

greater community ownership of recreation and natural resources, greater 

protection of wildlife and plant habitats from growth and development.

Prescribed Setting Character:

Physical: Rural to front/middle country setting comprised of sand dune, 

wetlands, meadows, shore pine uplands, and bay/ocean front beaches. 

BLM’s developed site includes a boat ramp, a parking lot, restrooms, 

interpretive kiosk, dock, and volunteer host site. 

Social: Visitor encounters can be high during peak use periods at the boat 

ramp. Encounters diminish along the sand roads and are rare along the 

non-motorized trail system.

Administrative: Primarily in the form of fences, gates and posted 

regulatory signs. Patrolled frequently by BLM staff and county and BLM 

law enforcement officers.

Activity Planning Framework:

Management: Provide a range of opportunities that contribute to meeting 

recreation demand while protecting resources. Provide and maintain 
J – 1233

Appendix J. Recreation

visitor facilities, services, signage, and programs that are appropriate for 

the area’s setting and serve to protect sensitive resources.

Marketing: Use information and education to lessen potential conflicts 

between visitors and manage impacts to natural, cultural and scenic 

resources. 

Monitoring: Monitor visitor satisfaction and recreation-related 

resource impacts.

Administrative: Apply administrative actions to maintain a quality 

recreation experience.

Dean Creek Elk Viewing Area

Primary Market Strategy: Community

Niche: Unparalleled opportunities to view a Roosevelt elk herd in a dayuse wildlife observation and interpretive site.

Management Objectives: 

• Provide safe opportunities for the public to view and study 

elk, other wildlife and their habitats at Dean Creek.

• Provide high-quality forage for the elk as a means of 

maintaining herd health and supporting public 

viewing opportunities.

• Provide facilities and programs that support visitor safety; 

wildlife viewing; and interpretive, educational and passive 

recreational uses, all of which are compatible with the elk 

and other wildlife that inhabit Dean Creek.

• Manage visitor use to avoid unacceptable conflicts with, or 

damage to, wildlife and their habitats. Manage visitor use so 

elk and other wildlife retain their wild instincts and actions, 

by providing them freedom to roam the entire area without 

human intervention.

Targeted Outcomes:

Activities: Wildlife viewing, photography, interpretive and 

educational programs.

Experiences: Learning more about wildlife and wetlands, enjoy 

the experience of viewing an elk herd and natural landscapes, and 

physical rest
J – 1234

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Benefits: Psychological – personal appreciation and satisfaction – closer 

relationship with the natural world, improved opportunity to view 

wildlife close-up; Economic – positive contributions to regional economic 

stability, increased local tourism revenue, maintenance of community’s 

distinctive recreation-tourism character; Environmental – retention of rural 

landscape features, maintenance and enhancement of habitat for elk and 

other wildlife.

Prescribed Setting Character:

Physical: Developed wildlife viewing and interpretive site with 

paved road and parking lots, a large covered interpretive wayside and 

restrooms. Landscape is rural pastureland and tidally affected wetlands 

and forested islands on the banks of the Umpqua River.

Social: Visitors are confined to specified routes and viewing areas at 

Dean Creek, creating a setting with a high density of visitors, especially 

during peak use periods. 

Administrative: Most of the property is closed to all public entry, except 

for the designated viewing areas. The area is regularly patrolled by law 

enforcement, BLM staff and volunteers. Fences and gates, posted rules, 

and no trespassing signs are common.

Activity Planning Framework:

Management: Continue to provide for a high-quality wildlife viewing 

and interpretive experience and maintain facilities with an emphasis on 

the rural recreation setting. 

Marketing: Use information and interpretation to increase visitor 

awareness of wildlife habitat and wetland management. Work closely 

with the gateway community of Reedsport and other partners in the 

region in marketing and outreach. 

Monitoring: Monitor visitor satisfaction and resource conditions based 

on stated objectives.

Administrative: Apply administrative actions to maintain a safe and 

enjoyable wildlife viewing experience while protecting the elk herd from 

harassment. 
J – 1235

Appendix J. Recreation

Loon Lake/East Shore

Primary Market Strategy: Destination

Niche: Developed overnight camping and access to water-based day 

use recreation.

Management Objective: Provide a clean, safe, enjoyable experience 

for visitors. 

Targeted Outcomes: 

Activities: Camping, picnicking, beach activities, access to power 

boating and interpretive programs. 

Experiences: Family and group affiliation, physical rest, and to escape 

from personal-social pressures.

Benefits: Personal – Better mental health and health maintenance; 

Psycho-physiological - restored body from fatigue; Household and 

Community – greater family bonding, opportunity for more well-rounded 

childhood development; learning and passing on of outdoor skills, 

reduced social isolation; Economic – positive contribution to regional 

economic stability.

Prescribed Setting Character:

Physical: Developed recreation site with paved road and parking lot 

surfaces within a mature Douglas fir forest on the shore of a natural lake. 

Landscaping varies from unmodified forest to urban-like park settings. 

The overall physical setting character is rural.

Social: High visitor density – accommodates over 850 people within the 

developed 35 acre campground and day use area when at full capacity.

Administrative: Controlled access entrance station. Regularly patrolled 

by law enforcement and other agency staff. Resident staff during the 

summer recreation season. Rules are clearly posted throughout the park. 

Activity Planning Framework:

Management: Continue to provide for a developed camping and day use 

experience and associated facilities with an emphasis on maintaining a 

rural recreation setting. 

Marketing: Use visitor information and the reservation system to disperse 

use and reduce crowding during peak periods to enhance the overall 

visitor experience at Loon Lake. Use information and interpretation 
J – 1236

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

to lessen visitor conflicts and resource impacts in the recreation area. 

Inform visitors how their fees are being used in the operation of the 

recreation area and solicit feedback from them on how they would like to 

see their fees used in the future. 

Monitoring: Monitor visitor satisfaction and the natural setting values 

within the area.

Administrative: Apply administrative actions as needed to maintain a 

safe and enjoyable recreation experience and to conserve and restore the 

natural setting at Loon Lake (i.e., permits and fees, visitor services, law 

enforcement, restoration/renovation).

New River

Primary Market Strategy: Community

Niche: Opportunities to explore undeveloped coastal uplands, river and 

ocean-front settings for traditional recreation uses, resource appreciation, 

and educational and interpretive programs. 

Management Objectives: 

• Accommodate low-impact recreational use at New River 

while providing a variety of experience opportunities to help 

meet existing and anticipated demands.

• Promote awareness and appreciation for New River’s many 

resource values, especially those significant to its Area of 

Critical Environmental Concern designation.

• Provide adequate supervision, visitor facilities, services, 

signage, and programs to protect resources and support 

planned visitor use activities and levels.

• Provide reasonable access with minimal impact on resources 

and visitor experiences.

Targeted Outcomes:

Activities: Access to the ocean and river for fishing, waterfowl hunting, 

and kayaking, hiking, bird watching, photography, nature study, 

interpretive programs and environmental education.

Experiences: Learning about and enjoy nature; developing outdoor skills; 

experiencing independence, enjoying the closeness of family, group 

affiliation, exercise; escape pressures.

Benefits: Psychological – personal development and growth, supporting 

an outdoor-oriented lifestyle, improved opportunity to view wildlife, 
J – 1237

Appendix J. Recreation

greater freedom from urban living; Household and Community

– greater family bonding, more well-rounded children, enhanced 

lifestyle, access to low cost recreation opportunities; Economic

–contributions to local economic stability, maintenance of community’s 

distinctive recreation-tourism market niche, increased desirability as 

a place to live, increased property values for adjacent land owners; 

Environmental – maintenance of distinctive recreation setting, greater 

community ownership of recreation and natural resources, greater 

protection of habitats from development.

Prescribed Setting Character:

Physical: Primarily a rural to front/middle country setting that includes 

diverse coastal habitats, sand dunes and ocean-front beaches. Facilities 

at Storm Ranch include a learning center, parking lots, restrooms, 

interpretive kiosk, picnic tables and a host site. 

Social: Visitor encounters are highest (10-20 contacts) during peak 

use periods at Storm Ranch and Floras Lake. Encounters diminish 

significantly on the trail network and river.

Administrative: Primarily in the form of gates and posted regulatory 

signs. Area is closed to the public at night. Patrolled frequently by BLM 

staff and law enforcement. Interpretive and environmental education 

programs are used to increase awareness and to lessen impacts.

Activity Planning Framework:

Management: Provide opportunities that contribute to meeting recreation 

demand while protecting resources. Provide and maintain visitor 

facilities, services, signage, and programs.

Marketing: Use information and education to lessen potential visitor 

conflicts and resource impacts. Exercise discretion in promoting the 

recreation opportunities to minimize crowding.

Monitoring: Monitor visitor satisfaction and recreation-related 

resource impacts.

Administrative Apply administrative actions to maintain a quality 

recreation experience compatible with the appropriate setting and to 

protect sensitive resources.
J – 1238

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Sixes River

Primary Market Strategy: Destination

Niche: Developed camping, water based day-use activities, and 

recreational gold mining. 

Management Objectives: 

• Provide the facilities, services and administrative 

designations needed to manage the activities associated with 

recreational use.

• Manage the existing recreation sites consistent with 

Roaded Natural to Roaded Modified management 

classes. Continue to provide for a range of recreation 

opportunities in the area, including individual to largesized group camping and picnicking experiences within 

the Edson Creek Recreation Site.

Targeted Outcomes:

Activities: Camping, picnicking, fishing, social gatherings, swimming, 

non-motorized boating, recreational gold panning and sluicing.

Experiences: Family and group affiliation; physical rest; escape from 

personal-social pressures; ability to collect and utilize natural resources 

for personal enjoyment (e.g., fishing and recreational mining).

Benefits: Personal - better mental health and health maintenance, greater 

self reliance, stronger ties with family and friends; Psycho-physiological 

- restored body from fatigue; Household and Community - greater family 

bonding, opportunity for more well-rounded childhood development, 

learning and passing on of outdoor skills, reduced social isolation; 

Economic - positive contribution to regional economic stability.

Prescribed Setting Character:

Physical: Developed recreation sites along the banks of the Sixes 

River, varying from an unmodified alder and Douglas fir forest to a 

rural park setting. 

Social: High visitor density in the developed campgrounds when 

operating at peak capacity. During the off-season visitor contacts can be 

less than 10 per day.
J – 1239

Appendix J. Recreation

Administrative: Regularly patrolled by law enforcement and other 

agency staff. Both campgrounds are fee areas and rules are clearly posted 

throughout the recreation area.

Activity Planning Framework:

Management: Continue to provide for a developed camping and day use 

experience and associated facilities with an emphasis on maintaining a 

rural recreation setting.

Marketing: Use information and interpretation to lessen visitor conflicts 

and resource impacts in the recreation area. Inform visitors how fees are 

being used in the operation of the recreation area and solicit feedback 

from them on how they would like to see their fees used in the future.

Monitoring: Monitor visitor satisfaction and recreation-related resource 

impacts based on the SRMA objectives.

Administrative: Apply administrative actions to maintain a safe and 

enjoyable recreation experience and to conserve and restore the natural 

setting of the Sixes River (e.g., permits and fees, visitor services, law 

enforcement, restoration/renovation).

Tioga 

Primary Market Strategy: Undeveloped

Niche: Undeveloped Coast Range setting for traditional forest-based 

recreation activities.

Management Objectives: An SRMA management plan has not been 

developed to establish management objectives for this area.

Targeted Outcomes:

Activities: Driving for pleasure, big game hunting, fishing, mushroom 

gathering, camping in developed campgrounds, primitive dispersed camping, 

hiking, mountain biking/bicycling.

Experiences: Developing skills and abilities; experiencing a greater 

independence, exploring, enjoying nature, utilize resources for personal 

enjoyment, physical fitness; escape pressures.

Benefits: Psychological – better mental health, personal development and 

growth, greater self reliance, improved outdoor skills and self confidence, 

stronger ties with family, friends, and the natural world, a more outdoororiented lifestyle, enhanced sense of personal freedom; Psycho-physiological

– improved physical fitness and health, restored body from fatigue; 
J – 1240

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Household and Community – greater family bonding, reduced social 

isolation, passing on outdoor skills and values, more well-rounded children, 

enhanced lifestyle; Economic – access to low cost outdoor recreation 

experiences, positive contribution to local economic stability, maintenance of 

the region’s distinctive recreation market niche and character

Prescribed Setting Character:

Physical: Developed recreation sites include: Park Creek Campground, 

Burnt Mountain Recreation Site, and the Doerner Fir Trail. The area 

contains tracts of substantially unmodified forest landscapes in the 

Cherry Creek Research Natural Area and Wilderness Instant Study Area, 

the Tioga Creek Area of Critical Environmental Concern and the China 

Wall Area of Critical Environmental Concern.

Social: Social encounters are very low except the Park Creek 

Campground during the peak of summer and fall hunting season. Visitors 

may encounter log trucks on the roadways and other activities commonly 

associated with commercial forestry practices on public and private land.

Administrative: Very few administrative controls except for gates and 

some regulatory signs. Infrequent patrol by law enforcement and other 

BLM employees involved in visitor services.

Activity Planning Framework:

Management: Provide a developed camping experience at Park Creek 

and associated facilities with an emphasis on maintaining a front country 

recreation setting. Maintain existing trails and evaluate the conversion 

of closed roads for additional hiking, mountain biking, equestrian, and 

ohh-highway vehicle opportunities. Develop new trails to connect with 

existing opportunities in the area.

Marketing: Use information and interpretation to lessen visitor conflicts 

and resource impacts with an emphasis on low impact recreation 

practices. Provide information to visitors about forest management 

practices, stream restoration and wildlife habitat management efforts.

Monitoring: Monitor visitor satisfaction and recreation-related 

resource impacts.

Administrative: Apply administrative actions to maintain a safe and 

enjoyable recreation experience within the Park Creek Campground 

and to conserve the middle country and backcountry settings of the 

area. Keep administrative controls to the minimum necessary to meet 

objectives in order to preserve the primitive setting valued by visitors.
J – 1241

Appendix J. Recreation

 Medford District

Hyatt Lake-Howard Prairie Lake

Primary Market Strategy: Destination 

Niche: Sub-alpine plateau featuring two lakes adjacent to the Cascade/

Siskiyou National Monument.

Management Objectives: Address Special Recreation Management Area 

issues and prioritize projects in watershed analyses or separate recreation 

area management plans as appropriate. Prepare project plans as needed. 

Provide for water-based recreation opportunities, winter sports, hiking, 

camping, equestrian use, fishing, and sightseeing.

Targeted Outcomes:

Activities: Camping, fishing, swimming, hiking, winter sports, equestrian 

use, wildlife observation, and nature interpretation.

Experiences: Escape personal or social pressures. Relaxation in a 

forested mountain setting. Enjoy the company of family and friends, the 

use of recreation equipment, and exercising. 

Benefits: Restored mind from unwanted stress; improved mental well 

being; improved skills for outdoor enjoyment; stronger ties to family 

and friends.

Prescribed Setting Character:

Physical: Sub-alpine forested plateau featuring two lakes with excellent 

fisheries, boating opportunities, hiking opportunities, and scenic vistas. 

The area is of a semi-developed rural character and is accessible by 

county roads, state highways, and BLM roads.

Social: Moderate to high visitor density during peak use periods. 

Off-season periods offer opportunities for solitude, especially in 

undeveloped areas suitable for dispersed recreation. Campgrounds are 

generally full on weekends with much interaction between camping 

groups and BLM personnel.

Administrative: Most campgrounds have controlled access entrance 

stations with no reservations. County, state, and BLM law enforcement 

patrol periodically. Campground hosts provide visitor services.

Land ownership is mixed between county, state, private, and BLM.
J – 1242

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Activity Planning Framework:

Management: Provide the widest array of recreation opportunities 

available in a forest, lake, mountain, and trail environment. Provide 

for winter sports opportunities. Emphasize camping and water based 

recreation.

Marketing: This SRMA markets itself and is a perennial favorite 

destination for the local population of the Rogue Basin and Klamath 

Basin. BLM and Jackson County distribute brochures and literature 

describing the attractions of the area.

Monitoring: During peak use periods, agency staff perform daily 

monitoring in high-use density areas, providing visitor services 

and noting and mitigating any resource damage. Periodic customer 

satisfaction surveys are conducted.

Administrative: On BLM lands, provide visitor information to ensure 

proper use of public lands, employ law enforcement measures as 

appropriate, and cooperate with county and private landowners to 

preserve and maintain the natural character of the area.

Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail

Primary Market Strategy: National strategy for long-distance hikers, 

local strategy for short-distance hikers and equestrian users

Niche: This 40-mile portion of the trail offers high elevation hiking and 

outstanding opportunities for solitude and primitive camping along the 

Cascade-Siskiyou Mountains.

Management Objectives: Protect and preserve the physical, aesthetic, 

social and biological environments characteristic within the trail 

corridor. Provide interpretive information at all access points. Maintain 

trail conditions as prescribed by BLM standards. Cooperate with 

trail groups, other agencies, and private landowners in the overall 

management of the trail.

Targeted Outcomes:

Activities: Long distance and day hiking, equestrian use, 

photography, wildlife observation, sightseeing, camping, hunting, and 

cross-country jogging.

Experiences: Solitude and self reliance. Escape stress and pressure of the 

outside world. Enjoy physical exercise, challenge, and adventure of long 

distance wilderness hiking.
J – 1243

Appendix J. Recreation

Benefits: Development of improved physical endurance. A restored 

mind from unwanted stress. Enhanced awareness of nature and 

natural processes.

Prescribed Setting Character:

Physical: The trail corridor is generally within a short distance of the 

ridge crest and proceeds below timberline through coniferous forest 

stands, abbreviated by occasional meadows. Water sources are generally 

uncommon. Frequent encounters with grazing livestock.

Social: Encounters with other hikers and equestrian riders are nominal 

away from trailheads. 

Administrative: The trail passes through federal, state, county, and 

private lands. BLM’s dominant management role is apparent to hikers as 

all signage is BLM produced. Law enforcement presence is negligible 

with the exception of very infrequent patrols.

Activity Planning Framework:

Management: Continue to monitor use patterns to detect trends and predict 

changes. Practice adaptive management techniques to react to changing 

conditions and user needs.

Marketing: Information provided at trailheads, road crossings, or at agency 

offices provides the user with a description of features along the trail, 

adjacent recreation opportunities, and information on the differing types 

of uses a hiker may encounter. Maintain an updated agency webpage 

covering trail conditions, attractions, available resources and their location. 

Cooperate with trail groups, managing agencies, and landowners to 

promote proper use.

Monitoring: Use passive electronic trail counters for visitor use 

information. Provide comment and message journals at trailheads. Through 

the trail website, encourage and request users to contact BLM and offer 

assessments as to trail conditions or other observations. When possible, 

utilize BLM staff, or volunteers to conduct foot patrols.

Administrative: Assume a proactive role in trail management, obviating 

any problems or conditions before any degradation of the recreation 

resource occurs. Use appropriate signage to alert hikers of land ownership, 

jurisdictional boundaries, use regulations, and emergency services.
J – 1244

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Rogue National Wild and Scenic River

Primary Market Strategy: 

Employ a nationally based destination marketing strategy

Niche: The Rogue River is renowned for its broad array of outstandingly 

remarkable values: superior fisheries, outstanding scenery, challenging 

white water, and historical significance all combine to make the Rogue 

stand out as a nationally significant component of the National Wild and 

Scenic Rivers System.

Management Objectives: Manage the designated portion of the Rogue 

River to protect its outstandingly remarkable values.

Targeted Outcomes:

Activities: Motorized and non-motorized white water boating, camping, 

fishing, swimming, hiking, photography, wildlife observation, and 

tributary exploration.

Experiences: Family and group affiliation, physical rest, escape from 

personal and social pressures, experience a risk activity, develop outdoor 

skills, develop nautical skills, appreciate natural wonders, and enjoyment 

of a relatively natural and undisturbed environment.

Benefits: Better mental health, restored mind from unwanted stress, 

greater self reliance, improve skills for outdoor enjoyment, and enhanced 

awareness and understanding of nature.

Prescribed Setting Character:

Physical: Within the designated “Wild” section of the river, visitors 

experience a primitive and relatively undeveloped coastal confluence 

river corridor with challenging rapids requiring advanced boating skills. 

Within the designated “Recreation” section, visitors experience a semideveloped shoreline with adjacent roads and dwellings, flatter terrain, 

and slow water.

Social: Within the designated “Wild” river classification, visitors 

encounter mostly non-motorized boating groups and shore-side campers. 

Encounters with others are sporadic with long time periods between 

contacts. Within the designated “Recreation” section, motorized tour 

boats are common and the dominant conveyance for visitors.
J – 1245

Appendix J. Recreation

Administrative: BLM, state, and county jurisdictions overlap along 

the entire river stretch. BLM has the dominant role in administrative 

presence. Regular river maintenance and permit compliance trips are 

performed by BLM staff. County marine deputies provide the majority 

of law enforcement services. BLM manages 47 miles of the river’s 

84-mile long designated length. The 33-mile “Wild” section is under a 

limited entry permit system, allowing approximately 120 people per day 

to proceed down river from Grave Creek to Watson Creek. Private party 

permits are obtained through a lottery conducted yearly. Commercial 

parties are allocated approximately half of these spaces based on historic 

use levels.

Activity Planning Framework:

Management: Manage the entire designated BLM portion according to 

management plans.

Marketing: The Rogue enjoys a national reputation for its outstanding 

qualities. An active website is maintained to educate potential visitors 

regarding the opportunities.

Monitoring: Visitor numbers, types of uses, physical, social and 

biological resource conditions are monitored according to the 

prescriptive measures outlined in the river’s management plans.

Administrative: Adaptive management is applied as necessary to ensure 

that the river’s outstandingly remarkable values are either maintained 

or enhanced.

Klamath Falls Resource Area

Gerber 

Primary Market Strategy: Community

Niche: Provide opportunities for roaded natural and semi-primitive 

recreation experiences.

Management Objectives: Manage Gerber Recreation site with camping 

units to accommodate overnight, day use and mobility impaired visitors; 

Frog camp day use area; and boat ramps. Manage several nearby semideveloped camp sites to provide primitive camping and day use. Manage 

and maintain the Gerber Watchable Wildlife Area Tour. In addition, 

develop or enhance watchable wildlife and other interpretive sites to 

showcase resource management. Manage area for roaded natural and 

semi-primitive recreation opportunities.
J – 1246

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Targeted Outcomes:

Activities: Camping, fishing, wildlife viewing, hunting, OHV driving

Experiences: Opportunities for solitude, achievement/stimulation, 

enjoying nature

Benefits: Greater self-reliance, improved outdoor skills, greater sense of 

adventure, physical fitness

Prescribed Setting Character:

Physical: Provide roaded natural and semi-primitive recreation 

experiences.

Social: Low (6 to 10 parties per day) to moderate (10 to 50 parties per 

day) recreation use levels (moderate near developed sites and roads, and 

low to moderate in other areas).

Administrative: Onsite regimentation and controls present, but are subtle. 

Camp hosts provided at Gerber Recreation site (fee site).

Activity Planning Framework:

Management: Facilities include developed and semi-developed 

campgrounds, day use areas, boat ramps, hiking trail, Watchable Wildlife 

and Klamath Basin Birding Trail viewing site. Seasonal road closure in 

Gerber Block from November 1 to April 15.

Marketing: New brochure has been developed. Area is identified on 

Klamath Basin Birding Trail map. 

Possible enhancement measures include additional interpretive panels 

and sign.

Monitoring: Area is OHV limited to existing roads, with additional 

seasonal road closures in place. Miller Creek ACEC, Gerber Reservoir, 

Willow Valley Reservoir and several streams are closed to OHV use. 

Limited onsite administration (except at Gerber Recreation site where 

camp hosts are provided)

Administrative: Limited onsite administration, primarily at Gerber 

Recreation site and during regular patrols and law enforcement. 
J – 1247

Appendix J. Recreation

Hamaker Mountain 

Primary Market Strategy: Community

Niche: Roaded natural recreation opportunities, including mountain 

biking, hiking, OHV, competitive hill climbs and winter sports within the 

Klamath Falls urban area. 

Management Objectives: Manage SRMA for Roaded Natural recreation 

opportunities. Design timber management and other activities to enhance 

future trail and site development with an emphasis on winter sports and 

mountain biking. Examples of timber management activities that would 

enhance recreation would include the development of cleared trails 

suitable for downhill or cross country skiing. Trails would be replanted 

with vegetation to benefit wildlife and would be unavailable for future 

timber harvest. The identification and resolving of specific recreation 

management issues and prioritization of projects (developed parking 

areas, designated trails, etc.) will occur during watershed analysis 

(completed) or recreation area planning. Establish a BLM patrol during 

winter months to provide visitor assistance on Hamaker Mountain. 

Coordinate with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on access road 

plowing, maintenance, improvements. Winter recreation opportunities 

limited if road is not regularly plowed by FAA.

Targeted Outcomes:

Activities: Winter sports, mountain biking, hiking, OHV trail riding, 

competitive events

Experiences: Exercise, Escape physical pressure, enjoying nature

Benefits: Greater self-reliance, improved outdoor skills, greater sense of 

adventure, physical fitness. Close to urban area recreation opportunities.

Prescribed Setting Character:

Physical: Roaded natural opportunities.

Social: About equal opportunities for affiliation with other user groups 

and for isolation from sights and sounds of man. Concentrations of users 

are low to moderate. 

Administrative: Onsite controls and restrictions offer a sense of security. 

Rustic facilities provided.
J – 1248

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Activity Planning Framework:

Management: No facilities currently provided. New facilities to include 

trailheads, designated OHV routes, developed trails, group use areas 

and winter sports trails and parking areas. Seasonal fire restrictions limit 

OHV use. Opportunity to tie-in with Klamath Sportsman’s Park.

Marketing: New brochure to be developed once facilities are developed 

and needed easements are in place. Opportunities for concession for 

permitted travel/shuttle service.

Monitoring: Ongoing monitoring to be conducted during spring through 

fall months to monitor use, facility conditions and reduce user conflicts. 

Monitoring of winter use when snow is adequate for recreation activities.

Administrative: OHV use limited to existing roads (existing condition). 

OHV use is to be limited to designated trails once OHV inventory is 

completed. Limited onsite administration, primarily patrols and law 

enforcement. ATV allocation committee grants to be pursued for facility 

development and law enforcement.

Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail

Primary Market Strategy: Destination.

Niche: This 0.5-mile portion of the trail offers high elevation hiking and 

outstanding opportunities for solitude and primitive camping along the 

Cascade-Siskiyou Mountains.

Management Objectives: Protect and preserve the physical, aesthetic, social 

and biological environments characteristic within the trail corridor. Provide 

interpretive information at all access points. Maintain trail conditions as 

prescribed by BLM standards. Cooperate with trail groups, other agencies, 

and private landowners in the overall management of the trail.

Targeted Outcomes:

Activities: Long distance and day hiking, equestrian use, 

photography, wildlife observation, sightseeing, camping, hunting, and 

cross-country jogging.

Experiences: Solitude and self reliance. Escape stress and pressure of the 

outside world. Enjoy physical exercise, challenge, and adventure of long 

distance wilderness hiking.

Benefits: Development of improved physical endurance. A restored 

mind from unwanted stress. Enhanced awareness of nature and 

natural processes.
J – 1249

Appendix J. Recreation

Prescribed Setting Character:

Physical: The trail corridor is generally within a short distance of the 

ridge crest and proceeds below timberline through coniferous forest 

stands, abbreviated by occasional meadows. Water sources are generally 

uncommon. Frequent encounters with grazing livestock.

Social: Encounters with other hikers and equestrian riders are nominal 

away from trailheads. 

Administrative: The trail passes through federal, state, county, and 

private lands. BLM’s dominant management role is apparent to hikers as 

all signage is BLM produced. Law enforcement presence is negligible 

with the exception of very infrequent patrols.

Activity Planning Framework:

Management: Maintenance for the Klamath Falls Resource Area section 

of the trail is coordinated by the Medford District BLM. Monitor 

use patterns to detect trends and predict changes. Practice adaptive 

management to react to changing conditions and user needs.

Marketing: Information provided at trailheads, road crossings, or at 

agency offices provides the user with a description of features along the 

trail, adjacent recreation opportunities, and information on the differing 

types of uses a hiker may encounter. Maintain an updated agency 

webpage covering trail conditions, attractions, available resources and 

their location. Cooperate with trail groups, managing agencies, and 

landowners to promote proper use.

Monitoring: Use passive electronic trail counters for visitor use 

information. Provide comment and message journals at trailheads. 

Through the trail website, encourage and request users to contact BLM 

and offer assessments as to trail conditions or other observations. When 

possible, utilize BLM staff, or volunteers to conduct foot patrols.

Administrative: Assume a proactive role in trail management, 

obviating any problems or conditions before any degradation of the 

recreation resource occurs. Use appropriate signage to alert hikers 

of land ownership, jurisdictional boundaries, use regulations, and 

emergency services.
J – 1250

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Stukel Mountain

Primary Market Strategy: Community

Niche: Semi-primitive motorized and non-motorized trail opportunities 

within the Klamath Falls urban area. Includes proposed hiking, 

horseback, mountain biking, and OHV trail opportunities; and hang 

gliding launch area.

Management Objectives: Manage SRMA for semi-primitive motorized 

and non-motorized recreation opportunities. The identification and 

resolving of specific recreation management issues and prioritization of 

projects (designated off-highway vehicle trails, ease of public access, 

developed recreation sites, etc.) will occur during watershed analysis 

or recreation area planning. Improve main road access. Consider 

development of hang gliding and other facilities for day use and 

overnight camping. Improve legal access through easements. 

Targeted Outcomes:

Activities: Hiking, mountain biking, horseback riding, OHV tour routes

Experiences: Exercise, Escape physical pressure, enjoying nature 

Benefits: Greater self-reliance, improved outdoor skills, greater sense of 

adventure, physical fitness

Prescribed Setting Character:

Physical: Semi-primitive motorized and non-motorized opportunities

Social: Concentrations of users is low except on weekends where it 

is moderate

Administrative: Onsite regimentation and controls present, but are subtle

Activity Planning Framework:

Management: No facilities currently provided. New facilities to include 

trailheads, designated OHV routes, developed trails, camping areas and 

hang gliding. Seasonal road closure from Nov. 1 to April 15.

Marketing: New brochure to be developed once facilities are developed 

and needed easements are in place.
J – 1251

Appendix J. Recreation

Monitoring: Ongoing monitoring to be conducted during spring through 

fall months to monitor use, facility conditions and reduce user conflicts.

Administrative: Limited onsite administration, primarily patrols and 

law enforcement.

Upper Klamath River 

Primary Market Strategy: Destination recreation tourism.

Niche: Outstanding summer whitewater boating, fishing and camping 

opportunities.

Management Objectives: Manage for semi-primitive motorized 

recreation objectives. Manage the area to emphasize whitewater boating, 

fishing and camping along the upper Klamath River. Improve and expand 

Stateline take-out, scouting trails for the Caldera and Hell’s Corner 

rapids. Manage and maintain Topsy recreation site with camping units 

for overnight and day use visitors, boat ramp, the Spring Island rafting 

launch site, and several primitive camping sites along the Klamath 

River. Continue to follow the cooperative management agreement with 

the Pacific Power and Light Company for coordinated recreation trail 

and facility development. Nominate Topsy Road to the National Back 

Country Byway System. Maintain the Klamath River edge trail for nonmotorized use. 

Targeted Outcomes:

Activities: Whitewater boating, fishing, camping, off-highway vehicle 

driving, sightseeing

Experiences: Risk taking, opportunities for solitude, achievement/

stimulation, enjoying nature

Benefits: Greater self-reliance, improved outdoor skills, greater sense of 

adventure

Prescribed Setting Character:

Physical: Semi-primitive motorized

Social: Low to moderate interaction, (less on weekdays, moderate 

on weekends)

Administrative: Onsite regimentation and controls present but subtle
J – 1252

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Activity Planning Framework: 

Management: Facility development includes existing facilities (Topsy, 

Spring Island, Klamath River campground, Stateline, and dispersed 

camps), Future facilities include Bypass reach parking areas, boat launch 

and access trails, additional trails connecting Topsy campground with 

Copco village and Keno dam area. 

Marketing: New brochure to be developed in conjunction with statewide 

developed facility brochure marketing. Other marketing done by 

commercial outfitters. 

Monitoring: Ongoing monitoring for Wild and Scenic River and 

outfitter/guides to be done by primarily during the summer whitewater 

boating season.

Administrative: Limited onsite administration, primarily at 

Topsy campground, Spring Island boat launch and during regular 

seasonal patrols. 

Wood River Wetland

Primary Market Strategy: Community

Niche: Provide opportunities for roaded natural and semi-primitive 

recreation experiences.

Management Objectives: Provide opportunities for roaded natural and 

semi-primitive recreation experiences (opportunities to have a high 

degree of interaction with the natural environment; to have moderate 

challenge and risk and to use outdoor skills). See Wood River RMP/EIS 

for additional management objectives and detailed guidance.

Targeted Outcomes:

Activities: Wildlife viewing, hiking, fishing, hunting, boating, dog walking.

Experiences: Exercise, Escape physical pressure, enjoying nature

Benefits: Greater self-reliance, improved outdoor skills, greater sense of 

adventure, physical fitness, rural recreation.

Prescribed Setting Character:

Physical: Provide roaded natural and semi-primitive recreation experiences.
J – 1253

Appendix J. Recreation

Social: Low (6 to 10 parties per day) to moderate (10 to 50 parties per 

day) recreation use levels (moderate near developed sites and roads, and 

low to moderate in other areas).

Administrative: To manage the area for day use only. Recreation use 

and facilities would be secondary to the overall objective of wetland 

restoration and water quality improvement.

Activity Planning Framework:

Management: Facilities include a paved parking area, canoe/small boat 

launch, vault toilets, hiking trail, interpretive panels. Area closed to 

motorized use, and additional use restrictions (time of day, personal 

belongings, etc.).

Marketing: New brochure has been developed. Day use facilities and trail 

are developed as well as interpretive panels. Future development includes 

additional wetland and nature trails and environmental education 

gathering area. Area is identified as a site on the Klamath Basin Birding 

Trail map and is used for environmental and classroom education.

Monitoring: Area has a self-registration form, and additional monitoring 

occurs throughout the year by BLM staff and volunteers.

Administrative: Area is OHV closed (except for administrative 

uses), closed to overnight use, area open to hunting. Limited onsite 

administration, primarily patrols and law enforcement.
J – 1254

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs
Appendix K. Wilderness 

Characteristics

This appendix provides background on the Evaluation and Planning Process for lands with wilderness 

characteristics.

In this appendix:

Wilderness Characteristics Analysis...................................................................................1257

K – 1255
K – 1256

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs
K – 1257

Appendix K. Wilderness Characteristics

Wilderness Characteristics Analysis

Introduction

BLM has developed an evaluation and planning process to consider wilderness characteristics 

during the western Oregon plan revisions. This process has been designed to: (1) review original 

wilderness inventories conducted by BLM between 1978 and 1980 to ensure current and accurate 

information exists to analyze the environmental impacts of alternatives on BLM lands with 

wilderness characteristics; and (2) address proposals from the public to inventory and protect 

BLM lands with wilderness characteristics.

BLM’s authority to conduct wilderness reviews, including the establishment of new wilderness 

study areas, expired on October 21, 1993, pursuant to Section 603 of FLPMA. However, BLM 

has retained authority under Section 201 of FLPMA to inventory wilderness characteristics and 

to consider such information during land use planning. Through this planning process, BLM 

has discretion to determine which portions of BLM lands with wilderness characteristics would 

be protected under special management. However, BLM can not manage these areas under the 

non-impairment standard described in BLM’s Interim Management Policy for Lands Under 

Wilderness Review (Handbook H-8550-1) which applies only to wilderness study areas.

BLM received scoping comments from the public to inventory and protect wilderness 

characteristics on specific BLM lands in western Oregon (hereinafter referred to as “public 

wilderness proposals”). These requests have been considered along with all other resource 

information during this land use planning process.

Protection of wilderness characteristics on O&C lands determined to be suitable for permanent 

timber production is considered to be inconsistent with the O&C Act. Information about the 

presence or absence of wilderness characteristics on these lands, therefore, is not necessary 

to make land use plan decisions. However, BLM has determined where O&C lands suitable 

for permanent timber production overlap public wilderness proposals in order to analyze how 

wilderness characteristics, if present, would be affected by each alternative.

Wilderness characteristics include: naturalness, outstanding opportunities for solitude, and 

outstanding opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation. These characteristics must 

be present in a roadless area of at least 5,000 acres or a smaller roadless area that is of sufficient 

size to make practical its preservation in an unimpaired condition. A consideration used in this 

evaluation process is when a smaller BLM roadless area adjoins an identified roadless area of the 

U.S. Forest Service, and their combined acreage is a minimum 5,000 acres. In this situation, a 

determination has been made whether or not the BLM portion contains wilderness characteristics 

when considered in context with the U.S. Forest Service portion.
K – 1258

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

The size of the roadless area is a critical factor in the determination of the presence or absence of 

individual wilderness characteristics. If the size requirement is not met, then the area cannot be 

considered to possess wilderness characteristics, since such characteristics are dependent on the 

sufficient size of the roadless area. Wilderness characteristics within areas of sufficient size are 

defined as follows:

Naturalness. Naturalness is present within an area that has been affected primarily 

by the forces of nature with the imprint of human activity substantially unnoticeable. 

Some imprints of human activity may exist if they are substantially unnoticeable. More 

consideration is given to “apparent naturalness” rather than “natural integrity.” “Apparent 

naturalness” refers to whether or not an area appears to be in a natural condition to the 

average visitor who is not familiar with the biological composition of natural ecosystems 

versus human-affected ecosystems in a given area. Major influences on apparent 

naturalness are structures, evidence of past significant vegetative disturbance such as 

logging, and other obvious surface-disturbing activities. “Natural integrity” refers to the 

presence or absence of ecosystems that are relatively unaffected by human activity, such 

as the presence of native vegetative communities and absence of invasive species. 

Outstanding Opportunities for Solitude. “Solitude” is defined as the state of being alone 

or remote from others; isolation; a lonely or secluded place. “Outstanding” is defined 

as standing out among others of its kind; conspicuous; prominent; superior to others of 

its kind; distinguished; excellent. Presence of this wilderness characteristic considers an 

individual’s opportunity to avoid the sights, sounds, and evidence of other people in the 

area. Factors that affect opportunities for solitude are the size and configuration of the 

unit; vegetative and topographic screening; ability of visitors to find a secluded spot, even 

when others are present in the area. Does not consider the sights and sounds of human 

activity outside of the unit’s boundaries unless they are so extremely imposing that they 

cannot be ignored.

Outstanding Opportunities for Primitive and Unconfined Recreation. Primitive and 

unconfined recreation includes activities that provide dispersed, undeveloped recreation 

which do not require facilities or motorized equipment. Some examples include but are 

not limited to: hiking, backpacking, fishing, hunting, caving, horseback riding, rock 

climbing, river running, cross-country skiing and bird watching. An area may possess 

outstanding opportunities for a primitive and unconfined type of recreation either through 

the diversity in the number of primitive and unconfined recreational activities possible or 

the outstanding quality of one opportunity.

The following includes a step-by-step evaluation and planning process that was used to: (1) 

review past wilderness inventories; (2) screen public wilderness proposals; (3) evaluate public 

wilderness proposals; (4) determine if proposed management would be applied to protect select 

units of BLM lands with wilderness characteristics; and (5) analyze each alternative’s effect on all 

BLM lands with wilderness characteristics.
K – 1259

Appendix K. Wilderness Characteristics

Step 1. Review past wilderness inventories.

BLM reviewed existing published wilderness inventory reports and maps that 

were prepared as a result of the original inventories conducted between 1978 

and 1980, under Section 603 of FLPMA. This review enabled BLM to determine 

if public wilderness proposals contained any new information that was not 

considered as part of the original inventories. 

Step 2. Screen public wilderness proposals.

All public wilderness proposals were organized by BLM district. These proposals 

were mapped in GIS and then overlaid with O&C lands suitable for permanent 

timber production. All proposals were considered in the evaluation process; 

however, portions of those that occur on O&C lands suitable for permanent 

timber production were not considered further for protection. 

Step 3. Evaluate public wilderness proposals.

BLM then determined if lands specified in each public wilderness proposal 

overlap the boundary of an original wilderness inventory unit, and if so, if 

any wilderness characteristics were identified in the original inventory of 

those lands. If necessary, original inventories were updated. If an inventory 

was not previously completed for a portion of BLM lands contained within a 

public wilderness proposal, then an assessment was completed to determine 

if wilderness characteristics currently exist. In most cases, this assessment 

was completed using existing field knowledge of an area and remote-sensing 

techniques such as: digital ortho photography, forest operations inventory 

data, and ground transportation road network data. On-the-ground evaluations 

were conducted if a reasonable determination could not be made using these 

techniques. Evaluation reports that summarize these results were developed for 

all public wilderness proposals. These reports were the basis for making a final 

determination of which BLM lands contain wilderness characteristics. 

Step 4. Determine if proposed management would be applied to protect 

selected lands with wilderness characteristics.

BLM districts selected one of the following outcomes for each unit of BLM lands 

that was determined to contain wilderness characteristics: (1) emphasize the 

protection of wilderness characteristics as a priority over other uses, excluding 

portions that occur on O&C lands suitable for permanent timber production; or 

(2) emphasize other uses as a priority over protecting wilderness characteristics.

Step 5. Analyze each alternative’s affect on BLM lands with 

wilderness characteristics.

See the Planning Criteria for the process used to analyze each alternative’s affect 

on BLM lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Appendix L. Grazing

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

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

in the Draft EIS.

In this appendix:

Standard Procedures and Design Elements for Range Improvements 

within the Klamath Falls Resource Area........................................................................... 1263

Grazing Allotments in the Klamath Falls Resource Area and Medford District...... 1270

Standards for Rangeland Health ....................................................................................... 1284

L – 1261
L – 1262

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs
L – 1263

Appendix L. Grazing

Standard Procedures and Design Elements 

for Range Improvements within the 

Klamath Falls Resource Area

Table 282. Proposed Klamath Falls Range Improvements by Allotment.

Allotment Allotment 

Number

Type of 

Improvement Number Approximate Location

Edge Creek* 00102

Reservoirs 2 each T41S, R5E, S.11; T40S, R5E, S.35

Fencing 3 miles T41S, R5E, S.11,12; T41S, R6E, S.4,5,6,7,8

Buck Mountain 00103 Fencing 2 miles T39S, R5E, S.11,13

Buck Lake 00104 Fencing 2 miles T38S, R5E, S.15,28,29; T38S, R6E, S.20

Dixie* 00107 Fencing 2 miles T41S, R5E, S.5,7; T41S, R4E, S.1,2,12

Grubb Springs 00147 Reservoirs 2 each T39S, R6E, S. 7,15

Stock Drive 00802 Fencing 1 mile T39S, R11E, S.31

J Spring 00803 Fencing 1 mile T38S, R14E, S.32

Barnwell 00807 Reservoirs 2 each T39S, R11.5E, S.4,8

Drew 00817

Reservoir 1 each T38S, R11.5E, S.5

Fencing 2 miles T38S, R11.5E, S.5,6; T37S, R11.5E, S.31,32

North Horsefly 00821 Reservoir 1 each T37S, R14E, S.16

Stukel-O’Neill 00822 Fencing 3 miles T39S, R10E, S.25,26; T40S, R10E, S.1,2

North Horsefly 00823

Reservoir 1 each T37S, R14E, S.4,9

Fencing 2 miles T37S, R14E, S.4,9

Haskins 00826 Fencing 1 mile T38S, R11.5E, S.29,30

Stukel-High 00827 Reservoir 1 each T39S, R11.5E, S.30,31

Horton 00829 Reservoir 1 each T39S, R11.5E, S.15

Ketcham 00835 Fencing 1 mile T39S, R11E, S.19

Harpold Chaining 00836

Reservoir 1 each T39S, R11E, S.21,27,28

Fencing 2 mile T39S, R11E, S.21,27,28

Windy Ridge 00838 Reservoirs 2 each T39S, R11.5E, S.24,25

Bryant-Loveness 00839 Fencing 2 miles T41S, R13E, S.5,6,7,8,17

Short Lake 00842 Fencing 2 miles T39S, R11E, S.27,28

OK 00846

Reservoirs 2 each T40S, R9E, S.15,21,22

Fencing 2 miles T40S, R9E, S.15,21,22,27,28

Swede Cabin 00847 Fencing 2 miles T36S, R15E, S.28,30,32

Harpold Ridge 00851

Reservoirs 2 each T39S, R11E, S.29,30,31,32

Fencing 2 miles T39S, R11E, S.29,30,31,32

Rodgers 00852

Reservoirs 2 each T40S, R11E, S.5,6,7,8

Fencing 3 miles T40S, R11E, S.5,6,7,8,9,10

McCartie 00860 Fencing 1 mile T38S, R11E, S.26,35

Reservoir 1 each T38S, R11E, S.26,35

Yainax 00861 Fencing 1 mile T38S, R11E, S.1,12,13

Mills Creek 00865

Reservoir 1 each T41S, R13E, S.7

Fencing 2 miles T41S, R13E, S.7

continued on next page
L – 1264

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Bear Valley 00876

Reservoir 1 each T40S, R15E, S.17,18

Fencing 2 miles T40S, R14.5E, S.24,25; T40S, R15E, 

S.19,30,31

DeVaul 00879 Fencing 1 mile T39S, R13E, S.10,11,15

Goodlow 00881 Fencing 1 mile T39S, R13E, S.9,10,15

Horton 00883 Reservoir 1 each T39S, R12E, S.22

Panky Basin 00884 Reservoir 1 each T39S, R13E, S.27,28

Fencing 1 mile T39S, R13E, S.27,28

Dry Prairie 00885 Reservoirs 2 each T38S, R13E, S.27,34,36

Rock Creek 00888 Fencing 2 miles T41S, R15E, S.9,17

Timber Hill 00889 Reservoirs 2 each T41S, R14.5E, S.11,12,14,23

Williams 00892 Fencing 2 miles T39S, R12E, S.10,15

* Located within the Pokegama Herd Management Area

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

of the proposed construction of range improvements within the Klamath Falls Resource Area. 

•	 Inventories and surveys for cultural resources, threatened and endangered species, and 

special status species would be conducted prior to authorization of any project construction, 

and appropriate mitigation implemented to reduce or eliminate potential effects.

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

would be rehabilitated to blend into surrounding soil surface and reseeded as needed 

with a mixture of native grasses, forbs, and shrubs as applicable to replace ground cover, 

reduce soil loss from wind and water erosion, and discourage the potential establishment 

of any invasive, non-native plant species.

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

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

construction sites and provide access for future maintenance of the improvements.

Additional design features specific to the individual types of improvements are described below.
L – 1265

Appendix L. Grazing

Reservoirs

•	 Development of reservoirs would involve the construction of pits and dams to 

impound water for livestock and wildlife use as shown in Illustration 1.

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

constructed in drainages.

•	 Water rights applications would be coordinated with applicable agencies, 

irrigation districts, and other interested parties.

•	 Water rights would be obtained from the Oregon Water Resources Department 

prior to construction.

•	 Water storage capacity would range from 1.0 to 3.0 acre-feet.

•	 Dams would be located, if possible, to take advantage of natural spillway sites; 

otherwise a spillway would be constructed for the reservoir. The slopes of the 

dam must be a minimum 3 to 1 on the upstream face and minimum of 2 to 1 on 

the downstream face. Minimum width of the top of all dams would be 12 feet.

•	 The spillway would be designed to minimize the risk of the dam being 

overtopped during the design life of the structure.

•	 Fill material, if needed, would come from the impoundment area and/or a borrow 

area for dams. 

•	 Excavated material from pits would be piled adjacent to the pit. Topsoil would 

be stockpiled and used to rehabilitate the borrow areas.
L – 1266

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Figure 313. Reservoir Standards
L – 1267

Appendix L. Grazing

Fencing

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

the movement of wildlife as shown in Illustration 2.

•	 Wire spacing would follow the specifications found in Illustrations 3. The 

majority of fences would be constructed as follows: 4 wire with the bottom wire 

16-18” off the ground with the sequence of the remaining three wires above this 

being 6”, 6”, and 12”; the maximum height of the fence (ground to top wire) 

would be 42”.

•	 The bottom wire on all fencing would be two-strand smooth wire, not barbed, to 

facilitate antelope crossings.

•	 Steel “t-post” spacing would be between 16’ and 24’ depending on local conditions.

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

enhance fence integrity with one at least every 1⁄4 mile.

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

•	 Brushing and tree limb removal will be limited to only that necessary for 

surveying, placement, and construction of a fence.

•	 Where fences cross existing roads, either gates or cattleguards would be installed.
L – 1268

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Figure 314. Fence Standards
L – 1269

Appendix L. Grazing

Figure 315. Wire Spacings
L – 1270

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

If future rangeland improvement projects are proposed beyond those listed above, additional 

site-specific analysis of the environmental consequences would be necessary. Such changes 

could result from new initiatives or funding sources, changes in management priorities, new laws/

regulations, litigation, site specific activity planning, or future Rangeland Health Assessments.

Grazing Allotments in the Klamath Falls 

Resource Area and Medford District

The Draft EIS provides a summary of the number and acres of grazing allotments for the Klamath 

Falls Resource Area and the Medford District. The following tables contain detailed information 

about these grazing allotments including proposed improvements. 
L – 1271

Table 283. Klamath Falls Resource Area Grazing Allotments.

Allotment Name

Allotment Number

BLM Acres

Active Grazing Preference (AUMs)2

Suspended Grazing Preference (AUMs)

Seasonof-Use Selective Management Category3 Rangeland Health Assessment Completed Rangeland Health Assessment Finding Gra

Sy

Chase Mountain 00101 8,823 195 0 5/15- 8/13 C 2001

Not Meeting Standards, Grazing is not a factor

Yea

Edge Creek 00102 8,860 207 0 5/1-9/1 I 2000

Not Meeting Standards, Grazing is not a factor

DeRo

Buck Mountain1 00103 7,022 204 0 5/15-9/1 I 2000

Not Meeting Standards, Grazing is not a factor

Yea

Buck Lake 00104 11,971 280 0 6/15- 10/15 C 2000

Not Meeting Standards, Grazing is not a factor

Yea

Johnson Prairie 00105 120 12 0 5/1-10/1 C 2000

Not Meeting Standards, Grazing is not a factor

Yea

Dixie1 00107 2,287 320 100 5/1-8/15 I 2002

Not Meeting Standards, Grazing is a factor

Yea

Dry Lake 00140 145 10 0 5/1-6/30 C 2001

Not Meeting Standards, Grazing is not a factor

Yea
L – 1272 Allotment Name Allotment Number BLM Acres Active Grazing Preference 

(AUMs)2

Suspended Grazing Preference (AUMs)

Seasonof-Use Selective Management Category3 Rangeland Health Assessment Completed Rangeland Health Assessment Finding Gra

Sy

Chicken Hills 00141 3,422 80 0 5/15- 9/15 C 2001

Not Meeting Standards, Grazing is not a factor

Yea

Long Lake 00142 363 18 0 6/16- 9/30 C 2000 Meeting All Standards YeaGrubb Springs 00147 3,524 130 0 5/1-9/30 C 2000

Not Meeting Standards, Grazing is not a factor

Yea

Adams 00800 40 6 0 4/15- 7/15 C 2005

Not Meeting Standards, Grazing is a factor

Yea

Haught 00801 400 27 0 5/1-7/31 C Not Completed Not Completed Yea

Stock Drive 00802 40 2 0 5/1-6/30 C Not Completed Not Completed Yea

J Spring 00803 320 7 0 5/1-6/30 C 2003 Meeting All Standards YeaBar CL 00804 480 20 22 5/1-5/31 C Not Completed Not Completed Yea

SE 80 00805 80 8 0 5/1- 10/31 C 2006 Meeting All Standards Yea

Two Mile 00806 577 56 0 5/1-9/30 C 2006

Not Meeting Standards, Grazing is not a factor

Yea

Barnwell 00807 1,708 100 0 5/1-6/15 C Not Completed Not Completed YeaLee 00808 40 10 0 6/1-8/15 C Not Completed Not Completed YeaBrown 00809 80 30 0 6/1-8/30 C Not Completed Not Completed Yea
L – 1273

Allotment Name

Allotment Number

BLM Acres

Active Grazing Preference (AUMs)2

Suspended Grazing Preference (AUMs)

Seasonof-Use Selective Management Category3 Rangeland Health Assessment Completed Rangeland Health Assessment Finding Gra

Sy

Brenda 00810 185 18 0 5/16- 6/30 C 2006 Meeting All Standards Yea

Cheyne 00811 875 51 0 5/1-6/15 C 2004 Meeting All Standards YeaStukel-Coffin 00812 760 55 0 5/1-7/1 C 2002 Meeting All Standards YeaCunningham 00814 840 108 0 5/1-6/15 C Not Completed Not Completed YeaStukelDehlinger C. 00815 1,680 240 0 4/15-8/8 I 2002 Meeting All Standards Yea

StukelDehlinger H.

00816 440 30 0 5/10- 8/10 C 2002 Meeting All Standards Yea

Drew 00817 720 72 0 5/1-6/30 C 2005 Meeting All Standards YeaDupont 00819 79 7 0 4/15-6/1 C Not Completed Not Completed YeaNorth Horsefly 00821 988 68 0 5/1-6/15 C Not Completed Not Completed YeaStukelO’Neill 00822 3,122 210 0 5/1-7/15 I 2002 Meeting All Standards Yea

North Horsefly 00823 920 60 0 6/16-8/1 C Not Completed Not Completed Yea

Jeld-Wen 00824 240 24 0 6/1-7/15 C 2006 Meeting All Standards Yea

Naylox 00825 760 76 0 5/1-6/30 C 2005 Meeting All Standards Yea

Haskins 00826 560 80 0 5/1-7/15 C 2004 Meeting All Standards YeaStukel-High 00827 239 17 0 5/1-6/15 C 2003 Meeting All Standards Yea
L – 1274 Allotment Name Allotment Number BLM Acres Active Grazing Preference 

(AUMs)2

Suspended Grazing Preference (AUMs)

Seasonof-Use Selective Management Category3 Rangeland Health Assessment Completed Rangeland Health Assessment Finding Gra

Sy

Stukel-Hill 00828 960 60 0 5/1-6/15 C 2002 Meeting All Standards Yea

Horton 00829 760 26 0 4/21- 6/30 C Not Completed Not Completed YeaHungry Hollow 00830 280 40/H 0 6/1-8/30 C 2005 Meeting All Standards YeaWarlow 00831 460 50 0 5/1-9/30 C Not Completed Not Completed YeaJesperson 00832 1578 158 0 5/1-7/1 C Not Completed Not Completed Yea

Kellison 00834 335 19 0 5/1-6/13 C 2004

Not Meeting Standards, Grazing is a factor

Yea

Ketcham 00835 320 20 0 5/1-6/15 C Not Completed Not Completed YeaHarpold Chaining 00836 900 96 0 5/1-5/30 C Not Completed Not Completed YeaBryantHorton 00837 1,249 130 0 6/1-7/9 C 2006 Meeting All Standards YeaWindy Ridge 00838 600 52 0 5/1-5/31 C Not Completed Not Completed Yea

BryantLoveness 00839 3,440 490 0 5/1-6/30 C Not Completed Not Completed Yea

Bryant-Lyon 00840 565 38 0 5/1-9/30 C Not Completed Not Completed YeaMarshall 00841 348 14 0 4/21- 5/30 C Not Completed Not Completed YeaShort Lake 00842 440 40 0 5/1-6/30 C 2005

Not Meeting Standards, Grazing is a factor

Yea
L – 1275

Allotment Name

Allotment Number

BLM Acres

Active Grazing Preference (AUMs)2

Suspended Grazing Preference (AUMs)

Seasonof-Use Selective Management Category3 Rangeland Health Assessment Completed Rangeland Health Assessment Finding Gra

Sy

McAuliffe 00843 80 10 0 4/16- 6/15 C Not Completed Not Completed Yea

Paddock 00844 440 31 0 5/1-6/30 M 2003 Meeting All Standards De

Ro

Klamath Hills 00845 500 55 0 4/1-5/31 C Not Completed Not Completed Yea

OK 00846 1,260 105 35 5/1-6/15 C Not Completed Not Completed Yea

Swede Cabin 00847 1,921 108 0 5/1-6/15 I Not Completed Not Completed YeaPope 00848 724 57 0 5/1-7/31 C Not Completed Not Completed Yea

Rajnus Bros. 00849 240 16 0 5/1-6/17 C Not Completed Not Completed Yea

Wilkinson 00850 400 18 0 5/1-6/5 C Not Completed Not Completed YeaHarpold Ridge 00851 1,043 108 0 4/21- 6/30 M 2006 Meeting All Standards YeaRodgers 00852 2,355 235 0 5/1-7/1 I 2003 Meeting All Standards Yea7C 00853 688 104 0 5/1-6/30 C Not Completed Not Completed Yea

Jump 00854 200 20 0 5/1-5/30 C Not Completed Not Completed Yea

BryantSmith 00855 1,140 109 0 5/15- 8/31 C Not Completed Not Completed YeaBryantStastny 00856 440 70 0 5/10- 9/30 C Not Completed Not Completed YeaBryantTaylor 00857 1,080 74 0 4/15- 9/30 C Not Completed Not Completed Yea
L – 1276 Allotment Name Allotment Number BLM Acres Active Grazing Preference 

(AUMs)2

Suspended Grazing Preference (AUMs)

Seasonof-Use Selective Management Category3 Rangeland Health Assessment Completed Rangeland Health Assessment Finding Gra

Sy

Swan Lake Rim 00858 6,448 300 0 5/1-6/30 M 2006 Meeting All Standards Re

Ro

Cunard 00859 370 60/H 0 5/1-7/31 C 2002 Meeting All Standards Re

Ro

McCartie 00860 545 83 0 5/1-5/30 C 2004 Meeting All Standards Re

Ro

Yainax Butte 00861 2,520 120 0 7/1-9/30 M 2005 Meeting All Standards De

Ro

Klamath Forest Estates

00862 2,520 47 0 5/1-5/31 M 2005 Meeting All Standards Yea

Wirth 00863 1,200 100 0 4/15- 10/15 C Not Completed Not Completed Yea

Rajnus & Son 00864 1,440 110 0 5/1-6/30 C Not Completed Not Completed Yea

Mills Creek 00865 280 40 0 5/1-6/14 C Not Completed Not Completed Yea

Bear Valley 00876 5,018 432 0 7/1-8/9 I 2000/2003 Meeting All Standards De

Ro

Bumpheads 00877 9,220 420 265 4/21- 6/30 I 2003

Not Meeting Standards, Grazing is a factor

DeRo

Campbell 00878 1,465 47/H 13 5/1- 10/26 C 2002 Meeting All Standards Yea
L – 1277

Allotment Name

Allotment Number

BLM Acres

Active Grazing Preference (AUMs)2

Suspended Grazing Preference (AUMs)

Seasonof-Use Selective Management Category3 Rangeland Health Assessment Completed Rangeland Health Assessment Finding Gra

Sy

DeVaul 00879 240 12 15 5/1-8/30 C 2003 Meeting All Standards Yea

Goodlow 00881 285 32 52 5/1-8/31 C 2003 Meeting All Standards YeaHorsefly 00882 26,356 2656 2075

4/15-6/30, 10/1-11/15

I 1999/2003 Meeting All Standards

ReRoHigInteShDu

Horton 00883 800 58 211 4/21- 5/20 C 2002 Meeting All Standards YeaPankey Basin 00884 282 43 38 5/15- 8/31 C 2003

Not Meeting Standards, Grazing is a factor

Yea

Dry Prairie 00885 7,231 642 358 5/1-9/30 I 1999/2003 Meeting All Standards Re

Ro

Horse Camp Rim 00886 9,180 445 281 5/1-7/31 I 2003 Meeting All Standards Re

Ro

Pitchlog 00887 9,280 434 796 5/10- 6/30 I 1999/2003 Meeting All Standards

ReRoHigInteShDu

Rock Creek 00888 2,750 216 639 5/1-5/31 I 2003 Meeting All Standards Re

Ro

Timber Hill 00889 2,937 270 134 6/21- 7/31 I 1999/2003 Meeting All Standards Yea
L – 1278 Allotment Name Allotment Number BLM Acres Active Grazing Preference 

(AUMs)2

Suspended Grazing Preference (AUMs)

Seasonof-Use Selective Management Category3 Rangeland Health Assessment Completed Rangeland Health Assessment Finding Gra

Sy

Willow Valley 00890 20,460 1258 506 4/15- 6/30 I 2000/2003

Not Meeting Standards, Grazing is a factor

ReRo

Williams 00892 1,790 75 0 5/1-5/31 M 2004 Meeting All Standards YeaFields 00893 180 6 0 4/21- 5/20 C 2005 Meeting All Standards YeaVoight 00894 112 8 0 5/1-6/15 C 2003 Meeting All Standards YeaHarpold Canyon 00895 760 76 0 5/1-9/30 C 2006 Meeting All Standards Yea

McFall 00896 600 60 0 5/1-6/30 C 2006 Meeting All Standards Yea

Bly Mountain 01800 120 9 0 6/1-8/31 C Not Completed Not Completed Yea

Wood River 30855 2,970 0 0 N/A N/A 2000

Not Meeting Standards, Grazing is not a factor

N/A

204,815 13,103 5,540

1All or a portion of the allotment is located within the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument2Active Preference is cattle AUMs unless specified as H for domestic horse use3Selective Management Categories: Improve (I)-managed to resolve a high level of resource conflicts and concerns and receive the highest priority for funding and management actions; Maintain (M)-managed to maintain satisfactory resource conditions and will be actively managed to ensure that resource values do not decline; Custodial (C)-managed custodially to protect resource conditions and values.
L – 1279

Table 284. Medford Grazing Allotments.

Allotment Name

Allotment Number

BLM Acres

Active Grazing Preference (AUMs)2

Suspended Grazing Preference (AUMs)

Seasonof-Use Selective Management Category3 Rangeland Health Assessment Completed Rangeland Health Assessment Finding 

Lost Creek 10001 11,518 382 0 04/16- 10/31 I 2001 Not Meeting Standards, Grazing is not a factor Flat Creek 10002 12,421 328 0 05/01- 10/15 C 2000 Not Meeting Standards, Grazing is not a factor Longbranch 10004 320 22 0 04/16- 05/15 C 2002 Meeting All Standards Meadows 10007 1,564 92 0 04/16- 06/30 I 2003 Meeting All Standards Neil-Tarbell 10008 552 56 0 04/16- 05/31 C 2003 Meeting All Standards North Sams Valley 10009 120 8 0 06/16- 07/31 C 2002 Not Meeting Standards, Grazing is not a factor Upper Table Rock 10012 1,240 66 0 05/01- 05/30 I 2003 Not Meeting Standards, Grazing is not a factor Clear Creek 10013 3,790 45 0 05/16- 10/31 C 2002 Meeting All Standards Lick Creek 10015 202 15 0 04/16- 05/15 C 2003 Meeting All Standards Brownsboro Park 10016 381 68 0 04/16- 05/31 I 2002 Not Meeting Standards, Grazing is not a factor 
L – 1280Allotment 

Name

Allotment Number

BLM Acres

Active Grazing Preference (AUMs)2

Suspended Grazing Preference (AUMs)

Seasonof-Use Selective Management Category3 Rangeland Health Assessment Completed Rangeland Health Assessment Finding 

Kanutchan Fields 10017 2,419 177 0 04/16- 05/31 I 2002 Not Meeting Standards, Grazing is not a factor Sugarloaf 10019 1,566 15 0 04/16- 06/30 C 2002 Meeting All Standards Section 9 10021 404 25 0 04/16- 06/30 C 2003 Meeting All Standards Section 7 10022 371 11 0 04/16- 05/31 C 2003 Not Meeting Standards, Grazing is not a factor Bull Run 10023 40 5 0 06/01- 06/30 C 2003 Meeting All Standards Big Butte 10024 22,118 1,663 0 04/16- 06/30 I 2000 Not Meeting Standards, Grazing is not a factor Reese Creek 10027 40 7 0 05/01- 06/30 C 1999 Meeting All Standards Derby Road Sawmill 10029 521 45 0 04/16- 07/15 C 2003 Meeting All Standards Summit Prairie 10031 30,743 1,165 0 04/16- 09/30 I 1999 Not Meeting Standards, Grazing is not a factor Vestal Butte 10035 2,240 120 0 04/16- 06/15 I 2003 Not Meeting Standards, Grazing is not a factor Bear Mountain 10037 1,008 81 0 04/16- 05/31 I 2002 Meeting All Standards 
L – 1281

Allotment Name

Allotment Number

BLM Acres

Active Grazing Preference (AUMs)2

Suspended Grazing Preference (AUMs)

Seasonof-Use Selective Management Category3 Rangeland Health Assessment Completed Rangeland Health Assessment Finding 

Crowfoot 10038 7,393 365 0 04/15- 16/30 I 2003 Meeting All Standards Crowfoot Creek 10039 521 70 0 04/16- 06/30 C 1999 Meeting All Standards Cobleigh Road 10040 80 7 0 06/01- 07/15 C 2003 Meeting All Standards Moser Mountain 10041 40 3 0 04/16- 04/30 C 2003 Meeting All Standards Devon South 10043 402 33 0 04/16- 06/30 C 1999 Meeting All Standards Salt Creek 10044 462 85 0 04/16- 06/30 I 2002 Meeting All Standards Jenny Creek1 10108 1,417 115 0 05/16- 09/10 I Not Completed Not Completed Agate1 10109 82 9 0 05/01- 09/15 C Not Completed Not Completed Soda Mountain1 10110 35,619 1,794 0 05/01- 10/15 I Not Completed Not Completed Cove Creek 10112 1,207 75 0 05/01- 06/15 I Not Completed Not Completed Buckpoint 10114 3,835 150 0 05/01- 06/15 C Not Completed Not Completed Keene Creek1 10115 23,643 1,612 0 05/01- 10/15 I Not Completed Not Completed Howard Prairie 10116 320 60 0 10/16- 11/15 M Not Completed Not Completed Siskiyou1 10118 2,163 200 0 05/01- 09/15 I Not Completed Not Completed 
L – 1282Allotment 

Name

Allotment Number

BLM Acres

Active Grazing Preference (AUMs)2

Suspended Grazing Preference (AUMs)

Seasonof-Use Selective Management Category3 Rangeland Health Assessment Completed Rangeland Health Assessment Finding 

Grizzly 10119 5,167 378 0 06/01- 10/15 I 1999 Not Meeting Standards, Grazing is not a factor Lake Creek Spring 10121 4,679 447 0 05/16- 07/15 I Not Completed Not Completed Lake Creek Summer 10122 5,561 550 0 07/16- 10/15 I Not Completed Not Completed Deer CreekReno Lease 10124 4,025 314 0 05/01- 09/30 C Not Completed Not Completed Heppsie Mountain 10126 4,076 294 0 05/01- 10/15 I Not Completed Not Completed Antelope Road 10132 200 19 0 04/16- 05/30 C 2003 Not Meeting Standards, Grazing is not a factor Brownsboro 10133 80 7 0 04/01- 06/15 C 2003 Meeting All Standards Yankee Reservoir 10134 120 15 0 05/01- 06-15 I 2003 Meeting All Standards Canal 10136 440 58 0 05/01- 06/15 C 2003 Meeting All Standards Box R Ranch1 10137 88 5 0 10/01- 02/28 C Not Completed Not Completed Cove Ranch 10143 80 20 0 07/01- 11/30 C Not Completed Not Completed North Cove Creek 10148 281 20 0 07/16- 09/15 C Not Completed Not Completed Deadwood1 20106 8,004 788 0 06/16- 08/15 I Not Completed Not Completed 
L – 1283

Allotment Name

Allotment Number

BLM Acres

Active Grazing Preference (AUMs)2

Suspended Grazing Preference (AUMs)

Seasonof-Use Selective Management Category3 Rangeland Health Assessment Completed Rangeland Health Assessment Finding 

Poole Hill 20113 1,760 25 0 10/01- 10/15 C 2003 Not Meeting Standards, Grazing is not a factor Conde Creek 20117 5,346 591 0 06/16- 09/30 I Not Completed Not Completed Billy Mountain 20203 4,758 175 0 04/16- 06/30 I 1999 Not Meeting Standards, Grazing is not a factor Lower Big Applegate 20206 11,712 258 0 04/16- 06/15 I Not Completed Not Completed Foots Creek 20219 115 12 0 05/01- 06/30 C 1999 Meeting All Standards Ferns Lease 20224 246 28 0 05/01- 06/15 C Not Completed Not Completed Deer Creek 20308 887 77 0 04/01- 12/15 C 2003 Not Meeting Standards, Grazing is not a factor 

228,387 13,055 0

1All or a portion of the allotment is located within the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument2Active Preference is cattle AUMs3Selective Management Categories: Improve (I)-managed to resolve a high level of resource conflicts and concerns and receive the highest priority for funding and management actions; Maintain (M)-managed to maintain satisfactory resource conditions and will be actively managed to ensure that resource values do not decline; Custodial (C)-managed custodially to protect resource conditions and values.
L – 1284

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Standards for Rangeland Health 

The following section contains 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. These standards and guidelines are referenced in Chapters 

2, 3, and 4 of this Draft EIS. Livestock grazing would be managed in accordance with these 

standards and guidelines.
L – 1285

Figure 316. Standards for Rangeland Health.
L – 1286
L – 1287
L – 1288
L – 1289
L – 1290
L – 1291
L – 1292
L – 1293
L – 1294
L – 1295
L – 1296
L – 1297
L – 1298
L – 1299
L – 1300
L – 1301
L – 1302
L – 1303
L – 1304
Appendix M. Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern

This appendix provides detailed information about Areas of Critical Environmental Concern. 

