October 2005

Coos Bay District Annual 

Program Summary 

and Monitoring Report

Fiscal Year 2008

U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management

Coos Bay District 2008

BLM
As the Nation’s principal 

conservation agency, the Department 

of the Interior has responsibility for 

most of our nationally owned public 

lands and natural resources. This 

includes fostering the wisest use 

of our land and water resources, 

protecting our fish and wildlife, 

preserving the environmental and 

cultural values of our national 

parks and historical places, and 

providing for the enjoyment of life 

through outdoor recreation. The 

Department assesses our energy 

and mineral resources and works to 

assure that their development is in 

the best interest of all our people. 

The Department also has a major 

responsibility for American Indian 

reservation communities and for 

people who live in Island Territories 

under U.S. administration. 
A Message from the District Manager 

This is the thirteenth Annual Program Summary prepared by the Coos Bay District. This 

year marks the fourth year of the second decade of management under the 1995 Coos Bay 

District Resource Management Plan Record of Decision. As in past years, the report contains 

accomplishments made during Fiscal Year 2008 (October 2007 through September 2008), 

and, in some cases, includes cumulative accomplishment figures during the second decade of 

implementation (Fiscal Years 2005 through 2014). Table S-1 summarizes many of the resource 

management accomplishments.

The District sold 9.1 MMBF of allowable harvest in FY 2008, primarily from commercial 

thinning. An additional 13.7 MMBF of density management sales were sold from the reserve 

land allocations. These sales are designed to improve habitat conditions for late-successional 

and old-growth dependant species within Late-Successional Reserves. The District offered 

seven timber sales for auction, unfortunately due to market condition beyond our control, three 

of the sales did not sell. The District is working to modify items within our control to make 

future sales purchasable.

With the expiration of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self Determination Act in 

2007, funding was not available in 2008 for many of the restoration projects like those which 

we have successfully implemented in past years. With the recent four-year reauthorization 

of het Secure Rural Schools legislation, funding will be available in coming years to continue 

improvement of watershed conditions and fish habitat, as well as providing economic assistance 

to local communities. 

 An estimated 700,000 visitor days were spent by the public enjoying the numerous recreational 

opportunities on public lands managed by the Coos Bay District. 

Future editions of the annual program summary will outline the District’s accomplishments under 

the new 2008 Coos Bay District Resource Management Plan/Record of Decision. In the meantime, 

we hope that you find the information contained in this report informative and we welcome 

suggestions for improvement.

Mark E. Johnson

District Manager
Coos Bay District

Table S-1 Coos Bay RMP Planning Area, Summary of Resource Management Actions, 

Directions, and Accomplishments – FY 2008

RMP Resource Allocation or Management 

Practice or Activity Activity Units

Fiscal Year 2008

Accomplishments or 

Program Status

Totals

FY 2005-2008

Projected Decadal 

Practices

(2005-2014)

Forest and Timber Resources

Regeneration harvest from the Harvest Land 

Base (HLB)

Acres sold 28 273 7,600

1

 Hardwood conversions are tracked as regeneration harvest in the timber harvest data base. The 28cre figure represents 28cres of hardwood conversions and 0 acres of regeneration harvest.

Commercial thinning/ density management/ 

uneven-age harvests (HLB)

Acres sold 757 3,109 1,100

Commercial thinning/ density management/ 

(Reserves)

Acres sold 968 5,897 No Target

Timber Volume Sold (ASQ) MMBF 9.154 56.675 270 

Timber Volume Sold (Reserves) MMBF 12.855 88.496 No Target

Pre-commercial thinning Acres 1,114 6,527 3,500 

Brush field/hardwood conversion (HLB) Acres 28 272 100

Brush field/hardwood conversion (Reserves) Acres 138 599 No Target

Site preparation prescribed fire Acres 424 707 7,500 

Site preparation other Acres 52 168 No Target

Fuels Treatment (prescribed fire) Acres 130 581 No Target

Fuels Treatment (mechanical and other methods) Acres 139 1,369 No Target 

Planting/ regular stock Acres 40 240 3,100 

Planting/ genetically selected Acres 288 783 6,100

Stand Maintenance/Protection Total acres 18,300

 Vegetation control Acres 283 2,599 10,700

 Animal damage control Acres 328 999 7,600

Fertilization Acres 0 0 2,800

Pruning Acres 1,054 4,797 900

Noxious Weeds

Noxious weeds chemical control Acres 969 3,617 No Target

Noxious weeds, by other control methods Acres 312 1,610 No Target

Rangeland Resources

Livestock grazing permits or leases Total/renewed units 4 4 No Target

Animal Unit Months (actual AUMs 23 23 No Target

Livestock fences constructed Miles 0 0 0

Realty Actions, Rights-of-Ways, Transportation Systems

Realty, land sales Actions/acres 0 0 No Target

Realty, land purchases Actions/acres 0 0 No Target

Realty, land exchanges Actions/acres acquired/

disposed

0 0 No Target

Realty, Jurisdictional Transfer Actions/acres disposed 0 0 No Target

Realty, CBWR Title Clarification Actions/acres disposed 0 0 No Target

Realty, R&PP leases/patents Actions/acres 0 0 No Target
Annual Program Summary Fiscal Year 2008

Realty, road rights-of-way acquired for public/

agency use

Actions/miles 0 1/*

* 160 acres

No Target

Realty, other rights-of-way, permits or leases 

granted

Actions/miles 4/1.9 6/2.650 No Target

Realty, utility rights-of-way granted (linear/aerial) Actions/miles/acres 1/0/1 3/.16 mi/1.48 ac No Target

Realty, withdrawals completed Actions/acres 0 0 No Target

Realty, withdrawals revoked Actions/acres 0 0 No Target

Realty, withdrawals completed Actions/acres 0 0
Coos Bay District
i

Table of Contents 

Annual Program Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Budget. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Pipeline Restoration Funds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Timber Sale Pipeline Restoration Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Recreation Pipeline Restoration Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

Recreation Fee Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Partnerships, Collaborative Projects, Volunteers, and Challenge Cost Share Projects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Partnerships / Collaborative Projects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Volunteers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Challenge Cost Share Projects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Cooperative Conservation Initiative Projects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Resource Management Plan Implementation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Land Use Allocations - Changes and Adjustments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Land Acquisitions and Disposals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Unmapped LSRs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Watershed Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Watershed Councils and Associations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Watershed Restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Late-Successional Reserve Assessments & Restoration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Matrix. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

15 Percent Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Resource Program Accomplishments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Air Quality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

Water. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Water Monitoring. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Project Monitoring Activities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

State-listed Clean Water Act 303(d) Streams. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Public Water Systems Using Surface Water. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Soils. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Wildlife Habitat. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Green Tree and Coarse Woody Debris Retention. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Snag Creation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Nest Sites, Activity Centers, Special Habitats and Rookeries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Fish Habitat. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Fisheries Inventory and Assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Aquatic Habitat Restoration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Project Monitoring. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Riparian Improvement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Technical Expertise and Support. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Special Status and SEIS Special Attention Species. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Special Status Species Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

ESA Section 7 Consultation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Interagency Special Status Species Program - Wildlife. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Coos Bay District

 ii

Federal Threatened and Endangered Species - Wildlife. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Interagency Special Status Species Program (ISSSP) - Wildlife. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Interagency Special Status Species Program - Aquatic. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Interagency Special Status Species Program - Plants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Federal Threatened and Endangered Species - Plants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Special Status Species Program (SSSP) - Plants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Special Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

New River ACEC: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

North Spit ACEC: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

North Fork Hunter Creek ACEC: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Environmental Education and Interpretation Programs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Tsalila - the Umpqua River Festival . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Cape Blanco Lighthouse. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

New River ACEC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

North Spit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Loon Lake Recreation Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28

Dean Creek Elk Viewing Area:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Other Projects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Cultural Resources Including American Indian Values. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Visual Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Socioeconomic. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Monetary Payments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Environmental Justice. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Recreation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Recreation Sites Managed and Visitor Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Recreation Trails Managed:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Special Recreation Permits (SRP) Issued:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Off-Highway Vehicle Designations Managed (acres):. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Major Recreation Projects: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Status of Recreation Area Management Plans:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Forest Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Silvicultural Practices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Young Stand Silviculture in Late Successional Reserves. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Special Forest Products. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Energy and Minerals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Energy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Minerals44

Geology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Range Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Access and Right-of-Way. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Land Tenure Adjustments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Transportation/Roads. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Noxious Weeds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Sudden Oak Death . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Hazardous Materials Management and Resource Restoration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Fire/Fuels Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Rural Interface Areas/Wildland Urban Interface Areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Cadastral Survey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
iii

Table of Contents

Law Enforcement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Geographic Information Systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51

National Environmental Policy Act Analysis and Documentation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Protest and Appeals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Coordination and Consultation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Research52

RMP Maintenance and Amendments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Plan Maintenance for FY 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Plan Maintenance for FY 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Plan Maintenance for FY 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Plan Maintenance for FY 2008. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

RMP Amendments for FY 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

RMP Amendments for FY 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Western Oregon Resource Management Plan Revisions (WOPR). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Resource Management Plan Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Province Level Implementation Monitoring. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Effectiveness Monitoring. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Coos Bay District Resource Management Plan FY 2008 Monitoring Report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Summary of Findings and Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Coos Bay District Specific Monitoring Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Riparian Reserves. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Late-Successional Reserves. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Matrix. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Air Quality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65

Water and Soils. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Wildlife Habitat. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Fish Habitat. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Special Status and SEIS Special Attention Species Habitat. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Special Areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

Cultural Resources Including American Indian Values. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Visual Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

Wild and Scenic Rivers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

Rural Interface Areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Socioeconomic Conditions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Recreation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

Timber Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

Noxious Weeds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Fire/Fuels Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Port-Orford-Cedar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
Coos Bay District

 iv

List of Tables

Table S-1 - Coos Bay RMP Planning Area, Summary of Resource Management Actions, Directions, and 

Accomplishments – FY 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Preface

Table 1 - Summary of Fee Recreation Sites for Fiscal Year 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

Table 2 - FY 2008 Challenge Cost Share Contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

Table 3 - Watershed Analysis Documents Covering Coos Bay District Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

Table 4 - Fifth Field Watersheds with Deferred Regeneration Harvest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Table 5 - 303(d) Listed Streams and Water Quality Management Plan Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Table 6 - Freshwater and Marine Survival for West Fork Smith River Salmonid Life-Cycle Monitoring . . . . 19

Table 7 - Summary of acreage designated as marbled murrelet habitat, surveyed to protocol and delineated as 

occupied LSR in 2007 on the Coos Bay District, BLM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Table 8 - Coos Bay RMP, Summary of Socio-Economic Activities and Allocations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Table 9 - Extensive and Special Recreation Management Areas (ERMA/SRMA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Table 10 - Timber Volumes Offered FY 2005 - 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36

Table 11 - FY 2008 Advertised Timber Sales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Table 12 - Actual Acres and ASQ Volume Sold from the Matrix in FY 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Table 13 - Summary of Volume Sold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Table 14 - Summary of Volume Sold but Unawarded . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Table 15 - Matrix ASQ Volume and Acres Sold by Allocations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Table 16 - Matrix ASQ Volume and Acres Sold by Harvest Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Table 17 - Acres of Harvest within the Reserve Sold by Harvest Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Table 18 - ASQ Sale Acres Sold by Age Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Table 19 - Annual ROD Projections and Accomplishments for Silvicultural Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Table 20 - Silvicultural Practices in Late-Successional Reserves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Table 21 - Summary of Special Forest/Natural Product Sales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43

Table 22 - No Net Loss Report for FY 98 to 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Table 23 - Accomplishments for Sudden Oak Death Treatments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Table 24 - Hazardous Fuels Reduction Accomplishments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Table 25 - Coos Bay District Cadastral Survey Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Table 26 - BLM-Administered Land in the Planning Area by County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Table 27 - FY 2008 Project Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Table 28 - FY 2008 Projects Available and Selected for Monitoring by Selection Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

List of Figures

Figure 1 - Comparison of Regeneration Harvest Acres by FY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Figure 2 - Comparison of Commercial Thinning Acres by FY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Appendicies

Appendix A - Coos Bay District Watershed Analysis Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

Appendix B - Comparison Between ROD Projections and Actual Harvest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
1

Annual Program Summary

Introduction

This Annual Program Summary (APS) is a requirement of the 1995 Coos Bay District Resource 

Management Plan and Record of Decision (RMP/ROD). It is a progress report on the various 

programs and activities that have occurred on the District during Fiscal Year (FY) 2008. It 

also reports on the results of the District implementation monitoring in accordance the RMP/

ROD. Cumulative information covering the second decade of implementation (FY 2005-2014) is 

sometimes listed for several programs. 

In April 1994 the Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land 

Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl was signed by 

the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior. (In this document this plan will be 

referred to as the Northwest Forest Plan [NFP]). The RMP/ROD was approved in May 1995 and 

adopted and incorporated the Standards and Guidelines from the NFP in the form of Management 

Actions/Direction.

The RMP was amended in 2004 by the Record of Decision for Management of Port-Orford-Cedar 

in Southwest Oregon, and again in 2007 by the Record of Decision to Remove the Survey and Mange 

Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines from the Bureau of Land Management Planes within 

the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl. 

The Coos Bay District administers approximately 324,800 acres located in Coos, Curry, Douglas, 

and Lane counties. Under the 1995 RMP/ROD, these lands are included in three primary Land 

Use Allocations: Matrix, where the majority of commodity production occurs; Late-Successional 

Reserves, where providing habitat for late-successional and old-growth forest related species is 

emphasized; and Riparian Reserves, where maintaining water quality and the aquatic ecosystem 

is emphasized. The 1995 RMP established objectives for management of 17 resource programs 

occurring on the District. Not all land use allocations and resource programs are discussed 

individually in a detailed manner in this APS because of the overlap of programs and projects. 

Likewise, a detailed background of the various land use allocations or resource programs is not 

included in the APS to keep this document reasonably concise. Complete information can be 

found in the 1995 RMP/ROD and supporting Environmental Impact Statement, both of which are 

available at the District office.

The manner of reporting the activities differs between the various programs. Some activities and 

programs lend themselves to statistical summaries while others are best summarized in short 

narratives. Further details concerning individual programs may be obtained by contacting the 

District office.
Coos Bay District

 2

Budget

The District budget (appropriated funds) for FY 2008 was approximately $13,527,000. This 

included approximately $10,477,000 in the Oregon and California Railroad Lands (O&C) 

accounts, $342,000 in the Management of Lands and Resources (MLR) accounts, $447,000 in 

the fire accounts, $1,325,000 in the Timber and Recreation Pipeline Restoration accounts, and 

$936,000 in “other” accounts.

During FY 2008, the District employed 109 full-time personnel (FTE), and a total of 13 part-time, 

temporary, term, and Student Career Education Program employees. The number of temporary, 

term, and cooperative student employees varied throughout the year. 

Total appropriations for the Coos Bay District have been steadily declining during the period 

between 2000 and 2008, with a total decrease of $1,626,300 and an approximate average 

appropriation of $14,159,801. In contrast to previous years, $0 in Title II funding was available for 

restoration contracts as the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 

temporarily expired on September 30, 2007.

Pipeline Restoration Funds

The Pipeline Restoration Fund was established under Section 327 of the Omnibus Consolidated 

Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996 (Public Law (PL) 104-134). The Act established 

separate funds for the Forest Service and BLM, using revenues generated by timber sales released 

under section 2001(k) of the FY 95 Supplemental Appropriations for Disaster Assistance and 

Rescissions Act. PL 104-134 directs that 75 percent of the Fund be used to prepare sales sufficient 

to achieve the total Allowable Sale Quantity (ASQ) and that 25 percent of the Fund be used on 

the backlog of recreation projects. BLM’s goal is to use the Fund to gain one year’s lead time 

in ASQ timber sale preparation work over a five to seven year time frame, reduce the backlog 

of maintenance at recreation sites, and address crucial unresolved visitor services or recreation 

management needs. 

Timber Sale Pipeline Restoration Program

The following timber management actions were completed in FY 2008 with Timber Sale 

Restoration Funds:

•	 The Bitter Cherry CT timber sale was offered, sold, and awarded with a volume of 4,649 

MBF of commercial thinning within the Matrix and the Riparian Reserve.

