About This File: 

This file was created by scanning the printed publication. Misscans identified

by the software have been corrected; however, some mistakes may remain. United States 

Department of 

Agriculture

Forest Service

Pacific Northwest

Research Station

General Technical

Report

PNW-GTR-344

August 1995

Estimated Economic Impacts 

on the Timber, Range, and

Recreation Programs on NFS

and BLM Public Lands From

Adopting the Proposed 

Interim PACFISH Strategy

Natalie A. Bolon, Christopher S. Hansen-Murray, and 

Richard W. Haynes
NATALlE A. BOLON was and RlCHARD W. HAYNES is a research forester, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station, P.O. Box 3890, Portland, Oregon 97208-3890; 

and CHRlSTOPHER S. HANSEN-MURRAY is an economist for the Mount BakerSnoqualmie National Forest and Pacific Northwest Region, Fish, Wildlife and Botany

Staff, 21905 64th Ave. W., Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043.

Author
Bolon, Natalie A.; Hansen-Murray, Christopher S.; Haynes, Richard W. 1995.

Estimated economic impacts on the timber, range, and recreation programs on 

NFS and BLM public lands from adopting the proposed interim PACFlSH strategy.

Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-344. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 80 p.

lmplications of the interim comprehensive strategy for improved Pacific salmon and

steelhead habitat management (PACFISH) were estimated for those Bureau of Land

Management (BLM) districts and National Forest System (NFS) lands west of the 

Rocky Mountains that have anadromous fish. The physical impacts and associated 

mitigation costs from implementing the PACFlSH strategy over the the next decade

in Pacific Northwest, Intermountain, Northern, Pacific Southwest, and Alaska Region

National Forest and BLM district recreation, range, and timber programs were analyzed with the actual current output as the base. Economic considerations were 

added to evaluate any change in the perceived ranking of severity among the impacts. Two cases were considered in the analysis: a derived worst case, where a 

total reduction of the actual current output of the programs in anadromous fishbearing drainages occurs (giving a minimum value for the programs in those drainages), and a mitigated case where all or part of the loss is mitigated and the cost of

doing so is evaluated with two phases, one without economics and the other with it. 

For the mitigated case without economics, the undiscounted mitigation costs per year

for 10 years and the annual physical impacts of implementing the interim direction 

over the current actual output for the three resource programs (recreation, range, and

timber) were estimated. This mitigated case, without economic consideration, showed

that on both BLM and NFS land the greatest physical losses occur in the timber programs, whereas the greatest cost overall occurs in the recreation program. Individually, the range program on the BLM lands showed the greater cost. Under an economic analysis, however, the present value of the lost output over time was included 

as a cost, along with the present value of the mitigation costs. The total of both these

costs from the mitigated case would have to be less than the total value of the current

program, calculated in the worst case, to maintain an order of efficiency. For both 

BLM and NFS lands, the recreation and timber programs across drainages containing

anadromous fish showed greater value than both types of economics costs. The 

range program was fairly close in value and cost on NFS lands, but the costs associated with implementing the PACFlSH strategy on BLM lands were definitely greater 

than the value of their range program, which calls into question the efficiency of the 

latter and possibly the former. The ranking of severity among the programs for the 

estimated physical impacts and those impacts when economics considerations are

added change as well. When lost resources are valued, the BLM lands show the 

greatest loss in their recreation program rather than in timber. The current recreation

programs on both BLM and NFS lands seem significantly more valuable than the 

other two programs, and the magnitude of difference between the value of the current

program and the costs of applying the PACFlSH strategy is also significantly greater 

for recreation.

Keywords: Bureau of Land Management, National Forests, anadromous fish, 

economic impacts, habitat management, PACFISH, policy analysis, salmon.

Abstract
1 lntroduction

2 Area of Analysis

4 Methods

5 Data Collection Process

5 Assumptions 

13 Results

13 Mitigated Case Without Economics 

23 Discussion of Mitigated Case Without Economics 

27 Mitigated Case With Economics 

30 Worst Case 

36 Discussion

36 Conclusions

37 Acknowledgments

37 Literature Cited

38 Appendix 1

38 lnformation Sent to Field Units

Contents
In early 1992, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service, began a

process to develop a comprehensive strategy for improved Pacific salmon

(Oncorhynchus spp.) and steelhead (0. mykiss) habitat management on National

Forest System (NFS) lands. This process and strategy, now known as PACFISH, was

initiated in response to growing concern about the status of anadromous fish stocks 

in the West. This concern was highlighted by the listing of three anadromous fish

stocks in the Snake River basin in 1991 under the Endangered Species Act (ESA;

1973), and by a 1991 report showing over half of the Pacific anadromous fish stocks

(outside Alaska) as being at high or moderate risk of extinction or of “special concern”

(Nehlsen and others 1991).

In March 1993, the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management

(BLM), joined the PACFlSH strategy effort. The scope of the proposed strategy was

expanded to include anadromous watersheds on public lands managed by BLM.

The proposed PACFlSH strategy, as developed between early 1992 and mid-1993,

calls for delineation of riparian habitat conservation areas (RHCAs) along all streams

(perennial and intermittent) in watersheds bearing anadromous fish. It specifies riparian management objectives (RMOs) to assure maintenance or restoration of good

quality fish habitat in the RHCAs. Extensive standards and guidelines for the management of the RHCAs to meet RMOs are included in the strategy. Watershed analysis

and the identification of key watersheds and watershed restoration opportunities are

addressed as well, but not as part of this report.

The purpose of this report is twofold. First, the report presents preliminary estimates

of cost and resource impacts on timber, range, and recreation programs from implementing the PACFlSH strategy.1 Second, this report shows how the application of 

economic values to the foregone resource outputs can be used with mitigation costs

to assess the value society places on easing output reductions versus accepting the

reductions in full.

1 The original resource and cost impact analysis was 

prepared in response to requests from the Washington 

offices of both the Forest Service and BLM. In that request, 

the PACFlSH field team was directed to prepare preliminary 

estimates of implementation costs and resource impacts that 

may occur if the proposed PACFlSH strategy is implemented 

in anadromous fish watersheds on National Forests and 

public lands administered by the BLM throughout the Western 

United States. The actual data collection and analysis for 

these preliminary estimates was to be carried out by the 

PACFlSH resource opportunity costs group: Chris 

Hansen-Murray, PACFlSH lead economist; Natalie Bolon, 

research forester, PNW-Portland; and Richard Haynes, 

Social and Economic Values Program Manager, 

PNW-Portland. The methods the group used follow those in 

Haynes and others (1992) to estimate the economic impact 

of critical habitat designation for salmon in the Columbia and 

Snake River basins.

lntroduction

1
Area of Analysis

2

The scope of this analysis includes all National Forests and BLM districts west of the

Rocky Mountains having watersheds with anadromous fish but that are not in the

range of the northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina)(see fig. 1).2 The

Okanogan National Forest is split between the portion within the northern spotted owl

range, thus subject to the recommendations of the Forest Ecosystem Management

Assessment Team (FEMAT; 1993), and the portion outside the owl range that has

watersheds supporting anadromous fish and subject to the proposed PACFlSH 

strategy. Alaska was an exception and is discussed below.

The following field units were included in this analysis:

* = subject to section 7 consultation requirements with the National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS) because of fish stock listings under ESA.

2 Federal lands within the range of the northern spotted owl 

have already been addressed in the report of the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (1993). Standards 

and guidelines and riparian management objectives for those 

Forests and districts within the range of the northern spotted 

owl have already been recommended by FEMAT and the 

accompanying Draft Supplemental Environmental lmpact 

Statement (1993). Thus, those units are not included in this 

analysis.
3

Figure 1—Bureau of Land Management districts and USDA National Forests in the area of analysis.
Alaska—The Tongass National Forest is the only unit in Alaska included in this round 

of preliminary estimates.3 Several outstanding issues in Alaska need resolution before

an impact estimation process can be undertaken for all NFS and BLM lands in 

Alaska. The anadromous fish stock status report for Alaska was not complete at the

time this study was done. Criteria for defining key watersheds were not finalized, 

partly because of the lack of a definitive stock status report. Therefore, no key watersheds have been identified. Also, the RMOs and standards and guidelines are being

reviewed for appropriateness for Alaska watershed conditions, particularly for interior

lands and the north.

The Chugach National Forest and the Anchorage, Arctic, Glennallon, Kobuk, and

Steese-White BLM districts have anadromous fish watersheds, but until the issues 

mentioned above are resolved, resource impact estimates will not be made for them.

The Tongass National Forest in southeast Alaska has had much more intensive study

than the other areas and is in the late stages of revising its original Forest plan; it is

included in this analysis.

The key concept to this study is incremental change. The goal is to assess as best 

possible the changes in resource outputs attributable just to the adoption of the

PACFlSH strategy. Decisions already made and actions already taken that provide 

some degree of protection or enhancement of anadromous fish stocks and habitat 

are not directly relevant to the decision of whether to adopt the PACFlSH strategy.

Some of these actions or decisions are those already in Forest or district resource 

management plans, and in the Pacific Northwest Regional Forester’s implementation 

of a screening process for timber sales that came out after the PACFlSH effort began.

Such prior decisions and actions are in place and will continue to have their effect,

whether or not the PACFlSH strategy is adopted. Our purpose is to identify for decisionmakers what additional economic effects can be expected with adoption of the

PACFlSH strategy versus what can be expected without its adoption. The methods 

follow those used in Haynes and others (1992) on the economic impacts of critical 

habitat designation for salmon in the Columbia and Snake River basins.

The study has two cases: a mitigated case, with two phases, one without economics

and the other with it, where all or part of the output reduction is mitigated and the 

cost of doing so evaluated; and a derived worst case, where the total actual current 

output for recreation, range, and timber programs in anadromous fish-bearing 

drainages is valued (giving a gross value for the actual program) then foregone.

The mitigated cases show the effects on output levels of the recreation, range, and 

timber programs and the associated budget costs to the Federal Government over 

the next decade for implementing the PACFlSH strategy. In the mitigated case 

without economics, the mitigation costs are undiscounted and the foregone value 

from any output reduction is not included. In the mitigated case with economics, the

present value of the budget costs for mitigating the implementation of the PACFlSH

3 The timber output from the Tongass National Forest reflects 

an agreement made during a technical meeting of PACFlSH 

field team members and Alaska Region managers in Juneau 

on September 8-9, 1993. The decision was made not to 

delineate “forested palustrine wetlands” as RHCAs on the 

Tongass, except those included for high hazard soil 

considerations. The figures in this report are from 

September 21, 1993.

Methods

4
Data Collection Process

Assumptions

5

strategy are added to the present value of the outputs foregone. The present value of

both costs from the mitigated case with economics, would have to be less than the

total gross value of the current program (calculated in the worst case) minus the cost

to close the program down, to maintain an order of efficiency. The application of economic values to the foregone resource outputs and the present value of the mitigation

costs allows assessment of the value society places on easing the output reductions

versus accepting the reductions in full.

A process with three distinct phases was established to derive the desired data 

estimates. Each National Forest and BLM district included in the PACFlSH strategy

area followed at least the basic outline of this process.

1. ldentify and delineate watersheds bearing anadromous fish in the unit, both key 

and nonkey (see discussion of key watersheds in the next section, “Assumptions”).

2. Delineate interim boundaries for RHCAs by using the “width in feet” criteria provided, according to stream classification. (For this exercise, delineation was done

either by a mapping system or by estimating through analytical models.)

3. Using the proposed standards and guidelines and RMOs, estimate the changes

expected to occur in management activity and output levels within the RHCAs for 

timber, range, and recreation. Estimate the changes from base levels in Forest 

plans or district resource management plans and from current actual output levels.

(Although effects on the road system from applying the standards and guidelines 

were not specifically reported for this effort, those effects were considered in evaluating changes in the resource outputs.)

This process allowed identification of expected changes in output levels, if the

PACFlSH strategy were to be adopted, in comparison to field units’ current operations. The process also made it possible to display if and how the Forests and districts have had to change their management practices and intensities in response to

legal or other constraints since their particular unit-level plans were adopted. For

instance, the field units in the Snake River basin currently are operating under much

more stringent management requirements than called for by their Forest or district

plans because of the listing under the ESA (1973) of the sockeye (O. nerka

(Walbaum)) and other salmon runs in the basin. They have already experienced 

concomitant reductions in many activity and output levels, which are identified in this

analysis as changes between planned and actual current levels.

The Forests and districts listed above provided data under the format found in the 

data collection forms in appendix 1. Estimates were requested for the first 10 years

and are reported here for 1994 to 2003. The data were summarized for timber, 

range, and recreation and are shown in the section, “Results.”

Range of anadromous fish—The location and extent of watersheds with anadromous fish were determined by a group of scientists from the USDA Forest Service,

Pacific Northwest Research Station (PNW), in conjunction with input from the field

units and Regional and State resource specialists. Range maps for anadromous fish

were provided by PNW, unless an entire Forest or district was included in the range. 

In those cases, such as the Nez Perce National Forest, the unit staff was simply told

that their entire unit supported anadromous fish.
The range of anadromous fish includes portions of a watershed that currently have

anadromous fish present at some time during the year; those portions that may support the presence of anadromous fish in the future; and those portions that do not

have anadromous fish actually present but are the source of quality water that flows

into downstream segments where those fish are present. Watersheds, or portions

thereof, that once supported anadromous fish but were permanently cut off by a constructed dam (for example, the Columbia River system above Grand Coulee Dam), 

or that never supported anadromous fish runs because of major natural barriers, were 

not included in the range.

Adoption of the PACFlSH strategy will have a greater or lesser effect on a unit’s resource output levels depending on how much of the unit is actually within its range of

anadromous fish. The proportions differ widely among units, from 1 percent of the 

Vale District to 100 percent of the Nez Perce and Tongass National Forests. These

percentages are listed below for each unit (calculations are based on Federal land

ownership for the unit and watersheds bearing anadromous fish):

6
Key watersheds—Key watersheds also were defined by PNW with input from field

units and Regional and State resource specialists. Key watersheds have been defined

and described in various ways, but in general they (1) contain relatively high-quality

water and fish habitat or have the potential to provide high-quality habitat through

restoration efforts; and (2) contain at-risk stocks of anadromous salmonids or other

potentially threatened fish species, anadromous or resident. Although the FEMAT

report (1993) specified that key watersheds be at least 6 square miles (3,840 acres) 

in size, designated key watersheds are in practice much larger—3d to 5th order

watersheds ranging from 50,000 to 150,000 acres on average.