In this appendix:

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern..........................................................................1307

M – 1305
M – 1306

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs
M – 1307

Appendix M. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

This section contains detailed information about Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC). Two 

tables are included. Table 285 shows Areas of Critical Environmental Concern by Alternative. It includes 

information about the categories of Relevant and Important Values and any management direction that 

applies to the area and contains more specific information about the Relevant and Important Values for 

each ACEC. 

The ACEC’s denoted by gray shading are those that were not further analyzed for designation under the 

action alternatives because they did not meet relevance and importance criteria and/or do not need special 

management attention. Management direction for these areas is the management direction in the current 

plans, and would only be applied under the no action alternative.
M – 1308 Table 285. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern.

Map #

District ACEC Name Status Total Area (Acres) Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Relevant and Important Value Category Management Dire

Off-Highway Vehicle Desig. Leasable Mineral Entry 

1

SALEM

Beaver Creek Potential 44 no no no Natural 

processes

NA NA 

2

Crabtree Complex RNA/ONA

Existing 1,231 yes

yes_without_OC*

yes_without_OC

Scenic, natural processes, fish and wildlife

Closed

Open - No Surface Occupancy

3 Elk Creek Existing 784 no yes no Fish and wildlife Closed Open - No Surface Occupancy 

4 Forest Peak RNA Existing 155 yes yes yes Natural processes, fish and wildlife Closed Open - No Surface Occupancy 

5 Grass Mountain RNA Existing 930 yes yes yes Scenic, natural processes, fish and wildlife Closed Open - No Surface Occupancy 

6

High Peak - Moon Creek RNA

Existing 1,490 yes yes yes

Natural processes, fish and wildlife

Closed

Open - No Surface Occupancy

7 Jackson Bend Existing 15

yes_without_OC

yes_without_OC

yes_without_OC

Fish and wildlife, natural processes

Closed

Open - No Surface Occupancy

8 Little Grass Mountain Existing 80 Scenic, natural processes, fish and wildlife Closed Open - No Surface Occupancy 

9 Little North Fork Wilson River Potential 1,822 yes yes_ without_ OC yes Fish and wildlife, natural processes Closed Open - No Surface Occupancy 

10 Little Sink Existing 81 yes yes yes

Fish and wildlife, natural processes, natural hazards

Closed

Open - No Surface Occupancy
M – 1309

Map #

District ACEC Name Status Total Area (Acres) Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Relevant and Important Value Category Management Dire

Off-Highway Vehicle Desig. Leasable Mineral Entry 

11

SALEM

Lost Prairie Existing 61 yes yes yes

Fish and wildlife, natural processes

Closed

Open - No Surface Occupancy

12

Lower Scappoose Eagle

Potential 179

yes_without_OC

no no

Fish and wildlife Closed

Open - No Surface Occupancy

13 Marys Peak ONA Existing 353 yes yes no Scenic, natural processes, fish and wildlife Limited to designated roads Open - No Surface Occupancy 

14 Marys Peak B Potential 75 yes yes yes Scenic, natural processes Limited to designated roads Open - No Surface Occupancy 

15 McCully Mountain Potential 101 no no no Natural processes Closed Open - No Surface Occupancy 

16 Middle Santiam Terrace Existing 182 yes yes yes Natural processes Closed Open - No Surface Occupancy 

17 Mill Creek Ridge Potential 114 yes yes no Natural processes Closed Open - No Surface Occupancy 

18 Molalla Meadows Potential 205 yes_ without_ OC yes_ without_ OC yes_ without_ OC Natural processes Closed Open - No Surface Occupancy 

19 Nestucca River Existing 1,163 no yes no Scenic, fish and wildlife Limited to designated roads Open - No Surface Occupancy 

20 North Santiam Existing 15 no no no Natural processes Closed Open - No Surface Occupancy 

21 Rickreall Ridge Existing 368 yes yes

yes_without_OC

Natural processes

Closed

Open - No Surface Occupancy
M – 1310

Map #

District ACEC Name Status Total Area (Acres) Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Relevant and Important Value Category Management Dire

Off-Highway Vehicle Desig. Leasable Mineral Entry 

22

SALEM

Saddleback Mountain RNA Existing 300 yes yes yes

Fish and wildlife, natural processes

Closed

Open - No Surface Occupancy

23 Sandy River Gorge ONA Existing 9,780 yes_ without_ OC yes_ without_ OC yes_ without_ OC

Scenic, cultural, historic values, fish and wildlife, natural processes

Closed

Open - No Surface Occupancy

24 Sheridan Peak Existing 310 Natural processes Closed Open - No Surface Occupancy 

25 Silt Creek Potential 140

yes_without_OC

yes_without_OC

yes_without_OC

Natural processes, natural hazards

Closed

Open - No Surface Occupancy

26 Snow Peak Potential 1,667 no no no Natural processes Closed Open - No Surface Occupancy 

27 Soosap Meadows Existing 343 yes no no Natural processes Closed Open - No Surface Occupancy 

28 The Butte RNA Existing 39 yes yes yes Natural processes Closed Open - No Surface Occupancy 

29 Valley of the Giants ONA Existing 1,311 yes yes no Scenic, natural processes, fish and wildlife Closed Minerals not federally administered 

30 Walker Flat Existing 11

yes_without_OC

yes_without_OC

yes_without_OC

Natural processes

Closed

Open - No Surface Occupancy

31 Waterloo Potential 9 yes yes yes Natural processes Closed Open - No Surface Occupancy 
M – 1311

Map #

District ACEC Name Status Total Area (Acres) Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Relevant and Important Value Category Management Dire

Off-Highway Vehicle Desig. Leasable Mineral Entry 

32

SALEM

Wells Island Potential 73 no no no Natural 

processes

Closed

Open - No Surface Occupancy

33 White Rock Fen Existing 55 yes no no Natural processes Closed Open - No Surface Occupancy 

34 Wilhoit Springs Existing 133 no no no Natural processes Limited to designated roads Open - No Surface Occupancy 

35 Williams Lake Existing 90 no no no Natural processes Limited to designated roads Open - No Surface Occupancy 

36 Yampo Existing 13 yes yes yes

Fish and wildlife, natural processes

Limited to designated roads

Open - No Surface Occupancy

37 Yaquina Head ONA Existing 91 yes yes yes

Scenic, cultural, historic values, fish and wildlife, natural processes

Limited to designated roads

Open - No Surface Occupancy

38

EUGENE

Camas Swale RNA Existing 308 yes yes yes

Fish and wildlife, natural processes

Limited to designated roads

Open - No Surface Occupancy

39 Coburg Hills RFI Existing 855 no no no Fish and wildlife, natural 

processes

Closed

Open - No Surface Occupancy

40 Cottage Grove Lake RFI Existing 15 no yes no Fish and wildlife, natural 

processes

Closed

Open - No Surface Occupancy
M – 1312

Map #

District ACEC Name Status Total Area (Acres) Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Relevant and Important Value Category Management Dire

Off-Highway Vehicle Desig. Leasable Mineral Entry 

41

EUGENE

Cottage Grove Old Growth Existing 80

Fish and wildlife, natural processes

Closed

Open - No Surface Occupancy

42

Cougar Mountain Yew Grove

Existing 90 no no no

Fish and wildlife, natural processes

Closed

Open - No Surface Occupancy

43 Dorena Lake RFI Existing 18 no no no Fish and wildlife, natural 

processes

Closed

Open - No Surface Occupancy

44 Dorena Prairie Potential 8 yes yes yes Natural processes Closed Open - No Surface Occupancy 

45 Esmond Lake Potential 86 no

yes_without_OC

yes_without_OC

Fish and wildlife, natural processes

Closed

Open - No Surface Occupancy

46 Fox Hollow RNA Existing 159 yes yes yes Natural processes Closed Open - No Surface Occupancy 

47 Grassy Mountain Existing 74 yes_ without_ OC yes_ without_ OC yes_ without_ OC Scenic, fish and wildlife, natural processes Closed Open - No Surface Occupancy 
M – 1313

Map #

District ACEC Name Status Total Area (Acres) Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Relevant and Important Value Category Management Dire

Off-Highway Vehicle Desig. Leasable Mineral Entry 

48

EUGENE

Heceta Sand Dunes ONA Existing 210 yes yes yes Scenic, natural processes Open/Closed Open - No Surface Occupancy 

49 Horse Rock Ridge RNA Existing 378 yes yes yes Scenic, fish and wildlife, natural processes Closed Open - No Surface Occupancy 

50 Hult Marsh Existing 177

yes_without_OC

yes_without_OC

yes_without_OC

Scenic, natural processes

Closed

Open - No Surface Occupancy

51 Lake Creek Falls Existing 54 Scenic, natural hazard Limited to designated roads Open - No Surface Occupancy 

52 Lorane Ponderosa Pine Potential 104 yes_ without_ OC yes_ without_ OC yes_ without_ OC Fish and wildlife, natural processes Closed Open - No Surface Occupancy 

53

Low Elevation Headwaters of the McKenzie River

Potential 9,765 no no no

Fish and wildlife, natural processes

Limited to designated roads

Open - No Surface Occupancy

54 McGowan Meadow Potential 75 yes_ without_ OC yes_ without_ OC yes_ without_ OC Natural processes Closed Open - No Surface Occupancy 

55 Mohawk RNA Existing 290 yes yes yes

Fish and wildlife, natural processes

Closed

Open - No Surface Occupancy
M – 1314

Map #

District ACEC Name Status Total Area (Acres) Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Relevant and Important Value Category Management Dire

Off-Highway Vehicle Desig. Leasable Mineral Entry 

56

EUGENE

Oak Basin Prairies Potential 223

yes_without_OC

yes_without_OC

yes_without_OC

Natural processes

Closed

Open - No Surface Occupancy

57 Taylor Creek Potential 155 no no no Fish and wildlife Closed Open - No Surface Occupancy 

58 Upper Elk Meadows RNA Existing 217 yes yes yes Fish and wildlife, natural 

processes

Closed

Open - No Surface Occupancy

59

Willamette Valley Prairie/Oak and Pine Area

Potential 1,486

yes_without_OC

yes_without_OC

yes_without_OC

Fish and wildlife, natural processes

Closed

Open - No Surface Occupancy

60

ROSEBURG

Bear Gulch RNA Existing 351 yes yes yes Natural processes Closed Open - No Surface Occupancy 

61 Beatty Creek RNA Existing 864 yes yes yes Natural processes Closed Open - No Surface Occupancy 

62 Bushnell-Irwin Rocks RNA Existing 1,085 yes yes yes Natural processes Closed Open - No Surface Occupancy 
M – 1315

Map #

District ACEC Name Status Total Area (Acres) Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Relevant and Important Value Category Management Dire

Off-Highway Vehicle Desig. Leasable Mineral Entry 

63

ROSEBURG

Callahan Meadows Potential 34 yes yes yes Natural processes Closed Open - No Surface Occupancy 

64 China Ditch Potential 60 no no no Natural 

processes

Closed

Open - No Surface Occupancy

65 Myrtle Island RNA Existing 19 yes yes yes Natural processes Closed Open - No Surface Occupancy 

66 North Bank Existing 6,162 yes yes yes

Cultural, fish and wildlife, natural processes

Limited to designated roads

Open - No Surface Occupancy

67 North Myrtle Creek RNA Existing 453 yes yes yes Natural processes Closed Open - No Surface Occupancy 

68 North Umpqua River Existing 1,791 Scenic, fish and wildlife Limited to designated roads Open - No Surface Occupancy 

69 Red Pond RNA Existing 141 yes yes yes

Fish and wildlife, natural processes

Closed

Open - No Surface Occupancy

70 Stouts Creek Potential 64 no no no Natural 

processes

Closed

Open - No Surface Occupancy

71 Tater Hill RNA Existing 303 yes yes yes Natural processes Closed Open - No Surface Occupancy 

72 Umpqua River Wildlife Area Existing 855 no no no Fish and wildlife Limited to designated roads Open - No Surface Occupancy 
M – 1316

Map #

District ACEC Name Status Total Area (Acres) Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Relevant and Important Value Category Management Dire

Off-Highway Vehicle Desig. Leasable Mineral Entry 

73

COOS BAY

Brownson Ridge Potential 399 no no no

Fish and wildlife, natural processes

Limited to designated roads

Open - No Surface Occupancy

74 Cherry Creek RNA Existing 592 yes yes yes Fish and wildlife, natural 

processes

Closed

Open - No Surface Occupancy

75 China Wall Existing 302 yes yes

yes_without_OC

Cultural, natural processes

Closed

Open - No Surface Occupancy

76 Euphoria Ridge Potential 241 no no no

Cultural, fish and wildlife, natural processes

Closed

Open - No Surface Occupancy

77 Hunter Creek Bog Existing 721 yes yes yes Natural processes Limited to designated roads Open - No Surface Occupancy 

78 New River Existing 876 yes yes yes

Cultural, fish and wildlife, natural processes

Limited to designated roads

Open - No Surface Occupancy

79 North Fork Chetco Existing 603 yes yes yes Cultural, natural processes Limited to designated roads Open - No Surface Occupancy 

80 North Fork Coquille River Existing 311 yes yes_ without_ OC no Fish and wildlife, natural processes Limited to designated roads Open - No Surface Occupancy 

81 North Fork Hunter Creek Existing 1,757 yes yes yes

Cultural, fish and wildlife, natural processes

Limited to designated roads

Open - No Surface Occupancy

82 North Spit Existing 682 yes yes yes

Cultural, scenic, fish and wildlife, natural processes

Limited to designated roads

Open - No Surface Occupancy
M – 1317

Map #

District ACEC Name Status Total Area (Acres) Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Relevant and Important Value Category Management Dire

Off-Highway Vehicle Desig. Leasable Mineral Entry 

83

COOS BAY

Rocky Peak Potential 1,827 yes yes yes

Cultural, scenic, fish and wildlife, natural processes

Limited to designated roads

Open - No Surface Occupancy

84 Roman Nose Potential 205 yes yes

yes_without_OC

Natural processes

Limited to designated roads

Open - No Surface Occupancy

85 Steel Creek Potential 1,381

yes_without_OC

yes_without_OC

no

Historic, fish and wildlife, natural processes

Limited to designated roads

Open - No Surface Occupancy

86 Tioga Creek Existing 42 yes yes no

Fish and wildlife, natural processes

Closed

Open - No Surface Occupancy

87 Upper Rock Creek Existing 472 yes no no Fish and wildlife, natural 

processes

Limited to designated roads

Open - No Surface Occupancy

88 Wassen Creek Existing 3,394 yes no no

Scenic, fish and wildlife, natural processes

Limited to designated roads

Open - No Surface Occupancy

89

MEDFORD

Baker Cypress Existing 11 no no no

Scenic, cultural, natural processes

Limited to designated roads

Open - No Surface Occupancy

90 Bobby Creek RNA Existing 1,915 yes yes yes Fish and wildlife, natural 

processes

Limited to designated roads

Open - No Surface Occupancy

91 Brewer Spruce RNA Existing 1,707 yes yes yes Fish and wildlife, natural 

processes

Limited to designated roads

Open - No Surface Occupancy

92 Cobleigh Road Potential 261

yes_without_OC

yes_without_OC

yes_without_OC

Fish and wildlife, natural processes

Closed

Open - No Surface Occupancy
M – 1318

Map #

District ACEC Name Status Total Area (Acres) Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Relevant and Important Value Category Management Dire

Off-Highway Vehicle Desig. Leasable Mineral Entry 

93

MEDFORD

Crooks Creek Existing 147 no yes no

Fish and wildlife, natural processes

Limited to designated roads

Open - No Surface Occupancy

94 Dakubetede Wildland Potential 1,796 yes_ without_ OC yes_ without_ OC yes_ without_ OC Natural processes Closed Open - No Surface Occupancy 

95 East Fork Whiskey Creek Potential 3,188 no yes no Fish and wildlife, natural processes Closed Open - No Surface Occupancy 

96 Eight Dollar Mountain Existing 1,249 yes yes yes Natural processes Limited to designated roads Open - No Surface Occupancy 

97 French Flat Existing 651

yes_without_OC

yes_without_OC

yes_without_OC

Cultural, natural processes

Closed

Open - No Surface Occupancy

98 Grayback Glades RNA Existing 1,022 yes yes yes Natural processes Closed Open - No Surface Occupancy 

99 Hole-In-The- Rock Existing 63 no no no Scenic, natural processes Limited to designated roads Open - No Surface Occupancy 

100 Holton Creek RNA Existing 421 yes yes yes Scenic, natural processes Closed Open - No Surface Occupancy 

101 Hoxie Creek Existing 255 no no no

Scenic, fish and wildlife, natural processes

Limited to designated roads

Open - No Surface Occupancy

102 Iron Creek Existing 286

Fish and wildlife, natural processes

Limited to designated roads

Open - No Surface Occupancy

103 Jenny Creek Existing 966

Fish and wildlife, natural processes

Limited to designated roads

Open - No Surface Occupancy
M – 1319

Map #

District ACEC Name Status Total Area (Acres) Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Relevant and Important Value Category Management Dire

Off-Highway Vehicle Desig. Leasable Mineral Entry 

104

MEDFORD

King Mountain Rock Garden Existing 68

yes_without_OC

yes_without_OC

yes_without_OC

Natural processes

Limited to designated roads

Open - No Surface Occupancy

105 Long Gulch Potential 1,020 no no no

Fish and wildlife, natural processes

Closed

Open - No Surface Occupancy

106 Lost Lake RNA Existing 387 yes yes yes Scenic, natural processes Closed Open - No Surface Occupancy 

107 Moon Prairie Existing 92 no no no

Fish and wildlife, natural processes

Limited to designated roads

Open - No Surface Occupancy

108

North Fork Silver Creek RNA

Existing 499 yes yes yes

Fish and wildlife, natural processes

Closed

Open - No Surface Occupancy

109 Oregon Gulch RNA Existing 1,051 yes yes yes Natural processes Closed Open - No Surface Occupancy 

110 Pickett Creek Potential 32 yes yes yes Natural processes Closed Open - No Surface Occupancy 

111 Pilot Rock Existing 544

Fish and wildlife, natural processes

Closed

Open - No Surface Occupancy

112 Pipe Fork RNA Existing 516 yes yes yes Natural processes Closed Open - No Surface Occupancy 

113 Poverty Flat Existing 29 yes yes yes Natural processes Limited to designated roads Open - No Surface Occupancy 

114 Reeves Creek Potential 117 no no no Natural 

processes

Closed

Open - No Surface Occupancy
M – 1320

Map #

District ACEC Name Status Total Area (Acres) Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Relevant and Important Value Category Management Dire

Off-Highway Vehicle Desig. Leasable Mineral Entry 

115

MEDFORD

Rough and Ready Existing 1,189

yes_without_OC

yes_without_OC

yes_without_OC

Natural processes

Limited to designated roads

Open - No Surface Occupancy

116 Round Top Butte RNA Existing 605 yes yes yes Natural processes Closed Open - No Surface Occupancy 

117 Scotch Creek RNA Existing 1,799 yes yes yes Natural processes Closed Open - No Surface Occupancy 

118 Sterling Mine Ditch Existing 143 no no no Cultural, historic Closed Open - No Surface Occupancy 

119 Table Rocks ONA Existing 1,244 yes yes yes Scenic, natural processes Closed Open - No Surface Occupancy 

120 Tin Cup Existing 83 no no no

Fish and wildlife, natural processes

Limited to designated roads

Open - No Surface Occupancy

121 Waldo-Takilma Potential 1,760 yes yes yes Historic, natural processes Closed Open - No Surface Occupancy 

122 Woodcock Bog RNA Existing 265 yes yes yes Natural processes Closed Open - No Surface Occupancy 

123

KLAMATH

Bumpheads Potential 112 yes yes yes

Scenic, cultural, natural processes

Limited to designated roads

Open - No Surface Occupancy

124 Four Mile Wetland Potential 1,173 yes yes yes Scenic, fish and wildlife, natural 

processes

Closed

Open - No Surface Occupancy

125 Miller Creek Existing 939 yes yes yes

Scenic, fish and wildlife, natural processes

Closed

Open - No Surface Occupancy
M – 1321

Map #

District ACEC Name Status Total Area (Acres) Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Relevant and Important Value Category Management Dire

Off-Highway Vehicle Desig. Leasable Mineral Entry 

126

KLAMATH

Old Baldy RNA Existing 355 yes yes yes Natural processes Closed Open - No Surface Occupancy 

127 Tunnel Creek Potential 72

yes_without_OC

yes_without_OC

yes_without_OC

Fish and wildlife, natural processes

Limited to designated roads

Open - No Surface Occupancy

128 Upper Klamath River Existing 5,092 yes_ without_ OC yes_ without_ OC yes_ without_ OC

Historic, cultural, scenic, fish and wildlife, natural processes

Limited to designated roads

Open - No Surface Occupancy

129 Upper Klamath River Addition Potential 910 yes_ without_ OC yes_ without_ OC yes_ without_ OC

Historic, cultural, scenic, fish and wildlife, natural processes

Limited to designated roads

Open - No Surface Occupancy

130 Wood River Wetland Existing 3,225 yes yes yes

Cultural, fish and wildlife, natural processes

Closed

Open - No Surface Occupancy

131 Yainax Butte Existing 707 yes yes yes Cultural, natural processes Limited to designated roads Open - No Surface Occupancy 

*yes_without_OC = area would be designated without the O&C timber harvest base acres included.
M – 1322

MAP #

District ACEC Name Status Historic, cultural, scenic Relevant and Important Value Catego

Fish and wildlife Natural process or system 

1

SALEM

Beaver Creek Potential Natural system associated with 

mid-elevation oak meadow and native prairie flora seldom seen along the western slopes of the northern Cascades in Oregon. Contributes to the regional oak meadow network as described in the Nature Conservancy’s nomination letter (dated 01/06/2006) and the Willamette Valley-Puget Trough-Georgia Basin, Ecoregional Assessment. 

2 Crabtree 

Complex RNA/ONA

Existing Scenic values for this area are 

high in the immediate vicinity. Scenic qualities such as forest cover type, complex of habitats and geologic features are considered exceptional within the Salem District. 

The relatively undisturbed forest is used by northern spotted owls (FT). Cliffs provide unique habitat with potential for raptor use. Evening fieldslug (Derocerus Hesperium)(BSO), northern goshawk (BSO), Cascades torrent salamander (BAO) have all been documented within the ACEC.

West Cascades, Oregon Ecoregion Cells: Western hemlock/devil’s club and old-growth western redcedar types. Evidence of glaciation along with a relatively undisturbed oldgrowth forest at a relatively low elevation contributes to relevance for natural systems at this site. This area has a population of Alaskacedar which is fairly uncommon in this region. Rare botanical species reported from this area include: Phaeocollybia californica (BSO)
M – 1323

MAP #

District ACEC Name Status Historic, cultural, scenic Relevant and Important Value Catego

Fish and wildlife Natural process or system 

3

SALEM

Elk Creek Existing An ACEC since 1980, it was originally 

established for management of rare inland bald eagle (FT) nest site. In addition to continued use by eagles, also contains a known marbled murrelet site and an historic spotted owl site. The ACEC is a rare northern coast range example of a relatively large contiguous block of old forest that contains excellent habitat for all three of these species, and is expected to continue to contribute to their recovery. Elk Creek is also considered to be the most important and biologically complex tributary to the Nestucca River system because Oregon Coastal coho (BSO), chinook, summer and winter steelhead (FC), sea-run and resident cutthroat trout and Pacific lamprey all spawn in this stream. 

This contiguous block of old forest is a rare example of a fully functional natural system in the north Oregon Coast Range as evidenced by the extensive list of late-successional forest dependent species that occur there. While there are other patches of old forest in the northern coast range, few are of the size and contiguity of the Elk Creek area while also remaining relatively undisturbed. 

4 Forest Peak 

RNA

Existing Undisturbed valley margin meadows 

are rare in this vicinity. This meadow may provide habitat for several rare invertebrate species including: Fender’s blue butterfly (FT), Taylor’s checkerspot (FC), and Siskiyou grasshopper (BSO). This meadow also offers habitat for declining willamette valley songbirds, including common nighthawk (BSO), Oregon vesper sparrow (BSO), western bluebird, and acorn woodpecker.

Willamette Vallley Ecoregion cells: Douglas-fir/poison oak forest, Douglas-fir/bigleaf maple forest with some grand fir , Lemmon’s needlegrass-moss bald. Valley margin cell\, undisturbed 3rd order stream in valley fringe. Cimicifuga elata (BSO) 

5 Grass 

Mountain RNA

Existing Scenic High elevation grassy bald habitat is 

juxaposed with mature noble fir and forest and offers undisturbed refugia for rare and endemic invertebrate species including an un-named blind ground beetle. The older forest stands have a long history of use and offer nesting habitat for spotted owls (FT) and marbled murrelets (FT)

Coast Range Ecoregion Cells: Noble fir-western hemlock forest, Grass bald on Coast Range mountain. Meets the needs of a high elevation noble fir and grass meadow community and an undisturbed 3rd order stream system. 
M – 1324

MAP #

District ACEC Name Status Historic, cultural, scenic Relevant and Important Value Catego

Fish and wildlife Natural process or system 

6

SALEM

High Peak - Moon Creek RNA

Existing The Moon Creek ACEC contains 

active northern spotted owl (FT) and marbled murrelet (FT) sites. The area is comprised of contiguous late-successional forest habitat that is relatively inaccessible and undisturbed within a very steep canyon that is ideal for supporting owls and murrelets. Elevations within the ACEC range from over 2800 feet on High Peak to about 600 feet on Moon Creek itself. Trees as much as 500 years old are found there. One of the few remaining relatively large contiguous blocks of old forest found in north Oregon coast range. Moon Creek is also high quality habitat for anadromous fish of regional significance, including Oregon Coastal coho (BSO) and steelhead (FC on BLM list).

Rare example of northern Oregon coast range old-growth forest with intact functioning late-successional forest system. Coast Range Ecoregion Cells: Western hemlock/swordfern, Western hemlock/vine maple-salal. Douglas-fir/sword fern community natural processes also for riparian hardwoods/streamside forest on third to fifth order stream at low elevation. 

7 Jackson Bend Existing Roosting and nesting sites for bald 

eagle (FT), great blue heron and osprey are documented within this ACEC.

This parcel is on the banks of and within the floodplain of the Willamette River. The entire area is seasonally flooded during high water events. Very little land of this type is in Federal ownership and the habitat in this parcel is unique from all other BLM lands in NW Oregon. 

8 Little Grass 

Mountain

Existing scenic vistas Example of grassy bald habitat 

adjacent to mature conifer forest. Rare or endemic invertebrate species are possible.

Grass balds are uncommon in the Oregon Coast Range Mountains. There are no specific values within this area that sets it apart from other grassy balds that are not designated as ACECs. 
M – 1325

MAP #

District ACEC Name Status Historic, cultural, scenic Relevant and Important Value Catego

Fish and wildlife Natural process or system 

9

SALEM

Little North Fork Wilson River

Potential High quality habitat and known 

sites for northern spotted owl (FT), marbled murrelet (FT) and bald eagle (FT) exists within the potential Little North Fork Wilson River ACEC. All three species have nested either now or in the recent past within the area. Due to its inaccessibility, ruggedness, lack of fragmentation, and proximity to highly managed state and private forest lands, this area is one of the few remaining areas in the northern coast range where late-successional dependent species exist largely undisturbed. The Little North Fork Wilson River is also a tier 1 key watershed and supports 5 salmonid species including coastal winter steelhead (FC), Oregon Coast coho (BSO) and chum salmon, and is the only stream on BLM managed lands in the northern coast range that supports chum salmon.

Intact old-growth conifer riparian habitat is rare throughout the state of Oregon and is especially rare in coastal ecosystems. This potential ACEC contains old-growth components in a biologically diverse and natural condition not only within the riparian areas but throughout the adjacent slopes and tributary drainages as well. A relict old-growth plant community of Douglas-fir, Sitka spruce, Western hemlock, and Western redcedar that is approximately 450 years old within the canyon of the Little North Fork of the Wilson River. The riparian plant community is essentially natural, having large conifers shading and contributing downed material to the river system. 

10 Little Sink RNA Existing Parcel provides excellent example of 

low elevation coast range old-growth forest adjacent to Willamette Valley margin. Ponds support healthy populations of native amphibians (no bullfrogs). Potential release site for western pond turle. Historic nest site for spotted owl (FT). Refugia for invertebrate species, with potential presence of Johnson’s hairstreak (BSO), spotted taildropper slug (BSO), and other uncommon mollusks.

Willamette Valley Ecoregion Cells: Douglas-fir grand fir/vine maple -salal, Slump pond at margin of valley, with aquatic beds and marshy shore. “Instant Study (wilderness) Area in the foothills of the Willamette Valley. Rare botanical species reported from this location include: Wolffia columbiana (BAO) and Wolffia boraelis (BAO). 
M – 1326

MAP #

District ACEC Name Status Historic, cultural, scenic Relevant and Important Value Catego

Fish and wildlife Natural process or system 

11

SALEM

Lost Prairie Existing Large bog and wetland habitat 

supports a diverse assemblage of uncommon invetebrate species, which may include: evening field slug (BSO), crowned tightcoil snail (BSO), and spotted tail-dropper slug (BSO). Site also offers nesting habitat for songbirds, such as the olive-sided flycatcher, western bluebird, and willow flycatcher.

Unique high elevation sphagnum bog and associated species located in the northern Oregon Coast Range. Rare botanical species reported from Lost Prairie ACEC include: Fritillaria camschatcensis (BAO), Erythronium elegans (STO), Anemone oregana var. felix (BAO), Tetraplodon mnioides (BAO).

12 Lower 

Scappoose Eagle

Potential Lower Scappoose Eagle PACEC 

includes an active and productive bald eagle (FT) nest site and a communal winter roost, a circumstance that is highly unusual. Surrounded by private industrial forestland and expanding urban areas, this site provides refuge for eagles due to its relative inaccessibility and ruggedness and has contributed to the resurgence of eagle numbers in the lower Columbia River recovery zone.

13 Marys Peak 

ONA

Existing Marys Peak is the highest 

mountain in the Oregon Coast Range Mountains. 

This unique high elevation grassy bald habitat is juxaposed with mature and old-growth forests and is known to support populations of several rare or endemic invertebrates including: Haddocks caddisfly (BSO), and Roth’s blind ground beetle (BSO). The older forest stands have a long history of use and offer nesting habitat for spotted owls (FT) and marbled murrelets (FT).

Marys Peak is the highest mountain in the Oregon Coast Range Mountains. Special habitats or natural values include: high elevation grass meadows, noble fir community, shallow soils with ‘rock garden’ plants. 

14 Marys Peak B Potential High scenic values in the 

immediate vicinity. 

Uncommon or endemic invertebrates are possible in high elevation tributaries of Parker Creek, including the Haddock’s caddisfly (BSO). The older forest stands have a long history of use and offer nesting habitat for spotted owls (FT) and marbled murrelets (FT).

Marys Peak Parcel B includes a high elevation Coast Range old-growth forest with a noble fir component, which is rare. 
M – 1327

MAP #

District ACEC Name Status Historic, cultural, scenic Relevant and Important Value Catego

Fish and wildlife Natural process or system 

15

SALEM

McCully Mountain

Potential Natural system associated with 

mid-elevation oak meadow and native prairie flora seldom seen along the western slopes of the northern Cascades in Oregon. Importance is met through regional interest in oak habitats within and adjacent to the Willamette valley. Contributes to the regional oak meadow network as described in the Nature Conservancies nomination letter (dated 01/06/2006) and the Willamette Valley-Puget Trough-Georgia Basin, Ecoregional Assessment. The McCully Mountain PACEC meets regional significance based on the limited number of midelevation oak meadows that remain intact. Potential for nesting raptors, use by Neotropical Migratory birds and occurrence of wildlife species associated with older forest. 

16 Middle Santiam 

Terrace

Existing A Native Amarican cultural 

site at this location is one of few in the region on public lands.

Old-growth fir and hemlock forest at a relatively low elevation river terrace. Habitat of this type is relatively unique and has an increased value as a research site. All forest surrounding this ACEC is privately owned and has been previously logged, leaving this as the last remaining natural habitat in a matrix of young managed forests.
M – 1328

MAP #

District ACEC Name Status Historic, cultural, scenic Relevant and Important Value Catego

Fish and wildlife Natural process or system 

17

SALEM

Mill Creek Ridge

Potential Oregon white oak community in NW 

Oregon on east slopes of the Coast Range. Rare valley margin oak habitat juxaposed with coast range conifer forests is likely to support great diversity of uncommon or endemic invertebrate species, and provide nesting habitat for declinging willamette valley songbirds, including common nighthawk (BSO), western bluebird, and white-breasted nuthatch.
M – 1329

MAP #

District ACEC Name Status Historic, cultural, scenic Relevant and Important Value Catego

Fish and wildlife Natural process or system 

18

SALEM

Molalla Meadows

Potential The river corridor has a 

high level of public use and meets relevance criteria for both recreation and scenic values. The Molalla River has been found to be both eligible and suitable for inclusion into the National Wild and Scenic River (WSR) System for outstandingly remarkable values that include geology, scenic and recreation. The general area including the PACEC has been recognized for both its scenic and recreation values and has been designated a BLM Special Recreation Management Area. While there may be some overlap between the WSR and the PACEC boundaries, the protections and guidance provided under WSR guidance are interim unless the river is actually added to the WSR System by Congress. In addition, the interim guidance only addresses management within a 1/4-mile of either side of the Molalla River. As long as any management prescriptions for the PACEC met WSR interim guidance, these would be complimentary not competing designations. 

The area meets relevance for Wildlife Resources due to presence of raptor nests, use by Neotropical Migratory birds and occurrence of wildlife species associated with older forest. Golden eagles, Oregon slender salamander (BSO), harlequin duck (BAO), and band-tailed pigeon (Continental/Regional Species of Concern) occur here. 

The meadows represent a unique ecotype with natural systems and geologic features seldom seen on BLM lands in the Salem District. The oak meadows represent a rare transition from valley oak savannas’ to upland conifer forests. This site contributes to the regional oak meadow network as described in the Nature Conservancies nomination letter (dated 01/06/2006) and the Willamette Valley-Puget Trough-Georgia Basin, Ecoregional Assessment. The oak meadow at this site are the largest of this habitat type under BLM ownership in the Cascades Range, within the Salem District. 
M – 1330

MAP #

District ACEC Name Status Historic, cultural, scenic Relevant and Important Value Catego

Fish and wildlife Natural process or system 

19

SALEM

Nestucca River Existing Designated State scenic 

waterway & BLM backcountry byway. The upper Nestucca River is eligible for inclusion in National Wild & Scenic River system (recreational designation). The river corridor is designated VRM 1. 

The Nestucca River corridor includes high quality nesting, roosting and foraging habitat for bald eagles (FT) and marbled murrelets (FT). The river provides important connectivity to other high quality habitat areas, most notably the Elk Creek drainage and ACEC. Marbled murrelets are known to use the river corridor to access nesting habitat within the drainage. The Nestucca River is also a high quality anadromous fish stream and contributes significantly to wild fish production on the north Oregon Coast. Oregon Coastal coho (BSO) , chinook, summer and winter steelhead (FC), sea-run and resident cutthroat trout and Pacific lamprey are all present.

20 North Santiam Existing Represents a natural system not 

common in the region. The primary natural system operating in the area are the relatively undisturbed river meander channels which are rare and sensitive to additional disturbance. This area contributes to the habitat used by species in combination with Kingston prairie and Stout Mountain (adjacent areas with unique values). Existing alluvial forest provides potential nesting and roosting habitat for resident and migratory birds. With its unique habitat this area contributes to overall RNA values for this habitat type but it is not large enough to meet the needs of the RNA cell. 
M – 1331

MAP #

District ACEC Name Status Historic, cultural, scenic Relevant and Important Value Catego

Fish and wildlife Natural process or system 

21

SALEM

Rickreall Ridge Existing Rocky “hogback” ridge, steep talus 

slopes and unique vegetation in the Oregon Coast Range Mountains. Rickreall Ridge has a disjunct flora as the vegetation is similar to vegetation known from the Cascade Mountain Range. High elevation rocky outcrops and adjoining older forest support a diversity of rare or endemic invertebrate species, including Johnson’s hairstreak (BSO), and spotted tail-dropper (BSO). Older forest provides potential nesting habitat for spotted owls (FT) and marbled murrelets (FT).

22 Saddleback 

Mountain RNA

Existing Exceptionally rare old-growth Pacific 

silver fir forest in Oregon Coast Range supports a diversity of rare invertebrate species that could include: Johnson’s hairstreak (BSO), and spotted tail-dropper (BSO). Forest provides potential nesting habitat for spotted owls (FT) and marbled murrelets (FT).

Old-growth Pacific silver fir and western hemlock community. Saddlebag may be the last remaining mature naturally occurring Pacific silver fir stand in the Oregon Coast Range. Pacific silver fir was once thought to be more widespread but due to climatic changes may now be isolated to a few areas in the Oregon Coastal Mountains. Rare botanical species reported from Saddlebag Mountain RNA: Erythronium elegans (STO) 
M – 1332

MAP #

District ACEC Name Status Historic, cultural, scenic Relevant and Important Value Catego

Fish and wildlife Natural process or system 

23

SALEM

Sandy River Gorge ONA

Existing Cultural: Barlow Road 

and Rock Corral (currently listed) are National Register sites within the corridor. A prehistoric site eligible for the National Register also exists. Scenic: The inner gorge has steep canlyon walls, deep, trench-like pools, waterfalls and cliff-dwelling plant communities. The Mt Hood corridor (Highway 26) has a VRM 1 classification due to it scenic qualities and is congressionally designated as the Mt Hood Scenic Corridor. 

Stocks of Lower Columbia River chinook, winter steelhead, and coho (all FT); cutthroat trout are present in this portion of the Sandy River. Spawning grounds for chinook salmon, rearing habitat for steelhead and chinook salmon are also present. Peregrine falcons (BSO), bald eagles (FT) and harlequin ducks (BAO) have been known to use the Sandy River Gorge. Migratory birds such as the willow flycatcher (Continental/Regional species of Concern) have been documented within the ACEC. 

Recognize that some of the lands are currently not in forest condition (agricultural). Value of the lands as a whole is greater than the value of individual parcels. Riparian old-growth forests in the Middle Sandy are rare in the watershed downstream from Marmot Dam. Bureau sensitive fungus species, Bridgeoporus noblissimus (BSO) is reported from the PACEC. 

24 Sheridan Peak Existing Former special status botanical 

species, Poa marcida is reported from this location. This species no longer has special status.

25 Silt Creek Potential Active, natural landslide with an 

old-growth forest and unique habitat related to the slow but continual mass earth movement. The area is also host to an abnormally large population of Pseudocyphellaria rainierensis. 
M – 1333

MAP #

District ACEC Name Status Historic, cultural, scenic Relevant and Important Value Catego

Fish and wildlife Natural process or system 

26

SALEM

Snow Peak Potential Contains one occupied known 

northern spotted owl (FT) site and core area. Known to be used by various migratory bird species such as the olive-sided flycatcher (Continental/Regional Species of Concern). Band-tailed pigeon, and the nighthawk (BSO) are also known to use the area. Oregon slender salamander (BSO), Cascades torrent salamander (BAO) and the Evening fieldslug (BSO) (Derocerus Hesperium), have been documented within the PACEC.

Snow Peak’s elevation of 4280 feet makes it an uncharacteristically high point very close to the Willamette Valley. The PACEC hosts a variety of special habitats including wet meadows, dry meadows, rock outcrops/crevice habitat, talus slopes, mature to old-growth forests, headwater streams with adjacent riparian and brushy thickets in close proximity to one another. This habitat complex provides for an abundant array of wildlife species and rare botanicals including Bridgeoporus noblissimus (BSO) ,Corydalis aquaegelidae (BSO) , Pilophorus nigricaulis (BAO), Lobaria linita (BAO). A wetland botanical species (Fauria crista-galli) found nowhere else in Oregon is also found here. 

27 Soosap 

Meadows

Existing These meadows are the only large, 

undisturbed expanse of natural Cascadian subalpine meadows in the Salem District. Streams which have cut through the glacial moraine have left behind a unique and diverse remnant of subalpine habitat. 

28 The Butte RNA Existing Willamette Valley & Coast Range 

Ecoregion Cells: Douglas-fir/poison oak forest, Oregon white oak/grass savanna. Uncommon transitional ecotone involving Willamette Valley margin plant communities and upland Coast Range forested communities. Rare botanical species reported from The Butte RNA include: Cimicifuga elata (BSO) 
M – 1334

MAP #

District ACEC Name Status Historic, cultural, scenic Relevant and Important Value Catego

Fish and wildlife Natural process or system 

29

SALEM

Valley of the Giants ONA

Existing Outstanding example of 

coastal old-growth forest 

Valley of the Giants ONA lies within the largest contiguous patch of oldgrowth forest habitat in the northern Oregon Coast Range (over 800 acres, 400+ years old). This older forest provides nesting habitat for one of the largest concentrations of breeding marbled murrelets (FT) in Oregon. The proposed area also provides habitat for northern spotted owls (FT), bald eagles (FT), and Oregon Coastal steelhead (summer-run and winter-run; both FC). These old-growth stands provide an exceptionally large refugia for invertebrate species that are closely associated with older forest conditions.

Although not designated as a RNA, Valley of the Giants is well studied as a remnant ‘old-growth’ western hemlock plant association. Rare botanical species reported from this location include: Schistostega pennata (BAO), Filipendula occidentalis (BSO), and Tetraphis geniculata (BAO)

30 Walker Flat Existing The only naturally occurrence of 

Sidalcea nelsonia (FT) in the Salem District is within the Walker Flat ACEC. 

31 Waterloo Potential The BLM’s Waterloo parcel is within 

The Nature Conservancy’s Waterloo Rocks portfolio site. This is the only known Salem District parcel with naturally-occurring Ponderosa Pine. The map of historic (mid1800s) vegetation shows this as part of a large oak-fir-pine savanna, with prairie located just to the east. Considered in the context of the The Nature Conservancy’s Ecoregional Assessment and the Waterloo Rocks portfolio site, in particular, the Waterloo parcel becomes an important part of a larger system of target conservation areas for the oakpine-fir habitats. 
M – 1335

MAP #

District ACEC Name Status Historic, cultural, scenic Relevant and Important Value Catego

Fish and wildlife Natural process or system 

32

SALEM

Wells Island Potential Diverse floodplain forest, seasonally 

exposed gravel bars, and sidechannel habitats. Supports nesting herons, ospreys and numerous songbird species. Invertebrates may include: Willamette floater mussel (BSO), and Oregon Floater.

Wells Island is an island in the Willamette River. Very little land from within the Willamette Valley is in Federal ownership. This island includes habitat that is unique from all BLM ownership in NW Oregon. 

33 White Rock 

Fen

Existing The ACEC is centered around four 

fens differing in size. These four fens provide special habitat to an array of botanical species seldom seen in the Cascade Resource Area. Each fen is unique and may represent various stages in succession. Formation of the fens appears to be the result of an ancient large-scale mass wasting of the local ridge system which created a system of landslide scraps and sag ponds. Hydrologic features associated with bogs are the natural systems of interest. Bogs within this ACEC are unique to the region and are considered fragile. 

34 Wilhoit Springs Existing Contributes to low elevation 

old-growth cell as described by the Nature Conservancy . A rare community with regionally significance as an intact low elevation old-growth conifer forest.

35 Williams Lake Existing Cascade lake and bog habitats with 

lakeside plant community that are unique and fragile. William’s Lake and its bog ecosystem is the best example within the Salem District of a Cascadian massive seep formed lake undergoing peat bog/quaking bog succession.
M – 1336

MAP #

District ACEC Name Status Historic, cultural, scenic Relevant and Important Value Catego

Fish and wildlife Natural process or system 

36

SALEM

Yampo Existing Yampo ACEC supports a late 

seral Willamette Valley bottom plant community which includes occurrences of rare botanical species Cimicifuga elata (BSO) and Lathyrus holochlorus (BSO). Lathyrus holochlorus has not been seen in this parcel since the 1980s.

37 Yaquina Head 

ONA

Existing Headland on the Pacific 

Ocean . The area is known as a cultural site for past native Americans use and as a historical site with an operating lighthouse.

A diverse assemblage of coastal habitats such as tide pools, rocky islands, and upland meadow provide for a great diversity of marine invertebrates, nesting seabirds, and marine mammals.

This headland on the eastern Pacific Ocean provides for several unique habitats including: Sitka spruce forest, lodgepole forest, headland grass/shrub communities, wildlife roosts and nesting habitat, tide pools and associated ocean organisms. Rare bryophyte species Eucladium verticillatum (BAO) is reported from the Yaquina Head ONA. 

38

EUGENE

Camas Swale RNA

Existing Provides habitat for wildlife species, 

but does not explicitly list distinct species.

The site fills the natural heritage cell or element as: Douglas-fir/swordfern and Douglas-fir/Oregon-grape forest

39 Coburg Hills 

RFI

Existing Raptors (bald eagles (FT), northern 

spotted owl (FT), western screech owl, northern sawwhet owl, osprey red-tailed hawk; great gray owl, northern pygmy-owl, American kestrel)

Relict Forest Islands provide representative examples of mature and old-growth plant communities in areas where few to no other such communites exist.

40 Cottage Grove 

Lake RFI

Existing Raptors: (bald eagles (FT), northern 

spotted owl (FT), western screech owl, northern sawwhet owl, osprey red-tailed hawk; great gray owl, northern pygmy-owl, American kestrel, osprey)

Relict Forest Islands provide representative examples of mature and old-growth plant communities in areas where few to no other such communites exist.

41 Cottage Grove 

Old Growth

Existing Douglas-fir old-growth stand. Multiple 

canopy layers represent the latesuccessional stage of mesic Douglasfir plant community with some existing older trees representing ages of 500 years old or more. Cimicifuga elata (BSO). 
M – 1337

MAP #

District ACEC Name Status Historic, cultural, scenic Relevant and Important Value Catego

Fish and wildlife Natural process or system 

42

EUGENE

Cougar Mountain Yew Grove

Existing Good cavity nester habitat Site represents one of the lowest 

elevation stands of Pacific Yew remaining in the Willamette Valley

43 Dorena Lake 

RFI

Existing Raptors (bald eagles (FT), northern 

spotted owl (FT), western screech owl, northern sawwhet owl, osprey, red-tailed hawk; great gray owl, northern pygmy-owl, American kestrel, osprey).

Relict forest islands provide representative examples of mature and old-growth plant communities in areas where few to no other such communites exist.

44 Dorena Prairie Potential Considered one of the few remaining 

representative examples of native upland prairie within the Willamette Valley Province. 

45 Esmond Lake Potential Coho salmon and steelhead migrate 

through Esmond Lake and spawn in tributaries above the lake. This lake appears to contain one of the best Coho rearing habitats in the Siuslaw Basin on BLM-administered lands. 

Esmond lake has an uncommon geologic feature formed by a large deep-seated landslide. It is the one of only tow significantly sized lakes found in the Siuslaw Resource Area and has experienced very little human disturbance.

46 Fox Hollow 

RNA

Existing The site fills the natural area cell 

or element described in the oregon natural heritage plan as : Douglasfir/swordfern and Douglas-fir/Oregon-grape forest. A mixed stand of Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine is found on the south slopes and ridgtopes,with minor amounts of Oregon white oak and Incense-cedar. 

47 Grassy 

Mountain

Existing Highly visible grassy bald. Screening results recoginize 

contribution to wildlife habitat, but no species explicitly mentioned. 

The site fills the natural heritage cell or element as: Blue wildrye or red fescue grass bald communities; vernal seepage slopes on low to mid elevation rocky bald communities, with monkey flower, saxigrages and moss. One of the finest, undisturbed representative examples of a grassy bald on the western margin of the Cascades. 
M – 1338

MAP #

District ACEC Name Status Historic, cultural, scenic Relevant and Important Value Catego

Fish and wildlife Natural process or system 

48

EUGENE

Heceta Sand Dunes ONA

Existing Scenic dune system Seashore bluegrass association; 

Red Fescue association; Shore pine/slough sedge association; Shore pine/bearberry association; shore pine/hairy manzanita association. Bureau Assessment Species - Erioderma sorediatum; Leptogium brebissonii; Pannaria rubiginosa; Camplyopus schmidii 

49 Horse Rock 

Ridge RNA

Existing Highly visible grassy bald. Provides habitat for wildlife species, 

but does not explicitly list distinct species. 

The site fills the natural area cell or element in the Oregon Natural Heritage Plan as: West Cascades Ecoregion/shrub and Grassland type blue wildrye or Roemer’s fescue grass bald communities.

50 Hult Marsh Existing scenic values Bureau Assessment Species - 

Utricularia gibba and Lycopodiella inundata

51 Lake Creek 

Falls

Existing 

52 Lorane 

Ponderosa Pine

Potential Willamette Valley Ponderosa Pine; 

The Willamette Valley population of ponderosa pine is considered a separate and distinct population from other ponderosa pine populations within Oregon.

53 Low Elevation 

Headwaters of the McKenzie River

Potential McKenzie River (11 miles) 

suitable for inclusion in National Wild and Scenic System as a Recreational Segment

Bull trout; Upper Willamette spring chinook; cutthroat trout; northern spotted owl, tailed frog; Harlequin duck

Unique nature of a large contnuous block of native forest. Minimally disturbed blocks of land under 2,000 feet on the east side of Willamette Valley.
M – 1339

MAP #

District ACEC Name Status Historic, cultural, scenic Relevant and Important Value Catego

Fish and wildlife Natural process or system 

54

EUGENE

McGowan Meadow

Potential Proposed Celebrating 

Wildflower Site

Site exemplifies a wet meadow with flora of both the Cascades and Willamette Valley ecoregions. Bureau Sensitive - Sidalcea campestris

55 Mohawk RNA Existing Provides habitat for wildlife species, 

but does not explicitly list distinct species (Spotted Owls?).

The site fills the natural heritage cell or element as: Douglas-fir/western hemlock/Oregon-grape and salal forest. Old-growth Douglas-fir and western hemlock within low elevation Willamette Valley foothills. Site contains small marsh. Tributaries of McGowan Creek flow throuogh or originate in the area. 

56 Oak Basin 

Prairies

Potential Fender’s Blue Butterfly (Icaricia 

icariodes fenderi), Taylors Checkerspot butterfly (Rare).

Threse tracts are portions of a large upland prairie complex on the west side of the Coburg hills. Kincaids Lupine (Lupinus sulphureous ssp. kincaidii) (FT), Hitchcock’s blue-eyed grass (BSO). 

57 Taylor Creek Potential Bald eagle (FT), northern spotted 

owl (FT), osprey. Western parcel is a significant spawning channel of the McKenzie River.

58 Upper Elk 

Meadows RNA

Existing Four distinct plant communities are in 

the area: open, wet sedge meadow; wet red alder/willow/hawthorn thickets; open forest dominated by old-growth silver and grand fir; and closed forest dominated by oldgrowth Douglas-fir.

59 Willamette 

Valley Prairie/Oak and Pine Area

Potential These sites represent some of the 

few remaining upland red fescue prairies and oak habitats in the Willamette Valley Province.
M – 1340

MAP #

District ACEC Name Status Historic, cultural, scenic Relevant and Important Value Catego

Fish and wildlife Natural process or system 

60

ROSEBURG

Bear Gulch RNA

Existing Douglas-fir/canyon live oak woodland 

w/ poison oak and dwarf Oregongrape; and Douglas-fir/canyon live oak forest

61 Beatty Creek 

RNA

Existing Jeffrey pine community on 

serpentine. Eucephalus vialis, Polystichum californicum, Pseudoleskeella serpentinensis

62 Bushnell-Irwin 

Rocks RNA

Existing Oregon white oak savanna; Oregon 

white oak/Douglas-fir/poison oak woodland; Romanzoffia thompsonii, Polystichum californicum 

63 Callahan 

Meadows

Potential Kincaid’s lupine (Lupinus 

sulphureous ssp. kincaidii) (FT), serpentine meadow, Calochortus umpquaensis

64 China Ditch Potential Kincaid’s lupine (Lupinus 

sulphureous ssp. kincaidii) (FT), serpentine meadow, Calochortus umpquaensis

65 Myrtle Island 

RNA

Existing Old-growth stand of California bay 

laurel and Douglas-fir (riparian hardwood forest along a major river)

66 North Bank Existing important cultural site Columbian white-tailed deer Arabis koehleri var. k., Perideridia 

erythrorhiza, Plagiobothrys hirtus, Sulcaria badia

67 North Myrtle 

Creek RNA

Existing Douglas-fir/ponderosa pine forest; 

white fir/dwarf Oregon-grape; Douglas-fir/bigleaf maple forest

68 North Umpqua 

River

Existing scenic Fish 

69 Red Pond RNA Existing Northern spotted owl, western pond 

turtle

low elevation permanent pond; Wolffia borealis, Phaeocollybia californica

70 Stouts Creek Potential Kincaid’s lupine (Lupinus 

sulphureous ssp. kincaidii) (FT), serpentine meadow, Calochortus umpquaensis
M – 1341

MAP #

District ACEC Name Status Historic, cultural, scenic Relevant and Important Value Catego

Fish and wildlife Natural process or system 

71

ROSEBURGTater Hill RNA Existing western hemlock/oceanspray community 

72 Umpqua River Wildlife Area Existing Bald eagle (FT)73

COOS BAY

Brownson Ridge

Potential Marbled murrelet occupied site (FT), 

northern spotted owl (FT) known site.

Well developed Port-Orford-cedar stand with all age classes

74 Cherry Creek 

RNA

Existing Northern spotted owl (FT), marbled 

murrelet (FT).

Fills two (Western hemlock/oxalis; Western hemlock/rhododendronOregon-grape) ONHP Coast Range Ecological Cells 

75 China Wall Existing Remnant of historic Brewster 

Trail; prehistoric site.

unique plants associated with bald meadows; 

76 Euphoria Ridge Potential Old-growth western redcedar stand 

series rare in Coast Range at this elevation (potential ONHP Coast Range cell)

77 Hunter Creek 

Bog

Existing Fills ONHP Coast Range Ecoregion 

Cell -- Port Orford Cedar on ultramafic soils. Botany - large, diverse serpentine bog.

78 New River Existing Prehistoric sites Western snowy plover (FT), 

Northwestern pond turtle (BSO). Coho, Chinook, Cutthroat Trout (FC), Steelhead (FC). 

Fills two ONHP Coastal lowlands ecological cells (lacustrine and palustrine); nine special status plants -- Abronia umbellata ssp. breviflora pink sand verbena (BSO), Calypogeia sphangnicola Liverwort (BAO), Cicendia quadrangularis timwort (BAO), Eriophorum chamissonis russet cotton-grass (BAO), Lilium occidentale western lily (FE), Phacelia argentea silvery phacelia (BSO), Scirpus subterminalis water clubrush  (BAO))

79 North Fork 

Chetco

Existing Undisturbed cultural site Anadromous fish habitat -- searun 

cutthroat trout.

Oregon myrtle/evergreen shrub riparian forest ONHP Coast Range cell.
M – 1342

MAP #

District ACEC Name Status Historic, cultural, scenic Relevant and Important Value Catego

Fish and wildlife Natural process or system 

82

COOS BAY

North Spit Existing Scenic coastal landscapes 

comprised of dunes, deflation plain wetlands and Sitka Spruce forest islands. Historic US Lifeguard Service sites and artifacts, and potential prehistoric site.

Western snowy plover (FT), marbled murrelet (FT), northwestern pond turtle (BSO), purple martin (BSO). 

Numerous outstanding plant associations and wetlands. Special status plants: Bryoria pseudocapillaris lichen (BSO), Byoria spiralifera lichen (BSO), Cordylanthes maritimus ssp. Palustris Point Reyes bird’s-beak (BSO), Heterodermia leucomelos lichen (BAO), Niebla cephalota lichen (BAO). 

83 Rocky Peak Potential Historic trail and lookout sites. 

Panoramic views of coastline plains, foothills and ocean.

Habitat for marbled murrelet (FT), northern spotted owl (FT), fringed myotis (BAO), foothill yellow-legged frog (BAO), spotted tail-dropper (BSO), and northern goshawk (BSO).

 ONHP Special species Monardella purpurea Siskiyou monardella (BA); rare meadow, knob-cone pine plant communities.

84 Roman Nose Potential Outstanding, sweeping views 

of forest landscape from highest point in local region.

Outstanding example of Oregon Coast Range grassy bald system.

85 Steel Creek Potential Portion of historic Brewster 

Trail.

One of the most productive spawning reaches in Coquille Basin; supports searun and resident cutthroat trout, chinook, coho,, steelhead and Pacific lamprey.

Large, structurally complex unmanaged and undisturbed late-successional forest communityuncommon in Coast Range.

86 Tioga Creek Existing High quality stream/riparian 

conditions and spawning habitat for coho, steelhead, and cutthroat trout.

Old-growth riparian Douglas-fir/hardwood community on 4th order stream with high value as reference site.

87 Upper Rock 

Creek

Existing Large redcedar dominated forest 

with sedge dominated wetlands; Fills Western redcedar-western hemlock/skunk cabbage ONHP Coast Range Ecological cell.

88 Wassen Creek Existing Scenic -- Large block of 

undisturbed mid-age forest dissected by creek with several waterfalls, plunge pools, and small palustrine lake.

Pure strain of native cutthroat trout; northern spotted owl (FT); 

Fills ONHP Coast Range Ecoregion Palustrine Wetlands pond at mid to high elevation); fits two ONHP Western Hemlock association cells.
M – 1343

MAP #

District ACEC Name Status Historic, cultural, scenic Relevant and Important Value Catego

Fish and wildlife Natural process or system 

89

MEDFORD

Baker Cypress Existing Most northern Cupressus bakeri 

stand in north America

90 Bobby Creek 

RNA

Existing Northern spotted owl (LT), 

northern goshawk (BSO), pileated woodpecker (BSO), tailed frog (BA), western bluebird

Intact, uninfected Chamaecyparis lawsoniana stands, Natural heritage cell, Lithocarpus densiflorus - Douglas-fir communities, latesuccessional reference stands, hydrological reference watershed.

91 Brewer Spruce 

RNA

Existing Northern spotted owl (FT), northern 

goshawk (BSO)

Unique conifer assemblage, Picea breweri, Chamaecyparis lawsoniana and Chamaecyparis nootkatensis community (rare inland), Natural heritage cell, serpentine pockets, the most resistant, uninfected stands of Chamaecyparis lawsoniana, critical seed/tree improvement collection area, late sucessional reference area, small natural lake 

92 Cobleigh Road Potential Limnanthes floccosa ssp. 

bellingeriana (BSO), Fritillaria gentneri (FE) bulb collection site

93 Crooks Creek Existing Plecotus townsendii (Townsends 

big eared bat) (BSO), Siskiyou salamander (BAO)

Fritillaria glauca (BAO), Limestone caves, ponds, later successional Lithocarpus densiflorus - Douglas-fir communities

94 Dakubetede 

Wildland

Potential Sterling Mine Ditch Northern spotted owl (FT), Siskiyou 

salamander (BSO)

Camissonia graciliflora (BAO), Cimicifuga elata (BSO), Cirsium ciliolatum (BSO), Crumia latifolia (BAO), Cypripedium fasciculatum (BSO), Fritillaria gentneri (FE), Sedum oblanceolatum (BSO), Tripterocladium leucoladulum (BAO) western most stands of Juniperus occidentalis, rare Betula occindentalis var. onapina, intact native grasslands
M – 1344

MAP #

District ACEC Name Status Historic, cultural, scenic Relevant and Important Value Catego

Fish and wildlife Natural process or system 

95

MEDFORD

East Fork Whiskey Creek

Potential Northern spotted owl (FT), northern 

goshawk (BSO), peregrine falcon (BSO), clouded salamander, Pacific fisher (C), fringed myotis (bat), tailed frog (BAO). Intact functioning riparian habitat with cutthroat trout and sculpins. 

Sedum moranii (BSO), latesuccessional reference stands of Lithocarpus densiflorus - Douglas-fir communities, inclusions of knobcone pine, Natural Heritage cell 

96 Eight Dollar 

Mountain

Existing Historic mining, mining claims Calochortus howellii (STO), 

Epilobium oreganum (BS), Gentiana setigera (BS), Micoseris howellii (ST), Monardella purpurea (BA), Perideridia erythrorhiza (BS), Pseudoleskeella serpentinensis (BA), Senecio hesperius (BS), Viola primulifolia ssp. occidentalis (BS). Serpentine communities and Darlingtonia fens

97 French Flat Existing Historic mining Erythronium howellii (BSO), 

Limnanthes gracilis ssp. gracilis (BSO), Lomatium cookii (FE), Microseris howellii (STO), Senecio hesperius (BSO), serpentine plant communities (Jeffery pineArcotostaphylos visida-Festuca roemerii-Stipa lemonii), vernal meadows with Deschapsia caespitosa-Danthonia californica.

98 Grayback 

Glades RNA

Existing Natural heritage cells, aquatic (1st 

to 3rd order cell), Port-Orford-cedar and white fir systems, uninfected with Port-Orford-cedar disease, Sitka alder and vine maple glades, Shasta red fir

99 Hole-In-TheRock Existing Unique geological feature, a natural basalt arch, creating a ‘hole’ in the 

rock.

100 Holton Creek 

RNA

Existing Natural Heritage cell, reference site 

for low elevation late-successional Douglas-fir/white fir community
M – 1345

MAP #

District ACEC Name Status Historic, cultural, scenic Relevant and Important Value Catego

Fish and wildlife Natural process or system 

101

MEDFORD

Hoxie Creek Existing High scenic value, high 

recreation use

Bald eagle (FT), osprey Relict remnant late-successional 

Douglas-fir community, with few ponderosa pine.

102 Iron Creek Existing Douglas-fir, Pacific madrone and 

California black oak communities

103 Jenny Creek Existing Jenny Creek sucker (BSO), Red 

band trout (BSO)

Calochortus greenii (BSO), Nemacladus capillaris (BAO)

104 King Mountain 

Rock Garden

Existing Scenic location, view point, 

high recreation use.

Frillaria glauca (BSO), Phacelia verna (G3/S3), high elevation serpentine outcrop community

105 Long Gulch Potential Northern spotted owl (FT) Crumia latifolia (BAO), unique 

trellised watershed, late-successional Douglas-fir/Arctostaphylos visicida chaparral 

106 Lost Lake RNA Existing Northern spotted owl (FT) Cimicifuga elata (BSO), Natural 

heritage cell, Aquatic (natural lake), mixed conifer low elevation communities

107 Moon Prairie Existing Scenic and special education 

value for relict old-growth

Northern spotted owl (FT) Last remaining old-growth stand on 

Moon prairie, old-growth, multilayered stand of Douglas-fir and white fir with Pacific yew, ponderosa pine and sugar pine.

108 North Fork 

Silver Creek RNA

Existing Leucothoe davisiae (BAO), 

Tripterocladium leucocladulum (BAO), Natural heritage cells, white fir, Douglas-fir/Port-Orford-cedar, and sugar pine/Quercus saddleriana communities, serpentine outcrops and Darlingtonia fens, burned area reference site (1987 & 2002)

109 Oregon Gulch 

RNA

Existing Northern goshawk (BSO) Calochortus greenei (BSO), 

Microseris laciniata ssp. detlingii (BSO), Fritillaria gentneri (FE), Natural heritage cell, Mixed conifer forest and mixed chaparral (Arctostaphylos viscida-CeanothusRosaceous species), grasslands.

110 Pickett Creek Potential Fritillaria gentneri (FE)
M – 1346

MAP #

District ACEC Name Status Historic, cultural, scenic Relevant and Important Value Catego

Fish and wildlife Natural process or system 

111

MEDFORD

Pilot Rock Existing Geologic feature, scenic, high 

recreation use

Peregrine falcon (LE) Calochortus greenei (BSO), Fritillaria 

gentneri (FE)

112 Pipe Fork RNA Existing Northern spotted owl (FT), Siskiyou 

salamander (BSO)

Cypripedium fasciculatum (BSO)

113 Poverty Flat Existing Limnanthes floccosa ssp. 

bellingeriana (BSO), vernal pool systems

114 Reeves Creek Potential Limnanthes gracilis ssp. gracilis 

(BSO), Lomatium cookii (FE)

115 Rough and 

Ready

Existing Scenic, Adjacent State 

Botanical Wayside, Recreation Use.

Hastingsia bracteosa var. bracteosa (BSO), Delphinium nudicale (BAO), Calochortus howellii (STO), Erthronium howellii (BSO), Limnanthes gracilis ssp. gracilis (BSO), Lomatium cookii (FE), Microseris howellii (BSO), Unique flood plane and Hyporheic zone

116 Round Top 

Butte RNA

Existing Natural heritage cell, oak woodland 

savannah, Danthonia californica, Festuca roemerii, Stipa lemmonii, Agropyron spicatum grasslands, vernal pool, unique Calaochortus uniflorus population (un-common but not listed).

117 Scotch Creek 

RNA

Existing Astragalus californicus (BAO), 

Carex serratodens (BAO), Fritillaria gentneri (FE), Microseris laciniata ssp. detlingii (BSO), Solanum parishii (BSO), Natural heritage cell: rosaceous chaparral

118 Sterling Mine 

Ditch

Existing Historic mining ditch, National 

Register of Historic Places.

Fritillaria gentneri (FE) (also in proposed Dakubetede ACEC)

119 Table Rocks 

ONA

Existing Vernal pool fairy shrimp (LT) Limnanthes floccosa ssp. pumila 

(STO), Microseris laciniata ssp. detlingii (BSO), Plagiobothrys austiniae (BAO), Plagiobothrys greenei (BAO), Ranunculus austrooreganus (BSO), Tripterocladium leucocladulum (BAO), vernal pools 
M – 1347

MAP #

District ACEC Name Status Historic, cultural, scenic Relevant and Important Value Catego

Fish and wildlife Natural process or system 

120

MEDFORD

Tin Cup Existing Relict late-successional white fir 

community

121 Waldo-Takilma Potential Historic Mining, National 

Register of Historic places

Calochortus howellii (STO), Crumia latifolia (BAO), Cypripedium fasciculatum (BS), Erythronium howellii (BSO), Fritillaria glauca (BAO), Limnanthes gracilis ssp. gracilis (BSO), Lomatium cookii (FE), Microseris howellii (STO), Pseudoleskeella serpentinensis (BAO), Senecio hesperius (BSO), Eucephalus vialis (BSO), Streptanthus howellii (BSO).