•	 The Cherry Wall DM timber sale was offered for sale with a volume of 3,514 MBF of 

hardwood conversion and commercial thinning within the Late-Successional Reserve and 

Riparian Reserve. 

Recreation Pipeline Restoration Program

Twenty five percent of these funds are dedicated to recreation backlog projects on O & C Districts 
Annual Program Summary Fiscal Year 2008

3

of western Oregon. The funds are intended to reduce infrastructure replacement or facility 

maintenance needs and resolve critical visitor safety or recreation management needs or issues 

identified in land use plans. Recreation site resource protection needs can also be met. In FY 2008, 

the Coos Bay District obligated $409,024 of recreation pipeline funds to the following projects:

Umpqua Field Office ($223,358)

•	 Loon Lake SRMA – water system and plumbing repairs in the campground. ($12,013)

•	 Dean Creek Elk Viewing Area SRMA – funds used for accessibility improvements, deferred 

maintenance, Northwest Youth Corps project support, and the Dean Creek restroom service 

contract. ($79,800).

Myrtlewood Field Office ($75,169)

•	 Sixes SRMA – installation of new fee collection stations in Sixes and Edson Campgrounds 

and new fire rings in Edson Campground.

•	 New River ACEC – purchase of a new electric entrance gate to the Storm Ranch area.

District Trails ($10,497)

•	 Funding for supplies and materials to assist the Northwest Youth Corps in completing trail 

maintenance projects at Hunter Creek and Blue Ridge.

District Recreation ($100,000)

•	 Funding support for the district maintenance organization contract. 

Recreation Fee Program

In March 1998, the Coos Bay District received approval for establishing its Recreation Pilot Fee 

Demonstration Project under authority of Section 315 of Public Law 104-134. In December 2004, 

the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act was passed and it extended the BLM’s authority 

to allow for the retention and expenditure of recreation fees for the operations and maintenance 

of recreation sites where the fees were collected. A special fee account was established for each 

site on the District where fees are collected for camping and other recreation uses. These fee 

sites are located at Loon Lake (which includes East Shore Campground), Sixes River and Edson 

Creek Campgrounds, and the Cape Blanco Lighthouse. Fees collected for Golden Passports and 

recreation permits are also deposited into this account. 

The amount of revenue collected and the number of visitors for each fee demonstration site is 

shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Summary of Fee Recreation Sites for Fiscal Year 2008

Fee Sites Number of Recreation Visits Fee Revenues

Umpqua Field Office, Loon Lake 0R11 54,604 Visits $127,585

Myrtlewood Field Office, Sixes/Edson -OR12 10,395 Visits $14,982

Myrtlewood Field Office, Cape Blanco Lighthouse – OR32 19,780 Visits $14,973

Total for the Coos Bay District 84,779 Visits $157,540
Coos Bay District

 4

Partnerships, Collaborative Projects, Volunteers, and Challenge 

Cost Share Projects

Partnerships / Collaborative Projects

The following are some of the partnerships that the District is involved with; other partnerships 

are described in specific sections of this document.

•	 Coos Regional Bikeway and Trails Partnership (CRTP): The purpose of this partnership is 

to provide trail managers with input from diverse trail enthusiast groups involved in hiking, 

equestrian, OHV, mountain bike and water based recreation and to provide assistance in the 

maintenance and development of trail opportunities in the Coos Region. Partners include 

local, state and federal agencies and private businesses and interest groups. 

•	 Cape Blanco Lighthouse Cooperative Management Partnership: The Cape Blanco 

Lighthouse National Historic Site (NHS) is managed by BLM under agreement with the 

U.S. Coast Guard and a Memorandum of Understanding with the Friends of Cape Blanco 

and Curry County. This diverse partnership also includes the Confederated Tribe of 

Siletz Indians of Oregon, the Coquille Indian Tribe, and Oregon Parks and Recreation 

Department. 

•	 Oregon Coastal Environments Awareness Network (OCEAN): BLM is an active member 

of OCEAN which provides a forum to plan, facilitate and promote information and 

programs related to natural and cultural resources for residents and visitors to the region. 

Partners include a variety of agencies, organizations, educators and citizens. OCEAN is one 

of the major sponsors for Tsalila: The Umpqua River Festival, and assists with grant money 

coordination and billing.

•	 Tsalila Partnership: Tsalila (pronounced sa-LEE-la) is a year-round watershed education 

program based in the lower Umpqua River Basin in Reedsport, Oregon and it celebrated its 

11th anniversary this year.. The education effort is carried out by the Tsalila Partnership, a 

consortium of local, tribal, and federal governments and agencies. The Partnership’s mission 

is to “provide educational experiences that share an appreciation of salmon, the watersheds 

in which we live, and our cultural heritage, while contributing to the economic viability of 

the lower Umpqua River basin.” The Partnership has been in existence since 1995, and over 

76,000 people have participated in the annual Festival and Education Days.

•	 Umpqua Discovery Center: Information and education center in Reedsport. Partners in 

addition to Coos Bay BLM include: U.S. Forest Service, City of Reedsport, et.al. 

•	 “Seeds of Success” Program: Beginning in 2002, the District has participated in the “Seeds 

of Success” program, an international native seed collection program in cooperation with 

the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. The goal of the Seeds of Success program is to collect 

between 10,000 and 20,000 seeds per species by 2010 from over 4,000 native species for use 

in restoration of disturbed land. During 2008, Knobcone pine (Pinus attenuata) was one 

of the one species collected on the Coos Bay District. Since 2002, the District has collected 

seeds of 30 species. 

•	 Native Seed Program: OR/WA BLM policy requires that native plant species be used 

whenever possible. In 2008, an effort was begun to only use native grass seed on projects 

which in the past have used non-native seed mixtures. Over 250 lbs. of native grass seed was 
Annual Program Summary Fiscal Year 2008

5

purchased including 155 lbs. of a grass seed mixture representative of commonly occurring 

native species on the Coos Bay District. In addition, 1,000 pounds of native plant seed is 

currently available for Coos Bay BLM at Stone Nursery in Medford. This seed was previous 

grown by Stone Nursery for the Coos Bay District and consists of three native species: blue 

wild rye, California brome and tufted hair grass. 

•	 Hinsdale Garden Project: Coos Bay District has been working with the American 

Rhododendron Society (ARS) to renovate an historic rhododendron garden on Spruce 

Reach Island. The Oregon Field Guide television series became interested in this site and 

filmed a short segment during the summer of 2008; airing it as “The Secret Garden” on 

Oregon Public Broadcasting, 16 October 2008. 

•	 Purple Martin Nest Box Montoring Project: In 2007 the Coos Bay District entered into a 

five year agreement with the local Cape Arago Audubon Society to monitor and maintain 

Purple Martin nest boxes which have been placed on pilings in several locations around the 

bay. Purple Martins are a Bureau sensitive bird species and were extirpated from the Coos 

Bay area in the 1960s or 1970s. The objectives of this project include re-establishing Purple 

Martins in nesting snag habitat in the adjacent Coast Range including in BLM plantations. 

These “starling” proof boxes have attracted Purple Martins to Coos Bay with 20+ breeding 

pairs successfully nesting during the past few years. In addition, there have been two new 

colonies found on BLM lands in the past few years, which could represent offspring from 

several years of successful nesting at the Coos Bay nest box locations.

Volunteers

Over 375 individuals donated 10,308 hours of volunteer service to the Coos Bay District to help 

administer the nation’s public lands in FY 2008. The District had 17 individual agreements 

donating 8,960 hours and 7 group agreements covering 353 people who contributed 1,932 hours.

The vast majority of the hours donated were from recreation site volunteer hosts. They provide 

an on-site presence for BLM, give visitors pertinent information, and perform light maintenance 

duties. Volunteers also assisted the District with biological and watershed monitoring, 

administrative assistance in creating a data base for a botany project and environmental education 

at the Dean Creek wildlife viewing area.

In addition to individuals, some of the volunteer organization include: the American 

Rhododendron Society, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, the Backcountry Horsemen, Oregon 

Equestrian Trails, Girl Scouts of America, and volunteers for National Public Lands Day.

Special Events

The District held a National Public Lands Day event at the North Spit. The focus on the North Spit 

was to collect trash along the bayshore, eradicate Scotch broom and perform minor trail maintenance. 

One hundred and two volunteers donated 408 hours at the North Spit NPLD celebration. 
Coos Bay District

 6

Challenge Cost Share Projects

Challenge Cost Share Contributions utilized by the District in FY 2008 are shown in Table 2.

Cooperative Conservation Initiative Projects

No Cooperative Conservation Initiative projects were funded on the Coos Bay District in FY 2008.

Table 2. FY 2008 Challenge Cost Share Contributions

Project BLM Contribution

Ongoing Watershed Education $15,000

Western Lily Recovery $4,000

Western Lily Augmentation $4,000

Slivery Phacelia $7,000

Henderson’s Checkermallow $8,000

Wolf’s Evening Primrose $18,000

Total $56,000
Annual Program Summary Fiscal Year 2008

7

Resource Management Plan Implementation

Land Use Allocations - Changes and Adjustments

Land Acquisitions and Disposals

The District did not acquire or dispose of any lands in FY 2008; therefore, there was no net change 

in the District Land Use Allocations. 

Unmapped LSRs

The 1995 RMP requires that two years of marbled murrelet surveys be conducted to protocol to 

detect occupied habitat, prior to human disturbance of suitable habitat (stands 80-years of age and 

older). When the surveys indicate occupation (e.g., active nest, fecal ring or eggshell fragments, 

and birds flying below, through, into, or out of the forest canopy within or adjacent to a stand), the 

District will protect contiguous existing and recruitment habitat for marbled murrelets (i.e., stands 

that are capable of becoming marbled murrelet habitat within 25 years) within a 0.5 mile radius of 

any site where the birds’ behavior indicates occupation. 

As a result of marbled murrelet surveys, 23,098acres of occupied habitat have been identified within the 

Matrix since the 1995 RMP was approved. These lands are now being managed as unmapped LSRs. 

Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives

Watershed Analysis

The watershed analysis process was intended to provide managers and interdisciplinary teams 

information about the natural resources and human uses at the watershed or subwatershed scale. 

This information was used in National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation for 

specific projects, and to facilitate compliance with the Endangered Species Act and Clean Water 

Act by providing information for consultation with other agencies.

As of the end of FY 2008, 23 first iteration watershed analysis documents, covering 303,887 acres 

(94%) of the BLM lands on Coos Bay District, had been prepared (Table 3). The remaining 

District lands, not covered by a watershed analysis, are in watersheds where BLM manages less 

than 6 percent of the land base.

The Sixes River/ New River Frontal watershed analysis was completed in FY 2008. This document 

was a combination of a first iteration watershed analysis of the New River Frontal and a second 

iteration for the Sixes River.

Since 1999, the District concentrated on completing second or even third iterations of watershed 

analysis. Many of the earlier watershed analyses were not detailed enough to address questions 

asked by regulatory agencies and litigation judgments.
Coos Bay District

 8

Table 3. Watershed Analysis Documents Covering Coos Bay District Lands

Year

Document Name 

(Hydrologic unit name if different from document name)

Lead Administrative

 Unit Iteration

1994 Lower Umpqua Frontal (Middle Umpqua Frontal) Coos Bay BLM 1st 

Middle Fork Coquille Coos Bay-BLM 1st 

1995 Smith River (Lower Upper Smith River) Roseburg-BLM 1st 

Middle Umpqua Frontal (Waggoner Creek) Roseburg-BLM 1st

Paradise Creek Coos Bay-BLM 1st

Middle Creek Coos Bay-BLM 1st

North Coquille Coos Bay-BLM 1st

Fairview Coos Bay-BLM 1st

Sandy Creek Coos Bay-BLM 2nd 

1996 Middle Smith River Coos Bay-BLM 1st

Mill Creek Coos Bay-BLM 1st

Oxbow Coos Bay-BLM 1st

Lower South Fork Coquille Coos Bay-BLM 1st

West Fork Smith Coos Bay-BLM 1st

Tioga Creek Coos Bay-BLM 1st

Sandy Remote Coos Bay-BLM 2nd / 3rd

1997 Smith River (North Fork Smith River) Siuslaw NF 1st / 2nd

Upper Middle Umpqua Coos Bay-BLM 1st

Middle Main/ North Fork/ Catching Creek Coos Bay-BLM 1st

North Chetco Coos Bay-BLM 1st

Sixes River Watershed Analysis Powers Ranger Dist 1st

Big Creek Coos Bay-BLM 2nd 

1998 Lower Umpqua (Lower Umpqua Frontal) Siuslaw NF 1st

Hunter Creek Siskiyou NF 1st

Pistol River Watershed Analysis Siskiyou NF 1st

Elk River Watershed Analysis Siskiyou NF 2nd

1999 South Fork Coos River Coos Bay-BLM 1st / 2nd

East Fork Coquille Coos Bay-BLM 1st

Lobster Creek Siskiyou NF 1st

Rogue River Watershed Analysis Siskiyou NF 1st

2000 South Fork Coos River Coos Bay-BLM 3rd

2001 North Fork Coquille Coos Bay-BLM 2nd

South Fork Coos River Coos Bay-BLM 4th

2002 Oxbow Coos Bay-BLM 2nd

Upper Umpqua Roseburg-BLM 2nd

2003 Middle Umpqua River Coos Bay-BLM 2nd

Pistol River Watershed Analysis Siskiyou NF 2nd

2004 Added chapters to the 2003 Middle Umpqua River Coos Bay-BLM 2nd

2005 Mill Creek-Lower Umpqua River Coos Bay-BLM 2nd

2006 None

2007 West Fork Smith River Coos Bay-BLM supplement 

to 1st

2008 Sixes River Coos Bay-BLM 2nd

New River Frontal Coos Bay-BLM 1st

planned 2009 None
Annual Program Summary Fiscal Year 2008

9

Watershed Councils and Associations

The District coordinates with and offers assistance to two watershed associations, three watershed 

councils and one soil and water conservation district, as listed below. This provides an excellent 

forum for exchange of ideas, partnering, education and promoting watershed-wide restoration. 

Biologists, soils scientists, hydrologists, noxious weed specialists, and other resource professionals 

attended monthly committee meetings and assisted with on the ground project reviews in 

cooperation with watershed association coordinators and other agency personnel. 

Watershed Group Field Office

Coos Watershed Association Umpqua

Coquille Watershed Association Umpqua/Myrtlewood

Smith River Watershed Council Umpqua

South Coast Watershed Council Myrtlewood

Partnership for the Umpqua Rivers Umpqua

Umpqua Soil and Water Conservation District Umpqua

As an example, in 2008 the District partnered with the Coquille watershed Association to 

implement the cooperative North Fork Coquille instream wood placement project. This project 

improved 14 miles of coho salmon spawning and rearing habitat. Project implementation 

occurred on both BLM-managed lands and privately-owned land. Project partners included 

the Coquille Watershed Association, BLM, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Plum 

Creek Timber Company, Menasha Timber Company, US Fish and Wildlife Service, the Oregon 

Watershed Enhancement Board, and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.

Watershed Restoration 

Watershed restoration efforts continued with the use of BLM program funds and Title II carryover 

funds associated with the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self Determination Act of 2000 

(P.L. 106-393). Projects implemented in 2008 were from funding appropriated in 2007. These 

projects included one instream project, two culvert replacements, one noxious weed control 

project, two monitoring projects, one helipond maintenance project and one watershed-level 

restoration project. The Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 

expired on September 30, 2007, but was subsequently re-authorized for four years in 2008. 

Late-Successional Reserve Assessments & Restoration

The 1995 RMP requires the completion of Late-Successional Reserve Assessments (LSRA) prior to 

habitat manipulation within the LSR designation. The Oregon Coast Province – Southern Portion 

LSRA (1997) and the South Coast – Northern Klamath LSRA (1998) constitute the assessments for 

LSRs within the Coos Bay District.