In Alaska, the definition and delineation of key watersheds is still in process. Because

stocks generally are not in as much immediate peril in Alaska as they are in the lower

48 states, the definition there of key watersheds is likely to encompass the notion of

representative habitats to be maintained to keep the stocks in good shape, rather 

than to focus on restoration of stocks already in trouble. Key watersheds there may

run larger than those in the lower 48 because of the topographic scale of the area.

Key watersheds were delineated for all the National Forests outside Alaska and maps

were provided to the Forests to use in this analysis process. Such maps were not

available for BLM districts when this process was undertaken. Although key watersheds were identified for the BLM districts in the northern spotted owl range during

the FEMAT work, their delineation on the districts outside that range is ongoing as 

this paper goes to press. Therefore, instructions to the BLM districts were to use

either the key or nonkey designation for anadromous watersheds shared with an 

adjacent National Forest, or consider the watershed as key if not shared with a Forest. This latter assumption affected only the determination of RHCA widths around

intermittent streams and may have led to a somewhat higher impact estimate in those

areas as a result.

The watersheds in the areas covered by an ESA fish stock listing are considered key.

Therefore, all watersheds on the Forests and districts in the Snake River basin and 

in the Sacramento River basin (outside the northern spotted owl range) were defined

as key. This affected all the involved Forests and districts in ldaho and Montana, and

the Lassen National Forest and Ukiah District in California.

Baselines—We had to identify a number of baselines from which this study could

operate. These included baselines for current versions of proposed direction, for 

planning bases against which to assess estimated change, and for cost data. 

For direction and general guidance to the Forests and districts, the following documents were provided to the field units (these were draft versions as of July 25, 1993).

Appendix 1 contains the entire packet of information sent to field units: a cover letter,

data request narrative, data entry instructions, necessary data forms for each

resource, as well as the following:

• PACFlSH Goals and Riparian Management Objectives

• PACFlSH Strategy: Standards & Guidelines

• Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas: Description of Recommended Widths 

• PACFlSH Strategy: Key Watersheds

7
To assess incremental changes in output levels attributable to the PACFlSH strategy

and changes attributable to other causes, it was necessary to specify baselines to

measure those changes against. For almost all Forests and districts, the starting

baseline was their approved Forest or district resource management plan (also

referred to as level 1). The exception was the Tongass National Forest, which used 

its latest draft revised Forest plan.

The second-stage baseline used by all field units was their actual current operating

level, as affected by legal and other constraints acquired since plans were approved

(level 2). For Snake River basin field units under section 7 consultation requirements

with NMFS, the “current” level was the estimated level they will be operating at when

they finish screening ongoing projects, complete watershed analysis, and adjust their

management practices accordingly. At this time (summer 1993), they are in a pause

as they meet these legal requirements. But that pause does not reflect the long-run

levels of their future operations.

The output levels that would result from adopting the PACFlSH strategy were estimated by each field unit (level 3). The incremental changes between their planning, 

or starting, base level and their current level and between their current level and the

estimated output levels with the PACFlSH strategy are calculated for each resource

area and reported under “Results.”

For this preliminary estimate, field units were not asked to report impacts related to

their road systems, minerals, or water management programs. Thus, no costs related

to road relocations, upgrades, closures, or obliterations are reported, even though

they may be substantial. Additional costs for minerals program management and 

permit administration, and increased costs related to water program management,

water intake screening, and other fish protection activities also are not reported.

Finally, costs incurred by private operators or users as a result of implementation of

the PACFlSH strategy are not given in this report. For example, additional harvest

costs absorbed by timber operators or additional range rider or fencing costs that

might be required of grazing permittees are not included here.

Handling ongoing projects—lt was important in estimating impacts to know how to

treat ongoing projects; that is, those already awarded and under contract and those

being prepared and in some stage of the National Environmental Protection Act

(NEPA) process but not yet awarded or under contract. The direction to the field 

units was to consider that any project already under contract would be screened for

long-term, adverse, irreversible effects on fish or fish habitat. If a project was deemed

to be high risk, it would be modified or terminated. Otherwise, projects could continue

as awarded, even if in the transition period they might not be fully in compliance with

the PACFlSH strategy standards and guidelines. Projects being prepared, but not yet

through the NEPA process with a signed decision, would be modified (or abandoned)

as necessary to bring them into full compliance with the PACFlSH strategy standards

and guidelines.

lmportant definitions—in the process of providing the Forests and districts with

enough direction and explanation to carry out this analysis with consistency, specific

definitions were developed.

8
Delineation of interim RHCA widths under the proposed PACFlSH strategy requires 

categorizing streams and wetlands into four groups (see “Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas: Description of Recommended Widths” in appendix 1). The initial group is

“fish-bearing streams.” The question was raised whether “fish-bearing” includes just

those streams or stream segments with anadromous fish present, or if it includes

streams with any coldwater salmonids present (both anadromous fish and resident

trout).

The determination made was that the designation “fish-bearing streams,” for the purposes of the PACFlSH strategy analysis, includes any stream within the range of

anadromous fish that has either anadromous fish or resident trout (or both); in other

words, all coldwater salmonids. The definition is consistent with that used for the

FEMAT work. This stream category was assigned an interim width of 300 feet on 

each side of the stream channel for the PACFlSH strategy estimation process.

The proposed direction for determining interim RHCA widths, prior to completion of 

on-site watershed analysis, has several criteria that may be used. The criterion 

chosen was that giving the greatest boundary width (see “Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas: Description of Recommended Widths” in appendix 1). For purposes of 

this accelerated estimation process, we asked that Forests and districts use the “feet”

width criterion. However, if there were significant known problem areas (for example,

highly unstable areas, large wetland areas adjacent to the stream) that would most 

likely be included within an actual delineation of an RHCA boundary, we suggested

including those areas within the RHCA.

For ease of categorizing their streams, we recommended that field units use the 

following chart:

A question was raised by the Alaska Region (Region 10) concerning the appropriate

RHCA widths to apply to wetlands. There seemed to be an inconsistency between 

the PACFlSH strategy and option 9 in FEMAT (1993). FEMAT (1993) broke out 

constructed ponds and reservoirs as a separate category from natural ponds and

lakes, giving the former a 150-foot and the latter a 300-foot riparian reserve width.

9
The decision for this analysis was to use the original PACFISH-strategyrecommended stream or wetland categories and widths, as sent to the field units in 

the data request package. The reasons were, first, that the PACFlSH strategy was 

not meant to follow option 9 in all aspects; interim RHCA widths were approved at a

June 21, 1993, PACFlSH strategy meeting. Second, there were inconsistencies between the FEMAT report (1993) and the accompanying Draft Supplemental Environmental lmpact Statement (Interagency SElS Team 1993) concerning interim riparian

reserve widths. In sum, for purposes of this analysis, lakes, ponds, and wetlands 

greater than 1 acre were given a 150-foot RHCA width. Those less than 1 acre were

given a 100-foot RHCA width in key watersheds and a 50-foot RHCA width in nonkey

watersheds.

Resource-specific assumptions for timber—

1. Changes in scheduled timber harvest (allowable sale quantity [ASQ] or decadal 

sustainable harvest level [DSHL]) are reported by unit and not by watershed. The 

nature of harvest-scheduling models requires that all suitable timber acres available 

in a unit be run through the model. Changes in available suitable acres affect the 

calculation for the entire unit, not just the watershed.

2. Concerns that the ASQ or DSHL is unattainable to begin with, in that no more 

than 60 to 70 percent was ever accomplished, were mostly accounted for by use of 

the three baselines. The change from plan output (level 1) to actual current output 

(level 2) accounts for most of the initial difficulty in meeting planned harvest levels. 

The change from level 2 to estimated output under the PACFlSH strategy (level 3) 

was then used for the analysis of adoption of the PACFlSH strategy.

Resource-specific assumptions for range—

1. Many BLM districts have watersheds supporting anadromous fish that also have 

large areas of open range in the valley bottoms, either available or currently used for

grazing. Based on experience in the Snake River basin section 7 consultation process, those districts have found it difficult to make grazing adjustments only within the

riparian reserve strip (as represented by the RHCA) to meet RMOs, without totally 

eliminating grazing in the watershed. They have found, however, that by looking at 

the watershed as a whole and adjusting practices within the entire watershed, they 

can meet RMOs and still have a range program in the watershed. The Forests and 

districts were given the option of following this watershed-wide approach, though

RHCAs are still delineated. The decision was that they should use whichever process

provides effective attainment of the RMOs, while maintaining output levels to the 

degree possible.

2. The issue of program underfunding for range management is not addressed in this

report. Although it may be a concern, primarily regarding the update of allotment 

management plans, it is not relevant to an economic analysis of this type where we 

are interested in the net (incremental) change in value to society by the gain or loss 

in the forage supply. Where such costs to overcome underfunding problems were

reported by field units, they were removed.

10
Resource-specific assumptions for recreation—

1. Seasonal or permanent closure of developed or dispersed sites; relocation of sites

and facilities; and a combination of education, monitoring, and law enforcement were 

all assumed to be possible results of applying the PACFlSH strategy RMOs and 

standards and guidelines. Closures could be mitigated, at some cost or if alternative

sites were available, by relocating sites or opening new areas to compensate for 

those closed. Lack of alternative sites or substitute areas results in the loss of 

recreation use.

2. For analytical purposes, increases in recreation use resulting from normal 

population-related growth or other external changes in demand were disregarded. 

This assumption was applied when measuring the change from actual current output

levels to usage levels with adoption of the PACFlSH strategy. This gave a clear 

estimate of the effect of the changes from the PACFlSH strategy alone.

3. The issues of marginal versus nonmarginal changes and of substitution have surfaced regarding which price to use for recreation activities: zero, the market clearing

price, or the market clearing price plus consumer surplus. When considering gains, 

the appropriate assumption is that the gain will be for the marginal user. If the use is

already at a zero marginal cost as is the case for unrationed Federal lands, then 

theoretically, all possible users are already participating. When recreation opportunities are reduced, however, the average or high marginal willingness-to-pay user may 

as easily be eliminated as the low or zero marginal willingness-to-pay user. Therefore, 

it is appropriate to value losses at a positive value, representing an average user,

rather than at a zero marginal value. Market clearing price plus consumer surplus was

used owing to a lack of site-specific data that could have allowed us to differentiate

between marginal and nonmarginal changes.

If there are readily available substitute recreational sites, people will go there instead.

In many cases, such as in pleasure driving, dispersed picnicking, and berry picking, 

the supply is greater than the demand, so a loss of recreational opportunity in one 

area may have a zero value when the people can easily and inexpensively go nearby.

Most of the recreational opportunities lost due to the PACFlSH strategy are not the 

type having readily available substitutes, however, especially along the east side of 

the Cascade Range and in the Snake River basin, where water-oriented recreation is 

in high demand (for example, camps next to water for camping, hunting, and other 

related activities, swimming, boating, fishing, and so forth).

Costs—All costs in this study are reported in 1993 dollars. They represent the average annual cost for the next decade but, in many cases, will be greater in the first 

2 years of the decade. Therefore, the economic analysis adjusts the administration 

and mitigation costs for years one and two by weighing them 10 percent more than 

the average annual costs in the remaining 8 years of the decade (see “Economic 

Effects”) .

11
The costs reported here are only those incremental costs in the timber, range, and

recreation programs that would be incurred by the Federal Government to apply the

PACFlSH strategy on the ground. These include additional program administration

costs; site and facility modification, closure, or reconstruction costs; additional 

monitoring, enforcement, and education costs; and other mitigation4 costs incurred.

Not included in this report are watershed analysis or restoration costs. These costs

actually are attributable to all resource programs the field unit has, not just the three

we evaluated. Allotment management plan update costs, NEPA costs, and other inventory or planning costs, unless specifically associated with those mitigation activities such as site relocation required by the implementation of the PACFlSH strategy,

also are not included. General administration (GA) and other overhead costs are not

included, because they are considered fixed costs. Changes in fixed costs are occurring in all field units for various reasons; at this time, there is no way to separate

those that might be associated with adopting the PACFlSH strategy from those 

resulting from other major changes affecting field units.

Prices and values—Range and recreation prices for this analysis were taken from

the 1990 Resource Planning Act (RPA) program of the USDA Forest Service (1991)5

and include real price appreciation rates (net of inflation) of 0.6 and 0.3 percent per

year, respectively.6 These appreciation rates were included in this analysis to reflect

increasing scarcity throughout the decade for 1994-2003. The values for timber were

estimated from the 1993 RPA timber assessment update (Haynes and others 1995)

which uses the same methodology as was used for the 1990 RPA timber assessment

(Haynes 1990). Real price appreciation for timber was not needed because individual

predicted prices for each future year were used, thereby including it. The typical

Federal land management real discount rate of 4 percent was used.

4 “Mitigation” refers to management practices undertaken to

maintain output levels to the degree possible, while still

meeting the RMOs and standards and guidelines. For 

instance, streamside campsites can be moved and 

reconstructed, rather than closed. This maintains the 

recreational use opportunity (camping), but at a cost. To 

eliminate adverse livestock impacts in the riparian area, 

fencing or additional range riders can be used, rather than 

just moving the livestock out of the watershed altogether. 

This maintains at least some of the animal unit months, but 

at a cost.

5 As required by the Forest and Rangeland Renewable 

Resources Planning Act (1974).

6The mitigation costs were reported by the field units in 

1993 dollars. The prices applied to the foregone timber and 

range output were converted to 1993 real dollars by 

averaging the monthly Producer Price lndex (PPI) for finished 

goods, January through September 1993. The all urban 

consumers Consumer Price lndex (CPI-U) averaged over the 

same time period was applied to the foregone recreation 

output. The PPI and CPI data came from the Economic 

Report of the President (U.S. Government Printing Office 

1993) and by fax from the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau 

of Labor Statistics, San Francisco, CA.