122 Woodcock Bog 

RNA

Existing Lomatium cookii (FE), Carex 

livida (BAO), Epilobium oreganum (BSO) , Gentiana setigera (BSO), Hastingsia bracateosa var. bracteosa (STO), Mircroseris howellii (STO), Monardella purpurea (BAO), Senecio hesperius (BSO), Viola primulifolia ssp. occidentalis (BSO), Jeffrey pine/serpentine communities, Darlingtonia fens 

123

KLAMATH

Bumpheads Potential Numerous, undisturbed 

prehistoric sites

Western juniper/Idaho fescue (Juniperus occidentalis/Festuca idahoensis) plant community that has been naturally somewhat isolated from grazing

124 Four Mile 

Wetland

Potential Adjacent to National Scenic 

Byway

Endangered shortnose and Lost River suckers, bald eagle (FT) foraging and nesting, spotted frogs (FC), yellow rails (BSO), bull trout (FT) habitat, greater sandhill crane (S)

Complex of wetland plant communities

125 Miller Creeek Existing Deep canyon within high 

desert plateau

Riparian habitat for migratory songbirds and raptors

Old-growth ponderosa pine community, perennial stream within high desert environment
M – 1348

MAP #

District ACEC Name Status Historic, cultural, scenic Relevant and Important Value Catego

Fish and wildlife Natural process or system 

126

KLAMATH

Old Baldy RNA Existing Natural Heritage cells: high elevation 

white fir communities with Shasta red fir, mountain hemlock, Pacific silver fir, and Western white pine; Southern Oregon Cascades chapparel.

127 Tunnel Creek Potential Oregon spotted frog (Rana pretiosa), 

a federal candidate species.

Lodgepole pine swamp with bog blueberry (Vaccinium uliginosum) and sedges. Riparian and wetland processes. English sundew (Drosera anglica), an insectivorous plant, is listed as endangered by the state of Maine and as threatened by the state of Wisconsin.

128 Upper Klamath 

River

Existing Historic road, prehistoric 

cultural artifacts/sites. The Klamath River Canyon holds great spiritual and religious significance for the Klamath Tribe and the Shasta Nation. The unique landform, diverse vegetation, water, and a low level of adverse cultural modifications has been given a Scenic Quality A classification. 

Lost River and shortnose suckers (E), Klamath largescale sucker (BSO), native inland redband trout, bald eagle (FT) nests, Townsend’s big-eared bat (BSO).

Unique plant communities bisecting the Cascade Mountains which range from montane conifer forest communities to high desert communities, and from riparian communities to oak savannah communities. Red-root yampah (Perideridia erythrorhiza a BSO plant species).

129 Upper Klamath 

River Addition

Potential Historic road, prehistoric 

cultural artifacts/site. The Klamath River Canyon holds great spiritual and religious significance for the Klamath Tribe and the Shasta Nation. The unique landform, diverse vegetation, water, and a low level of adverse cultural modifications has been given a Scenic Quality A classification.

Lost River and shortnose suckers (FE), Klamath largescale sucker (BSO), native inland redband trout, bald eagle (FT) nests.

Unique plant communities bisecting the Cascade Mountains which range from montane conifer forest communities to high desert communities, and from riparian communities to oak savannah communities. Red-root yampah (Perideridia erythrorhiza a BSO plant species).

130 Wood River 

Wetland

Existing Native American village and 

wocus gathering sites.

Lost River suckers (FE), bald eagle (FT) foraging and nesting, spotted frogs (FC), yellow rails (BSO), wild trout, migratory waterfowl

Complex of wetland plant communities
M – 1349

MAP #

District ACEC Name Status Historic, cultural, scenic Relevant and Important Value Catego

Fish and wildlife Natural process or system 

131

KLAMATH

Yainax Butte Existing Yainax Butte is considered 

to be a very important place in the traditional beliefs of the Klamath Tribes, and is probably eligible for inclusion to the National Register of Historic Properties as a Traditional Cultural Property. 

Unusual variation of bitterbrush/bluebunch wheatgrass plant community; blue-leaved penstemon (Penstemon glaucinus), a BSO plant species

Appendix N. Cultural Resources

This appendix provides the background on federally recognized Tribes in the Planning Area.

In this appendix:

Federally Recognized Native American Tribes 

in or with Interests in the Planning Area.......................................................................... 1353

N – 1351
N – 1352

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs
N – 1353

Appendix N. Cultural Resources

Federally Recognized Native American 

Tribes in or with Interests in the 

Planning Area

Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians 

The Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde 

Confederated Tribes of Siletz 

The Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs 

Coquille Indian Tribe 

Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians 

The Klamath Tribes 

Modoc Tribe of Oklahoma 

Quartz Valley Indian Community 

Indian tribes represent unique legal entities in the United States and are distinct political 

communities with extensive powers of self-government. Tribal sovereignty predates the U.S. 

government. Treaties, Federal statutes and executive agreements over the past 200 years have 

established a special trust relationship between tribes and the Federal government. The Federal 

Bureau of Indian Affairs has been designated by the Secretary of the Interior as the primary 

agency to protect tribal interests and administer trust responsibilities.

During the 1950s, in a move to assimilate Native Americans into mainstream America, the U.S. 

government ended Federal trusteeship of roughly three percent of the country’s Native American 

population through a process called termination. Of the 109 tribes and bands terminated, 62 were 

native to Oregon. Even though the tone of the termination legislation was emancipation, the net 

effect of the policy on terminated tribes was cultural, political and economic devastation.

In recent years, however, vigorous efforts have been mounted by terminated tribes to reestablish 

or restore the trust relationship. In 1977, the Confederated Tribes of Siletz won restoration; 

followed by the Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Indians in 1982; the Confederated Tribes of the 

Grand Ronde in 1983; the Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians 

in 1984; the Klamath Tribes in 1986 and the Coquille Tribe of Oregon in 1989.
N – 1354

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower 

Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians of Oregon

These tribes are the descendents of the aboriginal inhabitants of the central and 

south-central coast of Oregon. Their homeland includes the estuaries of Coos 

Bay, and the Umpqua and Siuslaw Rivers. The Tribes have been operating 

under a confederated government since the signing of the Treaty of August, 

1855. They currently possess a 6.1 acre reservation and a tribal hall erected 

in 1940, but past claims have not yet been settled. The Tribes hope to work 

out a reservation agreement with the Federal government. The Tribes had 

a relationship with the US government from 1853 until their termination by 

Congress in the year of 1956. The majority of their members were removed 

in 1856 from their aboriginal homelands and held on a wind swept spit at the 

mouth of the Umpqua River at a place called Fort Umpqua. Their territory 

encompassed part of Coos, Curry, Douglas, Lane and Lincoln counties. Federal 

recognition was restored to the Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua and 

Siuslaw Indians in October of 1984. 

Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde 

Community of Oregon 

These tribes include over 20 Tribes and bands from western Oregon and northern California 

that were relocated to the Grand Ronde Reservations in the 1850s. These included the 

Rogue River, Umpqua, Chasta, Kalapuya, Molalla, Salmon River, Tillamook, and Nestucca 

Indians. The Grand Ronde Reservation was established by treaty arrangements in 1854 and 

1855 and an Executive Order of June 30, 1857. The Reservation contained over 60,000 

acres and was located on the eastern side of the coastal range on the head-waters of the 

South Yamhill River. In 1887, under the General Allotment Act, 270 allotments totaling 

slightly over 33,000 acres of the Grand Ronde Reservation were made to individual Indians. 

The result of this action was the loss of major portions of the reservation to non-Indian 

ownership. Then, in 1901, U.S. Inspector James McLaughlin declared a 25,791 tract of 

the reservation “surplus” and the land was sold. In 1954, Congress passed the Termination 

Act which severed the trust relationship between the Federal government and the Tribe. On 

November 22, 1983, with the signing of Public Law 98-165, the Grand Ronde Restoration 

Act, the Tribe was restored to Federal recognition. In addition, on September 9, 1988, 

the Tribe regained 9,811 acres of the original reservation when President Ronald Reagan 

signed the Grand Ronde Reservation Act into law. The reservation lies just north of the 

community of Grand Ronde. The mission of the Grand Ronde Natural Resources Division 

is to manage, develop, and protect the natural resources of the Grand Ronde Tribes, such 

as timber, non-merchantable young stands of trees, fish, wildlife, recreation, minerals, air, 

streams, roads, minor forest products. The NRD strives to manage the Tribes’ resources in 

a unique, creative, and efficient manner, taking care to meet mandates while balancing the 

importance of non-revenue-producing elements of the reservation.
N – 1355

Appendix N. Cultural Resources

Confederated Tribes of the Siletz Reservation, 

Oregon 

These tribes are a federally recognized confederation of 27 bands originating from 

northern California, western Oregon and southern Washington. Termination was imposed 

on the Siletz by the United States government in 1955. In November of 1977, the Tribe 

was restored to Federal recognition. The Tribe occupies and manages a 3,666 acre 

reservation located in Lincoln County, Oregon. The Tribe manages resources on their 

reservation including wildlife, timber, water, fish and air quality.

Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs 

Reservation of Oregon 

These tribes include bands of the Wasco, Warm Springs and Paiute. The Wasco bands 

on the Columbia River were the eastern-most group of Chinookan-speaking Indians 

living along the Columbia River. The Warm Springs bands who lived along the 

Columbia’s tributaries. The Paiutes lived in southeastern Oregon. In 1855, Joel Palmer, 

superintendent for the Oregon Territory, negotiated a series of Indian treaties including 

the one establishing the Warm Springs Reservation. Under the Treaty of 1855, the 

Warm Springs and Wasco Tribes relinquished approximately ten million acres of land, 

but reserved the Warm Springs Reservation for their exclusive use. The Tribes also kept 

their rights to harvest fish, game and other foods off the reservation in their usual and 

accustomed places. The Tribes’ Natural Resource Management Services exist to plan and 

execute a balanced direction for the protection, use, and enhancement of all tribal natural 

resources. Resources shall be managed as sustainable assets available for cultural, 

subsistence, economic and social purposes or opportunities in perpetuity consistent with 

the Confederated Tribes sovereign and treaty status.
N – 1356

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Coquille Tribe of Oregon 

This tribe’s members are descended from people who inhabited the watersheds 

of the Coquille River system, a small portion of Coos Bay at the South Slough, 

and areas north and south of the Coquille River mouth where it enters the ocean 

at present day Bandon. Coquille ancestral territory encompassed more than 

700,000 acres, ceded to the U.S. Government. Coquille headmen signed the 

treaties in 1851 and 1855. Because neither treaty was ever ratified by Congress, 

those Coquille people and their descendants were denied a permanent homeland. 

The Coquille Indian Tribe was terminated by the U.S. Government in 1954. On June 

28, 1989, the Coquilles regained their status as a federally recognized Indian tribe. The 

modern Coquille Tribe negotiated several land purchases, which constitute a 

6,400 acre tribal land base. By an Act of Congress in 1996, the Coquille Tribe now has 

reservation acreage totaling 6,512 acres.

Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Indians of 

Oregon 

Their traditional use area lies primarily in Douglas County, from the Umpqua River 

headwaters to the Pacific Ocean. The Tribe’s ceded lands lie in the Cow Creek drainage 

of the South Umpqua River. In 1853 seeking a peaceful solution to tensions that had 

intensified after gold was discovered in their territory, the Cow Creek Umpqua Indians 

entered into a treaty with the Federal government that resulted in their ceding their 

homeland in exchange for $12,000. The treaty left the Cow Creek Umpquas without 

land, a place to live, or protection. The Cow Creeks had been drawn into the Rogue 

Indian wars in the early 1850s and as a result of the fighting and their new treaty in 1856 

survivors were rounded up and forcefully marched 150 miles north to the Grand Ronde 

Reservation. In 1954 the government declared that there were no Indians left in western 

Oregon, the existing Cow Creeks notwithstanding, and the Tribe was terminated. In 

1982 the Tribe was restored and entered into formal relations with the United States 

government through the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Public Law 100-139 (1987), the 

Cow Creek Umpqua “Distribution Judgment Funds Act”, adopted the tribal endowment 

plan. The Bureau of Indian Affairs allowed the Tribe to use the settlement funds as 

collateral for the purchase of what was known as the “Evergreen” land. In addition, the 

Tribe was allowed to draw the interest on their endowment for the purpose of economic 

development, education, housing, and elderly assistance. 
N – 1357

Appendix N. Cultural Resources

Klamath Indian Tribe of Oregon 

This tribe includes the Klamaths, the Modocs and the Yahooskin. The Tribes’ traditional 

territory is in the Klamath Basin of Oregon. The Klamath Tribes ceded more than 23 

million acres of land in 1864 and entered the reservation. In 1954, the Klamath Tribes 

were terminated from Federal recognition as a tribe by act of Congress. In 1974 the 

Federal Court ruled that the Klamath Tribes had retained their Treaty Rights to hunt, 

fish and gather, and to be consulted in land management decisions when those decisions 

affected their Treaty Rights. In 1986, the Tribe was successful in regaining restoration of 

Federal recognition. 

Modoc Tribe of Oklahoma 

This tribe originally lived on Little Klamath Lake, Modoc Lake, Tule Lake, Clear 

Lake, Goose Lake, and in the Lost River Valley. In 1864, the Modoc ceded lands and 

moved to the Klamath Reservation. Due to starvation conditions and tensions with 

the Klamath Indians, some Modocs returned to their original territory in northern 

California in 1870. In 1872, attempts to force their return to Oregon began the Modoc 

War and the Modocs retreated to lava beds for months. Finally overrun, 153 survivors 

were sent to Quapaw Agency in Oklahoma. Other survivors were sent to the Klamath 

Reservation. In 1909, some Modocs were permitted to return to Klamath Agency. 

In 1954, the Oklahoma and Oregon Modoc Tribes were terminated. In 1978, the 

Oklahoma Modoc Tribes were reinstated.

Quartz Valley Indian Community of the Quartz Valley 

Reservation of California

Located in Siskiyou County, California, they include the members Shasta Tribe 

that traditionally lived in southern Oregon and northern California. A treaty 

signed by Shasta Tribal chiefs on Nov. 4, 1851 was never ratified by the Congress 

and the Tribe did not get their own reservation. Some members of the Shasta 

Tribe joined the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon. 

Other members were included in California reservations.

Appendix O. Lands 

This appendix provides detailed data about lands, realty, and access information found in Chapters 2 

and 3 of the Draft EIS. 

In this appendix:

Land Tenure Adjustment Criteria ...................................................................................... 1361

Land Withdrawals and Land Tenure Zone 3 Lands........................................................ 1363

Inventory of Communication Sites .................................................................................... 1426

Analytical Methods to Determine Legal Public Accessibility 

of BLM Lands in the Planning Area ................................................................................. 1430

O – 1359
O – 1360

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs
O – 1361

Appendix O. Lands

Land Tenure Adjustment Criteria

In accordance with FLPMA and other laws, Executive Orders, and Departmental and Bureau 

policy, the following factors will be considered in evaluating opportunities for disposal or 

acquisition of lands or interests in lands. This list is not considered all inclusive but represents 

the major factors to be considered.

General Land Tenure Adjustment Evaluation 

Factors

• Improves the manageability of specific areas.

• Maintains or enhances important public values and uses.

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

• Facilitates development of energy and mineral potential.

• Reduces difficulty or cost of public land administration.

• Provides accessibility to the land for public recreation and other uses. 

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

recovering those investments.

• Suitability of the land for management by another Federal agency.

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

conditions, and/or lifestyles.

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

• Facilitates National, State, and local BLM priorities or mission statement needs.

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

• Facilitates implementation of other aspects of the approved Resource Management Plans.
O – 1362

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Acquisition Criteria

• Facilitates access to public land and resources retained for long-term public use.

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

• Protects riparian areas and wetlands.

• Contributes to biodiversity.

• Protects high-quality scenery.

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

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

intensity that are viable under economic program efficiency standards.

• Secures lands adjacent to rivers eligible for designation under the National Wild and 

Scenic Rivers Act

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

Register of Historic Places

• Whether private sites exist for the proposed use.

Disposal Criteria

The following criteria will be used to identify parcels in Land Tenure Zones 2 or 3. 

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

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

• Lands of limited public value.

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

agencies or State and local governments. 

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

resource values in retention areas to facilitate National, State, and local objectives where 

the public values to be acquired outweigh the values to be exchanged.
O – 1363

Appendix O. Lands

1363

O&C Land Exchange Criteria

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

land exchange include the following:

• Land exchanges which maintain the existing balance between the various land use 

allocations will be considered favorably. 

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

or which would require extensive post-acquisition management will not be favorably 

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

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

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

proponent, the proposed exchange will not be considered favorably. 

• Proposals which result in a material reduction in the number of acres of O&C or CBWR 

land or acres of harvestable timber should not be considered favorably. See I.M. No. OR-99-

081, dated August 4, 1999, for an interpretation of Section 3 of Public Law 105-321 which 

established a requirement of “No Net Loss” of O&C and CBWR lands in western Oregon. 

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

18 O&C counties is prohibited by regulations in 43 CFR 2200.0-6(e). This restriction 

applies to timber and other interests in lands as well.

Land Withdrawals and Land Tenure Zone 

3 Lands

The following tables contain detailed information about existing and proposed land withdrawals. 

Zone 3 lands are available for disposal.
O – 1364 Table 286. Existing land withdrawals and recommendations for continuance. District Serial Number Authority Legal Description Acres Purpose/Name Managing Agency S

E

Salem OR 23947

Act of Congress 3/5/80 

T. 10 S., R. 11W., SEC. 30 100 Yaquina Head BLM, USCG A 

OR 8920 PLO 5372 T. 8 S., R. 6 W., SEC 33 80 Little Sink BLM B OR 37275

Act of Congress 6/26/84 

T. 7 S., R. 3 & 4 E. 5800 TABLE ROCK WILDERNESS BLM A 

OR 05555 ANS-58-1 T. 15 S., R. 7 W., SEC. 7 40 AIR NAVIGATION/ PRAIRIE MTN FAA B 

OR 3060 PLO 989 T. 3 S., R. 5 E., SEC 27 & 28 600 FISH HACTCHERY & EAGLE CREEK USFWS B OR 15487 PLO 3609 T. 4 S., R. 3 E., SEC. 13 320 SEED ORCHARD/ WALTER HORNING BLM B 

OR 16183 PLO 3869 T. 3 S., R. 7 W., SEC 32 35 REC SITE/ ALDER GLENN BLM B 

OR 16183 PLO 3869 T. 14 S., R. 7 W., SEC 25 & 26 40 REC SITE/ ALSEA FALLS BLM B OR 16183 PLO 3869 T. 9 S., R. 3 E., SEC 7 80 REC SITE/ CANYON CREEK BLM B OR 16183 PLO 3869 T. 12 S., R. 3 E., SEC 3 80 REC SITE/ DOGWOOD BLM B OR 16183 PLO 3869 T. 9 S., R. 3 E., SEC 9 120 REC SITE/ ELKHORN VALLEY BLM B OR 16183 PLO 3869 T. 9 S., R. 2 E., SEC 25 160 REC SITE/ FISHERMEN’S BEND BLM B OR 16183 PLO 3869 T. 3 N., R. 3 W., SEC 21 20 REC SITE/ LITTLE BEND BLM B OR 16183 PLO 3869 T. 7 S., R. 6 W., SEC 4 & 9 REC SITE/ MILL CREEK BLM B OR 16183 PLO 3869 T. 14 S., R. 9 W., SEC 13 40 REC SITE/ MISSOURI BEND BLM B OR 16183 PLO 3869 T. 3 S., R. 4 E., SEC 11 160 REC SITE/ NORTH FORK EAGLE CREEK BLM B OR 16183 PLO 3869 T. 4 N., R. 3 W., SEC 7 30 REC SITE/ SCAPONIA BLM B 

OR 16183 PLO 3869 T. 11 S., R. 4 E., SEC 19 80 REC SITE/ YELLOWBOTTOM BLM B 

OR 16183 PLO 4305 T. 14 S., R. 7 W., SEC 25 133 REC SITE/ ALSEA FALLS BLM B OR 16183 PLO 4537 T. 2 S., R. 7 E., SEC 31 360 REC SITE/ WILDWOOD BLM B OR 16183 PLO 4537 T. 14 S., R. 9 W., SEC 13 10 REC SITE/ MISSOURI BEND BLM B OR 16183 PLO 4537 T. 8 S., R. 4 E., SEC 31 159 REC SITE/ SALMON FALLS BLM B 
O – 1365

District Serial Number Authority Legal Description Acres Purpose/Name Managing Agency S

E

OR 5344 PLO 4846 T 8 S., R. 10 W., SEC 27 12 ROAD USE USFS B 

OR 6363 PLO 5136 T. 12 S., R. 7 W., SEC 28 40 ADMIN SITE/AMARYS PEAK USFS B 

OR 50856 PLO 7215 T . 3 S., R., 10 W., SEC 30 PROTECT LANDS/ PACIFIC COAST HWY BLM B OR 50856 PLO 7215 T . 4 S., R., 10 W., SEC 19 & 29 PROTECT LANDS/ PACIFIC COAST HWY BLM B OR 50856 PLO 7215 T . 5 S., R., 10 W., SECS 5, 6, & 20 PROTECT LANDS/ PACIFIC COAST HWY BLM B OR 50856 PLO 7215 T . 8 S., R., 11 W., SEC 3 PROTECT LANDS/ PACIFIC COAST HWY BLM B OR 50856 PLO 7215 T . 9 S., R., 11 W., SEC 4 PROTECT LANDS/ PACIFIC COAST HWY BLM B OR 50856 PLO 7215 T . 13 S., R., 11 W., SEC 28 PROTECT LANDS/ PACIFIC COAST HWY BLM B 

OR 50856 PLO 7215 T . 14 S., R., 12 W., SEC 35 PROTECT LANDS/ PACIFIC COAST HWY BLM B 

OR 18842 PP 477 T. 2 S., R. 4 E., SEC 1 24

ELECTRIC POWER GENERATOR/ SANDY RIVER -MARMOT DAM BULL RUN PROJ

FERC/BLM B 

OR 18842 PP 477 T. 2 S., R. 5 E., SECS 13 & 15 24

ELECTRIC POWER GENERATOR/ SANDY RIVER -MARMOT DAM BULL RUN PROJ

FERC/BLM B 

OR 18884 PP 2195 T. 4 S., R. 4 E., SEC 13 100 ELECTRIC POWER GENERATOR/ CLACKAMAS FERC/BLM B OR 18884 PP 2195 T. 4 S., R. 5 E., SEC 7 97 ELECTRIC POWER GENERATOR/ CLACKAMAS FERC/BLM B OR 19146 PSC 170 T. 7 S., R. 3 & 4 E., 1879

POTENTIAL PWR DEVELOPMENT/ MOLALLA RVR

BLM C 

OR 19147 PSC 171 T. 8 S., R. 8 W., 957 POTENTIAL PWR DEVELOPMENT/ SILETZ RVR BLM C OR 19166 PSC 304 T. 5 N., R. 6 & 7 W., 34

POTENTIAL PWR DEVELOPMENT/ NEHALEM RVR

BLM C 
O – 1366 District Serial Number Authority Legal Description Acres Purpose/Name Managing Agency S

E

OR 19166 PSC 304 T. 3 N., R. 8 W., 34

POTENTIAL PWR DEVELOPMENT/ NEHALEM RVR

BLM C 

OR 19183 PSC 413 T. 14 & 15 S., R. 8 W., 316 POTENTIAL PWR DEVELOPMENT/ ALSEA RVR BLM C OR 19038 PSR 89 T. 3 N., R. 8 W., 61

POTENTIAL PWR DEVELOPMENT/ NEHALEM RVR

BLM C 

OR 19039 PSR 94 T. 6 & 7 S., R. 3 E., 1325

POTENTIAL PWR DEVELOPMENT/ MOLALLA RVR

BLM C 

OR 19074 PSR 458 T. 12 S., R. 1 W., 11

POTENTIAL PWR DEVELOPMENT/ SANTIAM RVR

BLM C 

OR 19112 PSR 658, WPD 15 T. 2 S., R. 4 E., T. 3 S., R. 3 E. 5 ELECTRIC TRANS LINES BLM C 

OR 19113 PSR 659, WPD 14 VARIOUS 6,149

POTENTIAL PWR DEVELOPMENT/ ALSEA, NEHALEM, SCAPPOOSE & TRASK RVRS

BLM C 

OR 19115 PSR 661, WPD 14 VARIOUS 10,370 POTENTIAL PWR DEVELOPMENT/ CLACKAMAS RVR BLM C 

OR 19118 PSR 664 VARIOUS 1,143

POTENTIAL PWR DEVELOPMENT/ EAGLE CREEK, SO. YAMHILL, MOLALLA AND n. SANTIAM RVRS

BLM C 

OR 19127 PSR 730, WPD 14 & 16 VARIOUS 1,900

POTENTIAL PWR DEVELOPMENT/ CLACKAMAS, NESTUCCA, SANDY, SANTIAM RVRS

BLM C 

Note: Location description indicates sections within which withdrawn lands are located. Information on which portions of the cited sections are withdrawn 
O – 1367

District Serial Number Authority Legal Description Acres Purpose/Name Managing Agency S

E

Eugene ORE 05555 T.15S., R.7W. 40 Air Navigation FAA/BLM A 

Section 7

ORE 013117 (PLO 3610) T.18S., R.1E. 81.2 Fall Creek COE/BLM B 

Section 31 Reservoir

T.19S., R.1E.Section 6

OR 19234 (PLO 497) T.17S., R.5W. 5.27 Fern Ridge COE A 

Section 27 ReservoirSection 28

OR 19240 (PLO 727) T.19S., R.1E. 1.37 Lookout Point COE A 

Section 34 Reservoir

OR 711 (PLO 4395) T.16S., R.12W. 1 Oregon Islands USFWS B 

Section 33 National Wildlife

Refuge

OR 25306 (PLO 6287) T.16S., R.12W. 1 Oregon Islands USFWS B 

Section 33 National Wildlife

ORE 016183A (PLO 3869) T.16S., R.7W. 440.12 Lake Creek BLM B

Section 19 Whittaker CreekT.18S., R.8W. Clay CreekSection 21 Haight CreekT.19S., R.7W. Sharps Creek
O – 1368 District Serial Number Authority Legal Description Acres Purpose/Name Managing Agency S

E

Section 19 Rec. SitesSection 35T.22S., R.1W.Section 15

ORE 012093 (PLO 5490) * 9000.52 Reserved for BLM A

multiple usemanagement

OR 8754 (PLO 5229) T.15S., R.1W. 260 Shotgun Creek BLM B

Section 29 Recreation SiteSection 30Section 31Section 32

OR 37548 (PLO 6662) T.20S., R.5W. 832.5 Tyrrell Seed BLM B

Section 9 OrchardSection 15Section 21

OR 46473 (PLO 6963) T.18S., R.12W. 257.6 Florence BLM B 

Section 3 Sand DunesSection 15

OR 48744 (PLO 7081) T.17S., R.3E. 292.25 Eagle Rock BLM B 

Section 3 SectionSection 9 McKenzieSection 10 RiverSection 11
O – 1369

District Serial Number Authority Legal Description Acres Purpose/Name Managing Agency S

E

OR 19133** (PSC 41) T.19S., R.7W. 550.49 Protect water- BLM/FERC A

Section 21 power and

Section 25 reservoirSection 35 developmentT.20S., R.6W. potentialSection 5

OR 19148** (PSC 180) T.20S., R.2W. 300.6 Protect water- BLM/FERC A

Section 31 power andT.21S., R.1W. reservoirSection 33 developmentSection 35 potentialT.21S., R.2W.Section 15

OR 19164 (PSC 287) T.18S., R.6W. 120 Protect BLM/FERC A

Section 5 electric

transmissionline

OR 19186** (PSC 426) T.16S., R.2E. 276.64 Protect water- BLM/FERC A

Section 23 power andSection 24 reservoirSection 27 development

potential

OR 19040** (PSR 95) T.16S., R.2E. 152.28 Protect water- BLM/FERC A

Section 28*** power andSection 34*** reservoirT.17S., R.2E. development
O – 1370 District Serial Number Authority Legal Description Acres Purpose/Name Managing Agency S

E

Section 2*** potentialT.17S., R.3E.Section 4

OR 19059** (PSR 285) T.16S., R.3E. 163.56 Protect water- BLM/FERC A

Section 31*** power andT.17S., R.3E. reservoirSection 4 development

potential

OR 19113** (PSR 659) T.15S., R.6W. 5961.48 Protect water- BLM/FERC A

Section 7 power andT.16S., R.7W. reservoirSection 19 developmentT.17S., R.8W. potentialSection 17***T.18S., R.7W.Section 31Section 33T.18S., R.8W.Section 21Section 27Section 35T.19S., R.6W.Section 7Section 9Section 29Section 31T.19S., R.7W.Section 1
O – 1371

District Serial Number Authority Legal Description Acres Purpose/Name Managing Agency S

E

Section 3Section 5Section 9Section 19Section 21Section 27Section 35T.19S., R.8W.Section 3Section 11Section 13T.20S., R.6W.Section 1Section 3Section 5Section 9Section 11T.20S., R.7W.Section 3

OR 19115** (PSR 661) T.16S., R.2E. 1103.6 Protect water BLM/FERC A

Section 33*** power andSection 35*** reservoirT.17S., R.2E. developmentSection 1*** potentialT.17S., R.3E.Section 3***Section 5***Section 9***T.20S., R.2W.
O – 1372 District Serial Number Authority Legal Description Acres Purpose/Name Managing Agency S

E

Section 31T.21S., R.1W.Section 31***Section 33Section 35T.21S., R.2W.Section 7T.22S., R.2W.Section 5Section 15Section 23T.23S., R.2W.Section 1

OR 19116** (PSR 662) T.18S., R.8W. 40 Protect water BLM/FERC A

Section 28 power and

reservoirdevelopmentpotential

OR 19127** (PSR 730) T.22S., R.1W. 1249.16 Protect water BLM/FERC A

Section 5 power andSection 9 reservoirSection 15  developmentSection 23 potentialSection 27
O – 1373

District Serial Number Authority Legal Description Acres Purpose/Name Managing Agency S

E

Section 35T.23S., R.1W.Section 1Section 7

OR 19014**  (WPD 14) T.15S., R.6W. 8234.24 Protect water- BLM/FERC A

Section 7 power andT.16S., R.2E. reservoirSection 33*** developmentSection 35*** potential T.16S., R.7W.Section 19T.17S., R.2E.Section 1***T.17S., R.3E.Section 3***Section 5***Section 9***T.17S., R.8W.Section 17***T.18S., R.7W. Section 31 Section 33T.18S., R.8W. Section 21Section 27Section 35T.19S., R.6W. Section 7Section 9
O – 1374 District Serial Number Authority Legal Description Acres Purpose/Name Managing Agency S

E

Section 29Section 31T.19S., R.7W. Section 1Section 3Section 5Section 9 Section 19Section 21Section 27Section 35T.19S., R.8W. Section 3Section 11Section 13T.20S., R.2W.Section 31T.20S., R.6W. Section 1Section 3Section 5Section 9Section 11T.20S., R.7W.Section 3T.21S., R.1W. Section 31***Section 33Section 35T.21S., R.2W.
O – 1375

District Serial Number Authority Legal Description Acres Purpose/Name Managing Agency S

E

Section 7Section 31T.22S., R.1W. Section 5 Section 9 Section 15 Section 23Section 27Section 35T.22S., R.2W. Section 5 Section 15Section 23T.23S., R.1W.Section 1Section 7T.23S., R.2W. Section 1

OR 19016**  (WPD 16) T.23S., R.1W. 80 Protect water- BLM/FERC A

Section 1 power and

reservoirdevelopmentpotential

T.20S.,R2W. 178.95 Row River Trail BLM BSection 30 and associatedSection 31 RecreationSection 32 FacilitiesSection 33
O – 1376 District Serial Number Authority Legal Description Acres Purpose/Name Managing Agency S

Section 34T.20S.,R3W.Section 25Section 36T.21S.,R.1W.Section 19Section 30Section 31Section 32T.21S.,R.2WSection 2Section 3Section 11Section 13Section 14Section 24T.21S.,R.3W.Section 1T.22S.,R.1W.Section 5

OR 50856 (PLO7215) T.18S.,R12W. 36.52 Pacific Coastline BLM 

Section 2 Highway 101

OR 905 (R&PP) T.14S., R.2W. 2 McKercher BLM/Linn 

Section 13 County Park County

ORE 06095 (R&PP) T.16S., R.2E. 61.73 Whitewater BLM/Lane 

Section 34 County Park CountySection 35
O – 1377

District Serial Number Authority Legal Description Acres Purpose/Name Managing Agency S

E

ORE 011226 (R&PP) T.17S., R.2E. 2.4 Martin Rapids BLM/Lane B

Section 1 County Park County

ORE 012264 (R&PP) T.16S., R.6W. 2 Solid waste BLM/Lane B

Section 7 transfer Site County

OR 37243 (R&PP) T.19S., R.3W. 2.79 Willamette BLM/State B

Section 35 River of Oregon

Greenway

* All public domain lands in and west of Range 8 East and all lands within the area, which become public domain lands in the future.** Withdrawals remaining to be reviewed through the FLPMA withdrawal review process or under authority of DM 603.*** Opened to entry subject to Sec. 24 of the Federal Power Act.**** Opened to entry in part subject to Sec. 24 of the Federal Power Act.Note: Table does not include lands that have been transferred out of Federal ownership subsequent to withdrawal or lands within Forest boundaries.

Roseburg OR 19101 PSR* 629, WPD* 11 20S,7W,25 200 Protect Water BLM/FERC C 

20S,7W,27 40 Power & Reservoir20S,7W,33 280 Development20S,7W,35 80 Potential

OR 16183B PLO 3869 21S,6W,1 80 Gunter Recreation Site BLM B 

OR 19101 PSR* 629, WPD* 11 21S,7W,5 352.59 Protect Water BLM/FERC C OR 19011 21S,7W,9 40 Power & Reservoir
O – 1378 District Serial Number Authority Legal Description Acres Purpose/Name Managing Agency S

E

DevelopmentPotential

OR 19112 WPD* 15, PSR* 658 22S,5W,33 Transmission Line BLM/FERC C 

Purposes (unconstructed)

OR 19105 PSR* 633,WPD* 11 22S,7W,19 29.93 Protect Water BLM/FERC C OR 19011 22S,7W,31 17.52 Power & Reservoir

DevelopmentPotential

OR 19105 PSR* 280, 633, WPD* 11 23S,7W,15 94 Protect Water BLM/FERC C OR 19057 23S,7W,23 134.27 Power & ReservoirOR 19011 23S,7W,27 74.2 Development

23S,7W,32 1.7 Potential23S,7W,33 118.2

OR 19105 PSR* 280, 633, WPD* 11 24S,7W,3 146.05 Protect Water BLM/FERC C 

OR 19057 24S,7W,11 186.32 Power & ReservoirOR 19011 24S,7W,13 26.62 Development

24S,7W,15 122.19 Potential24S,7W,17 116.0624S,7W,20 14.3524S,7W,21 75.5824S,7W,23 40.0324S,7W,28 34.6224S,7W,33 95.2

OR 16183B PLO 3869 24S,7W,13 23.7 Tyee Recreation Site BLM B OR 19341 PLO 754 24S,7W,20 14.35 Timber BLM A 

24S,7W,21 13.93 Preservation
O – 1379

District Serial Number Authority Legal Description Acres Purpose/Name Managing Agency S

E

OR 16183B PLO 3869 25S,1W,23 20 Scaredman BLM B 

25S,1W,24 40 Recreation Site25S,1W,25 2025S,1W,30 40 Forest

OR 16183B PLO 3869 25S,2W,15 160 Rock Creek BLM B 

Recreation Site

25S,2W,21 320 Mill Pond BLM B

Recreation Site

OR 19105 PSR* 280, 25S,7W,5 37 Protect Water BLM/FERC C 

OR 19103 630,633, 25S,7W,6 105.25 Power & ReservoirOR 19057 WPD* 11 25S,7W,7 205.49 DevelopmentOR 19011 25S,7W,9 78.39 Potential

25S,7W,15 13.8325S,7W,17 8025S,7W,21 4025S,7W,23 8025S,7W,27 80

OR 3660-A PLO 4537 25S,7W,9 78.4 Umpqua BLM B 

25S,7W,10 0.15 Recreation Site

25S,7W,15 13.33

OR 19144 PSC* 162, 25S,8W,12 20.8 Protect Water BLM/FERC C 

Power & ReservoirDevelopment Potential

OR 44740 Public Law* 26S,2W,7,8,13,14 North Umpqua Wild BLM C 

100-557 26S,2W,15,16,17, and Scenic River

26S,2W,18,20,21,26S,2W,22,23,24 1620

OR 18874 PP 1927* 26S,2W,7 Electric BLM/FERC B 
O – 1380 District Serial Number Authority Legal Description Acres Purpose/Name Managing Agency S

E

26S,2W,13 transmission line.26S,2W,14 Occupies 100 foot26S,2W,15 wide strip of land.26S,2W,1726S,2W,2126S,2W,2926S,2W,3026S,2W,31 110.11

OR 19184 PSC* 416, 26S,2W,7 397.3 Protect Water BLM/FERC C 

OR 19103, 19057 PSR* 631, 280 26S,2W,13 40 Power & ReservoirOR 19011 WPD* 11,16 26S,2W,14 300 Development PotentialOR 19016 26S,2W,15 160

26S,2W,17 28026S,2W,21 33.7826S,2W,22 22026S,2W,23 353.9426S,2W,24 250

OR 16183B PLO 3869 26S,2W,14 160 Susan Creek Falls BLM B OR 18874 PP* 1927 26S,3W,1 5.88 Electric Trans- BLM/FERC B

26S,3W,35 6.29 mission line. Occupies

100 foot wide strip ofland.

OR 5263 PLO 4848 26S,3W,1 80 Swiftwater BLM B 

Recreation Site

OR 16183B PLO 3869 26S,3W,9 6.44 Lone Rock BLM B 

OR 19103,19057 PSR* 631,280 26S,3W,1 120 Protect Water BLM/FERC C OR 19011 WPD* 11 26S,3W,9 25+ Power & Reservoir

SO Intpr* 83 26S,3W,11 121.44 Development Potential
O – 1381

District Serial Number Authority Legal Description Acres Purpose/Name Managing Agency S

E

OR 19103 PSR* 631 26S,4W,17 11.56 Protect Water BLM/FERC C OR 19011 WPD* 11 Power & Reservoir

Development Potential

OR 19057 PSR* 280, 26S,6W,7 139.87 Protect Water BLM/FERC C 

OR 19105 633, 26S,6W,8 62.43 Power & ReservoirOR 19011 WPD* 11 Development Potential

PLO 4521 27S,2W,1 0.8 Negro Creek Road USDA,FS B 

Executive Order* 865 27S,2W,9 320.4 Umpqua National USDA,FS N

27S,2W,32 110.25 Forest

OR 5263 PLO 4848 27S,2W,1 80 Emile Creek BLM B

Recreation Site

27S,2W,8 80 Little River BLM B

Wayside

OR 16183B PLO 3869 27S,2W,16 178.53 Wolf Creek Trail BLM B 

OR 16183B PLO 3869 27S,3W,23 80 Cavitt Creek BLM B 

Forest 

OR 13683 PLO 4448 29S,7W,17 40 Umpqua River BR BLM B 

29S,7W,21 20.22 Reclamation

Project

OR 19113 PSR* 659, 29S,9W,35 40 Protect Water BLM/FERC C 

OR 19014 WPD* 14 Power & Reservoir Development Potential

OR 13683 PLO 4448 29S,7W,32 58.43 Umpqua River BR BLM B 

ReclamationProject

OR 19152 PSC* 198, 30S,2W,12 80 Protect Water BLM/FERC C 

OR 19171 315, Power &

OR 19057 PSR* 280, 30S,2W,23 80 Reservoir

30S,2W,28 40 Development
O – 1382 District Serial Number Authority Legal Description Acres Purpose/Name Managing Agency S

E

30S,2W,29 120 Potential30S,2W,31 80

OR 3621 PLO 4626 30S,2W,23 1.3 Pickett Butte Road USDA,FS B 

OR 19171 PSC* 315, 30S,3W,19 120 Protect Water BLM/FERC C OR 19113 PSR*659, 30S,3W,25 120 Power andOR 19011 WPD* 11 30S,3W,29 80 Reservoir

30S,3W,31 164.62 Development30S,3W,33 40 Potential30S,3W,35 8030S,4W,15 99.34 Protect Water BLM/FERC C 

30S,4W,21 80.14 Power and30S,4W,23 161.95 Reservoir30S,4W,25 112.76 Development30S,4W,27 40 Potential30S,4W,29 76.8430S,4W,35 167.76

OR 13683 PLO 4448, 30S,7W,5 20 Umpqua River BR B 

30S,7W,6 31.15 Reclamation

Project

OR 19113 PSR 659, 30S,9W,3 40 Protect Water BLM/FERC C 

OR 19014 WPD 14 Power and

ReservoirDevelopment Potential

OR 19171 PSC* 315 31S,3W,3 83.61 Protect Water BLM/FERC C 

Power andReservoirDevelopment Potential

16183B PLO 3869 31S,8W,35 20 Darby Creek BLM B 

Recreation Site
O – 1383

District Serial Number Authority Legal Description Acres Purpose/Name Managing Agency S

E

OR 12693 PLO 5490 All Public 18,426 Multiple Use BLM D 

Domain(PD) lands

Small Tract 24S,7W, 4.43 Community BLM B Act Sec 3; Lot 3 Site Lease

OR 011654

R&PP 26S,2W, 7.5 County Park BLM B 

Sec 7; E1/2SE1/4 Lease OR 012162

R&PP 26S, 147.99 State Park BLM B 

2W, Lease (expired)Sec 23 and 24; OR 010044Metes and Bounds

Small Tract Sec 15; Lot 6 2.69 Occupancy BLM B 

Act Lease OR 05564Small Tract 28S,4W, 0.61 Occupancy BLM B Act Sec. 13; SE1/4NE1/4 Lease

OR 16775

OR 53486 PLO 7413 T 31 S, R 7 W, 36.6 Gold Panning Area BLM B 

Sec. 4 58.72 Island Creek Rec. site BLM

OR 53486 PLO 7413 T 30 S, R 7 W, B 

Sec. 36T 31 S, R 7 W,Sec. 1

OR 53486 PLO 7413 T 30 S, R 7 W, 40 Picket Bridge Rec. Site BLM B 

Sec. 23

OR 53486 PLO 7413 T 30 S, R 7 W, 25 Olalla-Thompson Cr. Day BLM B 

Sec. 5 Use Site
O – 1384 District Serial Number Authority Legal Description Acres Purpose/Name Managing Agency S

E

Medford OR016674 PLO 5105 2483.48 Lost Cr. Resv. Corps of Eng. B 

OR016753 PLO 6373 840.59 Elk Cr. Resv. Corps of Eng. B OR49 PLO 4132 200 Sprague Orch. BLM B 

OR10729 PLO 5481 160 Sprague Orch. BLM B OR04135 PLO 1726 15481.14 Recreation area BLM B OR12261 PLO 3165 174.21 Recreation area BLM B OR016183D PLO 3869 444.35 Recreation area BLM B OR19008 WPD 3 5631.54 Water power BLM C OR19010 WPD 10 12228.88 Water power BLM C OR19013 WPD 13 127.27 Water power BLM C OR19018 WPD 18 872.35 Water power BLM C OR19047 PSR 161 157.49 Power site BLM C OR19048 PSR 167 495.38 Power site BLM C OR19054 PSR 258 1573.16 Power site BLM C OR19078 PSR 528 2.17 Power site BLM C OR19085 PSR 579 313.95 Power site BLM C OR19087 PSR 582 3632.57 Power site BLM C OR19088 PSR 583 1799.03 Power site BLM C OR19089 PSR 584 160 Power site BLM C OR19094 PSR 619 3360.34 Power site BLM C OR19096 PSR 621 5379.4 Power site BLM C OR19100 PSR 625 80 Power site BLM C OR19107 PSR 635 40 Power site BLM C OR19111 PSR 653 127 Power site BLM C OR19121 PSR 686 158.72 Power site BLM C OR19131 PSC 2 6.42 Power site BLM C OR19139 PSC 143 22948.95 Power site BLM C OR19143 PSC 158 71.8 Power site BLM C OR19151 PSC 196 5.94 Power site BLM C OR19154 PSC 218 1482.21 Power site BLM C 
O – 1385

District Serial Number Authority Legal Description Acres Purpose/Name Managing Agency S

E

OR19173 PSC 330 1151.73 Power site BLM C 

OR19174 PSC 340 5207.45 Power site BLM C OR19291 PLO 3530 210.36 Brewer Spr. RNA BLM B OR03664 B.O. of 1-24- 1956 875.93 Rogue R. Basin Proj. Bur. Of Reclamation B OR011495 PLO 4289 1132.39 Rogue R. Basin Proj. Bur. Of Reclamation C OR017844 PLO 4037 162.5 Rogue R. Basin Proj. Bur. Of Reclamation B OR20246 S.O. of 1-28- 1905 22138.52 Klamath Proj. Bur. Of Reclamation B OR20519 S.O. of 2-20- 1943 84.64 Medford\SV Proj. Bur. Of Reclamation B 

OR20572 B.O. of 8-18- 1950 80 Air Navg. Site FAA B 

OR03801 PLO 1189 395.5 Recreation area USFS B OR 139 R&PP 3.9 Sanitary lagoon BLM B OR 651 R&PP 200 Sanitary landfill Jo. County B 

ORE 013905 R&PP 4.2 River access BLM B 

ORE 010635 R&PP 80 River park BLM B ORE 012309 R&PP 82.69 Jo. Co. park BLM B ORE 013232 R&PP 400 Cathedral Hills Pk. BLM B ORE 013626 R&PP 6.63 Pinehurst Sch. BLM B ORE 015451 R&PP 12.12 Jack. Co. park BLM B ORE 018320 R&PP 41.48 Recreation area BLM B ORE 010368 R&PP 48.56 Jo. Co. park BLM B 
O – 1386 District Serial Number Authority Legal Description Acres Purpose/Name Managing Agency S

E

ORE 012765 R&PP 46.76 R&PP Classification BLM B 

ORE 016993 R&PP 35 Recreation area BLM B 

Coos Bay OR 50856 PLO 7215 19S 12W 1 40.43 Pacific Coastline BLM

26S 14W 28 40.0027S 14W 29 2.2630S 15W 12 40.0032S 15W 4 71.7533S 14W 31 155.1634S 14W 6 40.7034S 14W 33 162.0534S 14W 34 40.0034S 15W 1 7.92 L38S 14W 4 40.0038S 14W 5 40.0038S 14W 34 34.0039S 14W 23 40.0041S 13W 6 2.5641S 13W 7 0.32

OR 016183C PLO 3869 20S 9W 31 81.29 Smith River Falls Recreation Site BLM

20S 9W 33 3.50 Vincent Creek Recreation Site BLM23S 10W 2 78.86 Loon Lake Recreation site BLM27S 10W 4 60.00 Park Creek Recreation Site BLM27S 10W 18 20.00 Big Tree Recreation Site BLM

30S 9W 9 80.00 Bear Creek Recreation Site BLM
O – 1387

District Serial Number Authority Legal Description Acres Purpose/Name Managing Agency S

E

32S 14 W 12 120.00 Sixes River Recreation Site BLM

443.65

OR 23558 SO 12-31- 1930 23S 10W 1 51.51 East Shore Recreation Site BLM L

Rec Wdl. No. 43 L

L

OR 19291A PLO 3530 27S 10W 17 590.00 Cherry Creek Natural Area BLM L

27S 10W 18 L27S 10W 19 L

27S 10W 20 L

OR 6398 PL 181 5-5- 1926 27S 11W 35 120.00 Lavern County Park BLM/Coos County

27S 12W 35 160.00 Rock Prairie County Park BLM/Coos County S

28S 9W 7 87.72 Judge Hamilton County Park BLM/Coos County28S 11W 5 80.00 Middle Creek County Park BLM/Coos County28S 11W 11 80.00 Frona County Park BLM/Coos County S

527.72

OR 21318 SO 6-12-1907 40S 13W 11 320.75 Potential National Park BLM

40S 13W 14

L

OR 19231 EO 11-24-1903 22S 13W 14 71.10 Umpqua Jetty Maintenance COE L
O – 1388 District Serial Number Authority Legal Description Acres Purpose/Name Managing Agency S

E

L

OR 21901 EO 8-23-1895 22S 13W 13 130.00 Umpqua River Light Station USCG L

L

OR 4011 EO 7-14-1884 26S 14W 2 2.43 Bar Watch USCG

26S 14W 2 2.67 Administrative Site USCG

5.10 S

OR 19227 EO 7-14-1884 26S 14W 2 2.43 Military Facility US Navy

26S 14W 3 L

OR 22094 EO 6-14-1876 26S 14W 4 35.78 Cape Arago Administative Facility USCG L

26S 14W 9

L

OR 36343 EO 9-11-1843 26S 14W 4 5.00 Cape Arago Lighthouse USCG LOR 12693 PLO 5490 All Public Domain lands 50329.00 Multiple use management BLM L

on district
O – 1389

District Serial Number Authority Legal Description Acres Purpose/Name Managing Agency S

E

L

OR 54142 PLO 7436 25S 13W 4 80.00 North Spit Recreation Area BLM

3-24-2000 25S 13W 5 32.23

25S 13W 6 271.60 L25S 13W 7 212.9025S 13W 8 5.9025S 13W 18 325.49 S

a

25S 13W 19 10.3825S 14W 12 14.8525S 14W 13 232.0025S 14W 23 1.10 L25S 14W 24 398.8925S 14W 25 80.7225S 14W 26 113.21

1779.27

OR 24294 PL 95-450 26S 14W 5 incl. below Oregon Islands NWR USFW

10-11-1978 26S 14W 8 incl. below

26S 14W 17 incl. below26S 14W 18 incl. below26S 14W 19 15.0027S 14W 19 8.0028S 15W 25 incl. below
O – 1390 District Serial Number Authority Legal Description Acres Purpose/Name Managing Agency S

E

28S 15W 26 3.5628S 15W 3529S 15W 2 4.00 

31S 16W 24 7.0031S 16W 25 16.0031S 16W 34 incl. below31S 16W35 7.0032S 16W 2 54.0032S 16W 332S 16W 1032S 16W 17 incl. below32S 16W 21 incl. below32S 16W 28 incl. below32S 16W 29 incl. below32S 16W 30 incl. below32S 16W 31 5433S 15W 6 233S 15W 8 333S 15W 21 incl. below33S 15W 22 1533S 15W 33 1834S 14W 3034S 15W 31 31.8336S 15W 2 incl. below
O – 1391

District Serial Number Authority Legal Description Acres Purpose/Name Managing Agency S

E

36S 15W 11 1236S 15W 1536S 15W 16 incl. below36S 15W 17 2038S 14W 3038S 14W 31 1238S 15W 1 1639S 14W 6 739S 14W 8 inc.in Sec 1739S 14W 16 339S 14W 17 2040S 14W 4 2540S 14W 16 240S 14W 22 940S 14W 26 2.00

OR 711 PLO 4395 28S 15W 25 3.56 Oregon National Wildlife Refuge USFW

31S 16W 24 7.0031S 16W 25 16.0031S 16W 34 7.0031S 15W 35 15.0032S 16W 17 incl. below32S 16W 21 incl. below32S 16W 28 incl. below32S 16W 29 incl. below32S 16W 30 incl. below L
O – 1392 District Serial Number Authority Legal Description Acres Purpose/Name Managing Agency S

E

32S 16W 31 54.0033S 15W 21 incl. below33S 15W 22 15.0033S 15W 33 incl. below34S 15W 4 18.0036S 15W 2 incl. below36S 15W 11 12.0038S 15W 1 16.0038S 14W 30 incl. below38S 14W 31 12.0039S 14W 6 7.0039S 14W 16 3.0039S 14W 8 incl. below39S 14 17 3.0040S 14W 4 25.0040S 14W 22 9.00

222.56

OR 50874 29S 15W 35 70.90 Lost Lake BLM

29S 15W 36

OR 45401 PLO 6977 30S 15W 2 94.20 New River ACEC BLM

4-29-1993 30S 15W 3 75.58

30S 15W 10 209.0030S 15W 11 80.1530S 15W 15 156.80
O – 1393

District Serial Number Authority Legal Description Acres Purpose/Name Managing Agency S

E

30S 15W 21 55.14 L30S 15W 22 109.8330S 15W 28 153.1030S 15W 32 2.1830S 15W 33 27.40 L

963.38

OR 51194 PLO 7170 31S 15W 7 2.89 Floras Lake BLM

31S 15W 8 108.59

111.48

OR 51891 PLO 7247 32S 14W 6 44.48 Edson Creek Rec Site BLM

2-20-1997

OR 24293 PL 91-504 40S 14W 22 21.00 Oregon Islands NWR USFW

OR 22376 PROC 2416 40S 14W 35 21.00 Oregon Islands NWR USFW L

OR 25306 PLO 6287, Unsurveyed Islands Oregon National Wildlife Refuge USFW

OR 11517 EO 5-6-1935, and rocks 100.00

41S 13W 6 

OR 19130 PSC 01 28S 10W 6 45.26 Protect water power and reservoir BLM/FERC
O – 1394 District Serial Number Authority Legal Description Acres Purpose/Name Managing Agency S

E

28S 10W 8 40.00 development potential 

28S 10W 12 40.0028S 10W 14 40.00 L

165.26

OR 19140 PSC 147 27S 10W 31 115.35 Protect water power and reservoir BLM/FERC

27S 11W 35 236.72 development potential28S 10W 5 124.1228S 11W 6 45.14 S28S 11W 14 240.00

761.33

OR 19144 PSC 162 22S 8W 7 181.00 Protect water power and reservoir BLM/FERC

PLO 3414 22S 8W 9 11.07 development potential

22S 8W 17 46.78 S22S 8W 21 2.4222S 9W 7 56.4422S 9W 9 50.0423S 8W 13 80.00

427.75
O – 1395

District Serial Number Authority Legal Description Acres Purpose/Name Managing Agency S

E

OR 19152 PSC 198 22S 9W 7 183.93 Protect water power and reservoir BLM/FERC SOR 20365 PSR 273 20S 9W 26 85.27 Protect water power and reservoir BLM/FERC

20S 9W 28 44.3120S 9W 32 75.8520S 9W 34 39.79

245.22

OR 19101 PSR 629/WPD 11 20S 8W 17 39.65 Protect water power and reservoir BLM/FERC S

20S 8W 19 623.6820S 8W 21 304.2320S 8W 27 120.00 S20S 8W 33 499.0120S 9W 21 40.0020S 9W 25 499.3720S 9W 27 284.8120S 9W 31 232.49
O – 1396 District Serial Number Authority Legal Description Acres Purpose/Name Managing Agency S

E

20S 9W 33 278.38 S20S 9W 35 173.2721S 8W 1 400.0021S W 11 200.00

3694.89

OR 19102 PSR 630 22S 8W 24 3.00 Protect water power and reservoir BLM/FERC

OR 19105 PSR 633/WPD 11 22S 7W 19 29.93 Protect water power and reservoir BLM/FERC

22S 8W 5 19.7522S 9W 7 21.3222S 9W 13 149.0022S 9W 17 72.2023S 7W 7 49.1023S 7W 19 151.0623S 7W 21 30.15 S23S 8W 11 29.38

551.89 S
O – 1397

District Serial Number Authority Legal Description Acres Purpose/Name Managing Agency S

E

OR 19106 PSR 634/WPD 11 22S 10W 35 239.95 Protect water power and reservoir BLM/FERC

23S 9W 7 41.6623S 9W 17 120.0023S 9W 19 158.5523S 10W 1 171.5123S 10W 13 40.00

771.67

OR 19109 PSR 645/WPD 12 23S 10W 35 40.00 Protect water power and reservoir BLM/FERC

S

OR 19113 PSR 659 30S 9W 9 40.00 Protect water power and reservoir BLM/FERC

OR 19113 PSR 659/WPD 14 26S 9W 17 160.00 Protect water power and reservoir BLM/FERC

26S 9W 19 160.0026S 9W 29 160.0026S 9W 31 360.0027S 9W 7 265.5527S 11W 15 182.80 S30S 9W 17 80.00
O – 1398 District Serial Number Authority Legal Description Acres Purpose/Name Managing Agency S

E

30S 10W 3 120.00 S30S 10W 13 160.00

1648.35 S

OR 19017 WPD 17 27S 11W 5 610.66 Protect water power and reservoir BLM/FERC

27S 11W 7 40.0027S 11W 17 40.0027S 11W 19 163.0427S 11W 21 440.0027S 11W 29 480.0027S 11W 31 280.1427S 11W 33 240.0027S 12W 11 186.1427S 12W 13 520.00 S27S 12W 23 200.0027S 12W 25 320.0027S 12W 27 240.0027S 12W 35 220.0028S 9W 7 335.2028S 10W 3 366.60
O – 1399

District Serial Number Authority Legal Description Acres Purpose/Name Managing Agency S

E

28S 10W 5 329.6828S 10W 9 280.0028S 10W 11 240.0028S 10W 15 80.0028S 11W 1 152.8028S 11W 3 234.0028S 11W 7 32.2828S 12W 1 254.8028S 12W 13 155.6828S 12W 23 161.76

6602.78

OR 19142 PSC 157 Protect water power BLM/FERC

and reservoir

K. Falls OR 5433 BLM Order 40S 10E 9 80 Air navigation FAA A 

6/14/57 ANS 57 40S 10E 10 80 

160 

OR 36244 SO of 2/11/47 39S 9E 21 51.12 Kingsley Field USAF B 

OR19001 PLO 5907 39S 13E 2 78.87 Public Water BLM D 

38S 13E 34 40 Reserve 146
O – 1400 District Serial Number Authority Legal Description Acres Purpose/Name Managing Agency S

E

38S 13E 35 40

158.87

OR 20219 EO of 1/24/1914 41S 13E 6 52.14 Public Water BLM D 

40S 13E 19 189.55 Reserve 1541S 12E 1 4040S 12E 24 160

441.69

OR 9041 SO 234 40S 10E 11 80 Public Water BLM D 

Reserve 107

OR 9041 SO 214 41S 14.5E 1 640 Public Water BLM D 

Reserve No. 107

OR 16183E PLO 3869 39S 13E 2 160 Gerber Reservoir BLM B 

recreation site. 

38S 5E 21 80 Surveyor 

Mountainrecreation site BLM B
O – 1401

District Serial Number Authority Legal Description Acres Purpose/Name Managing Agency S

E

40S 7E 6 14.35 Topsy recreation

254.35 site. BLM B

OR 12799 PLO 3274 39S 9E 21 10.04 Administrative FWS B 

site FWS B 

OR 6058 PLO 4876 38S 6E 21 9.69 Protect road use BLM/FS B 

OR 5746 PLO 4878 36S 15E 28, 32 14 Protect road use BLM/FS B 

923

OR 20243 SO of 7/9/1904 39S 14E 5 240.05 Klamath Basin BR/BLM B 

39S 14E 6 486.36 Reclamation 

39S 14E 7 209.43 Project 

39S 14E 8 240 

39S 14E 17 640 

39S 14E 18 529.98 

39S 14E 19 400 

39S 14E 20 360
O – 1402 District Serial Number Authority Legal Description Acres Purpose/Name Managing Agency S

E

39S 14E 21 16039S 14E 22 16038S 14E 31 8038S 14E 32 80

3585.82

SO of 7/27/1904 38S 13E 35 120 Klamath Basin BR/BLM B 

39S 13E 1 80 Reclamation 

39S 13E 2 78.87 Project 

39S 13E 11 80 

39S 13E 12 640 

39S 13E 13 320 

39S 13E 14 16039S 13E 23 32039S 13E 26 32039S 13E 27 28039S 13E 33 24039S 13E 34 240

2878.87

OR 20246 SO of 1/28/1905 37S 8E 17 68.7 Klamath Basin FWS/BR B 

Reclamation Project/Upper 
O – 1403

District Serial Number Authority Legal Description Acres Purpose/Name Managing Agency S

E

Klamath National Wildlife Refuge 

OR 20249 SO of 1/20/1910 34S 6E 2 44.59 Klamath Basin FS/BR B 

Lands within 34S 6E 11 438.73 Reclamation 

Winema NF 34S 6E 14 440 Project/Winema 

34S 6E 23 140 National Forest 

34S 6E 26 358.83 

34S 6E 35 242.7 

36S 6E 10 8036S 6E 11 160

1904.85

OR 20249 SO of 1/20/1910 34S 6E 25 480 Klamath Basin FWS/BR B 

(Continued) 34S 6E 26 120 Reclamation

Same lands 34S 6E 35 200 Project/Upper 

included in 34S 6E 36 640 Wildlife Refuge 

EO 2416 35S 6E 1 640 

35S 6E 2 280.24 

35S 6E 12 640
O – 1404 District Serial Number Authority Legal Description Acres Purpose/Name Managing Agency S

E

35S 6E 13 64035S 6E 24 64035S 6E 35 32035S 6E 36 64036S 6E 1 64036S 6E 2 56036S 6E 3 8036S 6E 11 48036S 6E 12 64036S 6E 13 40036S 6E 14 320

8361.84

OR 20249 SO of 1/20/1910 34S 6E 1 239.23 Klamath Basin BR B 

(Continued) 34S 6E 12 640 Reclamation 

36S 6E 13 316.86 Project 

36S 6E 13 1196.09 

OR 20253 SO of 6/25/1919 41S 10E 15 159.8 Klamath Basin FWS/BR B 

Same lands 41S 10E 16 74.1 Reclamationincluded in 41S 9E 3 405.2 Project/Upper

41S 9E 4 648.4 Klamath National41S 9E 5 405.25 Wildlife Refuge
O – 1405

District Serial Number Authority Legal Description Acres Purpose/Name Managing Agency S

E

41S 9E 6 324.1641S 9E 8 567.6841S 9E 9 648.7641S 9E 10 647.9241S 9E 14 396.3941S 9E 15 387.3241S 9E 16 373.9241S 9E 17 359.4641S 9E 18 344.841S 8E 1 344.3241S 8E 4 72.341S 8E 9 149.541S 8E 11 4041S 8E 12 324.4441S 8E 13 167.141S 8E 14 4041S 8E 15 291.241S 8E 16 91.840S 8E 24 40

7303.82

OR 20254 SO of 7/31/1919 39S 11E 19 80 Klamath Basin BR/BLM B 

Reclamation Project 
O – 1406 District Serial Number Authority Legal Description Acres Purpose/Name Managing Agency S

E

OR 20240 SO of 6/20/1922 41S 14E 19 29.55 Klamath Basin BR/BLM B 

ReclamationProject

OR 20259 SO of 2/25/1939 39S 12E 22 40 Klamath Basin BR/BLM B 

39S 12E 26 80 Reclamation 

120 Project 

OR 20261 SO of 4/2/1940 40S 14E 5 41.04 Klamath Basin BR/BLM B 

Reclamation Project 
O – 1407

District Serial Number Authority Legal Description Acres Purpose/Name Managing Agency S

E

OR 20239 SO of 2/21/1946 41S 14E 15 80 Klamath Basin BR/BLM B 

41S 14E 20 240 Reclamation 

41S 14E 21 307.06 Project 

41S 14E 22 354.9241S 14E 23 81.82

1063.8

OR 20264 BO of 2/11/1947 39S 9E 20 13.3 Klamath Basin BR/BLM B 

39S 9E 21 12.06 Reclamation 

39S 9E 21 1.2 Project 

39S 9E 22 7.5 

39S 9E 25 7.7 

39S 9E 27 18.4 

60.14 

FPC 40S 8E 33 1.52 Protect electric BLM/FERC B 

Order 11/17/1930 transmission line

OR 19085 PSR 579 41S 6E 2 80 Protect water, BLM/FERC C 

EO 2/1/1917 41S 6E 7 40 power, and 
O – 1408 District Serial Number Authority Legal Description Acres Purpose/Name Managing Agency S

E

41S 6E 10 80 reservoir 41S 6E 18 113.95 development

313.95 potential

OR 19087 WPD 3 41S 6E 2 440 Protect water, BLM/FERC C 

Same lands 41S 6E 3 480 power, andincluded in 41S 6E 5 40 reservoirPSR 582 41S 6E 7 412.58 development

40S 6E 1 151.54 potential40S 6E 11 24040S 6E 13 550.1540S 6E 23 578.2540S 6E 27 28040S 6E 35 312.5341S 5E 13 30.54

3615.19

OR 19054 PSR 258 41S 6E 4 40 Protect water, BLM/FERC C 

EO 4/13/1912 41S 6E 8 360 power, and 

41S 6E 10 80 reservoir40S 6E 12 294.03 development40S 6E 14 216.09 potential40S 6E 26 288.1540S 6E 34 309.8341S 5E 13 23.24

1611.34

OR 43211 Power 40S 6E 14 45 Protect water, BLM/FERC B 

project 10199 40S 6E 23 147.15 power, and
O – 1409

District Serial Number Authority Legal Description Acres Purpose/Name Managing Agency S

E

Salt Caves 40S 6E 26 150.32 reservoirproposal 40S 6E 27 13.56 development

40S 6E 34 115.7 potential40S 6E 35 76.2841S 6E 3 76.5341S 6E 5 28.0841S 6E 7 146.1341S 6E 8 111.8641S 6E 9 168.9241S 6E 10 8.7941S 5E 1 8.1541S 5E 12 11.8941S 5E 13 13.98

1122.34

OR 18974 Power 40S 7E 6 14.47 Protect J.C. BLM/FERC B 

project 2082 40S 6E 1 23.41 Boyle power

40S 6E 12 67 project.40S 6E 13 40.7440S 6E 14 27.3340S 6E 23 16.6840S 6E 26 7.440S 6E 27 1.2340S 6E 34 2.840S 6E 35 11.1741S 6E 3 8.2441S 6E 10 4.89

225.36
O – 1410 District Serial Number Authority Legal Description Acres Purpose/Name Managing Agency S

E

OR 19131 PSC 2 41S 5E 12 6.42 Protect water, BLM/FERC C 

SO 5/19/1921 power, and 

reservoirdevelopmentpotential.

OR 43472 Power project 40S 10E 11 200 Protect water, BLM/FERC B 

10518-000 40S 10E 14 240 power, and preliminary 40S 10E 24 120 reservoirpermit 560 development

potential

OR 42356 Power 40S 13E 30 80 Protect water, BLM/FERC B 

project 10233 40S 13E 31 400 power, andpreliminary 41S 12E 1 120 reservoirpermit 41S 13E 6 640 development

41S 13E 7 360 potential41S 13E 8 4041S 13E 17 20041S 13E 18 4041S 13E 19 4041S 13E 20 80

2000

OR 46064 Power 40S 13E 35 40 Protect water, BLM/FERC B 

project 10897 41S 13E 5 power, and 

preliminary 41S 13E 6 reservoirpermit Russell 41S 13E 7 developmentCanyon 41S 13E 8 potential

41S 13E 9
O – 1411

District Serial Number Authority Legal Description Acres Purpose/Name Managing Agency S

E

41S 13E 1741S 13E 18

OR 47193 Power 40S 10E 11 200 Protect water. BLM/FERC B 

project 11136 40S 10E 14 240 power, and preliminary 40S 10E 24 120 reservoirpermit Stukel 560 developmentMountain potential

OR 49194 Power 40S 10E 11 200 Protect water, BLM/FERC B 

project 11138 40S 10E 14 240 power, and preliminary 40S 10E 24 120 reservoirpermit Stukel 560 developmentMountain potential

OR 46064 Power 40S 12E 12 640 Protect water, BLM/FERC B 

project 10897 power, and preliminary reservoirpermit Lorella developmentpumped storage potentialproject. 