In FY 2008, the Purdy Creek DM, Brummed Out DM, and the Cherry Wall DM timber sales were 

offered. Each of these sales was developed in accord with the management recommendations 

contained in the South Coast – Northern Klamath LSR Assessment. In addition to activity in these 

commercial sized stands, pre-commercial density management projects have also been conducted 

in younger stands to facilitate the development of late-successional stand characteristics.
Coos Bay District

 10

Matrix

15 Percent Analysis

The 1995 Coos Bay District RMP ROD (page 53) requires that the BLM provide for the retention 

of late-successional/old-growth fragments in the Matrix where little remains. The standards 

and guidelines are to be applied to any fifth field watershed in which federal forest lands are 

currently comprised of 15 percent or less late-successional forest, considering all land allocations. 

A 15 percent analysis was completed in 1999 in accordance with a joint BLM/FS Instruction 

Memorandum that was issued on September 14, 1998. All Coos Bay District sales sold under the 

1995 RMP have complied with the 15 percent rule using the initial analysis.

Watersheds with less than 15 % less late-successional forest or deferred harvest are shown in Table 4.

Table 4. Fifth Field Watersheds with Deferred Regeneration Harvest

Watershed 

Percentage of Federal 

Forest 80+ Years Old Harvestable Acres Deferred

Coquille River 3.7 927

Coos River-Frontal Pacific Ocean 17.7 935

Whaleshead Creek-Frontal Cape Ferrelo 27.1 66

Total Deferred Regeneration Harvest Acres 1,928

The total 1,928 deferred acres represents about 4 percent of the District’s Matrix acres. Deferring these acres from harvesting has no significant 

impact on the District’s sustainable ASQ.
Annual Program Summary Fiscal Year 2008

11

Resource Program Accomplishments

The remainder of the APS will report progress in implementing the 1995 RMP by program area. 

Air Quality

All prescribed fire activities conformed to the Oregon Smoke Management and Visibility 

Protection Plans. No intrusions occurred into designated areas as a result of prescribed burning 

and fuels treatment activities on the District. There are no Class I airsheds within the District.

Air quality standards for the District’s prescribed fire and fuels program are monitored and 

controlled by the Oregon Department of Forestry through their “Operation Guidance for the 

Oregon Smoke Management Program.”

Water

Program specialists continued to focus primarily on water quality and quantity monitoring and 

some measure of project effectiveness monitoring, but also supported both District and regional 

planning efforts.

Planning 

Hydrology staff contributed to the ongoing Western Oregon Plan Revisions project as members of 

the Interdisciplinary Team and the District Support Team.

Hydrologists were involved with the design, environmental clearance and implementation of 

several District activities. Timber sale projects dominate the workload; however specialists 

provide input to habitat restoration projects such as; the New River Foredune Management EA; 

bridge, low water crossing, and estuary culvert design; in-stream helicopter wood placement; road 

repair; and sudden oak death treatments.

Specialists reviewed and commented on a variety of other actions such as; the New Carissa wreck 

removal project, the jetty repair project, the PNW 7 and PNW 8 hydrologic unit boundary edits 

affecting the District, and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife draft tide gate guidelines. 

Water Monitoring

Stream flow and water temperature were collected at the BLM-funded West Fork Smith River 

and Vincent Creek gauging stations in the Lower Smith River – Lower Umpqua River 5th 

field watershed. Both stations have been in operation since 1980 and are maintained under 

a cooperative agreement with the Oregon Water Resources Department. The Environmental 

Protection Agency used data from the West Fork station in a recent basin-wide study of juvenile 

coho movement and habitat utilization.
Coos Bay District

 12

The Coos Watershed Association continues to operate the Tioga Creek gaging station under a 

cooperative agreement with the District.

Real-time data was collected at four Remote Automated Weather Stations (RAWS) owned by 

the District and maintained by the Predictive Services program at the National Interagency Fire 

Center. These stations, part of an integrated network of over 1,500 RAWS located throughout 

the nation, supporting our ongoing need for accurate and geographically representative weather 

information. Additional precipitation data was gathered with automated tipping-bucket rain 

gauges at the Dean Creek Elk Viewing Area. 

The real time station at New River provides continuous weather data as well as river stage and 

temperature. The Recreation staff partnered with the hydrology staff to provide a web camera that 

also captures the state of the river on regular intervals. In addition to the weather station, river 

crest gauges were installed at three places along New River to record flood stage and duration in 

support of our efforts to enhance the condition of the river and provide flood relief to the local 

ranchers.

Daily, monthly, quarterly and annual water testing was completed as scheduled at the Loon 

Lake, New River, Edson Creek and Sixes River recreation sites. Pursuant to a Water Pollution 

Control Facilities permit, semi-annual ground water monitoring was completed at the Loon Lake 

Recreation Area drainfield.

Project Monitoring Activities

Continuous tilt loggers were attached to one BLM tide gate and one private tide gate to assess total 

time open and maximum opening per tide cycle. This information allows comparison of actual 

performance to passage criteria and aids future design. 

Monitoring to evaluate the effects of vegetation removal for plover habitat on the channel 

geometry and sediment regime continued at New River using longitudinal elevation surveys and 

cross-sectional profiles. These same surveys and profiles also allow monitoring of the foredune 

breaching efforts to provide flood control and enhance the overall health of the river. 

Monitoring of sediment delivered to streams was undertaken in FY 2008 at three sites on 

Deadhorse Creek Road. Using new technology to slow and capture sediment, weirs and sediment 

filtering fabric were placed in front of three different stream crossing culverts. The initial 

evaluation of this filtering process showed some promise to capture sediment derived from timber 

haul on gravel roads during the winter. Additional work and evaluation will continue in FY 2009.

State-listed Clean Water Act 303(d) Streams

Table 5 lists the water quality limited streams that cross District land and the status of the Total 

Maximum Daily Load / Water Quality Restoration Plan documents
Annual Program Summary Fiscal Year 2008

13

Table 5. 303(d) Listed Streams and Water Quality Management Plan Status

UMPQUA BASIN (TMDL approved April 2007)

Waterbody & Reach Length Parameter Season Field Office/WQMP Status

Bum Creek 

 River mile 0 to 2.3

Temperature Summer Umpqua/Completed

Camp Creek

 River mile 0 to 20.5

Temperature Year Around

(Non-spawning)

Umpqua/Completed

Carpenter Creek

 River mile 0 to 1.3

Temperature Year Around

(Non-spawning)

Umpqua/Completed

Cedar Creek 

 River mile 0 to 3.0

Temperature Year Around

(Non-spawning)

Umpqua/Completed

Halfway Creek 

 River mile 0 to 1.1

Temperature Year Around

(Non-spawning)

Umpqua/Completed

Halfway Creek tributary

 River mile 0 to 1.2

Temperature Year Around

(Non-spawning)

Umpqua/Completed

Heddin Creek

 River mile 0 to 3.7

Temperature Year Around

(Non-spawning)

Umpqua/Completed

Herb Creek 

 River mile 0 to 2.7

Temperature Summer Umpqua/Completed

Little Mill Creek 

 River mile 0 to 4.1

Temperature Year Around

(Non-spawning)

Umpqua/Completed

Lutsinger Creek

 River mile 0 to 5.4

Temperature Year Around

(Non-spawning)

Umpqua/Completed

Mehl Creek

 River mile 0 to 1.5

Temperature Year Around

(Non-spawning)

Umpqua/Completed

Smith River 

 River mile 0 to 88.5

Temperature Year Around

(Non-spawning)

Umpqua/Completed

Smith River, North Fork 

 River mile 0 to 31.8

Temperature Year Around

(Non-spawning)

Umpqua/Completed

Smith River, North Fork 

 River mile 19.1 to 31.8

Biological Criteria Undefined Umpqua/Completed

Smith River, 

Middle Fork North Fork 

 River mile 0 to 4.6

Temperature Year Around

(Non-spawning)

Umpqua/Completed

Smith River, West Fork

 River mile 0 to 15.4

Temperature Year Around

(Non-spawning)

Umpqua/Completed

Russel Creek

 River mile 0 to 2.2

Temperature Summer Umpqua/Completed

South Sisters Creek

 River mile 0 to 8.6 

Temperature Summer Umpqua/Completed

Umpqua River

 River mile 1 to 6.7

Fecal Coliform Year Around Umpqua/Completed

Umpqua River 

 River mile 25.9 to 109.3

E. coli Fall/Winter/Spring Umpqua/Completed

Umpqua River 

 River mile 25.9 to 109.3

Fecal coliform Fall/Winter/Spring Umpqua/Completed

Umpqua River 

 River mile 11.8 to 25.9

Fecal coliform Year Around Umpqua/Completed

Umpqua River

 River mile 0 to 100.2

Temperature Year Around

(Non-spawning)

Umpqua/Completed

COOS SUBBASIN (TMDL initiated (initial scoping and data collection phase))

Waterbody & Reach Length Parameter Season Field Office/WQMP Status

Burnt Creek

 River mile 0 to 2.6

Temperature Year Around

(Non-spawning)

Umpqua/Completed

Catching Creek

 River mile 0 to 4.6

Fecal coliform Year Around Umpqua/Completed

Cedar Creek 

 River mile 0 to 11.6 

Temperature Summer Umpqua/Completed

Coos River, South Fork

 River mile 0 to 31.1 

Fecal coliform Year Round Umpqua/Completed

Tioga Creek 

 River mile 0 to 17.5 

Temperature Year Around

(Non-spawning)

Umpqua/Completed

Williams River Temperature Summer Umpqua/Completed

 River mile 0 to 20.9

COQUILLE SUBBASIN (TMDL initiated-(initial scoping and data collection phase))

Waterbody & Reach Length Parameter Season Field Office/WQMP Status

Alder Creek

 River mile 0 to 3.1

Temperature Year Around

(Non-spawning)

Umpqua/Completed

Baker Creek Temperature Summer Myrtlewood/Completed
Coos Bay District

 14

 River mile 0 to 2.9

Belieu Creek

 River mile 0 to 3.1

Temperature Summer Myrtlewood/In review

Coquille River, East Fork 

 River mile 0 to 26.2

Temperature Summer Myrtlewood/Completed

Coquille River, Middle Fork

River mile 0 to 11.2

Dissolved Oxygen Oct 15 to May 15 Myrtlewood/In review

Coquille River, Middle Fork

River mile 0 to 11.2

Dissolved Oxygen Year Around

(Non-spawning)

Myrtlewood/In review

Coquille River, Middle Fork

 River mile 11.2 to 39.6

Temperature Year Around

(Non-spawning)

Myrtlewood/In review

Coquille River, North Fork

 River mile 0 to 18.5

Dissolved Oxygen Jan 1 to May 15 Umpqua/Completed

Coquille River, North Fork 

 River mile 0 to 27.9

Dissolved Oxygen Year Around

(Non-spawning)

Umpqua/Completed

Coquille River, North Fork

 River mile 0 to 27.9 

Temperature Year Around

(Non-spawning)

Umpqua/Completed

Coquille River, North Fork

 River mile 27.9 to 52.3

Temperature Year Around

(Non-spawning)

Umpqua/Completed

Coquille River, South Fork 

 River mile 18.1 to 62

Temperature Year Around

(Non-spawning)

Myrtlewood/Completed

Cunningham Creek 

 River mile 0 to 7.4

Dissolved Oxygen Year Around Umpqua/Completed

Cunningham Creek 

 River mile 0 to 7.4

Fecal coliform Year Around Umpqua/Completed

Elk Creek

 River mile 0 to 5.7 

Temperature Year Around

(Non-spawning)

Myrtlewood/Completed

Little Rock Creek

 River mile 0 to 3.6

Temperature Summer Myrtlewood/In review

Middle Creek 

 River mile 0 to 24.2 

Temperature Year Around

(Non-spawning

Umpqua/Completed

Moon Creek

 River mile 0 to 4.7

Temperature Year Around

(Non-spawning

Umpqua/Completed

Rock Creek

 River mile 0 to 11.5

Temperature Year Around

(Non-spawning

Myrtlewood/In review

Rowland Creek

 River mile 0 to 4.6

Temperature Summer Myrtlewood/Completed

Salmon Creek

 River mile 0 to 9.2

Temperature Summer Myrtlewood/Completed

Woodward Creek

 River mile 0 to 7.6

Temperature Summer Umpqua/Completed

SIXES SUBBASIN (TMDL initiated-(initial scoping and data collection phase))

Waterbody & Reach Length Parameter Season Field Office/WQMP Status

Crystal Creek

 River mile 0 to 7.3

Temperature Year Around

(Non-spawning

Myrtlewood/In review

Edson Creek 

 River mile 0 to 5.8

Temperature Year Around

(Non-spawning

Myrtlewood/In review

Floras Creek, East Fork 

 River mile 0 to 7.5

Temperature Year Around

(Non-spawning

Myrtlewood/In review

Floras Creek, North Fork 

 River mile 0 to 10.9

Temperature Year Around

(Non-spawning

Myrtlewood/In review

Boulder Creek / Floras Lake 

 River mile 0.8 to 2.1

Aquatic Weeds or

Algae

Undefined Myrtlewood/In review

Sixes River 

 River mile 0 to 30.1

Temperature Year Around

(Non-spawning

Myrtlewood/In review

Sixes River

 River mile 4.4 to 29.4

Dissolved Oxygen Oct 15 to May 15 Myrtlewood/In review

CHETCO SUBBASIN (TMDL initiated-(initial scoping and data collection phase))

Waterbody & Reach Length Parameter Season Field Office/WQMP Status

Chetco River, North Fork 

 River mile 0 to 12.1

Temperature Year Around

(Non-spawning

Myrtlewood/Completed

Hunter Creek

 River mile 0 to 18.4

Temperature Year Around

(Non-spawning

Myrtlewood/In review

Hunter Creek, North Fork

 River mile 0 to 4.8 

Temperature Year Around

(Non-spawning

Myrtlewood/In review

LOWER ROGUE SUBBASIN (TMDL report in progress)

Waterbody & Reach Length Parameter Season Field Office/WQMP Status

Indian Creek

 River mile 0 to 3.4

Temperature Year Around

(Non-spawning

Myrtlewood/In review
Annual Program Summary Fiscal Year 2008

15

Public Water Systems Using Surface Water

The District has approximately 138,100 acres of land within six registered Public Water Systems 

serving a population of 8,260 people. This includes the cities of Myrtle Point, Coquille, and 

Elkton. No reports of contamination from BLM lands were received.

Soils

Maintaining the productivity of soil resources by preventing erosion and land sliding mechanisms 

during management activities was the emphasis of the Soils program on the District this year. 

Soil staff personnel were primarily involved in timber sale NEPA planning to provide the District 

ASQ, restoration and salvage activities associated with the New Carissa and monitoring activities. 

Review of the Western Oregon Plan Revision EIS, the Jordan Cove/ Pacific Connector Gas 

Pipeline EIS, and several Right of Way crossings were accomplished this year. Several of the ROW 

requests resulted in allowing us to replace worn out culverts and change the spacing between 

culverts to reduce erosion at the outlets. 

Monitoring efforts focused on assessing if previous projects were effective in achieving the 

planned objectives. Monitoring the stream channel of New River in association with the 

breaching and Snowy Plover habitat improvement activities was particularly important. Results 

from monitoring are being used to write a new analysis of the plover habitat restoration work. 

Installation of a weather station and stream monitoring equipment at Storm Ranch this year will 

establish the depth and temperature of the water within the channel and provide climate and 

visual condition information for recreational users as well. A camera tied to the BLM web page 

was installed on the tower for those purposes. 

The soil staff continued semi-annual sampling of the Loon Lake Drainfield monitoring wells in 

accordance to the Waste Facilities Discharge Permit, required by Oregon DEQ. The District 

geologist also completed oversight for drilling on North Spit in assistance to Hazardous Material 

underground storage tank investigations. Review of numerous road transportation sites in 

need of repair or future management activities were completed this year. The field reviews, 

interpretations, mitigation recommendations, and reports on numerous landslides were generally 

in assistance to engineering or timber staff.

This year the removal of road debris and slough materials was higher than in the past thus the soil 

staff was involved with review and recommendations of numerous potential waste sites. Reviews 

were primarily conducted for stability potentials but also for providing suitable backfill material 

for culvert replacements. These reviews were conducted for support of engineering projects and 

District maintenance clean-up needs.