12
The results reported here are based on the interim RHCA widths and PACFlSH strategy standards and guidelines that would be used by field units if the proposed 

PACFlSH strategy were adopted. The estimates provided by the field units were 

made on a broad scale. In actuality every subwatershed, stretch of stream, and site 

will be different and thus will require a somewhat unique application of the PACFlSH

strategy and mitigating measures and will yield a different response. The results 

reported here do not reflect changes that might occur in RHCA boundaries or 

standards and guidelines from completion of formal watershed analysis, which will 

take into account some of the site-specific differences.

All figures reported for range and recreation in this section are for those watersheds 

with anadromous fish; they do not include output levels from other watersheds within 

the unit. Thus, for some units, the figures shown below for planned actual output 

levels will be less than those found in the original plans or in current monitoring or

attainment reports. Timber figures, however, are for the entire district or Forest and 

not by watershed, because the nature of harvest-scheduling models requires that all

suitable timber acres available in a unit be run through the model. The uncertainty

around the true distribution of the suitable timber causes a bias in the results. Timber

figures in the worst case have been adjusted to represent drainages bearing anadromous fish as discussed below in “Worst Case.”

Since the district and Forest plan projections originally were done, several factors 

have developed that are responsible for the reduction from planned levels to their 

current actual output levels. Listing under the Endangered Species Act of fish stocks 

in the Snake River basin and increased concern over forest health issues are two

major causes for these changes. The changes from original planned levels (level 1) 

to actual current output levels (level 2) are reported as the first step of the estimation

process. The second step reported is the estimated change from current actual output

levels (level 2) to those levels that would be experienced if the PACFlSH strategy 

was adopted (level 3).

Field units were not asked to report impacts related to their road systems, minerals, 

or water management programs. Thus, no costs related to transportation system road

relocations, upgrades, closures, or obliterations are reported, even though they may 

be substantial. The mitigation costs reported are therefore conservative and would be

substantially larger if changes to road systems had been included.

Timber outputs—from the respective plans, BLM districtwide DSHL projections for 

the six districts totaled 17.4 million board feet in log scale per year, and Forest-wide

ASQ projections for the 16 Forests 1,679.6 million board feet in log scale per year 

(table 1). The districts’ combined actual current output is 16.1 million board feet, 

while the Forests produce 1,141.6 million board feet per year. Adoption of the 

proposed PACFlSH strategy interim direction would result in additional reductions in

ASQ from actual current levels, about 13 percent (down 2.1 million board feet) for the

districts and about 24 percent (down 269.45 million board feet) for the Forests (tables 

2 and 3). By designating RHCAs, slightly over 1.5 million acres of suitable 

commercial timberland would be removed from the timber base currently managed 

by the two agencies (table 4).

Text continues on page 20

Results

Mitigated Case Without

Economics

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Many field units had difficulty estimating the effect of the PACFlSH strategy on actual

planned timber sales (as opposed to planned decadal harvest levels) due to uncertainty over the screening process and the ability to modify projects. The following

results, therefore, are not all inclusive or definitive. Five planned sales amounting to 

0.5 million board feet are reported for BLM that would be cancelled because they 

cannot be mitigated to meet the PACFlSH strategy and guidelines, primarily in the

Spokane District (table 5). Forty-five such sales, amounting to a little over 47 million

board feet, are reported for the Forests—primarily in the Clearwater, Sawtooth, and

Boise National Forests. Fifteen sales in the Nez Perce and Lassen National Forests

could be moved outside the RHCAs without a change in size. A total of 72 sales 

would need to be moved outside the RHCA and modified in size; 69 of these are in 

the Malheur, Ochoco, Sawtooth, and Boise National Forests and 3 were from the 

Coeur d’Alene District of the BLM.

Timber costs—The cost to apply the PACFlSH strategy standards and guidelines 

for timber to BLM district lands was estimated to be about $135,000 per year for 

10 years (table 1). The cost estimate for the Forests was about $2.8 million per year, 

not including the Tongass National Forest.7 The costs consisted primarily of increased 

sales planning and administration costs for preparing sales outside the RHCAs so 

sales would meet upslope management objectives and not impact the RHCAs 

negatively.

Range outputs—The projections in the plan of annual livestock use in drainages 

supporting anadromous fish for the 6 districts and 16 Forests were 99,768 animal unit

months and 430,536 animal unit months, respectively (table 6). Combined actual current output for the districts is 94,594 animal unit months per year; the Forests produce

357,900 animal unit months annually. Adoption of the proposed PACFlSH strategy 

interim direction would result in additional reductions in livestock use, from actual current levels, of about 2.5 percent (down 2,387 animal unit months) for the districts, and

about 7.2 percent (down 25,659 animal unit months) for the Forests (tables 2 and 3).

Range costs—The cost to apply the PACFlSH strategy standards and guidelines 

for range on BLM district lands was estimated to be about $932,000 per year for 

10 years (table 6). The cost estimate for the Forests was about $1.7 million per year.

The costs consist of increased administration costs, cultural surveys, biological evaluations, associated NEPA, monitoring, relocating or constructing water developments,

and the labor and equipment needed for fencing of critical or entire riparian areas to

meet riparian management objectives. Costs to update allotment management plan

were not included, as plan updates are not required by the PACFlSH strategy. 

Grazing practices can be adjusted without prior updating of the plans.

7 The Tongass National Forest forecast cost savings in the 

timber program of about $10 million per year that would be 

realized after a period of time if their ASQ came down by 

about 48 percent, as was estimated. These cost savings 

would occur even after accounting for increased timber 

management and harvest costs experienced by application of 

RHCAs and PACFlSH standards and guidelines in those 

areas still in the suitable base. The yearly $10 million would 

not all be realized immediately, as downsizing the organization would take some time. The Tongass estimated cost 

savings are reported in this footnote rather than in the table. 

If they were reported in table 1, a net cost savings across all 

reported timber programs of over $5 million annually would 

have been indicated by the totals, when in reality this would 

come from just one Forest.

20
21
22
Recreation outputs—Recreational visitor day8 projections in drainages bearing 

anadromous fish for those districts and Forests that had recreation projections in their

plans were 1,521,845 per year and 15,075,468 per year, respectively (table 7).9 Combined actual current output for the districts is about 2,402,100 recreation visitor days

annually; the Forests have about 12,360,800 recreation visitor days per year. Adoption of the proposed PACFlSH strategy interim direction would result in a reduction in

annual recreation visitor days, from current actual levels, of about 2.1 percent (down

about 50,800) for the districts, and about 4.1 percent (down about 507,300) for the

Forests (tables 2 and 3). The types of recreational activities affected include camping,

hiking, viewing by auto, fishing, and boating (see table 8). Hunting use would be indirectly affected through expected closure of streamside campsites.

Recreation costs—The cost to apply the PACFlSH strategy standards and guidelines

for recreation within BLM districts was estimated to be about $816,000 per year for 

10 years (table 7). The cost estimate for the Forests was somewhat over $4.8 million

per year. The costs were primarily for redesigning, relocating, hardening, and closing

or seasonally closing developed and dispersed campsites and trails to control erosion

and visitor use. Additional costs included maintenance, education, and enforcement.

Output reductions and costs—Among the three resource programs on BLM and

NFS lands combined, timber would have the greatest percentage of loss (about 

23.5 percent) from implementation of the PACFlSH strategy, but it would incur the 

lowest implementation cost ($2.9 million annually). The greatest implementation cost

would be incurred for recreation ($5.7 million annually), which would have a concomitant 3.8 percent decline in total recreational visitor days—the lowest percentage of

decrease among the three resource areas. This likely is because recreation use is

more dispersed across a Forest or district; thus, not as concentrated an effect occurs

from implementation of the PACFlSH strategy standards and guidelines. Range 

implementation costs would be just over $2.6 million, with a 6.7-percent decrease in

animal unit months.

The Forests and districts already involved in the section 7 consultation process in the

Snake River basin generally would be affected less than those outside the area.

Those units already have made a number of adjustments in their programs.

The Tongass National Forest reported by far the largest decrease in the timber program: almost 74 percent of the estimated total reduction in scheduled timber harvest

would come from the Tongass. The total percentage of loss for all units drops from

23.5 percent to 9.7 percent when the Tongass National Forest is removed from the

calculation.

8 A recreational visitor day is a standardized 12-hour visitor 

day; for example, three 4-hour days of fishing equals one 

12-hour recreational visitor day.

9 One BLM district and two Forests did not have recreation 

use projections in their original plans.

Discussion of Mitigated

Case Without Economics

23
24
25
The BLM districts, under the PACFlSH strategy, have just over one-quarter of the 

animal unit month output that the National Forests do in watersheds bearing anadromous fish, yet would spend well over half the amount the Forest Service would to 

maintain the remainder of their range outputs. Costs include those required to administer the range program and to maintain program levels to the degree possible, 

while still meeting the PACFlSH strategy standards and guidelines and RMOs. The

average expected implementation cost for range for the districts is just over $10 per 

animal unit month, compared to slightly over $5 for the National Forests.

There are several reasons for these higher BLM costs. First, BLM land ownership

patterns are scattered compared to NFS lands. This scattered ownership pattern

causes substantially higher administrative costs, in both physically accessing Federal

land and developing effective management plans with adjacent landowners. This 

situation is particularly apparent in the Spokane, Coeur d'Alene, and Vale Districts.

Second, BLM typically has more individual permittees to work with in a given area

than does the Forest Service. Third, because BLM-administered land is generally

lower elevation and drier land, cattle tend to congregate in riparian areas more than

they do on typical National Forest land. This makes it much more difficult to meet the

PACFlSH strategy goals and objectives through rest-rotation and livestock herding

methods. Thus, BLM land also may require more riparian pasture fencing than will

NFS land. Fencing is initially much more expensive than rest-rotation or livestock

herding.

Large decreases in recreation use are seen for the Wallowa-Whitman, Los Padres,

and Boise National Forests if the PACFlSH strategy is adopted. These three Forests

account for almost 80 percent of the total estimated decrease in recreation visitor

days. In the recreation program, the BLM districts have about 20 percent of the recreation visitor days that the National Forests have and would spend about 17 percent 

of what the Forest Service would spend to maintain their recreation programs. The

PACFlSH strategy implementation costs with mitigation for the BLM districts are

about $0.35 per recreation visitor day compared to about $0.41 for the National

Forests.

Study limitations—The above portion of the analysis sets boundaries around the

expected effects on resource output levels from applying the PACFlSH strategy and

the costs of doing so. Because of the short response time available, field units were

not asked to make specific cost-effectiveness assessments of alternative ways to 

mitigate resource losses. Some units estimated they would be able to mitigate all

losses, particularly in range and recreation, but did so at significant cost. Others reported they would not try to mitigate all losses because it would be too expensive.

The resource output reductions foregone and the associated implementation costs

give a fair representation of the outer bound of costs required to provide a fairly high

level of mitigation. The lower bound of costs could be calculated, whereby few if any

mitigation costs were incurred, but most or all resource use in the watersheds would

be foregone. Within those bounds are alternative tradeoff points between resource

loss and cost. Unfortunately, we were not able to get the lower bound for this study,

but alternative approaches are available. The application of economic values, as

reported in the next section, can help to make the assessment of those tradeoffs.

26
Mitigated Case With

Economics

27

It seemed to be generally more difficult for Forests and districts to estimate cost

changes than to estimate changes in output levels. There are a great number of unknowns at this point about the short- and long-term effects of applying the PACFlSH

strategy. Costs of modifying projects, relocating sites and facilities, additional NEPA

and monitoring requirements, and so forth are very difficult to determine.

Although this analysis did not ask for specific costs and effects related to roads, many

field units expected to incur significant costs for relocating, reconstructing, closing

(seasonally or permanently), or obliterating existing roads. Trail relocation costs were

included, however, and were a significant factor in the recreation program costs.

It was difficult in many cases for Forests and districts to calculate their current base 

of acres suitable for scheduled timber harvest. Most, however, knew their original 

planning levels. Many have not formally recalculated or screened those acres since 

having to change management practices in response to developments occurring after 

their plans were completed. Thus, the calculation of suitable acres likely to be withdrawn under the PACFlSH strategy, as compared to actual current output levels, is 

onlyan estimate (table 4).

An economic evaluation of the estimated changes in resource outputs leads to some

different conclusions about the relative resource impacts of implementing the

PACFlSH strategy. Economic values, when applied to the resource output changes,

may well indicate different relative changes in these resource areas and highlight

issues that otherwise may have been overlooked if not made explicit.

This section focuses on the opportunity costs of the reported output reductions 

along with the associated management and mitigation costs, so that a more complete picture of the cost of applying the PACFlSH strategy can be determined.

Although the reductions from actual current output from implementation of the

PACFlSH strategy have already been reported in the section “Mitigated Case Without

Economics” and in table 2, they are shown again in table 9 beside the present value 

of the output that is lost. The foregone output for timber, range, and recreation occurs

annually throughout the decade; when unit values are applied, the result is an opportunity cost foregone.

By implementing the PACFlSH strategy, the BLM districts forego almost $4.5 million 

in timber value and the National Forests $279.7 million ($144.5 million of which is 

from the Tongass National Forest, see table 9). The loss of animal unit months in

anadromous fish-bearing drainages is valued at slightly over $124,000 across the 

BLM districts and over $1.1 million for the National Forests. The opportunity costs of

the lost recreational visitor days on the BLM districts and National Forests are over

$13 million and $126.6 million, respectively. If management chooses to implement the

PACFlSH strategy, then the value of the habitat protected for salmon and the potentially enhanced productivity of anadromous fish (or that productivity not lost) is worth 

at least the sum of the output values foregone. This does not yet include the discounted mitigation costs.
28
29
The annual administration and mitigation costs in years one and two were increased 

by 10 percent to reflect that more of the costs would actually occur in the early years 

of implementation; the other eight years account equally for the remainder of the

decadal cost. The result of taking the present value of this adjusted timing of costs is

shown in table 10 as is the present value foregone from table 9. The present value 

of mitigating for timber outputs over the next decade is $1.1 million for BLM districts

and almost $23 million for National Forests. To mitigate for range, the cost is about

$7.6 million for the BLM and just over $13.8 million for the NFS. Recreation mitigation

would cost BLM about $6.6 million and NFS close to $39.5 million. In other words,

this is the amount of money it would take to mitigate management actions and maintain the highest level of output while still meeting the PACFlSH strategy standards 

and guidelines.