OR 46244 Power 40S 13E 7 497.11 Protect water, BLM/FERC B 

project 10970 40S 13E 8 360 power, andpreliminary 40S 13E 17 280 reservoirpermit Smith 40S 13E 18 292.05 development
O – 1412 District Serial Number Authority Legal Description Acres Purpose/Name Managing Agency S

E

Reservoir 1429.16 potentialpumped storageproject 

* PLO: Public Land Order PSR: Power Site Reserve PSC: Power Site Classification R&PP: Recreation and Public Purposes  WPD: Water Power Designation** A: Withdrawn from operation of the general land laws, the Mining law, and the Mineral Leasing Act  B: Withdrawn from operations of the General Land and Mining Laws C: Withdrawn from operation of the General Land LawRecommendation Continue-C Revoke-R 
O – 1413

Appendix O. Lands

Table 287. Land Tenure Zone 3 Lands.

District Township Range Section Subdivision Acres Status

Medford 34 S 6 W 22 NW1⁄4SE1⁄4; 40 PD

33 SW1⁄4SW1⁄4; E1⁄2SW1⁄4; 120 PD

35 NW1⁄4NE1⁄4; 40 PD

35 S 1 W 15 NW1⁄4SE1⁄4; 40 OC

35 S 5 W 31 SE1⁄4NW1⁄4, SW1⁄4, W1⁄2SE1⁄4; 240 PD

32 SW1⁄4NE1⁄4; W1⁄2SE1⁄4, NE1⁄4SE1⁄4; 160 PD

35 S 6 W 5 S1⁄2NE1⁄4, SE1⁄4SW1⁄4, SE1⁄4; 240

7 NE1⁄4NE1⁄4, N1⁄2NW1⁄4, SW1⁄4NW1⁄4, 

SE1⁄4NE1⁄4; 200

11 E1⁄2NE1⁄4, SW1⁄4NE1⁄4, NE1⁄4SE1⁄4; 200

14 NW1⁄4SE1⁄4; 40 PD

17 NE1⁄4NE1⁄4, NW1⁄4NW1⁄4; 80

19 NE1⁄4, N1⁄2NW1⁄4; 240

21 NE1⁄4NE1⁄4; 40

29 NW1⁄4NW1⁄4; 40

30 S1⁄2S1⁄4; 80 PD

31 SW1⁄4NE1⁄4, W1⁄2, NW1⁄4SE1⁄4; 400

33 E1⁄2NE1⁄4, E1⁄2NW1⁄4, NW1⁄4NW1⁄4, 

SE1⁄4SE1⁄4; 240

36 S 3 W 21 NE1⁄4SW1⁄4; 40

33 SW1⁄4SW1⁄4, NW1⁄4SE1⁄4SW1⁄4; 50

35 NE1⁄4NE1⁄4; 40

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

35 Lots 1, 5, W1⁄2SW1⁄4; 126.78

36 S 5 W 4 E1⁄2NW1⁄4, N1⁄2SW1⁄4; 160 PD

5 SE1⁄4NE1⁄4, E1⁄4SE1⁄4; 80

9 W1⁄2E1⁄2, E1⁄2W1⁄2, E1⁄2NW1⁄4SW1⁄4; 340

29 S1⁄2SW1⁄4; 80 PD

36 S 6 W 1 Lots 2,3,4, S1⁄2NE1⁄4, N1⁄2SW1⁄4, 

SE1⁄4NW1⁄4, W1⁄2SE1⁄4, SE1⁄4SE1⁄4; 440.20

3 SW1⁄4, S1⁄2SE1⁄4 240

4 W1⁄2W1⁄2 160 PD

5 E1⁄2SE1⁄4, SW1⁄4NW1⁄4, W1⁄2SW1⁄4; 200

8 W1⁄2SE1⁄4, SE1⁄4SE1⁄4; 120 PD

9 N1⁄2NW1⁄4, SW1⁄4NW1⁄4, E1⁄2SE1⁄4; 200

11 NW1⁄4NE1⁄4; 40

17 N1⁄2N1⁄2; 160

30 NW1⁄4SW1⁄4; 40 PD

31 NW1⁄4NW1⁄4; 40

33 SE1⁄4NE1⁄4; 40
O – 1414

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

District Township Range Section Subdivision Acres Status

37 S 3 W 1 Lot 8; 13.82 PD

4 Mineral Survey located 

NW1⁄4NW1⁄4; 4.28 PD

5 Lot 1, NE1⁄4NE1⁄4; 40

37 S 5 W 5 NE1⁄4NW1⁄4, SW1⁄4NW1⁄4, 

NW1⁄4SW1⁄4; 120

7 W1⁄2SW1⁄4; 80

18 W1⁄2SW1⁄4; 80 PD

37 S 6 W 3 SE1⁄4NE1⁄4, NE1⁄4SE1⁄4; 80

8 NE1⁄4NE1⁄4; 40 PD

9 NE1⁄4, N1⁄2SW1⁄4, SE1⁄4SW1⁄4, 

W1⁄2SE1⁄4, NE1⁄4SE1⁄4; 400

11 N1⁄2NW1⁄4; 80

13 SW1⁄4SE1⁄4, E1⁄2SE1⁄4; 120

15 NE1⁄4NE1⁄4, SW1⁄4NE1⁄4, SE1⁄4NW1⁄4; 120

24 NW1⁄4NE1⁄4; 40 PD

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

38 S 2 W 10 NE1⁄4NW1⁄4; 40 PD

28 Lot 1 5 PD

38 S 4 W 17 NE1⁄4NE1⁄4; 40

25 Lot 7 9.26

39 S 1 W 1 NE1⁄4NE1⁄4; 40

39 S 2 W 18 NW1⁄4NE1⁄4SW1⁄4; 10 PD

40 S 8 W 1 Lots 7, 8; 11.53

5 Lots 6, 7; 21.21

7 Lots 1,2, E1⁄2SW1⁄4, W1⁄2SE1⁄4; 202.34

32 S 2 E 17 NW1⁄4SW1⁄4SW1⁄4SW1⁄4; 2.5 PD

33 S 2 E 1 SE1⁄4SW1⁄4; 40 PD

36 S 1 E 6 SE1⁄4SE1⁄4; 40 PD

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

37 S 1 E 15 SE1⁄4NW1⁄4; 40

38 S 1 E 3 SW1⁄4NW1⁄4; 40

5 SE1⁄4NE1⁄4; 40

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

TOTAL MEDFORD DISTRICT 7,203.96

Eugene 14 S 2 W 13 Lots 4-5 (part)2 2.001 O&C

17 S 3 W 15 Lots 6, 9 1.303 O&C
O – 1415

Appendix O. Lands

District Township Range Section Subdivision Acres Status

16 S 5 W 33 Lots 4-8 6.57 O&C

16 S 6 W 7 Lot 6 3.76 O&C

16 S 7 W 11 NW1⁄4SE1⁄4 (part) 2.51 O&C

17 S 1W 3 Lot 6 0 SOLD

18 S 1 W 5 Lot 8 (part) 0.501 O&C

18 S 1 W 26 Lot 7

1.68 (reduced 

from 2.89 

acres due to 

sale of lots 8, 

9, and 10)

PD

18 S 7 W 11 NE1⁄4NE1⁄4 (part) 3.001 O&C

18 S 10 W 11 Lot 9 6.24 PD

19 S 3 W 35 Lot32 2.79 O&C

19 S 4 W 29 NE1⁄4SW1⁄4 (part) 0.361 O&C

21 S 1 W 31 Lot 13 

1.42 (reduced 

from 3.62 

acres due 

to cadastral 

survey and 

sale of a 

portion)

O&C

21 S 1 W 35 Lot 2 0 SOLD

TOTAL EUGENE DISTRICT 22.77 1

Acreage is approximate until cadastral survey is completed. 

2

Tract may be sold only to current R&PP lessee so long as case is in effect. 

3

Actual acreage may vary due to erosion and accretion.

Roseburg 30 S 2 W 32 Lot 3 42.00 PD

30 S 2 W 34 SESW 40.00 PD

31 S 2 W 4 Lots 1 and 8 84.00 PD

24 S 3 W 9 W2W2 160.00 O&C

24 S 3 W 15 E2NE,W2SE,SESE 200.00 O&C

24 S 3 W 17 Lots 1,2,3, and 4 154.00 O&C

24 S 3 W 19 Lots 5 to 12 inclusive 217.00 O&C

24 S 3 W 21 NWSW 40.00 O&C

24 S 3 W 22 SWNE, NWSW 80.00 PD

24 S 3 W 23 NWNW 40.00 O&C

24 S 3 W 31 Lot 1, N2NE, SWNE, 

E2NW,SESE 281.00 O&C

25 S 3 W 3 Lot 5,6,7, and 8 98.00 O&C

25 S 3 W 4 Lot 5 23.00 PD

25 S 3 W 5 Lots 5 and 6 52.00 O&C

25 S 3 W 9 Lots 1 to 5 inclusive 223.00 O&C

27 S 3 W 34 SESW 40.00 PD

30 S 3 W 5 Lots 1 and 2 19.00 O&C

21 S 4 W 19 NWSE 40.00 O&C
O – 1416

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

District Township Range Section Subdivision Acres Status

21 S 4 W 31 SWSW, S2SE 122.00 O&C

21 S 4 W 33 S2SW 80.00 O&C

22 S 4 W 7 NE, NWNW, NESE 250.00 O&C

23 S 4 W 7 Lot 4, NENE, SESW, W2SE,SESE 240.00 O&C

23 S 4 W 17 All 640.00 O&C

23 S 4 W 19 Lots 2,3,4, NE, SENW, E2SW 407.00 O&C

23 S 4 W 20 SWNE, NWSE 80.00 PD

23 S 4 W 29 N2NW, SENW, NESW, SWSW 200.00 O&C

24 S 4 W 5 Lots 3 and 4, W2SE 154.00 O&C

24 S 4 W 25 N2, NWSW, SE 520.00 O&C

24 S 4 W 29 NESE 40.00 O&C

24 S 4 W 33 SE 160.00 O&C

24 S 4 W 35 W2NE, E2NW, SWNW, N2SW 280.00 O&C

25 S 4 W 3 NENW, NWSE 82.00 O&C

25 S 4 W 16 NENW 40.00 PD

25 S 4 W 17 Lot 5 17.00 O&C

26 S 4 W 10 Lot 1 7.00 PD

26 S 4 W 17 Lots 9 and 10 12.00 O&C

27 S 4 W 7 Lot 2 4.00 O&C

27 S 4 W 33 NWSW 40.00 PD

28 S 4 W 29 SENE 40.00 O&C

30 S 4 W 1 Lot 9 4.00 O&C

21 S 5 W 13 NESW, W2SE 120.00 O&C

21 S 5 W 21 NENW 40.00 O&C

21 S 5 W 25 S2NE, E2NW, NESE 200.00 O&C

21 S 5 W 27 E2NE, NESW 120.00 O&C

21 S 5 W 29 NESW 40.00 O&C

21 S 5 W 33 W2NW 80.00 O&C

22 S 5 W 1 Lots 1,2,3, and 4, S2N2, S2 634.00 O&C

22 S 5 W 3 Lots 1,2, SWNE, S2NW 197.00 O&C

22 S 5 W 5 NWNE, N2NW, SWNW, NWSW 206.00 O&C

22 S 5 W 11 NE1/4, SWNW, W2SW 280.00 O&C

22 S 5 W 15 N2NE, SWNE 120.00 O&C

22 S 5 W 19 SENE 40.00 O&C

22 S 5 W 23 NESE, S2SE 120.00 O&C

22 S 5 W 25 SWNE, S2NW, SW, W2SE 360.00 O&C

22 S 5 W 33 W2NE, NW, NESW 280.00 O&C

22 S 5 W 35 Lot 1, E2NE, N2NW 180.00 O&C

23 S 5 W 5 NW, N2SW, SESW 276.00 O&C

23 S 5 W 7 NWNE, SESE 80.00 O&C

23 S 5 W 13 E2NE, SE 240.00 O&C

23 S 5 W 17 S2SW 80.00 O&C
O – 1417

Appendix O. Lands

District Township Range Section Subdivision Acres Status

23 S 5 W 21 NWNW 40.00 O&C

24 S 5 W 29 Lot 5 28.00 O&C

25 S 5 W 23 NESW 40.00 O&C

25 S 5W 27 N2NW 80.00 O&C

25 S 5W 29 S2NE 80.00 O&C

28 S 5 W 23 SWNW 40.00 O&C

28 S 5 W 28 NWNW 40.00 PD

28 S 5 W 29 E2NE 80.00 O&C

28 S 5 W 31 NESE 40.00 O&C

29 S 5 W 29 NENE 40.00 O&C

30 S 5 W 9 Lots 3 and 4 77.00 O&C

30 S 5 W 13 Lot 1 21.00 O&C

30 S 5 W 17 NENE, N2NW, SWNW 160.00 O&C

30 S 5 W 19 Lot 1 38.00 O&C

30 S 5 W 29 SESW, S2SE 120.00 O&C

31 S 5 W 4 Lot 6 33.00 O&C

22 S 6 W 15 SESW 40.00 O&C

22 S 6 W 23 W2NW, SW1/4, S2SE 320.00 O&C

22 S 6 W 35 S2S2 160.00 O&C

23 S 6 W 1 Lots 5,6, and 7 134.00 O&C

24 S 6 W 27 W1/2, SWSE 360.00 O&C

25 S 6 W 3 NWNE, NESW, NESE 122.00 O&C

25 S 6 W 7 Lots 1,2,3, and 4, E2NW 244.00 O&C

25 S 6 W 33 SESE 40.00 O&C

26 S 6 W 3 SENE, NESE 80.00 O&C

26 S 6 W 17 Lot 2, SENW, SESW, SWSE 126.00 O&C

29 S 6 W 17 Lots 9,10, and 11, SESE 102.00 O&C

29 S 6 W 19 NWNE, N2NW, SWSE 164.00 O&C

30 S 6 W 18 Lots 1 and 2 39.00 PD

30 S 6 W 20 Lots 1,2, and 3 58.00 PD

30 S 6 W 21 NWNE, NENW, SE 240.00 O&C

30 S 6 W 25 SESE 40.00 O&C

30 S 6 W 29 N2NW 80.00 O&C

28 S 7 W 11 SWSE 40.00 CBWR

28 S 7 W 14 Lot 1, N2NE 99.00 PD

28 S 7 W 15 Lots 7 to 13 inclusive 197.00 CBWR

28 S 7 W 21 N2, N2S2, SWSW 520.00 CBWR

28 S 7 W 22 SENE, S2NW 120.00 PD

28 S 7 W 27 Lots 3 and 4 85.00 CBWR

29 S 7 W 5 NWSW 40.00 O&C

TOTAL ROSEBURG DISTRICT 13352.00
O – 1418

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

District Township Range Section Subdivision Acres Status

Salem 3 N 1 W 9 Lot 8 1.24 Ot

3 N 8 W 10 NWNE 40.00 PD

3 N 8 W 11 Lot 2 0.01 PD

3 N 8 W 18 Lot 2 21.44 PD

5 N 6 W 6 Lot 9 2.12 PD

5 N 7 W 10 SWNE 40.00 PD

7 N 4 W 6 Lot 7 0.03 PD

9 N 7 W 32 Lot 8 0.72 PD

1 S 3 W 7 Lot 1 0.18 OC

1 S 3 W 8 Lot 1 0.05 PD

1 S 4 W 15 SWNE, S/2NW 120.00 OC

2 S 2 E 4 Lot 2 0.04 PD

2 S 2E 9 Lot7 0.11 Ot

2 S 3 E 23 Lots 8, 12 6.25 OC

2 S 3 E 25 Lots 7, 8 1.69 OC

2 S 3 W 23 N/2NE, NENW 120.00 OC

2 S 4 W 31 Lot 1 1.30 OC

2 S 9 W 4 M&B 5.30 Ot

2 S 9 W 7 UN Lot 0.19 PD

3 S 2 E 7 Lot 1 0.87 OC

3 S 3 E 1 Lots 11, 14 54.51 OC

3 S 3 E 7 NESW 40.00 OC

3 S 3 E 9 Lot 3, NW, W/2SE 270.40 OC

3 S 3 E 15 Lot 6, 10-12 45.93 OC

3 S 3 E 19 NWNE, NENW 80.00 OC

3 S 3 E 25 Lots 9-11 24.17 OC

3 S 3 E 27 Lot 7, SENE, SWSE 103.32 OC

3 S 3 E 29 Lot 4, SESW, W/2SE 146.65 OC

3 S 3 E 33 NW 160.00 OC

3 S 3 E 35 NE, NW 320.00 OC

3 S 4 E 31 UN Lot, Lot 5 57.66 OC

3 S 4 W 33 Lot 4 0.11 OC

3 S 9 W 19 NENW 40.00 PD

3 S 9 W 20 NWNE 40.00 PD

3 S 9 W 21 SWSW 40.00 PD

3 S 9 W 28 SWSE 40.00 PD

3 S 9 W 31 S/2SE 80.00 PD

3 S 9 W 33 NWNE 40.00 PD

3 S 10 W 30 Lot 15 0.45 PD

4 S 1 E 21 Lot 1 0.49 OC

4 S 2 E 11 NENE, SWNE, E/2SW, NWSE 200.00 OC

4 S 2 E 15 NWSE, SESE 80.00 OC
O – 1419

Appendix O. Lands

District Township Range Section Subdivision Acres Status

4 S 2 E 23 SWNW 40.00 OC

4 S 2 E 33 Lots 1, 2 1.80 OC

4 S 3 E 9 SWNE, NWSE 80.00 OC

4 S 3 E 19 UN Lot 47.31 OC

4 S 3 E 21 E/2NE, SWNW, N/2SW 200.00 OC

4 S 3 E 29 E/2NE 80.00 OC

4 S 3 E 31 S/2NE, NWSE 120.00 OC

4 S 1 W 22 UN Lot 0.50 PD

4 S 3 W 2 Lot 1 0.25 PD

4 3 3 W 26 Lot 14 6.75 PD

4 S 3 W 34 Lots 1, 2 4.40 PD

4 S 3 W 35 Lot 13 8.34 OC

4 S 10 W 19 Lot 1, 15 77.75 PD

4 S 10 W 28 Lot 3 0.53 PD

5 S 3 W 4 Lot 1 1.16 PD

5 S 3 W 11 Lot 1 15.06 OC

5 S 4 W 27 Lot 1 13.00 OC

5 S 5 W 13 Lot 3 0.05 OC

5 S 5 W 31 Lot 1 3.57 OC

5 S 5 W 34 Lot 1 0.93 PD

5 S 5 W 35 Lot 1 8.00 OC

5 S 10 W 5 UN Lots 2.07 PD

5 S 10 W 20 SENE 40.00 PD

5 S 10 W 34 N/2NE, NENW 120.00 PD

6 S 3 W 2 Lot 2 0.20 PD

6 S 3 W 5 Lot 1 2.00 OC

6 S 1 E 13 E/2NW, SWNW 120.00 OC

6 S 1 E 25 NWNE, SENW 80.00 OC

6 S 6 W 35 Lot 1 28.40 OC

6 S 10 W 20 NESW, NWSE 80.00 PD

6 S 10 W 26 NWNW 40.00 PD

6 S 10 W 35 SENE 40.00 PD

7 S 1 E 1 SESW 40.00 OC

7 S 1 E 23 SESE 40.00 OC

7 S 3 W 29 Lot 3 5.42 OC

7 S 6 W 34 SWSE 40.00 OC

7 S 10 W 20 NE 160.00 PD

7 S 10 W 30 W/2NE, SENE, E/2SE 200.00 PD

8 S 1 E 3 SWNW, SW 200.00 OC

8 S 1 E 27 NESW 40.00 OC

8 S 1 E 35 Lots 1,2, NWNW, S/2 400.22 OC

8 S 4 W 24 M&B 1.54 Ot
O – 1420

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

District Township Range Section Subdivision Acres Status

8 S 4 W 25 M&B 8.00 Ot

8 S 10 W 20 WNWNW 20.00 PD

8 S 11 W 3 Lot 8 4.73 PD

9 S 1 W 21 Lot 7, NWNE 84.21 OC

9 S 3 W 21 Lot 3 0.08 Ot

9 S 3 W 24 UN Lot 1.40 PD

9 S 3 W 32 Lot 2 4.60 PD

9 S 4 W 9 Lot 5 1.16 OC

9 S 4 W 14 Lot 9 0.17 PD

9 S 5 W 32 Lots 1, 2 2.90 PD

9 S 9 W 19 Por Lot 29 10.00 PD

9 S 9 W 33 Lot 17 20.00 PD

9 S 9 W 34 W/2NWSW 20.00 PD

9 S :10 W 26 SWNW 40.00 PD

9 S 10 W 36 POR Lots 5, 6 10.00 PD

9 S 11 W 1 Lot 6 1.46 PD

9 S 11 W 4 SWSW 40.00 PD

10 S 2 W 8 Lot 1 6.13 PD

10 S 3 W 24 Lot 6 0.90 PD

10 S 4 W 11 Lot 5 1.52 OC

10 S 5 W 19 Lots 1-4, NE, E/2NW, E/2SW 480.00 OC

10 S 5 W 23 Lot 4 0.79 OC

10 S 5 W 29 NENE, N/2SW, NSE 145.00 OC

10 S 6 W 22 Lots 2, 3 15.70 PD

10 3 7 W 18 SWNE, SESW, W/2SE 160.00 PD

10 S 10 W 2 Lot 20 20.00 PD

11 S 3 W 1 Lot 11 0.15 Ot

11 S 7 W 14 Lot 5 0.14 PD

11 S 7 W 23 Lots 1, 2 1.39 Ot

11 S 8 W 6 NESW, NWSE, SESE 120.00 PD

11 S 9 W 31 Lot 2 43.25 PD

11 S 10 W 12 N/2NE, NWSW, NESE 160.00 PD

11 S 10 W 14 Lot 1 2.87 PD

11 S 10 W 15 Lot 13 3.85 PD

11 S 10 W 23 NESE 40.00 PD

11 S 10 W 24 SWSW 40.00 PD

11 S 10 W 25 Lot 1 37.22 PD

11 S 10 W 36 SESE 40.00 PD

12 S 3 E 23 SESW, SWSE 80.00 PD

12 S 4 E 30 SESW 40.00 PD

12 S 4 E 31 Lot 1, NENW 84.81 PD

12 S 1 W 34 Lot 10 11.45 PD
O – 1421

Appendix O. Lands

District Township Range Section Subdivision Acres Status

12 S 2 W 13 Lot 6 7.04 Ot

12 S 4 W 1 Lot 3 0.23 OC

12 S 6 W 35 Lot 3 0.20 Ot

12 S 8 W 6 Lot 7 40.18 PD

12 S 8 W 7 Lots 1, 2 79.04 PD

12 S 9 W 29 E/2NE, SESE 120.00 PD

12 S 9 W 32 E/2NE, SWNE 120.00 PD

12 S 9 W 34 NENW 40.00 PD

12 S 9 W 35 NENW, S/2SW 120.00 PD

12 S 10 W 6 SWSE 40.00 PD

12 S 10 W 14 NENE 40.00 PD

12 S 10 W 25 SW, SE 320.00 PD

12 S 10 W 35 NESE 320.00 PD

12 S 11 W 9 Lots 5-8, SWNW 201.76 PD

12 S 11 W 10 Lots 3, 4 76.16 PD

12 S 11 W 17 Lot 5 38.84 PD

13 S 3 E 9 NENE 40.00 PD

13 S 3 E 24 N/2NE, SENE 120.00 PD

13 S 2 W 21 NWNE 40.00 OC

13 S 4 W 30 Lot 5 8.49 PD

13 S 5 W 29 Lot 1 0.84 OC

13 S 9 W 5 SW 160.00 PD

13 S 9 W 10 E/2NE, NESE 120.00 PD

13S 9 W 13 NWNW 40.00 PD

13 S 9 W 20 S/2SW, SWSE 120.00 PD

13 S 11 W 3 SWSE 40.00 PD

13 S 11 W 22 Lots 19, 20 78.23 PD

13 S 11 W 23 Lot 3 39.15 PD

13 S 11 W 26 E/2SE 80.00 PD

13 S 11 W 28 Lot 9 7.60 PD

13 S 11 W 33 NESE 40.00 PD

14 S 5 W 25 Lot 1 0.26 OC

14 S 11 W 3 Lots 1, 2, 25 111.50 PD

14 S 11 W 4 Lots 29, 30 84.30 PD

14 S 11 W 5 Lot 10 40.62 PD

14 S 11 W 6 Lot 16 40.00 PD

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

14 S 11 W 15 NESE 40.00 PD

14 S 12 W 35 SENE 40.00 PD

15 S 5 W 6 Lot 5 1.46 PD

15 S 9 W 1 Lot 3, SENW, NESE 20.94 OC

TOTAL SALEM DISTRICT 9505.41
O – 1422

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

District Township Range Section Subdivision Acres Status

Klamath 

Falls 40S 6E 1 Metes and Bounds (1.62) 1.01 SOLD

41S 7E 13 NENE 40.00

LOT 4 24.69

38 8 31 LOT 4 10.30

39 8 6 LOT6 27.20

7 LOT5 16.90

33 LOT 1 (unpatented portion) 4.42

40 8 17 SWSE 40.00

21 SWSE 40.00

22 LOT 4 38.00

28 SENE,W1/2NE,NWSE 160.00

32 S1/2NE 80.00

41 8 8 NWNW,S1/2N1/2, E1/2SW,SE 440.00

17 NENE 40.00

37 9 4 SWSW 40.00 SOLD

6 SENW 40.00

7 NENE 40.00

8 E1/2SW 80.00

9 NWNW,NESW 80.00 SOLD

17 W1/2E1/2, NENW 200.00

20 N1/2NE, SENE 120.00

21 SWNW,NWSW,SESW 120.00

28 W1/2NW,SWNE,NWSE,SESE 200.00

35 SENE,W1/2NE,NWSE 40.00 SOLD

38 9 3 SENE,SESE 80.00

5 SWSE 40.00

8 NENE 80.00

9 NWNW,SESW 80.00

15 SWSW 40.00

40 9 23 SWNW,NWSW,SESW 40.00

35 N1/2NE, SENE 120.00

37 10 12 S1/2SE 80.00

13 NENW 40.00

38 10 6 LOT 5 39.80

LOT 6 39.96

LOT 7 40.12

6 SWNW, N1/2SW 120.00 SOLD

NESW 40.00

7 NENE, NENW 80.00

27 NESW, S1/2SW 120.00

28 W1/2E1/2, SESE 200.00
O – 1423

Appendix O. Lands

District Township Range Section Subdivision Acres Status

30 LOT2 39.80

LOT 3 39.72

LOT 4 39.66

31 LOT 1 39.65

LOT 2 39.75

LOT 3 39.85

E1/2E1/2, SWNE, E1/2SW 280.00

32 N1/2NE, SWNE,SWNW,W1/2SW, SE 400.00

33 W1/2NE, N1/2SW, SESW,W1/2SE 280.00

34 N1/2NW 80.00

35 NESW 40.00

39 10 4 LOT 1 41.40

LOT 2 41.40

LOT 3 41.50

S1/2NE,SENW,N1/2SW,SWSW 240.00

5 LOT 2 41.03

LOT 3 41.68

LOT 4 40.34

S1/2NE, SESE 120.00

37 11 15 NWNW 40.00

23 NWNW 40.00

26 SW 160.00

27 E1/2SW, SE 240.00

29 N1/2SW, SESW 120.00 SOLD

30 N1/2SE 80.00 SOLD

33 SENW, W1/2SE 120.00

34 E1/2., NENW,N1/2SW, SESW 480.00

35 W12, S1/2NE, SE 560.00

38 11 1 W1/2SW, SESW 120.00

2 LOT 4 41.43

3 LOT 1 41.46

LOT 2 41.35

LOT 3 41.24

S1/2NE, SENW,SE 280.00

10 E1/2, E1/2NW, NESW 440.00

11 SWSW, S1/2SE 120.00

12 SWNE, W1/2NW, SENW, N1/2SW, 

SESW, E1/2SE 360.00

13 W1/2NE, NW, E1/2SW, W1/2SE 400.00

14 W1/2NE, N1/2NW, SENW, 

E1/2SE, SESE 320.00

17 NWNE, E1/2SE 120.00

22 S1/2NE, N1/12SE, SESE 200.00
O – 1424

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

District Township Range Section Subdivision Acres Status

23 E1/2, S1/2SW 400.00

26 N1/2NE, SENE, W1/2 440.00

32 NESW, NWSE 80.00

35 W1/2, E1/2NE, SWNE 440.00

39 11 2 LOT 1 40.24

LOT 3 39.60

LOT 4 80.00

33 E1/2NE 80.00

41 11 34 NESW 40.00 SOLD

34 SWNW, W1/2SW 120.00

37 111/2 13 E1/2NW 80.00 SOLD

14 SENE 40.00 SOLD

17 SESW 40.00 SOLD

20 NESE 40.00 SOLD

21 NWNE, S1/2NE, N1/2NW, 

N1/2SE, SESE 320.00 SOLD

22 W1/2SW, SESW 80.00 SOLD

26 NENW 40.00 SOLD

27 NWSW 40.00 SOLD

28 W1/2NW, SENW, NWSW, SWNE 200.00 SOLD

29 E1/2SW, SENE, E1/2SW 200.00 SOLD

38 12 5 W1/2SW, SESW 803.00

6 NESE 40.00

39 12 21 NENE 40.00

26 NWSE, SESE 80.00

27 E1/2SE 80.00

28 NESW 40.00

34 NENE 40.00

40 12 10 NENE, SENW, W1/2SE 160.00

11 LOT 1 41.20

14 SENW, N1/2SW, SWSW, NWSE 200.00

15 N1/2NE, SESW, N1/2SW 200.00

19 N1/2NE, SENE 120.00

20 N1/2N1/2, SENE, NESE 240.00

21 SWNE, E1/2, NESE 400.00

22 SWNE, SENW, SWSW 120.00

26 W1/2SE, SESE 120.00

27 W1/2NE, SENE, W1/2NW, SENW 240.00

28 E1/2NW 80.00

35 NENE 40.00

37 13 1 LOT 5 9.88

LOT 7 9.88
O – 1425

Appendix O. Lands

District Township Range Section Subdivision Acres Status

11 NWSE, SESE 40.00

40 13 35 SWNE 40.00

41 13 14 NENW 40.00 SOLD

37 14 10 NWNE, N1/2SWNE, 

N1/2S1/2SWNE 70.00

41 14 5 NESE 40.00

36 15 30 Lot 1 40.25

Lot 2 40.18

Lot 3 40.11

Lot 4 40.04

E12W1/2, E1/2 480.00

32 ALL 640.00

37 15 4 LOT 1 40.73

LOT 2 41.03

LOT 3 40.91

LOT 4 40.64

LOT 5 40.11

LOT 6 40.21

LOT 7 40.54

LOT 8 40.64

LOT 11 40.02

LOT 12 39.96

LOT 13 40.13

LOT 14 40.19

TOTAL KLAMATH FALLS 17432.14

Coos Bay 19S 12W 1 Lots 1, 2 40.48 PD

20S 9W 33 Lot 7 3.98 O&C

20S 10W 31 Por. Lot 10 5.98 Acq.

21S 11W 36 Por. Lot 9

21S 11W 31 Lot 11 40 PD

21S 11W 32 Lots 16, 23 59.01 PD

22S 8W 15 Lot 9, 10 25.3 O&C

21 Lots 7, 14 2.42 O&C

24 Por. Lot 7 3 PD

22S 9W 7 Por. Lot 6 10.64 O&C

22S 13W 14 Lots 1, 2 71.1 PD

25S 11W 30 Lot 5 39.92 PD

25S 13W 4 N1/2NW1/4 80 PD

25S 13W 7 Lots 6, 8, 13, 14, 15 (zoned future 

industrial) 92.78 PD

25S 13W 18 Lot 7, E1/2NW1/4 (zoned future 

industrial 96.15 PD

26S 8W 10 SE1/4NE1/4 40 PD
O – 1426

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

District Township Range Section Subdivision Acres Status

26S 11W 8 NW1/4NE1/4 40 PD

26S 12W 9 Por. SE1/4SW1/4 4 Acq.

26S 14W 3 Pors. Lots 1, 2, SE1/4NW1/4 62.18 PD

26S 14W 28 NW1/4NE1/4 40 PD

28S 12W 19 SE1/4SE1/4 40 CBWR

30S 12W 5 Lot 6 1.8 O&C

30S 12W 6 Lots 3, 4 1.14 PD

30S 13W 21 N1/2NE1/4NW1/4 20 PD

32S 14W 7 N1/2SWNENW 5 PD

32S 15W 4 NE1/4SE1/4NE1/4, 

S1/2NE1/4NE1/4,

W1/2SE1/4NE1/4, 

Lots 1, 2, 3, 4 71.75 PD

39S 12W 8 W1/2NW1/4 80 PD

TOTAL COOS BAY DISTRICT 976.63

Inventory of Communication Sites

The following Table contains information on existing communication sites. Chapter 2 of the 

Draft EIS contains management actions related to management of communication sites.

Table 288. Inventory of Communication Sites.

District Site Name Serial No. Twn. Range Section Quarter 

Sec. Lat Long.

Coos Bay Roman nose OR 8652 19 S 9 W 23 NWNE, 

NENW 43-54-50N 122-44-00W

Coos Bay Johns’s Peak OR 53660 23 S. 9 W 27 SESW 43-31-56N 123-45-41W

Coos Bay Blue Ridge OR 36189 26 S 12 W 35 SESW 43-16-

34.7N 124-5-24.5W

Coos Bay Signal Tree OR 8651 29 S 9 W 33 NWSW 43-00-07N 123-46-28W

Coos Bay Sugar Loaf None 29 S 12 W 23 NE 43-02-48N 124-05-14W

Coos Bay Bennett Butte OR 30 S 13 W 20 NENW 43-57-38N 124-16-27W

Coos Bay Edson Butte OR 46648 31 S 14 W 23 SWNW 43-52-20N 124-20-03W

Coos Bay Grizzly Mountain 37 S 14 W 4 Lot 15 42-23-50N 124-21-55W

Coos Bay Bosley Butte OR 16304 39 S 13 W 10 SWSE 42-12-33N 124-13-25W

Coos Bay Palmer Butte 40 S 13 W 10 Lot 10 42-7-36N 124-12-34W

Coos Bay Black Mound OR 60391 40 S 13 W 20 NWNWSW 42-5-17N 124-18-

52.83W
O – 1427

Appendix O. Lands

District Site Name Serial No. Twn. Range Section Quarter 

Sec. Lat Long.

Eugene Badger 

Mountain

OR 55473, 

OR 48253, 

ORE 02880, 

OR 59637, 

OR 34510

17 S. 7 W. 35 Lot 7 44.05073 N 123,5015 W

Eugene Brickerville Vacant 18 S. 10 W. 3 Lot 5 44.03375 N 123.886 W

Eugene Vaughn Hill Vacant 18 S. 6 W. 5 SE, 

SW4NE4 44.03641 N 123.4373 W

Eugene Amy Road OR 15674 16 S. 7 W. 1 NW, SW 44.20898 N 123.4823 W

Eugene Hawley Butte OR 56656, 

OR 43048 21 S. 1 W. 29 Lot 7 43.71797 N 122.8375 W

Eugene Huckleberry 

Mountain OR 51261, 24 S. 1 W. 6 Lot 21 43.51053 N 122.8571 W

Eugene Horse Rock OR 53355, 

OR 02743 15 S. 2 W. 1 Lot 4 44.30092 N 122.8831 W

Eugene Buck Mountain

ORE 

017963, 

OR28799

16 S. 2 W. 7 Lot 1 44.19825 N 122.9851 W

Eugene 16 S. 3 W. 1 S2SE

Eugene Mt. Tom Vacant 15 S. 2 W. 31 SW 44.21592 N 122.9784 W

Eugene South McGowan Vacant 16 S. 2 W. 31 NW 44.13768 N 122.9786 W

Eugene Windy Peak Vacant 16 S. 8 W. 27 SW 44.14644 N 123.6521 W

Eugene Elk Mountain Vacant 16 S. 8 W. 26 NE 44.15383 N 123.622 W

Eugene Black Canyon Vacant 17 S. 2 W. 7 SW 44.10226 N 122.9794 W

Eugene Camp Creek 

Ridge Vacant 17 S. 2 W. 15 NE 44.09592 N 122.9066 W

Eugene High Point Vacant 19. S 6 W. 23 NW 43.9065 N 123.3783 W

Eugene Eagle’s Rest Vacant 20 S. 1 W. 12 NE 43.8471 N 122.7465 W

Eugene Cougar 

Mountain Vacant 20 S. 3 W. 1 NE 43.86457 N 122.9869 W

Eugene Laurel Butte Vacant 22 S. 3 W. 23 SE 43.64147 N 123.0066 W

Eugene Hobart Butte Vacant 22 S. 3 W. 1 NW 43.61182 N 123.0993 W

Salem Bald Mountain OR049380 3S 6W 29 NW1⁄4SW1⁄4 45° 17’ 00” 123° 25’ 50”

Salem Brightwood

OR 044996, 

OR 054285, 

OR 054287, 

OR 060816

2S 6E 14 SE1⁄4NW1⁄4 45° 24’ 50” 122° 02’ 15”

Salem Dixie Mountain OR005491 2N 2W 27 NW1⁄4NE1⁄4 45° 42’ 00” 122° 55’ 00”

Salem Goat Mountain OR034944 5S 4E 14 SW1⁄4SW1⁄4 45° 07’ 52” 122° 17’ 16”

Salem High Heaven OR018080 3S 5W 33 NW1⁄4SE1⁄4 45° 15’ 53” 123° 18’ 33”

Salem ORE000172 3S 5W 33 NW1⁄4SE1⁄4 45° 15’ 53” 123° 18’ 33”

Salem Mt. Horeb OR002086 9S 4E 17 NE1⁄4NE1⁄4 44° 47’ 35” 122° 20’ 21”

Salem Prairie Mtn. ORE005555 15S 7W 7 LOT 11 44° 16’ 48” 123° 35’ 05”

Salem Prairie Mtn. East OR042998 15S 7W 4 SE1⁄4SE1⁄4 44° 16’ 37” 123° 36’ 31”

Salem Prairie Mtn. 

West OR039808 15S 7W 7 LOT 12 44° 16’ 47” 123° 35’ 22”
O – 1428

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

District Site Name Serial No. Twn. Range Section Quarter 

Sec. Lat Long.

Salem Prospect Hill OR046839 8S 4W 25 LOT 2 44° 51’ 14” 123° 07’ 19”

Salem Snow Peak OR047462 11S 2E 5 LOT 12 44° 39’ 30” 122° 36’ 15”

Salem Tater Hill OR016808 4N 3W 27 SW1⁄4SW1⁄4 45° 47’ 45” 123° 03’ 00”

Salem Trask Mountain OR047588 2S 6W 29 NE1⁄4NW1⁄4 45° 22’ 17” 123° 27’ 18”

Salem Yellowstone 

Mountain OR013666 11S 3E 32 SW1⁄4NW1⁄4 44° 34’ 04” 122° 28’ 57”

Medford Mt. Bluie 42.2256N 123.1629W

Medford Beacon Hill 42.2706N 123.1750W

Medford Mt. Sexton 42.3700N 123.2200W

Medford Mt. Baldy 42.1944N 123.1117W

Medford Gilbert Peak 42.2932N 123.1842W

Medford

Medford Chestnut Mt. 42.1397N 122.4408W

Medford Mt. Isabelle 42.3034N 123.1036W

Medford Soda Mtn. 42.0648N 122.4780W

Medford Squires Peak 42.2190N 123.0330W

Medford Tallowbox 42.1966N 123.1504W

Medford

Medford King Mountain 42.6920N 123.2294W

Medford

Medford Flounce Rock 42.4360N 122.3650W

Medford Wolf Ridge 42.4582N 122.5113W

Medford Fielder Mountain 42.2688N 123.1273W

Medford Tin Pan Peak 42.2558N 123.0899W

Medford Elk Mountain 42.3240N 123.1498W

Medford Nuggett Butte 42.2700N 123.0333W

Roseburg Kenyon 

Mountain 30S. 9W. 3 NW 42.5944N 123.4531W

Roseburg Canyon 

Mountain 31S. 5W. 3 SW 42.5436N 123.1706W

Roseburg West of Tiller 30S. 2W. 31 SW

Roseburg Yellow Butte 23S. 6W. 27 NW 43.3207N 123.2413W

Roseburg Lane Mountain 27S. 4W. 25 NE 43.1144N 1230710W

K Falls Stukel OR 48956 42.1010N 121.6342W

K Falls OR 35373

K Falls OR 46312

K Falls OR 52152

K Falls Hamaker OR 15231 42.0679N 121.9699W

K Falls OR 36377

K Falls OR 36541

K Falls OR 36562

K Falls OR 37192
O – 1429

Appendix O. Lands

District Site Name Serial No. Twn. Range Section Quarter 

Sec. Lat Long.

K Falls OR 45051

K Falls OR 46180

K Falls OR 56655

K Falls OR 56235

K Falls ORE 09843

K Falls ORE 10866

K Falls ORE 05614

K Falls ORE 10317

K Falls ORE 15790

K Falls Yaniax OR 39227 42.3264N 121.2684W

K Falls Buck Butte OR 55670 42.0921N 121.4432W

K Falls OR 2231

K Falls Brady Butte OR 2087 42.0166N 121.0340W
O – 1430

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Analytical Methods to Determine Legal 

Public Accessibility of BLM Lands in the 

Planning Area 

Purpose

Since a majority of BLM lands in western Oregon are intermingled with private lands, 

public access opportunities can vary greatly. Reciprocal right-of-way agreements, 

easements, and unsecured access rights across adjacent private lands all have a 

determining affect on the availability of legal public access to BLM lands. 

This analysis is not designed to distinguish between motorized and non-motorized use 

areas, seasonal use restrictions, or consider other resource management constraints 

associated with public use. Nor does this analysis consider natural barriers that may 

affect public access (e.g. steep topography, dense vegetation, impassible rivers, etc.). 

Only the legal accessibility of BLM lands for the public will be determined primarily 

using existing agency transportation database information. A small percentage of BLM 

lands are legally accessible to the public other than via the road network (i.e. navigable 

waterways, coastal beaches, trail systems, etc.). These other access options will be 

considered as part of the analysis either in the actual calculations or in the narrative for 

each BLM district.

Public access categories described in the flowchart below will be assigned to all distinct 

management units of BLM land throughout western Oregon. A distinct management unit 

is defined by a contiguous block of BLM land, not including BLM lands that are joined 

by corners. Each access category is further defined on the next page. 

(1) Secured Public Access

Legal public access to BLM land is 

secured across private lands.

(2) Unsecured Public Access

Legal public access to BLM land is not 

secured across private lands.

Public Accessibility of 

BLM Lands
O – 1431

Appendix O. Lands

It is important to note that this analysis will only determine if the public can legally access a 

distinct management unit, not if a particular management unit provides roaded access throughout 

it. In some cases, a road may only access a small portion of a management unit; where as the 

remainder of the unit would require cross-country travel to reach. In this instance, the entire 

management unit is considered legally accessible to the public.

(1) Secured public access: Public access rights to a distinct management unit of BLM land have 

been secured by the United States. Physical access must be present and available via the general 

transportation road network, a navigable waterway, coastal beach, or trail systems. Public access 

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

U.S. has acquired control of the right-of-way. However, individual access documents should be 

reviewed and used as the determining factor where necessary.

(2) Unsecured public access: Public access rights to a distinct management unit of BLM land have 

not been secured by the United States. Administrative access is legally and/or physically available to 

the BLM via the general transportation road network; however, associated reciprocal right-of-way 

agreements or non-exclusive easements do not include legal access rights for the public. Individual 

access documents should be reviewed and used as the determining factor where necessary. 

Legal public access may not be secured to certain distinct management units; however, the 

public may currently be allowed to access these BLM lands at the consent of the adjacent private 

landowner. In fact, a number of BLM recreation sites do not have secured legal public access to 

them. Due to the difficulty and sensitivity of mapping private lands that provide unsecured public 

access to BLM lands, this analysis is not designed to map these occurrences. BLM districts may 

decide to conduct a follow-up analyzes to determine the extent of this type of unsecured public 

access in order to improve management of these areas.

Methods

Part I. Geographic Information System Mapping

 Step 1. 

Develop a digital layer of distinct management units of BLM land for each 

district – using the ‘dissolve’ tool.

Step 2. 

Identify which access routes (line segments) on the BLM’s transportation system 

have secured legal public access rights using the selected ‘access rights’ attribute 

from the BLM’s ground transportation road network database described below. Legal 

public access is available to a distinct management unit where a management unit 

boundary intersects with an access route from a public road in which all of the line 

segments contain one of the following designation in the “acc_rgt” attribute field.
O – 1432

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

•	 BP = BLM Public Access

•	 FP = USFS Public Access

•	 OF = Other Federal Agency

•	 CO = County

•	 ST = State

Step 4. 

Determine which distinct management units do not have secured legal public 

access using the remaining ‘access rights’ attributes of the ground transportation 

road network (flowchart box 2): Located in field acc_rgt. (The remainder of the 

BLM lands should be captured with this step.)

•	 BA = BLM Administrative Access

•	 BR = BLM Reciprocal Right-of-Way Agreement

•	 FA = USFS Administrative Access

•	 NO = No Legal Access 

•	 PV = Private only

•	 UK = Unknown (also shown as “NKN”)

•	 Blank (This will capture all roadless blocks of BLM land surrounded by 

private lands.)

Step 5. 

Map the location and calculate total acreage for all distinct management units 

having either secured or unsecured legal public access for each district by land 

status (O&C lands, Coos Bay Wagon Road lands, Public Domain lands, and 

Acquired lands) (Flowchart boxes 1 and 2). 

The scale of these maps must be large enough for the Realty, Roads, and 

Recreation Specialists to analyze the data. It may take 10 or more maps to cover 

the entire land base for most districts. Develop a template for each map that 

displays the following information:

(1) District boundary lines

(2) Distinct management units of BLM land (using a distinct boundary type). 

Distinct management units will be identified using a reproducible color code or 

symbol based on one of the following attributes:

•	 Secured legal public access (see Step 2 above)

•	 Unsecured legal public access (see Step 3 above)
O – 1433

Appendix O. Lands

(3) Road line segments (using distinct colors and thicknesses), based on the 

following attributes:

•	 Secured public access (based on the attributes in Step 3 above)

•	 Unsecured legal public access (based on the attributes in Step 4 above)

•	 A thicker line for BLM roads with maintenance levels 3 or higher. 

(This will help the Road Specialists orient the transportation system 

for their analysis.)

•	 BLM Road numbers (e.g. 18-5-12)

•	 US, State, and County Highways/Roads

•	 County and State roads and highways labeled accordingly

(4) Township, range, and section numbers

Step 6. 

The District Geographic Information System Specialists will then print out 

the maps provided to them by the Geographic Information System Project 

Coordinators. Once the maps have been printed, they will then be passed on to 

the Realty and/or Road Specialists.

Part II. Analysis of Maps

Step 1.

The District Realty and/or Road Specialists verify the Geographic Information 

System outputs and quality control the maps. The maps must be reviewed 

for accuracy of attribute data that may affect public access to each distinct 

management unit of BLM land. This quality control process should answer 

that all the distinct management units correctly color-coded as “Secured Public 

Access” or “Unsecured Public Access?” All errors should be corrected by 

marking up the maps using the following two rules:

•	 If a block is incorrectly color-coded as “Secured Public Access,” circle 

the letters “UPA” in the center of the block, meaning the block should 

changed to “Unsecured Public Access.”

•	 If a block is incorrectly color-coded as “Unsecured Public Access,” circle 

the letters “SPA” in the center of the block, meaning the block should 

changed to “Secured Public Access.”

This quality control check may be used in the future to correct errors in FAMS 

database and the Ground Transportation Road Network “access rights.” However, 

for purposes of this analysis, it is only necessary to mark up the paper copies of 

the maps.
O – 1434

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Step 2. 

After the district maps have been analyzed by the realty and/or road specialists, 

they will then coordinate with the district recreation planners for a final 

evaluation. This is necessary so that the recreation planners can consider other 

public access options other than via the road network (i.e. navigable waterways, 

coastal beaches, trail systems, etc.). Once all changes have been incorporated, the 

maps will then be mailed to the Geographic Information System staff in the State 

Office who will arrange for a contractor to incorporate all the necessary changes 

to produce final maps.

Part III. Development of Final Results

Update digital coverages for each district in western Oregon based on the 

marked-up maps provided by each BLM District in western Oregon. The final 

product will include:

(1) BLM district maps of public accessibility routes and distinct management 

units of BLM land identified by one of the following attributes:

1. Secured legal public access

2. Unsecured legal public access 

(2) Spreadsheets that calculate the total number of acres per attribute and a 

percentage of the total land base for each district by land status (O&C, CBWR, 

PD and Acquired).
Appendix P. Energy and Minerals

This appendix provides detailed background on mineral and energy developments.

In this appendix:

Reasonably Foreseeable Mineral and Energy Developments .......................................1437

Proposed Restrictions and Requirements on Mineral and 

Energy Exploration and Development Activity .............................................................. 1478

P – 1435
P – 1436

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs
P – 1437

Appendix P. Energy and Minerals

Reasonably Foreseeable Mineral and 

Energy Developments

SUMMARY

Table 289. Fluid Mineral Development Potential 

Salem Eugene Roseburg Coos Bay Medford

Klamath

Falls

Conventional 

O/G

68 wells associated 

with the Mist Gas 

Field

N/A N/A 3 exploration wells N/A N/A

Seismic Notices 

of intent

Expected to be 

confined to existing 

road systems; 

negligible effects

Expected to be 

confined to existing 

road systems; 

negligible effects

Road 

construction

1⁄4 mile per well@ 40 ft 

= 82 acres disturbance

1⁄4 mile per well@ 

40 ft = 4 acres 

disturbance 

Well pad 2 acres per well= 136 

acres

2 acres per well = 6 

acres

Collection pipe: 

assume 25% well 

success; 2 miles per 

well; 30 ft wide= 124 

acres

No discoveries; no 

pipe; no disturbance

Plug & 

abandon wells No additional effect No additional effect

Coal Bed 

Natural Gas Exploration only N/A N/A 37 to 77 wells N/A N/A

Seismic Notices 

of intent

Expected to be 

confined to existing 

road systems; 

negligible effects

Expected to be 

confined to existing 

road systems; 

negligible effects

Road 

construction

1⁄4 mile per well@ 

40 ft = 45- 90 acres 

disturbance

Well pad

Assume 4 wells per 

pad; 2 acres per 

pad =19 -38 acres 

disturbance

Collection pipe: 

Assume 50% well 

success; Assume 

most collection 

pipe along existing 

transportation 

system; new 

disturbance = 5-10 

linear miles at 30 ft 

wide = 18-36 acres

Plug & 

abandon wells No additional effect
P – 1438

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Salem Eugene Roseburg Coos Bay Medford

Klamath

Falls

Geothermal N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A See 

below

 For Klamath Falls Resource Area:

 Geophysical Exploration (includes seismic reflection and gravity/magnetic field surveys): 

- Notices of Intent: 2; Very small acres disturbed

- Exploratory Wells: 1-2: 0.1 acre per site; .25 acre per well for roads. 0.35-0.7 acres total disturbance 

 Geothermal Operations: 

-Notices of Intent: 

 Surface Geophysical Surveys: 6: very limited surface disturbance 

 Temperature Gradient Holes: 5: 0.1 acre per site; .25 acre per well for roads. 2.25 acres total disturbance

 Exploration wells: 5 wells; One acre per well pad; 40 ft. wide ROW @ 0.5 mile per well = 17 acres total disturbance

 Geothermal Power Plant Development: 

 1 possible in the life of the plan; if proposed, evaluate separately in cooperation with the State. 

 Direct Use of Geothermal Energy for space heat: 

 2 possible; evaluate separately if proposed

Table 290. Saleable Mineral Development Scenario Summary for 2008-2018.

Roseburg Salem Eugene Coos Bay Medford Klamath 

Falls

New quarries 1 5 2 5 3 1-2 new

Acres disturbed 2 acres per + 1⁄2 

acre for access

2 acres 

per + 1⁄2 

acre for 

access

2 acres per, + 1⁄2 

acre for access

2 acres 

per, + 1⁄2 

acre for 

access

 2 acres per 

+ 1⁄2 acre for 

access

2-3 acres 

per + 1⁄2 acre 

for access

Existing quarries 60; 6 expanded 

@ 2 acres per

38 

existing, 8 

expanded 

less than 2 

acres per

71 existing,

4 expanded at 

approximately 1 

acre each 

32 

existing; 6 

expanded 

@ less 

than 2 

acres each

188 existing 

quarries; 10% 

expanded 

@ less than 

1 acre per 

+ 1/10 acre 

per for new 

access

18 quarry 

& cinder 

sites used 

intermittently; 

depletions 10 quarries 2 quarries 2 quarries One 

quarry

5 quarries 

depleted Up to 4

Decorative stone

3 to 6 

sales per 

year

1 to 2 sales per 

year 

750 sales over 

the 10 year 

period 

1-2 sales per 

year.

Table 291. Locatable Mineral Development Scenario.

Roseburg Salem Eugene Coos Bay Medford Klamath 

Falls

Instream 

suction 

dredging 

notices

2 2

50

2

Bench Placer 

notices 2 10 6 6 80 0

Roads 0.3 acres per 0.3 acres per 0.3 acres 

per

0.3 acres 

per

Of 80 estimated, 

10 would have 

roads at 1⁄2 acre 

per notice
P – 1439

Appendix P. Energy and Minerals

Roseburg Salem Eugene Coos Bay Medford Klamath 

Falls

Test pits, 

support facility

1 acre per 

notice

1 acre per 

notice

1 acre per 

notice

1 acre per 

notice

1 acre per notice 

on average

Notice to plan 1 1 ? 1 0 0

Vein notices 2 4 4 one

100 notices; 

surface 

disturbance 1-5 

acres per notice

4

Roads

3 per notice 

40x200= 1⁄2 

acre per notice

3 per notice

40X200=1/2 

acre per notice

3 per notice 

40x200= 

1⁄2 acre per 

notice

3 per 

notice 

40x200= 

1⁄2 acre per 

notice

Mostly existing 

roads; minimal 

temporary roads; 

estimate 1⁄2 acre 

for 1⁄2 of the 

notices zero acre 

for the other half 

of the notices

Mostly 

existing 

roads; 

minimal 

temporary 

roads

Support 

facilities

1 acre per 

notice

1 acre per 

notice

1 acre per 

notice

1 acre per 

notice

1 acre for 1⁄2 of 

the notices (many 

current notices 

take ore off site 

for processing)

Sample sites 1⁄2 acre per 

notice 

1⁄2 acre per 

notice

1⁄2 acre per 

notice

1⁄2 acre per 

notice

Ten holes per 

notice; 0.1 acre 

per hole; estimate 

1/5 of the notices 

will drill hole

Ten holes 

per notice; 

0.1 acre 

per hole;

Plans of 

operation one One one one 15 (lode & placer) 0

Exploratory 

holes

5; 0.1 acre per 

hole; roads 

40x300= 0.75 

acre

Ten; 0.1 acre 

per hole; roads 

40x300= 0.75 

acre

Ten; 0.1 

acre per 

hole; roads 

40x300= 

0.75 acre

Ten; 0.1 

acre per 

hole; roads 

40x300= 

0.75 acre

Ten; 0.1 acre 

per hole; roads 

40x300= 0.75 

acre. Estimate 

1⁄2 of the plans 

will be lodes and 

have exp holes

Support facility 1 acre 1 acre 1 acre 1 acre 1 acre per plan 

2nd phase 

exploration

Roads

5 (standard as 

above)= 2.5 

acres

10 (standard 

as above)= 2.5 

acres

10 (standard 

as above)= 

2.5 acres

10 

(standard 

as 

above)= 

2.5 acres

Mostly existing 

roads; minimal 

temporary roads; 

estimate 1⁄2 acre 

for 1⁄2 of the 

plans; zero acre 

for the other half 

of the plans

Drill pads 5 holes, 0.1 

acre per hole

10 holes, 0.1 

acre per hole

10 holes, 

0.1 acre per 

hole

10 holes, 

0.1 acre 

per hole

10 holes, 0.1 

acre per hole; on 

1⁄4 of the plans

Mine 

development

Bench placer one; 1 acre One, 7.5 acres one; 7.5 acres

Eight of the 

plans are 

estimated to be 

bench placers 

at five acres 

per plan 
P – 1440

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Roseburg Salem Eugene Coos Bay Medford Klamath 

Falls

Lode one one none

Seven of the 

plans are 

estimated to 

be lodes with 

one requiring a 

25 acre heap 

leach

Surface 

excavation 1 acre 10 acres 5 acres per 

plan

Stockpile topsoil 1 acre 2acres 1 acre per plan

Support facility 1 acre 2acres 1 acre per plan

Roads 1 acre 2 acres Less than 1 

acre per plan

Mineral 

processing

Done 

elsewhere Done elsewhere One acre for 1⁄2 

of the plans 

Silica sand 

deposit One * one 0

Mine site 21 acres 20 acres

Stockpile heavy 

minerals One acre 2 acres

vegetation 

stockpile One acre 1⁄2 acre

 Office & 

magnetic 

separation

One acre One acre

Laterite 

placer plan of 

operation

One plan 0

Exploratory 

Holes drilled

10 @ 0.1 

acre per 

hole

New temporary 

Roads

0.75 acres 

total

Support facility One acre

2nd phase exp:

Temporary 

roads

2.5 acres 

total

Ten additional 

drill holes

One acre 

total

Recreational 

mining

5 notices; 2 

acres total

30 notices; 

7.5 acres total

30 notices; 

7.5 acres 

total

30 notices; 

7.5 acres 

total

800

Estimate 300 

acres, this is 

disturbance only 

under the water 

level

See 

suction 

dredging 

above

* Eugene footnote: Locatable minerals with silica sand potential withdrawn from mineral entry in the Florence area. However, sand is excavated and removed from BLM 

property near Florence, Oregon, on an easement granted to the adjacent landowner
P – 1441

Appendix P. Energy and Minerals

Salem District

The District is located in northwest Oregon, bound by the Pacific Ocean to the west, the 

Columbia River to the North, the crest of the Cascade Mountain Range to the East, and 

the Salem District/Eugene District boundary to the south. It encompasses lands in thirteen 

different counties that include Clatsop, Columbia, Multnomah, Tillamook, Washington, 

Clackamas, Yamhill, Marion, Polk, Lincoln, Benton, Linn and Lane Counties. It is 

expected that most District public domain and O & C Railroad lands will be available for 

leasing, subject to guiding stipulations.

Estimating how much oil and gas exploration and development will occur on federal 

lands managed by the Salem District during the next ten years is based on an existing gas 

field designation within the District boundary and historical Oil and Gas investigations. 

The first exploration well was drilled near Newberg, Oregon in 1902. Conventional 

petroleum in the District has been the focus of numerous studies. Two periods of intense 

search for petroleum occurred from 1920 to 1940 and 1940 to 1960. These investigations 

have resulted in one developed field, the Mist Gas Field, with a discovery well in 1979. 

However, small amounts of gas have been found throughout the District boundaries, with 

sedimentary basins projected. 

Review of Oil and Gas Occurrence Potential, Oil and Gas System and Play Analysis, Oil 

and Gas Production Activities, Potential for Resource Occurrence and Development, and 

Leasing was needed to understand the oil and gas potential. This information was used to 

project activity through 2018. Given the current incipient nature of petroleum development 

in Oregon (current Coalbed Natural Gas (CBNG) development, new exploration of the 

Mist Gas Field) in 2007, completely new assumptions and information that impact many 

Reasonably Foreseeable Development scenarios may be available during the course of the 

next 10 years, or, at the least, effecting projections beyond the next 10 years. 

Identified potential petroleum source sedimentary basins within the District include the 

Astoria Basin, the Nehalem Basin (or Arch), the Tualatin Basin, the Willamette Valley, 

the Yaquina Basin and the Tillamook Basin. Both the Yaquina Basin and the Tillamook 

Basin are part of the off-shore Newport Basin. BLM manages approximately 19,400 

acres of surface estate within these identified basins. The amount of subsurface estate is 

unknown. These basins exist within the Western Tertiary Basins Province. The Mist Gas 

Field lies within the Nehalem Basin/Arch. 

As of 1985, the estimated in-place gas reserves for the Mist Gas Field were 28.4 

billion cubic feet (bcf), with total production through 1984 being 19.2 bcf. This is 

a total estimated resource in 1985 of 47.6 bcf. As of 2007, DOGAMI reported that 

approximately 65 bcf of gas had been produced from the Mist Gas Field, with 2.7 bcf 

produced between 2002 and 2006. This exceeds the 1985 estimate by 17.4 bcf, indicating 

continued discoveries of resource.
P – 1442

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Current non-federal lease holdings within the District are focused within the Mist Gas 

Field. There are currently no BLM-managed surface holdings within the Mist Gas Field. 

However, there appears to be one BLM-managed subsurface estate within the gas field. 

BLM-managed surface estate is located to the southeast of the current field description. 

Previous Mist Gas Field boundaries include approximately 980 acres of BLM-managed 

surface estate. Similar geology and structure exists under at least 9,000 acres of BLMmanaged surface estate southeast of the Mist Gas Field indicating that foreseeable 

development expansion of the identified High Potential area could result in approximately 

10,800 acres of BLM-managed lease offerings.

The spacing plan for the Mist Gas Field is 160 acres, to access reservoir pools. The 

size of the pools ranges from 40 acres to 160 acres. Extension of the Mist Field onto 

the adjacent BLM land as defined by wells and mapped geology, could result in 

approximately 68 wells on BLM-managed estate. Additional conventional and nonconventional development may occur within other sedimentary basins located within the 

district. CBNG development is occurring within Coos County. Exploration companies 

are mapping coal seams throughout Oregon for other potential areas. Coal has been 

historically mapped and mined throughout the District. However, CBNG development is 

not expected above exploration within the next 10 years.

Coos Bay District

The District is located on the western edge of Southwest Oregon and encompasses 

lands in Douglas, Coos, Curry, Lane and Josephine Counties. Conventional petroleum 

in the District has been the focus of numerous studies (Diller 1901, as found in Newton 

1980); Niem and Niem 1990; and Ryu et al 1996) with the projection of numerous plays 

and petroleum structures. The District has also been the focus of numerous industry 

explorations and investigations. Two speculative conventional petroleum systems have 

been identified within the District (Ryu et al, 1996). One CBNG play has also been 

identified within the District, and is currently being developed on private and Coos 

County lands. It is expected that most District public domain, O & C lands and Coos 

Wagon Road lands will be available for leasing, subject to guiding stipulations. 

Estimating how much oil and gas exploration and development will occur on federal 

lands managed by the Coos Bay District during the next ten years is at best difficult. 

Review of Oil and Gas Occurrence Potential, Oil and Gas System and Play Analysis, 

Leasing, and Oil and Gas Production Activities was needed to understand the oil and 

gas potential. This information was used to project activity through 2018. Where 

appropriate, the CBNG resource is discussed separately from conventional oil and gas.
P – 1443

Appendix P. Energy and Minerals

The speculative conventional petroleum systems include the Umpqua-Dothan-White 

Tail Ridge hybrid petroleum system and the Umpqua-lower Tyee Mountain petroleum 

system. Both areas are contained in the southern Tyee sedimentary basin (Ryu et al, 

1996) (Figure 317). The Umpqua-Dothan-White Tail Ridge hybrid petroleum system 

is located in the mid-central portion of the District and encompasses an estimated 350 

square miles, approximately 26% of which is managed by the District. The District 

contains approximately 200 square miles of the Umpqua-lower Tyee Mountain petroleum 

system, located in the northern portion of the District. BLM-managed lands comprise 

about 20% of the area. The CBNG play is focused mainly on the Coaledo Formations of 

the onshore portion of the Coos Basin (Figure 318), an area of approximately 250 square 

miles located on the western edge of the District.

While oil and gas exploration has been historically associated with these systems (Ryu 

et al, 1996; Newton, 1980) and conventional oil and gas potential exists as identified 

speculative petroleum systems (Ryu et al, 1990), there is currently no known interest 

in exploration or development of these systems. There are presently no conventional 

production wells or Federal oil and gas leases. It is anticipated the District could issue 

competitive and over-the-counter leases and authorize geophysical surveys. It is also 

estimated that up to three exploratory wells for conventional petroleum may be drilled 

during the estimated life of this plan. Conventional exploration, coupled with CBNG 

exploration within coal seams beyond the Coos Basin, could potentially increase the 

number of wells actually drilled. 

Current non-federal lease holdings within the District are focused within the Coos Basin 

area, with the intention of CBNG development. Approximately 115,000 of the 160,000 

acres within the Coos Basin are privately held. Federally-managed mineral estate 

represents approximately 12.3 percent of the basin, with BLM-managed mineral estate 

representing roughly 7.6 percent. 
P – 1444

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Figure 317. Southern Tyee sedimentary basin, from Ryu et al. (1996)
P – 1445

Appendix P. Energy and Minerals

Figure 318. Coaledo Formations of the onshore portion of the Coos Basin, from Torrent 

Energy Inc. (2005)
P – 1446

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Industry has estimated an in-place gas reserve for their lease holdings at 1,166 billion 

cubic feet (bcf) (1.2 trillion cubic feet (tcf)) for the privately held 115,000 acres (Sproule, 

2006). To develop this resource on the 115,000 acres, Industry estimates a total build out 

of wells ranging between 300 and 719, with 300 wells being the most likely within the 

next 10 years (Halferty, 2007). Based on this estimate compared to proportional acreage, 

the Coos Bay District estimates a total well development on BLM lands to be between 37 

and 77. Total Coos Basin development could range between 436 wells and 1,001 wells. 

To date, industry has placed approximately 18 single and multiple well pads consisting of 

both exploration and production wells. Foreseeable development of the CBNG play could 

result in an additional 25,000 acres of BLM-managed lease offerings.

TEN-YEAR REASONABLY FORESEEABLE 

DEVELOPMENT OF OIL AND GAS 

RESOURCES SCENARIO FOR THE SALEM 

AND COOS BAY DISTRICTS

Common to All Alternatives

Introduction

Reasonably Foreseeable Developments describe scenarios for leasable oil and gas 

mineral commodities. The purpose of a Reasonably Foreseeable Development 

scenario is to provide models that anticipate the level and type of future 

petroleum development activity in the planning area, and to serve as a basis for 

cumulative impacts analysis. The Reasonably Foreseeable Development first 

describes the Historic and Current Development. Future Trends and Assumptions 

of hypothetical exploration and mining operations are then described. These 

projections are estimates which are based on the available information within the 

Historic and Current Development section.

Scope

Reasonably Foreseeable Developments are based on known and inferred 

mineral resource capability of the lands involved and applies to conditions and 

assumptions discussed under Historic and Current Development, as well as 

Future Trends and Assumptions. Changes in geologic data, interpretation, and/or 

economic conditions that alter the RFD would result in deviation over time.

Impacts caused by oil and gas development, and impacts to oil and gas 

development, cannot be assessed without estimating future oil and gas activity. 
P – 1447

Appendix P. Energy and Minerals

Estimates of future activity on the Salem District would need to take into 

account:

• Oil and Gas Occurrence Potential, as documented by historic research 

and papers;

• Oil and Gas System and Play Analysis (including looking at existing 

plays such as the Mist Gas Field and the potential development of 

new plays such as identified sediment basins and Coalbed Natural 

Gas (CBNG);

• Oil and Gas Production, including economics and technology;

• Potential for Resource Occurrence and Development;

• Leasing and development, including Federal and Non-Federal activities.