The soil staff continued their involvement with the South Coast Watershed Council. Among the 

items accomplished this year was providing site information for the Morton and Butte Creeks 

realignment project. Staff also contributed with setting the priorities and the strategy of the Water 

Quality Monitoring Program of the South Coast. Assistance continued with the Storm Chaser 

project for the final year of the study, which is intended to help determine sediment loads through 

out Curry County during extreme precipitation events. This wide-area assessment will guide and 

focus future restoration efforts by the various councils.
Coos Bay District

 16

This year the soil staff acquired new soil moisture monitoring equipment. Initial use and review 

of the user manual prompted an investigation of the resulting measurements. It was determined 

that the new method to measure soil moisture (by volume of soil not weight) is different than what 

was previously used and a different resulting measurement number would be needed to meet the 

previous standard. A mathematical formula was developed to correlate measurements from the 

new device to the previous soil moisture content. As a result, it is now possible for staff to quickly 

answer questions about soil moisture such as when to operate ground based equipment. 

Wildlife Habitat

The main role of the wildlife program is to provide support to the timber program and to a lesser 

extent other programs including proactive wildlife management. Focus is placed on Threatened 

and Endangered Species, specifically; northern spotted owl, marbled murrelet, and western 

snowy plover. Wildlife program work includes effects analysis, surveys, monitoring, data base 

management, habitat restoration and project consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS). In FY 2008, wildlife biologists provided input into planning and analysis of several 

timber sales as well as, continued restoration of an oak/meadow restoration project, plover habitat 

restoration at the North Spit, and Dean Creek elk habitat management.

Green Tree and Coarse Woody Debris Retention

The District did not monitor green tree or wood debris retention this year as there were no 

harvested regeneration sales. The acreage reported in Table 12 under regeneration harvest is 

hardwood conversion which does not follow green tree of coarse wood requirements.

Snag Creation

District biologists have been implementing snag creation projects in LSRs over the past 

seven years. These projects are conducted in stands determined to be deficient in this habitat 

component. Snags provide critical habitat to a variety of species including cavity nesting birds and 

forest carnivores. Neither Field Office implemented snag creation projects this year. 

Nest Sites, Activity Centers, Special Habitats and Rookeries

Great Blue Heron

A great blue heron and great egret rookery was historically located on a 3-acre area of the Coos 

Bay North Spit. The rookery was believed to be the northern most breeding site for Great Egrets 

on the Pacific Coast. In cooperation with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (ODFW) 

heron survey program, the rookery has been monitored annually each summer since 1993. 

Surveys conducted in FY 2008 confirmed that the rookery has been abandoned since 2000. In 

2004, several nesting great blue herons were discovered on another BLM parcel; these nests were 

monitored in 2008 and were determined to be unoccupied. Also in 2004, a new mixed rookery of 

great egrets and great blue herons was located on the North Spit adjacent to BLM land. It was not 

monitored. The Spruce Reach Island rookery was not monitored in FY 2008.

Waterfowl
Annual Program Summary Fiscal Year 2008

17

Forty three wood duck boxes were monitored and maintained at the Dean Creek Elk Viewing 

Area and other Umpqua Field Office sites. 

Purple Martins

Purple martins are a Bureau Sensitive species and are on the critical list of state sensitive species in 

Oregon. Coos Bay BLM has worked in partnership with the Cape Arago Audubon since 2007, to 

place and monitor a total of 43 nest boxes at three locations throughout Coos Bay. The objective of 

the project is to reestablish a permanent breeding population of purple martins in the Coos Bay area. 

Prior to the project, the purple martin population was essentially absent in the Coos Bay area due 

mainly to the removal of snags by logging and fire prevention programs, along with competition 

from non-native European starlings. Currently there are boxes located in the bay near the Coos 

Bay North Spit, near downtown Coos Bay, and near Millicoma Marsh. BLM helps monitor 

nesting activities and performs maintenance at these boxes each year. In 2008, thirty nests were 

found, 16 of which fledged birds.

Migrant Song Birds

This year marked the thirteenth year of monitoring 300 acres at New River Area of Critical 

Environmental Concern (ACEC) for migrant birds. Nesting song birds were chosen as a wildlife 

resource indicator in an effort to monitor limits of acceptable change at the ACEC. To date, no 

significant differences have been noted. Currently the point counts have identified 86 birds as 

probable breeding species in the area with a total of 188 species (including non-breeders) observed 

during the mid-April through mid-June survey season.

The surveys are also providing information on both migratory and resident bird use in the New 

River area. The information is useful for increasing our understanding of several Bureau Sensitive 

species. Noted species include: vesper sparrows, black swifts and purple martins.

Elk Habitat

The Dean Creek Elk Viewing Area is a 1,095-acre Watchable Wildlife site jointly managed by 

BLM and ODFW. This year approximately 240 acres of pasture were mowed to improve elk forage 

and noxious weeds were removed from 400 acres. Major target species removed include broom 

and thistle species, purple loosestrife and black berry. Upland habitat improvements included 

the creation of 10 acres of upland meadows to provide additional foraging habitat and potential 

calving habitat. Personnel also maintained five tidegates under an agreement with Oregon 

Department of Transportation. Water levels are managed to ensure desired drainage of pastures. 

In addition, about 100 acres were burned in order to rejuvenate forage grasses and set back the 

invasive Reed canary grass.

Bats

A total of 61 bat boxes have been placed throughout the District. These boxes provide interim 

habitat in areas where natural roost sites are lacking for some species of bats. No new bat houses 

were placed this fiscal year. All 21 bat houses in the Myrtlewood Field Office were monitored 

and maintained twice this year, and 12 boxes in the Umpqua Field Office were monitored and 

maintained once this year.

A known Townsend’s big-eared roost was monitored for the fifth year at the Vincent Creek Guard 

Station. A staff biologist continued an active bat education program in the local area. Several 

hundred students, visitors and others are reached through this program. Volunteers continue to be 

an important component of the District bat monitoring program.
Coos Bay District

 18

Bat monitoring included a fifth year of Oregon Grid Project data collection. Bats were captured 

for species identification, recording of body measurements, collection of genetic material and 

recording the echolocation signals. All of this information is used to establish relative densities of 

captures of species, identify new distributions of species and to refine the identification of species 

as a result of genetic material collection and echolocation recordings. 

Oregon Oak / Jeffrey Pine Restoration

Work continued on the oak / Jeffrey pine savannah restoration project in the North Fork Hunter 

Creek ACEC. Treatments to restore this habitat community included cutting, piling and burning 

of encroaching conifers. This year approximately 20 acres were treated with assistance from the 

Northwest Youth Corps and a local contractor. The work in this area benefits a variety of wildlife 

species, most notably mardon skipper butterflies that were found present in the area this year (See 

SSS Section for further information). 

Fish Habitat

Major duties of the fisheries staff are divided among the following workloads: watershed 

restoration, watershed analysis, NEPA documentation, timber and salvage sales and other project 

reviews, inventory and data collection, biological assessment preparation as part of Section 7 

consultation with NMFS Fisheries along with Essential Fish Habitat Assessments under the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act. 

Fisheries Inventory and Assessment

Research Coordination

West Fork Smith River Salmonid Life-Cycle Monitoring – (Oregon Department of Fish and 

Wildlife): The Umpqua Field Office, in coordination with the ODFW Salmonid Life-Cycle 

Monitoring Project, supported the operation of smolt and adult salmonid traps on the West 

Fork of the Smith River. This monitoring will be helpful in assessing the population of adult 

coho and chinook salmon and steelhead trout in a non-key watershed (17,100 acres) with mixed 

federal and private ownership, as well as required monitoring of the State of Oregon Plan for 

Salmon and Watersheds.

Objectives of this monitoring are to estimate freshwater and marine survival rates of coho salmon. 

Enough brood years have been monitored to calculate freshwater and marine survival rates as 

displayed in the following table.

The End of Year report for the 2007-8 operating season show the following: 31,017 coho smolts; 

1,448 coho fry; 4,608 chinook fry; 5,984 steelhead smolts and 319 steelhead fingerlings, and 

2,385 trout were the estimated number of out-migrants for each species. Too few adult coho 

were captured at the trap to conduct mark and recapture estimates of run size so a modified “area 

under the curve” (AUC) method was used. This method estimated 432 adult coho spawners were 

present. Based on mark and re-capture spawning survey numbers, the returning adult spawner 

estimates were 308 steelhead trout. 

Spawning Surveys – Umpqua Field Office personnel conducted surveys to document adult 

salmonid passage through culverts replaced in previous years (5.0 miles) and on habitat 

restoration projects (pre-and post completion for 1.80 miles). Myrtlewood Field Office personnel 

conducted steelhead spawning surveys following ODFW protocol along 1.0 mile in Edson Creek.
Annual Program Summary Fiscal Year 2008

19

Aquatic Habitat Restoration

Fish Passage Restoration

Russell Creek Culvert Replacement

Two side by side culverts locate on private lands were replaced with a 13.5 foot pipe arch culvert 

on Russell Creek, a tributary in the Smith River system. These culverts were undersized and in 

poor condition and were periodic upstream barrier to adult anadromous fish and a total barrier 

to juvenile anadromous and small resident fish. This culvert replacement provided access to 3.4 

miles of upstream habitat. In addition, 200 boulders were placed to improve access and resting 

habitat on the downstream bedrock-dominated reaches. The cost of the culvert replacement and 

boulder placement was $88,000. 

In-stream Habitat Restoration

North Fork Coquille Watershed Restoration Project

Working in conjunction with two private timber companies (Menasha Corporation/Campbell 

Group and Plum Creek Timber Company), the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the 

Coquille Watershed Association, a large-scale restoration project in the upper North Fork Coquille 

watershed occurred during the summer of 2008. A total of approximately 1,100 logs were placed 

by helicopter and excavators within about 14 stream miles, of which 3.7 miles are on BLM 

administered lands. All of the streams in the project area are inhabited by coho salmon, steelhead 

trout, cutthroat trout, Pacific lamprey and brook lamprey. The lower reaches of three of the five 

streams also provide spawning habitat for chinook salmon.

Table 6. Freshwater and Marine Survival for West Fork Smith River Salmonid LifeCycle Monitoring

FY

 Eggs

deposited Smolts

Fresh Water

 survival (%)

Return

 year

Adult Returns Marine Survival %

Male Female Total Female

1996 22,412 1999 160 104 1.2 0.9

1997 10,866 2000 295 243 5.0 4.5

1998 14,851 2001 787 715 10.2 9.8

1999 291,955 20,091 6.9 2002 2,036 1,423 17.2 14.2

2000 642,747 17,358 2.7 2003 1,941 1,790 21.49 20.62

2001 2,099,982 16,019 0.8 2004 561 417 6.2 5.3

2002 4,542,580 23,054 0.47 2005 1,111 734 3.2 8.0

2003 5,130,275 39,576 0.8 2006 688 464 2.9

2004 1,169,503 25,242 2.0

2005 1,841,711 22,504 1.2

2006 1,292,703 31,017 2.4

2007 472,662
Coos Bay District

 20

Total funding for the project is approximately $401,000 which was obtained through grants with 

the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB), the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the 

National Fish & Wildlife Foundation (Bring Back the Natives) and Menasha Timber Company 

(Campbell Group). The work completed this summer came in under the combined funding, so 

structures will be placed in additional stream reaches in the summer of 2009. 

South Sisters Creek, Jeff Creek 

Phase II of a multi-year in-stream habitat improvement project was completed in 2008, through 

a partnership project with the Smith River Watershed Council, Oregon Department of Fish and 

Wildlife, and Roseburg Resources Inc. Approximately 50 logs and 1,100 large boulders were 

placed on 2.5 miles of South Sisters Creek and Jeff Creek. Coos Bay BLM administers 1.0 miles of 

stream and Roseburg Resources Inc. owns the remaining 1.50 miles of stream in the project area. 

These streams are within the area of the 1966 Oxbow Fire and were “cleaned” of logs and logging 

debris during salvage operations following the fire. The surrounding forest is still too young to 

supply large woody material for fish habitat so the placement of logs and boulders is expected 

to provide habitat for resident and sea-run cutthroat trout, Oregon Coast steelhead trout, and 

Oregon Coast coho salmon. This project will compliment previous in-stream restoration projects 

in the watershed. 

Funding for the project was obtained from the Coos Bay BLM Resource Advisory Committee, the 

Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board, and substantial in-kind contributions from Roseburg 

Resources Inc. Total project cost was $82,000. 

Riparian Restoration

Edson Creek

Myrtlewood Field Office fisheries personnel coordinated with BLM recreation planners to 

implement Himalayan blackberry removal and riparian planting along Edson Creek within the 

Edson Creek BLM Campground. 

Project Monitoring

Umpqua Field Office monitored two projects for effectiveness and fish use. The South Sisters 

Creek in-stream structure placement monitoring covered 2.5 miles of stream channel. The West 

Fork Smith River off channel pond re-connection was monitored for juvenile coho salmon overwinter use. 

Myrtlewood Field Office fisheries personnel assisted BLM hydrologist and geologist with channel 

and dune surveys along New River. The dune and channel monitoring is intended to track 

changes occurring as a result of snowy plover restoration work. 

Riparian Improvement

The Myrtlewood Field Office implemented density management thinning on 367 acres of Riparian 

Reserves through commercial timber sales in FY 08. 
Annual Program Summary Fiscal Year 2008

21

Technical Expertise and Support

In support of the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds, fisheries biologists provided technical 

guidance and support for five local watershed associations. This is an ongoing effort that occurs 

throughout the year and one that can have a large influence on the quality and effectiveness of 

aquatic restoration projects being designed and implemented on private lands in the area. This 

continues to be a priority for the District in support of the State’s Plan for Salmon and Watersheds.

Myrtlewood Field Office fisheries personnel participated with local high school classes in Salmon 

Watch, which is an Oregon Trout sponsored riparian and fisheries education program for youth. 

Special Status and SEIS Special Attention Species

Special Status Species Program 

The District continues to implement BLM Policy 6840 on special status species (SSS) management. 

The goal of the policy continues to be to conserve listed species and the ecosystems on which they 

depend and to ensure that BLM actions do not contribute to the need to list any SSS. The BLM 

and USDA Forest Service coordinated their previously distinct special status species programs into 

and integrated interagency special status species program (ISSSP). An updated species list was 

provided this year as a result of a collaborative review. 

On 25 July 2007, the Oregon State Office of BLM issued IM-OR-2007-072, an Update to the State 

Director’s Special Status Species List. This internal Memorandum modified previous category 

designations. On 12 December 2008 a new release of the 6840 manual (6-125) was released.

ESA Section 7 Consultation

Biological Assessments are conducted on all activities proposed within the habitat of listed species. 

Consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) occurs on “may effect” 

activities. Depending upon the species involved, an interagency Level 1 Review Team of biologists 

from the BLM, US Forest Service, USFWS, NMFS Fisheries, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

is involved early to assist in the analysis and, if needed, modification of project plans and Biological 

Assessments. The Coos Bay District participates in the streamlining process using early review 

through two Level 1 Teams. One team focuses on projects that may affect western snowy plover; the 

other level one team addresses projects on all other species and lands across the district. 

Two formal consultations with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Coastal Office were 

completed in 2008. Consultation was completed for the North Spit Management Plan and for the 

New River ACEC Snowy Plover Habitat Restoration Program. 

Four formal consultations with US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Roseburg field Office were 

completed in FY 2008. These included two timber sales, Sudden Oak Death Treatment Program 

and FY2009-2013 Programmatic Activities for the Coos Bay BLM and Coquille Indian Tribe. 

Biologists also reviewed a number of road use, guyline, tailhold, or other rights-of-way permits 

along with other BLM management actions to evaluate if consultation was necessary. 
Coos Bay District

 22

There are seven Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs) for anadromous salmonid fish on the Coos 

Bay District. The Southern Oregon/Northern California and Oregon Coast coho salmon are listed 

as ‘threatened’. All “may affect” timber sale projects were consulted on and other major activities 

such as restoration activities, recreation activities and routine program support actions are covered 

by Programmatic Biological Opinions. 

Interagency Special Status Species Program - Wildlife

Federal Threatened and Endangered Species - Wildlife

Northern Spotted Owl

Most of the District was surveyed for spotted owls during the 1990-1994 demographic study. 