The more accurate cost of adopting the PACFlSH strategy includes the value foregone from the lost output as well as the cost to implement and mitigate the strategy

(see table 10).

We generally can compare each resource program’s opportunity and mitigation costs

to the value of the actual current output in anadromous fish-bearing drainages to see

if mitigation is worthwhile or if it is more cost efficient to shut down the program. This

implies that the total cost of implementing PACFlSH must be cheaper than shutting

down the programs, and that the cost to shut them down would have to equal the 

difference between the gross value of the current program and the total cost of 

implementing PACFlSH before the efficiency of those programs is questioned. This

type of worst case scenario is consistent with being enjoined, as has occurred 

recently in several court cases.

By applying the same unit prices we used for the lost output to the actual current 

output (see tables 1, 6, 7, and 11), we can place a gross value on those parts of the

programs bearing anadromous fish. The worst case is analyzed across the entire

anadromous fish-bearing drainage and not just within the RHCAs. We do this even

though the PACFlSH strategy standards and guidelines call for changes in management primarily within the RHCA, because the changes also impact upslope management actions outside the RHCA such that normal operating procedures within the

drainage are effectively precluded. Timber output was reported Forest- or district-wide

and not by anadromous fish-bearing drainage, as was the case for the range and recreation data. Therefore, the actual current output for timber was multiplied by the

percentage of the Forest or district in the range of anadromous fish (see “Assumptions”) to give an estimate of the output in just those drainages supporting anadromous fish. Although this estimate assumes equal distribution of the suitable landbase

for timber across the Forest or district, it at least gives an estimate for a basic 

comparison to the costs of implementing the PACFlSH strategy as a means of 

evaluating efficiency.

For recreation, an assumption had to be made concerning what type of activities the

actual current output includes. The assumption was based on data given by those

field units experiencing recreational losses in anadromous drainages (see table 8).

For purposes of this study, the following bundle of goods was assumed: 50 percent

camping, 15 percent trail use, 10 percent viewing by auto, 10 percent fishing, 

5 percent swimming, 5 percent hunting, and 5 percent nonmotor boating.

Worst Case

30
31
The result is shown in table 11. The actual current timber programs of the BLM districts and NFS under the worst case have a gross value of $11.7 million and slightly

over $948.3 million, respectively. The range programs show a gross value of about 

$4.2 million and $15.7 million, respectively, whereas the recreation programs have a

gross current output value of $626.5 million and almost $3 billion, respectively (of 

which $1 million is attributable to the Tongass National Forest).

The type of economic analysis done here allows intitial individual comparisons among

districts or Forests. The cost to shut a program down would have to be greater than 

the difference between the total cost of implementing the PACFlSH strategy (tables 9,

10, and 11) and the gross value of the current program (table 11) before not shutting

down would be a viable alternative. The range program is the only program to show 

a large difference; four out of the six BLM districts show both costs as greater than 

the gross value of their range program in anadromous fish-bearing drainages 

(Spokane, Prineville, Vale, and Coeur d’Alene Districts), while one other is so close

(within about $3,000) that it is questionable as well (Salmon District). The National

Forests do not escape this issue either; 6 of the 16 Forests have range mitigation 

costs greater than the worth of their range program in anadromous fish-bearing drainages (Ochoco, Umatilla, Lassen, Challis, Sawtooth, and Clearwater National Forests),

while one other is within about $10,000 and is thus questionable as well (Boise 

National Forest).

32
33
34
35
Some field units seem to be more cost effective than others in mitigating their range

programs, but ownership patterns differ as do the types and costs of mitigation measures that need to occur. For many units, however, the difference between gross 

value of the current range program and the cost to implement the PACFlSH strategy 

in those programs is so great that shut down may be more efficient. Further individual

comparisons are left to the discretion of the decisionmakers.

The analysis of the output reductions without economics showed that both the NFS

and BLM incurred the greatest output reduction in their timber programs, whereas the

greatest costs occurred in the range program on BLM lands and in recreation for 

NFS. When economics was used, however, the value of the lost output was included

as a cost of implementing the PACFlSH strategy along with the mitigation costs; the

total of both costs from the mitigated case would have to be less than the total gross

value of the current program to maintain an order of efficiency. The present values of

the mitigation costs and output losses incurred in the next decade compared to the

gross present value of the current resource program outputs in anadromous fishbearing drainages are summarized in table 12.

Both BLM and NFS recreation and timber programs across anadromous fish-bearing

drainages show gross values significantly greater than both types of costs. The range

program was fairly close in gross value and cost on NFS lands, but both costs associated with implementing the PACFlSH strategy on BLM lands was greater than the

gross value of their range program. This calls into question the efficiency of the latter 

if the cost to shut the range program down is greater than the difference between the

gross value and the total cost of implementing the PACFlSH strategy. This does not

seem likely given that most costs to shut the program down would be similar but not

as extensive as the costs given to implement the PACFlSH strategy.

The ranking of severity among the programs for the estimated output reductions and

those impacts when economics are added change as well. Remember that the biggest output reduction was in the timber program for both BLM and NFS; however,

when the lost resources are valued, BLM lands show the greater loss in their recreation program. It is interesting to note that the actual current recreation programs on

both BLM and NFS lands are significantly more valuable than the other two programs,

with magnitudes of difference between the value of the actual current program and 

the costs of implementing the PACFlSH strategy.

lmplications of the interim PACFlSH comprehensive strategy for improved Pacific

salmon and steelhead habitat management for BLM districts and NFS lands west 

of the Rocky Mountains that have anadromous fish were analyzed with and without

economics. The output reduction and associated mitigation costs, when analyzed

without economics, did not take into account the temporal nature of the impacts in

conjunction with the value of money or the value that society holds for the resources

lost. lncorporating economics also changed the perceived ranking of severity among

the impacts and highlighted inefficiencies, such as in the case of range, in regards to

whether implementing an action such as the PACFlSH interim strategy increases

social welfare or not.

Discussion

Conclusions

36
We are thankful to the Forest Service and BLM analysts who provided exemplary

assistance in pulling together this information in a short timeframe. Judy Mikowski,

forestry technician, Portland Forestry Sciences Laboratory, helped produce many of

the tables in this report. Cecely Anderson, administrative support services, Portland

Forestry Sciences Laboratory, provided flexible and timely assistance in preparing 

and mailing information to the field units. Finally, the PACFlSH Strategy Field Team

provided initial comments.

Endangered Species Act. Act of December 28, 1973. 87 Stat. 884, as amended; 

16 U.S.C. 1531-1536, 1538-1540.

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act. Act of Aug. 17, 

1974. 88 Stat. 476, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 1600-1614.

Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team [FEMAT]. 1993. Forest 

ecosystem management: an ecological, economic, and social assessment.

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture; U.S. Department of the lnterior [and 

others]. [Irregular pagination].

Haynes, R.W. 1990. An analysis of the timber situation in the United States: 

1989-2040. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-199. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment 

Station. 286 p.

Haynes, Richard W.; Adams, Darius M.; Mills, John R. 1995. The 1993 timber 

assessment update. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-GTR-259. Fort Collins, CO: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range

Experiment Station.

Haynes, Richard W.; Bolon, Natalie A.; Hormaechea, Daniel T. 1992. The 

economic impact on the forest sector of critical habitat delineation for salmon in 

the Columbia and Snake River basin. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-307. Portland,

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research

Station. 33 p.

lnteragency Supplemental Environmental lmpact Statement (SEIS) Team. 1993.

Supplemental environmental impact statement on management of habitat for 

late-successional and old-growth forest related species within the range of the

northern spotted owl. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture; U.S. Department of the lnterior [and others]. [Irregular pagination].

Nehlsen, W.; Williams, J.E.; Lichatowich, J.A. 1991. Pacific salmon at the cross

roads: stocks at risk from California, Oregon, Idaho, and Washington. Fisheries.

16(2): 4-21.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1991. Resource pricing and 

valuation procedures for the recommended 1990 RPA program. Washington, DC:

U.S. Government Printing Office. 33 p.

U.S. Government Printing Office. 1993. Economic report of the President. 

Washington, DC. 474 p. [Transmitted to Congress, January 1993].

Acknowledgments

Literature Cited

37
Appendix 1 

lnformation Sent to

Field Units

38
39
PACFISH DATA REQUEST NARRATIVE

8/5/93

Introduction

For this effort, we need to know what the estimated effects will be on your 

timber, range and recreation programs if the PACFISH riparian management 

objectives (RMO’s) and the PACFISH standards and guidelines are adopted and 

applied to the watersheds within the range of anadromy on your unit. In 

particular, we want to know estimated changes in timber volumes, livestock 

AUMs, and developed/dispersed recreation use. We also want estimates of 

the related program administration costs.

We know there may be impacts in other resource areas as well, but for now

our data request is limited to these resources. However, if there is a

particularly significant potential impact in another resource area, please

bring it to our attention and provide as quantitative a description as 

possible.

Process Overview

We need to estimate the impacts on resource activity/output levels if the

PACFISH strategy were to be adopted. This means that Riparian Habitat

Conservation Areas (RHCAs) would be delineated on the ground as management 

areas, according to the interim RHCA width guidelines, and the PACFISH 

riparian management objectives (RMOs) and standards and guidelines (S&Gs) 

would apply within the RHCAs.

The range of anadromy for each Forest and District has been determined. If

you do not yet have that information, check with your Regional or State

Coordinator. In addition, “key watersheds” have been identified for all 

the National Forests concerned, except the Tongass. All of the watersheds

within the Snake River Basin affected by the Threatened and Endangered

listings in place there are considered key watersheds. Key watersheds have

not been identified for the BLM Districts. For those Districts, if you 

share an anadromous watershed with a National Forest, check with that

Forest to see if they show the watershed listed as key. Use whatever

designation the Forest shows. If you do not share the watershed, assume

for this analysis that the watershed is key. This only affects the width

of the RHCA delineation around intermittent streams.

Using whatever Forest or District data system you have in place, designate 

the RHCA boundaries for all streams in the anadromous watersheds on your 

unit, Refer to the RHCA discussion in your packet. For consistence 

purposes in this analysis, use the “feet” criteria to establish interim

RHCA widths. However, if there are special problem areas of significance

which you are relatively sure would be brought into an RHCA when laying out 

boundaries in more detail (see the alternative criteria for determining the 

boundaries in the RHCA paper), go ahead and include that area in your 

calculations.

Once you have the RHCA boundaries delineated, read through the RMO and S&G

sections of your packet. Estimate as best you can the effects applying

these S&Gs to meet the RMOs would have on your current program (see the 

discussion below for more detail on the three activity/output levels we 

want you to report).

40
With this packet are data sheets to fill in for each of the three resource

areas (timber, range and recreation), along with instructions for entry of 

the data into an ASCII delimited electronic file. The latter can be done 

by the Forests on the DG, and by the BLM Districts on a PC (if available). 

Fill out both the hard copy and the electronic file, and submit both. 

Report your figures in whole annual amounts -- e.g.,100, 1513, 4300000, 

etc.

Complete your estimates and transmit them the fastest way possible to your

Regional or State Coordinator by Wednesday, August 18. The coordinators 

will review the data submissions, work over any problem areas with you, and

transmit them on to PNW-Portland by Monday, August 23. That will give us 

one week to review the data, get back to you with any additional problem 

areas, aggregate the data, and prepare a report for the WO PACFISH Work 

Group to incorporate in the briefing package for the Chief’s and Directors

Offices by September 1.

Analysis Baseline

We are asking for three output/activity levels:

(1) as projected originally in your approved Forest or District (or 

similar) plan, by watershed (unit-wide for ASQ/DSHL) [correlates

to column marked “Level 1” on the data sheets];

(2) what your current levels are (generally FY93, but modify as 

necessary according to discussion below) [correlates to column 

marked “Level 2” on the data sheets];

(3) what your expected levels would be if the PACFISH strategy is 

adopted [correlates to column marked “Level 3” on the data 

sheets].

Baseline plan levels are the adopted Forest plans for Oregon, Washington,

Idaho, Montana and California Forests, the latest draft Forest plan for the

Tongass, and the most current Resource Management Plans for the BLM 

Districts in Oregon, Washington, Idaho and California.

“Current level” is that level at which you are actually operating today. 

It may be at your plan level, or it may be different because of changes in 

management direction since the adoption of the Forest or District plan 

caused by management requirements for ESA-listed or other species of 

special concern, funding levels, etc. If you are in a temporary lull in 

outputs because of consultation, watershed analysis, or other project 

implementation adjustments, report as “current” that level which you will 

otherwise expect to be achieving under existing constraints, once your

adjustments are made. Indicate when you expect to move out of your

temporary low point and onto that expected path.

If you don’t face the current constraint problems just mentioned, but your

actual current activity/output levels have been fluctuating quite a bit 

from year to year because of program demands, changing budgets, or 

whatever, we encourage you to use a 2-3 year average to come up with that 

current level.

Analysis Period

41
Please provide estimated impacts for one decade (FY1994-FY2003). Expected

output and activity levels can be shown as annual averages over the 

decade. However, if you expect temporary additional reductions because of 

consultation activities regarding ongoing and proposed projects, watershed 

analyses, and time needed to adjust practices on the ground, please note 

the years and levels of expected reduced outputs/activities, as well as the 

annual average levels you expect to achieve over the balance of the decade.

Scope

Data are requested by each anadromous watershed on your unit. If you need 

to aggregate watersheds for any reason, please note the aggregation made. 

Timber program effects (ASQ or decadal sustained harvest levels) will be 

reported for the entire unit, as those calculations by watershed are not 

generally consistent with the way Forest and District plans are done. 