Estimates of future activity on the Coos Bay District would need to take 

into account:

• Oil and Gas Occurrence Potential, as documented by historic research 

and papers;

• Oil and Gas System and Play Analysis (including looking at the 

potential development of new plays such as the identified petroleum 

systems and Coos Basin Coalbed Natural Gas (CBNG) or interest in 

unknown discoveries;

• Leasing, including Federal and Non-Federal activities;

• Oil and Gas Production, including economics and technology.

The above factors cannot be predicted with certainty, but some generalizations 

are possible. The estimates presented here are based on past and present activities 

and trends, as well as future price deviations. Those estimates may be lower than 

what actually happens if price and play developments are more positive than 

anticipated. Likewise, if exploration in existing plays, such as the Coos Basin, 

is not successful, new plays are not developed, and/or commodity prices are less 

than anticipated, these estimates may be exaggerated. 

Potential for Resource Occurrence and Development

Potentials for resource occurrence and resource development (Haerter 2007-

personal communications) have been estimated for the District. Definitions for 

potential for resource occurrence include:

•	 Low Potential-hydrocarbon occurrence is unlikely;

•	 Moderate Potential-conditions exist for hydrocarbons to occur; and

•	 High Potential-hydrocarbon shows have been documented or production 

has been established.
P – 1448

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Definitions for potential for resource development include:

•	 Low Potential-economic or other conditions would likely 

preclude development;

•	 Moderate Potential-it is reasonable to conclude that development could 

occur; and

•	 High Potential-development is likely to occur within the life of the plan.

Leasing

After initial field work, research, and subsurface mapping, which may include 

seismic testing and data collection, leasing is often the next step in oil and gas 

development. Leasing may be based on speculation, with the riskiest leases 

usually purchased for the lowest prices.

Geophysical Exploration

Geophysical exploration is conducted in an attempt to determine the subsurface 

structure of an area. The three geophysical survey techniques generally used to 

define subsurface characteristics are measurements of the gravitational field, 

magnetic field, and seismic reflections.

Gravity and magnetic field surveys involve small portable measuring units 

which are easily transported via light-weight off-highway vehicles, such as 

four-wheel drive vehicles, or aircraft. Both off-highway and on-highway travel 

may be necessary in these two types of surveys. Usually a three-man crew 

transported by one or two vehicles is required. These two survey methods can 

make measurements along defined lines, but it is more common to use a grid with 

discrete measurement stations.

Seismic reflection surveys, which are the most common of the geophysical 

methods, produce the most detailed subsurface information. Seismic surveys 

are accomplished by sending shock waves, generally by a small explosion or 

mechanically beating of the ground surface, through the earth’s surface, reflecting 

off some layers, thus depicting the underlying structure of the rock. The thumper 

and vibrator methods pound or vibrate the ground surface to create a shock wave. 

Usually four large trucks are used, each equipped with pads about four-feet 

square. The pads are lowered to the ground, and the vibrators are electronically 

triggered from the recording truck. Once information is recorded the trucks move 

forward a short distance and the process is repeated. Less than 50 square feet of 

surface area is required to operate the equipment at each recording site.

The small explosive method requires that charges be detonated on the surface or 

in a drill hole. Holes for the charges are drilled utilizing truck-mounted portable 

drills to create small-diameter (two or six-inch) holes to depths of 100 to 200 

feet. Generally 4 to 12 holes are drilled per mile of line and a 5 to 50-pound 
P – 1449

Appendix P. Energy and Minerals

charge of explosives is placed in the hole, covered, and detonated. The created 

shock wave is recorded by geophones placed in a linear fashion on the surface. 

In rugged terrain, a portable drill carried by helicopter can sometimes be used. 

A typical drilling seismic operation may utilize 10 to 15 men operating five to 

seven trucks. Under normal conditions, three to five miles of line can be surveyed 

daily using this method. A drilling program may include the use of heavy truckmounted drill rigs, track-mounted air rigs, water trucks, a computer recording 

truck, and several light pickups to transport people conducting the survey.

Public and private roads and trails are used where possible. However, offhighway cross-country travel is also necessary in some cases. Graders and dozers 

may be required to provide access to remote areas. Several trips a day are made 

along a seismograph line, usually resulting in a well-defined two-track trail. 

Drilling water, when needed, is usually obtained from private landowners, but 

may be acquired from sources used for fire suppression, such as pump chances 

and ponds.

The surface charge method utilizes charges of between one and five pounds 

attached to wooden laths three to eight feet above the ground. Placing the charges 

lower than six feet usually results in the destruction of the vegetation, while 

placing the charges higher, or on the surface of deep snow, results in little visible 

surface disturbance.

Advanced Three Dimensional Survey analyzes five to six miles using lines with 

1,700 shot holes at 70-foot spacing. The lines are spaced at 400 feet apart. The 

lines are hand brushed for survey. The survey crews utilize an Inertial Survey 

System that allows for accurate surveying without the need to maintain a line 

of sight. This allows flexibility in brushing paths. The shot hole pad is three feet 

by four feet in size and cleared to mineral soil with hand tools. The drill rig is 

then placed on the pad. If existing access to the pad is limited, the drill rig may 

be placed and removed by helicopter. The holes are drilled to 15-foot depths and 

the charges exploded subsurface, leaving no surface expression. Where there is 

surface expression, the damaged is mitigated with hand tools. In open valleys and 

areas with access, thumper rigs are used, as they disturb even less ground. 

Drilling and Production Phase

Notices of Staking are anticipated during the plan period. It is anticipated that the 

company would then submit an Application for Permit to Drill after the Notice 

of Staking is accepted. Private surface owner input, if split estates are involved, 

would be actively solicited during this stage. Once an Application for Permit to 

Drill is approved, the operator initiates construction activities in accordance with 

stipulations and Conditions of Approval. Access road lengths vary, but usually 

the shortest feasible route is selected to reduce the haul distance and construction 

costs. In some cases, environmental factors or landowner’s wishes may dictate a 

longer route. Drilling activity in the planning area is predicted to be done using 
P – 1450

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

existing roads and constructing short roads to access each drill site location. The 

District will utilize currently developed and utilized forest management Best 

Management Practices (BMP), in addition to the BLM’s “Gold Book” (USDI/

USDA 2006), for surface disturbance in road construction and pad development 

similar to landings.

Surface Impacts of Drilling and Production

During the first drilling phase, the operator would move construction equipment 

over existing maintained roads to the point where the new access road begins.

In the second part of the drilling phase, the operator would construct the drilling 

pad or platform, anticipated to involve approximately two acres per well site. 

Support facilities are anticipated to disturb about two acres per well site. The 

likely duration of well development, testing, and abandonment is predicted to be 

approximately six months to one year for each drill site.

Plugging and Abandonment

Wells that are completed as dry holes are plugged according to a plan designed 

specifically for the down-hole conditions of each well. Plugging is accomplished 

by placing cement plugs at strategic locations from the bottom of the well 

to the surface. Drilling mud is used as a spacer between plugs to prevent 

communication between fluid-bearing zones. The casing is cut off at least three 

feet below ground level and capped by welding a steel plate on the casing stub. 

Wells will be plugged and abandoned at the end of their production life, with the 

pad, support facilities, and road reclaimed.

Surface Impacts of Plugging and Abandonment

After plugging, all equipment and debris would be removed and the drill site 

would be restored as near as reasonably possible to its original condition. If 

new roads constructed for drilling are not needed for future access to the area, 

they would be reclaimed using Best Management Practices, with the road prism 

revegetated as required by the Authorized Officer. Pipelines will be plugged and 

abandoned in place to minimize new surface disturbance.
P – 1451

Appendix P. Energy and Minerals

District Specific

Historic and Current Development 

Oil and Gas Occurrence Potential

Salem District

The District is part of a structural sedimentary basin system that extends onshore 

and offshore from the Klamath Terrains boundary north to the Columbia River 

(extending into Washington) from the continental shelf east to the Cascade 

Mountain/Willamette Valley interface. This is known as the Western Tertiary 

Basin Province (Olmstead et al. 1989). It has been of interest for petroleum 

exploration since the 1880s (Newton, 1969; Orr and Orr, 2000) with oil and 

gas drilling exploration beginning in 1902 with the drilling of an exploration 

well near Newberg (Newton, 1965, Olmstead et al, 1989). Two major peaks of 

petroleum exploration have occurred. The first occurred between 1920 and 1940 

and was very wide-spread, as there was little geologic information guiding the 

exploration. The second peak occurred between 1940 and 1960, investigating the 

deeper Oligocene and Eocene marine sediments. These explorations cumulated in 

the discovery of the Mist Gas Field in 1979 (Olmstead et al, 1989; Olmstead and 

Alger, 1985; Houston, 1997). 

Petroleum development on the District has been the focus of numerous studies 

(Washburne 1914, in Olmstead et al. 1989; Stewart 1954 in Newton et al. 1965); 

Newton 1969; Olmstead et al. 1989; Niem et al. 1990; Houston 1997; and Meyer 

2007 Personal Communication). The District has also been the focus of industry 

explorations and investigations by companies such as Northwest Natural (Oregon 

Natural Gas Development), RH Exploration, Diamond Shamrock Corporation, 

Quintana Petroleum Corporation, Standard Oil Company of California, American 

Quasar Petroleum Company, ARCO Oil and Gas Company, Exxon Corporation, 

The Texas Company (Texaco), and others (Olmstead et al, 1989).

At least 42 exploration wells, 16 water wells and 7 seeps within the District 

boundary and outside the 1985 Mist Gas Field boundary (Figure 319) have had 

gas shows (Olmstead et al. 1989). As of 1989, a total of at least 108 wells drilled 

outside of Columbia County (which holds the Mist Gas Field) and within the 

District (Olmstead et al. 1989), have defined specific sedimentary basins of the 

Western Tertiary Basin Province that exist within the District (Newton, 1969; 

Olmstead et al. 1989). These basins have been the focus of historic investigation 

and contain potential conventional petroleum development (Newton, 1969; Niem 

et al. 1985; Meyer, 2007-personal communications). 
P – 1452

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Figure 319. BLM Oregon Salem District, Surface. Based on Newton (1969), Ferns and 

Huber (1984), Olmstead et al. (1989), and BLM (2007)

Non-conventional systems such as CBNG may be a possibility and is being 

researched where coal is present (Wiley 2006-personal communications; 

Pappajohn 2007-personal communications; Meyer 2007-personal 

communications).
P – 1453

Appendix P. Energy and Minerals

Coos Bay District 

The District is part of a structural sedimentary basin system that extends onshore 

and offshore from the Klamath Terrains boundary (Middle Fork of the Coquille 

River) north to the Columbia River (extending into Washington), from the 

continental shelf east to the Willamette Valley. These basins have been the focus 

of petroleum exploration since the 1880s (Newton, 1980; Orr and Orr, 2000), 

with oil and gas drilling exploration of the District beginning in 1913 (Newton, 

1980). Conventional petroleum in the District has been the focus of numerous 

studies ( Diller 1901, in Newton; Niem and Niem 1990; Ryu et al.1996) with 

the projection of numerous plays and petroleum structures. The District has 

also been the focus of industry explorations and investigations by companies 

such as AMOCO Production Company, Union Oil Company, Phillips Petroleum 

Company, Northwest Natural Gas Company (Newton 1980) and Methane Energy 

Corporation (Pappajohn 2002).

The most recent play and petroleum structure projections provide three 

possibilities within the District. These include portions of two potential 

conventional petroleum structures (Ryu et al. 1996) and a non-conventional 

CBNG play identified by Methane Energy Corporation (Pappajohn, 2002).

Oil and Gas Structures and Plays

A speculative petroleum system presumes a direct relationship between a particular 

source rock and a resulting potential petroleum (or natural gas) accumulation (Ryu 

et al, 1996). An oil and/or gas play is an area, geologic formation, or geologic trend 

which has good potential for oil and/or gas development, or is generating a large 

amount of interest in leasing and drilling (BLM, 2001). 

Salem District

The Western Tertiary Basin Province contained within the District possesses 

at least six identified basins or sub-basins (Newton, 1969; Orr and Orr, 2000; 

Olmstead et al. 1989). These include: the Tualatin Basin ,a sub-basin of the 

Willamette Valley; the Willamette Valley; the Newport Basin, a sub-basin of the 

larger off-shore Newport Basin; the Tillamook Basin, a sub-basin of the larger 

off-shore Newport Basin; the Astoria Basin; and the Nehalem Basin or arch (Orr 

and Orr, 2000; Olmstead et al, 1989; Newton, 1969) (Figures 319 and 320). 

The basins structures are controlled by compression force of the sub-ducting 

easterly movement of the Juan de Fuca plate in relation to the overriding westerly 

movement of the North American Plate. The fold axes are oriented north-south 

(Orr and Orr, 2000), and are defined by the contact between the Miocene or 

Oligocene rock and Eocene rock. This is a point of erosion of the Eocene rock, 

which was covered by Miocene or Oligocene rock, defined as a nonconformity 
P – 1454

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

(unconformity if covered by Miocene or Oligocene sedimentary rock). This break 

in the geologic column is considered the Eocene nonconformity and a focus of 

petroleum exploration. The Eocene rocks consist of marine sediments, with latter 

sedimentation creating coal beds in many areas (Newton, 1969) (Figure 320). 

The District manages a total of approximately 19,375 acres of surface estate 

within these basins (BLM, 2007).

Figure 320. Salem District BLM, Subsurface. Based on Newton (1969), Ferns 

and Huber (1984), Olmstead et al (1989), and BLM (2007)
P – 1455

Appendix P. Energy and Minerals

Tualatin Sub-Basin: The BLM manages approximately 8,858 acres of surface 

estate in the Tualatin Sub-Basin (BLM, 2007) which is considered part of the 

Willamette Valley. The lower rock is Eocene shale and sandstone intermixed 

with basalt. Miocene Columbia River Basalts rest unconformably on top of the 

sedimentary rock and are covered by gravels and silts. The Eocene rock and 

sands have excellent reservoir characteristics as the faulting and overlying basalts 

provides trap structures (Newton, 1969). The Eocene Nonconformity is at a 

maximum mapped depth of 4,000 feet below sea level (Newton, 1969) (Figure 

318). It is thought that the Tualatin Sub-Basin is a source of petroleum for the 

Mist Gas Field (Olmstead and Alger, 1985; Houston, 1997).

Willamette Valley: The BLM manages approximately 644 acres of surface 

estate in the Willamette Valley, excluding the Tualatin Sub-Basin (BLM, 2007). 

The lower rock, or basement rock, is the Eocene Siletz River Volcanics or Kings 

Valley Siltstone. Overlying these are sandstones and siltstones of the Eocene 

Nonconformity, then covered by volcanics, and overlain by sandstone, limestone, 

and coal beds. This is capped by the Columbia River Basalts and then covered 

by tuff and silt. The petroleum potential Eocene rock boundary is defined to the 

east by the change from marine sediment to volcanic sediment (facies change) 

(Newton, 1969) (Figure 320). Numerous wells with gas shows have been drilled 

within the valley. The eastern valley edge provides numerous possibilities 

for structural traps, with the marine beds providing source rock. Even though 

numerous holes have been drilled and source and structure is present, true 

potential has not been clearly defined. The Eocene Nonconformity (marine 

facies) is at maximum mapped depth mapped of 5,000 feet below sea level 

(Newton, 1969).

Newport Sub-Basin: The BLM manages approximately 443 acres of surface 

estate in the Newport Sub-Basin (BLM, 2007) which is part of the off-shore 

Newport Basin (Orr and Orr, 2000). As most of the basin lays off-shore, little was 

found to be published about on-shore portions of the specific Newport Sub-Basin. 

Generally, the off-shore basins consist of thicknesses up to 15,000 feet of marine 

sediments, predominately siltstones and shales, with some sand shows. Oil and 

gas shows occurred in at least three of the off-shore wells (Orr and Orr, 2000). 

Two exploratory gas wells with shows, one seep and one gas show in a waterwell have been reported within the Newport Sub-Basin (Olmstead et al. 1989). 

There are also occurrences of coal (Ferns and Huber, 1984) (Figure 319 and 320). 

The Eocene Nonconformity is at a maximum on-shore mapped depth of 2,000 

feet below sea level (Newton, 1969) (Figure 320).

Tillamook Sub-Basin: The BLM manages approximately 25 acres of surface 

estate within the Tillamook Sub-Basin (BLM, 2007) which is also a part of the 

off-shore Newport Basin (Orr and Orr, 2000), described above. Gas show has been 

associated with one exploratory well and two water wells in the Tillamook SubBasin (Olmstead et al. 1989). The Eocene Nonconformity is at a maximum onshore mapped depth of 2,000 feet below sea level (Newton, 1969) (Figure 320).
P – 1456

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Astoria Basin: The BLM manages approximately 39 acres of surface estate 

within the Astoria Basin (BLM, 2007). The lowest sequence of rock, considered 

the basement rock, is the upper Eocene Volcanics. There are a few thin beds of 

sandstone and mudstone that are inter-fingered with the Tillamook Volcanics. A 

few of these sedimentary layers have gas shows. The volcanics are overlain with 

the mudstone-dominated rock, with sandstone and conglomerate members. The 

mudstone is overlain by sandstone and siltstones. These sandstones, the Cowlitz 

Formation, contain the Clark and Wilson Sandstone which is the gas reservoir in 

the Mist Gas Field. Late Eocene mudstone and sandstone sequences then overlie 

the Clark and Wilson Sandstones (Niem et al. 1985; Houston, 1997). A total of 

49 noncommercial gas shows were recorded in eight wells developed within 

the basin. Gas shows, with the majority of hydrocarbon chains being methane, 

were recorded in all units except the Roy Creek conglomerate and sandstone, the 

Pittsburg Bluff Formation and the Wickiup Mountain and Youngs Bay members 

of the Astoria Formation (Niem et al. 1985). The Eocene Nonconformity is at 

a maximum mapped depth of 5,000 feet below sea level (Newton 1969) (Figure 

320). It is thought that the Astoria Basin is a source of petroleum for the Mist Gas 

Field (Olmstead and Alger, 1985).

Nehalem Basin: The BLM manages approximately 9,366 acres of surface estate 

in the Nehalem Basin (BLM, 2007). It is in this basin that the Mist Gas Field 

exists (Figure 321) the only official State of Oregon Designated Gas Field. This 

basin that has the most potential for further gas development that may impact 

BLM-managed lands (Houston 1997; Houston 2007-personal communications; 

Meyer 2007-personal communications). While the Nehalem structure is defined 

as a Tertiary Basin by most researchers (Olmstead et al. 1989; Olmstead and 

Alger 1985; Newton 1969; Houston 1997), it has also been identified as an arch 

in comparison to the surrounding structures of the Astoria Basin to the west and 

the Tualatin Sub-Basin to the east (Armentrout and Suek in Niem et al. 1985; Orr 

and Orr 2000). The description of the structure as an arch provides mechanism 

for petroleum migration from the adjoining Astoria Basin and Tualatin SubBasin to the collection traps of the Nehalem Arch (Niem et al. 1985). However, 

the structure does have a down-warp, creating a closed structural basin (Newton 

1969) (Figure 320). A great deal of geologic work has occurred within the Mist 

Gas Field and surrounding areas of the Nehalem Basin (Niem et al. 1985 and 

1990; Olmstead et al. 1985), including Three Dimensional Survey (Meyer 2007-

personal communication). Specific geologic interpretation was conducted on the 

Bacona Quadrangle containing BLM-managed lands located ten miles southeast 

of the Mist Gas Field (Houston, 1997) (Figure 320). 

The Nehalem Basin consists of deltaic to shallow-marine and deep marine 

depositional environments, depositing thousands of feet of mud and sand. There 

was also intermittent volcanism (Houston 1997; Olmstead and Alger 1985). This 

lithified material creates the basin’s stratigraphy. The oldest rock, considered 

the economic basement rock, is the Middle to Upper Eocene Tillamook Basalts. 

However, other localities show that deep-water depositions of the Yamhill 
P – 1457

Appendix P. Energy and Minerals

Formation may underlie the Tillamook Basalts (Olmstead and Alger 1985). 

Houston (1997) has defined, at least in part, the Yamhill Formation as the Hamlet 

Formation. The mudstone of the Hamlet Formation is mature at depth and could 

be a source of petroleum within the Mist Gas Field. It is overlain by the Cowlitz 

Formation, separated by unconformity (Houston 1997; Olmstead and Alger 1985). 

The lowest member of the Cowlitz Formation is the Clark and Wilson Sandstone 

that serves as the major reservoir rock for the Mist Gas Field (Olmstead and Alger, 

1985) and reservoir potential outside the Mist Gas Field (Houston 1997). Coal also 

occurs within the sandstone (Olmstead and Alger 1985). The sandstone in the Mist 

Gas Field has flow rates of 10,000 to 20,000 cubic feet per day (Niem et al. 1985 

in Houston 1997). However, the reservoir quality deteriorates southeast of the Mist 

Gas Field (Houston, 1997) and BTU rates may also decline southeast of the Mist 

Gas Field (Meyer 2007-personal communications).

Overlying Clark and Wilson Sandstone is a mudstone member of the Cowlitz 

Formation. This formation is a deep oceanic mudstone that acts as a seal to the 

Clark and Wilson Sandstone, helping form the petroleum trap (Houston, 1997). 

After deposition of the Cowlitz Formation, the region was faulted, creating horst 

and graben environment, possibly forming structural traps. These fault patterns 

are not transferred to the younger overlying formations and, therefore, more 

recent faulting may not have compromised these traps. The faults truncate at the 

Keasey Formation-Goble Volcanics (Houston, 1997; Houston, 2007-personal 

communications; Olmstead and Alger, 1985). 

Covering at least a portion of the Cowlitz Formation, and intermixed with 

the Keasey Formation, is the Goble Volcanics, shown as a 2,000 meter thick 

sequence in the exploration hole located on BLM-managed lands (Figure 322). 

The Keasey Formation unconformably overlies the Cowlitz Formation where the 

Goble Volcanics are not present, and consists of silty mudstone (Houston 1997). 

It is in turn covered by the sandstones, mudstones, siltstones, and volcanics of the 

Oligocene Pittsburg Bluff Formation (Houston 1997; Olmstead and Alger 1985). 

Coal seams are also found in the Pittsburg Bluff Formation (Houston 1997). 

The Scappoose Formation unconformably overlies the sandstone Pittsburg Bluff 

Formation (Houston 1997) with flows from the Miocene Columbia River Basalts 

as an unconformable cap rock. The Eocene Nonconformity is at a maximum 

mapped depth of 500 feet below sea level (Newton, 1969) (Figure 320).
P – 1458

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Figure 321. Mist Gas Field, 1999 Boundary (DOGAMI 2003)
P – 1459

Appendix P. Energy and Minerals

Figure 322. Identified High Potential Area (this report) and Bacona Geologic Quadrangle 

(Houston 1997)
P – 1460

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

The Mist Gas Field Designation was initiated with the discovery of natural 

gas in 1979. The official boundaries as of 1985 consisted of 89,575 acres, 

approximately 140 square miles (State of Oregon 1985; Olmstead et al. 1985), 

including approximately 978 acres of BLM-managed surface estate. By 1999, the 

boundaries were reconfigured to a total acreage of 81,850 acres, approximately 

128 square miles, with no BLM-managed surface estate (State of Oregon 1999; 

Houston 2007-personal communications) (Figure 323). 

The main target zone is the reservoir rock of the Clark and Wilson Sandstone 

(Olmstead and Alger 1985). To date, there have been over 45 separate pools 

identified (Meyer 2007-personal communications) with two gas storage 

reservoirs (DOGAMI 2003). Locations of additional pools are expected with 

the use of Three Dimensional Survey (Meyer 2007-personal communications). 

Current exploration is focused to the northwest of the Mist Gas Field (Houston 

2007-personal communications). However, this is due to economics as opposed 

to existence of resource. Exploration to the southeast, in the direction of BLMmanaged lands, has been restricted to lower BTUs and depth of resource, not 

lack of product. All areas north of Vernonia, Oregon could be considered a viable 

extension of the Mist Gas Field (Meyer 2007-personal communications).

Natural Gas production at the Mist Gas Field has been consistent since its 

discovery in 1979. As of 2006, two companies maintained production wells, 

Enerfin Resources with eight producing wells and Northwest Natural with four 

producing wells. Other production wells of the companies were shut in for 2006. 

An annual production history of the past 10 years is as follows (DOGAMI 2007; 

DOGAMI 2003):

Table 292. Mist Gas Field 10-year Production

Year Cumulative Cubic Feet-All Wells Cumulative Therms-All Wells

20061 402,713 Mcf 2,482,713

2005 305,433 Mcf 2,744,415

2004 466,756 Mcf 4,180,445

2003 733,537 Mcf 6,500,818

2002 837,067 Mcf 6,926,533

2001 2,674,673 Mcf 10,037,413

2000 1,596,159 Mcf 14,426,257

1999 1,554, 717 Mcf 13,534,088

1998 1,262,550 Mcf 11,009,121

1997 1,380,509 Mcf 12,023,109

10-Year 

Total: 9,659,397 Mcf (9.7 bcf) 83,864,912

1

 Update on March 20, 2007 of DOGAMI Database (DAGAMI, 2007)
P – 1461

Appendix P. Energy and Minerals

Gas production has decreased from its discovery in 1979 to present ( 2006), 

depleting known pools. However, with the advancement of Three Dimensional 

Survey it is probable that additional pools within and outside of the Gas Field 

Designation Boundary will be discovered and developed.

Figure 323. Mist Gas Field Boundaries-1985 and 1999
P – 1462

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Oil and Gas Production

Salem District

Annual production for 2005 for the Mist Gas Field was 305,000 thousand cubic 

feet (mcf) (305 million cubic feet (mmcf) with a total life production to date of 

70 mmcf (DOGAMI 2007). As of 2006, the field had produced approximately 68 

bcf with a value of about $140 million (DOGAMI 2007). The State of Oregon 

applies a severance tax of 6% on the production designated to the common 

school fund. In total, over 500 oil and gas wells had been permitted in the field 

by 2003 (DOGAMI 2003). There are currently 18 producing wells, one water 

disposal well, 21 observation wells, and 20 gas injection/withdrawal wells 

operating on the site (DOGAMI 2007). Eight new Applications for Permit to 

Drill are being submitted to DOGAMI for additional exploration and production 

wells (Houston 2007-personal communications).

In addition to production, the Mist Gas Field also contains two underground 

natural gas storage projects defined as the Flora/Bruer EFSC and the Calvin 

Creek EFSC (DOGAMI 2003). These storage facilities consist of six drained 

gas structures with a storage capacity of 12.5 bcf. As additional pools become 

depleted they may be converted to additional storage facilities. This is dependent 

upon market supply and demand (DOGAMI 2006).

Water management for the Mist Gas Field is currently by deep well injection. 

In Oregon, discharge of produced water from onshore oil and gas activities into 

navigable waters is addressed in the 40 CFR, Part 435, Subparts C and E. With 

exceptions, produced water can be used for agriculture and wildlife propagation. 

Produced water discharges to streams or other surface water bodies must be 

authorized by a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 

permit issued by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). 

Consistent with the Energy Policy Act of 2005, storm water discharges from oil 

and gas-related construction activities are exempt from NPDES permit coverage, 

except in limited instances. Injection wells used for the disposal of produced 

water are regulated by the Oregon DEQ Underground Injection Control program.

Coos Bay District

There is currently no CBNG production in Oregon. However, the Coos Basin 

is being developed as a production resource. Sproule (2004, 2005, 2006) has 

estimated base, high, and low isotherm projections for the industry’s 115,000 acre 

lease holdings within the Coos Basin, with a base (average) isotherm projected 

in-place gas volume of 1,166 bcf. The low isotherm projects in-place gas volume 

of 725 bcf, with a high isotherm projection of 1,617 bcf. 

The target coal groupings are split into the Lower Coaledo, Isthmus Slough and 

South Slough groups. Sproule’s (2005, 2006) average estimates for gas in-
P – 1463

Appendix P. Energy and Minerals

place for the Lower Coaledo Group is 854 mmcf per 80 acres. Estimates for the 

Isthmus Slough and South Slough groups are 268 mmcf per 80 acres and 186 

mmcf per 80 acres, respectively. 

Site-specific calculations for volumetric in-place gas content calculated from 

average in-situ-isotherms were completed by Sproule (2005). Some of these 

estimates were conducted for sections including or adjacent to Federallymanaged mineral rights. The estimates are as follows:

Table 293. Isthmus Slough Group near Federal Mineral Rights

Location Gas Content, 

scf2

/ton

Total Gas, mmcf/

Acreage sampled

Average Gas per 

Acre, mmcf/acre3

T. 27S, R. 13W., Sec. 11 71.4 828.521/300 2.76 

T 27S., R. 13W., Sec 14 54.1 168.327/70 2.40

T 27S., R. 13W., Sec 15 90.4 2342.751/480 4.88

T. 27S., R. 13W., Sec 24 80.1 3115.784/640 4.87

Table 294. South Slough Group near Federal Mineral Rights.

Location Gas Content 

scf/ton

Total Gas, mmcf/

Acreage sampled

Average gas per 

Acre, mmcf/acre

T. 26S., R. 13W., Sec. 6 148.4 665.871/308 2.16

T. 26S., R. 14W., Sec. 1 154.7 150.968/100 1.51

T. 26S., R. 14W., Sec. 3 147.6 15.254/15 1.02

T. 26S., R. 14W., Sec. 4 68.2 0.0/0.0 0.0

T. 26S., R. 14W., Sec. 28 110.6 280.005/160 1.75

Table 295. Lower Coaledo Group1

 near Federal Mineral Rights.

Location Gas Content 

scf/ton

Total Gas, mmcf/Acreage 

sampled

Acreage gas per 

Acre, mmcf/acre

T. 27S., R. 13W., Sec. 11 158.4 2174.382/360.8 6.03

T. 27S., R. 13W., Sec 12 147.6 590.400/285.9 2.07

T. 27S., R. 13W., Sec. 13 146.0 0.0/0.0 0.0

T. 27S., R. 13W., Sec. 14 149.1 2981.251/580 5.14

T. 27S., R. 13W., Sec. 24 158.4 1140.074/640 1.78

1

 Most of the Lower Coaledo Isotherm Data in Sproule (2005) did not specify section location within a township. Therefore, 

position of Federal managed rights could not be determined in relation to the MEC cited acreage. These Townships were not 

included in this report, but, it should be noted, that Federal holdings may be located near Sproule’s (2005) projections.
P – 1464

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

While, based on limited analysis (Sproule 2005), Federally-managed mineral 

rights may contain less in-place gas volume than the average of industry’s 

holdings, in-place gas is present in measurable volumes.

The analysis of CBNG potential is limited to the Coos Basin coals to a depth 

of 4,244 feet. Other coal seams occur at deeper intervals, with areas in the 

South Slough containing coals at depths greater than 10,000 feet. These deeper 

seams have not been included in the analysis (Sproule 2005). Gas content in 

the overlying coals may also imply migration of gas from deeper thermogenic 

sources as well as biogenic development in the target seams (Sproule 2004).

Methane Energy Corporation is utilizing directional drilling of multiple wells 

from single pad locations. Engineering analysis (Sproule 2004) estimated a 

160 acre well spacing on a 50,000 acre lease development. This would yield 

a maximum potential number of wells for 115,000 acres of development to 

approximately 719 wells.

Methane Energy Corporation’s pilot production program includes the Radio Hill, 

Beaver Hill, and Westport sites located in the center of the Coos Basin. Collection 

systems are currently being engineered for the Westport site which will deliver 

production gas from the well to the Coos County Natural Gas Pipeline. 

Initial results from the Radio Hill and Beaver Hill sites indicated that the CBNG 

was a dry gas, with little production water. This type of system is similar to 

Horseshoe Canyon coals of Alberta, the Hartshorne coals of the Arkoma basin, 

and the Fruitland coals of the south San Juan basin (Sproule 2006). However, 

future production of CBNG could encounter a wet gas system similar to the 

Powder River basin type. This could create substantial amounts of production 

water that will need to be managed. Initial results indicate brackish salinity in the 

production waters. Industry is currently reviewing injection potentials.

Examples of water management issues exist within current CBNG producing 

areas outside of Oregon and may be used for possible guidance of CBNG 

development in the District. Powder River Basin CBNG development has 

produced nearly four billion barrels (bbl) of water through 2006, equating to two 

bbl of water for every 1,000 cubic feet of gas. Operators discharge 61 percent 

of the water into ephemeral and perennial surface drainages, 31 percent into 

off-channel pits, and 5.7 percent for irrigation. Of the remainder, 1.4 percent is 

re-injected into the wells, and 1.2 percent is treated by ionic exchange. Only 25 

percent of the shallow injection wells have been successful (Petzet 2007). 
P – 1465

Appendix P. Energy and Minerals

Potential for Resource Occurrence and 

Development

Salem District

Six distinct sedimentary basins or sub-basins have been the focus of petroleum 

explorations, the Eocene Unconformity being the primary target of exploration. 

In areas outside these basins, the target is above surface and eroded, creating the 

highlands. There has been little exploration of these areas, as any plays that might 

exist would be below the basement rock of Tillamook or Siletz River Basalts with 

low potential for occurrence and low potential for development. It is within these 

areas that the majority of the District’s managed lands exist. It should be noted 

that private timber companies have been marketing the potential of all their lands 

in Oregon and Washington for the exploration and development of petroleum 

resources (Meyer 2007-personal communications). Exploration has demonstrated 

the presence of petroleum in all six basins, although commercial development 

has been limited to one. While the potential for resource occurrence in all six 

basins is Moderate to High, the potential for resource development for five of 

the basins would be Moderate, with little expectation for development within the 

ten year life span of this scenario. The basins that would have High Potential for 

Resource Occurrence and Moderate Potential for Resource Development include: 

•	 The Newport Sub-Basin, 

•	 The Tillamook Sub-Basin, 

•	 The Astoria Basin (although, given the location of the Mist Gas field, 

development potential should be considered higher),

•	 The Tualatin Sub-Basin (as with the Astoria Basin, development 

potential could be higher). However, a small portion of the Tualatin SubBasin may be included in the identified High Potential Area described 

below, and

•	 The Willamette Basin. 

The Nehalem Basin, or Arch, has been the most extensively explored structure, 

resulting in the development of a commercially viable gas field. The basin 

maintains a High Potential for Resource Occurrence and a High Potential fro 

Resource Development. 

Based on geologic mapping showing similarities to the geology of the Mist Gas 

Field (Houston 1997), drilled exploration wells with petroleum shows (Olmstead 

et al. 1989) and discussions with DOGAMI and industry (Houston 2007-personal 

communications; Meyer 2007-personal communications), it is estimated that up 

to 50,200 acres containing both BLM-managed surface estate and non-federal 

estate could be explored and developed for petroleum in the 10-year life of this 
P – 1466

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

scenario. Of this acreage, the District maintains approximately 10,800 acres of 

BLM-managed surface estate. The remaining 39,400 acres appears to be nonfederal lands. 

The lands are associated with the geologically mapped Bacona Quadrangle 

(Houston 1997), bound to the southeast by Leaseholding Syndicate’s 1925-

1927 exploration hole named Dutch Canyon. The well was located at the NW1⁄4 

of Section 17 in Township 3 North, Range 2 West. The well encountered gas 

at a depth of 1,850 feet. The pressure of the gas blew water and mud 20 feet 

above the casing. However, analysis of the gas determined that only 7.9% 

was methane while 91.8% was Nitrogen. The identified High Potential area 

is located southeast of the existing field (Figure 322). Additional petroleum 

development could likely occur to the northwest of the current Mist Gas Field, 

an area of current focus of exploration. However, there is no known BLMmanaged estate in that area (BLM 2007).

It is assumed that if this area containing both federal and non-federal lands were 

developed, it would be as an extension of the current Mist Gas Field. Therefore, 

the current spacing plan of one well per 160 acres would likely apply (DOGAMI 

2003; State of Oregon 1999), allowing for a total of approximately 314 wells 

within the identified High Potential Area, approximately 68 of which could 

be on BLM-managed surface estate. The District could foresee approximately 

22 percent of the expansion development, with non-federal lands carrying 

approximately 78 percent of the expansion development.

Figure 324. Salem District Mist gas Field Expansion Estimate, 160 acre spacing.

Salem District RFD Mist Gas Field 

Expansion Estimate, Wells. Based on 

160 Acre Spacing

246, 78%

68, 22%

Non-Federal BLM
P – 1467

Appendix P. Energy and Minerals

 Coos Bay District

Three areas within the District have been identified as having petroleum 

potential. The two conventional petroleum structures described by Ryu et al.

(1996) have a moderate to high potential for occurrence. The structures have 

been identified and historic exploration has had both oil and gas shows. However, 

resource development potential is low to moderate. While hydrocarbons may 

exist, it has not been historically economic to produce these resources. This is 

due to lack of infrastructure, low price, and limited investigations.

The Coos Basin has a high potential for occurrence of CBNG. The structure 

has been identified and hydrocarbon shows have been documented. While 

actual economic production from this play has not occurred, initial steps with 

the placement of infrastructure and wells as well as the Gas Field Designation 

process has been implemented. The potential for resource development is also 

high. It is likely that development will occur within the life of this plan, with 

private development already occurring.

Leasing

Salem District

Foreseeable development of the Mist Gas Field could result in potentially an 

additional 10,800 acres of BLM-managed lease offerings. If these offerings were 

sold for the 2006 average of $17.71 per acre, the net receipts would be nearly 

$191,268.

Coos Bay District

After lands are nominated and reviewed by BLM, leases on lands where the 

Federal government manages the oil and gas rights are offered via oral auction on a 

quarterly basis. The maximum lease size is 2,560 acres at a minimum bid of $2.00 

per acre. An administrative fee of $75.00 per parcel is charged and each successful 

bidder must meet citizenship and legal requirements. Lands not leased at auction 

are then available for over-the-counter leasing for a period of two years. Leases 

are issued for a ten year term and charged a 12.5 percent royalty on production. 

In the first five years of a lease, annual rental is $1.50 per acre and $2.00 per acre 

thereafter. Leases which become productive are “held by production” and do not 

terminate until all wells on the lease have ceased production. 

Foreseeable development of the Coos Basin CBNG play could potentially 

result in an additional 25,000 acres of BLM-managed lease offerings. If these 

offerings were sold for the 2006 average price of $17.71 per acre, based on 

Federal proceeds from leasing in eastern Washington, the net receipts would 

approach $500,000.
P – 1468

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

II. Future Trends and Assumptions

Introduction

Salem District

Based on history of past exploration; historic, current, and projected development 

of the Mist Gas Field; mapped geology; and foreseeable development 

potential in the planning area, activity over the next decade may be stable to 

increasing. Current development within the Mist Gas Field as well as petroleum 

developments and interest in other BLM Districts in Oregon, and the increasing 

value of petroleum products, indicates continued interest within the District. Oil 

and gas activity on BLM-managed mineral rights within the District is expected 

to consist of competitive and over-the-counter leases, geophysical surveys, and 

processing of Applications for Permit to Drill for approximately 68 wells.

Some exploration for CBNG in the form of coal seam investigation and mapping 

is predicted, but development of CBNG is not expected within the next 10 

years. The supply of natural gas in the region may be augmented by one or more 

proposed Liquefied Natural Gas terminals. Natural gas prices are expected to rise 

0.3% (2004 purchase power) by 2034 with a 0.7% increase in demand over the 

same period (Energy Information Administration 2007). Consequently, while the 

petroleum industry does experience economic and production cycles, demand 

and price are projected to continue to increase. 

Coos Bay District

Based on history of past drilling, current development of CBNG and foreseeable 

development potential in the planning area indicate activity over the next decade 

may be stable to increasing. Current development within the Coos Basin and the 

increasing value of petroleum products indicates continued interest within the 

District. Oil and gas activity on BLM-managed mineral rights within the District is 

expected to consist of competitive and over-the-counter leases, geophysical surveys, 

and processing of Applications for Permit to Drill for 50 to 80 wells.

Continued exploration and development for CBNG is expected. Some exploration 

for conventional natural gas is also predicted. The supply of natural gas in the region 

has been augmented by the Coos County Natural Gas Pipeline. A Liquefied Natural 

Gas terminal is being proposed and an associated second natural gas pipeline. These 

systems provide export opportunities for natural gas produced in the District. Natural 

gas prices are expected to rise 0.3% (2004 purchase power) by 2034, with a 0.7% 

increase in demand over the same period (Energy Information Administration 2007). 

Therefore, while the petroleum industry does experience fluctuations in economic 

and production cycles, demand and price are projected to continue to increase. 
P – 1469

Appendix P. Energy and Minerals

The speculative conventional petroleum systems are the Umpqua-Dothan-White 

Tail Ridge hybrid petroleum system and the Umpqua-lower Tyee Mountain 

petroleum system, located in the northern portion of the District are contained in 

the southern Tyee sedimentary basin (Ryu et al. 1996) (Figure 317).

System 1: The Umpqua-lower Tyee Mountain petroleum system is located in the 

center of the Smith River subbasin. The system may include a tight-gas sandstone 

reservoir. According to Ryu et al. (1996), gas could migrate along faults, forming 

small accumulations in the lower Tyee Mountain sandstones. Mudstones within 

the member would serve as additional seals within the traps. An unconventional 

overpressured tight-gas mudstone reservoir is possible in the Umpqua Group 

of the Smith River area. Deep wells within the system have encountered 

overpressured zones at approximately 7,000-foot depth. Characteristics of 

the zone are sufficient to generate thermogenic wet-gas (Ryu et al. 1996). The 

approximate area of this system within the District is 200 square miles. BLMsurface management consists of approximately 20 percent of that area.

System 2: The Umpqua-Dothan-White Tail Ridge Hybrid Petroleum System 

is located in the southern portion of the Tyee Basin, with a southern boundary 

defined by the Tyee Basin-Klamath Mountain contact. According to Ryu et al.

(1996), the system may contain dry gas from both biogenic methane (similar 

to CBNG) and deeply buried conventional petroleum sources. It is possible 

the created gas migrates to accumulation zones which are located east of the 

District, extending into the BLM Roseburg District. It is also possible that the 

entire structure projects under the Klamath Mountains (Ryu et al. 1996). The 

approximate area of this system within the District is 350 square miles. BLMsurface management consists of approximately 26 percent of that area.

System 3: The third opportunity is the CBNG play located within the Coos 

Basin. This is the play which is currently producing the most interest and 

activity. The focus of production is within the Coaledo Formations mapped 

by Newton (1980). During deposition and compaction of the organic material 

which ultimately becomes coal, large quantities of methane are generated. 

Methane gas produced from coal may have lower energy content than 

conventional natural gas (BLM, 2001).

The approximate area of the CBNG play is 250 square miles, with producing 

Lower Coaledo Formation coals currently being sought at depths up to 4,500 

feet. The Coos Basin is a folded structural basin, one of a series of onshore and 

offshore basins along the northwest coast, ranging from the Klamath Mountains 

north to the Columbia River in Oregon, and from the Columbia River north to 

the Puget Sound in Washington. The basins are located from the continental shelf 

offshore, east to the Willamette Valley. Sedimentary deposits including coals, 

sandstones, siltstones, and shales are located within these structural basins (Orr 

and Orr 2000).
P – 1470

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

The Coos Basin structure is controlled by compression force of the subducting 

easterly moving Gordia subplate and Juan de Fuca plate in relation to the 

overriding westerly moving North American Plate. The fold axes are oriented 

north-south, plunging northward. The Coaledo Formation-Flournoy Formation 

contact generally defines the basin boundaries to the north, east, and south. 

The basin is thought to extend offshore to the west. The basin’s rock sequence 

consists of sedimentary layers of sandstone, siltstone, and shales, with coal 

seams (Newton 1980). Surface exposures of the basin’s coal seams have been 

economically mined since the 1800s (Orr and Orr 2000).

Current development of the CBNG resource is being conducted by Methane 

Energy Corporation which has completed numerous exploratory and production 

wells in the Coos Basin. The company has projected an “Area of Mutual Interest” 

incorporating the Coos Basin, an area of approximately 160,000 acres. 

Figure 325. Coos Basin Acreage in Area of Mutual Interest.

Methane Energy Corporation maintains approximately 115,000 acres of nonfederal mineral lease rights, with an estimated in-place volume of 1.2 trillion 

cubic feef (Sproule, 2006). Of the estimated 45,000 acres not yet controlled by 

lease agreements, the Federal Government manages approximately 19,694 acres 

or approximately 44 percent (Figure 326). Federal mineral rights account for 

approximately 19,694 acres of the basin area, and BLM-managed subsurface 

mineral rights (split and non-split estate) account for approximately 12,228 acres 

of the basin area. The remaining lands consist of non-federal and non-leased 

estate in private, City, County, and State ownership. 

Coos Basin Acreage

160,000 acres

71%

8%

5%

16%

MEC BLM Non-BLM Fed Non-Federal
P – 1471

Appendix P. Energy and Minerals

Figure 326. Coos Basin Unleased Acreage.

The State of Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI) 

initiated a public meeting process to establish a Gas Field Designation for the 

Coos Basin. The first public meeting was conducted January 29, 2007. There is 

only one other Gas Field Designation in Oregon, that being the Mist Gas Field, 

located in Northwest Oregon. The Gas Field Designation is required to fulfill state 

requirements to establish well spacing designations and control drainage. It may 

also increase competition, as more development companies may be interested in 

the resource after such a designation. The proposed Gas Field Designation is likely 

to incorporate the boundaries defined in Methane Energy Corporation’s “Area of 

Mutual Interest”. The boundary of the Gas Field Designation is simple to alter, 

needing only evidence of gas potential (additional formation mapping or shows 

of gas within a well). The designation will incorporate BLM and Forest Service 

lands, as well as other federal jurisdictions. (Houston, 2005)

All coal seams in western Oregon could produce CBM. However, the potential 

is completely unknown, as these resources have not been investigated. Potential 

could exist within the coal seams of the Umpqua Group, as well as their 

correlating formations north through the coast range. If CBM is producible in the 

Coos Basin, exploration could occur within these other speculative formations 

(May 2005).

Coos Basin Unleased Acreage

45,000 acres

56% 44%

Non-Federal Federal
P – 1472

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Geophysical Exploration

Salem District

Advanced Three Dimensional Survey is utilized within the Mist Gas Field. These 

requirements are in place because the Mist Gas Field is located in commercial 

forest land and is required by the land manager to minimize disturbance to near 

non-existent levels (Meyer 2007-personal communications).

Surface Impacts of Geophysical Explorations

Salem District

It is anticipated that the foreseeable geophysical activity in the identified High 

Potential area would consist of the currently used the Three Dimensional 

Survey. The total area of the identified potential expansion is 81 square miles, 

or approximately 50,200 acres. Using the Three Dimensional Survey spacing of 

shots, it is anticipated that complete investigation of the area could utilize 22,950 

shots. With pad ground disturbance of 12 square feet, the total disturbance area 

could be up to 6.3 acres. The District manages approximately 22% of the area 

of interest, so potential surface impacts to BLM-managed lands by Geophysical 

Explorations are expected to be approximately 1.4 acres. This disturbance is 

created exclusively with hand tools and based on experience in the Mist Gas 

Field, is completely reclaimed in five years or less (Meyer, 2007-personal 

communications). Disturbance will be less where pre-existing roads and/or 

landings can be used.

Coos Bay District

Geophysical exploration techniques are not commonly utilized in CBNG 

production, but may be utilized in developing conventional petroleum plays 

within the District. It is anticipated that the foreseeable geophysical activity in 

the planning area will consist of seismic reflection surveys, utilizing existing 

roads. Surface impacts would involve temporary blockage of the roads by the 

large trucks used to gather the data, but this type of equipment is not expected to 

damage the roads.

The small explosive method is also anticipated to be used on approximately 

20 miles of line. Surface disturbance is expected to consist of drilling four to 

twelve holes per mile of line. Each drill hole would impact about 200 square 

feet, but 90 percent of these holes would be drilled on existing landings, spur 

roads, or timber haul roads. Altogether, 7,200 square feet (approximately 

0.2 acre) of existing road surface would temporarily be impacted by drilling 

activities and low power blasting.
P – 1473

Appendix P. Energy and Minerals

Blasting would not be powerful enough to impact any surface resources or 

improvements. It is anticipated that four drill holes would be made on currently 

undeveloped areas. Drill holes would impact about 200 square feet each, and 

short spur roads 100 feet by 25 feet wide constructed to each drilling location 

another 2,500 square feet each. Total surface disturbance for the anticipated 

four drill holes would be approximately 0.25 acre. Total surface disturbance for 

blasting and drilling combined is expected to total approximately 0.5 acre. An 

increase in conventional petroleum development would increase these estimates.

Drilling and Production Phase

Salem District

Based on past oil and gas drilling in Oregon, it is projected that three 

conventional petroleum exploratory “wildcat” wells would be drilled within 

the District. The estimated success rate of finding hydrocarbons is predicted 

to be no greater than 10 percent, based on the average U.S. wildcat well 

success rate. Future identification of additional structures would increase 

this estimate. Development within the identified High Potential area would 

be directed by Three Dimensional Survey as opposed to wildcatting (Meyer 

2007-personal communications).

Coos Bay District

MEC estimates of development for CBNG for their current leases range from 300 

to 719 wells. Based on well spacing assumptions (Sproule 2004) of 160 acres 

per well, Coos Basin development could eventually involve 436 to 1001 wells. 

As previously described, spacing rules will be developed during the DOGAMI 

Gas Field Designation process. If all remaining Federal and non-federal leasable 

land was open for surface occupancy, well development on federally-managed 

lands (BLM, USFS, and BIA) could range between 59 and 124 wells. Both highs 

and lows are extremes. 
P – 1474

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Figure 327. Coos Basin wells based on 338 acre spacing.

Figure 328. Coos Basin wells based on 160 acre spacing.

Coos Basin Wells Based on 338.33 Acre 

Spacing

300, 69%

37, 8%

22, 5%

77, 18%

MEC BLM Non-BLM, Federal Non-Federal

Coos Basin Wells Based on 160 Acre 

Spacing

719, 71%

77, 8%

47, 5%

158, 16%

MEC BLM Non-BLM, Federal Non-Federal
P – 1475

Appendix P. Energy and Minerals

Surface Impacts of Drilling and Production

Salem District

The Mist Gas Field has maintained production since 1979. Over 500 wells have 

been permitted, although 60 wells are currently in operation. Abandoned well 

sites have been reclaimed and surface disturbance mitigated. Consequently, the 

current surface disturbance is limited to 60 wells. Development of the identified 

High Potential area or development of an unknown field could add an additional 

314 wells, with 68 wells on BLM-managed lands. It is anticipated that all gas 

production would be transported by pipelines, most of which would be located 

within road rights-of-way. It is estimated that up to 20 miles of pipelines could be 

sited outside road rights-of-way. All well service requirements would be provided 

by established companies. 

Pipelines totaling 20 miles in length within a 30-foot wide right-of-way would 

disturb about 72.5 acres. Due to the checkerboard public land ownership in 

this area, it is estimated that only 22 percent or 16 acres would be on lands 

administered by the BLM. 

Given the existing infrastructure of the Mist Gas Field, timber management of 

other lands within the District, the amount of existing roads within the identified 

High Potential Area, use of Three Dimensional Survey to optimize directional 

drilling, the ability to place multiple wells on a single pad (Meyer 2007-personal 

communications), and development scenarios of other BLM Oregon Districts, it 

is anticipated that most well development will utilize existing road infrastructure 

to develop the resource. However, it may be necessary to construct up to 1⁄4-mile 

of access road for each pad to remove the facilities from active roadways. Based 

on the ability to cluster wells, an assumption for calculation of four wells per 

pad was used. Therefore, it is estimated that no more than 20 miles of new road 

construction would be needed in full development. This would be moderate 

duty access road with a surface 18 to 20 feet wide, anticipated to be constructed 

on both private and BLM-managed lands. The clearing width would average 

40 feet including ditches, utilities, pipelines, cuts, and fills. The total acreage 

impacted would total approximately 97 acres for all lands within the District, 

approximately 22 acres of which would involve BLM-managed lands. Roads not 

retained for other resource management purposes would be reclaimed at the end 

of the project. 

Total disturbance of both BLM-managed lands and other lands for wells, support 

services, pipeline and new road construction is expected to be approximately 

1,426 acres or 2.8% of the total High Potential acreage. Surface disturbance 

would be restricted, as much as possible, to previously disturbed areas such 

as logging roads and landings. Industry is currently utilizing a multi-well to 

single pad approach which minimizes impact. Interim reclamation will also 

reduce initial disturbance. After initial construction, well sites pad areas will be 
P – 1476

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

reclaimed while the wells are in production. Disturbance will be limited to areas 

within overwork foundation structures and necessary infrastructure, such as well 

heads, pipelines, and access roads. 

Coos Bay District

It is estimated that the productive life span of a single well within the CBNG 

could range to greater than 14 years. Total lifespan of the field would be 

determined on the type of phased development and exploration of the previously 

untested deeper resources greater than 4,000 feet. All gas production would 

be carried by pipelines. Most, if not all, pipeline will be contained within road 

rights-of-way. It is estimated that up to 40 miles of pipeline could occur outside 

a road right-of-way. Additional conventional petroleum structures totaling 550 

square miles have also been identified within the District.

Based on potential for resource development (described above) and utilizing 

access road built for well accessed timber development (most likely for the 

BLM-managed parcels within the Coos Basin), it was estimated that between 

five to no more than 10 miles of moderate duty access road with a surface 18 

to 20 feet wide is anticipated to be constructed. The surface disturbance width 

would average 40 feet including ditches, utilities, pipelines, cuts, and fills. The 

acreage impacted by new road building would total between approximately 24.25 

acres and 48.5 acres for the District. Roads not incorporated into other resource 

management would be reclaimed at the end of the project. 

Altogether, the total disturbance for the wells, support services, and new road 

construction on BLM-managed mineral estate is expected to range between 

194.25 acres (1.6% of BLM-managed area: 37 wells) to 404.25 acres (3.3% of 

BLM-managed area: 77 wells). Surface disturbance would be restricted, as much 

as possible, to previously disturbed areas such as logging roads and landings. 

Industry is currently utilizing a multi-well to single pad approach which 

minimizes impact.

A pipeline 40 miles in length with a right-of-way width of 30 feet would disturb 

about 145 acres. Due to the checkerboard public land ownership in this area, 

it is estimated that only 50 percent of that acreage would be on public lands 

administered by the BLM. Altogether, it is estimated that about 73 acres of 

BLM-administered land would be impacted from pipeline construction. The total 

surface disturbance of field development and production on BLM-managed land 

would range between 291.5 acres and 525.75 acres.

Total field development disturbance within the District, both Federal and 

non-Federal, could range between 2,289 acres (338.33 acre well spacing) and 

5,255.25 acres (160 acre well spacing). Communitization and Unitization 

agreements (both State and Federal) can drastically reduce surface disturbance 
P – 1477

Appendix P. Energy and Minerals

for both Federal and Non-Federal lands. These cooperative agreements allow the 

sharing of wells, pads, and infrastructure, combining uses and minimizing the 

need for new development.

Limitations

Salem District

The acreage estimates used for BLM-managed surface estate are based upon 

current GIS layers. The accuracy of this information has not been verified by 

Master Title Plat Maps. The GIS coverage for subsurface estate within the 

District is incomplete. Therefore, the existence and location of BLM-managed 

subsurface estate on the District is unknown. 

A brief review of the Master Title Plat Maps was completed within and near 

the 1985 Mist Gas Field boundaries. Federal subsurface estate identified on the 

Master Title Plat Maps was not recorded on the GIS layers. Most of the Master 

Title Plat Maps identified federal subsurface parcels outside the Mist Gas Field 

boundaries. Due to the incompleteness of the GIS layers, especially within 

subsurface estate, the potential of BLM-managed subsurface estate was not 

addressed in this report.
P – 1478

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Proposed Restrictions and Requirements 

on Mineral and Energy Exploration and 

Development Activity 

Introduction

This appendix discusses the leasing stipulations as they will be applied to BLM managed 

lands in the planning area under each alternative. Operating standards pertinent to the 

locatable and salable minerals program are also described. Mineral exploration and 

development on Federal lands must also comply with laws and regulations administered 

by several agencies of the State of Oregon; however, these requirements are not discussed 

in this document. 

Leasable Mineral Resources

Oil and Gas Leasing 

The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (as amended) provides that all publicly owned 

oil and gas resources be open to leasing, unless a specific land order has been 

issued to close the area. Through the land use planning process, the availability 

of these resources for leasing is analyzed, taking into consideration development 

potential and surface resources. Constraints on oil and gas operations are 

identified and placed in the leases as notices and stipulations. Oil and gas leases 

are then issued from the BLM Oregon State Office in Portland. Specific proposed 

notices and stipulations are listed by alternative later in this appendix. 

The issuance of a lease conveys to the lessee an authorization to actively explore 

and/or develop the lease, in accordance with the attached stipulations and the 

standard terms outlined in the Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act 

(FOOGLRA). Restrictions on oil and gas activities in the planning area will take 

the form of timing limitations, controlled surface use, or no surface occupancy 

stipulations used at the discretion of the Authorized Officer to protect identified 

surface resources of special concern. 

The field office which reviews the lease tract will attach stipulations to each 

lease before it is offered for bid. The review will be conducted by consulting 

the direction given in this Resource Management Plan. In addition, all lands 

administered by BLM within the planning area will be subject to the lease notices 

as shown on the following pages. All Federal lessees or operators are required to 

follow procedures set forth by: Onshore Oil and Gas Orders, Notices to Lessee 

(NTL), The Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act (as amended), The 
P – 1479

Appendix P. Energy and Minerals

Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act, and Title 43 Code of Federal 

Regulations, Part 3100. 

Oil and Gas Operations 

Geophysical Exploration 

Geophysical operations may be conducted regardless of whether the land is 

leased or not. Notices to conduct geophysical operations on BLM surface 

are received by the Resource Area. Administration and surface protection are 

accomplished through close cooperation of the operator and the BLM. Seasonal 

restrictions may be imposed to reduce fire hazards, conflicts with wildlife, 

watershed damage, etc. An operator is required to file a “Notice of Intent to 

Conduct Oil and Gas Exploration Operations” for all geophysical activities 

on public land administered by BLM. The notice should adequately show the 

location and access routes, anticipated surface damages, and time frame. The 

operator is required to comply with written instructions and orders given by 

the Authorized Officer, and must be bonded. Signing of the Notice of Intent by 

the operator signifies agreement to comply with the terms and conditions of 

the notice, regulations, and other requirements prescribed by the Authorized 

Officer. A pre-work conference and/or site inspection may be required. Periodic 

checks during and upon completion of the operations will be conducted to ensure 

compliance with the terms of Notice of Intent, including reclamation. 

Drilling Permit Process 

The federal lessee or operating company selects a drill site based on spacing 

requirements, subsurface and surface geology, geophysics, topography, and 

economic considerations. Well spacing is determined by topography, reservoir 

characteristics, protection of correlative rights, potential for well interference, 

interference with multiple-use of lands, and protection of the surface and 

subsurface environments. Close coordination with the State would take place. 

Written field spacing orders are issued for each field. Exceptions to spacing 

requirements involving Federal lands may be granted after joint State and 

BLM review. 

Notice of Staking 

Once the company makes the decision to drill, it must decide whether to submit 

a Notice of Staking or apply directly for a permit to drill. The Notice of Staking 

is an outline of what the company intends to do, including a location map and 

sketched site plan. The Notice of Staking is used to review any conflicts with 

known critical resource values and to identify the need for associated rights-of-
P – 1480

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

way and special use permits. The BLM utilizes information contained in the 

Notice of Staking and obtained from the on-site inspection to develop conditions 

of approval to be incorporated into the application for permit to drill. Upon 

receipt of the Notice of Staking, the BLM posts the document and pertinent 

information about the proposed well in the District Office for a minimum of 30 

days prior to approval, for review and comment by the public. 

Application for Permit to Drill (APD) 

The operator mayor may not choose to submit a Notice of Staking; in either 

case, an Application for Permit to Drill must be submitted prior to drilling. An 

Application for Permit to Drill consists of two main parts: a 12-point surface plan 

that describes any surface disturbances and is reviewed by resource specialists 

for adequacy with regard to lease stipulations designed to mitigate impacts to 

identified resource conflicts with the specific proposal, and an 8-point subsurface 

plan that details the drilling program and is reviewed by the staff petroleum 

engineer and geologist. This plan includes provisions for casing, cementing, well 

control, and other safety requirements. For the Application for Permit to Drill 

option, the on-site inspection is used to assess possible impacts and develop 

provisions to minimize these impacts. 

Geothermal Leasing 

The Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 (as amended) provides for the issuance of leases 

for the development and utilization of geothermal steam and associated geothermal 

resources. Geothermal leasing and operational regulations are contained in Title 

43 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 3200. Through the land use planning process 

the availability of the geothermal resources for leasing is analyzed, taking into 

consideration development potential and surface and subsurface resources. Constraints 

on geothermal operations are identified and placed in the leases as stipulations. 

Geothermal leases are then issued by the BLM Oregon State Office in Portland.

Geothermal resources are first offered by competitive sale. Prior to a competitive 

lease sale, or the issuance of a noncompetitive lease, each tract will be reviewed, 

and appropriate lease stipulations will be included. The review will be conducted 

by consulting the direction given in this resource management plan. The 

issuance of a lease conveys to the lessee authorization to actively explore and/

or develop the lease in accordance with regulations and lease terms and attached 

stipulations. Subsequent lease operations must be conducted in accordance with 

the regulations, Geothermal Resources Operational Orders, and any Conditions 

of Approval developed as a result of site-specific NEPA analysis. In the planning 

area, restrictions in some areas will include timing limitations, controlled surface 

use, or no surface occupancy stipulations used at the discretion of the Authorized 

Officer to protect identified surface resources of special concern.
P – 1481

Appendix P. Energy and Minerals

In addition to restrictions related to the protection of surface resources, the 

various stipulations and conditions could contain requirements related to 

protection of subsurface resources. These may involve drainage protection of 

geothermal zones, protection of aquifers from contamination, or assumption 

of responsibility for any unplugged wells on the lease. Development of 

geothermal resources can be done only on approved leases. Orderly development 

of a geothermal resource, from exploration to production, involves several 

major phases that must be approved separately. Each phase must undergo the 

appropriate level of NEPA compliance before it is approved and subsequent 

authorization(s) is (are) issued.

Leasing Notice and Stipulation Summary 

On the following pages, the mineral leasing notices and stipulations are shown as 

common for all alternatives are considered to be the minimum necessary in order to issue 

leases in the operating area. Under all alternatives, the standard and the special status 

species leasing stipulations will be utilized on most lands. The powersite stipulation 

(Form 3730-1) would be utilized on lands within powersite reservations. 

Stipulations also include waiver, exception, and modification criteria defined below. If 

the Authorized Officer determines that a stipulation involves an issue of major concern, 

waivers, exceptions, or modifications of the stipulation will be subject to at least a 30-day 

advance public review. Waiver, exception, and modification are defined as follows: 

Waiver - The lifting of a stipulation from a lease that constitutes a permanent revocation 

of the stipulation from that time forward. The stipulation no longer applies anywhere 

within the leasehold. 

Exception - This is a one time lifting of the stipulation to allow an activity for a 

specific proposal. This is a case-by-case exemption. The stipulation continues to 

apply to all other sites within the leasehold to which the restrictive criteria apply. 

It has no permanent effect on the lease stipulation. 

Modification - This is a change to a stipulation that either temporarily suspends the 

stipulation requirement or permanently lifts the application of the stipulation on a given 

portion of the lease. Depending on the specific modification, the stipulation mayor may 

not apply to all other sites within the leasehold to which the restrictive criteria apply. 

Whenever a special stipulation, such as No Surface Occupancy (NSO), Timing, or 

Controlled Surface Use (CSU) is used, the need for the special stipulation is described 

in the “Objective” that follows the stipulation. By imposing these special stipulations, it 

has been concluded that less restrictive stipulations would not be adequate to meet the 

stated objective. 
P – 1482

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Leasing Notices 

The following Notices are to be included in each lease for all lands administered by BLM 

within the planning area where the pertinent resource potential exists. Lease notices are 

attached to leases in the same manner as stipulations; however, there is an important 

distinction between lease notices and stipulations: lease notices do not involve new 

restrictions or requirements. Any requirements contained in a lease notice must be fully 

supported by either laws, regulations, policy, onshore oil and gas orders, or geothermal 

resources operational orders. 

Leasing Notices Common to All Alternatives 

Notice

Special Status Species Stipulation 

Resources: Botany and Wildlife 

Stipulation: (All the)/(Certain) lands within this lease are within the 

suitable habitat of the (identify all Federal Threatened (FT), Endangered 

(FE) or Proposed Threatened (PT) & Proposed Endangered (PE) species, 

including scientific names), (an officially listed)/(a proposed for listing) 

Threatened or Endangered species. The Authorized Officer, through 

an environmental review process, has determined that because of the 

habitat characteristics of this species, all future post-lease operations 

must be analyzed and subjected to a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(FWS) Section 7 consultation or conference to ensure the action is not 

likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. 

(All the)/(Certain) lands within this lease are known to bear the 

species listed (Insert list of species) which has (have) protected status 

as (State Threatened (ST); State Endangered (SE); Federal Candidate 

(FC); Bureau Sensitive (BS)); or are within the suitable habitat of 

(identify all State Threatened, State Endangered, Federal Candidate, 

or Bureau Sensitive species, including scientific names). These species 

are protected by BLM policy as described in Manual 6840. All future 

post-lease operations must be analyzed, utilizing recent field data 

collected at the proper time of year, to identify the presence of such 

species. If the field examination indicates that the proposed activity 

may adversely impact FC species, technical assistance will be obtained 

from FWS to insure that actions will not contribute to the need to 

list a federal candidate as a federal threatened or endangered species. 

Technical assistance may be obtained from FWS to insure that actions 

will not contribute to the need to list a ST, SE, or BS species as a federal 

threatened or endangered species. 
P – 1483

Appendix P. Energy and Minerals

Therefore, prior to any surface disturbing activities or the use of 

vehicles off existing roads on (this lease)/(the lands legally described 

as: ), 

BLM approval is required. This restriction also applies to geophysical 

activities for which a permit is required. The approval is contingent upon 

the results of site specific inventories for any of the above mentioned 

species. The timing of these inventories is critical. They must be 

conducted at a time of year appropriate to determine the presence of the 

species or its habitat. The lessee is hereby notified that the process will 

take longer than the normal 30 days and that surface activity approval 

will be delayed. 

If no FT, FE, PT, or PE species, or suitable habitat, are found during the 

inventories, then no formal Section 7 consultation with the FWS will be 

necessary and the action will be processed using the procedures found 

in the applicable oil and gas Onshore Orders or geothermal resources 

operational orders. However, the lessee is hereby notified that, if any FT, 

FE, PT, PE, ST, SE, FC, or BS species are found during the inventories, 

or if the actions are proposed in designated or proposed critical habitat, 

then surface disturbing activities may be prohibited on portions of, or 

even all of the lease, unless an alternative is available that meets all of 

the following criteria: (a) The proposed action is not likely to jeopardize 

the continued existence of a threatened or endangered species; (b) the 

proposed action is not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical 

habitat for a threatened or endangered species; (c) the proposed action is 

consistent with the recovery needs in approved Fish and Wildlife Service 

recovery plans or BLM Habitat Management Plans for the threatened or 

endangered species; and (d) the proposed action will not contribute to the 

need to list species as federal threatened or endangered. 

Objective: To protect officially listed or proposed threatened or 

endangered plant or wildlife species; and to insure that post leasing oil 

and gas or geothermal operations will not likely contribute to the need to 

list other special status species as threatened or endangered. 

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

review of the proposed plan submitted by the operator indicates that the 

proposed action will have no effect on the (common name of species). 

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

the Authorized Officer, if it is determined that portions of the area do no 

have any officially listed or proposed threatened or endangered species, 

federal candidate, state threatened or endangered species, or Bureau 

sensitive species, or their habitat. 