There are 114 known sites on the District, 97 percent of which are protected in the reserve land 

use allocations. The LSRs contain most of the quality habitat and nest sites with the most available 

habitat, stable occupancy, and successful reproduction. The District contains approximately 

115,000 acres of suitable owl habitat and about 216,000 acres of spotted owl dispersal habitat. 

No project level owl surveys were conducted on the Coos Bay District in FY 2008. Owl surveys 

were completed on District lands through cooperation with the Pacific Northwest Forest and 

Range Experiment Station (PNW), Roseburg BLM, Oregon State University (OSU), Weyerhaeuser 

Co., and Plum Creek Timber Company as part of the Northwest Forest Plan Demographic Study. 

In addition, BLM provided funding to support a study by the National Counsel for Air and 

Stream Improvement (NCASI). FY 2008 marked the fifth year of a study to assess use of thinned 

and unthinned forest stands by spotted owls. Data was used to update owl records for Coos Bay 

District lands.

Western Snowy Plover

The Coos Bay North Spit and New River ACEC provide important breeding and wintering habitat 

for western snowy plovers. Plovers are also known to occur on five other locations (non-BLM 

lands) within the Coos Bay District. BLM District lands currently provide 274 acres of suitable 

habitat for the snowy plover and BLM staffs assist with management on another 118 acres of 

plover habitat on US Corps of Engineer lands. The North Spit continues to be the most productive 

nesting habitat on the Oregon Coast. 

District staffs completed the following Snowy Plover Management Actions in FY 2008:

•	 Maintained about 150 acres of breeding and wintering habitat on the Coos Bay North Spit by 

plowing encroaching beach grass. 

•	 Monitored plover nesting success at two BLM nesting sites through a cooperative effort with 

Oregon Natural Heritage Information Center, USFS, USFWS, ODFW, and OPRD. Data 

continues to provide managers with information to assess management effectiveness in 

relation to plover reproductive success.

•	 Completed a plover winter count on approximately 17.5 miles of beach. 

•	 Placed signs and ropes along approximately six miles of beach and river habitat boundaries 

to direct users away from plover nesting sites. Also maintained fencing and placed signs 

around inland habitat. 
Annual Program Summary Fiscal Year 2008

23

•	 Three seasonal interpretative specialists were hired to monitor compliance and educate 

visitors at New River ACEC and on the Coos Bay North Spit. The specialists described 

closure restrictions and explained reasons to visitors, gave campfire and school presentations 

and developed outreach materials. Permanent staffs in both field offices also assist with 

monitoring and outreach activities. Encounters continue to be mostly positive. 

•	 Contracted with Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services – Wildlife Services to conduct 

a predator control program at the two BLM managed plover nesting sites during the 2008 

nesting season.

Marbled Murrelet

Surveys for marbled murrelets have been conducted on the Coos Bay District since 1989 and 

intensive habitat survey efforts began in 1993. There are currently 98,655 acres of suitable marbled 

murrelet habitat within the District, 99 percent of which is in Zone 1 (within 35 miles of the 

coast). To date, 21.1 % (20,789 acres) of suitable murrelet habitat on District has been surveyed to 

Pacific Seabird Group protocol for marbled murrelets. 

Project surveys were conducted in conjunction with timber sales and the Pacific Gas Connector 

Pipeline natural gas pipeline project. Ten new occupied murrelet sites were identified on Coos Bay 

BLM land; six of which were associated with the pipeline project. Table 7 summarizes murrelet 

survey efforts and habitat data through FY 2008. 

Table 7. Summary of acreage designated as marbled murrelet habitat, surveyed to

protocol and delineated as occupied LSR in 2007 on the Coos Bay District, BLM.

As of 2007

Acres

Added in 2008 To Date

Total Marbled Murrelet Habitat, Coos Bay District

(Note: Acreage does not include Coquille Tribal lands)

97,591 a 1,064 98,655 a

Marbled murrelet habitat surveyed: (Note: Survey areas must have completed the 2 year protocol to be counted.)

Myrtlewood Field Office N/A 487 N/A

Umpqua Field Office N/A 0 N/A

Total 20,302b 487 20,789

% of total murrelet habitat surveyed to protocol 20.8% 21.1%

Marbled murrelet occupied LSR :(Note: Represents only LSR acreage delineated as marbled murrelet occupied.) 

Myrtlewood Field Office 11,305 1,282 12,587

Umpqua Field Office 10,511 0 10,511

Total 21,816 1,282 23,098c

a

 Habitat acreage is calculated from Coos Bay District GIS marbled murrelet habitat layer and has not been field verified. b

 From the 2002 Forest Removal & Management Activities Biological Assessment (C02-02) dated 21 Oct. 2002, p. 34, plus adjustments made 

for FY 2002-2005. Habitat may not be included in the GIS habitat acres above.

c

 Total acreage is computed from GIS coverage cbmmocc05, so they do not total across.

N/A = Not Available
Coos Bay District

 24

Interagency Special Status Species Program (ISSSP) - Wildlife

The Coos Bay District wildlife staffs continued to support the Special Status Species program in 

FY 2008 using ear-marked funding from the Oregon/Washington BLM State Office. Funds were 

used to support surveys for bald eagles, peregrine falcons, bats and forest carnivores. 

Bald Eagle

There are eight bald eagle territories on District land and an additional 19 territories on adjacent 

ownerships within the District boundary. At present, there are no known bald eagle roost sites on 

BLM land in the Coos Bay District. In FY 2008, biologists monitored nesting at nine sites within 

the boundary of the Umpqua Field Office and three sites within the Myrtlewood Field Office. 

Also, a mid-winter driving survey (approximately 45 miles) in the Myrtlewood Field Office was 

conducted again this year. Data is shared with an Oregon-wide monitoring program. 

Peregrine Falcon

There are currently an estimated 19 peregrine falcon sites within the boundaries of the Coos Bay 

District. Two of these are located on BLM-administered lands. Three eyries (nest sites) were 

surveyed in 2008 as well as additional surveys at one bridge and a couple other cliff locations on 

District. Monitoring results from previous years suggest that the population of peregrines nesting 

in Oregon is stable or increasing. Survey results are compiled in a comprehensive BLM database 

and provided to a State-wide monitoring program.

Special Status Bat Surveys

Surveys for various bat species continued on District lands. These surveys help provide BLM 

biologists with data on species presence. This data also supports the Oregon Grid bat monitoring 

project. Two bureau assessment species; pallid bats and fringed myotis, and one sensitive bat 

species; Townsend’s big-eared bat, are among the bat species potentially monitored at the survey 

locations. Bat surveys were also conducted at the Vincent Creek guard station. This location has 

been monitored for several years to provide baseline information for future decisions concerning 

the house.

Fisher

Coos Bay BLM continued with a survey strategy to assess fisher habitat and determine fisher 

presence on District. Contract surveys were conducted on approximately 16,500 acres in the 

Myrtlewood Resource Area during FY 2008 using infrared cameras. Twenty-two stations (two 

stations per 11 sample units of four square mile each) were monitored from 6 December 2007 

through 7 May 2008 for a total 694 survey days. No fishers were detected, but cameras confirmed 

the presence of three or more individual marten. 

Interagency Special Status Species Program - Aquatic

The District has ten special status fish species, and three aquatic snails that are either documented 

or suspected to occur. The District has completed information gathering and updated information 

for each species. For each District project, assessments were completed for each species based on 

occurrence and habitat requirements.
Annual Program Summary Fiscal Year 2008

25

Interagency Special Status Species Program - Plants

Federal Threatened and Endangered Species - Plants

Western lily is the only federally listed plant on the District. A Challenge Cost Share partnership 

between the BLM and the Berry Botanic Garden is working to recover this endangered species. 

2008 was the 12th year of monitoring and habitat enhancement of an experimental, re-introduced 

population located at New River Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC). Also in FY 

2008, a new Challenge Cost Share project was begun with Berry Botanic Garden to monitor and 

hopefully augment a population discovered in 2003 near Muddy Lake in the New River ACEC.

Special Status Species Program (SSSP) - Plants

The District has 103 special status plant species, 42 vascular species and 61 non-vascular species 

(fungi, lichens, mosses, and liverworts), that are either documented or suspected to occur. The 

majority of these species are known from unique habitats such as coastal dunes, serpentine fens, 

bogs, rocky cliffs, and meadows. 

During FY2008, over 6,750 acres of surveys were conducted for Special Status Species. The 

majority of these surveys were pre-clearance surveys for proposed timber sales. Other surveys 

included: meadow restoration, wildlife habitat, riparian restoration, road construction, and fire 

trails. Three Bureau Sensitive special status vascular plants were also monitored; California globemallow, Ornduff ’s goldfield, and salt marsh bird’s beak. 

Under the Challenge Cost Share program, re-introduction and monitoring of several special status 

species occurred in 2008: Western lily at the New River ACEC, pink sand verbena at the North 

Spit and New River ACECs; Henderson’s checkermallow at Spruce Reach Island; silvery phacelia at 

the New River ACEC, and Wolf ’s evening-primrose at the New River ACEC.

In addition, funding from the Interagency Special Status/Sensitive Species Program (ISSSSP) financed 

an updated second edition of “Macrolichens of the Pacific Northwest.” The first edition of this 

reference book has been the mainstay reference for lichen ID in the Pacific Northwest It has been used 

extensively by BLM personnel and contractors for species identification on pre-project surveys. 

Special Areas 

The District has 11 designated Special Areas that total 10,452 acres. Ten are Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern (ACEC): Cherry Creek (also a Research Natural Area), China Wall, Hunter 

Creek Bog, New River, North Fork Chetco, North Fork Coquille, North Fork Hunter Creek, North 

Spit, Tioga Creek, and Wassen Creek; and one area is an Environmental Education Area: Powers. 

New River ACEC: •	 Two Challenge Cost Share projects monitored the following special status plant species: 

western lily and pink sand verbena. 

•	 Three Challenge Cost Share projects are attempting to re-introduce the following special 

status species: western lily, silvery phacelia, and Wolf ’s evening primrose.
Coos Bay District

 26

•	 15 acres of coastal meadows were restored through the removal of encroaching shore pine 

trees. This work was completed using four 10-person crews from the Northwest Youth 

Corps, volunteers on National Public Lands Day, and BLM staff. 150 burn piles were built as 

a result of the effort.

•	 1 acre of a rare coastal plant community, bog blueberry/tufted hairgrass shrubswamp was 

restored through removal of invasive species. 

•	 Noxious weeds including Armenian (Himalayan) blackberry, tansy ragwort, gorse, Scotch 

broom, and Australian acacia were removed from 20 acres.

•	 The Biological Assessment for managing the Snowy plover habitat restoration area was 

submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in September 2008.

•	 The New River Foredune Management Environmental Assessment to improve restoration 

efforts of the dunes for special status species in accordance with other ACEC values and 

resources was completed in winter 2008.

•	 Six miles of trails were maintained at the four principal access points. 

North Spit ACEC: •	 The western snowy plover was monitored for distribution, abundance, and reproductive 

success. The North Spit remains the most productive area for the threatened subpopulation 

of plovers in Oregon, producing 40 fledglings in 2008.

•	 Monitoring was conducted during the six month western snowy plover nesting season 

to assess public compliance with the seasonal closures to vehicular and foot traffic. The 

monitor also distributed interpretive information including a brochure and map describing 

seasonal closures, recreational opportunities, and North Spit natural resources.

•	 The annual monitoring of pink sand verbena, a Bureau sensitive plant species, was 

completed. The total plant count is not yet available, but it will likely be less than the 70,982 

plants found in 2007. This is the largest known population of this species and, for the past 

eight years, has acted as the seed bank for several other re-introduction efforts elsewhere on 

the south coast.

•	 Predator control to facilitate plover nesting efforts was conducted by USDA Wildlife 

Services. Ravens and crows are the primary predator of nesting plovers on the North Spit 

ACEC, followed by striped skunks and feral cats.

•	 New plover interpretive signs were placed at several locations.

•	 An existing horse/hiking trail system was improved by the Northwest Youth Corp, by 

removing noxious weeds (Scotch broom) and clearly signing designated routes.

•	 The Point Reyes bird’s-beak population, a Bureau sensitive plant species, was monitored 

again this year. The population was down 30% from last year’s totals which continues a 

downward trend in plant numbers at the site. A 2010 Challenge Cost Share project has been 

proposed to study this population in hopes of stabilizing or increasing the plant numbers.

North Fork Hunter Creek ACEC: •	 For the sixth and final year, BLM addressed the long-standing livestock trespass problem 

occurring throughout the remote meadows of the ACEC. To date, over 155 head of feral 

cattle have been removed. As a result, overgrazing and erosion have been greatly reduced. It is 

estimated that a single steer is still remaining in the ACEC. 

•	 Continued to restore Jeffrey pine/oak savannah habitat by removing encroaching conifer 

utilizing 50 students from the Northwest Youth Corps for four weeks. Approximately 20 acres 

were treated and 500 burn piles were created. Pile burning is scheduled for the winter of 2008.
Annual Program Summary Fiscal Year 2008

27

Environmental Education and Interpretation Programs

More than 38,900 visitors participated in interpretive and environmental education programs 

provided by Coos Bay District staff and volunteers. The District received $2,000 from the new 

national “Take It Outside” program, which is meant to help fund environmental education and 

connect kids with the outdoors. The funding went into Tsalila to help cover the cost of school 

busses. Some other highlights from this year are listed below:

Tsalila - the Umpqua River Festival 

•	 Over 2,500 students and their teachers participated in the three Education Days. Second 

through fifth graders learned about science, social studies and Oregon history. BLM staff 

taught learning stations about snowy plovers, elk, fish, watersheds and did an experiment.

•	 Students came from Bandon, Coos Bay, North Bend, Reedsport, Myrtle Point, Coquille, 

Roseburg, Myrtle Creek, Canyonville, Yoncalla, Drain, Elkton, and Sutherlin in busses that 

were paid for by the Tsalila Partnership. 

•	 Over 350 people participated in the evening Festival. Due to a shortage of grant funding, the 

Partnership decided to put its funding into the Education Days instead of the cost of doing 

the annual weekend Festival. The BLM helped staff the fish printing station, a kids’ activity 

corner, and the bird migration station.

•	 Volunteers for this five day event came from the Umpqua Discovery Center, the Reedsport 

Rotary Club, retired teachers, and the Reedsport High School. 

Cape Blanco Lighthouse

•	 During 2008, over 22,370 visitors enjoyed visiting one of Oregon’s oldest remaining 

lighthouses. Over 15,200 of these people paid to take the guided tour offered by volunteers. 

•	 Tour fees and donations together generated $19,465 this season and sales by the Friends of 

Cape Blanco bookstore was up from last year.

•	 Interpretive displays were fabricated and installed in the lighthouse and Greeting Center, 

supporting the interpretive theme for the lighthouse.

New River ACEC

•	 Over 104 people participated in nature walks, educational special events, environmental 

education field trips and hikes throughout the summer. Another 107 people were contacted 

through roving interpretation. Visitors learned about tribal history, local history, geology 

and visual adaptations.

•	 The Ellen Warring Learning Center was opened to the public on the weekends, with 10 - 20 

visitors enjoying the displays each weekend. 

North Spit

•	 Over 5,000 people were contacted by BLM staff doing roving interpretation on the North 

Spit, informing them about recreational opportunities and seasonal closures. This was a 

substantial increase in public contacts due to the uncovering of the historic ship, The George 

L. Olson, and the removal of the New Carissa shipwreck.
Coos Bay District

 28

Loon Lake Recreation Area

•	 The seasonal interpreter and guest speakers, many of them BLM staff, presented 50 programs 

to over 800 visitors. Programs were held on weekends for the entire family and just for kids.

•	 The new Jr. Ranger activity packet for children 6-12 years was very popular this summer and 

was in high demand. Doing the activities in the packet, children learn about flora, fauna, 

map reading, and water safety. 

Dean Creek Elk Viewing Area:

•	 Roving volunteer interpreters at the Dean Creek Elk Viewing Area contacted several 

hundred visitors during the summer of 2008. Formal interpretive programs were presented 

to a variety of groups, including Elderhostel and schools.