However, changes or deletions in planned timber sales over the next decade 

in the anadromous watersheds should be reported at the watershed level.

Cost Information

For this data request, estimate what changes in program administration and 

management costa you expect to incur within the three resource areas, as 

compared to current levels, if PACFISH standards and guidelines are 

adopted. This could include increased timber sale prep and administration 

unit costs; increased grazing administration costs; costs of accelerating 

the range allotment planning process; recreation management, education and 

law enforcement costs; costs of additional planning and monitoring, etc. 

Do not include costs of carrying out watershed analysis, nor costs of

actually revising Forest or District plans down the road. That information

will be developed separately. Report all costs in 1993 dollars.

Riparian Management Objectives

For any help in understanding or clarifying the interpretation of the RMOs 

as found in your packet, contact:

Phil Janik, USFS/WO-WLF (202/205-1207);

Bob Joslin, USFS/R-4 (801/625-5603), or; 

Dick Bastin, BLM/ID (208/384-3056).

We want to be sure that the interpretations made are as consistent as 

possible, and came from people very familiar with the development of the 

RMO's.

Standards and Guidelines

The S&G's are written with a fair degree of flexibility. Their overall 

intent is to achieve as expeditiously as possible the attainment of the 

RMO’s. Local conditions will dictate what will be required, and much

latitude is given the field units in this regard. Therefore, estimating

potential effects relies heavily on your use of local knowledge and

judgement on a watershed by watershed basis. Please be as realistic as

possible -- avoid any tendencies to create an absolute worst case on one 

hand, or an unrealistic “we can keep doing business as usual” approach on 

the other. We do recognize that these will be broad-brush estimates in

many cases.

Some Specific Concerns

Rangelands: Districts and Forests which have anadromous watersheds that 

include large areas of open rangelands in the valley bottoms, and which 

are potentially available or current used for grazing, may choose to 

use BLM’s watershed-wide approach for estimating effects on the grazing

42
program of applying PACFISH standards and guidelines. RHCA widths will 

still be delineated, but it may be necessary to consider adjusting 

grazing practices throughout the watershed in order to meet the RMO’s. 

The alternative of focusing on just the RHCA could potentially require 

the complete elimination of grazing as currently practiced in the 

watershed in order to be able to adequately protect the RHCA (unless 

complete fencing of the RHCA were done). Use the process which would 

provide effective attainment of the RMO’s in the most cost-efficient 

manner, while maintaining output levels to the degree possible.

Roads: Although at this time we are not requesting any specific 

information on road management and costs, the PACFISH standards and 

guidelines include a section on management of roads in RHCA’s. Be sure 

to look at those S&G’s and include in your resource impact estimations 

how changes in existing or planned roads according to the S&G’s might 

affect existing or planned timber, range and/or recreation use on your 

unit. Existing or projected use levels may be affected because road 

access has to be seasonally or permanently curtailed, or planned roads

may not be able to be constructed as originally planned. Be sure to

coordinate with your road/transportation management folks in this area.

Timber: Be sure to report both effects on ASQ/DSHL for your unit, as 

well as expected effects on your actual timber sale program over the 

next decade within the RHCAs. If you have planned sales within an RHCA 

that are part of your scheduled volume, those would no longer be

allowed. You would have to either cancel the sale completely, or move 

it to an alternative location outside the RHCA, perhaps with a 

reduction in volume. We are trying to determine the estimated effects

on both the scheduled volume and on the actual timber sale program for 

the next decade.

Recreation: Recognize that application of the S&Gs to meet the RMOs may 

require seasonal closures to certain parts of streams to protect redds 

during spawning season; may require seasonal or permanent closing of 

portions of developed campgrounds along streams, or relocation of them 

away from the stream; and may require additional educational and law 

enforcement efforts to get visitors to recognize and adhere to the 

restrictions required to protect the habitat and fish.

43
Instructions for electronically entering 

PACFISH Economic Analysis Data 

(READ THROUGH FIRST)

1. FIRST, please fill out the hard copy of Data Collection Form 1 for each resource area 

affected for FY 1994-2003. Remember to use whole 1993 annual data and make as 

many copies of form 1 as needed to get all of the anadromous watersheds entered. You 

will be sending hard copies back as well as data entered electronically; per the following 

instructions. Send the electronic data as soon as it is completed.

2. For each row of data you enter, use zeros in the columns with no data.

3. The filled out table is a matrix 6 columns wide by however many anadromous watersheds 

your District or Forest has designated as analysis units.

4. Enter data from the form for each resource in a separate file in the manner specified 

below and name it with your District or Forest identification numbers and a resource 

abbreviation. For example, R6F4TIM, R6F4RNG, and R6F4REC could name 3 files, 

the first for data collection form 1 for timber, the second for data collection form 1 for 

range, and the third for data collection form 1 for recreation from the Malheur National 

Forest (NF). BLM Districts begin the filename with a “D” for District; examples are

DOR30TIM, DOR30RNG, and DOR30REC for the Vale District in Oregon whose BLM 

identification number is OR-030, and DID40TIM, DID40RNG, and DID40REC for the

Salmon District in Idaho, whose number is ID-040. The Spokane District in 

Washington, whose number is WA-130, is a special case as only 8 letters are allowed 

in the filename; use DWA13TIM, DWA13RNG, and DWA13REC.

5. DATA ENTRY FORMAT: The object is to merge this data directly into a Word Perfect 

table (set with corresponding codes) for publishing and summarizing of the data. For 

BLM Districts, on a PC use a program that can save a file as an ASCII delimited flat 

file. For NFs, use the DG “create a file.” There should be no wrapping of data in the 

files, so change right tabs, etc to accommodate if it does occur (as there are only 6 

columns of data to enter it should not occur). Enter the data with double quotes around 

it, a comma in between, and a hard return at the end of the line. THERE SHOULD BE 

NO SPACES OUTSIDE OF THE QUOTES, NO COMMAS WITHIN ANY

NUMBERS, AND NO DOLLAR SIGNS, etc. Spaces are allowed within the name of 

the Watershed. DATA LINE EXAMPLE (example data is contrived):

“Middle Fork Salmon”,” 85800”,”50000”, “45000”,”99000”, “9000”

THIS FILE COULD THEN BE NAMED “R4F6REC” for the Challis NF recreation data 

on the Middle Fork of the Salmon river where the Forest plan calls for 85,800 RVDs 

(note by watershed or in general on the hard copy or a separate sheet the recreation 

activity type by percentage), 50,000 RVDs for the actual current output with constraints 

column (again note recreation activity type by percentage; if no change, indicate), the 

PACFISH output is 45,000 RVDs (note the recreation activity types by percentage; if no 

change, indicate), and so forth.

6. ON THE DATA COLLECTION FORM FOR TIMBER there is a second table on timber 

sales. Enter the data from it exactly as shown above only in a separate file. Name the 

file the same as the Data Collection form for timber only end it with TSL instead of 

TIM.

44
45
46
47
48
49

PACFISH Strategy:

Goals/Riparian Management Objectives

BACKGROUND

The purpose of the PACFISH strategy is to provide habitat conditions that 

contribute to the conservation and restoration of naturally reproducing stocks

of Pacific salmon and anadromous trout on Forest Service (FS) and Bureau of

Land Management (BLM) lands in California, Oregon, Idaho, Washington, and

Alaska. It’s focus is on maintaining and restoring ecological functions and

processes that operate in a watershed to create good fish habitat.

Productive Salmonid Habitats

In general terms, productive natural habitats in 3rd to 5th order watersheds

supporting mixed species communities of anadromous salmonids are characterized

by:

-- excellent water quality (i.e, year round supply of cool, 

well-oxygenated water, and free from pollutants. Suspended sediment does

not exceed background levels in undisturbed watersheds and remains in phase

with freshets and flood events.)

-- sufficient water quantity (i.e, amplitude and timing of annual flow

events provides water to meet spawning, rearing and migration 

requirements.)

-- complex channel characteristics (i.e, the most productive stream

reaches for mixed salmonid communities have low gradients (<5%) with a 

combination of constrained and unconstrained segments containing a broad

diversity and complexity of habitat features. Streams maintain a balance

between high quality pools, riffles, glides, and side channels, with a pool

frequency of about one pool per four to seven channel widths. Cover

features such as large woody debris, boulders, undercut banks, overhanging

vegetation, deep water, and surface turbulence are abundant in all 

habitats. Substrates consist of a variety of particle sizes ranging from

silts to boulders to accommodate the spawning and rearing needs of all the

species within the community. Spawning gravels contain low percentages of

fine sediments. Channels are free of obstructions that interfere with the

upstream or downstream migration of adult or juvenile salmonids.)
-- healthy riparian communities (i.e. forested watersheds contain large 

conifers or a mixture of large conifers and hardwoods in riparian zones and 

near-stream uPland areas. Stream banks are vegetated with shrubs and other 

low-growing woody vegetation. Non-forested watersheds or portions of 

watersheds (generally rangeland systems) have an abundance of shrubs in the 

riparian zones and along streambanks and/or luxuriant growth of deep rooted 

grasses, sedges, and forbs. Root systems of plant communities adjacent to

streambanks of the active channel allow development and maintenance of 

stable undercut banks.)

-- stable watersheds (i.e. upland portions of watersheds are 

well-vegetated, fairly stable, and free from chronic and accelerated

sedimentation. Watersheds are free from disturbances that alter natural 

stream flow regimens and the quality of water emanating from uplands. 

Unstable headwall areas are vegetated with large conifers, or a combination 

of conifers and hardwoods.

This description of good habitat for anadromous salmonids applies to watersheds

as a whole. All of the described features may not occur in a specific segment

of stream within a watershed, but all should occur in abundance in the

watershed in total.

Components of Alternatives to Provide Good Habitat

The PACFISH strategy presents eight alternatives for providing the productive 

habitat conditions described above. The Forest Conference Team produced an 

alternative modified from one of the PACFISH alternatives. Each alternative 

affords different probabilities of success and operates on a different time

trajectory. The more conservative alternatives offer the highest levels of

protection for remaining good habitats and the shortest time frame for 

restoration of degraded habitats. Four components underlie the alternatives. 

Each component addresses a critical aspect for maintaining and restoring fish 

habitat and ecological functions in streams. They include:

-- delineating key-watershed (i.e, a landscape-scale system of watershed

protection across lands managed by the FS and BLM.) 

-- establishing Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (i.e. areas within 

all watersheds that are the primary contributors/regulators of water 

quality, sediment, and organic material where land-use activities are 

restricted to those that either directly benefit or do not adversely affect 

fish habitat.)

50
-- implementing watershad analyses (i.e. an explicit level of evaluation

designed to determine geomorphic and ecologic processes operating in 

specific watersheds, identify boundaries of Riparian Habitat Conservation

Areas, provide information to refine Riparian Management Objectives and

other habitat objectives to better reflect the inherent ecological 

capabilities of specific watersheds, and provide a blueprint for 

restoration measures.)

-- initiating comprehensive watershed restoration measures (i.e. capital

investment to accelerate restoration of watershed function and health, with

priority given to those watersheds that have the greatest potential to 

provide high quality fish habitat and contribute to conservation of “at

risk” salmonid stocks.)

The PACFISH alternatives define how the four components are used and the 

portion of the landscape they apply to.

Management Direction

To provide an appropriate level of consistency and assurance that management of

watersheds on FS and BLM lands provides habitat conditions that contribute to

recovery and sustained natural production of anadromous salmonids, the PACFISH

strategy includes management direction in the form of goals, objectives, and

standards and guidelines. The role of each is briefly summarized below:

-- goals establish a common expectation of the characteristics of

healthy, functioning watersheds, riparian areas, and associated fish 

habitats.

-- objectives for stream channel, riparian, and watershed conditions that

are measurable, together provide a quantitative description of good

salmonid habitat, and serve as indicators against which attainment, or

progress toward attainment, of the goals will be measured.

-- standards and guidelines (S&G’s) for implementation of management

activities to provide assurance that objectives for stream channel, 

riparian, and watershed conditions are met. S&G’s are designed to steadily

move stream habitat toward the defined conditions indicative of good 

habitat; or, if current habitat is in good condition, that conditions

remain favorable in managed landscapes. The extent of the landscape to

which S&G’s are applied varies by alternative.

51
There are direct linkages between the management direction described above, and

the components of the alternatives (Figure 1). The goals and objectives define

the habitat conditions needed to contribute to conservation and restoration of

naturally reproducing salmonid stocks. The standards and guidelines describe

limitations on management activities to meet those conditions. Delineation of

Key Watersheds and RHCA’s in the various alternatives help to define where and

how quickly management direction is applied. Information gathered through

watershed analysis is used to refine objectives and adjust standards and guides

to better match the ecological capabilities of specific watersheds, or more

effectively accomplish strategy goals.

Figure 1. Linkages between PACFISH goals, objectives, standards and

guidelines, and alternatives of the strategy. Habitat in good condition will 

be protected and degraded habitats will be restored through application of the

strategy.

52
GOALS FOR WATERSHED, RIPARIAN AREA, AND STREAM CHANNEL CONDITIONS

Protection and restoration of habitat quantity, quality, diversity, and 

complexity is critical to conservation and restoration of many stocks of 

western anadromous salmonids that inhabit lands managed by the FS and BLM.

Since the quality of water and fish habitat in aquatic systems is inseparably

related to the integrity of upland and riparian areas within their watersheds,

the Strategy articulates several goals for watershed, riparian, and stream

channel conditions. As noted elsewhere, collectively these goals establish a

common expectation of the characteristics of healthy, functioning watersheds,

riparian areas, and associated fish habitats.

The goals are to maintain or restore:

-- water quality to a degree that provides for stable and productive

riparian and aquatic ecosystems.

-- stream channel integrity, channel processes, and the sediment regime

under which the riparian and aquatic ecosystems developed. (Important

elements of the sediment regime include the timing, volume, and character 

of sediment input and transport.)

-- instream flows to support healthy riparian and aquatic habitats, the

stability and effective function of stream channels, and the ability to

route flood discharges.

-- natural timing and variability of the water table elevation in meadows

and wetlands.

-- diversity and productivity of native and desired non-native plant

communities in riparian zones.