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived if the (common name) is 

declared recovered and is no longer protected under the Endangered 
P – 1484

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Species Act, or if other species found within the lease are no longer 

considered to be in the federal candidate, state threatened or endangered, 

or Bureau sensitive categories. 

Notice

Cultural Resources: An inventory of the leased lands may be required 

prior to surface disturbance to determine if cultural resources are present 

and to identify needed mitigation measures. Prior to undertaking any 

surface-disturbing activities on the lands covered by this lease, the lessee 

or operator shall: 

1. Contact the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to determine 

if a cultural resource inventory is required. If an inventory is 

required, then;

2. The BLM will complete the required inventory; or the lessee or 

operator, at their option, may engage the services of a cultural 

resource consultant acceptable to the BLM to conduct a cultural 

resource inventory of the area of proposed surface disturbance. The 

operator may elect to inventory an area larger than the standard tenacre minimum to cover possible site relocation, which may result 

from environmental or other considerations. An acceptable inventory 

report is to be submitted to the BLM for review and approval no later 

than that time when an otherwise complete application for approval 

of drilling or subsequent surface-disturbing operation is submitted. 

3. Implement mitigation measures required by the BLM. Mitigation 

may include the relocation of proposed lease-related activities or 

other protective measures such as data recovery and extensive 

recordation. Where impacts to cultural resources cannot be mitigated 

to the satisfaction of the BLM, surface occupancy on that area must 

be prohibited. The lessee or operator shall immediately bring to the 

attention of the BLM any cultural resources discovered as a result 

of approved operations under this lease, and shall not disturb such 

discoveries until directed to proceed by the BLM. 

Authorities: Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act is required for all actions which may affect cultural 

properties eligible to the National Register of Historic Places. Section 6 

of the Oil and Gas Lease Terms (Form 3100-11) requires that operations 

be conducted in a manner that minimizes adverse impacts to cultural and 

other resources. 
P – 1485

Appendix P. Energy and Minerals

Special Leasing Stipulations 

The following special stipulations are to be utilized on specifically designated tracts of 

land as described under the various alternatives. 

Leasing Stipulations Common To All Alternatives 

No Surface Occupancy 

Resource: Land Use Authorizations 

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited on Recreation and 

Public Purposes (R&PP) and FLPMA leases. 

Objective: To protect uses on existing R&PP and FLPMA leases. 

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

Officer, if the operator submits a plan demonstrating that impacts from the 

proposed action are acceptable or can be adequately mitigated. 

Modification: The area affected by this stipulation may be modified 

by the Authorized Officer, if the land use authorization boundaries 

are modified. 

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived by the Authorized Officer, if 

all land use authorizations within the leasehold have been terminated, 

canceled, or relinquished. 

No Surface Occupancy 

Resource: Recreation Sites 

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use are prohibited within developed 

recreation areas. 

Objective: To protect developed recreation areas. 

Exception: An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the 

Authorized Officer, if the operator submits a plan demonstrating that 

impacts from the proposed action are acceptable or can be adequately 

mitigated. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified by 

the Authorized Officer, if the recreation area boundaries are changed. 

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

determines that the entire leasehold no longer contains developed 

recreation areas. 
P – 1486

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

No Surface Occupancy 

A 30-day public notice period will be required prior to modification or 

waiver of this stipulation. 

Resource: Special Areas 

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use are prohibited within Areas of 

Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC). 

Objective: To protect important historic, cultural, scenic values, natural 

resources, natural systems or processes, threatened and endangered plant 

species, and/or natural hazard areas of the ACEC. 

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

Officer, if the operator submits a plan demonstrating that impacts from the 

proposed action are acceptable or can be adequately mitigated. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified by 

the Authorized Officer, if the ACEC or EEA boundaries are changed. 

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

determines that the entire leasehold no longer contains designated 

ACECs or EEAs. 

No Surface Occupancy 

Resource: Progeny test sites. 

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use are prohibited within progeny 

test sites. 

Objective: To protect progeny test sites. 

Exception: None. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified by 

the Authorized Officer, if the progeny test site boundaries are changed. 

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

determines that the entire leasehold no longer contains progeny test sites. 

No Surface Occupancy 

A 30-day public notice period will be required prior to modification or 

waiver of this stipulation. 

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use are prohibited in VRM 

Class I areas.
P – 1487

Appendix P. Energy and Minerals

Resource: Visual Resource Management (VRM) Class I

Objective: To maintain soil productivity, provide necessary protection 

to prevent excessive soil erosion on steep slopes, and to avoid areas 

subject to slope failure, mass wasting, piping, or having excessive 

reclamation problems. 

Objective: To preserve the existing character of the landscape. 

Exception: An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the 

Authorized Officer, if the operator submits a plan demonstrating 

that impacts from the proposed action are acceptable or can be 

adequately mitigated. 

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified by the 

Authorized Officer, if the boundaries of the VRM Class I area are changed. 

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived by the Authorized Officer, if all 

VRM Class I areas within the leasehold are reduced to a lower VRM 

class. Areas reduced to VRM Class II will be subject to the Controlled 

Surface Use stipulation for visual resources, and areas reduced to VRM 

Class III will be subject to standard lease stipulations. 

Controlled Surface Use 

Resource: Soils 

Stipulation: Prior to disturbance of any suspected unstable slopes 

or slopes over 60 percent, an engineering/reclamation plan must be 

approved by the Authorized Officer. Such plan must demonstrate how the 

following will be accomplished: 

• Site productivity will be restored. 

• Surface runoff will be adequately controlled. 

• Off-site areas will be protected from accelerated erosion, such as 

rilling, gullying, piping, and mass wasting. 

• Water quality and quantity will be in conformance with state and 

federal water quality laws. 

• Surface-disturbing activities will not be conducted during extended 

wet periods. 

• Construction will not be allowed when soils are frozen. 

Exception: An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the 

Authorized Officer if the operator submits a plan, which demonstrates 

that the impacts from the proposed action are acceptable or can be 

adequately mitigated. 
P – 1488

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Modification: The area affected by this stipulation may be modified by 

the Authorized Officer, if it is determined that portions of the area do not 

include suspected unstable slopes or slopes over 60 percent. 

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived by the Authorized Officer if it 

is determined that the entire leasehold does not include any suspected 

unstable slopes or slopes over 60 percent. 

Controlled Surface Use 

A 30-day public notice period will be required prior to modification or 

waiver of this stipulation. 

Resource: Visual Resource Management (VRM) Class II. 

Stipulation: All surface-disturbing activities, semipermanent and 

permanent facilities in VRM Class II areas may require special design 

including location, painting and camouflage to blend with the natural 

surroundings and meet the visual quality objectives for the area. 

Objective: To control the visual impacts of activities and facilities within 

acceptable levels. 

Exception: None. 

Modification: None. 

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

determines that there are no longer any VRM Class II areas in the 

leasehold. 

No Additional Leasing Stipulations for the No Action Alternative 

No Additional Leasing Stipulations for Alternative A 

Controlled Surface Use

Resource: Designated Mature and Old-Growth Forest Seral Stage Blocks 

Stipulation: Unless otherwise authorized, drill site construction and 

access through designated mature and old-growth forest blocks within 

this leasehold will be limited to established roadways. 

Objective: To protect vegetation to retain and/or restore older forests for 

seral stage diversity. 

Exception: An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the 

Authorized Officer, if the operator submits a plan which demonstrates 
P – 1489

Appendix P. Energy and Minerals

that impacts from the proposed action are acceptable or can be 

adequately mitigated. 

Modification: The area affected by this stipulation may be modified by 

the Authorized Officer, if it is determined that portions of the area do not 

include designated mature and old-growth forest blocks. 

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived by the Authorized Officer, if it is 

determined that the entire leasehold no longer includes designated mature 

and old-growth forest blocks. 

Controlled Surface Use 

Resource: Riparian Management Areas. 

Stipulation: Unless otherwise authorized, drill site construction and 

access through riparian management areas within this leasehold will be 

limited to established roadways. 

Objective: To protect riparian vegetation and reduce sedimentation. 

Exception: An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the 

Authorized Officer, if the operator submits a plan which demonstrates 

that impacts from the proposed action are acceptable or can be 

adequately mitigated. 

Modification: The area affected by this stipulation may be modified by 

the Authorized Officer, if it is determined that portions of the area do not 

include riparian areas, flood plains, or water bodies. 

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived by the Authorized Officer, if 

it is determined that the entire leasehold no longer includes riparian 

management areas. 

Controlled Surface Use 

Resource: Habitat Conservation Areas for the Northern Spotted Owl. 

Stipulation: Unless otherwise authorized, drill site construction and 

access through habitat conservation areas within this leasehold will be 

limited to established roadways. 

Objective: To protect habitat of the Northern Spotted Owl. 

Exception: An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the 

Authorized Officer, if the operator submits a plan which demonstrates 

that impacts from the proposed action are acceptable or can be 

adequately mitigated. 
P – 1490

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Modification: The area affected by this stipulation may be modified by 

the Authorized Officer, if it is determined that portions of the area do not 

include habitat conservation areas. 

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived by the Authorized Officer, if it is 

determined that the entire leasehold no longer includes habitat conservation 

areas, after consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Locatable Minerals Surface Management 

Standards for Exploration, Mining, and 

Reclamation 

The following operational standards for mining activities have been compiled to assist 

the miner in complying with the 43 CFR 3809 regulations, which apply to all mining 

operations on BLM administered lands. The manner in which the necessary work is to 

be done will be site specific and all of the following standards may not apply to every 

mining operation. It is the mining claimant’s and operator’s responsibility to avoid 

“unnecessary or undue degradation,” and to perform all the necessary reclamation work. 

Refer to the 43 CFR 3809 regulations for general requirements. 

There is an intergovernmental agreement between the BLM and the Oregon Department 

of Geology and Mineral Industries that is designed to avoid duplication of regulations, 

inspections, and approval of reclamation plans as well as to minimize repetitive costs to 

mining operators. The following guidelines include some, but not all, of the requirements 

of the various State agencies overseeing mining operations. 

Prospecting, Exploration, and Mining 

Surface Disturbance 

BLM Requirements 

Operations ordinarily resulting in only negligible disturbance as defined in 

43 CFR 3809.0-5(b) are considered to be casual use and no notification to 

or approval by the BLM is required. All operators proposing occupancy, 

timber removal, use of mechanized earth moving equipment, or suction 

dredges having hoses with an inside diameter greater than 4 inches which 

would cause a surface disturbance of 5 acres or less during any calendar 

year must provide written notice to the District Office at least 15 days 

prior to the commencement of any surface mining disturbance. For 

operations in sensitive areas or which will cause greater than 5 acres of 

surface disturbance, the operator is required to submit a plan of operations 

pursuant to the regulations in 43 CFR 3809.1-4. 
P – 1491

Appendix P. Energy and Minerals

State of Oregon Requirements

Any person engaging in mineral exploration that disturbs more than one 

surface acre or involves drilling to greater than 50 feet must obtain an 

exploration permit from the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral 

Industries (DOGAMI). Mining operations involving 5,000 or more cubic 

yards of material per year or disturbing one or more acres of land will 

require an operating permit from DOGAMI. 

Vegetation/Timber Removal

Remove only that vegetation which is in the way of mining activities. 

An application must be submitted to the Authorized Officer pursuant 

to 43 CFR 3821.4 describing the proposed use of merchantable timber 

from 0 & C lands for mining purposes. No merchantable trees may 

be cut until the application is approved and the trees are marked. The 

Roseburg BLM office recommends that small trees (less than 7 inches 

dbh) and shrubs be lopped and scattered, or shredded for use as mulch. 

Trees greater than or equal to 7 inches diameter breast height (dbh) 

are to be bucked and stacked in an accessible location unless they are 

needed for the mining operation

Firewood

Merchantable timber may not be used for firewood. Firewood permits 

may be issued to the operator for use in conjunction with the mining 

operation but no wood may be used until a permit is obtained from the 

BLM. Permits will be limited to hardwoods or salvage timber which 

is not considered to be merchantable. Firewood authorized for use in 

conjunction with a mining operation is not to be removed from the 

mining claim. 

Topsoil 

All excavations should have all the productive topsoil (usually the top 

12 to 18 inches) first stripped, stockpiled, and protected from erosion for 

use in future reclamation. This also includes removal of topsoil before 

the establishment of mining waste dumps and tailings ponds, if the waste 

material will be left in place during reclamation. 

Roads 

Existing roads and trails should be used as much as possible. Temporary 

roads are to be constructed to a minimum width and with minimum 

cuts and fills. All roads shall be constructed so as to minimize negative 

impacts to slope stability. 
P – 1492

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Water Quality 

When mining will be in or near bodies of water, or sediment (or other 

pollutants) will be discharged, contact the Department of Environmental 

Quality. A settling pond is required when mining operations discharge 

turbid water. It is the operator’s responsibility to obtain any needed 

suction dredging, stream bed alteration, or water discharge permits 

required by the DEQ or other State agencies. Copies of such permits 

shall be provided to the Authorized Officer when a Notice or Plan 

of Operations is filed. All operations including casual use, shall be 

conducted in a manner so as to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation 

of surface and subsurface water resources and shall comply with all 

pertinent Federal and State water quality laws. 

Claim Monuments 

State law prohibits the use of plastic pipe for claim staking in Oregon. 

BLM policy requires all existing plastic pipe monuments to have all 

openings permanently closed. Upon loss or abandonment of the claim, all 

plastic pipe must be removed from the public lands. When old markers 

are replaced during normal claim maintenance, they shall be either 

wood posts or stone or earth mounds, constructed in accordance with the 

requirements of State law. 

Drill Sites 

Exploratory drill sites should be located next to or on existing roads 

when possible without blocking public access. When drill sites must 

be constructed, the size of the disturbance shall be as small as possible. 

operations. Any operator engaging in mineral exploration that involves 

drilling to greater than 50 feet must obtain an exploration permit from the 

Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (ORS 517.962). 

Dust and Erosion Control 

While in operation, and during periods of shut-down, exposed ground 

surfaces susceptible to erosion will need to be protected. This can be 

accomplished with seeding, mulching, installation of water diversions, 

and routine watering of dust producing surfaces. 

Fire Safety 

All State fire regulations must be followed, including obtaining a 

campfire permit or blasting permit, if needed. All internal gas combustion 

engines must be equipped with approved spark arresters. 

Safety and Public Access 

Under Public Law 167, the Government has the right to dispose and 

manage surface resources (including timber) on mining claims located 
P – 1493

Appendix P. Energy and Minerals

after July 23, 1955. These rights are limited to the extent that they do not 

endanger or materially interfere with any phase of an ongoing mining 

operation or uses reasonably incident thereto. Claims located prior to 

July 23, 1955 may have surface rights, if such claims were verified as 

being valid under Sections 5 and 6 of the Act. Most do not. 

Mining claimants shall not exclude the public from mining claims with 

force, intimidation, or no trespassing signs. In the interest of safety, 

the general public can be restricted only from specific dangerous 

areas (underground mines~ open pits or heavy equipment storage 

areas) by erecting fences, gates and warning signs. It is the operator’s 

responsibility to protect the public from mining hazards. Gates or road 

blocks may be installed on existing or proposed roads only with BLM 

approval. Gates restricting public access onto a mine site will only be 

considered in such cases where there is a large area safety hazard created 

by the mining activity. The determination as to whether a safety hazard 

is large enough to warrant a gate will be determined on a case-by-case 

basis. Fences (rather than gates) or other approved barriers shall be 

utilized to protect the public from hazards related to small excavations, 

tunnels, and shafts. 

Roads which cross private land to reach BLM administered lands 

are controlled by the private parties. While some of these roads have 

been assigned BLM road numbers access may only be granted for 

administrative use to the BLM, and its licensees and permittees under a 

nonexclusive easement. Mining claimants are not considered licensees 

or permittees and so must make their own arrangements with the private 

party in order to use such roads. No right is granted under any of the 

mining laws to use a road involved in a nonexclusive easement. 

Sewage 

Self-contained or chemical toilets are generally to be used at exploration 

or mining operations and their contents shall be disposed of at approved 

dump stations. Outhouses and uncontained pit toilets are considered 

unnecessary and undue degradation and are not allowed. Uncontained pit 

toilets are not allowed for other users of the public land in this district, 

and we believe no special rights regarding this issue are granted under 

the mining laws. County sanitation permits are required for all other 

types of sanitation facilities. 

Structures 

Permanent structures will not be allowed for exploration or prospecting 

operations. Permanent structures are fixed to the ground by any of the 

various types of foundations, slabs, piers, poles, or other means allowed 

by State or County building codes. The term shall also include a structure 

placed on the ground that lacks foundations, slabs, piers or poles, and 
P – 1494

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

that can only be moved through disassembly into its component parts 

or by techniques commonly used in house moving. Any temporary 

structures placed on public lands in conjunction with prospecting or 

exploration are allowed only for the duration of such activities, unless 

expressly allowed in writing by the Authorized Officer to remain on the 

public lands. Temporary structures are defined as structures not fixed to 

the ground by a foundation and that can be moved without disassembly 

into their component parts. 

Permanent structures (as described above) may be allowed for mining 

operations if they are deemed reasonably incident to conducting the 

operations. Mining operations are defined as all functions, work, 

facilities, and activities in connection with development, mining, or 

processing mineral deposits. 

All permanent or temporary structures placed on public lands shall 

conform with the appropriate State or local building, fire, and electrical 

codes, and occupational safety and health and mine safety standards. 

Equipment 

The claimant must maintain the claim site, including structures and 

equipment, in a safe and orderly condition. Only equipment and supplies 

that are appropriate, reasonable, and regularly used for exploration or 

mining will be allowed on the claim. Equipment transportable by a 

pickup or small trailer or used only infrequently should not be stored 

0171 the claim and will not be considered as a justification for site 

occupancy. Accumulation of unused and/or inoperable equipment, 

materials not related to actual operations, and trash, garbage, or junk is 

not allowed on the public lands. The storage of such on the public land is 

unnecessary and undue degradation and will be treated accordingly. 

Animals 

If dogs or cats are to be present at the work site, the operator is required 

to keep them under control at all times so that they do not chase 

wildlife, or threaten other people, including government employees 

conducting site inspections on the public lands. Unless otherwise 

permitted, animals such as cows, chickens, goats, pigs or horses are not 

considered necessary to conduct mining operations and are not allowed 

on mining claims. 
P – 1495

Appendix P. Energy and Minerals

Suction Dredging

BLM Requirements 

Cases Where a Notice or Plan of Operations is Required

Filing either a Notice or Plan of Operations may be required for all 

suction dredge operations where the dredge has an intake nozzle 

equal to or greater than 4 inches in diameter, or where any suction 

dredge operator proposes occupancy on BLM land (in excess of 14 

calendar days per year) or the installation of structures of any kind. The 

determination of the need for a notice on smaller dredges will be made 

on a case by case basis. 

No Notice or Plan of Operations Required 

The use of a suction dredge in a stream and having an intake nozzle 

of less than 4 inches in diameter, where no structures or occupancy 

beyond the 14 calendar day per year camping limit is proposed, will 

not generally require the filing of a Notice or Plan of Operations. Such 

activity is generally considered casual use. 

State of Oregon Requirements 

All suction dredge operations must be authorized by Permit #0700-J 

issued by the Department of Environmental Quality. This permit is 

issued free of charge for dredges having hoses with an inside diameter 

of 4 inches or less. Registration and a filing fee of $50.00 is required 

for suction dredges having hoses with an inside diameter greater 

than 4 inches. Mining operators should contact the Department of 

Environmental Quality, Water Quality Division, 811 S.W. Sixth Avenue, 

Portland, Oregon 97204, or the Roseburg DEQ office. 

Suction dredging outside the “permitted work period” established for 

certain waterways by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 

(ODFW) will require written permission by an appropriate ODFW 

District Biologist. 

The river beds of navigable waterways are controlled by the Oregon 

Division of State Lands. 

Tailings Ponds 

Settling ponds must be used to contain sediment, and any discharge must 

meet the standards of the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. 
P – 1496

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Solid and Hazardous Waste 

Trash, garbage, used oil, etc. must be removed from public land and 

disposed of properly. Trash, garbage or hazardous wastes must not be 

buried on public lands. The accumulation of trash, debris, or inoperable 

equipment on public lands is viewed as unnecessary degradation and 

will not be tolerated. Operators conducting illegal disposals shall be held 

financially responsible for the clean-up of such disposals. 

Cultural and Paleontological Resources 

Operators shall not knowingly alter, injure, or destroy any scientifically 

important paleontological (fossil) remains or any historical or 

archaeological site, structure, or object on federal lands or any identified 

traditional use areas. The operator shall immediately bring to the 

attention of the Authorized Officer, any paleontological (fossil) remains 

or any historical or archaeological site, identified traditional cultural 

properties, structure, or object that might be altered or destroyed by 

exploration or mining operations, and shall leave such discovery intact 

until told to proceed by the Authorized Officer. The Authorized Officer 

shall evaluate the discovery, take action to protect or remove the 

resource, and allow operations to proceed. 

Threatened and Endangered Species of Plants and Animals 

Operators shall take such action as may be needed to prevent adverse 

impacts to threatened or( endangered species of plants and animals 

and their habitat that may be affected by operations, as stipulated in 

guidelines developed through consultation with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. Under Notice-level operations, if the review of the 

notice by BLM reveals that a potential conflict with a threatened or 

endangered species exists, the operator will be advised not to proceed 

and informed that a knowing violation of the taking provision of the 

Endangered Species Act will result in a notice of noncompliance and 

may result in criminal penalties. If the operator wishes to develop 

measures that will eliminate the conflict, then the Authorized Officer 

will arrange for the participation of BLM resource specialists and the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in , reviewing the proposed revision 

to the Notice. If processing a proposed Plan of Operations indicates 

that a potential conflict exists with a threatened or endangered species 

or its habitat, the Authorized Officer shall notify the operator that the 

plan cannot be approved until BLM has complied with Section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act. Special status species (Federal Candidate/

Bureau Sensitive) plants and animals, and their habitat will be identified 

by the Authorized Officer, and shall be avoided wherever possible. 
P – 1497

Appendix P. Energy and Minerals

Occupancy at Mining Sites 

Living on public land, in excess of 14 days per calendar year, must 

be reasonably incident to and required for actual continuous mining 

or diligent exploration operations and will require either a Notice or 

Plan of Operations. In general, operations at the casual use level are 

not sufficient to warrant occupancy on a mining claim. The following 

discussion of occupancy only applies to those operators wishing to assert 

their right to live for an extended period or full-time on public lands 

pursuant to privileges granted under the mining laws. It does not apply to 

operators proposing to camp at prospecting or mining sites on weekends 

or one to two days during the week

Only those persons working on a continuous mining or exploration 

operation will be allowed to live on the claim beyond the 14-day per 

calendar year camping limit. A continuous mining or exploration 

operation is defined as an operation necessitating at least 40 hours of 

work per week at the operating site. The Oregon State Bureau of Labor 

and Industries generally considers that full-time work consists of a 

minimum of 40 hours worked per week. Each person proposing to live 

full-time at the site would be expected to conduct a minimum of 40 hours 

of work each week. Work hours are to be specified in the Notice or Plan 

of Operation at the time of submittal to the district BLM office. Should 

work hours be altered periodically or seasonally, it is the responsibility 

of the operator to notify the BLM (prior to the change) so that the Notice 

or Plan can be modified. Camping sites used in conjunction with mineral 

exploration or extraction operations are expected to be kept in a neat and 

orderly condition. If operations cannot be pursued due to high fire danger 

in forested areas, then living on the claim site will not be permitted. Any 

occupancy beyond 90 days must be in accordance with the requirements 

of the County Planning Department. 

Security Guard 

In some cases, it may be reasonably incident for a security guard to live 

on site in order to protect valuable property, equipment, or workings 

which are necessary for the mining operation, or to protect the public 

from site hazards. The need for a security guard shall be such that the 

person with those duties is required to be present at the site whenever 

the operation is shut down temporarily or at the end of the workday, or 

whenever the mining claimant, operator, or workers are not present on 

the site. The proposed occupancy by a security guard must be described 

in the Notice or Plan of Operations. 
P – 1498

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Reclamation 

Reclamation of all disturbed areas must be performed concurrently or 

as soon as possible after exploration or mining ceases and shall conform 

to the guidelines described in BLM Handbook H-3042-1. Reclamation 

shall include, but shall not be limited to: 1) saving topsoil for final 

application after reshaping disturbed areas; 2) measures to control 

erosion, landslides, and water runoff; 3) measures to isolate, remove or 

control toxic materials; 4) reshaping the area disturbed, applying topsoil, 

and revegetating disturbed areas where reasonably practicable; and 5) 

rehabilitation of fisheries and wildlife habitat. When reclamation of the 

disturbed area has been completed, except to the extent necessary to 

preserve evidence of mineralization, the BLM must be notified so that an 

inspection of the area can be made.

Equipment and Debris 

All mining equipment, vehicles, and structures must be removed from 

the public lands during extended periods of non-operation and/or at the 

conclusion of mining, unless authorization from BLM is given to the 

operator or claimant in writing. Accumulations of debris and trash on 

mining claims are considered unnecessary and undue degradation and 

must be removed immediately regardless of the status of the operation. 

Failure to do so will result in the issuance of a notice of noncompliance 

or a citation under State law. 

Backfilling and Re-contouring 

The first steps in reclaiming a disturbed site are backfilling excavations 

and reducing high walls, if feasible. Coarse rock material should be 

replaced first, followed by medium sized material, with fine materials to 

be placed on top. Re-contouring means shaping the disturbed area so that 

it will blend in with the surrounding lands, minimize the possibility of 

erosion, and facilitate re-vegetation. 

Seedbed Preparation

Re-contouring should include preparation of an adequate seedbed. This is 

accomplished by ripping or disking compacted soils to a depth of at least 

6 inches in rocky areas and at least 18 inches in less rocky areas. This 

should be done following the contour of the land to limit erosion. All 

stockpiled settling pond fines, and then topsoil, shall be spread evenly 

over the disturbed areas. 
P – 1499

Appendix P. Energy and Minerals

Fertilizer 

Due to the generally poor nutrient value of mined soils, it may be 

necessary to use fertilizer to ensure maximum yield from the seeding 

mixture. The fertilizer (16-16-16, or other approved mix) should be 

spread at the rate of 200 lbs/acre, but not allowed to enter streams or 

bodies of water. 

Seeding 

BLM approved seeding prescription must be used to provide adequate revegetation for erosion control, wildlife habitat, and productive secondary 

uses of public lands. Seeding should be done in September or October 

in the Roseburg District to ensure that seed is in the ground prior to the 

first significant winter rains. If seeding fails, or is done at the wrong time, 

the operator may be asked to reseed the area at the appropriate time, as 

determined by the Authorized Officer. 

Broadcast seeding is preferable on smaller sites. When using a whirlybird 

type seed spreader, it is important to keep the different seeds well mixed 

to achieve even seed distribution. For the best results, a drag harrow 

should be pulled over the seeded area to cover the seed before mulching. 

The Authorized Officer may recommend hydro-seeding on critical sites 

for rapid coverage and erosion control on cutbanks, fill slopes, and any 

other disturbed areas. 

Tree Replacement 

Replacement of destroyed trees may be necessary with the planting of 

seedlings or container stock. 

Mulch 

As directed by the BLM, during review of the Notice or Plan of 

Operations, the disturbed area may require mulching during interim or final 

reclamation procedures. Depending on site conditions, the mulch may need 

to be punched, netted, or blown on with a tackifier to hold it in place. In 

some cases, erosion control blankets may be cost effective for use. 

Roads 

After mining is completed, all new roads shall be reclaimed, unless 

otherwise specified by the BLM. High walls and cutbanks are to be 

knocked down or backfilled to blend with the surrounding landscape. All 

culverts shall be removed from drainage crossings and the fill shall be cut 

back to the original channel. The roadbed should be ripped to a minimum 

depth of 18 inches to reduce compaction and provide a good seedbed. 

The road must then be fertilized, seeded and mulched if necessary. When 

necessary, water bars are to be used to block access and provide drainage. 
P – 1500

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Tailings Ponds 

The ponds should be allowed to dry out and the sediments removed and 

spread with the topsoil, unless the sediments contain toxic materials. If 

the ponds contain toxic materials, a plan will be developed to identify, 

dispose, and mitigate effects of the toxic materials. If necessary, a 

monitoring plan will also be implemented. The ponds should then be 

backfilled and reclaimed. 

Visual Resources 

To the extent practicable, the reclaimed landscape should have 

characteristics that approximate or are compatible with the visual quality 

of the adjacent area. 

Guidelines for Development of Salable 

Mineral Resources 

Proposed Operations 

All proposed salable mineral developments, and any exploration that involves 

surface disturbance, should have operation and reclamation plans approved by 

the Authorized Officer. All proposals will undergo the appropriate level of review 

and compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act. 

Quarry Design 

Due to steep terrain in the operating area, most quarry developments would 

require a series of benches to effectively maximize the amount of mineral 

materials to be removed in a safe manner. In all cases, bench height shall not 

exceed 40 feet. If the bench would be used by bulldozers to access other parts of 

the quarry, the width of the bench should be at least 25 feet. If the bench won’t be 

used by equipment, then this width can be reduced to approximately 10 feet. 

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

of the excavation limit. Most often the brush would be piled and burned at the 

site, or scattered nearby.

If at all possible, all topsoil and overburden should be stockpiled and saved 

for eventual quarry site reclamation. These piles may need to be stabilized by 

mulching or seeding in order to minimize erosion during the winter months. 

As a standard procedure, the excavation of the quarry floor should be designed 

with an out-slope of approximately two percent in order to provide for adequate 

drainage of the floor. Compliance with this design should be made a requirement 

of all operators at the site. 
P – 1501

Appendix P. Energy and Minerals

Operating Procedures 

Where practicable, the following requirements should be made a part of every 

contract or permit providing for the use of mineral material sites on the district: 

Oversized boulders shall not be wasted, but shall be broken and utilized 

concurrently with the excavated material unless otherwise specified. 

The operator shall comply with local and State safety codes covering quarry 

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

obtained from State and County agencies. 

Use of the site for equipment storage and stockpiling rock material is allowed for 

the duration of the contract or permit. Use of the site beyond that time would be 

authorized under a temporary use permit. 

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

Prior to abandonment, all material sites will be graded to conform with the 

surrounding topography. Topsoil will be utilized to create a medium for revegetation. Reseeding and tree planting, if necessary, will be done as prescribed 

by the Authorized Officer. Access roads no longer needed by the BLM will be 

abandoned and reclaimed as directed by the Authorized Officer. 
P – 1502

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs
Appendix Q. Vegetation Modeling

This appendix provides background on the vegetation modeling used to simulate the application of 

the land use allocations, management action, and forest development assumptions to characterize 

forest conditions into the future. 

In this appendix:

Introduction .............................................................................................................................1505

BLM Forest Inventory Data...................................................................................................1506

Use of the Inventory Data in the Modeling.......................................................................1512

GIS – Defining the Land Base & Spatial Projections.......................................................1534

Forest Growth and Yield Modeling ....................................................................................1536

OPTIONS Modeling ..............................................................................................................1552

OPTIONS Products ................................................................................................................1588

Q – 1503
Q – 1504

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs
Q – 1505

Appendix Q. Vegetation Modeling

Introduction

The alternatives considered in the plan revisions outline a range of approaches for managing 

the BLM forest lands by varying the land allocations and intensity with which these forests 

are managed. These different management approaches result in a range of outcomes in terms 

of the structural stages of the forest over time, types of habitat which are developed, and the 

sustainable harvest levels. Models allow simulation of the development of the forest over time 

under these various management strategies. Models were used in the plan revision to simulate the 

application of the land use allocations, management action, and forest development assumptions 

to characterize forest conditions 10, 20, 50, and 100+ years into the future. The models are 

also used to determine the level of harvest which can be produced and sustained over time. The 

outputs from modeling form a factual basis for comparing and evaluating these different land 

management strategies at the strategic policy level.

Two primary vegetation models were used for the plan revisions.

•	 ORGANON - Individual tree growth model that was utilized for the development 

of growth and yield projections for the major species groups on the BLM lands. 

ORGANON was developed by Oregon State University. http://www.cof.orst.edu/cof/fr/

research/ORGANON/

•	 OPTIONS - Spatially explicit strategic planning model that was utilized to project the 

forest conditions over time by simulating the land allocations and management action 

of the alternatives. OPTIONS is proprietary software created by DR Systems Inc. http://

www.drsystemsinc.com/prod_options.html

Both of these models have been in use and under continued development for approximately 20 

years, and provide a framework to bring the data and assumptions together to simulate these 

management scenarios. The extent of this modeling effort when looked at from an entire plan 

revision perspective can seem large and complex. It is easier to understand the modeling by 

looking at the major components used in the model formulation. These major components 

include; the GIS data which defines the land allocations and spatial representation of numerous 

resources, the forest inventory data, growth and yield projections, the definitions of habitats and 

structural stages, the assumptions on habitat and structural stage development, and management 

assumptions to simulate the alternatives. 
Q – 1506

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

This appendix provides an overview of the key components that were used in formulating the 

models used in the plan revision. 

1. BLM Forest Inventory

2. Use of Inventory Data in Modeling

3. GIS – Defining the Land Base and Spatial Projections

4. Forest Growth and Yield Modeling

5. OPTIONS Modeling

6. OPTIONS Products

BLM Forest Inventory Data

Introduction

Three inventories of the BLM lands were used in the vegetation modeling for the plan 

revision.

•	 GIS Vegetation mapping with stand level attributes.

•	 Timber Productivity Capability Classification (TPCC) 

•	 Current Vegetation Survey (CVS) – measured permanent plot data.

GIS Vegetation Mapping – Forest Operations 

Inventory & Micro*Storms

The Forest Operations Inventory (FOI) is a GIS layer which delineates vegetation 

polygons across BLM lands within the planning area. There are approximately 80,000 

stands identified that average 32 acres in size. The minimum mapping feature is generally 

five acres but some finer scale non forest and harvest features are identified. Polygons are 

delineated based on vegetation attributes of cover condition, size class, density of trees, 

and age. 
Q – 1507

Appendix Q. Vegetation Modeling

Figure 329. Example of FOI Mapping for approximately a three by three mile area.

The Micro*Storms database contains the attributes for the FOI polygons. The vegetation 

classification represents stand average characteristics which include:

•	 Cover Condition – Conifer, hardwood, mixed, or non forest.

•	 Single or Multi canopy stands.

•	 Species – Top 5 species with percent occupancy within a stand layer and listing 

of other species present.

•	 Stocking Class.

•	 Size Class – Diameter of the trees species by layer in 10” diameter classes.

•	 Birthdate of the layer.

•	 Ten year age class. 

Land management treatment history is recorded in Micro*Storms for the FOI 

polygons. These treatments include; timber harvest, site preparation, planting, stand 

maintenance / protection, pre-commercial thinning, fertilization, pruning and a 

variety of other treatments. 
Q – 1508

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

The data is updated by the districts on a regular basis as treatments are implemented and 

as conditions change. The data is updated by a variety of inventory methods. The FOI and 

its companion database, Micro*Storms, are operational datasets that are in daily-use by 

the districts for planning and tracking purposes. 

The FOI and Micro*Storms data, as used in the plan revision, reflects the conditions of 

the BLM lands as of October 2005. The FOI data is the spatial representation of the forest 

conditions for the OPTIONS vegetation modeling. The Micro*Storms data was used 

to develop modeling stratification for: species groups, site productivity, existing stand 

conditions, and 10 year age class. 

Timber Productivity Capability Classification

The Timber Productivity Capability Classification (TPCC) is a classification of BLM 

lands based on the physical and biological capability of the site to support and produce 

commercial forest products on a sustained yield basis. Each TPCC unit is classified based 

on four assessments.

1) Forest / Non Forest 

•	 Forest - capable of 10% tree stocking

•	 Non forest

2) Commercial Forest Lands 

•	 Commercial forest lands - capable of producing 20 cubic feet of wood per year 

of commercial species.

•	 Non commercial forest lands – not capable of producing 20 cubic feet of wood 

per year of commercial species.

•	 Sui Woodland – Non Commercial Species or Low Site

3) Fragile Conditions

•	 Non Fragile – forest yield productivity is not expected to be reduced due to 

soil erosion, mass wasting, reduction in nutrient levels, reduction in moisture 

supplying capacity, and or the rise of ground water . 

•	 Fragile - forest yield productivity may be expected to be reduced by soil erosion, 

mass wasting, reduction in nutrient levels, reduction in moisture supplying 

capacity, and or the rise of ground water table. 

Fragile sites are classified as:

•	 Restricted – Special harvest and or restricted measures are required.
Q – 1509

Appendix Q. Vegetation Modeling

•	 Non Suitable Woodland – Future production will be reduced 

even if special harvest and or restricted measures are applied 

due to the inherent site factors. These lands are not biologically 

and or environmentally capable of supporting a sustained yield 

of forest products.

4) Reforestation 

Reforestation problem sites are those where environmental, physical, and 

biological factors have the potential to reduce the survival and or growth of 

commercial tree seedlings. These factors include light, temperature, moisture, 

frost, surface rock, animals and disease.

•	 Non Problem – Sites that can be stocked to meet or exceed target 

stocking levels, of commercial species, within 5 years of harvest, using 

standard practices. 

•	 Restricted – Commercial forest land where operational reforestation 

practices in addition to standard practices are necessary to meet or 

exceed the minimum stocking levels of commercial species within 5 

years of harvest. 

•	 Suitable Woodland - Operational practices will not meet or exceed 

minimum stocking levels of commercial species within 5 years of 

harvest. These sites are biologically capable of producing a sustained 

yield of timber products. 

BLM handbook 5251-1 (1986) provides the standards for the TPCC Classification. 

There are approximately 66,000 TPCC units mapped in GIS on the BLM lands within 

the planning area. The minimum mapping feature is generally five acres but some finer 

scale non forest features are identified in the data. The TPCC initial classification 

of all BLM lands in the planning area was performed in the late 1980s. The data is 

updated on an as needed basis as lands are acquired, and new information is obtained 

through field examination. 

The data, as used in the plan revision, reflects the classification of the BLM lands as of 

October 2005. For the Western Oregon Plan Revision the TPCC data is used to identify 

what portions of the BLM lands will contribute to the Allowable Sale Quantity. The non 

forest, suitable woodlands, and non suitable woodland categories are not included in the 

lands contributing to the Allowable Sale Quantity under the current plan.
Q – 1510

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

In the graphic below the cross hatched areas are examples of TPCC units withdrawn from 

the lands contributing to the Allowable Sale Quantity. The Forest Operations Inventory 

units are outlined for approximately a four by two mile area. 

Figure 330. Example of TPCC Withdrawn lands.

Current Vegetation Survey – Measured Plot Inventory

The Current Vegetation Survey (Max, T.A. et al. 1996) provides comprehensive 

information on vegetative resources on BLM lands within western Oregon. The 

information was collected during the years 1997 to 2001. It consists of four 

3.4-mile grids of field plots that are off-set from one another to produce one 1.7 

mile grid across BLM lands for a total of 1,376 plots. The primary sampling unit 

is one hectare (approximately 2.5 acres) with five fixed-radius sets of subplots 

with trees 1.0 to 2.9 inches DBH measured on the 11.8 foot radius subplot, 3.0 to 

12.9 on a 24.0 foot, 13.0 to 47.9 on a 51.1 foot and trees 48.0 and larger on the 

1/5 hectare (approximately 1⁄2 acres) nested subplots. There is one subplot located 

at the plot center and four subplots each in a cardinal direction and 133.9 feet 

from the center of the plot (See Figure 331). In addition, at each subplot potential 

natural vegetation is determined using plant indicator keys, and coarse woody 

debris is measured along a transect. For specific information on the attributes that 

are collected refer to USDI BLM 2001). 
Q – 1511

Appendix Q. Vegetation Modeling

Figure 331. CVS Plot Design

The location of most of the plot centers have differentially corrected GPS 

coordinates. Since each subplot center was located at a precise distance from the 

plot center, the coordinates for the subplot centers were calculated and included 

in a GIS layer. The CVS layer was overlain on the Forest Operation Inventory 

GIS map. The CVS layer is independent of the FOI layer; consequently, the CVS 

data represents an unbiased sampling of the FOI layer. In the graphic below the 

cross hair dot symbols are examples of CVS plot center locations on a 1.7 mile 

grid. The Forest Operations Inventory units are outlined for approximately a four 

and half by three mile area.

Figure 332. CVS Plot overlain with Forest Operations Inventory. 
Q – 1512

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Use of the Inventory Data in the Modeling

Introduction

The Forest Operations Inventory (GIS vegetation units) and the Current Vegetation 

Survey data (measured inventory plots) were divided into stratification units to identify 

groups of stands with like characteristics. The stratification was based upon Existing 

Stand Conditions (ESC), site class, stand age, and species groups. This stratification 

of the data carried forward into both the DBORGANON and OPTIONS modeling. 

DBORGANON is a version of the ORGANON growth and yield model customized for 

BLM by FORsight Resources. DBORGANON is discussed in more detail in the Growth 

and Yield section of this appendix.

Stratification of Forest Operation Inventory

Stand Age

For every Forest Operations Inventory unit there is a stand age recorded in the 

Micro*Storms database. The stand ages reflect the conditions of the forest as of 

2006. A ten year age class was derived from these stand ages which served as 

the starting ages for the OPTIONS model. For multi-storied stands the ten year 

age class was assigned to the predominant layer that is being managed. Stand 

ages over 200 years of age are in 50 year bands. All regeneration harvest timber 

sales sold by September 30th, 2005 were considered depleted from the inventory 

and the stand ages were converted to year zero for OPTIONS modeling. Stand 

ages were not assigned to the Klamath Falls eastside management lands. Update 

instructions for the Forest Operations Inventory were issued to the districts 

through BLM Information Bulletin No. OR-2005–142 http://web.or.blm.gov/

records/ib/2005/ib-or-2005-142.pdf
Q – 1513

Appendix Q. Vegetation Modeling

Figure 333. Western Oregon Age Class Distribution 2006 (Acres).

Western Oregon Age Class Distribution 2006 by Sustained Yield Unit (Acres)

Age 

Class Salem Eugene Roseburg Coos Bay Medford Klamath Total

0 273 110 1,374 1,311 3,654 0 6,722

10 13,172 12,108 23,079 16,176 24,742 969 90,247

20 32,098 30,163 37,483 31,292 56,403 3,483 190,922

30 34,395 31,666 39,203 32,757 20,328 1,595 159,944

40 35,946 32,071 32,483 37,476 38,329 2,578 178,883

50 23,067 27,581 29,673 28,794 30,865 1,731 141,710

60 41,409 41,547 13,198 12,676 20,213 1,913 130,956

70 30,922 29,659 8,997 15,946 28,680 2,699 116,902

80 22,908 12,567 5,387 9,272 26,627 3,905 80,667

90 13,738 6,701 5,584 3,519 35,325 5,365 70,232

100 12,047 4,423 5,607 4,161 42,860 3,421 72,519

110 12,393 6,021 12,661 3,576 62,101 4,216 100,968

120 20,751 7,949 6,573 9,223 44,948 1,908 91,353

130 20,598 6,204 7,679 10,557 43,225 1,048 89,311

140 9,165 1,623 11,233 5,528 62,066 2,797 92,412

150 7,502 1,223 25,360 8,570 30,226 2,046 74,927

160 1,876 2,073 2,310 7,321 39,218 455 53,253

170 2,756 400 8,285 3,810 49,008 396 64,655

180 429 424 1,552 635 17,796 70 20,906

190 201 3,952 2,497 1,739 9,969 92 18,450

200+ 29,625 37,571 118,961 57,372 101,156 6,056 350,740

Total 365,272 296,036 399,180 301,710 787,740 46,742 2,196,679

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

0

102030405060708090

100110120130140150160170180190

200+
Q – 1514

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Existing Stand Conditions (ESC)

The Existing Stand Condition coding aggregated Forest Operations inventory 

based on past management history and similar stand conditions. The 

Micro*Storms database was used to classify each of the Forest Operations 

Inventory units into one of the existing stand condition codes. This stratification 

was done prior to beginning the DBORGANON and OPTIONS modeling. 

Further collapsing of the ESC coding was done to formulate the DBORGANON 

and OPTIONS modeling groups.
Q – 1515

PROPOSED Existing Stand Condition (ESC) Codes - WOPR

REVISED as of 11/13/2005

2005ESC Code

1994ESC Code

Description

GeneticImproved

Fertilized

Era StandCreated/ Treated

Remarks

1 1

GFMA target stocking (>= 80%) & 250 to 400 TPA density (unimproved TI)

1950 to 1995

previously regen haretention trees inclustands with 2 disperper acre

2 6

GFMA target stocking (>= 80%) & 250 to 400 TPA density (unimproved TI) FERTILIZED

X 1950 to 1995

3 2

GFMA minimum stocking (60-79%) - 150 to 249 TPA density (unimproved TI)

1950 to 1995

4 6

GFMA minimum stocking (60-79%) - 150 to 249 TPA density (unimproved TI) FERTILIZED

X 1950 to 1995

5 3

GFMA below minimum stocking (< 60%) - 50 to 149 TPA density (unimproved TI)

1950 to 1995

6 4 GFMA Overstocked/overdense - > 400 TPA density (unimproved TI) 1950 to 1995

7 5

GFMA target stocking (>= 80%) & 250 to 400 TPA density (TI genetic stock)

X 1950 to 1995

8 6

GFMA target stocking (>= 80%) & 250 to 400 TPA density (TI genetic stock) FERTILIZED

X X 1950 to 1995

9 5

GFMA minimum stocking (60-79%) - 150 to 250 TPA density (TI genetic stock)

X 1950 to 1995

10 6

GFMA minimum stocking (60-79%) - 150 to 250 TPA density (TI genetic stock) FERTILIZED

X X 1950 to 1995

11 5

GFMA below minimum stocking (< 60%) - 50 to 149 TPA density (TI genetic stock)

X 1950 to 1995
Q – 1516 PROPOSED Existing Stand Condition (ESC) 

Codes - WOPR

REVISED as of 11/13/2005

2005ESC Code

1994ESC Code

Description

GeneticImproved

Fertilized

Era StandCreated/ Treated

Remarks

13 n/a 6-8 retention trees - at GFMA target stocking & density (TI genetic stock) X 1996 to 2005

previously regen ha(6-8 TPA) retention t

14 n/a

6-8 retention trees - at GFMA minimum stocking & density (TI genetic stock)

X 1996 to 2005

15 n/a

6-8 retention trees - below GFMA minimum stocking & density (TI genetic stock)

X 1996 to 2005

16 n/a

6-8 retention trees - Overstocked GFMA standard- need PCT (TI genetic stock)

X 1996 to 2005

17 n/a

6-8 retention trees - at GFMA target stocking & density (unimproved stock TI)

1996 to 2005

18 n/a

6-8 retention trees - at GFMA minimum stocking & density (unimproved stock TI)

1996 to 2005

19 n/a

6-8 retention trees - below GFMA minimum stocking & density (unimproved stock TI)

1996 to 2005

20 n/a

6-8 retention trees - overstocked GFMA standard- need PCT (unimproved stock)

1996 to 2005

21 n/a

12-18 retention trees - at GFMA target stocking & density (TI genetic stock)

X 1996 to 2005

previously regen hamoderate (12-18 TPlevel

22 n/a

12-18 retention trees - at GFMA minimum stocking & density (TI genetic stock)

X 1996 to 2005

23 n/a

12-18 retention trees - below GFMA minimum stocking & density (TI genetic stock)

X 1996 to 2005
Q – 1517

PROPOSED Existing Stand Condition (ESC) Codes - WOPR

REVISED as of 11/13/2005

2005ESC Code

1994ESC Code

Description

GeneticImproved

Fertilized

Era StandCreated/ Treated

Remarks

25 n/a

12-18 retention trees - at GFMA target stocking & density (unimproved stock TI)

1996 to 2005

previously regen hamoderate (12-18 TPlevel

26 n/a

12-18 retention trees - at GFMA minimum stocking & density (unimproved stock TI)

1996 to 2005

27 n/a

12-18 retention trees - below GFMA minimum stocking & density (unimproved stock TI)

1996 to 2005

28 n/a

12-18 retention trees - overstocked GFMA standard- need PCT (unimproved stock TI)

1996 to 2005

30 n/a Density Mgt at age class 30 1996 to 2005

low/variable residuacommercial thinningthin Curtis RD < 35)

31 n/a Density Mgt at age class 40 1996 to 2005

32 n/a Density Mgt at age class 50 1996 to 2005

33 n/a Density Mgt at age class 60 1996 to 2005

34 n/a Density Mgt at age class 70 1996 to 2005

35 n/a Density Mgt at age class 80 1996 to 2005

36 n/a Density Mgt at age class 90 Plus 1996 to 2005
Q – 1518 PROPOSED Existing Stand Condition (ESC) 

Codes - WOPR

REVISED as of 11/13/2005

2005ESC Code

1994ESC Code

Description

GeneticImproved

Fertilized

Era StandCreated/ Treated

Remarks

37 10 CTed at age class 30 1950 to 2005

moderate/high residcommercial thinningthin Curtis RD > 35)

38 11 CTed & fertilized at age class 30 X 1950 to 200539 12 CTed at age class 40 1950 to 2005

40 13 CTed & fertilized at age class 40 X 1950 to 200541 14 CTed at age class 50 1950 to 2005

42 15 CTed & fertilized at age class 50 X 1950 to 200543 16 CTed at age class 60 1950 to 2005

44 17 CTed & fertilized at age class 60 X 1950 to 200546 19 CTed & fertilized at age class 70 X 1950 to 200547 20 CTed at age class 80 1950 to 2005

48 22 CTed at age class 90 1950 to 2005

49 n/a CTed at age class 100 1950 to 2005

50 n/a CTed at age class 110 1950 to 2005

moderate/high residcommercial thinningthin Curtis RD > 35)

51 30 Mortality Salvaged or Sanitation Cut Pre-RMP

52 40 56 to 500 years-old, no past silvicultural treatment < 1950 unmanaged stands 

1950

53 50

Brushfield, hardwood, noncommercial conifer or backlog conversion opportunity

Any

54 60 Sold but not cut - regeneration harvest Any includes all unharve

unawarded sales

55 61 Cut, needs site preparation Any

56 62 Site prepped, needs regeneration Any

57 99 Nonforest Any
Q – 1519

PROPOSED Existing Stand Condition (ESC) Codes - WOPR

REVISED as of 11/13/2005

2005ESC Code

1994ESC Code

Description

GeneticImproved

Fertilized

Era StandCreated/ Treated

Remarks

58 n/a

> 18/15 retention trees/acre - at GFMA target stocking & density (TI genetic stock)

X 1950 to 2005

Non SW Oregon - pharvested with high retention trees level previously regen ha(16-25 TPA) retentio

59 n/a

> 18 /15 retention trees/acre - at GFMA minimum stocking & density (TI genetic stock)

X 1950 to 2005

60 n/a

> 18/ 15 retention trees/acre - below GFMA minimum stocking & density (TI genetic stock)

X 1950 to 2005

61 n/a

> 18 /15 retention trees/acre - Overstocked GFMA standard- need PCT (TI genetic stock)

X 1950 to 2005

62 n/a

> 18 /15 retention trees/acre - at GFMA target stocking & density (unimproved stock TI) 1950 to 2005

63 n/a

> 18 /15 retention trees/acre - at GFMA minimum stocking & density (unimproved stock TI)

1950 to 2005

Non SW Oregon - pharvested with high retention trees level previously regen ha(16-25 TPA) retentio

64 n/a

> 18 /15retention trees/acre - below GFMA minimum stocking & density (unimproved stock TI)

1950 to 2005

65 n/a

> 18 /15 retention trees/acre - overstocked GFMA standard- need PCT (unimproved stock TI)

1950 to 2005

66 80 Hardwood-Suitable Woodland CFL Any Woodland

67 81 Conifer-Suitable Woodland CFL Any

68 85 Hardwood-NonSuitable Woodland CFL Any
Q – 1520 PROPOSED Existing Stand Condition (ESC) 

Codes - WOPR

REVISED as of 11/13/2005

2005ESC Code

1994ESC Code

Description

GeneticImproved

Fertilized

Era StandCreated/ Treated

Remarks

69 86 Conifer-NonSuitable Woodland CFL Any

70 89 Hardwood-Suitable Woodland NonCFL Any

71 90 Conifer-Suitable Woodland NonCFL Any

72 n/a

GFMA target stocking (>= 80%) & 250 to 400 TPA density (unimproved TI) PRUNED

1950 to 1995

previously regen haretention trees inclustands with 2 disperper acre PRUNED fonly

73 n/a

GFMA target stocking (>= 80%) & 250 to 400 TPA density (unimproved TI) FERTILIZED PRUNED

X 1950 to 1995

74 n/a

GFMA minimum stocking (60-79%) - 150 to 249 TPA density (unimproved TI) PRUNED

1950 to 1995

75 n/a

GFMA minimum stocking (60-79%) - 150 to 249 TPA density (unimproved TI) FERTILIZED PRUNED X 1950 to 1995

77 n/a

GFMA target stocking (>= 80%) & 250 to 400 TPA density (TI genetic stock) FERTILIZED PRUNED

X X 1950 to 1995

previously regen haretention trees inclustands with 2 disperper acre PRUNED fonly

78 n/a

GFMA minimum stocking (60-79%) - 150 to 250 TPA density (TI genetic stock) PRUNED

X 1950 to 1995

79 n/a

GFMA minimum stocking (60-79%) - 150 to 250 TPA density (TI genetic stock) FERTILIZED PRUNED

X X 1950 to 1995

Medford and Klamath Falls common codes from 1994 PRMP & Proposed ESC for Southern GFMAWoodland codes may be applicable to all districts
Q – 1521

No Action Alternative Exsiting Stand Condtion Acres by Sustained Yield Unit

ESC Salem Eugene Roseburg Coos Bay Medford Klamath E. Mgt. Lands Grand Total

1 83,348 60,695 57,832 31,920 92,475 6,635 333,303 398 

2 14,241 11,706 32,549 29,367 9,614 97,476

3 30,299 31,441 28,320 29,331 18,634 138,026

4 1,662 6,464 6,502 16,663 5,269 36,559

5 2,004 222 644 8,383 6,012 17,266

6 14,057 1,269 23,182 6,899 1,811 47,218

7 4,034 13,481 2,158 6,615 26,288

8 338 487 2,037 2,862

9 1,132 231 870 4,576 539 7,348

10 18 380 15 413

11 43 314 1,023 910 211 2,501

12 2,789 1,346 3,443 7,578

13 512 1,983 342 153 2,989

14 13 154 167

16 672 557 778 2,007

17 200 1,135 12,178 157 13,670

18 37 152 5,717 20 19 5,946

19 19 2,254 2,273

20 275 218 424 917

21 62 430 491

22 250 250

24 86 37 123

25 18 19 617 189 2,750 3,592

26 3 225 228

27 77 77

28 46 212 258

30 908 683 7 1,598

31 72 201 1,853 2,214 206 4,547

32 39 676 507 1,139 1,437 229 112 4,138

33 1,123 990 845 809 1,362 149 782 6,059

34 297 754 102 316 2,384 839 629 5,321

35 330 3,485 822 1,183 5,820

36 49 148 18,482 9,473 9,811 37,962

37 458 52 159 313 105 1,087

38 35 131 98 264

39 3,277 851 2,218 992 145 7,483

40 16 283 956 1,255

41 8,935 4,163 3,154 1,919 238 18,408

42 1,766 856 2,633 9 5,265

43 8,201 5,683 2,023 843 204 16,955

44 824 1,049 831 2,704

45 5,674 2,778 1,438 876 10,765

46 354 445 121 919

47 8,252 519 595 120 993 10,480

48 6,643 247 156 1,166 6 8,218

49 824 37 32 2,732 3,624

50 779 170 6,793 36 7,778

51 888 5,330 20,481 125 4,546 31,370

52 186,872 154,570 224,927 144,923 376,391 1,445 1,089,298 171 

53 5,248 2,659 8,598 5,906 676 1,265 24,351

54 147 548 909 1,320 2,924

55 133 71 307 511

56 30 249 167 446

57 10,500 2,790 7,711 4,499 42,014 2,131 74,399 144,045

62 53 53

64 79 79

66 2,353 2,353

67 67,045 152 67,221 24 

68 5,661 715 62 6,439

69 1,145 7 1,046 39,161 414 4,289 46,063

70 40,972 947 41,984 64 

71 87,314 4,043 77,026 168,383

72 622 939 1,471 754 58 3,845

73 224 25 731 1,117 12 2,109

74 2,206 766 56 3,028

75 1,705 2,242 3,947

76 166 467 633

77 46 46

78 349 349

79 82 65 147

Total 402,184 312,261 423,589 321,167 866,694 51,306 172,903 2,550,103
Q – 1522

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Species Groups

The Micro*Storms database has a listing of the top 5 species within each stand 

layer with a ranking of relative abundance. This data was utilized to classify each 

Forest Operations Inventory Unit into one of the following species groups for 

modeling purposes. The Micro*Storms species group stratification was a starting 

point. For the OPTIONS and ORGANON modeling some species groups were 

combined to attain adequate representation by the Current Vegetation Survey plots.

Douglas-fir (DF)

This species group includes stands with single species DF listed, and those stands with 

minor quantities of either other conifers or hardwoods. They would typically be “FCO” 

stands (forest conifer), and have either single or multiple sizes and ages indicated. 

Northern True Fir (N_TF)

Stands of Noble or Silver fir, including with other species mixed in such as Douglasfir, western hemlock, or western redcedar, but where Silver or Noble are dominant. 

Northern Mixed Conifer (N_MX_CON)

This species group includes stands with single species of western hemlock, western 

redcedar, Sitka spruce, or mixed conifer stands where Douglas-fir would not be the 

dominant species. They would typically be “FCO” stands (forest - conifer). 

Northern Conifer / Hardwood Mix (N_CON_HWD)

These stands would have both conifer and hardwood species listed. Neither 

conifer nor hardwood would dominate these stands. Conifers or hardwoods could 

be indicated in the dominant or secondary position. Hardwoods would include 

big leaf maple and red alder mixed with conifer species. Many FMX stands 

(forest - conifer and hardwoods) would be located here. 

Northern Hardwood (N_HWD)

Maple/alder mixes and pure alder are here. Pure or nearly pure alder stands, with 

limited maple fractions. FHD stand (forest - hardwoods) descriptions are here.

Southern Mixed Conifer (S_MX_CON)

Stands containing incense cedar, sugar pine, Ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir and 

white fir in varying fractions, but not including pure types without any secondary 

species indicated. This type may include some hardwood component but less 

than the southern conifer/hardwood mix. Hardwoods would not be listed as the 

dominant species. 
Q – 1523

Appendix Q. Vegetation Modeling

Southern Conifer / Hardwood Mix. (S_CON_HWD)

This type consists of stands with the mixed conifer species, but with southern 

hardwoods such as oak, madrone, tanoak, myrtle, etc mixed in. The hardwoods may 

be in the majority or minority. FMX types (forest - conifer and hardwoods) are here. 

Southern Hardwood (S_HWD)

This type consists primarily of southern hardwood species with limited mixed 

conifer component. Hardwoods would comprise the dominant species, possibly 

FHD types (forest - conifer and hardwoods). 

Southern True fir (S_TF)

Shasta red fir and white fir types would be here. White fir types could have other 

secondary species such as Douglas-fir. 

Ponderosa Pine (PP)

Stands with dominant Ponderosa pine. Stands with Douglas-fir or other species 

in the understory would be here, if not the dominant species. This would include 

dryer types with juniper as long as the Ponderosa pine was the dominant species. 

Juniper (J)

Types with juniper dominant. This type would contain some with limited pine on 

dryer lower site types. 

Depending on the district and the ORGANON variant used, lodgepole pine and knobcone 

pine types would go into Northern Mixed Conifer or Southern Mixed Conifer. Jeffery 

pine would go into a low site Ponderosa pine type. Mountain hemlock would go into 

northern true fir. Port-Orford-cedar would go into Southern Mixed Conifer.

Figure 334. Species Group by District – Forested Acres

Species Group By District - Forested Acres 

Frozen Micro*Storms 4/7/2006 

 

Species Group Salem Eugene Roseburg Coos Bay Medford Kfalls W. Oregon 

DF 284,856 247,212 300,796 250,087 396,459 1,479,411 64%

N_CON_HWD 54,316 40,127 8,883 27,751 131,076 6%

N_HWD 12,506 4,473 596 5,929 23,504 1%

N_MX_CON 17,163 8,127 327 1,818 27,434 1%

N_TF 9,935 9,935 0%

PP 1,437 57,445 33,544 92,426 4%

S_CON_HWD 28,341 11,206 159,802 2,125 201,474 9%

S_HWD 2,768 2,214 39,740 44,722 2%

S_MX_CON 57,653 734 118,473 29,262 206,122 9%

S_TF 21,170 8,277 29,446 1%

J 71,891 71,891 3%

Total 378,775 299,939 400,802 299,738 793,089 145,098 2,317,442 100%
Q – 1524

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Site Class

Site Class data in the Micro*Storms database / Forest Operation Inventory (FOI) 

come from a variety of sources, including estimations, measured on site, and or 

soils mapping. The site class data in FOI is adequate for a general relative portrayal 

of productivity but due to the variety of sources it is of varying accuracy. 

Site index data was measured on the CVS inventory at the plot level. Assignment 

of site index to the subplot level was made at the time of data collection. Using a 

site index conversion routine created by Mark Hanus (FORSight Resources), all 

measured site data for all species and base ages was converted to a Douglas-fir, 

50-year base index, using King (1966) for Northwest Oregon, and Hann-Scrivani 

(1987) for SW Oregon.

It was assumed that the best representation for range of site productivity values 

and relative proportions of these values are the CVS data for areas as large as 

those occupied by combined species group within an SYU. The Measured CVS 

data was used to re-distribute the FOI site class data to reflect the profile of 

the measured data. Assignment from the CVS to the FOI was based on a set of 

rules. These data were apportioned to each sustained yield unit forest land base 

at the FOI unit level. Existing measured site index data from the Micro*Storms 

/ FOI were retained for individual FOI units. For the remaining FOI units, site 

productivity values were assigned to all stands in the forest land base in such a 

manner to approximate the expanded CVS distribution for species groups at the 

SYU level. These FOI unit-level productivity assignments were held constant for

the OPTIONS modeling of all alternatives and sub-alternatives.

Methodology for Site Class Re-Distribution - 

CVS to the FOI

The following methodology was applied at the district level to achieve a similar 

distribution of acres by species group and site productivity in the inventory as was 

present within the CVS information.

Source Information:

A Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, with the following information, was prepared for 

each district: 

•	 CVS Plot Number – unique plot number

•	 CVS District – the district for the plot

•	 CVS Species Group – the super species group for the plot

•	 CVS Site Productivity – the site productive class for the plot
Q – 1525

Appendix Q. Vegetation Modeling

•	 FOI Number – unique inventory number

•	 FOI Site Index Conversion Code – the conversion method used to 

calculate the Douglas-fir, 50-year base index

•	 FOI District – the district for the FOI

•	 FOI Species Group – the super species group for the FOI

•	 FOI Site Productivity – the site productivity class for the FOI

•	 FOI Acres – the acres for the FOI

•	 FOI ORGANON Variant - the ORGANON Variant for the FOI

Assumptions:

A) FOI with measured site index information are not redistributed.

B) FOI polygons are treated as whole units. An FOI polygon can not be split in 

order to achieve desired acre redistribution.

C) Redistribution of acres can not result in an excess of acres over the desired target.

D) Species Groups identified as ‘NF’ (non-forest) were not redistributed

E) If either CVS or FOI information was not available, then no redistribution 

would occur, i.e. both CVS and FOI information must be available for 

redistribution to occur.

Methodology:

1. Using the source CVS information, for each district (SYU) and species group 

(SSPG) combination, determine the percent distribution of plots within each 

site productivity class (SP). For example:

SYU_SSPG SYU_SSPG_SP # of Plots in 

SYU_SSPG

# of Plots in 

SYU_SSPG_SP % Distribution

Coos Bay_

NDF Coos Bay_NDF_1 673 132 20

Coos Bay_

NDF Coos Bay_NDF_2 673 273 41

Coos Bay_

NDF Coos Bay_NDF_3 673 182 27

Coos Bay_

NDF Coos Bay_NDF_4 673 61 9

Coos Bay_

NDF Coos Bay_NDF_5 673 25 3
Q – 1526

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

2. Using the FOI information, for each district (SYU) and species group 

(SSPG) combination, determine percent distribution of acres within each site 

productivity class (SP). For example:

SUY_SSPG SYU_SSPG_SP Total Acres in 

SYU_SSPG

Total Acres in 

SYU_SSPG_SP % Distribution

Coos Bay_

NDF Coos Bay_NDF_1 254347 38372 15

Coos Bay_

NDF Coos Bay_NDF_2 254347 133575 53

Coos Bay_

NDF Coos Bay_NDF_3 254347 68960 27

Coos Bay_

NDF Coos Bay_NDF_4 254347 13440 5

Coos Bay_

NDF Coos Bay_NDF_5 254347 0 0

3. Redistribute FOI acres between site productivity classes within the district 

species group to obtain the same percent distribution as indicated by the CVS 

information. Beginning redistribution starting with the highest site (1) and 

progress to the lowest site (5) as follows:

a) Identify initial acres based on FOI information for the desired site 

productivity class

b) Determine target acres based on percent distribution from CVS 

information for the desired site productivity class.

c) If the initial acres are less then the target acres, then reassign acres 

from the next lowest site productivity class to the desired site 

productivity class until the target acres are met (but not exceeded). 

Acres from each subsequent site productivity class are reassigned 

until the target acres are achieved. 

In our example, for site productivity class 1, the initial 38,372 acres is less 

than the target acres of 50,869. Therefore, approximately 12,500 acres from 

productivity class 2 are reassigned to site productivity class 1.

d) If the initial acres are greater then the target acres, then reassign acres 

from the current site productivity class to the next successively lower

site productivity class until the target is met (but not exceeded).

If our example was reversed and the initial acres for site productivity class 

were 50,869, then approximately 12,500 acres would be reassigned to site 

productivity class 2. 
Q – 1527

Appendix Q. Vegetation Modeling

SYU_SSPG_SP Total Acres in 

SYU_SSPG

Target 

%

Target 

Acres

Resulting 

Redistributed 

Acres

Resulting 

Redistributed 

% Distribution

Coos Bay_NDF_1 254347 0.20 50869 50884 20

Coos Bay_NDF_2 254347 0.41 104282 104224 41

Coos Bay_NDF_3 254347 0.27 68674 68324 27

Coos Bay_NDF_4 254347 0.09 22891 22538 9

Coos Bay_NDF_5 254347 0.03 7630 8376 3

4. For each FOI, reassign the corresponding mid-point site index value based on 

the new site productivity class and ORGANON variant code.

1: Southwest Oregon (SWO)

2: Northwest Oregon (NWO)

Site Productivity Class 

Midpoints by ORGANON 

Variant Code

2 1

5 70 60

4 85 75

3 105 95

2 125 115

1 140 130

Figure 335. Salem District Site Class Re-Distribution Example (Species Groups NCM – Northern 

Conifer Mixed, NDF – Northern Douglas-Fir, NHM – Northern Hardwood Mixed).

Salem District

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

NCM_1 NCM_2 NCM_3 NCM_4 NCM_5 NDF_1 NDF_2 NDF_3 NDF_4 NDF_5 NHM_1 NHM_2 NHM_3 NHM_4 NHM_5

Species Group Site Productivity

Proportion of Species Group Representation

FOI Species Group Representation

CVS Species Group Representation

FOI Re-Distributed Species Group

Representation
Q – 1528

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Collapsing the Stratification into Modeling Groups

Both the Forest Operation Inventory (FOI) and Current Vegetation 

Survey (CVS) had an initial stratification based on stand age, existing 

stand condition (ESC), site productivity class, and species groups. 