Other Projects

•	 District staff conducted 106 environmental education and interpretive programs for over 

3,700 people including schools, garden clubs, Northwest Youth Corps, scouts and other 

interested groups on topics such as elk, habitat restoration, tsunamis, cultural history, snowy 

plovers, wildlife adaptation, bats, and geology. ‘Leave No Trace’ continues to be a very 

popular program with all age groups.

•	 Forestry Education for 250 fifth and sixth graders and 35 teachers was conducted again this 

year. Partners for this program included South Slough National Estuarine Research Reserve, 

Society of American Foresters, Oregon State University Extension Service, Eastern Oregon 

University, Oregon Department of Forestry, and BLM.

Cultural Resources Including American Indian Values

During FY 2008, the District continued involvement with our Partners in facilitating public access 

to Cape Blanco lighthouse. Over 19,190 visitors enjoyed their experience of Oregon’s oldest 

remaining lighthouse. Over 13,100 of these people also toured the lighthouse lens room (a 14% 

decrease from 2006). Tour visit fees and donations together generated over $14,500 this season, a 

decrease of over 25% from 2007. Bookstore sales also decreased nearly 20% from those of 2007. 

These decreases in visitor numbers are probably indicative of regional visitor number decreases 

because of higher seasonal fuel costs. 

Repair work continued at Wells Creek Guard Station, a Civilian Conservation Corps-built forest 

guard station managed by the District. This facility is being prepared to become an overnight 

public accommodation. FY 2008 saw continued progress in repair work, including replacement 

of the house and garage roof with fire-resistant cedar shingles, matching the original. Additional 

work remains to be completed in FY 2009, and it is expected that this facility will be available to 

the public by the end of FY 2009.

The Coos Bay District continued coordination with the American Rhododendron Society (ARS) 

at the O. H. Hinsdale gardens. These gardens were established by Mr. Hinsdale after WWII, 

and include many species of imported trees and shrubs. These include unusual rhododendrons, 

camellias and azaleas, some of which are over 80 years old. The ARS considers this garden to 

be an important historic resource, the potential equal of any rhododendron garden in Oregon. 

Plant survey and documentation continued during FY 2008, with additional photography and 
Annual Program Summary Fiscal Year 2008

29

description. The final part of a three-part article on the garden appeared in the Journal, American 

Rhododendron Society. The ARS also has awarded a grant to the authors to begin the work of 

identifying the dead plants and propagating new specimens for eventual planting in the garden. 

The District is in the process of concluding a formal agreement with the ARS for their continued 

assistance in restoration of the garden during FY 2009. Oregon Field Guide, a Public Broadcasting 

TV program, completed and presented a segment on the garden, which has publicized our work to 

a wider audience. 

Native American consultation focused on the two federally-recognized tribes with offices in the 

area – the Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians (CTCLUSI) and the 

Coquille Indian Tribe (CIT). Congress passed, and the President signed, legislation transferring 

control of Gregory Point to the BIA (to be held in trust for the CTCLUSI). Work is underway on 

an agreement whereby the CIT will maintain a patch of culturally-significant bear grass on BLM 

lands. 

In addition to these proactive activities, the cultural program participated in clearance of grounddisturbing projects and evaluation of cultural resource potential for District projects. Cultural 

resources were addressed in the environmental analysis for 34 proposed projects including: 

realty actions; trail and road construction/renovation; culvert replacement; hazard tree removal 

in recreation sites; snag creation; fire line construction; riparian and stream enhancement; and 

timber management projects. 

Visual Resources 

There was no change in the Classification of the visual resources this past fiscal year. Classification 

of lands in the Coos Bay District is as follows:

Class Acres Objective

VRM Class I 570 Preserve the existing character of the landscape

VRM Class II 6,600 Retain the existing character of the landscape

VRM Class III 14,700 Partially retain the existing character of the landscape

VRM Class IV 303,930 Allow major modifications of existing character of the landscape

Socioeconomic

The Coos Bay District contributes to local, state, national and international economies through 

monetary payments, sustainable use of BLM-managed lands and resources, and use of innovative 

contracting and other implementation strategies.

In FY 2008, the Coos Bay District contributed to the local economy by selling four timber sales 

allowing the harvest of 23 MMBF of timber. Over 3,100 acres of young stands were treated through 

contracts valued at $668,000. In addition, the District issued almost $194,000 worth of projects 

to contractors in the area to complete stand exams, timber marking, road maintenance, helipond 

restoration, and communication site installation. These funds came from reforestation and timber 

accounts. Table 8 displays the summary of Socio-Economic activities for the Coos Bay District.

The BLM continued to provide amenities such as developed and dispersed recreational 

opportunities. Some 700,000 people recreated on lands managed by the Coos Bay District this 

past year. These visitors add to the tourism industry in the area. 
Coos Bay District

 30

The Coos Bay District Office employs about 109 full-time and a total of 13 part-time employees. 

Most of the personnel live in the communities of Coos Bay and North Bend with about 10 percent 

living in surrounding communities. This professional workforce has a significant impact on the 

community through payroll and community participation. 

Monetary Payments

The Bureau of Land Management also contributes financially to the local economy through 

financial payments. They include: Payments in Lieu of Taxes, O&C payments, and Coos Bay 

Wagon Road (CBWR) payments. Payments of each type were made in FY 2008 as directed in 

current legislation. A description of each type of payment program is described below.

Payments in Lieu of Taxes

“Payments in Lieu of Taxes” (or PILT) are Federal payments made annually to local governments 

that help offset losses in property taxes due to nontaxable Federal lands within their boundaries. 

The key law that implements the payments is Public Law 94-565, dated October 20, 1976. This law 

was rewritten and amended by Public Law 97-258 on September 13, 1982 and codified at Chapter 

69, Title 31 of the United States Code. The Law recognizes that the inability of local governments 

to collect property taxes on Federally-owned land can create a financial impact. 

PILT payments help local governments carry out such vital services as firefighting and police 

protection, construction of public schools and roads, and search-and-rescue operations. These 

payments are one of the ways that the Federal government can fulfill its role of being a good 

neighbor to local communities. This is an especially important role for the BLM, which manages 

more public land than any other Federal agency. 

PILT Payments to local counties in 2008 were as follows:

Coos County $13,453

Curry County $117,785

Douglas County $189,044

State-wide total $6,272,913

Payments to Counties 

Payments have been made to counties under “The Secure Rural Schools and Community 

Self-Determination Act of 2000.” This Act expired in 2006 and was extended for one year. It 

was recently reauthorized by the current Congress, but not in sufficient time to allow for the 

distribution of funds to the counties in 2008. 2008 distributions are expected to be included in the 

upcoming distributions for 2009. 
Annual Program Summary Fiscal Year 2008

31

Table 8. Coos Bay RMP, Summary of Socio-Economic Activities and Allocations

Program Element FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008

District budget $13,945,000 $13,346,000 $14,591,000 $13,647,000 $13,527,000

Timber sale collections:

O&C lands 1 $1,419,646 $2,402,893 $4,542,265 $8,355,760 $2,837,615

CBWR lands 1 $474,514 $1,503,958 $742,550 $1,730,790 $2,606,792

PD lands 1 $142,145 $0 $1,421,112 $745,955 $32,608

Payments to Coos and $7,459,102 $6,537,509 $6,284,384 $6,835,408 $0

(Coos CBWR) $818,449 $786,759 $855,743 $0

Curry Counties $4,101,101 $3,874,477 $3,887,797 $4,228,684 $0

Total2 $11,560,203 $11,230,435 $10,958,940 $11,919,835 $0

PILT Payment to Coos $12,815 $13,371 $13,670 $13,550 $13,453

& Curry Counties) 2 $112,030 $117,051 $119,684 $118,634 $117,785

Total $124,845 $130,422 $133,354 $132,184 $131,238

Value of forest

development contracts

$707,000 $780,000 $842,000 $916,000 $668,811

Value of timber sales: $1,748,867 $5,717,321 $7,911,093 $4,526,989 $1,104,004

oral auctions (_#) (7 auctions) (9 auctions) (12 auctions) (9 auctions) (7 auctions)

negotiated sales $56,343 $197,753 $88,737 $72,425 $104,601

(_# neg. sales) (10) (9) (23) (12) (7)

Jobs-in-the-Woods $700,367 $255,391 $0 $0 $0

Title II contracts $1,003,800 $1,006,179 $1,450,357 $667,253 $0

Timber Sale Pipeline $314,000 $277,000 $846,024 $1,094,000 $3,318,426

Restoration Funds

Recreation Fee $174,272 $156,230 $150,685 $156,457 $157,540

Project Receipts

Challenge cost share $322,000 $135,000 $33,000 $139,000 $56,000

Value-in-kind or

Volunteer Efforts

$173,808 $192,224 $205,020 $182,325 $183,686

Value of land sales 0 0 0 0 0

1

 Funds collected as timber is harvested.

2 To simplify reporting information and to avoid duplicating reporting, all payments to Coos and Curry counties have 

been reported by the Coos Bay District. Payments to Douglas and Lane counties have been reported by the Roseburg 

and Eugene Districts respectively.
Coos Bay District

 32

Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898 of February 11, 1994, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” directs all federal agencies to “...make achieving 

environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing ...disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies and activities.”

Environmental justice analyses associated with FY 2008projects did not find any project which 

identified “disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects”, as 

specified under this Order.

Recreation

Recreation Sites Managed and Visitor Use

Table 9 outlines visitation at each of the District’s developed recreation sites, Special Recreation 

Management Areas (SRMA), and Extensive Recreation Management Areas (ERMA) in 2008. 

The ERMA includes all of the recreation sites and BLM administered lands outside of SRMAs. 

The following recreation use statistics have been tracked and documented in the BLM’s FY 2008 

Recreation Management Information System (RMIS) report.

Recreation use permits for camping & day use issued at campgrounds and fees collected in 2008:

Recreation fee revenues collected in the Coos Bay District increased by less than 1% over the 

amount collected in 2007. 

Number of Recreation

Fee Recreation Site: Use Permits Issued Fees Collected

Loon Lake/East Shore 11,528 $127,585

Sixes & Edson Campgrounds 8,083 $14,982

Cape Blanco Lighthouse 7,486 $14,973 

Total 27,097 $157,540

Recreation Trails Managed:

There was no change in the length or types of trails managed from FY 2008.

Umpqua Field Office Miles Use type 

Loon Lake Waterfall Trail 1.0 Hike 

Blue Ridge Trail 12.0 Hike/bike/horse/OHV

Big Tree 0.5 Hike/interpretive

Total 13.5

Myrtlewood Field Office Miles Use type 

Doerner Fir Trail #T801 0.8 Hike/interpretive

New River (14 Trails) #T802 3.5 Hike/interpretive

Hunter Creek Trails #T803 2.5 Hike

Euphoria Ridge Trail #T804 10.0 Mountain Bike 

Total: 16.8 

Coos Bay District Totals: 30.3
Annual Program Summary Fiscal Year 2008

33

Table 9. Extensive and Special Recreation Management Areas (ERMA/SRMA)

Umpqua Field Office SRMAs Acres FY 2008 Visits

Loon Lake SRMA 1

 Loon Lake Campground 79 54,604

 East Shore Campground 52 2,088

Dean Creek Elk Viewing Area SRMA 1,095 477,000

Coos Bay Shorelands SRMA 2 1,726 46,798

Umpqua SRMA Total 2,952 580,490

Umpqua ERMA & Recreation Sites

Smith River Falls Campground 81 13,000

Vincent Creek Campground 3 8,000

Fawn Creek Campground 5 100

Park Creek Campground 60 5,000

Sub Total Developed Sites 170 26,100

Dispersed use for Umpqua ERMA 193,420 22,125

Umpqua ERMA Total 193,759 48,225

Total Umpqua Field Office 196,711 628,715

Myrtlewood Field Office SRMAs Acres Visits

New River ACEC/SRMA 1,168 17,960

Sixes River SRMA 3

 Sixes River Campground 120 2,146

 Edson Creek Campground 45 8,246

Myrtlewood SRMA Total 1,333 28,352

Myrtlewood ERMA & Recreation Sites

Cape Blanco Lighthouse (NHS) 32 19,780

Burnt Mountain Campground 38 1,000

Bear Creek 80 9,126

Sub Total Developed Sites 190 29,906

Dispersed Use for Myrtlewood ERMA 126,320 25,804

Myrtlewood ERMA Total 126,700 55,710

Total Myrtlewood Field Office 128,033 84,082

Total Coos Bay District 324,744 712,777

1 Loon Lake SRMA includes Loon Lake and East Shore Campgrounds. 2 Includes the North Spit ACEC, North Spit Boat Ramp. 3 Sixes River SRMA includes Sixes River and Edson Creek Campgrounds.

Note: A visit is defined as a visit to BLM administered land and/or waters by a person for the purpose of engaging in any recreational activity (except those which are part of, or incidental to the pursuit of a gainful occupation) whether for a few minutes, full 

day or more.
Coos Bay District

 34

Special Recreation Permits (SRP) Issued:

One Special Recreation Permits for a commercial bicycle tour was active in the Umpqua Field 

Office in FY 2008. 

Off-Highway Vehicle Designations Managed (acres):

 Open Limited Closed 

Umpqua Field Office 0 195,515 1,805

Myrtlewood Field Office 0 126,532 1,898 

District Total 0 322,167 3,583

The 80 acres that were previously designated as “open” were legislatively transferred to Douglas 

County in 2004.

Major Recreation Projects: 

•	 Maintained the Blue Ridge, Euphoria Ridge, New River and Loon Lake trail systems through 

an assistance agreement with the Northwest Youth Corps. 

Status of Recreation Area Management Plans:

Plans completed in the past 5 years are listed below.

Umpqua Field Office

•	 Wells Creek Guard Station Business Plan, 2006

•	 Coos Bay Shorelands SRMA - completed 1995, updated in 2006.

•	 Loon Lake Business Plan – completed 2005. 

•	 Loon Lake SRMA Management Plan - completed 2002. 

•	 Vincent Creek House historical assessment completed FY 2001.

Myrtlewood Field Office

•	 Cape Blanco Business Plan – completed 2005.

•	 New River ACEC/SRMA Management Plan - completed 1995. Plan Update completed in 

2004. Visitor use monitoring plan initiated in FY 2001.

•	 Sixes River SRMA - Recreation Area Management Plan - completed FY 2000.
Annual Program Summary Fiscal Year 2008

35

Forest Management

[Refer to Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report – FY 2005 for values 

during the period of FY 1995-2004.]

In FY 2008, the District offered and sold four timber sales with a total of approximately 22.9 

MMBF. Three timber sales were offered but did not sell (approximately 15.8 MMBF). In addition 

to the advertised sales, approximately 8.5 MMBF of timber was sold as miscellaneous volume 

including small negotiated sales, right-of-way timber, and contract modifications. This volume is 

included in Table 10 but not in Table 11. 

The FY 2008 timber sale offered represents a mixture of harvest types including regeneration 

harvest (including hardwood conversions) in the Matrix, commercial thinning in the Matrix, 

density management in the Riparian Reserve, and density management within the LateSuccessional Reserve. 

Table 10 displays the volume of timber offered by the District under the 1995 RMP. The declared 

Allowable Sale Quantity (ASQ) for the District is 27 MMBF. This ASQ, once determined and 

declared, is an annual regulatory commitment in the O & C Act; however, full implementation 

may be restricted by budget appropriations or unusual market conditions.

Table 11 describes in detail the timber sales offered for sale during FY 2008. 

Table 12 displays acres and volume from timber sales sold in the Matrix for FY 2008.

Table 13 displays a summary of volume sold under the 1995 RMP from the Harvest Land Base 

(the Matrix LUA) and the Reserves. 

Table 14 displays the summary of volume currently ‘sold-but-not-awarded’ by the District under 

the 1995 RMP.

Table 15 displays the ASQ volume/acres harvested from the Matrix LUA and ASQ volume from 

Key Watersheds under the 1995 RMP.

Table 16 displays the ASQ volume included in sales sold by harvest type under the 1995 RMP.

Table 17 displays the acres of Reserve included in sales sold by harvest type under the 1995 RMP.