-- riparian vegetation to:

1. provide an amount and distribution of large woody debris 

characteristic of natural aquatic and riparian ecosystems.

2. provide adequate summer and winter thermal regulation within the

riparian and aquatic zones.

3. help achieve rates of surface erosion, bank erosion, and channel

migration characteristic of those under which the communities 

developed.

53
-- riparian and aquatic habitats necessary to foster the unique genetic 

fish stocks that evolved within that specific geo-climatic region.

-- habitat to support populations of well-distributed native and desired 

non-native plant, vertebrate, and invertebrate populations that contribute 

to the viability of riparian-dependent communities.

The forgoing goals apply broadly to FS and BLM landscapes in California, 

Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Alaska.

OBJECTIVES

Measurable objectives for stream channel, riparian, and watershed conditions 

provide the “criteria” against which attainment, or progress toward attainment,

of the goals will be measured. They provide the target that managers of

federal lands will be aiming for as they conduct resource management activities

across the landscape. Without the benchmark provided by measurable objectives,

our perception of good habitat suffers a continual erosion. Additionally, the

objectives should be time-specific and established on a drainage or other 

biologically significant production basis, to reflect the ecological 

capabilities of specific systems.

Factors Complicating Establishment of Objectives

Quantitative definition of stream channel, riparian, and watershed conditions 

(i.e. “good habitat”) that are indicative of having met Strategy goals is 

complicated by several factors, including:

-- anadromous salmonids inhabit diverse ecological settings. Watershed 

topography, geology, vegetation, and climatic features interact to produce

the floodplain and channel features that shape salmonid habitats. The

variation in these features, and associated habitats, over the range of 

Pacific anadromous salmonids makes quantitative description of good habitat 

a monumental task.

-- natural variability of conditions within given ecological settings. 

Even within given ecological settings there may be significant natural 

variability in some habitat features.

54
-- anadromous species have evolved into numerous locally adapted stocks.

Each species has a variable number of discrete stocks that are genetically

isolated from each other and specifically adapted to local habitat 

characteristics. Hundreds of such stocks utilize streams and lakes for 

reproduction and freshwater rearing in the forests and rangelands of

California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Alaska. Each stock has exacting

but slightly different habitat requirements, necessitating diverse and 

complex habitats to maintain viable populations of all groups.

-- life history characteristics of anadromous salmonids are complex. The

life history of anadromous salmonids adds to the complexity of freshwater

habitat needs. All anadromous salmonids spawn in freshwater and juvenile

fish rear in streams and lakes for variable periods of time before moving

to sea where they grow to adulthood. Juveniles of some species reside in

freshwater for only a few weeks, but more commonly, juveniles reside in 

freshwater for one to several years, growing in size to 6-8 inches or more

before entering the sea. Freshwater habitats often must accommodate

several age classes of young anadromous fish ranging in size from one to

eight inches through spring, summer, fall, and winter seasons. Habitat

needs are different for each age class and season of the year. Therefore,

freshwater habitats must provide good water quality and quantity and a wide

variety of substrates, riffles, pools, glides, and side-channels, cover, 

and food resources to accommodate the habitat needs of all the age classes.

-- anadromous salmonids occur as communities and co-exist with other 

aquatic species. Assemblages of western anadromous salmonids associated 

with public lands include five species of Pacific salmon, two trouts, and

one char. It is quite common for several species, numerous stocks and a

variety of age classes to exist in concert in the same sections of stream

systems throughout their range. As a result, the anadromous salmonid 

community of most aquatic systems is a complex mixture of several species,

stocks, and age classes. The complexity of anadromous salmonid communities

varies geographically throughout their range. At the extreme southern and

northern ends of the range and in the upper reaches of the largest river 

systems (e.g., Columbia River) anadromous communities tend to be less

complex than in the central portion of the range. The simpler communities

might consist of one to three species and several stocks, while the more 

complex communities can consist of eight species and numerous stocks.

55
The complex habitat needs of anadromous salmonids can not be discussed in

isolation. Most of the aquatic systems used by anadromous salmonids also

are used by a variety of resident trout, char, and other aquatic species.

Where anadromous communities are less complex, often resident fish 

communities tend to be more complex. These species also have exacting

habitat needs that differ from anadromous species but must be met by the

same habitats. The combination of anadromous and resident fish assemblages

living in concert in freshwater systems adds to the need for habitat 

complexity and diversity throughout the west.

-- available data for quantifying habitat features are limited. The

freshwater habitat requirements of anadromous salmonids have been 

well-documented in the scientific literature. In general, however, 

descriptions of habitat requirements are species-specific and do not take

into account the fact that almost all aquatic habitats used by anadromous

fish must accommodate complex communities of species and stocks rather than

a single species or stock.

Identification of Interim Riparian Management Objectives

Given the need for measurable objectives and the limitations noted above, the

PACFISH strategy includes a set of interim Riparian Management Objectives to

guide land management decisions. More specific objectives will be developed as

watershed analyses are conducted for individual drainages. The specific

objectives will be tailored to the geology, topography, climate, vegetation,

and needs of specific salmonid assemblages in the watersheds, and an assessment

of what habitat conditions are attainable in a given watershed.

Use of Undisturbed Habitats to Establish Interim Riparian Management

Objectives. Inventory information from habitats largely undisturbed by human

activities, and that successfully accommodate a complex community of species

and stocks was used to develop interim Riparian Management Objectives. Systems

that have suffered recent catastrophic disturbance (i.e. fire, flood, 

volcanoes, landslides, earthquakes, etc.) and are in unfavorable productive

states were screened out of the data base, because natural disturbances of this

type are unpredictable, occur irregularly across the landscape, and have 

recurrence intervals of centuries to millennia,

56
Data Available to Establish Interim Riparian Management Objectives. Although 

stream inventories have been conducted by state and federal agencies in 

California, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho since the 1930’s, and more recently 

in Alaska, few are quantitative enough to be replicated or used comparable 

protocols. An exception is an extensive survey of salmon habitats of the

Columbia Basin conducted by the Bureau of Fisheries between 1938 and 1941. 

That survey quantified habitat in 6,000 miles of Columbia Basin streams and 

provided data on pool frequency and substrate characteristics that can be used 

to establish measurable objectives for good habitat. Watershed-scale stream

inventories conducted by the Forest Service since 1988 in Oregon, Washington, 

and Alaska also provide a substantial data base (more that 2000 miles surveyed)

for establishing measurable objectives for features of good salmonid habitat.

Selection of Habitat Features for Interim Riparian Management Objectives. 

Interim objectives address selected features of salmonid habitats that are:

-- good indicators of ecosystem health. Aquatic systems are ecologically

complex and inseparably linked to riparian and upland terrestrial systems. 

As described elsewhere, the complexity of habitat features and their 

interactive nature makes identification of measurable objectives a 

difficult task. However, some habitat features can be used as surrogates 

for the processes that lead to habitat formation, and in combination with

other features can be used as indices to the health of watershed systems 

and salmonid habitat quality. For example, an abundance of pools in a 

stream may indicate: a balance between sediment input to a system and 

sediment processing, the presence of roughness elements in the channel 

(e.g. large woody debris, boulders, or root-reinforced streambanks), and/or 

normal variations in streamflow. Large wood in a stream may indicate the

presence of healthy riparian and near-stream upland vegetative communities,

while providing cover complexity in the active channel and habitat for 

healthy invertebrate populations that serve as salmonid food sources.

-- easily quantified and subject to accurate repeatable measurements.

Habitat Features Selected for Interim Direction. The Strategy proposed 

Riparian Management Objectives that are defined by a key feature and several 

supporting features that meet the two criteria described above. The key 

feature (kf) and supporting features (sf) are:

57
-- pool frequency (kf) 

(all systems)

-- water temperature (sf) 

(all systems)

-- large woody debris frequency (sf) 

(forested systems)

-- streambank stability and lower bank angle (sf) 

(non-forested systems)

-- width to depth ratio (sf) 

(all systems)

58
Interim Riparian Management Objectives for Selected Features. Stream inventory

data referenced above were used to establish interim objectives for pool 

frequency, large woody debris, bank stability and lower bank angle, and width

to depth ratio. State water quality standards were used to define favorable 

water temperatures’. The table below summarizes the landscape-scale interim

Riparian Management Objectives for these selected habitat features.

59
Limitations of Interim Riparian Management Objectives. In development of 

interim Riparian Management Objectives an effort was made to stratify stream

inventory data by stream size, constrained and unconstrained floodplains, 

geographic area, hydrologic province, and geologic province. The data base

available, however, was inadequate for this level of stratification. Instead,

all of the data (from more than 100 watershed-level surveys) were combined to

develop landscape-scale interim habitat objectives that can be applied broadly

to guide management activities on public lands over the entire range of 

anadromous salmonids from California to Southcentral Alaska.

A watershed analysis will be required to determine habitat objectives that are

desirable and attainable within specific streams or reaches of streams. Until

such specific watershed analyses are completed, these interim Riparian

Management Objectives will be used to estimate the differences between existing

and good habitat conditions and trends relative to attainment of PACFISH goals.

Application of Interim Riparian Management Objectives. Interim objectives 

apply at the watershed scale for stream systems of moderate size (3rd to 5th

order). Each of the interim objectives must be met or exceeded before general

habitat conditions would be considered good for anadromous salmonids. However,

application of the interim objectives requires thoughtful analysis and common

sense. That is, if the objective for pool frequency is met or exceeded, there

may be some latitude in assessing the importance of meeting the objectives for

the supporting features that contribute to channel roughness and complexity. 

For example, in headwater steelhead streams with an abundance of pools, fewer

pieces of large wood in the presence of an abundance of large boulders might

still constitute good habitat. The goal is to achieve a high level of habitat

diversity and complexity, and that can be achieved through a combination of

roughness elements. Watershed analysis will play an important role in 

establishing site-specific clarification of these interactions. Differences in

ownership patters (i.e. blocked, checkerboard, scattered) also will require 

that common sense guide the application of interim Riparian Management 

Objectives.

60
Habitat conditions.that do not meet the interim Riparian Management Objectives

may be predicted as part of the “analysis of alternatives process” or measured

during/following implementation of land management activities. Predicted 

habitat conditions that do not meet interim objectives will require additional

watershed/fisheries analysis. This analysis will:

-- identify principle features contributing to predicted habitat 

conditions that will not meet the interim Riparian Management Objectives.

-- determine if the proposed activitIes should be redesigned, modified,

moved, or dropped.

-- identify required mitigation measures to bring the activity in line 

with interim Riparian Management Objectives.

-- evaluate the “fit” of interim Riparian Management Objectives relative 

to the ecological capabilities of the specific watershed and the habitat

requirements of the species complex occurring in that watershed.

-- be completed and documented as part of the environmental analysis

process.

Measured habitat conditions that do not meet interim Riparian Management

Objectives would trigger additional analysis to:

-- identify principle factors responsible for measured habitat conditions

that do not meet interim Riparian Management Objectives.

-- evaluate the “fit” of interim Riparian Management Objectives relative 

to the ecological capabilities of the specific watershed and the habitat

requirements of the species complex occurring in that watershed.

Based on this analysis, the agency would take one or more of the following

actions as appropriate:

-- modify/refine/discontinue the management activities resulting in 

habitat conditions that do not meet interim Riparian Management Objectives.

61
-- review/revise the schedule of activities, standards and guides, etc.

-- initiate new activities (e.g. rehabilitation) to meet interim Riparian

Management Objectives.

-- revise the Riparian Management Objectives to more accurately reflect

the ecological capabilities of the specific watershed. 

Document the results of the analysis, the actions to be taken, and the 

time-frame within which those actions will occur.

Revision of Interim Riparian Management Objectives. Given the lack of 

information to establish watershed specific measurable objectives, an on-going

process for refinement of the objectives will be necessary. The process for

revision will include four components:

-- revision must be driven by sound, locally applicable quantitative

field data and applicable research.

-- the data must clearly indicate that the ecological capability of the

system is significantly different from those described by the interim

Riparian Management Objectives.

-- the proposed revision is supported by discussion/analysis 

demonstrating that the new objective better indicates achievement of 

PACFISH strategy goals.

-- the revision will be documented and reviewed by a designated team of

watershed/fisheries managers and research scientists.

Within the Columbia River Basin, drainage specific “desired future condition

(DFC) numeric values” have been developed. These DFC values are consistent 

with the PACFISH strategy definition of “objectives.” In lieu of the more

broadly defined PACFISH interim Riparian Management Objectives, DFC values will

be used to guide land management in the drainages for which they were 

developed.

62
PACFISH Strategy: 

Standards & Guidelines

BACKGROUND

The purpose of the PACFISH strategy is to provide habitat conditions that 

contribute to the conservation and restoration of naturally reproducing stocks 

of Pacific salmon and anadromous trout on Forest Service (FS) and Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM) lands in California, Oregon, Idaho, Washington, and

Alaska. It’s focus is on maintaining and restoring ecological functions and

processes that operate in a watershed to create good fish habitat.

Management Direction

To provide an appropriate level of consistency and assurance that management of

watersheds on FS and BLM lands provides habitat conditions that contribute to 

recovery and sustained natural production of anadromous salmonids, the PACFISH

strategy includes management direction in the form of goals, objectives, and 

standards and guidelines. The role of each is briefly summarized below:

-- goals establish a common expectation of the characteristics of 

healthy, functioning watersheds, riparian areas, and associated fish 

habitats.

-- objectives for stream channel, riparian, and watershed conditions that 

are measurable, together provide a quantitative description of good 

salmonid habitat, and serve as indicators against which attainment, or 

progress toward attainment, of the goals will be measured.

-- standards and guidelines (S&G’s) for implementation of management 

activities to provide assurance that objectives for stream channel, 

riparian, and watershed conditions are met. S&G’s are designed to steadily 

move stream habitat toward the defined conditions indicative of good 

habitat; or, if current habitat is in good condition, that conditions 

remain favorable in managed landscapes. The extent of the landscape to 

which S&G’s are applied varies by alternative.

63
STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES

The following S&G package was developed by the PACFISH Washington Office Work 

Group and Field Team.