Modeling Groups were developed to aggregate like types which 

represented significant quantities of the FOI acres and to assure there was 

sufficient measured data from CVS for each group.

The modeling groups were developed to:

•	 Classify the CVS data for the development of growth and yield 

curves with the ORGANON model for each Modeling Group.

•	 Provide a consistent linkage between the growth and yield data 

from ORGANON with the Forest Operation Inventory (FOI) for 

configuration, projection and the OPTIONS modeling.

The first step in the process involved grouping the CVS subplots, 

by ORGANON variant, into strata of similar forest, past treatment, 

and productivity types. For each CVS subplot, the forest type and 

past treatment data was extracted from the FOI. The forest type was 

an assignment of a species group which had been derived by district 

personnel thru a series of queries on stand level information. 

The past treatment groupings consisted of stands with similar 

management histories or trajectories. This designation was based on 

their existing stand condition data which had been reviewed and brought 

up to date (as of September 30, 2005) by district personnel. The third 

consideration used in this stratification process was the productivity level 

(50-year Douglas-fir Site Class) assigned to each CVS subplot. 

DBORGANON variants for Northwest (NWO) and Southwestern 

Oregon (SWO) were split primarily on District boundaries. The Salem, 

Eugene and Coos Bay districts are being assigned to the NWO variant, 

with one exception. The southern portion of Coos Bay District which 

lies primarily in the Tanoak Zone was assigned to SWO for modeling. 

Roseburg, Medford and Lakeview districts were assigned to the SWO 

variant, again with one exception. Within the northwest portion of 

Roseburg district, some CVS subplots and a companion set of FOI units 

were within stands designated as species groups modeled only in the 

NWO variant. 
Q – 1529

Appendix Q. Vegetation Modeling

Figure 336. Organon Variants

The stratification process involved partitioning the entire planning area, sampled by the 

over 5,300 forested CVS inventory plots, into logical modeling groups. This process 

involved a multi-day session with a workgroup of district personnel including but not 

limited to silviculture, timber and inventory specialists. A majority of these same district 

personnel were in a subsequent stage of the project, involved in development of the 

Guide and Treatment Curves modeling the grouped CVS data with DBORGANON. 

Through an iterative process, the number of modeling groups with fewer than 30 subplots 

was minimized. Out of the final 53 existing-stand modeling groups, 22 for NWO and 31 

for SWO, only 2 had fewer than 30 subplots. 
Q – 1530

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Imputing Data from Current Vegetation 

Survey (CVS) to the Forest Operation 

Inventory (FOI) 

The objective was to create summary information for each Forest Operation Inventory 

(FOI) unit within the forested landbase and to mimic the natural variation that exists 

among the FOI units. There is information to stratify each of the FOI units into Existing 

Stand Condition (ESC), Site Class, Age and Species Groups. There is CVS data for 

nearly every combination of characteristics found on BLM lands but there are FOI units 

without CVS data. 

Information from the FOI: Existing Stand Condition (ESC), redistributed site 

productivity, stand age and species group, were used to stratify both the FOI and CVS. 

The combination of ESC, site class, age and species groups are non-overlapping strata. 

The resultant spatial relationship between the CVS plots and the FOI creates a stratified 

random sample of the plots with unequal number of subplots per plot. The CVS data 

within each of the characteristic combination represents an unbiased collection of data for 

that stratum. 

In the Figure below, the two plots on the right fall within the selected stratum (crosshatched). These represent stands with common ESC, site productivity class and 

species groups. 
Q – 1531

Appendix Q. Vegetation Modeling

Figure 337. Example of CVS plots and FOI Units with a common existing stand condition.

The collection of CVS subplots that fell within the same stratum (defined by ESC, 

site productivity class and species groups but including different age categories) were 

projected with no future silvicultural treatments applied. This produced a smooth 

empirical curve that borrowed strength from adjacent age categories with more data to 

predict the current inventories for ages with less data. 

To derive a set of stand attributes fore each forested FOI unit, the subplots that fell within 

each stratum (ESC, site class, species group and age) were pooled and the subplots 

were drawn with replacement equal to the number of subplots within the category. If the 

number of subplots exceeded 30, then the summary information was calculated using 

the tree lists associated with each selected subplot and the summary information was 

assigned to an FOI unit. This process was repeated for each FOI unit within the stratum. 

This technique imputes values into each FOI unit.

Below is an example of two FOI units that have been assigned 10 subplots with 

replacement from an original list of subplots numbered from 1 to10.
Q – 1532

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Figure 338. Examples of subplot data imputed into FOI units

If the number of subplots within a stratum was less than 30, a shrinkage estimate was 

employed where the predicted attributed associated with the category was combined with 

the imputed summary statistic and combined estimate was assigned to the FOI unit. The 

shrinkage estimate can best be illustrated by an example. Say there were 20 CVS subplots 

within a category, the shrinkage estimate is:

20/30 x CVS statistics + (30-20)/30 x modeled predicted values. 

As the number of subplots approach 30, most of the information comes from the CVS 

data. Conversely if there were relatively few CVS subplots, then the majority of the 

information came from the ORGANON model. This method was repeated for each FOI 

unit with the category. 

The stratification for the forested FOI units was the basis for applying the CVS derived 

values for basal area, trees per acre, height, quadratic mean diameter, and board foot 

volume for the initial inventory in the OPTIONS modeling. The imputed initial inventory 

dataset provided a consistent basis for the OPTIONS modeling of all alternatives and 

sub-alternatives.

The use of the imputation provided attributes to the OPTIONS model which did not exist 

in the Forest Operations Inventory. Attributes assigned through imputation will not match 
Q – 1533

Appendix Q. Vegetation Modeling

the characteristics of each individual stand as measured on the ground but the statistics 

applied to the grouping of stands in the population, is statistically sound. The use of 

imputation is an attempt to mimic the natural variation that exists among the stands. 

Although, no process can accurately reflect the actual variation short of conducting a 100 

percent cruise, this process is seen as more realistic than assigning the mean value for 

these statistics to all FOI units within a group.

Application of the Stratification in Growth and 

Yield Modeling

Each CVS subplot tree list within an existing stand modeling group was projected in 

the ORGANON growth and yield model individually to simulate future development 

with and without future silvicultural treatments. Results from the simulations were 

averaged together to predict stand attributes at any point in time and to define an average 

yield function. This method is based on the fact that the CVS data represents a random 

sample of the modeling group hence the average of all projected curves for a modeling 

group represents the average projection for the FOI units within the modeling group. In 

OPTIONS terminology these average yield functions are the Guide Curves.
Q – 1534

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

GIS – Defining the Land Base & Spatial 

Projections

Introduction

The Geographic Information System (GIS) data provides the OPTIONS model with a set 

of polygons with unique identifiers, covering BLM lands in the planning area. Each of 

these polygons has attribute data which is used in defining the land base for application of 

modeling rules for simulation of the alternatives and sub-alternatives. GIS is also used for 

mapping the OPTIONS projections results of the forest conditions over time. This section 

provides an overview of the GIS process. The type of GIS data that was used for analyzing 

the alternatives and how it was applied is covered in the OPTIONS modeling section. 

Details on the GIS processing and datasets themselves are recorded with the GIS metadata. 

Defining BLM Lands 

The land lines theme (LLI) is the BLM corporate GIS layer for land status - O&C, Public 

Domain, Coos Bay Wagon Road. The Forest Operations Inventory (FOI) is the spatial 

vegetation layer used for the OPTIONS modeling. The Forest Operations Inventory 

and Land Lines themes are not vertically integrated in GIS which results in slivering in 

the areas of misalignment. For the analytical purposes, BLM lands are defined by the 

area in which the FOI and LLI overlap. This FOI & LLI mask was subsequently used to 

minimize the slivers from all GIS layers used in the analysis. 

Figure 339. Differences between the FOI and LLI themes. 

Acres

FOI & LLI 2,550,000 100.00%

FOI Only 9,200 0.36%

LLI Only 8,200 0.32%
Q – 1535

Appendix Q. Vegetation Modeling

Intersection Versus Majority Rules 

Where the subdivision of the FOI was important for simulating different modeling rules 

within each stand, within, the data layers were intersected in GIS to create unique areas. 

Riparian reserves and roads are good examples of this within stand subdivision which 

was important for simulating different modeling rules. 

Some data layers came from external sources which were captured at coarser scales than 

the FOI mapping and do not align well with BLM checkerboard ownership. Northern 

Spotted Owl Critical Habitat Units is an example of this disparity between GIS data 

layers. In these situations, a majority rules analysis was performed where 50% or more 

of the FOI unit would need to coincide with the data theme, such as critical habitat, to 

receive the designation. This majority rules process was also applied to themes where 

spatial subdivision of FOI polygons was not needed and stand level designation was 

sufficient for the analysis. 

Rasterizing and Unique ID Assignment

To facilitate GIS processing all vector GIS data layers were converted to a 10 by 10 meter 

raster cells (1 cell = .025 acres – UTM zone 10, NAD83) and the data was partitioned 

into tiles which were based on 24K USGS Quads (~ 35,000 acres, 6 miles east/west by 

8.5 miles north/south). Within each tile every unique combination of GIS data layers was 

intersected with the Forest Operations Inventory received a unique identifier (WPR_ID). 

The example below illustrates one FOI unit (840369) being subdivided into 4 unique 

areas based on how riparian reserves and roads intersected the forest stand. This GIS 

subdivision of the forest stands allows the OPTIONS model to simulate how each of 

these portions of the stands would develop. 

WPR_ID FOI # GIS 

ACRES

RIPARIAN 

RESERVE

ROAD 

BUFFER DESCRIPTION

124000005 840369 28.84 N N Outside riparian reserve 

Outside of road buffer

124000008 840369 0.99 N Y Outside riparian reserve 

Within road buffer 

124000004 840369 10.90 Y N Inside riparian reserve 

Outside of road buffer

124000013 840369 0.49 Y Y Inside riparian reserve Within 

road buffer 

The unique ID (WPR_ID) carries through the OPTIONS modeling projections for 

the purpose of tracking each spatial entity. OPTIONS classification of allocations or 

projections of forest conditions were returned to GIS as attributes with the unique IDs 

which were linked back to the original grid to produce spatial products. 
Q – 1536

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Data Vintage

A snap shot of the Forest Operations Inventory (FOI), Land Use Allocation (LUA), 

Timber Production Capability Classification (TPC), Occupied Marbled Murrelet Sites 

(OMMS), and the Landlines (LLI) data were captured for the Western Oregon Plan 

Revision (WOPR) analysis. The data represents the conditions as of 10/1/2005. The 

guidance on capture of this data was issued in the 2005 Information Bulletin IB-OR2005-142. The other GIS datasets reflect the best available information at the time of 

the analysis. 

GIS Data Themes

See the modeling rules section for further description of the GIS data themes used in 

the modeling.

Forest Growth and Yield Modeling

Introduction

The purpose of simulating forest stand growth and development is to permit analysis 

of the effects of different silvicultural systems and silvicultural practices on timber 

yield and stand structure. Modeling estimates are not intended to describe the 

structures and volumes of current stands which may be quite different (higher or 

lower in volume) than projected future stands depending on the kind of management 

questions explored in the analysis. 

The yield tables described in this section were used in the OPTIONS model to 

produce a series of different Allowable Sale Quantity (ASQ) estimates for different 

management alternatives.

Two computer growth and yield simulation models; ORGANON and CONIFERS 

were used to project the growth and development of forest stands under various 

silvicultural prescriptions. 

Organon Model Description

ORGANON is an individual-tree, distance-independent model developed by Oregon 

State University using data from western Oregon forest stands with ages of the dominant 

trees ranging from 10 to 120-years-old breast height age (Hann 2005). The architecture 

of the model makes it applicable for simulations of traditional and non-traditional 

silviculture (Hann 1998). 
Q – 1537

Appendix Q. Vegetation Modeling

Simulations of stand growth of the WOPR silvicultural prescriptions extend beyond 

the ORGANON model’s range of data. However, the timing of harvests and other 

silvicultural treatments generally occur within the range of the model’s validated height 

growth projection and volume prediction capabilities. Height growth is the primary 

driving function in ORGANON (Ritchie 1999). Hann (1998) found that the ORGANON 

height growth equations can be extended to up to 245 years without loss of accuracy, or 

precision. Validation tests of ORGANON comparing projected volumes to those found 

in the published normal yield tables for predominantly Douglas-fir and mixed-conifer 

stands applicable to western Oregon and northern California indicated that ORGANON 

projected volumes were within the limits of the values found in “fully” stocked natural 

stands, out to stand ages of 160 to180-years-old, the upper data limit of the published 

normal yield table (Hann 1992).

Three variants of ORGANON are available for use in western Oregon, two of which were 

deemed appropriate for modeling conditions and proposed actions on BLM land. The 

northwest Oregon variant (NWO-ORGANON) was used to project the growth of forest 

stands located on the Salem, Eugene, Coos Bay and Roseburg Districts. The southwest 

Oregon variant (SWO-ORGANON) was used to project forest stand growth on the 

Roseburg, Coos Bay, Medford and Lakeview Districts.

The standard ORGANON configuration is not conducive to the efficient processing of 

large numbers of individual tree lists representing forest stands within a stratum, and 

merging simulation results to develop average timber yield functions. Also, the standard 

model does not produce specific stand structural characteristics that have utility for 

effects analysis on resources other than timber production, or for the incorporation of 

factors to simulate growth improvement of trees due to genetic improvement programs. 

FORsight Resources developed a version of ORGANON for BLM, referred to as 

DBORGANON, which incorporates all the basic ORGANON functions and meets the 

additional BLM requirements. DBORGANON was used to project the growth of forest 

stands greater than or equal to 15 years-old.

Conifers Model Description

CONIFERS is an individual-plant growth and yield simulator developed from young 

mixed-conifer stands in southern Oregon and northern California by the U.S. Forest 

Service. CONIFERS provides growth forecasts for young plantations of single species 

or mixed-species growing with or without competition from shrubs (Ritchie 2006). The 

growth of forest stands less than 15 years-old was simulated using the CONIFERS young 

stand growth model. The tree lists were exported to DBORGANON at stand age 15 

years-old for further simulation.
Q – 1538

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Stand Modeling Process

The prediction of forest stand development requires the growth projection of BLM’s 

existing forest stand types into the future, with and without further silvicultural 

treatments, and the simulation of stands which represent future stands, i.e., new stands 

created following timber harvest. Depending on the management direction of the 

alternatives, both existing and future stands may be subject to different intensities of 

silvicultural treatments. 

Existing Stands Modeling Groups Description

The land base consists of existing forest stands, the result of past harvests and 

natural disturbances, of various ages, structures, past management histories 

and potential for forest management. Tree lists from Current Vegetation Survey 

(CVS) inventory subplots were stratified into modeling groups as described in 

section 2 of this appendix. Using DBORGANON, these modeling groups were 

used for depicting current stand condition and simulating future development 

with and without future silvicultural treatments.

Each individual CVS subplot tree list within a modeling group was projected 

by DBORGANON subject to a common silvicultural prescription to stand 

ages 200 or 400 years-old, depending on the initial range of stand ages in the 

various modeling groups or the requirements of an alternative. Modeling groups 

consisting of younger managed stands, generally less than 60 years-old, were 

generally projected to stand age of 200 years. Older stand modeling groups 

were projected to a stand age of 400 years to insure that all CVS plots would be 

incorporated into the simulation. 

Each individual tree list entered the simulation at its current age. This resulted in 

some stands having a greater weight on the overall group average characteristics, 

depending on the distribution of plot ages in a particular modeling group. 

Future Stands Modeling Groups Description

Modeling groups and tree lists for forest stand types or silvicultural prescriptions 

for which little or no specific CVS data existed, were developed from subsets of 

the CVS data and growth was modeled with CONIFERS. 

Initial stand attributes for the future stands tree lists were derived from the 

10 and 20 years-old age class CVS subplots, stratified by DBORGANON 

variant, species group and site class. It was assumed that the future young 

stand management intensity and tools available would be similar to the past 

two decades.

Review of the data indicated that the future stands could be represented by 

three basic modeling groups for the northwestern Oregon and six groups for the 
Q – 1539

Appendix Q. Vegetation Modeling

southwestern Oregon. A single future stand tree list for each modeling group and 

site productivity was grown in CONIFERS to age 15 years-old, at which time 

the tree lists were exported to DBORGANON for further simulation. Projections 

were simulated to a stand age of 200 years-old, except for Alternative 3 where 

400-year projections were required.

These future stand projections formed the basis for initiating new stands 

following regeneration harvests in all alternatives and the “partial” harvests in 

Alterative 3. The future stands category includes “existing” stand types created 

as a result of regeneration harvest prescriptions under the current BLM Resource 

Management Plans. There were an insufficient number of CVS subplots with this 

type of management for Guide Curve modeling. Therefore, it was necessary and 

appropriate to create tree lists for simulating those silvicultural prescriptions for 

existing and future stands under the Alternative NA. 

For all alternatives, a special subset of modeling groups was developed for 

modeling future stands within geographic areas currently identified with a high 

incidence of Swiss needle cast disease. Future tree lists species composition in 

the Swiss needle cast zone was based on an assumption of higher proportions of 

disease resistant species being used for reforestation of harvested areas.

Types of Growth Curves

The results of DBORGANON growth projections are summarized in tabular 

form. Two types of curves are produced from DBORGANON simulations for 

further use by the OPTIONS model. The curves are referred to as guide and 

treatment response curves.

Guide Curves

Guide curves are used to provide guidance to the OPTIONS model with 

respect to growth curve shape and projection values. Simply stated, guide 

curves represent the growth projection of forest stands without any additional 

silvicultural treatments. Individual guide curves are developed for each modeling 

group which incorporates geographical province, species groups, current stand 

condition, and site productivity class. Future stand guide curves developed from 

CVS data were applicable to all alternatives. Separate guide curves reflecting 

two-aged silvicultural prescriptions were prepared for Alternatives NA and 3. 

Even-aged curves were developed for Alternatives 1, 2, and 3. 

Treatment Response Curves

Treatment Response curves were used to adjust the guide curves to reflect the 

effects of various silvicultural treatments (see discussion of Treatment Response). 

Simulations were done to produce curves incorporating commercial thinning 

and fertilization treatments. Precommercial thinning of future stands was 
Q – 1540

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

incorporated into the initial ORGANON guide curve tree lists, so no growth 

response curves were necessary for that treatment type.

Silvicultural prescriptions incorporating commercial thinning were developed 

using the modeling groups with stands less than 60 years-old. Guide curve 

simulations were examined for each modeling group to determine the earliest 

average age when an initial commercial thinning was feasible. 

Evaluation criteria included three factors 1) stand relative density (Curtis 1982), 

2) attainment of minimum average stand diameter and 3) minimum harvestable 

volumes. For each modeling group simulations were done to determine the 

appropriate timing of treatment based on relative density rules. Proportional 

thinning is simulated when minimum criteria were met. 

Relative density rules vary by land used allocation within alternatives. 

Silviculture prescriptions for land use allocations with timber production 

emphasis goals [Northern General Forest Management Area (Alternative NA); 

Timber Management Area (Alternatives 1 and 2) and General Landscape Area 

(Alternative 3) were thinned to maintain relative densities between 35 and 

55. The final thinning should not prevent the recovery of relative density to a 

minimum of 55 at rotation age. Assumed rotation ages for treatment response 

simulations in timber emphasis land use allocations were based on culmination of 

mean annual increment (CMAI) and range from 100 to 125 years.. 

Commercial thinnings have been found to contribute to the establishment of 

conifer regeneration in the understory of thinned stands (Bailey and Tappeiner 

1998). Simulation of the recruitment of this regeneration in the growth 

simulations was done to reflect expected stand dynamics following commercial 

thinning harvests. The ORGANON growth and yield model (Hann 2005) does 

not recognize trees with diameters less than 4.5 feet at breast height. Therefore, 

regeneration tree lists were developed using existing CVS data and growth 

relationships from current published and unpublished studies. The regeneration 

trees were added to DBORGANON simulations 20 to 25 years following any 

commercial thinning. The time lag represented the estimated time for all trees in 

the regeneration tree list to reach 4.5 feet tall.

Silviculture prescriptions for land use allocations where objectives other 

than timber are emphasized [Southern General Forest Management Area, 

Connectivity/Diversity Block, Riparian Reserve, Late Successional Reserve 

(Alternative NA); Riparian Management Area, Late Successional Management 

Area (Alternatives 1, 2, and 3)] were thinned to maintain relative densities 

between 30 to 50 to a maximum age of 80 years-old in Alternative NA, or until 

minimum desired stand structural class is attained in Alternatives 1, 2, and 3. 

Fertilization is not assumed to occur on these land use allocations.
Q – 1541

Appendix Q. Vegetation Modeling

Fertilization:

Fertilization with 200 pounds of active nitrogen per acre is simulated to occur 

after thinning in all alternatives. Fertilization was modeled when the land 

use allocation was considered part of the timber base, the stand is even-aged, 

two-aged with low green tree retention (≤ 8 dispersed retention trees per 

acre), two-aged with aggregated retention (partial harvested areas) and when 

DBORGANON criteria were met. DBORGANON criteria for treatment were 

when the stand contains 80% or more Douglas-fir by basal area and is less than 

70 years-old. 

Within the constraints of other modeling assumptions, all possible combinations 

of treatments were simulated for each modeling group to allow a wide range of 

treatment timing, combination and flexibility within the OPTIONS model.

General Silvicultural Systems and Modeling 

Approaches

A silvicultural system is a planned series of treatments for tending, harvesting, and reestablishing a stand. The system name is based on the number of age classes managed 

within a stand: even-aged, two-aged, uneven-aged. These three general silvicultural 

systems were modeled using CONIFERS in concert with DBORGANON to meet the 

objectives of the alternatives. The type of systems employed varied by alternative and 

land use allocations within alternatives. The three general systems as traditionally defined 

are most applicable to the land use allocations comprising the ASQ timber base.

The even-aged system uses the clearcutting or shelterwood cutting method to regenerate 

existing stands. The two-aged system uses a variable-retention harvest method to achieve 

the same goals. The uneven-aged system achieves regeneration through selection harvest.

Common to All Alternatives

The management of the non-ASQ land base such as; Late Successional Reserve/

Management Area and the Riparian Reserve/Management Area does not 

correspond well with any of the general silvicultural system definitions. In 

practice it is assumed that a variable-density thinning harvesting method is used. 

For modeling purposes, a commercial thinning harvest cutting trees in proportion 

to their representation in the stand was simulated for all alternatives following the 

previously described relative density criteria.

Alternative NA

Alternative NA employs a two-aged silvicultural system on the General 

Forest Management Areas, Southern General Forest Management Area and 
Q – 1542

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Connectivity/Diversity Block land use allocations. Regeneration harvests were 

modeled with the retention of a specific number of the largest overstory trees 

for non-timber objectives. The number of retention trees per acre totaled 7, 16 

or 12 respective of the Northern General Forest Management Area, Southern 

General Forest Management Area, and Connectivity/Diversity Blocks land use 

allocations. In addition, 0, 3 and 4 hardwood trees were retained respectively. The 

spatial arrangement of retention trees was modeled as dispersed retention. 

The OPTIONS model simulates retention trees by assuming that the retention 

trees continue to grow on the pre-harvest existing stand guide curve generated 

by DBORGANON while the regenerated portion of the stand follows a new 

DBORGANON generated future guide curve. The amount of green tree retention 

is determined on the basis of pre-harvest basal area being retained. For each 

land use allocation a single percent basal are was applied to all age groups, site 

classes, and modeling groups. 

For Alternative NA the amount of retention tree basal area was determined 

by simulating the growth of a young stand modeling group of average 

density and site productivity to age 100 years-old, at which time a harvest 

treatment leaving the largest 7, 12 or 15 retention trees representing the 

Northern General Forest Management Area, Connectivity/Diversity Blocks, 

and Southern General Forest Management Area respectively is done. The 

percentage of the retention tree basal area divided by the pre-harvest total 

stand basal area at age 100 years-old determines the appropriate allocation for 

modeling green tree retention in OPTIONS. 

Alternatives 1 and 2

Application of even-aged systems without green tree retention was modeled in 

Timber Emphasis Area land use allocation. Green tree retention is not required 

for Alternative 1. Green tree retention for Alternative 2 was not modeled due to 

the small amount of volume required as a minimum. 

Alternative 3

Alternative 3 employs a two-aged silvicultural system in the General Landscape 

Area generally north of Grants Pass, Oregon. Depending on landscape structural 

stage criteria and vegetation zone, regeneration harvests were modeled with 

varying amounts of retained overstory trees as dispersed retention or aggregated 

retention. An uneven-aged management silvicultural system is applied in the zone 

south of Grants Pass, Oregon on the Medford and Lakeview Districts.

The dispersed retention approach used the DBORGANON yield functions 

derived for the Alternative NA, Northern General Forest Management Area 

land use allocation which closely approximated (seven trees per acre) the 

Alternative 3 retention tree requirements for regeneration harvests of six 
Q – 1543

Appendix Q. Vegetation Modeling

trees per acre in the western hemlock zone or nine green trees per acre in the 

Douglas-fir and tanoak zones. 

Aggregated retention is designated as “partial harvest” to further distinguish the 

difference in Alternative 3 with the dispersed retention harvest method. Partial 

harvests retained retention tree blocks constituting 18%, 33% or 37% of the 

existing stand in the Douglas-fir, tanoak, and western hemlock zones respectively. 

The proportion of the pre-harvest stand basal area retained was determined using 

similar methodology to that used for Alternative NA described above with the 

following exceptions. Simulated harvest ages were 80 years-old for the Douglasfir and tanoak zones, and 120 years-old for the western hemlock zone. Also, 

the retention tree basal area was estimated using Alternative 3 retention tree 

minimum size classes definitions, which varied by vegetation zone. The basal 

area calculations also included some merchantable trees which did not meet the 

minimum retention tree size. Inclusion of these smaller trees was done based 

on the assumption that little or no harvest would generally occur within the 

aggregated retention blocks. 

Future growth of the aggregated retention blocks was represented by their 

continued growth using the pre-harvest existing stand guide curve. Growth of the 

harvested portion was represented by Alternative 1 even-aged future stand guide 

curves with no retention.

The uneven-aged management zone harvests consisted of periodic selection 

cuttings applied to stands from each representative modeling group. Harvest 

frequency ranged from 20 years to 60 years with harvests generally occurring 

more frequently on higher sites. Selection cutting was modeled as a proportional 

commercial thinning at regular intervals using residual basal area targets which 

varied by modeling group. Predominantly Ponderosa pine stands were managed 

at lower residual basal area levels than mixed-conifer groups. After each harvest 

a regeneration tree list was added to the simulation to reflect natural and artificial 

reforestation occurring. Regeneration tree lists generally included a proportional 

representation of species included in the stand’s original species mixture. 

Special adaptations to cutting practices were applied to the various modeling 

groups. For example, in the Ponderosa pine modeling groups, some stands were 

managed to reduce the proportion of Douglas-fir to favor pine growth.

Growth and Yield Adjustments

DBORGANON projections of timber yields needed to be adjusted to account for 

increased growth due to genetic tree improvement and reduced to account for the effects 

of additional overstory mortality in older and partial cut stands. Adjustments for factors 

which could substantially affect stand dynamics; including genetic tree improvement, 

Swiss needle cast disease and other overstory mortality were accomplished by means 

of factors applied within the DBORGANON model. Other factors affecting recoverable 
Q – 1544

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

commodity volumes were modeled as a percent reduction in volume. Timber defect and 

breakage, endemic insects and disease, soil compaction, future snag creation, future 

coarse woody debris creation, green tree retention were applied in the OPTIONS dataprep 

program to account for guidance requirements specific to each alternative.

Tree Improvement 

Conifer species such as Douglas-fir and western hemlock have been selected for 

genetically controlled characteristics such as high growth rates and tree form. 

BLM in cooperation with other landowners have established field test sites using 

progeny from the selected trees. These progeny test sites have been measured at 

regular intervals and the data collected has been used to select those parent trees 

which are ranked highest in growth rates. Seed orchards have been established 

to produce locally adapted seed from these selected trees for reforestation of 

harvested stands and natural deforestation.

The increased growth and yield effects from utilization of genetically improved 

seedlings was accomplished by the use of a one-time growth increase to tree lists 

exported from CONIFERS and the application of growth modifiers applied to 

future stand modeling groups in DBORGANON. 

Height and diameter of genetically improved trees exported from CONIFERS 

at age 15 years-old were increased before importation into DBORGANON by 

7% and 8% respectively based on the observed height and diameter percentage 

increase of the top one-quarter trees in the progeny tests. After importation of 

the tree lists into DBORGANON, growth modifiers were applied to future stand 

modeling groups to account for incremental genetic gain expected to accrue 

beyond age 15 years-old. Growth modifiers have been found to be an effective 

way to incorporate genetic gain from tree improvement programs into growth 

models (Carson 2003).

Growth modifiers have not been publicly developed for Pacific Northwest tree 

improvement programs, although work is currently underway (USDA 2006). 

Finalized growth modifiers for regional growth and yield models are expected 

within a year or perhaps more.

In the interim, growth modifiers were adapted from the preliminary feasibility 

work (Johnson and Marshall 2005) by BLM personnel. These factors are used 

to modify growth and mortality rates of genetically improved seedlings for 

simulations of the future stands modeling groups. The DBORGANON model 

was specifically configured to allow the use of growth modifiers for simulation of 

genetic gain and other purposes.

Growth modifiers are applied in DBORGANON as described below.

1) Growth modifiers apply to Douglas-fir within land used allocations designated 

as part of the timber base for all alternatives, when stands are managed under 

even-aged silvicultural systems, two-aged systems with aggregated overstory 
Q – 1545

Appendix Q. Vegetation Modeling

retention, or dispersed retention with low overstory density. No increased growth 

from genetic improvement is simulated for lands managed using uneven-aged 

silvicultural systems, or with high levels of dispersed retention overstory

2) Growth modifiers apply to western hemlock using the criteria as Douglas-fir 

except that it is confined to area designated as the Swiss needle cast zone on 

Salem District only (see Disease section).

3) Growth modifiers were calculated for each BLM district, but since no 

significant difference was observed, average westside BLM growth modifiers 

were used.

4) Existing BLM seed orchards have the biological capability to produce 

improved seed in excess of probable need.

5) Growth modifiers were reduced to account for pollen contamination from nongenetically improved trees adjacent to and within the BLM seed orchards.

6) Growth modifiers are applied from stand age 15 to 100 years-old.

Defect and breakage

A proportion of harvested trees can contain defects which reduce its utility from 

a commodity standpoint. Also, damage can occur during harvesting, that results 

in breakage which reduces recoverable timber volume. The proportion of volume 

which is not recoverable for commodity use generally increases with stand age. 

DBORGANON generated timber volume yields were reduced by BLM district 

specific factors derived from historical timber sale cruise and scale data.

Soil Compaction

Districts with available data as to the extent and degree of soil compaction 

applied a yield reduction factor to DBORGANON yields. The deductions were 

applied to on the Lakeview, Medford and Salem Districts.

Snag Retention

The yield impact of retaining varying amount of green trees for the creation 

of future snags was done by leaving extra retention trees or applying a percent 

volume reduction to meet the minimum snag requirements at the time of harvest. 

Retention requirements varied by alternative and by land use allocation. 

Coarse Woody Debris Retention

The yield impact of retaining varying amounts for future down woody debris on 

timber yield was modeled as a percent volume reduction at the time of harvest. 

Retention requirements were varied by alternative and land use allocation. 
Q – 1546

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Stocking Irregularity

For any level of stocking, a portion of a stand may consist of openings which 

do not contribute to stand volume at any point in time, i.e., a stand may contain 

non-stocked openings of a size sufficient to affect timber yield. These openings 

may be thought of in terms of less‐than‐perfect stocking or in terms of variation 

in tree location and fall into two categories; permanently incapable of growing 

commercial tree species, and those temporarily unoccupied by desirable trees.

Portions of stands may contain permanent areas of non-productive rock or 

other areas incapable of growing commercial tree species. This condition is 

partially accounted for through reductions in the timber base through the Timber 

Productivity Capability Classification. 

Temporarily non-stocked areas occur due to variation in reforestation success 

from a variety of non-permanent factors, such as vegetative competition or 

logging slash. 

The ORGANON model accounts for stocking variation by assuming that the 

degree of local competition experienced by a tree is reflected in its crown 

size. Trees growing next to openings have longer crowns and poor growth 

reflected as stem taper which reduces the volume of a tree next to the opening, 

compared to a similar size tree with shorter crown in an area with more uniform 

tree distribution. As long as the crown characteristics of sample trees are 

measured, then any long-term spatial variation within the stand will be modeled 

appropriately (Forsight 2006).

Since existing CVS data used for existing stands and the development of future 

stands modeling groups contain the necessary crown measurement, no external 

adjustment for stocking irregularity was applied to DBORGANON yields.

Green tree retention has two effects from a stand growth and yield standpoint. 

First, otherwise harvestable volume is foregone for commodity use at the time of 

harvest. Methodology for determining this allowance was described previously 

for each alternative. Second, retention trees compete for growing space with the 

newly regenerated trees.

The first effect of retained trees on foregone harvest volume is modeled with 

the OPTIONS model as a stand constraint. A proportion of the stand equating 

to the amount of basal area per acre of the uncut stand retained is “set-aside” 

and is simulated to continue to grow on the existing guide curve until the next 

regeneration harvest. At that time a new set of retention trees would be setaside to grow for the subsequent harvest cycle. The proportions ranged from 

approximately 10% to 20% for Alternative NA and from 18% to 37% for 

Alternative 3 depending on land use allocation or vegetation zone..

The second effect was modeled using DBORGANON for Alternative NA and by 

using a fixed percentage yield reduction for Alternative 3.
Q – 1547

Appendix Q. Vegetation Modeling

Alternative NA future modeling group tree lists included the required number 

of retained trees as overstory. The retained trees slowed the growth of the “new” 

understory in roughly proportional to the amount of retained overstory trees. The 

volume of the retention trees was not included in DBORGANON estimates of 

potential timber yield, but included for evaluating overall stand characteristics 

and structural stages. 

Alternative 3 partial harvest yields from future stands were reduced by 5% 

percent to account for “edge effect”, i.e., the effects of the aggregated retention 

blocks of overstory trees competing with the new tree regeneration. The factor 

used is an average reduction observed from modeling work in British Columbia 

(Di Lucca et al. 2004).

Disease

Two types of reductions were used to simulate the effects of endemic levels 

of insect and disease on timber yields. The first method was through the 

DBORGANON model using a growth modifiers approach for areas of Salem 

District with moderate to severe levels of Swiss needle cast disease. The second 

method used a percentage reduction in yield approach applied in OPTIONS dataprep program to the guide curves for all districts to account for other insect and 

disease effects.

Swiss needle cast

Portions of the Salem District are located in an area with moderate to high 

occurrences of Swiss needle cast disease. This disease infects Douglas-fir trees 

only and substantially reduces growth rates. It does not affect the growth of 

other tree species. A growth modifier approach similar to that used for modeling 

growth of genetically improved trees was employed in DBORGANON to reflect 

estimated growth reductions for Douglas-fir in the Swiss needle cast zone.

Three Swiss needle cast (SNC) zones were developed for BLM land consistent 

with Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) criteria, a severe, moderate, and a no 

impact zone.

BLM calculated mean foliage retention values for the severe and moderate zone 

using plot data from ODF Swiss need cast surveys. The foliage retention values 

were used to calculate growth loss in height and basal area by severity zone 

using ODF methodology (ODF 2005). The growth loss modifiers were applied in 

DBORGANON to existing and future stand modeling groups in order to simulate 

more realistic stand dynamics. 

As stands are regeneration harvested in the Swiss needle cast zones, an average 

mix of tree species will be used for reforestation that is different than the current 

stands composition. Future tree lists reflecting tree lists with a minority of Douglasfir were generated using the process described above for future stands modeling 
Q – 1548

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

groups. Tree lists with a single average species composition for both zones 

containing 28% Douglas-fir was used. Examination of the simulation results for the 

moderate and severe Swiss needle cast zones showed no substantial difference in 

predicted timber yields (<1%) so a single yield function was used.

Other Insects and Disease

Some of the effects of endemic levels of insects and disease other than Swiss 

needle cast on timber yields are assumed to be reflected in the defect and breakage 

allowance described previously and the additional overstory mortality factor 

described below. In addition to those factors, further allowance was deemed 

appropriate for insects and diseases by adjusting timber yields down by a percent 

volume reduction. These factors generally vary from about 1% to 3% increasing 

with stand age and are based are based on literature and professional judgment.

Additional Overstory Mortality Factor

The ORGANON model underestimates tree mortality from causes other than 

inter-tree competition, such as insects, disease, windthrow and stem breakage, 

(Tappeiner et al. 1997). This type of mortality is often irregular, or episodic in 

nature, and it is inherently difficult to predict the exact time period in which it 

will occur (Franklin et al 1987). For mature stands, mortality from inter-tree 

competition becomes less significant as stands age and mortality from other 

factors becomes more substantial. 

To account for mortality from these other factors, an irregular mortality 

adjustment of 1.4% per DBORGANON growth cycle (five years) was determined 

from a review of ecological literature and Continuous Forest Inventory data 

(Lewis and Pierle 1991). 

The 1.4% factor was applied to existing and future stand modeling groups 

through a function in the DBORGANON model. The factor applied only to trees 

greater than 20” diameter breast height in stands aged 100 years-old and older, to 

simulate mortality of larger trees from causes other than inter-tree competition.

In addition, partial cutting has been reported to significantly increase wind 

damage, especially during the first few years after treatment. Amount and extent 

are dependent on individual site factors, landscape conditions, and severity of 

the storm event (Strathers et al 1994). Average mortality for retained trees in 

partial cut Douglas-fir stand during the first five years post harvest from nonsuppression factors averages about 1-2% Williamson and Price 1973; McDonald 

1976; Jull 2001). To account for this type of mortality, the same 1.4% factor was 

applied to stands which represented regeneration harvests with dispersed green 

tree retention. Model limitations allowed the use of only one additional mortality 

factor in a simulation. Therefore, the additional mortality factor was applied at 

stand age of 20 years-old, corresponding to the end of the first growth cycle in 
Q – 1549

Appendix Q. Vegetation Modeling

DBORGANON to trees greater than 20” diameter breast height.

Application of the additional 1.4% mortality rate during growth simulations 

produced modeling results which more closely matched patterns of stand 

development supported by empirical data and ecological theory than simulations 

done without the factor (Lewis and Pierle 1991).

Definitions

Aggregated retention - See variable-retention harvest system

Annual Productive Capacity / Allowable Sale Quantity - These terms are synonymous. 

The timber yield that a forest can produce continuously under the intensity of management 

outlined in the RMP from those lands which are allocated for permanent forest production. 

Board foot - A unit of solid wood, one foot square and one inch thick.

Canopy - The more or less continuous cover of branches and foliage formed collectively 

by adjacent trees and other woody species in a forest stand. Where significant height 

differences occur between trees within a stand, formation of a multiple canopy (multilayered) condition can result.

Clearcutting - The cutting of essentially all trees, producing a fully exposed microclimate 

for the development of a new stand of trees.

Coarse woody debris (CWD) - Any piece(s) of dead woody material, e.g., dead boles, 

limbs, and large root masses, on the ground or in forest streams

Commercial thinning - Any type of thinning operation producing merchantable material at 

least equal to the value of the direct cost of harvesting and hauling the timber to market.

Culmination of mean annual increment (CMAI) - The age in the growth cycle of a tree 

or stand at which the mean annual increment (MAI) for volume is at maximum. At 

culmination, MAI equals the periodic annual increment (PAI). CMAI computations can 

vary widely depending on the purpose (economic or biological) and measurement criteria 

(board-foot vs. cubic-foot) 

Dispersed retention - See variable-retention harvest system

Even-aged management - A silvicultural system which creates forest stands that are 

primarily of a single age or very narrow range of ages.

Even-aged stand - A stand of trees composed of a single age class in which the range of tree 

ages is usually ± 20% of rotation

Genetic gain - The average improvement of a specific trait in a population of progeny over 

the average of the parental population, e.g., height growth increase

Tree retention - A stand management practice in which live trees as well as snags and 

large down wood, are left within harvest units to provide habitat components over the next 

management cycle
Q – 1550

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Mean annual increment (MAI) - The total cumulative quantity produced over time of 

some attribute of a tree or stand growth, e.g., wood volume divided by the total age of the 

tree or stand

Merchantable - Trees or stands having the size, quality and condition suitable for marketing 

under a given economic condition, even if not immediately accessible for logging

Multi-layered canopy - Forest stands with two or more distinct tree layers in the canopy

Overstory - That portion of trees which form the uppermost layer in a forest stand which 

consists of more than one distinct layer 

Periodic annual increment (PAI) - The difference in stand volume at two successive 

measurements, divided by the number of years between measurements. PAI is sometimes 

termed current annual increment (CAI). 

Precommercial thinning (PCT) - The practice of reducing the density of trees within a stand 

by manual cutting, girdling, or herbicides to promote growth increases or maintain growth 

rates of desirable tree species. The trees killed are generally unmerchantable and retained 

on the treated area.

Progeny test site - A test area for evaluating parent seed trees by comparing the growth of 

their offspring seedlings

Regeneration - Tree seedlings or saplings existing in a stand

Regeneration harvest - A timber harvest conducted with the partial objective of opening a 

forest stand to the point where seedlings of favored tree species will be established.

Relative density - A means of describing the level of competition among trees or site 

occupancy in a stand relative to some theoretical maximum based on tree size and species 

composition

Rotation - The number of years between establishment of a forest stand and its 

regeneration harvest

Seed orchard - A plantation of clones or seedlings from selected trees; isolated to reduce 

pollination from outside sources, weeded of undesirables, and cultured for early and 

abundant production of seed

Selection cutting - A method of uneven-aged management involving the harvesting of 

single trees from stands (single-tree selection) or in groups (group selection) without 

harvesting the entire stand at any one time

Shelterwood cutting - A method of regeneration harvest under an even-aged silvicultural 

management system. With this method a portion of the mature stand is retained as a source 

of seed and/or protection during the regeneration period. The retained trees are usually 

removed in one or more cuttings. 

Silvicultural prescription - A planned series of treatments designed to change current stand 

structure to one that meets management goals
Q – 1551

Appendix Q. Vegetation Modeling

Silvicultural system - A planned series of treatments for tending, harvesting, and reestablishing a stand. The system name is based on the number of age classes managed 

within a stand, e.g., even-aged, two-aged, uneven-aged.

Snag - Any standing (upright) dead tree

Stand - An aggregation of trees occupying a specific area and sufficiently uniform in 

composition, age, arrangement, and condition so that it is distinguishable from the forest in 

adjoining areas

Thinning - A silvicultural treatment made to reduce the density of trees within a stand 

primarily to improve tree/stand growth and vigor, and/or recover potential mortality of 

trees, generally for commodity use

Timber Productivity Capability Classification (TPCC). - Classification of BLM lands based 

on the physical and biological capability of the site to support and produce forest products 

on a sustained yield basis.

Two-aged system - A silvicultural system that regenerates and maintain stands with two age 

classes – the resulting stand maybe two-aged or trend towards an uneven-aged condition as 

a consequence of both an extended period of regeneration establishment and the retention of 

reserve (green live) trees that may represent one or more age classes.

Two-aged stand - A stand of trees composed of a two distinct age classes separated in age 

by more than ± 20% of rotation

Understory - That portion of trees or other woody vegetation which form the lower layer in 

a forest stand which consists of more than one distinct layer.

Uneven-aged management - A combination of actions that simultaneously maintain a nearly 

continuous forest cover, recurring regeneration of desirable species, and the orderly growth 

and development of trees through a range of diameter or age classes.

Uneven-aged stand - A stand with three (3) or more distinct age classes, either intimately 

mixed or in small groups

Variable-density thinning (VDT) - A thinning method where ≥ 2 densities of retained 

trees are used to promote stand heterogeneity through the development of multi-layered 

canopies. Provision of conditions conducive to the initiation and growth of regeneration is 

often an objective of VDT to encourage understory development

Variable-retention harvest system - An approach to harvesting based on the retention of 

structural elements or biological legacies (trees, snags, logs, etc.) from the harvested stand 

for integration into the new stand to achieve various ecological objectives – note the major 

variables in variable retention harvest systems are types, densities and spatial arrangement 

of retained structures; 1) aggregated retention is the retention of structures as (typically) 

small intact forest patches within the harvest unit; 2) dispersed retention is the retention of 

structures or biological legacies in a dispersed or uniform manner.

Windthrow - A tree or trees uprooted or felled by the wind.
Q – 1552

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

OPTIONS Modeling

OPTIONS Model

Background

The OPTIONS model version V (OPTIONS or the model) is a spatially 

explicit, rules-based, land management simulation model. OPTIONS, 

developed by D.R. systems inc. (DRSI), has been in use for more than 20 years 

and is regularly updated and refined to reflect current knowledge, issues in land 

management and modeling techniques. The model has been used to develop 

land management strategies and operationally feasible plans on more than 500 

million acres throughout North America, South America, the South Pacific and 

Asia. Most of these projects involved complex, multi-resource objectives and 

environmental regulations.

In the western United States OPTIONS has been used for a wide range of 

industrial and government analyses, including land trades, evaluation of 

lands for sale or purchase and the development of sustainable, multi-resource 

management plans. The model was used in Plum Creek Timber Company’s 1997 

Cascades Habitat Conservation Plan for central Washington State. The Habitat 

Conservation Plan was the first major, multi-species habitat conservation plan 

developed in the USA; for it Plum Creek won the 1997 U.S. Wildlife Stewardship 

Award. OPTIONS was also used in the Washington State Department of Natural 

Resources 2004 Sustainable Forest Management Harvest Calculations. The 

Sustainable Forest Management Harvest Calculations applied an alternatives 

based approach toward developing a long-term, sustainable, multi-resource 

forest management plan on approximately 2.1 million acres of Washington 

State Trust Lands. The approved management plan improved net revenues from 

State Trust Lands by more than 40% (more than $50 million dollars/year) while 

providing increased wildlife habitat and riparian resource protection. The model 

was also recently used to complete Pacific Lumber Company’s (PALCO) 2005 

Long-term Sustainable Yield Calculations PALCO owns approximately 217,000 

acres of redwood forest land in northern California. The PALCO project set new 

standards for sustainable yield calculations and planning in California.

Currently the model is also being used by the University of Georgia to analyze 

the impacts of proposed regulations and policies on the States’ long-term timber 

supply, by the California Department of Forestry in a pilot project investigating 

new approaches to the States’ sustainable yield calculations, as well as numerous 

operational analyses in Washington, Alaska and British Columbia, Canada. DR 

Systems’ expertise in partnership with BLM staff is using the OPTIONS model to 

analyze alternative management strategies for the Western Oregon Plan Revision. 
Q – 1553

Appendix Q. Vegetation Modeling

This analysis provides the factual basis for comparing alternatives in terms 

of the forest conditions / habitats created over time as well as determining the 

sustainable harvest levels for the Western Oregon BLM districts.

OPTIONS Model Overview

OPTIONS simulates the growth and management of individual land management 

units within a BLM Sustained Yield Unit (SYU). Land management units are 

created in a GIS process that combines multiple layers of resource information 

and objectives into a single resultant layer. Examples of these resource layers 

would include Forest Operations Inventory units, administrative boundaries, 

riparian management areas, Late-Successional Management Areas, Visual 

Resource Management areas, etc. 

Figure 340. Graphic example how a resultant layer is created from a number of resource 

layers. Multiple resource layers are overlaid in a GIS process to create a single resultant 

layer for use in OPTIONS.
Q – 1554

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

The model utilizes the resultant file to dynamically maintain all of the spatial 

identity across all contributing layers enabling the model to apply spatially 

explicit growth projections and management rules to individual resultant units 

(polygons), or groups of polygons throughout the Sustained Yield Unit. 

The planning horizon of a simulation can extend as far as 400 years. Inventory 

information for each resultant unit is used to initialize the model and for each 

subsequent year in the planning horizon growth projections forecast future 

conditions for each polygon. However, these growth projections are sensitive to 

management activities and rules.

Management activities, such as silvicultural treatments (for example site 

preparation, fertilization or pre-commercial thinning) and harvesting activities 

(for example commercial thinnings, selection harvest or regeneration harvest) are 

distinguished from management objectives such as the exclusion of harvesting 

activities within riparian management areas. Activities are applied to polygons 

individually, while objectives may be applied to individual polygons, portions of 

a polygon, or collectively to a group of polygons. 

Importantly, all objectives are implemented before any management activity can 

be applied, so harvest activities are simulated only after all environmental and 

habitat requirements have been satisfied.

Growth Projections

Throughout the planning horizon individual polygons are grown according to 

their individual forest inventory characteristics and growth trends established 

from a set of generalized growth projections. For this project, the growth 

projections were generated with the ORGANON growth and yield model. These 

projections are imported into OPTIONS and used to forecast the nominal growth 

trend of each polygon. Within the model these growth projections are further 

refined to accommodate the unique characteristics of each polygon, including 

any unique management objectives, environmental conditions or inventory 

information. Growth projection attributes are tracked and reported including: 

stand height, diameter, basal area, density, volume and live crown ratio.

Incorporating Existing Inventory Information into the Simulation

Spatially explicit forest inventory information reflects current forest 

conditions. Depicting current conditions accurately is important in 

forecasting how alternative management strategies impact future forest 

conditions, particularly in the short-term (first 20 - 50 years).

Where available, OPTIONS incorporates existing forest inventory 

information into the simulation analysis. Spatially explicit forest 

inventory information improves the analysis, but can create challenges 

because resource inventory classification systems often do not coincide 
Q – 1555

Appendix Q. Vegetation Modeling

directly with modeled growth projections. Although the generalized 

growth projections are accurate across a broad set of polygons, they do 

not capture variations of current inventory conditions at the individual 

polygon level. Thus, projecting the future growth of individual 

polygons requires an integration of existing inventory information 

with the generalized growth model projection. This integration is 

accomplished by utilizing algorithms to normalize future growth 

from the individual polygon’s current inventory condition towards 

the long-term growth model projection. The rate of normalization 

is scaled according to the proximity of the inventory value to the 

model prediction. The process, referred to as the “trend to normality” 

captures, with spatial integrity, current conditions while accounting for 

the future growth within the polygon. 

The figure below provides two examples of the trend to normality process. 

The solid line represents the growth model projection, while the dashed lines 

represent the trend to normality projections for the individual polygon. 

Figure 341. OPTIONS trend to normality examples.

Treatment Adjustments and Responses

Growth projections are sensitive to management activities such as 

silvicultural treatments. Management activities are applied to individual 

polygons only when a set of eligibility criteria are met. Polygons that 

do not meet these criteria are not treated and their growth projection 

OPTIONS Trend to Normality Examples

Example 1

 Example 2

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

Stand Age

Volume (BdFt/Ac)

Guide Curve

Growth Projection
Q – 1556

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

is uninterrupted. Stands that meet the eligibility criteria, as well as all 

other management objectives, are treated and their growth projection 

is adjusted. This adjustment is specific to stand age, species, site 

productivity level, as well as treatment type and intensity. All of these 

treatment and adjustment variables are defined in the model based on 

experience gained from the growth and yield modeling, professional 

judgment, research, and management objectives. 

The figure below provides an example of a volume growth projection 

and the adjustments applied for two stand thinning treatments. Growth 

projection for a polygon without treatment following the guide curve and 

the adjustments for two stand treatments at ages 40 and 60.

Figure 342. Example of a volume growth projection curve and adjustments for 

thinning treatments.

Management Activities and Rules

Management Activities

Forest management often requires intervention activities such as 

silvicultural treatments or harvesting activities. Silviculture treatments 

such as planting, pre-commercial thinning, pruning, fertilization, 

commercial thinning and selection harvest are explicitly defined, that is; 

their timing, intensity, duration and biological response are all defined 

in the model based on experience gained from the growth and yield 

modeling, professional judgment, and research.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200

Stand Age

Volume

Guide Curve

Growth

Projection with

Two Harvest

Treatments
Q – 1557

Appendix Q. Vegetation Modeling

Additionally, treatments are subject to stand (polygon) level and landscape 

level eligibility criteria. An example of a stand level eligibility rule would 

be a minimum age or basal area threshold. A landscape level eligibility 

criteria would be an upper limit on the commercial thinning volume, 

within a Sustain Yield Unit. Silviculture treatments were not applied unless 

all eligibility criteria were met. 

Harvesting activities are also subject to stand level and landscape 

level rules. An example of a polygon level harvest rule would be a 

minimum harvest age or a minimum residual volume per acre. There 

can be a number of landscape level harvest rules that control the 

maximum and minimum harvest levels by species type, species and 

wood-type priorities, polygon age and treatment type and landscape 

management objectives.

The figure below provides an example set of landscape level harvest 

rules requesting minimum and maximum board foot volume level by 

species group.

Figure 343. Landscape level harvest rules example.

Numerous management activities and silvicultural treatments, can be 

developed and applied in various combinations, each combination 

defines a unique management regime. Polygons within a Sustained 

Yield Unit are assigned to a single, starting management regime. On 

completion of the management regime, or because of a specific harvest 

treatment, the polygon may return to the same management regime or 

continue under a new management regime. 
Q – 1558

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Land and Resource Management Rules

In OPTIONS, resource management objectives can be applied as 

targets or constraints. 

Targets and constraints can be applied to individual polygons or 

collectively to a group of polygons. Targets and constraints are applied 

for each year in the planning horizon, so all management objectives are 

maintained for every year within the planning horizon.

Targets are used to control conditions at the landscape level. For example, 

a target may be used to ensure that at any point in time 15% of the forested 

BLM ownership within a fifth field watershed will be in stands 80 years 

and older before regeneration harvest may occur. The model is flexible 

about which particular polygons are reserved to satisfy the target criteria. 

If current stand conditions do not achieve the target criterion the model 

will evaluate and recruit polygons that will contribute toward meeting the 

criterion soonest. Recruited polygons are deferred from harvest ensuring 

that the target criterion is met as soon as possible. Each year within the 

planning horizon, the model checks that sufficient polygons are available 

and deferred to meet the target criteria. The model only defers reserves 

enough polygons to meet the modeling targets, thus allowing non-deferred 

polygons to contribute toward meeting other management objectives.

Constraints set explicit limitations on the amount, or kind, of activities 

permitted for an individual polygon, portion of a polygon or across a 

group of polygons, for a defined period. The defined period can extend 

through the entire planning horizon, or it can be defined for a shorter 

timeframe. For example, constraints can be used to exclude regeneration 

harvest activities from a riparian area throughout the entire planning 

horizon, while allowing commercial thinning activities until the stand 

reaches an age of 80, after which no further treatments are permitted. 

GIS Based Modeling Rules 

Introduction 

The attributes associated the GIS spatial data are used in OPTIONS 

to identify areas which modeling rules are applied to simulate the 

management action and land use allocations for the alternatives. This 

section will describe, by topic area, the modeling rules and GIS data as 

they were applied to simulate the alternatives with the OPTIONS model.
Q – 1559

Appendix Q. Vegetation Modeling

1) Sustained Yield Units (SYU) - 

The BLM lands are subdivided into Sustained Yield Units for the purpose 

of defining the area which the allowable sale quantity will be based. The 

Sustained Yield Units are based on the BLM lands within the District 

boundaries for Salem, Eugene, Roseburg, Coos Bay, and Medford 

Districts. The western portion of the Klamath Falls Resource Area within 

the Lakeview District is also a SYU. The eastern portion of the Klamath 

Falls Resource Area does not contain any O&C lands and a sustained 

yield unit is not designated. The Forest Operations Inventory (FOI) 

District attribute data was used as the basis for the Sustained Yield Units 

in the OPTIONS modeling. The Land Use Allocation data segregated 

the Klamath Falls Resource into the Klamath SYU and the eastside 

management lands. An estimate of the sustainable harvest level was 

done for the eastside management lands under the No Action Alternative 

modeling assumptions. Allocations and management direction did not 

vary across alternatives for the eastside management lands and so they 

were not modeled in action Alternatives.

2) Non Forest - 

Non forest areas in the OPTIONS model remain static in the projections 

and do not carry vegetation attributes. Non forest information was 

derived from multiple sources of GIS data to form the non forest class in 

the OPTIONS modeling. 

• Transportation data buffered by 22.5 feet to simulate the 

road network.

• Timber Productivity Capability Classification non 

forest classes. 

• Forest Operations Inventory Existing Stand Condition non 

forest class.

• In Alternatives 2 and 3 – open water class from the 

streams data.

3) Timber Productivity Capability Classification (TPCC) 

- The TPCC inventory is described in detail in the Inventory Data section 

of this appendix. Common to all alternatives the non suitable woodlands 

and the suitable woodland categories of low site and non commercial 

species had no harvest modeled and were not included in the ASQ.

In the No Action Alternative the reforestation suitable woodlands had 

no harvest modeled and were not included in the ASQ. In the Action 

Alternatives these lands had harvest modeled and did contribute to 

the ASQ.
Q – 1560

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

4) Recreation Sites - 

In all Alternatives the existing recreation sites had no harvest modeled 

and were not included in the ASQ. In the Action Alternatives the 

proposed recreation sites had no harvest modeled and were not included 

in the ASQ. In the No Action Alternative the proposed recreation sites 

lands had harvest modeled and did contribute to the ASQ.

5) Wild and Scenic Rivers - 

In all Alternatives the existing Wild and Scenic Rivers had no harvest 

modeled and were not included in the ASQ. In the Action Alternatives 

the eligible Wild and Scenic Rivers had no harvest modeled and were 

not included in the ASQ. In the No Action Alternative the eligible 

Wild and Scenic Rivers had harvest modeled and did contribute to the 

ASQ. In the No Action Alternative the existing recreation segments had 

harvest modeled and did contribute to the ASQ. (Note: not all recreation 

segments were able to be identified and put in the harvest land base)

6) Visual Resource Management (VRM) -

In all Alternatives the VRM class one had no harvest modeled and 

was not included in the ASQ. Under alternative 2, on the PD or 

acquired lands, no regeneration harvest was applied on VRM class 

two (Note: The VRM class one GIS data was only used in the No 

Action Alternative and Alternative 2. In the Action Alternatives 

the combination of the Wild and Scenic River and Congressionally 

Reserved covered this allocation.) 

7) Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) – 

In the No Action Alternative all of the existing ACECs had no harvest 

modeled and were not included in the ASQ. The proposed ACECs 

had harvest modeled and did contribute to the ASQ. In the Action 

Alternatives all of the existing and proposed ACECs which passed 

through the O&C filter had no harvest modeled and were not included in 

the ASQ. Those ACECs which did not pass through the O&C filter had 

harvest modeled and did contribute to the ASQ.

O&C Filter - Used the following evaluation to determine how the each 

ACEC was modeled.

a) All ACECs which were Research Natural Areas (RNAs) had no 

harvest modeled and were not included in the ASQ. 

b) For each of the Action Alternatives the districts reviewed the existing 

and proposed ACECs and designated them as:
Q – 1561

Appendix Q. Vegetation Modeling

• Whole ACEC does not conflict with the timber management 

objectives (On PD lands or on non commercial forest lands). 

These areas had no harvest modeled and were not included 

in the ASQ. 

• A portion of the ACEC is in conflict with timber 

management but the portion of the ACEC outside of the 

O&C lands would remain as a valid ACEC. These portions 

of the ACECs that were not on O&C or CBWR lands had no 

harvest modeled and were not included in the ASQ. 

• The entire ACEC conflicts with timber management 

objectives and is not carried forward under the 

alternative. These areas had harvest modeled and did 

contribute to the ASQ. 

8) Marbled Murrelet Sites

Existing occupied marbled murrelet sites. 

• No Action, and Alternative 1, these areas had no harvest modeled 

and were not included in the ASQ.

• Alternative 2 they became part of the Late-Successional 

Management Area which had thinning harvest modeled but this 

volume does not contribute to the ASQ. 

• Alternative 3 had no harvest modeled until the landscape targets were 

met. In the modeling one decade after the landscape target were met 

these areas became available for harvest and they contributed to the 

ASQ. See the Assessment Area description for further information on 

the landscape targets and release dates.

The No Action Occupied Marbled Murrelet Site (OMMS) data was used 

to simulate the existing sites. 

Projected future marbled murrelet sites.

Some alternatives have management action to limit harvest around 

marbled murrelet sites as they are identified. To simulate this in the 

modeling the stands which are 120 years and older that are within 4 

townships from the coast were used as a surrogate.

•	 No Action and Alternative 1, for Coos Bay only, had no harvest 

modeled and were not included in the ASQ. The LSR / LSMA in 

Salem and Eugene encompassed the majority of the area within 4 

townships of the coast so no simulation was needed. 

•	 Alternative 2 had no projection for future sites.
Q – 1562

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

•	 Alternative 3 had no harvest modeled until the landscape targets were 

met. In the modeling, one decade after the landscape target was met, 

these areas became available for harvest and they contributed to the 

ASQ. See the Assessment Area description for further information on 

the landscape targets and release dates.

9) Northern Spotted Owl 

•	 No Action alternative had 100 acres known owl activity centersidentified 

which had no harvest modeled and were not included in the ASQ.

•	 No Action Alternative had Reserve Pair Areas identified in the 

Salem district.

•	 The suitable and next best reserved areas had no harvest 

modeled and were not included in the ASQ.

•	 The dispersal, next best, and non-habitat received 

thinning only with no regeneration harvest. These lands 

had thinning harvest modeled but this volume did not 

contribute to the ASQ.

• Alternatives 1 and 2 no provisions for site management.

• Alternative 3 had 250 acre activity centers identified which had 

no harvest modeled until the landscape targets were met. In the 

modeling, one decade after the landscape target was met, these 

areas became available for harvest and they contributed to the ASQ. 

See the Assessment Area description for further information on the 

landscape targets and release dates.

10) Survey and Manage Species – 

In the No Action alternative the survey and manage species sites had no 

harvest modeled and were not included in the ASQ. 

11) Special Status Species – 

In the action alternatives the special status species which were on Public 

Domain or Acquired lands had no harvest modeled and were not included 

in the ASQ.

12) Species Management Areas 

•	 No Action alternative species management areas were identified for 

bald eagle, golden eagles, goshawk, and great grey owl sites. These 

areas had no harvest modeled and were not included in the ASQ. 

•	 In the action alternatives the bald eagle sites had no harvest modeled 

and were not included in the ASQ. 
Q – 1563

Appendix Q. Vegetation Modeling

13) Riparian

GIS Modeling

The riparian reserves / riparian management areas vary across the 

alternatives based upon the management action outlined in chapter two. 

GIS modeling was employed to estimate the extent of riparian areas so 

that management action could be simulated in the OPTIONS modeling. 

The GIS modeling, depending on the alternative, had many factors 

to consider in estimating the riparian area; presence/absence of fish, 

potential tree height adjusted specifically for each area, perennial versus 

intermittent streams, wetlands, lakes, ponds, and the potential to deliver 

large wood to streams. The description below is general in nature. The 

GIS metadata contains the technical details of the GIS riparian modeling.

• No Action Alternative and Alternative 1. GIS modeling varied 

the application of the site potential tree height based on district 

computed values usually by fifth field watershed. To determine the 

GIS buffering widths the potential tree heights were adjusted for the 

average stream side adjacent slope as determined by GIS analysis for 

each 5th field watershed. Attributes from the hydrography data were 

used to determine the presence and absence of fish, if a stream was 

intermittent or perennial, and the identification of ponds, wetlands 

and lakes. The GIS data for the OPTIONS modeling identified those 

areas in the riparian reserves as a Y/N classification. 

• Alternative 2. Three riparian management area zones were identified 

with GIS buffering of the hydrography data. All fish bearing streams 

0-25 feet (buf25). All non fish bearing intermittent 0-25 feet (shrub). 

Perennial and fish bearing 25-100 feet (buf100). GIS modeling was 

done to identify the areas likely to deliver large wood to streams 

which were identified in addition to the GIS buffering of the 

hydrography data (WDFLOW).

• Alternative 3. Four riparian management areas zones were identified 

with GIS buffering of the hydrography data. 0-25 feet on all streams. 

Within the Coquille tribal management area for all perennial 

streams and all intermittent streams with fish 25-50 feet. Within the 

Coquille tribal management area for all fish bearing streams 50-100 

feet. Outside the Coquille tribal management area for all perennial 

streams and all intermittent streams with fish 25-100 feet.

• Alternative 2 and 3 riparian GIS analysis identified open water which 

was not recognized in the No Action and alternative 1 data. The open 

water was added to the other classes of non forest and not included in 

the riparian area in Alternatives 2 and 3.
Q – 1564

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

OPTIONS Modeling Rules

In the OPTIONS modeling any harvest coming from the riparian areas 

does not contribute to the ASQ since the management action / modeling 

rules preclude continuous management. The shrub riparian area in 

Alternative 2 does contribute to the ASQ because these harvest practices 

can continue over time. Harvest levels are determined for these lands 

along for the duration which harvest can occur given the modeling rules. 

Operability limitations were modeled by limiting thinning activities 

within each riparian polygon to a maximum of 50% of the polygon area. 

Additionally, riparian stand that were commercially thinned were then 

deferred from subsequent thinning treatments for 60 years. This deferral 

was applied to the entire polygon.

Table 296. Riparian modeling rules by alternative

Alternative GIS Data Riparian Modeling Rules 

No Action Y – Yes inside riparian reserve

•	 No regeneration harvest

•	 Commercial thinning modeled up to age 80, in 

Salem Adaptive Management Areas up to 

age 110 

•	 50% operability by polygon 

Alternative 1 Y – Yes, inside riparian management 

area

•	 No regeneration harvest

•	 Commercial thinning modeled up to age 80.

•	 50% operability by polygon 

Alternative 2

0-25 ft •	 No harvesting activities modeled

25-100 ft

•	 No harvest in stands 80 years and older. 

•	 No regeneration harvest modeled

•	 Commercial thinning modeled up to age 80

•	 50% operability by polygon 

Shrub •	 Regeneration harvest modeled with 10-15 conifer 

green tree retention. (Contributes to ASQ)

Wood Debris Flow Area •	 No harvest activities modeled.

Alternative 2 

Sub-Alternative 

Maximum Harvest

0-25 ft •	 No harvest activities modeled.

Alternative 3

0-25 ft •	 No harvesting activities modeled

25-50 ft

Coquille Management Area

•	 No harvest in stands 80 years and older. 

•	 No regeneration harvest modeled.

•	 Commercial thinning modeled to age 80

•	 50% operability by polygon

50-100 ft

Coquille Management Area

•	 No regeneration harvest modeled

•	 50% operability by polygon

25-100 ft

Outside Coquille Management Area

•	 No harvest in stands 80 years and older 

•	 No regeneration harvest modeled

•	 Commercial thinning modeled to age 80

•	 50% operability by polygon
Q – 1565

Appendix Q. Vegetation Modeling

14) Congressionally Reserved - 

Congressionally reserved areas had no harvest modeled and were not 

included in the ASQ across all alternatives. The Land Use Allocation and 

Wild and Scenic Rivers GIS data was used to define these areas.

15) Late-Successional Reserves (LSR) - 

The Late-Successional Reserves had only thinning harvests modeled 

in those stands less than 80 years of age for the No Action Alternative. 

This volume estimate is not included in the ASQ since the harvest 

would diminish over time as the stands eligible for thinning matured. 

The OPTIONS modeling projected the duration and volume levels for 

this harvest as it stepped down over time. The Land Use Allocation GIS 

theme was used to define this allocation. The other Northwest Forest 

Plan LSR components, Occupied Marbled Murrelet Sites and Know 

Owl Activity Centers, were modeled independently of the large block 

reserves. Also see the Adaptive Management Area Reserve section.

16) Late-Successional Management Areas (LSMA) - 

Late-Successional Management Areas were defined for Alternatives 1 and 2.

•	 Alternative 1 LSMAs were based on the No Action alternative 

Late-Successional Reserves. Commercial thinning treatments within 

LSMA were consistent with the No Action LSR thinning treatments. 