Table 18 displays the acres by age class and harvest type included in sales sold under the 1995 RMP.
Coos Bay District

 36

Table 10. Timber Volumes Offered FY 2005 - 2008

Land Use 

Allocation

Offered 

FY 2008 (MMBF)

Offered 

FY 05-08(MMBF) 1

Matrix

GFMA 12.7 61.3

C/DB 0.0 0.1

Miscellaneous Volume 2 3.2 7.4

Total ASQ Volume 15.9 68.8

Volumes from Reserves 3 31.3 114.6

Total Volume Offered 47.2 183.4

1 Includes Green Peak sale which was offered but not sold in FY06. Includes Brummed Out DM, Cherry Wall DMT, and Edson Thin CT sales 

which were offered but not sold in FY08. 2 Includes ASQ volume from modifications and negotiated sales. 3 Includes non-ASQ volume from advertised sales, modifications and negotiated sales, and non-ASQ hardwood volumes from all LUAs

Abbreviations used in this table:

GFMA General Forest Management Area MMBF Million Board Feet

C/DB Connectivity/Diversity Blocks ASQ Allowable Sale Quantity

Table 11. FY 2008 Advertised Timber Sales

Sale Name

Land Use 

Allocation 1 Acres

Volume

(MBF) 2

Type of 

 Harvest 3 Comments

Purdy Creek DM GFMA, RR, 

LSR

593 8,342 CT, DM, 

RH, R/W

6 acres are CT in the GFMA. 8 acres are 

DM thinning and 2 acres are RH (hardwood 

conversion) in the RR (GFMA). 483 acres are DM 

thinning, 67 acres are RH (hardwood conversion) 

and 27 acres are R/W; all in the LSR.

Bitter Cherry CT GFMA, RR 445 4,454 CT, RH, 

DM, R/W

7 acres are RH, 325 acres are CT, 21 acres are RH 

(hardwood conversion), and 10 acres are R/W; all in 

the GFMA. 13 acres are DM thinning and 69 acres 

are RH (hardwood conversion) in the RR (GFMA).

Butler Creek CT GFMA, RR 436 6,115 CT, DM, 

R/W

239 acres are CT and 15 acres are R/W in the 

GFMA; 182 acres are DM thinning in RR (GFMA).

Elk Creek CT GFMA, RR 304 4,007 CT, DM 187 acres are CT in the GFMA and 117 acres 

are DM thinning in RR (GFMA).

Brummed Out DM LSR 364 5,330 DM, RH 303 acres are DM thinning and 61 acres are RH 

(hardwood conversion) in the LSR.

 Note: Brummed Out DM was offered and not sold in FY08. It is not included in the totals.

Cherry Wall DMT LSR 329 3,513 DM, RH 249 acres are DM thinning and 80 acres are RH 

(hardwood conversion) in the LSR.

 Note: Cherry Wall DMT was offered and not sold in FY08. It is not included in the totals.

Edson Thin CT GFMA, RR 463 6,902 GFMA, RR 248 acres are CT in the GFMA; 215 acres are 

DM thinning in the RR (GFMA).

 Note: Edson Thin CT was offered and not sold in FY08. It is not included in the totals.

Totals 1,778 22,918

1 GFMA is General Forest Management Area, C/DB is Connectivity/Diversity Blocks, LSR is Late-Successional Reserve, RR is Riparian Reserve 2 Includes hardwood volumes from all LUAs. 3 RH is Regeneration Harvest, CT is Commercial Thinning, DM is Density Management, R/W is Right-of-way.
Annual Program Summary Fiscal Year 2008

37

The District ASQ was reduced from 32 MMBF to 27 MMBF as a result of the Third Year 

Evaluation.

Table 12. Actual Acres and ASQ Volume Sold from the Matrix in FY 2008 1

Land Use Regeneration Harvest Commercial Thinning

Allocation Acres Volume (MMBF) 2 Acres Volume (MMBF)

GFMA 28 0.086 757 8.243

C/DB 0 0 0 0

Totals 28 0.086 757 8.243

1 Includes part of Purdy Creek DM, part of Bitter Cherry CT, part of Butler Creek CT, and part of Elk Creek CT timber sales. All other parts of 

sold sales mentioned were located in LSR or RR.

This table does not include miscellaneous volume sold as modifications, negotiated sales or R/W from advertised sales

2 Includes hardwood conversion (Regeneration Harvest) units which contained mostly non-ASQ hardwood volume. Therefore, acres reported 

and only ASQ volume.

Table 13. Summary of Volume Sold 1

Sold ASQ/Non ASQ Volume(MMBF) FY 2008 FY 05-08

FY05-14

Declared ASQ

ASQ Volume – Harvest Land Base 2 9.154 56.675 270 3

Non ASQ Volume – Reserves 2 10.817 77.213 n/a

Matrix Non ASQ Hardwood Volume 0.909 3.163 n/a

Reserves Non ASQ Hardwood Volume 2.038 11.283 n/a

Totals 22.918 148.334 n/a

1 Volume from advertised sales only. 2 Conifer volume. 3 Declared Coos Bay FY05-14 ASQ (27 MMBF X 10) = 270 MMBF

Table 14. Summary of Volume Sold but Unawarded 1

Sold Unawarded (as of 9/30/08)

ASQ/Non ASQ Volume (MMBF) FY 19982 FY 20063

Total

FY 1995 - 2008

ASQ Volume – Harvest Land Base 7.039 2.008 9.047

Non ASQ Volume – Reserves

 (including hardwoods from all LUAs)

0.459 0.087 0.546

Totals 7.498 2.095 9.593

1 Includes volume from advertised sales only.

2 Includes the following sales: FY98 Remote Control 3 Includes the following sales: FY06 Brown Elk
Coos Bay District

 38

Table 15. Matrix ASQ Volume and Acres Sold by Allocations

(including negotiated sales, modifications, and right-of-ways)

Harvest Land Base FY 2008

Total

FY 05-08

FY 05-14 Decadal 

Projection

ASQ Volume (MMBF)

Matrix 16.856 51.682 321.0 2

AMA 0.0 0.0 0.0

ASQ Acres

Matrix 1 975 2,674 8,700 3

AMA 0 0 0

Key Watershed ASQ

Volume (MMBF)

0.564 5.028 30 4

1 Includes hardwood conversion (Regeneration Harvest) units which contained mostly non-ASQ hardwood volume. Therefore, acres reported 

and only ASQ volume. 2 Volumes calculated from Table BB-7, Coos Bay District Proposed Resource Management Plan EIS Vol. II (Page 259). 3 Acres from Table AA-7, Coos Bay District Proposed Resource Management Plan EIS Volume II (Page 251). 4 From Coos Bay District Proposed Resource Management Plan EIS (Page 3).

Table 16. Matrix ASQ Volume and Acres Sold by Harvest Type

Harvest Land Base

ASQ Volume (MMBF) FY 2008

Total

FY 05-08

FY 05-14 Decadal 

Projection 1

Regeneration Harvest 0.086 6.032 310.0

Commercial Thinning 8.243 47.259 11.0

Other 2 4.028 10.748 0.0

Totals 12.357 64.039 321.0

ASQ Acres FY 2008

Total

FY 05-08

FY 05-14 Decadal

Projection 3

Regeneration Harvest 4 28 273 7,600

Commercial Thinning 757 3,109 1,100

Other 2 43 120 0

Totals 828 3,502 8,700

1 Volumes calculated from Table BB-7, Coos Bay District Proposed Resource Management Plan EIS Vol. II (Page 259). 2 Includes negotiated sales, modifications, and right-of-ways. 3 Acres from Table AA-7, Coos Bay District Proposed Resource Management Plan EIS Volume II (Page 251). 4 Includes hardwood conversion (Regeneration Harvest) units which contained mostly non-ASQ hardwood volume. Therefore, acres reported 

and only ASQ volume.
Annual Program Summary Fiscal Year 2008

39

See Appendix B-2 for the information on Allowable Sale Quantity Reconciliation.

Figures 1 & 2 display comparisons of the actual acres sold from the Matrix by Fiscal Year (FY).

These values include hardwood conversion acres but do not include timber sale R/W acres.

Table 17. Acres of Harvest within the Reserve Sold by Harvest Types 1

Reserve Acres 2 FY 2008

Total

FY 05-08

Late-Successional Reserve 577 4,007

Riparian Reserve 391 1,890

Totals 968 5,897

1 Includes advertised sales only. 2 Includes Density Management and Hardwood Conversion acres in Reserves.

Table 18. ASQ Sale Acres Sold by Age Class 1

Regeneration Harvest FY 2008

Total

FY 05-08

FY 05-14 Decadal 

Projection2

0-79 28 262 3,200

80-99 0 0 700

100-199 0 11 3,100

200+ 0 0 600

Totals 28 273 7,600

Commercial Thinning

& Other FY 2008

Total

FY 05-08

FY 05-14 Decadal

Projection 2

30-39 84 116 0

40-49 159 943 600

50-59 333 1,449 500

60-79 179 599 0

80-99 2 2 0

100-199 0 0 0

Totals 757 3,109 1,100

1 Includes advertised sales from Harvest Land Base only. 2 Acres from Table AA-7, Coos Bay District Proposed Resource Management Plan EIS Volume II (Page 251).
Coos Bay District

 40

Figure 1. Comparison of Regeneration Harvest Acres by FY

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

FY 95 FY 96 FY 97 FY 98 FY 99 FY

2000

FY 01 FY 02 FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 FY 06 FY 07 FY08

Harvest Acres Projected 1st Decade (580)

Projected 2nd Decade (760)

Figure 1. Comparison of Regeneration Harvest Acres by FY

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

FY 95 FY 96 FY 97 FY 98 FY 99 FY

2000

FY 01 FY 02 FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 FY 06 FY 07 FY08

Harvest Acres Projected 1st Decade (580)

Projected 2nd Decade (760)

Figure 2. Comparison of Commercial Thinning Acres by FY

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

FY 95 FY 96 FY 97 FY 98 FY 99 FY

2000

FY 01 FY 02 FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 FY 06 FY 07 FY08

Harvest Acres Projected 1st Decade (610)

Projected 2nd Decade (110)

Figure 2. Comparison of Commercial Thinning Acres by FY

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

FY 95 FY 96 FY 97 FY 98 FY 99 FY

2000

FY 01 FY 02 FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 FY 06 FY 07 FY08

Harvest Acres Projected 1st Decade (610)

Projected 2nd Decade (110)

Figure 2. Comparison of Commercial Thinning Acres by FY

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

FY 95 FY 96 FY 97 FY 98 FY 99 FY

2000

FY 01 FY 02 FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 FY 06 FY 07 FY08

Harvest Acres Projected 1st Decade (610)

Projected 2nd Decade (110)

Figure 2. Comparison of Commercial Thinning Acres by FY

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

FY 95 FY 96 FY 97 FY 98 FY 99 FY

2000

FY 01 FY 02 FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 FY 06 FY 07 FY08

Harvest Acres Projected 1st Decade (610)

Projected 2nd Decade (110)

Figure 1. Comparison of Regeneration Harvest Acres by FY

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

FY 95 FY 96 FY 97 FY 98 FY 99 FY

2000

FY 01 FY 02 FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 FY 06 FY 07 FY08

Harvest Acres Projected 1st Decade (580)

Projected 2nd Decade (760)

Figure 1. Comparison of Regeneration Harvest Acres by FY

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

FY 95 FY 96 FY 97 FY 98 FY 99 FY

2000

FY 01 FY 02 FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 FY 06 FY 07 FY08

Harvest Acres Projected 1st Decade (580)

Projected 2nd Decade (760)
Annual Program Summary Fiscal Year 2008

41

Silvicultural Practices

Implementation of many silvicultural practices is proportional to the District’s regeneration 

harvest schedule with a time lag of a few years. Litigation and Endangered Species Act provisions 

continue to affect the amount of many reforestation practices, such as site preparation, tree 

planting, animal control, and stand maintenance. Treatment of stands, such as pre-commercial 

thinning/release, that were harvested prior to the current 1995 RMP has generally been 

accomplished. During the second decade of this plan, some work will be directed towards 

practices such as pruning and conversions, to meet the first decadal projections. 

In FY 2008, the District awarded contracts totaling approximately $668,811 to treat the acres 

shown in Table 19 and 20. An additional $151,278 in forest development money was spent on 

noxious weed control and road maintenance for access to project areas.

Table 19. Annual ROD Projections and Accomplishments for Silvicultural Practices

2nd Decade - FY 2005 to 2014

Type of Practice

Accomplishments

FY 2008 Total FY 05-08 Decadal Projection 1

Site Preparation

Prescribed Fire 424 707 7500

Other 52 168 -

Total for Site Preparation 476 875 7500

Planting

Normal Stock 40 240 3,100

Genetic Stock 288 783 6,100

Total for planting 328 1,023 9,200

Stand Maintenance/Protection

Vegetation Control 283 2,599 10,700

Animal Control 328 999 7,600

Precommercial Thinning 1,114 6,527 3,500

/Release

Brushfield/Hardwood 28 272 100

Conversion

Fertilization 0 0 2,800

Pruning 1,054 4,797 900

1 decadal projection figures from Coos Bay District Proposed RMP and Environmental Impact Statement - Volume II Appendix CC page 264.
Coos Bay District

 42

Young Stand Silviculture in Late Successional Reserves

Silvicultural practices in the Late-Successional Reserves (LSR) have been proceeding in stands less 

than 20-years old since FY 1995, as shown in Table 20. This demonstrates that the implementation 

targets of the “South Coast-North Klamath Late-Successional Reserve Assessment” (May, 1998) 

are being meet on the District. 

Establishment and maintenance of these young timber stands is vital to meeting later stand 

development targets for old-growth. The key components that are being grown are dominant, 

fast growing, overstory trees; a varied conifer species mix; and a few hardwood trees. As an 

alternative pathway for developing late-successional characteristics, 295 acres of moderate density 

pre-commercial thinning were completed in FY 2008. As the pre-commercial thinning/release 

workload is finished in the next few years, the primary silvicultural treatment in the LSRs will turn 

to density management in stands 25 to 80 years old.

Table 20. Silvicultural Practices in Late-Successional Reserves

Type of Practice Accomplishments (acres)

Site Preparation FY 2008 Total FY 95-2008

Prescribed Fire 26 258

Other 44 278

Total for Site Preparation 70 536

Planting

Normal Stock 2 132

Genetic Stock 86 577

Total for planting 88 709

Stand Maintenance/Protection

Vegetation Control 28 7,652

Animal Control 88 976

Precommercial Thinning/Release 295 9,623

Brushfield/Hardwood 67 408

Conversion

Fertilization 0 141

Pruning 0 36
Annual Program Summary Fiscal Year 2008

43

Special Forest Products

In addition to the advertised timber sales described in the Timber Management section above, 

the District sold a variety of Special Forest Products as shown in Table 21. The sale of Special 

Forest Products follows the guidelines contained in the Oregon/Washington BLM Special Forest 

Products Procedure Handbook.

Table 21. Summary of Special Forest/Natural Product Sales

RMP Authorized product sales Unit of 

measure FY 2008

Total 2nd Decade

FY 2005-2014

Boughs, coniferous Pounds 

contracts1

value ($)

5,500

8

$220

84,850

53

$1,785

Burls and miscellaneous Pounds 

contracts1

value ($)

100

1

$10

2,100

3

$210

Christmas trees Number

contracts1

value ($)

211

211

$1,055

411

411

$2,055

Edibles and medicinals Pounds 

contracts1

value ($)

0

0

$0

4,500

1

$85

Feed & Forage Tons 0 0

Floral & greenery Pounds 

contracts1

value ($)

87,200

286

$4,360

358,363

1,228

$17,725

Moss/ bryophytes Pounds 

contracts1

value ($)

0

0

$0

900

1

$90

Mushrooms/ fungi Pounds 

contracts1

value ($)

231,070

1,067

$22,720

705,213

2,818

$70,482

Ornamentals Pounds 

contracts1

value ($)

0

0

$0

0

0

$0

Seed and seed cones Bushels

contracts1

value ($)

0

0

$0

300

2

$150

Transplants Pounds 

contracts1

value ($)

1,000

1

$10

5,055

10

$93

Wood products/ firewood 2 Cubic feet

contracts1

value ($)

61,141

283

$31,376

146,436

596

$44,354

TOTALS contracts1

value ($)

1,857

$59,751

5,123

$137,029

1 Contract numbers represent individual sale (or free use) actions. Value is in dollars per year received. 2 To avoid double counting, this line does not include products converted into and sold as either board or cubic feet and reported elsewhere.
Coos Bay District

 44

Energy and Minerals

Energy

The District continues to analyze its potential for Coal Bed Methane leases, including evaluation 

and preparing for NEPA documentation and is in consultation with the California and Oregon 

State BLM offices. The District maintains open communications with the active producers in the 

area. The Western Oregon Plan Revision addresses Coalbed Natural Gas development within the 

Coos bay District.