Timber Management

TM-1. ProhibIt timber harvest, including fuelwood cutting, in Riparian 

Habitat Conservation Areas, except as described below. Riparian 

Habitat Conservation Areas shall not be included in the land base 

used to determine the Allowable Sale Quantity, but any volume 

harvested can contribute to the timber sale program.

a. Where catastrophic events such as fire, flooding, volcanic, wind, 

or insect damage result in degraded riparian conditions, allow 

salvage and fuelwood cutting if there are no impacts that are 

inconsistent with attainment of Riparian Management Objectives.

b. Remove salvage trees only when present and future woody debris 

needs are met and other Riparian Management Objectives are not 

adversely affected.

c. Apply silvicultural practices for Riparian Habitat Conservation 

Areas to control stocking, reestablish and culture stands, and 

acquire desired vegetation characteristics in a manner that assures

Riparian Management Objectives are met.

Roads Management

RF-1. Cooperate with federal, Tribal, state, and county agencies, and 

cost-share partners to achieve consistency in road design, operation, 

and maintenance necessary to attain Riparian Management Objectives.

RF-2. For each existing or planned road, meet the Riparian Management 

Objectives by:

a. minimizing road and landing locations in Riparian Habitat 

Conservation Areas.

b. completing Watershed Analyses prior to construction of new roads 

or landings in Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas.

c. establishing and developing Road Management Objectives for each 

road, including preparation of:

64
1. road design criteria, elements, and standards that govern 

construction and reconstruction.

2. operation and maintenance criteria that govern road operation, 

maintenance, and management.

d. minimizing sediment delivery to streams from the road surface. 

1. outsloping of the roadway surface is preferred, except in cases 

where outsloping would increase where sediment delivery to streams or 

where outsloping is infeasible or unsafe.

2. route road drainage away from potentially unstable channels, 

fills, and hillslopes.

e. minimizing disruption of natural hydrologic flow paths.

f. restricting sidecasting.

RF-3. Determine the influence of each road on the Riparian Management 

Objectives. Meet Riparian Management Objectives by:

a. reconstructing road and drainage features that pose a substantial 

risk.

b. prioritizing reconstruction based on the current and potential 

impact to riparian resources and the ecological value of the riparian

resources affected.

c. closing and stabilizing, or obliterating and stabilizing roads not

needed for future management activities. 

RF-4. New culverts, bridges and other stream crossings in locations of 

substantial risk, and existing culverts, bridges and other stream 

crossings determined to pose a substantial risk to riparian 

conditions will be improved to accommodate a 100-year flood, 

including associated bedload and debris. Priority for upgrading will 

be based on the potential impact and the ecological value of the 

riparian resources affected. Crossings will be constructed and 

maintained to prevent diversion of streamflow out of the channel and 

down the road in the event of crossing failure.

RF-5. Provide and maintain fish passage at all road crossings of existing 

and potential fish-bearing streams.

65
RF-6. Develop and implement a Road Management Plan or a Transportation

Management Plan that will meet the Riparian Management Objectives. 

This plan shall address items such as the following: 

a. Road Management Objectives for each road. 

b. road operation and maintenance. 

c. post-storm inspections and maintenance. 

d. during-storm inspections and maintenance. 

e. regulation of traffic during wet periods.

Grazing Management

GM-1. Adjust grazing practices (e.g. length of grazing season, stocking 

levels, timing of grazing, etc.) to eliminate impacts that are 

inconsistent with attainment of Riparian Management Objectives. If 

adjusting practices is not effective, eliminate grazing.

GM-2. Locate new livestock handling and/or management facilities outside

Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas. For existing livestock handling

facilities inside the Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas, assure 

that Riparian Management Objectives are met. Where these objectives 

cannot be met, require relocation or removal of such facilities.

GM-3. Limit livestock trailing, bedding, watering, salting, loading, and 

other handling efforts to those areas and times that will assure 

Riparian Management Objectives are met.

GM-4. Adjust wild horse and burro management to eliminate impacts that are

inconsistent with attainment of Riparian Management Objectives.

Recreation Management

RM-1. Design, construct, and operate recreation facilities, including 

trails and dispersed sites, within Riparian Habitat Conservation 

Areas in a manner that contributes to attainment of the Riparian

Management Objectives. For existing recreation facilities inside 

Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas, assure that Riparian Management

Objectives are met. Where Riparian Management Objectives cannot be 

met, require relocation or closure of recreation facilities.

RM-2. Adjust dispersed and developed recreation practices that are 

inconsistent with attainment of Riparian Management Objectives. 

Where adjustment measures such as education, use limitations, traffic 

control devices, increased maintenance, relocation of facilities, 

and/or specific site closures are not effective, eliminate the 

practice or occupancy.

66
RM-3. Wild and Scenic Rivers, Wilderness, and other Recreation Management 

plans will address attainment of Riparian Management Objectives.

Minerals Management

MM-1. If the Notice of Intent indicates a mineral operation could affect 

attainment of Riparian Management Objectives, require a reclamation 

plan, approved Plan of Operations (or other such governing document), 

and reclamation bond. Impacts that cannot be avoided will be 

reclaimed after operations to as near the pre-mining condition as 

practicable to meet Riparian Management Objective. Reclamation Plans 

will contain measurable attainment and bond release criteria for each

reclamation activity.

MM-2. Locate structures, support facilities, and roads outside Riparian 

Habitat Conservation Areas. Where no alternative to siting facilities 

in Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas exists, locate in a way 

compatible with Riparian Management Objectives. Road construction 

will be kept to the minimum necessary for the approved mineral 

activity. When a road is no longer required for mineral or land 

management activities, it will be closed, obliterated, and 

stabilized.

MM-3. Prohibit solid and sanitary waste facilities in Riparian Habitat

Conservation Areas. If no practicable alternative to locating mine 

waste (waste rock, spent ore, tailings) facilities in Riparian 

Habitat Conservation Areas exists, and releases can be prevented and 

stability can be ensured, then:

a. analyze the waste material using the best conventional sampling 

methods and analytic techniques to determine its chemical and 

physical stability characteristics.

b. locate and design the waste facilities using best conventional 

techniques to ensure mass stability and prevent the release of acid 

or toxic materials. If the best conventional technology is not 

sufficient to prevent such releases and ensure stability over the 

long term, prohibit such facilities in Riparian Habitat Conservation

Areas.

c. monitor waste and waste facilities to confirm predictions of 

chemical and physical stability, and make adjustments to operations 

as needed.

d. reclaim waste facilities after operations to assure chemical and 

physical stability and to meet the Riparian Management Objectives.

e. require reclamation bonds adequate to ensure long-term chemical 

and physical stability of mine waste facilities.

67
MM-4. For leasable minerals, prohibit surface occupancy within Riparian

Habitat Conservation Areas for oil, gas, and geothermal exploration

and development activities where contracts and leases do not already

exist, unless there are no other options for location and Riparian

Management Objectives can be met. Adjust the operating plans of

existing contracts to eliminate impacts that are inconsistent with

attainment of Riparian Management Objectives.

MM-5. Sand and gravel mining and extraction within Riparian Habitat 

Conservation Areas will occur only if Riparian Management Objectives

can be met.

MM-6. Develop inspection and monitoring requirements for mineral 

activities. Evaluate the results of inspection and monitoring to 

modify mineral plans, leases or permits as needed to eliminate 

impacts that are inconsistent with attainment of Riparian Management

Objectives.

Fire/Fuels Management

FM-1. Design fuel treatment and fire suppression strategies, practices, and

activities to meet Riparian Management Objectives, and to minimize

disturbance of riparian ground cover and vegetation. Strategies

should recognize the role of fire in ecosystem function and identify

those instances where fire suppression or fuel management activities

could perpetuate or be damaging to long-term ecosystem function.

FM-2. Locate incident bases, camps, helibases, staging areas, helispots and

other centers for incident activities outside of Riparian Habitat

Conservation Areas. If the only suitable location for such 

activities is within the Riparian Habitat Conservation Area, an 

exemption may be granted following a review and recommendation by a

esource advisor. The advisor will prescribe the location, use 

conditions, and rehabilitation requirements. Utilize an 

interdisciplinary team to predetermine suitable incident base and

helibase locations during presuppression planning.

FM-3. Minimize delivery of chemical retardant, foam, or additives to 

surface waters. An exception may be warranted in situations where

over-riding immediate safety imperatives exist, or, following a 

review and recommendation by a resource advisor, when an escape would

cause more long-term damage.

FM-4 Design prescribed burn projects and prescriptions to contribute to 

the attainment of the Riparian Management Objectives.

FM-5. Immediately establish an emergency team to develop a rehabilitation

treatment plan needed to attain Riparian Management Objectives 

whenever Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas are significantly 

damaged by a wildfire or a prescribed fire burning out of 

prescription.

68
Lands

LH-1. For hydroelectric and other surface water development proposals, 

require instream flows and habitat conditions that maintain or 

restore riparian resources, favorable channel conditions, and fish 

passage. Coordinate this process with the appropriate state 

agencies. During relicensing of hydroelectric projects, provide 

written and timely license conditions to Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission (FERC) that require flows and habitat conditions that 

maintain/restore riparian resources and channel integrity. 

Coordinate relicensing projects with the appropriate state agencies.

LH-2. Locate new hydroelectric ancillary facilities outside Riparian 

Habitat Conservation Areas. For existing ancillary facilities inside 

the RHCA that are essential to proper management, provide 

recommendations to FERC that assure the Riparian Management 

Objectives are met. Where these objectives cannot be met, provide 

recommendations to FERC that such ancillary facilities should be 

relocated. Hydroelectric facilities that must be located in the 

Riparian Habitat Conservation Area, will be located, operated, and 

maintained to eliminate adverse effects that are inconsistent with 

attainment of the Riparian Management Objectives.

LH-3. Issue leases, permits, rights-of-way, and easements to avoid adverse

effects that are inconsistent with attainment of the Riparian 

Management Objectives. Where the authority to do so was retained, 

adjust existing leases, permits, rights-of-way, and easements to 

eliminate adverse effects that are inconsistent with attainment of 

the Riparian Management Objectives. If adjustments are not 

effective, eliminate the activity. Where the authority to adjust was 

not retained, negotiate to make changes in existing leases, permits,

rights-of-way, and easements to eliminate adverse effects that are 

inconsistent with attainment of the Riparian Management Objectives.

Priority for modifying existing leases, permits, rights-of-way, and 

easements will be based on the current and potential impact and the 

ecological value of the riparian resources affected.

LH-4. Use land acquisition, exchange, and conservation easements to meet

Riparian Management Objectives and facilitate restoration of fish 

stocks and other species at risk of extinction.

General Riparian Area Management

RA-1. Identify and cooperate with federal, Tribal, state and local 

governments to secure instream flows needed to maintain riparian

resources, channel conditions, and aquatic habitat.

RA-2. Fell trees in Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas when they pose a 

safety risk. Keep felled trees on-site when needed to meet woody 

debris objectives.

69
RA-3. Apply herbicides, pesticides, and other toxicants, and other 

chemicals in a manner to avoid impacts that are inconsistent with

attainment of Riparian Management Objectives.

RA-4. Locate water drafting sites to minimize adverse effects on stream

channel stability, sedimentation, and in-stream flows.

Watershed and Habitat Restoration

WR-1. Design and implement watershed restoration projects in a manner that

promotes the long-term ecological integrity of ecosystems, conserve

the genetic integrity of native species, and contributes to 

attainment of Riparian Management Objectives.

WR-2. Cooperate with Federal, State, local, and Tribal agencies, and 

private land-owners to develop watershed-based Coordinated Resource

Management Plans (CRMPs) or other cooperative agreements to meet

Riparian Management Objectives.

Fisheries and Wildlife Management

FW-1. Design and implement fish and wildlife habitat restoration and

enhancement activities in a manner that contributes to attainment of

the Riparian Management Objectives.

FW-2. Design, construct and operate fish and wildlife interpretive and 

other user-enhancement facilities in a manner that is consistent with

attainment of the Riparian Management Objectives. For existing fish

and wildlife interpretive and other user-enhancement facilities 

inside Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas, assure that Riparian

Management Objectives are met. Where Riparian Management Objectives

cannot be met, relocate or close such facilities.

FW-3. Cooperate with federal, tribal, and state wildlife management 

agencies to identify and eliminate wild ungulate impacts that are

inconsistent with attainment of the Riparian Management Objectives.

FW-4. Cooperate with federal, tribal, and state fish management agencies to

identify and eliminate impacts associated with habitat manipulation,

fish stocking, fish harvest, and poaching that threaten the continued

existence and distribution of native fish stocks inhabiting federal

lands.

70
APPLICATION OF STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES

Because Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs) are recognized areas of the

watershed within which the agencies should exercise special sensitivity, a set

of interim standards and guidelines have been developed to guide management

activities therein. These interim standards and guidelines will apply to RHCAs

in all watersheds within the range of Pacific anadromous fish and will 

supplement standards and guidelines for areas of the watershed outside the RHCA

that already are present in existing planning documents. In proposing special

standards and guidelines for RHCAs we do not intend that activities in other

parts of the watershed should be unregulated. The combination of the proposed

interim standards and guidelines for RHCAs with the existing standards and

guidelines will provide a benchmark for management activities that reflects our

increased sensitivities and commitment to ecosystem management. The

implementation of this proposal is designed to assure that objectives for 

watershed condition will be met.

Fragmented and mixed land ownership patterns among federal, state, tribal and

private landowners will require special skills in the implementation of the 

proposed interim standards and guidelines. For some standards and guidelines,

it may be possible and appropriate to implement standards and guidelines on

Forest Service or Bureau of Land Management administered lands where intermixed

with nonfederal lands, regardless of practices on the nonfederal lands. In

other situations, such implementation may not be possible or appropriate. For

example, road landings and pull-outs could be minimized within RHCAs on Forest

Service and Bureau of Land Management lands even it not minimized in riparian

zones on nonfederal lands. In this case, implementation of standards and 

guidelines regarding minimization of road landings and pull-outs in RHCAs on

federal lands will help attain Riparian Management Objectives even if the

standards is not applied on adjacent nonfederal lands. In some cases, however,

such as road maintenance conducted across all jurisdictions by a county 

government, it may be impractical to implement standards and guidelines only

where the road crosses federal lands. Regardless, it is imperative that when

dealing with land management activities that occur across lands of mixed 

ownership that the federal land managers work closely with other land managers

to apply PACFISH interim standards and guidelines across all landownerships

whenever possible.