Thinning was modeled in stands less than 80 years of age. 

•	 Alternative 2 LSMAs were developed by BLM utilizing rules for size 

and spacing of large blocks which was based on current science for the 

Northern Spotted Owl and discussions from the draft Northern Spotted 

Owl recovery team. The initial GIS mapping of these large blocks 

was revised in the OPTIONS data preparation program to designate 

whole BLM parcels/sections based on a majority rule. In addition the 

existing Occupied Marbled Murrelet Sites were added to the LSMA. 

Commercial thinning treatments within LSMA were consistent with 

the No Action LSR thinning treatments. Thinning was modeled in 

stands less than 80 years of age. 

Harvest projections for the LSMAs are not included in the ASQ 

estimates. With the absence of regeneration harvest, timber production 

from commercial thinning would diminish over time as the stands mature 

and become ineligible for thinning.

17) Adaptive Management Area and Late Successional Reserves – 

Under the No Action alternative there are Adaptive Management Area 

designations which overlap the Late-Successional Reserves in the Salem 
Q – 1566

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

and Medford Districts. The Medford area was modeled the same as the 

Late-Successional Reserves, with thinning harvests limited to those 

stands less than 80 years of age. For the Salem area the thinning harvest 

was modeled up to age 110. Harvest projections for the areas are not 

included in the ASQ estimates. With the absence of regeneration harvest, 

timber production from commercial thinning would diminish over time 

as the stands mature and become ineligible for thinning. The OPTIONS 

modeling projected the duration and volume levels for this harvest as it 

stepped down over time. The Land Use Allocation GIS theme was used 

to define this allocation. 

18) Adaptive Management Areas (AMAs) - 

Adaptive Management Areas applied to the No Action Alternative. 

These are the portions of the AMA that exist outside Late-Successional 

Reserves.

•	 The AMAs in the Eugene and Roseburg, were modeled the same as 

General Forest Management Areas (GFMA).

•	 The Medford AMA was modeled the same the same as Southern 

General Forest Management Areas (S_GFMA).

The modeled harvest from these areas was included in the ASQ.

•	 The Salem AMA was modeled under thinning only, up through age 

110, with no regeneration harvest. Since this harvest level would 

diminish over time the modeled volume was not included in the 

Allowable Sale Quantity. 

Modeling reductions to the harvest land base for administratively 

withdrawn and riparian reserves within the AMAs was the same as 

within the surrounding matrix lands. The Land Use Allocation GIS layer 

was used to define this allocation.

19) Connectivity Diversity Blocks - 

The connectivity diversity block allocations applied only to the No 

Action alternative. OPTIONS modeling rules were established so 

regeneration harvest will not occur until at least 25% of the forest area 

in the blocks was in stands 80 years or older. For each block a maximum 

of 1/150th of the forested area could be at age zero (regenerated) to 

simulate the area control requirement. The modeling blocks were based 

on all of the connectivity diversity lands within a township and Sustained 

Yield Unit. The Land Use Allocation GIS layer was used to define this 

allocation on a gross basis. The net acreage modeled for harvest is the 

area remains after all other reductions to the harvest land base have been 

made. The modeled harvest from these areas was included in the ASQ. 
Q – 1567

Appendix Q. Vegetation Modeling

20) General Forest Management Areas (GFMA) - 

The GFMA allocation applied only to the No Action alternative. The 

Southern GFMA in the Medford District and the Klamath Falls SYU has 

older minimum harvest ages and higher green tree retention than the GFMA

allocations in the other SYUs. The Land Use Allocation GIS layer was used 

to define this allocation on a gross basis. The net acreage modeled for harvest 

is the area remains after all other reductions to the harvest land base. The 

modeled harvest from these areas was included in the ASQ. 

21) Timber Management Area (TMA) - 

The TMA allocation applied to Alternatives 1 and 2. On a gross basis 

these are the lands outside of the Late-Successional Management 

Area, Riparian Management Area, Congressionally Reserved, and the 

Monument. The net acreage modeled for harvest is the area which 

remains after all other reductions to the harvest land base. The modeled 

harvest from these areas was included in the ASQ. 

22) General Landscape Area (GLA) - 

The GLA allocation applied to Alternative 3. On a gross basis these are 

the lands outside of the Riparian Management Area, Congressionally 

Reserved, and the Monument. The net acreage modeled for harvest is 

the area which remains after all other reductions to the harvest land. The 

modeled harvest from these areas was included in the ASQ. 

23) District Defined Reserves - 

Under the No Action Alternative there are district defined reserves that 

were established in the 1995 RMP. These lands are defined in the Land 

Use Allocation GIS layer. No harvest was modeled for these areas and 

they were not included in the ASQ. 

24) Miscellaneous District No Harvest Areas - 

Under all alternatives individual OI units were earmarked by the districts 

to be excluded from the harvest land base for modeling. These included 

communications sites, seed orchards, and some omissions in the TPCC 

data for Klamath Falls. No harvest was modeled for these areas and they 

were not included in the ASQ. 

25) Wilderness Characteristics - 

Under the action alternatives wilderness characteristics areas were 

identified in GIS. Only those lands which fell on Public Domain were 
Q – 1568

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

considered in the modeling. For those areas no harvest was modeled for 

these and they were not included in the ASQ. 

26) Medford Granitic Soils - 

For the No Action Alternative the areas identified in GIS for the Medford 

district as granitic soils in the Northern General Forest management 

Areas were modeled under the southern General Forest Management 

Areas prescriptions.

27) Medford Frost Areas -

For the No Action Alternative the areas identified in GIS for the Medford 

district as frost areas called for developing unique prescriptions to 

establish shelterwood prescriptions to retain trees for 30 years. The 

area was 8,000 acres in size. Due to the small size and complexity of 

modeling this no specific modeling was done for this area.

28) Medford Deferred Watersheds - 

The Medford district 1995 RMP identified a set of monitoring watersheds 

which were deferred from harvest for one decade.

•	 In the No Action Alternative these areas had no harvest modeled 

for 1 decade. After that these areas would have harvest modeled 

according to the underlying land use allocation and contribute to the 

ASQ. There was a GIS data issue that one watershed was included 

that was not intended to be deferred and another was omitted. 

Overall the modeling was 500 acres short on modeling this deferral.

•	 In Alternative 1 these watersheds were modeled as completely 

deferred with no harvest activities simulated. These lands did not 

contribute to the ASQ. The GIS data was corrected from the No 

Action dataset.

29) 15% Standard and Guideline (15% S&G) - 

The 15% S&G was modeled in the No Action Alternative. The OPTIONS 

model did not conduct any regeneration harvest until 15% of the forest area 

with in each fifth field (with in the SYU) was in stands 80 years or older. 

This constraint was enforced annually, prohibiting watersheds from going 

below the threshold. Thinning treatments were modeled irrespective of the 

15% S&G status. Harvest in these areas does or does not contribute to the 

ASQ depending on the underlying land use allocation.
Q – 1569

Appendix Q. Vegetation Modeling

30) Swiss Needle Cast Area - 

The Salem district identified the current extent of the Swiss needle cast 

infection exists. The OPTIONS model used a unique set of species 

groups to reflect the reduced yields of existing stands or the future 

growth and yields of disease resistant species mixes in the existing 

infection area. 

31) Alt 3 Assessment Areas – Landscape Targets - 

A review of the age which the OPTIONS projection achieved Northern 

Spotted Owl habitat (category 4) was conducted for each province 

/ SYU. From this review age 90 years or 140 years thresholds were 

established for each province / SYU for use as the landscape targets. 

Assessment areas were established based on the combination of province 

/ SYU which were outside of the Uneven-aged management area in 

Medford and Klamath Falls and the Coquille Tribal management area. In 

OPTIONS regeneration harvest was not modeled until 50% of the forest 

area in each assessment area was above the landscape target age. Partial 

harvest and commercial thinning were modeled for the entire projection 

period independent of the landscape targets and assessment areas. 

Marbled Murrelet Sites and Northern Spotted owl sites were modeled as 

no harvest until one decade after the landscape targets were met. At that 

time those lands were available for harvest. 
Q – 1570

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Table 297. Alt 3 Landscape Areas, Habitat Threshold Ages and Assessment Area Names

Alt 3 Landscape Areas, Habitat Threshold Ages and Assessment Area Names

Cascades Coast Klamath Total (acres)

Coos Bay 269,634 51,533 321,166 

Threshold Age 90 Years 90 Years

Assessment 

Area

CB Coast / 

Coquille CB Klamath

Eugene 151,974 160,286 312,261 

Threshold Age 90 Years 90 Years

Assessment 

Area Eug Cascades Eug Coast

K-Falls 51,306 51,306 

Threshold Age n/a

Assessment 

Area Uneven Age

Medford 229,873 636,819 866,692 

Threshold Age 140 Years & n/a 140 Years & n/a

Assessment 

Area

Med Cascades & Uneven 

Age Med Klamath & Uneven Age

Roseburg 152,313 129,039 142,236 423,588 

Threshold Age 90 Years 90 Years 140 Years

Assessment 

Area Ros Cacades Ros Coast Ros Klamath

Salem 170,027 232,157 402,184 

Threshold Age 90 Years 90 Years

Assessment 

Area Sal Cascades Sal Coast

32) Coquille Tribal Management Area 

The Coquille Tribal Management Area was modeled in Alternative 2 

and 3. No northern spotted owl site harvest constraints were applied 

in this area under both alternatives. Under Alternative 3 the landscape 

targets were not applied which limited regeneration harvest. See Riparian 

section for Alternative 3 modeling for the riparian area. The TMA/ GLA 

lands were modeled under the No Action GFMA prescription.
Q – 1571

Appendix Q. Vegetation Modeling

GIS Data – Modeling Harvest and 

Contribution to ASQ

The Table below provides a summary of how each category of GIS data was modeled and 

which categories contribute to the Allowable Sale Quantity. 

Table 298. GIS Modeling Data Categories

GIS Modeling Data Categories No Action Alternative 

1

Alternative 

2

Alternative 

3

Roads X X X X

TPCC Non Forest X X X X

TPCC Non Suitable Woodlands N N N N

TPCC Suitable Woodlands - Low Site and Non 

Commercial Species N N N N

TPCC Suitable Woodlands - Reforestation N Y Y Y

Recreation Sites Existing N N N N

Recreation Sites Proposed Y N N N

Wild and Scenic Rivers - Existing N N N N

Wild and Scenic Rivers - Eligible Y N N N

Visual Resource Management Class 1 N N N N

Areas Of Critical Environmental Concern - Existing N

N – If 

Passes O&C 

Filter

N –If Passes 

O&C Filter

N – If 

Passes O&C 

Filter

Areas Of Critical Environmental Concern - 

Proposed Y

N – If 

Passes O&C 

Filter

N – If 

Passes O&C 

Filter

N – If 

Passes O&C 

Filter

Occupied Marbled Murrelet Sites N N N D

Simulation Future Marbled Murrelet Sites N N N D

Known Owl Activity Centers N - 100 

Acres Y Y D - 250 Acres

Reserve Pair Areas (Salem) N N/A N/A N/A

Survey and Manage Species N N/A N/A N/A

Special Status Species N/A

N - For 

Those On 

PD Lands

N - For 

Those On 

PD Lands

N - For 

Those On 

PD Lands

Species Mangement Areas N N - For 

Eagle Sites

N - For 

Eagle Sites

N - For 

Eagle Sites

Riparian Reserves P N/A N/A N/A

Riparian Mangement Areas N/A P P P

LUA - Congressionally Reserved N N N N

LUA - Late-Successional Reserves P N/A N/A N/A

LUA - Late-Successional Management Areas N/A P P N/A

LUA - Adaptive Management Areas Y/P N/A N/A N/A

LUA - Adaptive Management Areas/Reserves P N/A N/A N/A

LUA - Connectivity Diversity Blocks Y N/A N/A N/A

LUA - General Forest Management Areas Y N/A N/A N/A
Q – 1572

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

LUA - Southern General Forest Management Areas Y N/A N/A N/A

LUA - Timber Management Area N/A Y Y N/A

LUA - Gen Landscape Area N/A N/A N/A Y

LUA - District Defined Reserves N N/A N/A N/A

Misc. District No Harvest Areas N N N N

Wilderness Characteristics on PD Lands Y N N N

Medford Deferred Watersheds D N N/A N/A

15% Standard & Guide D N/A N/A N/A

• Y = Harvest is modeled and contributes to ASQ

• P = Harvest is modeled but does not contribute to ASQ since the harvest can not 

be sustained continuously over time.

• N = No harvest is modeled.

• D = Harvest is deferred for 1 or more decades and contributes to ASQ.

• X = Non Forest

• N/A = Does not apply to the alternative

Sub Alternatives & Benchmark Analysis 

Modeling Rules

Sub Alternative Analysis

1) Alternative 1 with No harvest of stands 200 years and older. All existing Forest 

Operations Inventory units with a stand age of 200 years or older were modeled as 

not available for harvest.

2) Alternative 1 with No harvest of stands 80 years and older. All existing Forest 

Operations Inventory units with a stand age of 80 years or older were modeled as not 

available for harvest.

3) Alternative 1 with No Regeneration Harvest until Thinning Opportunities were 

Depleted – Thinning was given the highest priority in requested volume.

4) Alternative 1 adding Northern Spotted Owl (NSO) Critical Habitat to the LateSuccessional Management Area (LSMA). The GIS data for NSO critical habitat 

was added to the LSMA allocation and modeled under those rules.

5) Alternative 2 Short Rotation - The objective was to mimic industrial forestry 

practices within the Timber Management Area minimum harvest ages were set to 

approximate the general range of harvest ages displayed in Figures 6.1, 6.3 and 6.4 of 

PNW GTR-633. Within the OPTIONS model, no commercial thinning was applied 

to the Timber Management Area for this sub-alternative.
Q – 1573

Appendix Q. Vegetation Modeling

6) Alternative 3 – Low Government Ownership. Those BLM sections or parcels 

of land which were in areas that were in less than 50% (based on a roving 25 square 

mile circle) in State or Federal Ownership were identified as low government 

ownership. For these lands no landscape target (50% of assessment area in stands 

90/140 years of age) was applied. The assessment areas for the high government 

lands were changed to the entire SYU, excluding the uneven aged management area 

and Coquille management area. This change was made because the exclusion of 

the low ownership areas from the assessment areas made for illogical variable sized 

assessment areas. 

Table 299. Alt 2 Short Rotation Subalternative - Minimum Harvest Ages 

by Species Group and Site (Productivity) Class

Alt 2 Short Rotation Subalternative - Minimum Harvest Ages 

by Species Group and Site (Productivity) Class

W. Hemlock Zone Douglas-fir & 

Tanoak Zones

Species Species Forest Maturity Criteria

Group Group SP5 SP4 SP3 SP2 SP1

HNCM ONCM 60 55 50 45 40

HNDF ONDF 60 55 50 45 40

HNHM ONHM 60 55 50 45 40

HSCH OSCH 70 65 60 55 50

HSDF OSDF 70 65 60 55 50

HSHW OSHW 70 65 60 55 50

HSMC OSMC 70 65 60 55 50

HSTF OSTF 80 75 70 65 60

HPP OPP 80 75 70 65 60

J J

NF NF

ROAD ROAD

SSCH SSCH

SSDF SSDF

SSHW SSHW

SSMC SSMC

SSTF SSTF

SPP SPP

SJ SJ

HCNCM OCNCM 60 55 50 45 40

HCNDF OCNDF 60 55 50 45 40

HCNHM OCNHM 60 55 50 45 40
Q – 1574

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Reference Analysis

1) Maximum Harvest – 

The Alternative 2 data was used for this analysis. All lands were 

made available for harvest with the exception of ; TPCC Non Suitable 

Woodlands, TPCC Suitable Woodland (low site and non commercial 

species), Wild and Scenic Rivers, existing recreation sites. 25’ buffer 

on streams (buf_25), Congressionally Reserved lands, and the National 

Monument. CMAI was used in setting the minimum harvest ages similar 

to Alternative 2.

2) No Harvest – 

No harvest was simulated.

Green Tree Retention

No Action Alternative

Green Tree Retention (GTR) was modeled as a stand level constraint in the No 

Action Alternative. Within each polygon a retention level was applied at the time of 

harvest. Retention levels varied by land use allocation as presented in Table 300.

Table 300. Green tree retention percent by land use allocation for the No Action analysis

Land Use Allocation Green Tree Retention 

Percent

General Forest Management Area (GFMA), North 

GFMA, Adaptive Management Areas, No Designation 11%

South General Forest Management Area (including 

Granitic Soils Areas) 24%

Connectivity Diversity Blocks, District Defined 

Reserves, Congressionally Reserved, National 

Monument

18%

Late Successional Reserves, Adaptive Management 

Area Reserves Not Applicable

Eastside Management Lands Not Applicable

The retained portions of the polygons were modeled as contiguous areas and 

reserved until a subsequent rotation when the areas were made available for 

harvest and GTR retention was applied. Thus, in each subsequent harvest a 

smaller portion of the original retention area was reserved while younger GTR 

areas were also retained. 
Q – 1575

Appendix Q. Vegetation Modeling

The figure below provides a graphic example of modeling 11% green tree 

retention. In the model the retention areas is not spatially defined with in the 

polygon but is tracked as a proportion of the area. 

Figure 344. Green tree retention accounting within the OPTIONS model.

Polygon prior to first harvest. Stand age 100 years. Area 20 acres.

Polygon after first harvest. Retention stand age 101, area 2.2 acres; regeneration 

age 1, area 17.8 acres.

Polygon prior to second harvest. Retention stand age 181, area 2.2 acres; 

regeneration age 81, area 17.8 acres.

Polygon after second harvest. Oldest retention stand age 181, area 0.24 acres; 

younger retention stand age 81, area 1.96 acres; regeneration age 1, area 17.8 acres.
Q – 1576

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Alternative 1

No green tree retention was applied in Alternative 1

Alternative 2 

Management action for two trees per acre green tree retention was not simulated 

in the modeling since the volume reduction would be minor. Green tree retention 

for the Coquille Management Area was modeled the same as the No Action 

alternative General Forest Management Area. 

Modeling of the tree retention levels for future snags and coarse woody debris 

in the Late-Successional Management Areas varied individual SYUs and 

physiographic provinces. This retention was modeled as a stand level constraint 

by reserving a percentage of each stand being thinned.

Table 301. Late Successional Management Areas tree retention percent by Sustained 

Yield Unit / Retention Zone.

Retention 

Zone Lakeview Salem Eugene Roseburg Medford Coos Bay

Western 

Hemlock 0% 7% 8% 14% 0% 8%

Douglas-fir 9% 0% 0% 8% 12% 0%

Tan Oak 9% 0% 0% 0% 13% 5%

Alternative 3

Assessment areas were established based on the combination of province / 

SYU which were outside of the Uneven-aged management area in Medford and 

Klamath Falls and the Coquille Tribal management area. Age thresholds (90 yr 

or 140 yr) were established as landscape target for each assessment area. (See 

GIS Based Modeling Rules – Assessment Areas) Regeneration harvests were not 

modeled until 50% of the Assessment Area was in ages at or above the landscape 

target threshold. 

After regeneration harvests green tree retention was modeled in a similar manner 

as in the No Action and Alternative 2. However, retention levels for Alternative 3 

were based on species group.
Q – 1577

Appendix Q. Vegetation Modeling

Table 302. Regeneration harvest percent volume tree retention for green tree, snag, 

and coarse woody debris creation by species group.

Species Group Green Tree 

Retention Percent

Green Tree + Future 

Snag and CWD

Northern Hardwood Mixed 7% 15%

Northern Mixed Conifer 6% 14%

Northern Douglas-fir 6% 14%

Southern Douglas-fir 7% 10%

Southern Mixed Conifer 8% 12%

Sothern Conifer Hardwood 10% 13%

Southern Hardwood 9% 13%

Southern True Fir 8% 11%

Ponderosa Pine 15% 24%

In Alternative 3 intermediate harvests, termed partial harvests, were permitted 

prior meeting the older forest targets. For intermediate harvests green tree 

retention was modeled as a partial harvest, and stand attributes of the retained 

stems were incorporated into the blended yield curves. The blended yield 

curves reduced the retained and regenerated components of the harvest unit 

proportionally, similar to the stand level constraint method described above, 

however, the retained portions of the polygons are not reported independently. 

Table 303. Stand treatment age and retention used to blend yield curves for 

intermediate harvests. 

1st 

Intermediate 

Harvest

2nd 

Intermediate 

Harvest

3rd 

Intermediate 

Harvest

4th 

Regeneration 

Harvest

Zone Age % Age % Age % Age %

Hemlock 120 35 240 35 0 0 360 n/a

Douglas fir 80 19 160 19 0 0 240 n/a

Tanoak 60 35 120 35 180 35 240 n/a
Q – 1578

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Table 304. Partial Harvest Retention plus Supplemental Retention for Snag and Coarse 

Woody Debris Creation

1st 

Intermediate 

Harvest

2nd 

Intermediate 

Harvest

3rd 

Intermediate 

Harvest

4th 

Regeneration 

Harvest

Zone Age % Age % Age % Age %

Hemlock 120 42 240 42 0 0 360 *

Douglas fir 80 22 160 22 0 0 240 *

Tanoak 60 39 120 39 180 39 240 *

* GTR levels by Species Group

The Coquille Management Area was modeled the same as the No Action General 

Forest Management Area.

Scribner Volume

For OPTIONS modeling, Scribner volumes were generated as a part of the guide curve 

modeling with the ORGANON Shell. The equations for these volumes are based 16-foot 

BLM volume rules. 

Volume Adjustments

Guide Curve Adjustments to volume were made for Defect and Breakage (D&B), Green 

Tree Retention (GTR), Snags, Coarse Woody Debris (CWD), Insect and Disease, and 

Soil Compaction

With the exception of GTR, all adjustments to the Guide Curves were compiled outside 

the OPTIONS model as percent basal area reductions. Estimates for D&B, Insect and 

Disease, and Soil Compaction were supplied by the districts or based on values derived 

for the most recent RMP. Guidelines for Snags and Coarse Woody Debris (CWD) varied 

by alternative. These adjustments were made to the Guide Curves with the OPTIONS 

data preparation program and applied within the OPTIONS modeling as volume 

reductions. Adjustments were compiled and applied by ORGANON variant, Species 

Group, stand type (managed, unmanaged, or future) and harvest type where appropriate. 

For Alternative 3, these adjustments were further stratified by Vegetation Zone; Western 

Hemlock, Douglas-fir and Tanoak to account for differences in Snag and Coarse Woody 

Debris requirements. 
Q – 1579

Appendix Q. Vegetation Modeling

Figure 345. An example of adjustments utilized for a single alternative and district.

Exceptions to these were limited to the modeling of GTR for Regeneration harvests in the 

No Action Alternative and Alternative 3 and the Partial harvests in Alternative 3. These 

reductions were taken at time of harvest within the OPTIONS model in the form of a 

reduced harvest unit acreage. 

Minimum Harvest Age 

The OPTIONS model uses a minimum harvest age to control the lower limit where 

regeneration harvest can occur. 

In the No Action Alternative the minimum harvest ages were set by direction in the 

current plans. For all districts, except Medford, the minimum regeneration harvest 

age was set to 60 years. For the Medford district, the minimums were 100 years in the 

North General Forest Management Areas and 120 years in the South General Forest 

Management Areas.

For alternatives 1 and 2 minimum harvest ages were based on Culmination of Mean 

Annual Increment (CMAI) for regeneration harvests. 

Culmination of Mean Annual Increment (CMAI) results can vary widely depending on 

the unit of measurement used, the utilization standards and whether net or gross growth 

is considered. It has been a commonly accepted forestry theorem that even- aged stands 

should be harvested at CMAI in order to maximize biological yields. 

Current Annual Increment (CAI) is defined as the annual increment of wood grown for 

a particular stand, or in this case a group of inventory plots representing similar growing 
Q – 1580

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

conditions. Mean Annual Increment (MAI) for a particular stand or set of plots is the 

total increment of wood at a given stand age divided by that stand age. CMAI is the point 

when the CAI, sometimes termed Periodic Annual Increment (PAI) and the MAI are 

equal. Culmination occurs when the maximum MAI is reached. From the ORGANON 

Guide Curve runs, Total Stem Cubic Volume (TSCV) was used for CMAI determination. 

This approximates a biological decision rule for the point of harvest. For this evaluation, 

the CMAI threshold was assumed to be the first age (5-year ORGANON modeling cycle) 

at which the difference between PAI and MAI was zero or negative. The gross volume 

CMAI statistics generated from ORGANON were adjusted to approximate net volume 

CMAI and allow the OPTIONS modeling greater flexibility in harvest scheduling.

In Alternative 1 and 2 the OPTIONS minimum harvest age was set at the 90% level of 

CMAI to give the model a reasonable level to vary from the estimated values.

Table 305. Forest Maturity Criteria - Proposed Minimum Harvest Ages 

at 90% CMAI by Species Group and Site (Productivity) Class

 Forest Maturity Criteria - Proposed Minimum Harvest Ages 

at 90% CMAI by Species Group and Site (Productivity) Class

Species Productivity Classes

Group SP5 SP4 SP3 SP2 SP1

NCM 110 105 95 95 85

NDF 110 95 85 85 75

NHM 95 95 85 80 80

SCH 155 120 110 110 110

SDF 140 120 110 105 100

SHW 155 120 110 110 110

SMC 155 120 110 110 110

STF 145 140 120 120 120

PP 140 115 115 115 115

SSCH 155 120 110 110 110

SSDF 140 120 110 105 100

SSHW 155 120 110 110 110

SSMC 155 120 110 110 110

SSTF 145 140 120 120 120

SPP 140 115 115 115 115

CNCM 130 110 95 90 85

CNDF 130 110 95 90 85

CNHM 130 110 95 90 85

For Alternative 3 minimum both partial harvest and regeneration harvest minimum 

harvest ages were established in the management action. 
Q – 1581

Appendix Q. Vegetation Modeling

Table 306. Alternative 3 Minimum Stand Treatment Ages for Partial and Regeneration Harvests

1st Partial 

Harvest

2nd Partial 

Harvest

3rd Partial 

Harvest

Regeneration 

Harvest

Zone

Stand Age 

(years)

Stand Age 

(years)

Stand Age 

(years)

Stand Age 

(years)

Hemlock 120 240 0 360

Douglas fir 80 160 0 240

Tanoak 60 120 180 240

Modeling Thinnings

Commercial thinning modeling criteria were derived from two sources. 

•	 Simulation rules for management action for an alternative. 

Example - Modeling “caps’ were used to limit commercial thinning in LateSuccessional Reserves to stands less than 80 years to simulate the plan 

requirement to only apply treatments that would promote the development of 

late-successional forest.

•	 Growth and yield team’s results for the ORGANON modeling of existing and 

future stands.

ORGANON modeling determined the timing, extent and number of treatments 

which were specific to modeling groups. The lower and upper treatment ages, 

treatment intensity and the number of treatments along with modeling criteria, 

targets and guidelines are documented under the Forest Growth and Yield 

Modeling section.

The Treatment Response approach allows the OPTIONS model to adjust for the total 

growth in the thinned stand by modifying the growth rate (slope) of the Guide Curve 

for the untreated stand. The growth rate is adjusted such that the ORGANON modeled 

growth response of the treated stand, i.e. the increase in volume growth at the end of 

the treatment response period, is approximated within the OPTIONS modeling for 

that particular stand type and a specific thinning treatment. For use in the OPTIONS 

model, the commercial thinning treatment results, for each modeled combination of 

Species Group(s), Productivity Class(es) and thinning entry number (1st, 2nd, 3rd...) 

were subsequently analyzed to determine a “Treatment Response”. Treatment Response 

Period was defined as 30 years or the number of years between modeled thinning entries, 

whichever was less. 

Within the OPTIONS model, the thinning availability window was set in all alternatives 

to 5 years prior and 15 years after the ORGANON modeled treatment age for a specific 

stand type. If, within the OPTIONS model, a particular vegetation polygon was not 

thinned during a treatment window, the opportunity for the model to apply that specific 

commercial thinning treatment was foregone. If that particular stand was modeled for 
Q – 1582

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

subsequent thinning treatments at older ages, it became available for treatment evaluation 

like any other stand regardless of whether the previous treatment was applied.

Before the OPTIONS model can apply a commercial thinning treatment to a particular 

stand, the current stand attributes are reviewed to insure that the prescribed removal 

will meet the minimum per acre harvest targets. The minimum targets were – Salem 

Roseburg, Coos Bay – 8,000 board feet per acre, Eugene – 6,000 board feet per acre, 

Medford 4,000 board feet per acre, and Klamath Falls 2,000 board feet per acre. If the 

residual stand criteria cannot be met, the stand will be left to grow and re-evaluated in 

subsequent years as long as it remains within the treatment window or until the treatment 

is applied. Since all the existing stands were assigned an imputed stand attributes, not the 

average guide curve values, some lower-stocked stands which can not meet the minimum 

post-harvest criteria may be left to grow. Depending on the stand, the priority for 

commercial thinning in a particular alternative and the harvest related criteria described 

above, stands may or may not receive treatment. 

Harvest Priorities

Within the OPTIONS model the source of harvest volume could be prioritized by three 

categories of “Wood Type” were defined and held constant across all alternatives.

•	 Older Forest – Regeneration harvest stands 200 years and older.

•	 Second Growth – Regeneration harvest of stands less than 200 years.

•	 Thinning – All thinning, intermediate, or partial harvests.

Within the model, Wood Types are assigned priorities 1 through 3, with 1 being the 

highest and 3 the lowest priority for harvest.

Within each Wood Type a lower and an upper harvest request limit can be designated. 

An overall harvest volume is established in the Model as a maximum harvest level for 

any one year. The model will then attempt to satisfy the first priority Wood Type lower 

harvest request. Then do the same with the other two Wood Type priorities. After the 

lower harvest limits have been, to the extent possible, implemented across all three Wood 

Types, the model goes through the Wood Types by priority to satisfy any upper limit 

of harvest requests. If the upper harvest limit can not be satisfied in the first wood type 

priority then it proceeds to the next wood type priority until it attains the over all harvest 

level requested.

These lower and upper limits for each wood type can be modified for specific time 

periods of the projection. 

These harvest priority controls can be used to control the rate of harvest in a particular 

Wood Type as well as balancing the levels of harvest across wood types.
Q – 1583

Appendix Q. Vegetation Modeling

Establishing Harvest Levels

OPTIONS modeling projections occur in increments of 1 year. Thus, all management 

objectives were maintained, and requested harvest levels met, in each year of the planning 

horizon. The planning horizon for all analyses was 100 years, although the final ASQ harvest 

level for each alternative was tested at 400 years to ensure its long-term sustainability. The 

sustainability analyses were subject to the same criteria as the 100 year analyses.

Harvest volume projections are based on the lands available for harvest, under the 

assumptions of the alternative within each sustained yield unit. Those lands which 

contribute to the ASQ can be managed over an extended period of time to provide a 

sustainable non declining level of harvest. Harvest from reserves (Late-Successional 

Reserves / Management Areas and or Riparian Reserves / Management Areas) will 

diminish as stands grow past the conditions suitable for thinning and will not produce a 

sustainable harvest over time.

The sustainable harvest level from the land base supporting the ASQ was modeled 

separately from that harvest which can be derived from the reserves. Segregating the 

landbase and modeling of harvest volume in this manner isolated the interaction of these 

two types of allocations. 

For ASQ lands, a non-declining even flow (NDEF) strategy was applied. Based on this 

approach a single maximum harvest level was modeled for the entire planning horizon 

and tested within a defined level of precision (increments of 1 million board feet, 0.1 

for Klamath Falls). The exception to this approach was in the modeling of Alternative 3 

where a future increase in the ASQ harvest levels were determined after landscape targets 

were achieved for an entire Sustained Yield Unit (SYU). 

Generally, reserve lands permitted limited management activities and had a limited period 

of availability. The NDEF strategy was not an appropriate method of modeling these 

areas so an uneven flow strategy was applied. Reserve lands only provided timber within 

the short-term (within the first 80 to 100 years, depending on the alternative), so a ‘stairstepped’ method was used to characterize and report partial harvest volume. With this 

approach a maximum harvest volume for each 10-year period was determined. 

A combined ASQ and reserve land OPTIONS run was performed for the production 

of the Ten Year Scenario, Northern Spotted Owl Habitat Projections, Structural Stage 

Projections and other post processing reporting. A maximum harvest level of the larger 

combined harvest landbase was not modeled. The total harvest volume modeled was the 

simple sum of the ASQ and reserve harvest volumes, although the reserve harvest volume 

amount was first reduced by 20% to approximate operational fall down. A maximum 

harvest volume level of the larger combined harvest levels landbase was not tested 

modeled. The overall thinning harvest level in terms of acres and volume matched the 

combined request but the proportions coming from inside and outside reserves was not 

controlled in the combined run. This appeared in Alternative 3 where a very small amount 

of riparian thinning (2 MMBF out of 473 MMBF total) was requested in the combined 

run but none if occurred in the riparian areas. 
Q – 1584

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

The Figure below is an example of non-declining ASQ harvest volume, stair-stepped 

reserve harvest volume and combined harvest volumes.

Figure 346. Reserve, ASQ, and Total Volume..

Creating Blended Yield Curves for Alternative 3

Alternative 3 included rules that excluded regeneration harvests until older forest 

retention target thresholds were achieved. Additionally, within each landscape 

unit intermediate harvests with high levels of green trees were retention were 

permitted prior to achieving the landscape target levels of older forests. 

Table 307. Stand treatment age and percent retention used to blend yield curves for 

intermediate harvests. 

1st 

Intermediate 

Harvest

2nd 

Intermediate 

Harvest

3rd 

Intermediate 

Harvest

4th 

Intermediate 

Harvest

Zone Age % Age % Age % Age %

Hemlock 120 35 240 35 0 0 0 0

Douglas-fir 80 19 160 19 240 19 0 0

Tanoak 60 35 120 35 180 35 240 35

In the other alternatives, yield curves were developed by the growth and 

yield team with the Organon model. However, the high retention levels of 

the intermediate harvests in Alternative 3 presented a modeling challenge for 

Organon. Investigation by the growth and yield specialists revealed that in the 

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Year

Harvest Level

Combined

ASQ Volume

Reserve Volume
Q – 1585

Appendix Q. Vegetation Modeling

ORGANON model, it would be difficult to develop an appropriate set of tree 

data to represent the multi-storied character of the intermediate harvests. As an 

alternative, a simple mathematical approach was considered a suitable technique 

for developing the blended guide curves for the multi-storied stand conditions 

resulting from intermediate harvests. It was recognized that this approach does 

not account for the treatment, competition or edge effects of the intermediate 

harvest. The blending process was applied to the Organon stand summary table 

for the OPTIONS analysis, and for the Organon detailed stand tables for use with 

the Northern Spotted Owl habitat index and structural stage classification.

This mathematical approach involved combining (or blending) the yield curve 

of the untreated portion of the stand with the yield curve of the treated portion 

of the stand. The ‘blending’ technique apportioned basal area, volume and 

density based on the retention level of the intermediate harvest. Stand height 

and diameter were not blended. These attributes were based wholly on the yield 

curves for the treated portion of the stand.

The table below provides an example of the pairing between the untreated 

overstory yield curve and the treated understory yield curve that results in a 

blended yield curve. The values represent the Current Vegetation Survey name 

prefix. A curve naming convention was established to identify the resulting 

blended yield curve based on the zone and treatment age. For example, the 

generation of the 1st intermediate harvest at age 120 for the Hemlock Zone 

would result in the following blended curves.

Table 308. Initial, regeneration and resulting blended yield curves.

Overstory Curve Understory Curve Blended Curve 

MG1_1_NCM_NONE NDF_NO_OS_1_PCT260 ALT3_H120_MG1_1_NDF

MG1_2_NCM_NONE NDF_NO_OS_2_PCT260 ALT3_H120_MG1_2_NDF

MG1_3_NCM_NONE NDF_NO_OS_3_PCT260 ALT3_H120_MG1_3_NDF

MG1_4_NCM_NONE NDF_NO_OS_4_PCT260 ALT3_H120_MG1_4_NDF

MG1_5_NCM_NONE NDF_NO_OS_5_PCT260 ALT3_H120_MG1_5_NDF

For example, if the intermediate harvest retained 40% of the original stand, 

the blended curve would include 40% of the stems from the original and 60% 

of the regenerated stand curve. The curves assigned to existing stands differed 

from curves assigned to recently regenerated areas to reflect current and/or 

future regenerations standards. In the model the treated stand retains the age of 

the overstory which represents the initial age of the blended curve. Figure 346 

compares a stand’s initial yield curve, the regeneration yield curve, the blended 

curve, and how a stand progresses from its initial curve to the blended curve. In 

the example below a stand receives an intermediate harvest at age 80. At the time 

of treatment, the stand supports a volume of approximately 70,000 board feet/

acre. Immediately after treatment, the stand retains its age of 80, and has a residual 

volume of approximately 15,000 board feet/acre, or approximately 22% of the 

original stand volume. After treatment the stand is assigned to the blended yield 

curve and grows at the blended rate. 
Q – 1586

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Figure 347. A comparison of an initial yield curve, the regenerated (future) yield curve 

and the blended curve.

Within the various landscape units multiple intermediate harvests were permitted, 

and for each possible intermediate harvest an additional blended yield curve was 

required. Blended curves were applied after intermediate harvest treatments. 

Where the blended curve of the first intermediate harvest was created from the 

initial curve combined with a regeneration curve, each successive treatment 

combined the previously blended curve with a regeneration curve. Once the 

landscape targets were achieved stands were regeneration harvested and then 

assigned to an unblended regeneration curve. The blended curves extended to 

a stand age of 400 years. In OPTIONS stand older than this were assigned the 

attributes of the 400 year old stand.

Alternative 3 Blended Curve Procedures

Create a blended curve for a stand within the Douglas-fir Zone (DF) with an 

intermediate harvest at age 80 years. This is the first intermediate harvest age and 

the green tree retention level is 19%.

Stand Summary Blending

1. Initialize the new blended yield curve with the stand characteristic from the 

overstory yield curve beginning at the blending age and continuing to the end 

of the projection horizon.

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

180000

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400 420

Stand Age

Stand Volume (bft/ac)

Blended Stand Yield Curve

Initial Stand Yield Curve

Future Stand Yield Curve

Treatment Volume Removal
Q – 1587

Appendix Q. Vegetation Modeling

2. Incorporate the stand characteristics from the understory yield curve, 

matching the blended stand age with the initial understory age. In this 

example, the overstory stand characteristics at age 80 are matched with the 

stand characteristics of the understory at age 0.

3. Calculate the blended stand characteristics through the simple mathematical 

approach of summing the retention percent of the overstory stand and 

the remaining percent of the understory stand. In this example, 19% of 

the overstory stand is combined with 81% of the understory stand. This 

approach is applied to basal area, trees per acre and volume. Quadratic 

Mean Diameter (QMD) and height are re-set to the understory levels. 

Relative density (RD) is recalculated based on blended values for QMD 

and basal area.

Stand Table Blending:

1. Initialize the new blended stand table with the overstory stand table values 

for each species and diameter beginning at the blended stand age and 

continuing to the end of the projection horizon.

2. Incorporate the stand table values from the understory stand table by species 

and diameter, matching the blended stand age with the initial understory 

age. In the case where there is no matching understory species and diameter, 

incorporate these additional stand table values into to the blended stand table.

3. Calculate the blended stand table values through the simple mathematical 

approach of summing the retention percent of the overstory stand with the 

remaining percent of the understory stand. This approach is applied to basal 

area, live trees per acre, dead trees per acre and board foot volume and cubic 

foot volume. Height is re-set to the understory value. 

In the case where there are only overstory stand values, the retention percent of 

the overstory stand values are used. In our example, 19% of the overstory stand 

values would be used.
Q – 1588

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

OPTIONS Products

Introduction

The projection of forest conditions with OPTIONS is based in the model tracking the 

change over time for five basic attributes.

•	 Density – trees per acre

•	 Volume – board feet per acre

•	 Diameter 

•	 Basal Area

•	 Height

The growth and yield curves coming from the ORGANON modeling can also be used as 

a source for forest attribute information since each OPTIONS polygon has a relationship 

with a growth curve. 

Additional modeling was performed to create look up tables for the presence and absence 

of dead wood which could be related back to the OPTIONS projections.

Considering each alternative has between 4,000,000-600,000 GIS polygons, with 5 

attributes, projected in annual increments for 200-400 years the potential data array 

from OPTIONS alone is considerable. Drawing data relationships from ORGANON 

or other models to derive forest attributes related to the OPTIONS projections increase 

that potential data to draw upon. Many of the outputs for the modeling required custom 

programming to extract and formulate the products for the ID team analysis. 

Although OPTIONS performs it’s projections in annual increments, only key projection 

reporting periods (10, 20, 50, and 100 years) were established for the ID team analysis. 

The following products from the OPTIONS modeling are described in this section.

• ASQ / NON ASQ Volume

• Ten Year Scenario 

• Projections

– Structural Stages Projection

– Northern Spotted Owl Habitat Projection.

– Age Projection

– OPTIONS Projections – Technical Paper

•	 Economic Analysis Data

•	 Time Slice Report

•	 State of the Forest
Q – 1589

Appendix Q. Vegetation Modeling

•	 Net Down Report

•	 Attribute Data for GIS

 ASQ / NON ASQ Volume

Harvest volumes are a direct output from the OPTIONS model. Volumes from OPTIONS 

for the plan revisions are based upon scribner16 foot short log volumes. Harvest volumes 

are based on the capabilities of the forest lands in each individual Sustained Yield Unit 

given the management action and allocations of the alternative. All volumes are rounded 

down to the nearest whole million board feet.

• ASQ Volume - ASQ is synonymous with the O&C Act term Annual Productive 

Capacity. For each alternative the non declining even flow volume that can 

be sustained from the harvest land base is the basis for the determining the 

Allowable Sale Quantity. Under Alternative 3 a two tiered volume was reported 

to account for the increased harvest level that can be attained after the landscape 

targets are met (regeneration harvest begins) and the owl and murrelet sites are 

released and increase the size of the harvest land base

• Non ASQ – Thinning harvest is simulated for the riparian reserves / management 

areas and for the late-successional reserves / management areas as they apply to the 

alternatives. The management actions for these allocations do not permit regeneration 

harvest and there are modeling age caps on the thinning treatments, thus a sustainable 

source of harvest cannot be expected from these lands. The OPTIONS modeling 

determined the amount of harvest volume that could be produced from these lands 

and step down levels as the stands age and their thinning treatment windows close. 

The ASQ and Non ASQ volumes are recorded by SYU for each alternative, sub 

alternative and benchmark analysis in an Excel spreadsheet. The duration of the Non 

ASQ volume and the long term increase in ASQ for Alternative 3 is summarized as well.

Harvest estimates were modeled for the east side management lands in Klamath Falls 

only in the No Action Alternative since the silviculture treatments do not vary across the 

alternatives for those lands. No ASQ is declared for these lands since there are no O&C 

lands in that area. 

Ten Year Scenario 

The Ten Year Scenario selects polygon records that were harvested in the first ten years 

of the OPTIONS projections. For each polygon the acreage and volume harvested is 

reported by harvest type; regeneration, commercial thinning or selection. The OPTIONS 

Ten-Year Scenario report also identifies a random 1/3 sample of BLM sections that were 

harvested in the first decade and identifies all harvest units within those sections. 
Q – 1590

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

The OPTIONS output of the polygons harvested by harvest type with acreages and 

volume were brought back to GIS to make map products with these attributes. The 

Districts evaluated the harvest units in the sample sections to identify the logging system, 

and road construction needs. 

Ten Year Scenario reports were produced for the No Action and all Action 

alternatives but not for the sub alternatives. An Access database was created with 

the first decade polygons harvested, with acreage and volume by harvest type at the 

SYU and District level. This data was linked to the vegetation polygons to make GIS 

coverages and map products. 

Projections

Post processing of the OPTIONS data created a classification of every OPTIONS 

vegetation polygon record at year 0, 10, 20, 50, and 100 years for the structural stage 

classification, Northern Spotted Owl habitat classification and age class distributions. 

Databases were created for the No Action, Action alternatives, and the following sub 

alternatives / benchmark analysis; no harvest, no harvest of stands 80 years and older, no 

harvest of stands 200 years and older, add NSO critical habitat to the LSMA in alternative 

1, short rotation, and maximum harvest. This data was linked to the vegetation polygons 

in GIS for further spatial analysis.

1) Structural Stage Projections 

Richard Hardt (ID Team Ecologist) developed the criteria for the Structural Stage 

Classification used in the plan revision. There is a structural stage appendix 

further describing the criteria used in this classification.

1) Stand Establishment

1a.) Without Structural Legacies 

1b.) With Structural Legacies 

2) Young

2a.) Young High Density 

2a1.) Without Structural Legacies 

2a2.) With Structural Legacies 

2b.) Young Low Density 

2b1.) Without Structural Legacies 

2b2.) With Structural Legacies 

.
Q – 1591

Appendix Q. Vegetation Modeling

3) Mature 

3a.) Single Canopy 

3b.) Multiple Canopy 

4) Structurally Complex

4a.) Existing Structurally Complex

4a1.) Existing Old Forest 

4a2.) Existing Very Old Forest

4b.) Developed Structurally Complex

2) Northern Spotted Owl Habitat Projections 

Chris Foster (ID Team Wildlife Biologist) developed the criteria for the Northern 

Spotted Owl Habitat Classification used in the plan revision (see table below). 

Three classes of habitat are determined based on diameter class, canopy cover, 

presence/ absence of snags (10 snags per hectare greater than 25 centimeters), 

presence / absence of down woody debris (greater than 2% ground cover). 

Table 309. Northern Spotted Owl Habitat Projections

Diameter Class Canopy 

Cover

Snag 

Presence / 

Absence 

Down Woody 

Debris 

Presence / 

Absence

Habitat Code 

Version 4 

- Finalized 

10/18/06

Habitat values; 1 - non-habitat, 2 - dispersal, 3 - suitable and dispersal.

11-20 0-40 a a 1

11-20 0-40 p a 1

11-20 0-40 a p 1

11-20 0-40 p p 1

0-11 0-100 1

20-30 0-40 a a 1

20-30 0-40 p a 1

20-30 0-40 a a 1

20-30 0-40 p a 1

20-30 0-40 a p 1

20-30 0-40 p p 1

20-30 0-40 a p 1

20-30 0-40 p p 1

30-100 0-40 a a 1

30-100 0-40 p a 1

30-100 0-40 a a 1

30-100 0-40 p a 1

30-100 0-40 a p 1

30-100 0-40 p p 1
Q – 1592

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Diameter Class Canopy 

Cover

Snag 

Presence / 

Absence 

Down Woody 

Debris 

Presence / 

Absence

Habitat Code 

Version 4 

- Finalized 

10/18/06

30-100 0-40 a p 1

30-100 0-40 p p 1

11-20 40-60 a a 2

11-20 40-60 p a 2

11-20 40-60 a p 2

11-20 60-100 a a 2

11-20 60-100 p a 2

20-30 40-60 a a 2

20-30 40-60 p a 2

20-30 40-60 a a 2

20-30 40-60 a p 2

20-30 60-100 a a 2

20-30 60-100 a a 2

30-100 40-60 a a 2

30-100 40-60 p a 2

30-100 40-60 a a 2

30-100 40-60 p a 2

30-100 60-100 a a 2

30-100 60-100 a a 2

11-20 40-60 p p 2

11-20 60-100 a p 4

11-20 60-100 p p 4

20-30 40-60 p a 2

20-30 40-60 p p 2

20-30 40-60 a p 2

20-30 60-100 p a 4

20-30 60-100 p a 4

20-30 60-100 a p 4

20-30 60-100 p p 4

30-100 40-60 a p 2

30-100 40-60 p p 2

30-100 60-100 p a 4

30-100 60-100 a p 4

20-30 40-60 p p 4

20-30 60-100 a p 4

20-30 60-100 p p 4

30-100 40-60 a p 4

30-100 40-60 p p 4

30-100 60-100 p a 4

30-100 60-100 p p 4

30-100 60-100 a p 4

30-100 60-100 p p 4
Q – 1593

Appendix Q. Vegetation Modeling

3) Age Class Projections 

Starting age classes derived from the Forest Operations Inventory (see inventory 

data section of this appendix) increment forward on an annual basis with the 

OPTIONS projections until regeneration harvest treatments reset the age. 

The ages under Alternative 3 should be treated as broad age groups since the 

yield curves and the progression of stands over time reflect multi storied stand 

conditions in which age becomes somewhat of a fuzzy measure.

4) OPTIONS Projections – Technical Paper 

Northern Spotted Owl Habitat and Structural Stage 

Classification

Stand Table Habitat and Structural Stage Classification Data 

The NSO dispersal habitat and structural stage classifications are based on a 

number of stand averages and stand table statistics. Stand height is an example of 

stand average information, the number of stems greater than a threshold diameter, 

or the number of snags of a particular decay class, are examples of stand table 

information. OPTIONS utilizes and reports stand average data but does not 

provide the detailed stand table information required in the dispersal habitat and 

structural stage classifications. To project habitat and structural stage conditions 

throughout the planning horizon ORGANON stand tables were required.

In the modeling environment each WOPR unit may receive a number of possible 

treatment combinations throughout the planning horizon. The number of possible 

treatments varies by management regime (a series of treatments), species group, 

site productivity and alternative. The actual sequence of treatments a WOPR unit 

receives is a dynamic modeling process, dependent upon stand and landscape 

level targets and rules; it cannot be forecast outside of the OPTIONS model. 

However, it is possible to describe all possible combinations of treatments, and 

from this all inclusive set, select the actual scenario of treatments as reported 

by OPTIONS. Thus, an ORGANON stand table was created for each possible 

unique combination of treatment, species group and site productivity, for each 

management regime and for each alternative. A crosswalk table was defined to 

provide a reference between the treatment combinations and the corresponding 

stand table. 
Q – 1594

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Modeling Process

There are a number of stand attributes to be considered in the habitat and 

structural stage classification for an individual WOPR unit, at a particular point 

in time. The ORGANON treatment stand tables were pre-processed, and then 

further analyzed to calculate specific habitat and structural stage statistics. These 

statistics, referred to as ‘index values’, are reference values in a look-up table; the 

Index Table. The index values for every modeling group, stand group, site index 

and treatment are stored in the Index Table.

One of the key steps in the pre-processing of the stand tables for northern spotted 

owl habitat classification was to generate index values for snags and down woody 

debris (DWD). The CWDM model was used to generate this information based 

on input from the stand table dead trees. Together, the stand tables, snag and 

DWD information provided the detailed information necessary to complete the 

habitat. Information from the CWDM is also reported within the Index Table. 

The OPTIONS model records for each WOPR unit and for all years in the 

planning horizon, all silvicultural and harvest treatments performed. Also 

recorded are details of the treatments such as: the area treated, the type of 

treatment, the volume removed, as well as stand attribute information after 

treatment. Based on this information it is possible to compile a complete history 

of activities for each WOPR unit for the entire planning horizon. 

Based on the information from the WOPR unit activity history provided by 

OPTIONS, the appropriate stand table reference is identified in the crosswalk 

table. This stand table reference is used to locate the index values in the Index 

table that will be evaluated to define the NSO dispersal habitat and structural 

stage classification.

Methodology

The following methodology was applied to generate the NSO Habitat and 

Structural Stage Index Report.

Source Information:

NSO Dispersal Habitat Classification

An NSO Dispersal Habitat definition table was provided that defines the stand 

conditions required to meet dispersal habitat. These included:

• Diameter Range– average stand diameter as from summary table

• Canopy Closure – based on relative density as follows

Canopy Closure = -12.298 + 2.375(RD) – 0.014(RD)^2
Q – 1595

Appendix Q. Vegetation Modeling

• Snag presence: 10 snags/acre greater than 10”

• DWD presence: 2% ground cover. The percent ground cover was 

approximated using a conversion factor and volume by retention plant zones 

– Volume (cu ft/ac)/X var = % cover.

Retention Plant Zone DWD Volume (ft3/ac)

p. pine/d. fir 362.648

SW ore conifer 465.179

Westside conifer 62.771

Note: TanOak and DF = SW Oregon, and W. hemlock = West side conifer

Note: Species Group of P. Pine for the p.pine/d.fir in SW Oregon

• Canopy (single/multi-story): A diameter diversity index (DDI) of 60 was 

used to determine the distinction between single and multi-story canopy, with 

single-story canopy having a DDI greater than 60 and multi-story canopy 

having a DDI less than or equal to 60.

Structural Stage Classification

Structural Stage Classification definitions were provided based on the following 

stand characteristics:

• Age: stand age from summary table

• Height: average stand height from summary table

• TPA: number of trees per acre by diameter from the stand table

• Relative Density: average stand relative density from the summary table

• Legacy Presence: the presence of legacy as an initial condition (based on 

MircoStorms structure stage classification) as well as the future creation of 

legacy based on alternative harvest prescriptions.

• CVgt(10): from summary table coefficient of variation of tree diameters 

greater than 10” dbh.

All Possible Treatment Yield Curve Crosswalk Table 

(ACT2CVS_XWALK)

This table identifies which treatment yield curve to use for the required stand 

characteristics and index values to determine the NSO Dispersal Habitat and 

Structural Stage Classifications. The treatment yield curve is identified based on 

the current alternative, management regime, species, site productivity class, and 

treatment age. Below is an example of the crosswalk table.
Q – 1596

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Index Value Lookup Table (INDX_LKUP)

This table is an Alternative based lookup table containing projected stand 

characteristics and index values for each treatment yield curve. Some of the index 

values available include:

• Stand characteristics: age, basal area, TPA, QMD, height, volume, crown 

ratio, canopy closure, relative density, SDI, CV, DDI, 

• TPA by 10” diameter classes: # of trees in 0” to 9”, 10” to 19”, 20” to 29”, 

30” to 39”, greater than or equal to 40”

• Snags by 10” diameter classes: # of snag in 0” to 10”, 11” to 20”, 21” to 30”, 

31” to 40”, greater than 40”

• Snag TPA: # of snags greater than 10” dbh

• CWD by 10” diameter classes: sum of volume in 0” to 10”, 11” to 20”, 21” 

to 30”, 31” to 40”, greater than 40”

• CWD vpa: sum of volume greater than 10”

• Calculated canopy closure: canopy closure calculated based on relative 

density

• Overstory stand characteristics: available for Alternative 3 blended curves, 

based on the untreated yield curve (basal area, tpa, qmd, height, volume 

relative density, tpa by 10” diameter class, CV, DDI)

• Understory stand characteristics: available for Alliterative 3 blended curves, 

based on the treated yield curve (basal area, tpa, qmd, height, volume 

relative density, tpa by 10” diameter class, CV, DDI)

OPTIONS Run Files

To post-process an OPTIONS run, the following OPTIONS run files are required: 

• OPTIONS data files (.DBF, .DBS, .SPG, .SIC)

• OPTIONS run files (.DEF, .DEV, .RUN, .I, .II., .V)

Procedure:

For each Alternative:

1. Using ORGANON, generate the possible treatment stand tables based on 

the Alternative’s management regime definitions. Create the Crosswalk 

Table to identify which stand table to reference for a particular treatment 

combination.
Q – 1597

Appendix Q. Vegetation Modeling

2. Based on the Crosswalk Table, pre-process each treatment stand table 

to generate the index values that will be used to define the habitat and 

structural stage classifications. This includes projecting snag and CWD 

using stand table attributes. Create the Index Table to identify which 

index values to use for a particular treatment stand table.

3. Initialize a Habitat Report Table by listing for each WOPR unit the 

OPTIONS inventory values for forest type (forest, non-forest, road), initial 

management regime, species group, site productivity class and area.

For each forested WOPR unit in the Habitat Report Table.

4. Set initial conditions:

• Initial Structural Stage and legacy (based on OPTIONS inventory 

structural stage) 

• Plant Series/Retention Zone (based on OPTIONS inventory)

• NSO Variance: based on plant series, species group and 

habitat definition

• Alternative 2 GTR (green tree retention) flag for MOCA and 

SHRUB areas

5. Based on the OPTIONS run results, build the WOPR unit Activity 

History Table including harvest activities and state of the forest years in 

chronological order. Also record the stand management regime, species 

group, site productivity and age at which these actives occur. This 

history table represents the changes in stand characteristics over time.

For each Activity in the Activity History: 

6. Determine the current thinning treatment combination, partial harvest 

condition and legacy based on the type of activity completed.

For Regeneration Harvest: reset thinning treatment combination, reset 

partial harvest conditions, re-evaluate legacy

No Action Alternative (modeled tree retention), legacy is present (WL)

Alternative 1 (no modeled tree retention), then legacy is not present (WOL)

Alternative 2 (no modeled tree retention), then legacy is not present (WOL).

Alternative 2 – MOCA and SHRUB area (modeled tree retention), then 

legacy is present (WL)

Sub-Alternative 2 - Max Harvest (no modeled tree retention), then legacy 

is not present (WOL)

Alternative 3 (modeled tree retention), legacy is present (WL)
Q – 1598

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

For Selection Harvest: reset thinning treatment combination, set partial 

harvest condition, re-evaluate legacy

No Action Alternative, Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 there is no 

modeled selection harvest

Alternative 3 has modeled selection harvest, so legacy is present (WL)

For Commercial Thinning: set thinning treatment combination based 

on thinning age and thinning sequence, no change to partial harvest 

condition or legacy.

7. Set activity stand table reference from Crosswalk Table based on the 

treatment combination.

8. Retrieve stand characteristics and index values from Index Table based 

on stand table reference.

9. Calculate Structure Stage Classification based on index values and 

structural stage definition.

For Alternative 3 with partial harvest conditions, if height is <50’ 

Structural Stage is based on understory values. Otherwise Structural 

Stage is based on stand values.

For Alternative 3 with partial harvest conditions, if Structural Stage is 

calculated as Mature-Single-Story, then canopy is reset to multi-story.

10. Calculate NSO Dispersal Habitat Classification based on index values 

and dispersal habitat definition.

For Alternative 3 with partial harvest conditions, canopy is set to multistory. Otherwise, canopy is set based on DDI values.

11. Update Report Table with Structural Stage and NSO Dispersal Habitat 

Classification values for reporting years
Q – 1599

Appendix Q. Vegetation Modeling

Figure 348. Data Flow Diagram for Owl Habitat and Structural Stage Classification. 

(1) Generate Crosswalk Table

(identity stand table reference for each treatment

combination)

(3) Initialize Report Table

(WOPR units and inventory values)

(2) Generate Index Table

(pre-process stand tables to generate index values

including projected snag and dwd values)

 (4) Set initial conditions for WOPR unit

Organon Treatment

Stand T ables Crosswalk Table

Index Table

OPTIONS

Inventory

Activity History

T able

Organon Treatment

Stand T ables

CDWM Model

(5) Generate WOPR Unit Activity History OPT IONS Run

Results

(6) Determine thinning treatment combination

(7) Identify stand table reference in Crosswalk

Table using thinning combination

(8) Lookup index values based on stand table

reference

(9) Calculate Structural Stand Classification

(10) Calculate Dispersal Habitat Classification

Report Table

Last

Activity?

Structural Stage

Definition

NSO Dispersal Habitat

Definition

Last WOPR

Unit?

No

No

Yes

Yes

(11) Update Report Table

End
Q – 1600

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Economic Analysis Data

Dave DeMoss (ID Team Forestry) identified data needed to support the economics 

analysis. Two inputs were provided to for post processing of the OPTIONS data for the 

calculation of timber harvest value. 

•	 Costs necessary for harvesting were computed using an historical basis of timber 

sales from FY 1996 thru FY 2006 (part). Costs were brought to 2005 dollars and 

expressed in $/MBF. Thinning and partial harvest for alternative 3 were separated 

from regeneration harvests and costs averaged by harvest method for each district. 

See timber valuation appendix for additional information. 

•	 A weighted pond value was calculated for each district for each structural stage and 

harvest method. This weighted pond value included both a weighting for the level 

of expected species from each district and additionally weighted for grades expected 

from each structural stage. See timber valuation appendix for additional information

OPTIONS post processing produced a report by each SYU with the attributes listed 

below. This data is in excel spreadsheet by sustained yield unit for the No Action 

alternative, Action alternatives, and the following sub alternatives; no regeneration 

harvest until thinning is exhausted, add NSO critical habitat to the LSMA in alternative 1, 

short rotation, and maximum harvest.

Projection year – Annual for first ten years.

Harvest Land Base – distinguish ASQ from non ASQ volume sources.

County Name

Resource Area

Harvest Type

Volume in MBF 16' scribner for the action

Weighted pond value of timber for action X (totvol)

Average stump to truck cost - falling, yarding and loading, $/MBF X totvol

Average road construction, improvement and renovation cost/MBF X totvol

Average hauling cost to mill, $/MBF X totvol

Average road maintenance and road use fees X totvol

Average misc. cost, includes slash disposal, special requirements, etc X tot vol

Sum (stump, roads, transport, maintain, misc.)

Revenue-(tot cost), estimate of value of action, (Stumpage in MBF X tot vol)
Q – 1601

Appendix Q. Vegetation Modeling

Time Slice Report

For 10 year increments, spanning 200 years, this report summarizes the acres and volume 

harvested for the combination of data elements listed below. 

Sustained Yield Unit

County

Resource Area

Harvest Land Base – Distinguish ASQ from Non ASQ volume

Harvest type

Ten year age class at time of treatment

Treatment area

Harvest volume

This report was generated for the No Action and Action Alternatives. The data is 

compiled in Access databases.

State of the Forest

The state of the forest contains the attributes tracked in OPTIONS for each vegetation 

polygon record at the time of the projections periods – year 0, 10, 20, 50, and 100. These 

attributes include 

Management regime 

Species group

Volume

Trees per acre

Height

Basal Area

Area

Harvest Land Base

Age Class

Sustained Yield Unit.

This report was generated for the No Action and Action Alternatives. The data is 

compiled in Access databases.
Q – 1602

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Netdown

The netdown report is produced in the data preparation for the OPTIONS data. Every 

OPTIONS vegetation polygon record is assessed against the GIS rules for the alternative. 

A matrix of all of the GIS layers / rules by each vegetation record is produced showing 

which layers constrain harvest. A hierarchy is established for each alternative to 

determine which allocations take precedence in assigning how a vegetation record is 

given a land use allocation code for modeling purposes. In general Non forest takes top 

precedence followed by the fixed allocations such as Congressionally Reserved, National 

Monument, and then the specific allocations of each alternative. The net down hierarchy 

is unique to each alternative. Below are examples from the No Action alternative.

Harvest Land Base coding is also assigned for each vegetation record to distinguish the 

forested areas from non forest, those lands available or not available for harvest, and 

those lands which harvest counts towards the ASQ. Below is an example of the coding 

for the No Action Alternative.

Y = Harvest is modeled and contributes to ASQ

N = No harvest is modeled

X = Non forest

P = Harvest is modeled but does not contribute to ASQ (LSRs).

S = Simulated future MAMU sites – No harvest is modeled.

NL = No Land Use Allocation data was available.

NT = No TPCC data was available

This report was generated for the No Action and Action Alternatives. The data is 

compiled in Access databases. This data was linked in GIS to create harvest Land Base 

and Land Use Allocation map products.
Q – 1603

Appendix Q. Vegetation Modeling

Table 310. Hierarchy of allocations

Hierarchy Order 

(constr. pri)

Allocation Code 

(constr. type) Allocation Description 

1 ROADS Roads 

2 NF Non Forest 

3 CGRR Congressionally Withdrawn 

4 MON Monument

5 LSR Late-Successional Reserves 

6 AMR Adaptive Management Area and LSR 

7 KOAC Known Owl Activity Centers 

8 OMMS Occupied Marbled Murrelet Sites 

9 RPA Reserve Pair Area Suitable Habitat and Next Best 

Reserved Categories 

10 DDR District Defined Reserves 

11 NW TPCC Non Suitable Woodlands 

12 SW TPCC Suitable Woodlands 

13 AW Other Admin Withdrawn, Rec Sites etc. 

14 FOI District OI based Outs - Seed Orchards etc.

15 RIP Riparian Reserves 

16 AMA Adaptive Management Areas 

17 CONN Connectivity Diversity Blocks 

18 GFMA General Forest Management Areas 

19 SGFMA Southern GFMA 

20 EML East Side Management Lands

21 NL No Land Use Allocation

Attribute Data for GIS

A GIS input file was created for each alternative. This spatial analysis dissected the 

vegetation polygons by all of the GIS layers which formed an allocation, modeling rule, 

or reporting unit needed for the OPTIONS modeling. The OPTIONS data prep program 

utilized this GIS file to further classify and format the data for OPTIONS modeling. 

Harvest Land Base coding is an example for this reclassification of the data. The data 

from the OPTIONS data preparation program is returned to GIS so selected attributes 

can then be linked and used for subsequent spatial analysis. This provides a common data 

set used in both the OPTIONS analysis and the resulting GIS spatial analysis. Access 

databases with the data going to the OPTIONS model and data returned to GIS were 

generated for the No Action and Action Alternatives. 
Q – 1604

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs

Vegetation Modeling Team Members

OPTIONS Team

Kristine Allen OPTIONS Programming / Modeling

Director of Operations 

D. R. Systems Inc.

Chris Cadwell Forester / Vegetation Modeling Coordinator 

WOPR Core Team 

BLM Oregon State Office.

Joe Graham Inventory Forester / Senior Modeling Specialist 

WOPR Core Team 

BLM Oregon State Office.

Mark Perdue OPTIONS Modeling 

Manager of Consulting Services

D. R. Systems Inc.

Don Reimer OPTIONS Modeling

CEO, D. R. Systems Inc.

Growth and Yield Team

Craig Kintop Forester (Silviculturist) / 

Growth & Yield Modeling Coordinator 

BLM Roseburg District Office

Michael Oxford Forester (Inventory Specialist) 

BLM Coos Bay District Office

Robert Pierle Forester (Inventory Specialist) 

BLM Medford District Office

Steve Brownfield Forester (Inventory Specialist) 

BLM Salem District Office

Robert Ohrn Forester (Silviculturist) 

BLM Eugene District Office

Daniel Schlottmann Forester (Silviculturist) 

BLM Salem District Office

Carolina Hooper Forester 

BLM Salem District Office

Richard Kelly Forester (Silviculturist) 

BLM Eugene District Office

Art Emmons Forester (Inventory Specialist) 
Q – 1605

Appendix Q. Vegetation Modeling

BLM Eugene District Office

Kevin Carson Forester (Silvicuturist) 

BLM Roseburg District Office

Walter Kastner Forester (Silviculturist) 

BLM Salem District Office

Alan Bergstrom Forester 

BLM Medford District Office

Douglas Stewart Forester 

BLM Medford District Office

Mark Stephen Forester 

BLM Eugene District Office

Frank Hoeper Forester 

BLM Medford District Office

Mark Hanus Biometrician 

ORGANON Shell Developer / ORGANON Advisor 

FORSight Resources, Vancouver Wa.

William Johnson Forester (Silviculturist) 

BLM Lakeview District Office

Gregory Reddell Forester (Inventory Specialist) 

BLM Lakeview District Office

CVS / Statistical Team 

Carol Apple Mathematical Statistician

FS PNW Region Regional Office

Jim Alegria Biometrician

BLM Oregon State Office

GIS Team

Duane Dippon GIS Lead

WOPR Core Team 

BLM Oregon State Office

Thomas Jackson GIS Specialists

Eugene District Office.

Arthur Miller GIS Specialist

BLM Oregon State Office
Q – 1606

DEIS for the Revision of the Western Oregon RMPs
PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300

OFFICIAL BUSINESSPortland, Oregon 97204333 S.W. 1st AvenueOregon State OfficeBureau of Land ManagementUnited States Department of the Interior PRIORITY MAIL

POSTAGE AND FEES PAID

Bureau of Land Management

Permit No. G-76

BLM/OR/WA/PL-07/046+1792