Execution of a comprehensive monitoring program is necessary to insure

appropriate implementation of interim standards and guidelines and to determine

their effectiveness. All monitoring programs should include the following

components:

-- analysis of whether interim standards and guidelines were properly

implemented (implementation component);

-- analysis of whether implementation of interim standards and 

guidelines has helped achieve PACFISH goals and objectives 

(effectiveness component); and

-- analysis of whether the cause and effect relationships that helped 

shape the interim standards and guidelines remain valid (validation 

component).

71
Results of monitoring may indicate the need for revisions of management actions

or revisions of interim standards and guidelines to more clearly suit local

watershed conditions for achieving PACFISH goals and objectives. If monitoring

determines that the interim standards and guidelines have not been properly

implemented, the following actions should be taken:

-- modify actions to insure proper implementation of interim standards 

and guidelines; or

-- eliminate or delay activity until implementation of interim standards 

and guidelines can be insured or until such time that revised 

standards and guidelines more suitable for local watershed conditions 

have been developed and reviewed.

If monitoring determines that interim standards and guidelines have not been

effective in helping to meet PACFISH goals and objectives, or if underlying 

cause and effect relationships have changed, then revision of standards and

guidelines to meet conditions of the local watershed may be necessary.

REVISION OF STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES

The standards and guidelines were developed to establish a consistent 

application of management sensitivity to activities within RHCAs throughout the

entire geographic range of Pacific anadromous fish. The standards and 

guidelines were written to provide assurance that the Riparian Management

Objectives are met, and habitat on lands managed by the Forest Service and the

Bureau of Land Management is maintained in, or restored to “good” condition. If

monitoring indicates that a change in standards and guidelines (either 

increasing or decreasing management flexibility) is needed to assure the 

Riparian Management Objectives are met, any change will be made through 

subsequent formal changes of the Forest Land Management or Resource Management

Plans (i.e. amendments or revisions). Any revision to the standards and 

guidelines must be based on all of the following criteria:

-- the data must clearly indicate that the ecological capability of the 

system is not being adequately addressed by existing standards and 

guidelines;

-- revision must be driven by sound, locally applicable monitoring 

results and research;

-- the proposed standards and guidelines are supported by analysis and 

discussion clearly showing the proposed modification(s) better 

support achievement of PACFISH goals and objectives; and

-- the revision will be documented and reviewed by a designated team of

watershed/fisheries managers and research scientists.

72
PACFISH STANDARDS & GUIDELINES

Comments Received After 

July 21, 1993 

Policy Group Approval of PACFISH Recommendation

Lands

LH-1. For hydroelectric and other surface water development proposals, 

require instream flows and habitat conditions that maintain or restore

riparian resources, favorable channel conditions, and fish passage.

Coordinate this process with the appropriate state agencies. During

relicensing of hydroelectric projects, provide written and timely 

license conditions to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) that

require flows and habitat conditions that maintain/restore riparian

resources and channel integrity. Coordinate relicensing projects with 

the appropriate state agencies.

Comment: Change language to say that for new projects adverse effects must 

be minimized rather than stating that habitat conditions should 

be maintained or restored. This is because it would be 

impossible to maintain or restore habitat in cases where new 

hydro would be going in.

LH-3. Issue leases, permits, rights-of-way, and easements to avoid adverse

effects that are inconsistent with attainment of the Riparian 

Management Objectives. Where the authority to do so was retained, 

adjust existing leases, permits, rights-of-way, and easements to 

eliminate adverse effects that are inconsistent with attainment of the

Riparian Management Objectives. If adjustments are not effective, 

eliminate the activity. Where the authority to adjust was not 

retained, negotiate to make changes in existing leases, permits, 

rights-of-way, and easements to eliminate adverse effects that are 

inconsistent with attainment of the Riparian Management Objectives.

Priority for modifying existing leases, permits, rights-of-way, and 

easements will be based on the current and potential impact and the 

ecological value of the riparian resources affected.

Comment: Use the term “minimize” rather than “avoid” since in some cases 

it may be impossible to avoid effects, for instance in cases 

where you have access to private land or interstate pipelines 

that cannot be relocated around a RHCA.

73
Comment: FERC should be given a chance to comment on the PACFISH strategy.

Minerals Management

MM-1 to MM-6. 

Comment: Include language directing that minerals activities be eliminated 

if adjustments can’t be made to meet Riparian Management 

Objectives.

74
RIPARIAN HABITAT CONSERVATION AREAS

Description of Recommended Widths

BACKGROUND

Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs) are portions of watersheds where

riparian-dependent resources receive primary emphasis and where special

Standards and Guidelines apply. Special management sensitivity is expected

within RHCAs, however, RHCAs are not “lock-out” zones. RHCAs include those 

portions of a watershed directly coupled to streams and rivers, that is, the 

portions of a watershed required for maintaining hydrologic, geomorphic, and 

ecologic processes that directly affect streams, stream processes, and fish

habitats. RHCAs generally parallel the stream network, but also include other

areas necessary for maintaining hydrologic, geomorphic, and ecologic 

processes. RHCAs will be delineated in every watershed on Forest Service and

Bureau of Land Management administered land within the range of Pacific 

anadromous fish.

Prescribed widths for RHCAs of different waterbodies were determined based on

several ecological and geomorphic factors. The interim widths described below

are designed to provide a high level of fish habitat and riparian protection

until Watershed Analysis can be completed. Watershed Analysis will identify

critical hillslope, riparian, and channel processes that must be evaluated in

order to tailor RHCA delineation to specific watersheds in a manner that

assures protection of riparian and aquatic functions. The interim widths will

apply until Watershed Analysis is completed, a site-specific analysis is 

conducted and described, and the rationale for final RHCA boundaries is 

presented.

INTERIM WIDTHS

Four categories of stream or water body, and the interim widths for each are:

Fish-bearing streams: RHCAs consist of the stream and the area on either 

side of the stream extending from the edges of the active stream channel to 

the top of the inner gorge, or to the outer edges of the 100-year 

floodplain, or to the outer edges of riparian vegetation, or to a distance 

equal to the height of two site-potential trees, or 300 feet slope distance 

(600 feet, including both sides of the stream channel), whichever is 

greatest.

75
Permanently flowing non-fish-bearing streams: RHCAs consist of the stream 

and the area on either side of the stream extending from the edges of the

active stream channel to the top of the inner gorge, or to the outer edges 

of the 100-year flood plain, or to the outer edges of riparian vegetation, 

or to a distance equal to the height of one site-potential tree, or 150 feet

slope distance (300 feet, including both sides of the stream channel), 

whichever is greatest.

Ponds, lakes, reservoirs, and wetlands greater than 1 acre: RHCAs consist 

of the body of water or wetland and the area to the outer edges of the 

riparian vegetation, or to the extent of the seasonally saturated soil, or 

to the extent of moderately and highly unstable areas, or to a distance 

equal to the height of one site-potential tree, or 150 feet slope distance 

from the edge of the maximum pool elevation of constructed ponds and 

reservoirs or from the edge of the wetland, pond or lake, whichever is 

greatest.

Seasonally flowing or intermittent streams, wetlands less than 1 acre, 

landslides, and landslide-prone areas: This category applies to features

with high variability in size and site-specific characteristics. At a

minimum the RHCAs must include:

the extent of landslides and landslide-prone areas,

the intermittent stream channel and the area to the top of the inner 

gorge,

the intermittent stream channel or wetland and the area to the outer 

edges of the riparian vegetation, and

for Key Watersheds, the area from the edges of the stream channel, 

wetland, landslide, or landslide-prone area to a distance equal to the

height of one site-potential tree, or 100 feet slope distance, whichever 

is greatest;

for watersheds not identified as Key Watersheds, the area from the edges 

of the stream channel, wetland, landslide, or landslide-prone area to a 

distance equal to the height of one-half site potential tree, or 50 feet

slope distance, whichever is greatest.

76
EXAMPLE:

Riparian area widths (one side of stream) and percent of basin in delineated 

area using Augusta Creek, Oregon, as an example.

* From draft western Oregon Bureau of Land Management plans.

** From Willamette National Forest plan.

77
PACFISH Strategy:

Key Watersheds

CRITERIA FOR KEY WATERSHED DESIGNATION IN THE CONTIGUOUS US

The Key Watershed concept was designed to provide a pattern of protection

across the landscape where habitat for anadromous fish would receive special

attention and treatment. These watersheds would protect or restore habitat for

listed stocks, stocks of special interest or concern, or salmonid assemblages

of critical value for productivity or biodiversity. Areas in good condition

would serve as anchors for the potential recovery of depressed stocks, and also

would provide colonists for adjacent areas where habitat had been degraded by

land management or natural events. Those areas of lower quality habitat with a

high potential for restoration would become future sources of good habitat with

the implementation of a comprehensive restoration program.

Key Watersheds have already been designated in the owl region In California,

Oregon, and Washington. Criteria for designating key watersheds in that 

geographic region were:

(1) watersheds with stocks listed pursuant to the Endangered Species Act,

or stocks identified in the 1991 American Fisheries Society report as “at

risk;” or,

(2) watersheds that contain excellent habitat for mixed salmonid 

assemblages; or,

(3) degraded watersheds with a high restoration potential.

Preliminary identification of key watersheds within the range of Pacific

anadromous fish in the contiguous United States but beyond the Owl

Forests/Districts has been initiated, and needs to be validated and completed

by the PACFISH Field Team. Identification of Key Watersheds in Alaska has not

yet begun.

78
POTENTIAL MODIFICATION OF KEY WATERSHED CRITERIA FOR APPLICATION IN ALASKA

To designate Key Watersheds in Alaska, the criteria used in the Owl Forests/

Districts would have to be modified to accommodate the fact the the 1991

American Fisheries Society report did not examine the status of Pacific 

anadromous fish stocks in Alaska, and thus did not report any Alaska stocks as

“at risk.” However, a report published in 1987 (by G.W. Konkel and J.D.

McIntyre in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Technical Report 9) on trends in

spawning populations of Pacific anadromous salmonids suggests that coho and

chum salmon populations (in general) had declining trends, while chinook, 

sockeye and pink salmon populations had increasing trends in Alaska. Steelhead

trout stocks also are believed to be declining in Alaska.

Several studies are underway to determine the status of Pacific anadromous fish

stocks in Alaska. In 1992, Forest Service researchers began an investigation

to identify the unique stocks of anadromous fish on National Forests in 

Alaska. In addition, the Alaska Chapter of the American Fisheries Society has

formed a steering committee and received funding to conduct a study identifying

anadromous fish stocks “at risk” throughout the state.

If National Forests in Alaska are to be examined for identification of Key

Watersheds, the following systems might be a good candidates for designation:

(1) Any system with a unique or sensitive stock identified in the 

partnership study by R-10 and PNW.

(2) A sample of tributaries to mainland trans-boundary rivers (and/or the

mainstems of the rivers themselves). These might contain stocks of very

different genotypic and phenotypic character from small coastal or island

systems.

(3) A sample of large island stream systems that contain multiple species

and stocks of anadromous salmonids.

(4) A sample of small island and mainland stream systems that contain small

runs of anadromous salmonids. Such systems would be highly vulnerable to

natural or human disturbance.

(5) A sample of systems with unusually high productivity for anadromous

salmonids. ADF&G should have a list from which to choose.

(6) A sample of streams draining geologic features of unusual nature, for

example, the karst formation on North Prince of Wales Island.

79
Definition of a key watershed network should begin with an examination of

existing reserves (wilderness, National Monuments, etc) and then use the above

criteria to complete a relatively even distribution of refugia across the

National Forests of Alaska (see maps of key watersheds in Oregon, Washington,

and California as examples).

A similar modification of criteria would need to be made for designation of Key

Watersheds on BLM administered public lands in Alaska.

80 ✩U.S.GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1995 - 689-313/02025
The Forest Service of the U.S. Department of

Agriculture is dedicated to the principle of multiple 

use management of the Nation’s forest resources 

for sustained yields of wood, water, forage, wildlife, 

and recreation. Through forestry research, 

cooperation with the States and private forest 

owners, and management of the National Forests 

and National Grasslands, it strives—as directed by

Congress—to provide increasingly greater service 

to a growing Nation.

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)

Forest Service is a diverse organization committed 

to equal opportunity in employment and program 

delivery. USDA prohibits discrimination on the 

basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, 

age, disability, political affiliation, and familial 

status. Persons believing that they have been 

discriminated against should contact the Secretary,

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250,

or call 202-720-7327 (voice), or 202-720-1127 (TDD).

Pacific Northwest Research Station 

333 S.W. First Avenue 

P.O. Box 3890 

Portland, Oregon 97208-3890

Bolon, Natalie A.; Hansen-Murray, Christopher S.; Haynes, Richard W. 1995.

Estimated economic impacts on the timber, range, and recreation programs on 

NFS and BLM public lands from adopting the proposed interim PACFlSH strategy. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-344. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 80 p.

lmplications of the interim PACFlSH comprehensive strategy for improved Pacific 

salmon and steelhead habitat management were estimated for Bureau of Land Management (BLM) districts and National Forest System (NFS) lands west of the Rocky

Mountains that have anadromous fish. The physical impacts and associated mitigation

cost from implementing PACFlSH over the next decade in Pacific Northwest, Intermountain, Northern, Pacific Southwest, and Alaska Region National Forest and BLM 

district recreation, range, and timber programs were analyzed with the actual current 

output as the base. Upon valuing the lost resources, the BLM lands showed the 

greatest loss in their recreation program. The current recreation programs on both BLM

and National Forest lands are significantly more valuable by a magnitude of difference

over the range and timber programs.

Keywords: Bureau of Land Management, National Forests, anadromous fish, economic

impacts, habitat management, PACFISH, policy analysis, salmon.