The District provided review and comments on the local Jordon Cove/Pacific Connector Liquefied 

Natural Gas project.

No Statements of Adverse Energy Impact (SAEI) were required this year.

Minerals

There are 83 active mining claims on the Coos Bay District. In FY 2007, no Notice of Operations 

or Plan of Operations were submitted, no compliance inspections performed, and no notices 

of non-compliance issued. Four mineral sales and Free Use Permits were issued from various 

sites throughout the District, including Baker Quarry. Appropriate compliance inspections were 

completed. 

The District has received numerous inquiries on recreational mining. 

Geology

Engineering geology investigations are conducted to support District Engineering staff. In 

addition, District representatives conducted numerous geologic investigations in support of other 

programs, within District and outside of District and the Bureau. Several public presentations 

regarding tsunamis and field geology were given to groups such as; Oregon Department of 

Forestry, the South Coast Striders club, Millacoma Middle school, and the public at Loon Lake 

campground. 

Beach and geomorphologic process research continued at the New River ACEC. This project is 

being conducted in consultation with the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries 

and Oregon State University. The intent is to analyze remobilization of sand after stabilizing 

vegetation is removed. The results of the research project were delivered to numerous government 

and academic entities.

Other geological and geomorphological projects included:

•	 Quarry evaluations of rock mechanics.

•	 Engineering geology investigations and consultations for engineering purposes.

•	 Indepth research and monitoring, resulting in projected implication models of dune 

sand movements.
Annual Program Summary Fiscal Year 2008

45

•	 Active and mitigated slide evaluation and monitoring.

•	 Hydrogeology groundwater monitoring of recreational facilities.

•	 Community presentations of natural hazards, specifically tsunami.

•	 Assistance to other districts including geological interpretations.

Range Resources

The District maintained four grazing leases in the Umpqua Field Office for a total of 23 AUM’s. 

All leases are in compliance with current BLM grazing standard guidelines.

Access and Right-of-Way

Due to the intermingled nature of the public and private lands within the District, each party must 

cross the lands of the other to access their lands and resources, such as timber. On the majority 

of the District this has been accomplished through Reciprocal Right-of-Way Agreements with 

adjacent land owners. 

In FY 2008, the following actions were accomplished: 

•	 1 temporary permits was issued for timber hauling over existing roads.

•	 12 supplements to establish fees for use of existing roads were executed.

•	 1 temporary Use Permit was issued.

Land Tenure Adjustments

•	 The District did not acquire or dispose of any lands in FY 2008.

The Oregon Public Lands Transfer and Protection Act of 1998, PL 105-321, established a policy 

of “No Net Loss” of O&C and Coos Bay Wagon Road (CBWR) lands in western Oregon. The 

Act requires that, ...when selling, purchasing, or exchanging land, BLM may neither 1) reduce the 

total acres of O&C or CBWR lands nor 2) reduce the number of acres of O&C, CBWR, and Public 

Domain lands that are available for timber harvest below what existed on October 30, 1998.... The 

redesignation of lands associated with establishment of the Coquille Forest noted above is not 

included in the Act. Table 22 displays the results for the No Net Loss policy on the District, which 

is the same as last year.
Coos Bay District

 46

Transportation/Roads

A summary of road construction, repair and decommissioning for FY 2008 is as follows:

 2nd Decade

FY 2008 Activity FY 05-08

0.7 miles of new permanent road were constructed by federal action. 6.7

0.0 miles of existing road were decommissioned. 8.4

4.9 miles of temporary road were constructed and have either been 

decommissioned or are planned to be decommissioned as the 

timber sales they access are completed. 20.17

* miles of road were built on public lands by private action. 3.48

* miles of road were improved on public lands by private action. 3.76

* miles of temporary road were built on public lands by private action. 0.20 * Information not available for FY 2008

Noxious Weeds

In FY 2008, Coos Bay District chemically treated 929 acres of Scotch broom, French broom, 

and Himalayan Blackberry along roads in the Umpqua Field Office and an additional 40 acres 

within the Myrtlewood Field Office. Three hundred and twelve (312) acres of noxious weeds were 

Table 22. No Net Loss Report for FY 98 to 2007

Type of Action

(sale, purchase,

exchange)

Name /

Serial

Number

Acquired Acres Disposed Acres

Land Status Available for

Timber Harvest

Land Status Available for

Timber Harvest

O&C CBWR PD O&C CBWR PD O&C CBWR PD O&C CBWR PD

Purchase OR-50404 1 - - 71 - - - - - - - - -

Sale OR-53620 2 - - - - - - - - 2 - - -

Sale OR-53838 3 - - - - - - - 1 - - - -

Sale OR-53839 4 - - - - - - - 2 - - - -

Title Resolution OR-56084 5 - - - - - - 9 183 - - - -

Purchase OR-55309 6 - - 44 - - - - - - - - -

Purchase OR-55740 7 - - 2 - - - - - - - - -

Relinquishment OR-19228 8 - - 313 - - - - - - - - -

Legislated 

Transfer OR-60953 9 - - - - - - - - 67 - - -

1 Russell Purchase of land adjacent to New River ACEC (Lost Lake) February 1998 2 Bally Bandon direct sale (T. 27S., R. 14W., Section 29 Lot 3) April 1999 3 Enos Ralph direct sale (T. 27S., R. 12 W. Section 13) November 1999 4 Leslie Crum direct sale (T. 27 S, R. 11 W., Section 5) April 2000 5 Coos County Title Resolution (Coos Bay Wagon Road) September 2000 6 Russat Enterprises purchase of land in the Coos Bay Shorelands ACEC May 2001 7 William Warner purchase of land in the Dean Creek EVA February 2002 8 COE relinquishment of lands on the North Spit of Coos Bay June 2002 9 Legislated transfer to Douglas County of parcel of Umpqua Jetty/Lighthouse October 2004
Annual Program Summary Fiscal Year 2008

47

manually treated in various locations across the District including the Dean Creek Elk Viewing 

Area and the North Spit of Coos Bay in cooperation with the Northwest Youth Corps. 

The Coos Bay BLM District is concentrating its noxious weed control efforts on the transportation 

system, the principal source of noxious weed spread on the Southern Oregon Coastal area. This is 

occurring in partnership with Coos County and Curry County Weed Advisory Boards. 

The District continued its use of assistance agreements with the Curry Weed Advisory Board to 

conduct Early Detection / Rapid Response activities at the New River ACEC and to treat newly 

identified infestations of Japanese Knotweed within the Crystal Creek watershed.

Sudden Oak Death 

Sudden Oak Death Phytophthora ramorum, a non-native pathogen, was first discovered in 

southwest Oregon forests in 2001, where it was killing tanoak and infecting Pacific rhododendron 

and evergreen huckleberry. An active control program was implemented within the first year to 

slow the spread of the disease. The control program was mandated by Oregon state statute on 

private and State- lands, but is not automatically enforced or applied to Federally managed lands. 

Federal land managers administering public lands recognize that success of the local Sudden Oak 

Death eradication effort depends on the application of control treatments across the landscape 

without regard to land ownership and have cooperated in this effort since 2001. 

Coos Bay BLM detected its first infection site in 2001 and has located additional infection sites 

since that time. Treatments for the pathogen began on private and federal lands in Curry County 

during the fall of 2001. This involves cutting, piling, and burning cut material to include the 

infected plants and adjacent vegetation. Treatment areas will be planted with Douglas fir within 

two years of treatment being completed. Follow-up surveys are performed on the treated sites by 

pathologists from the Oregon Department of Forestry and the U.S. Forest Service until the area 

has been determined to be disease free for two successive years. If the disease is still present after 

treatment, the area is re-treated. 

Table 23. Accomplishments for Sudden Oak Death Treatments

Accomplishments (acres)

Type of Practice FY 2008 FY 01-08

Initial Treatment

Cutting and Piling 155 182

Pile Burning 26 0

Broadcast Burning 0 0

Retreatment

Cutting and Piling 0 0

Pile Burning 0 0

Broadcast Burning 0 0
Coos Bay District

 48

Hazardous Materials Management and Resource Restoration

In FY 2008, the Coos Bay District Hazardous Materials program consisted of a number of 

actions, including investigations, emergency responses, removals, clean-ups, and coordination, as 

summarized below:

•	 Two investigations of potential hazardous waste sites on public lands.

•	 One time-critical response and removal actions involving illegal dumping on public lands.

•	 Responded to two Loon Lake recreation site oil releases involving one submerged vessel and 

one release from vessel at the boat ramp.

•	 Identified 13 facilities that required reporting Hazardous Substances to the Oregon State 

Fire Marshal’s Office under the Emergency Planning and Community Right- To-Know Act 

(EPCRA).

•	 Conducted removal and disposal actions on several RCRA hazardous waste streams 

generated by BLM activities throughout the District.

•	 Continued to provide technical support for the Compliance Assessment - Safety, Health and 

the Environment (CASHE) program for BLM facilities. Utilized a recycle - reuse program 

to eliminated hazardous paint waste from the District.

•	 Continued operations under Zone Agreement with Roseburg District for Hazardous 

Materials support.

Fire/Fuels Management

All fuels treatment activities were accomplished meeting the Department of Interior 9214 Manual 

(Prescribed Fire Management Policy as revised in September 2003) and in accordance with the 

Oregon Smoke Management and Visibility Protection Plans. In FY 2008, 417 acres of prescribed 

fire and 89 acres of manual site preparation occurred to prepare sites for reforestation. No smoke 

intrusions into designated areas occurred as a result of fuels treatment projects on the District. 

Fuels consumption varied due to factors such as time of year, aspect, types and condition of fuels, 

ignition source and fuels treatment method. Prescribed burning prescriptions target springlike burn conditions when large fuel, duff and litter consumption, and smoldering is reduced 

by wetter conditions and rapid mop-up. Proposed management activities are analyzed during 

the interdisciplinary review process and alternative fuels treatment methods are utilized where 

appropriate.

In FY 2008 the District had three human caused fires totaling 0.5 acres and six lightning fires 

totaling 3.7 acres. The District dispatched 43 district employees to off-district wildfire assignments 

for a total of 527 workdays.

Rural Interface Areas/Wildland Urban Interface Areas

The Hazardous Fuels Reduction program was introduced in FY 2000 and has no ROD 

accomplishments associated with it. The (2823 and 2824) programs came about as a result of the 

catastrophic 2000 fire season and address fuel reduction activities in:

•	 Areas where actions will mitigate threats to the safety of the public and our employees in 

both wildland urban interface (2824) and non-interface areas (2823).
Annual Program Summary Fiscal Year 2008

49

•	 Areas to protect, enhance, restore and/or maintain plant communities and habitats that are 

critical for endangered, threatened, or sensitive plant and animal species.

•	 Areas that will reduce risks and damage from wildfire.

The definition of wildland urban interface (WUI) in the National Fire Plan is much broader than 

that of the District’s RMP; page 44 and Map 6 in the ROD and RMP. The acres treated under each 

program, Hazardous Fuels treatments (2823) and Wildland Urban Interface (2824) is listed in 

Table 24. The treatment methods for” Other” category were manual and machine piling. 

Table 24. Hazardous Fuels Reduction Accomplishments

Practice ROD Acres Acres

FY 00 thru 07

Acres

FY 2008

Acres

FY 2000 to 2008

Hazardous Fuels Treatments (2823)

Prescribed Fire N/A 72 30 102

Other N/A 2,054 30 2,084

Wildland Urban Interface (2824)

Prescribed Fire N/A 559 100 659

Other N/A 2,497 109 2,606

Total for Hazardous Fuels Reduction 5,192 269 5,461

Cadastral Survey

Cadastral survey crews are responsible for the establishment and re-establishment of the 

boundaries of Public Land.

Table 25. Coos Bay District Cadastral Survey Activity

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Projects completed 6 7 7 6 4 6 9

Miles of survey line run 38 47 25 25 36 39 43

Monuments set 32 25 10 33 35 19 27

Survey notes and plats 5 4 6 8 3 5 5

submitted to the Oregon 

State Office for final review

In addition to the accomplishments noted in Table 25, the survey crews completed the following tasks:

•	 Provided GPS support to District personnel.

•	 Answered numerous requests for information from members of the public.

•	 Provided technical guidance to private land surveyors.

•	 Completed site surveys of one communication sites for Lakeview District and one 

communication site for Coos Bay District to facilitate communication site management plans.

•	 Provided cadastral survey support to Prineville District for encroachment investigations.
Coos Bay District

 50

•	 Provided support to the National Training Center for development of distance learning course.

•	 Provided technical instruction to American Congress on Surveying and Mapping (ACSM) 

annual convention

•	 Provided technical instruction to the Washington Council of County Surveyor’s annual 

survey camp.

Law Enforcement

In FY 2008, the Coos Bay District Law Enforcement Program continued to function with two 

BLM Rangers and one Coos County deputy working under a Law Enforcement Agreement. 

Additionally, during the summer months four BLM Rangers from out of state were detailed to the 

Loon Lake Recreation Area to assist with law enforcement at our most popular recreation site 

The District successfully transitioned a new Law Enforcement Contract, which began October 

1, 2008, with Coos County, to utilize a new deputy trained during FY 2008 to replace a retiring, 

long-time timber deputy. The expanded Law Enforcement Agreement provided for the additional 

trainee/deputy to seamlessly accomplish this replacement.

Law enforcement actions on public lands conducted by BLM Rangers and co-operating County 

Sheriff Deputies involved conducting investigations on 174 cases including:

•	 19 timber, fuelwood and forest products thefts.

•	 7 non-resource thefts.

•	 12 cases of vandalism.

•	 4 liquor law violations (including two DUIs)

•	 10 various supplemental rule violations.

•	 3 drug/narcotics cases.

•	 1 Haz-Mat case.

•	 23 littering/dumping cases.

•	 5 search and rescues.

•	 4 abandoned property cases (including vehicles).

•	 3 camping violations.

•	 25 off-highway vehicle violations.

•	 17 assists to other enforcement agencies.

•	 3 burglaries

•	 1 assault on a member of the public

Law enforcement actions include 29 misdemeanors and one felony charge. This year no 

significant marijuana grows (attributable to drug trafficking organizations) were located in the 

Coos Bay District.

Again this year Coos Bay Rangers supported National Recreation Details by participating in 

details to El Centro, CA (holiday ATV activity) and Winnemucca, NV (Burning Man).
Annual Program Summary Fiscal Year 2008

51

Geographic Information Systems

The Geographic Information System (GIS) exists within the BLM to provide support to natural 

resource staff, managers, and the public. GIS is a support organization consisting of people, 

computers and software used to create, store, retrieve, analyze, report, and display natural resource 

information. The BLM in Oregon/Washington utilizes a GIS software suite from Environmental 

Systems Research Institute, (ESRI) Inc, called ArcGIS. 

During Fiscal Year 2008, District GIS staff continued to support the Western Oregon Plan Revision 

(WOPR), focusing primarily on analysis of hydrology, fisheries habitat, and oil and gas issues.

The District GIS organization coordinated with BLM Oregon State Office (OSO) to obtain LiDAR 

imagery, develop custom GIS applications to make geoprocessing faster and more efficient, and 

participated in a statewide process to centralize GIS data at the OSO.

Local GIS support focused on data management, tool and script development, data analysis, 

creating map displays, and using GPS (Geographic Positioning Systems) to collect field data, to 

assist natural resource management staff in accomplishing the District Annual Work Plan.

GIS staff provided spatial data, analysis and map displays to outside agencies and to the public, 

including devising a method of printing copies of digital aerial photography to meet public demand.

National Environmental Policy Act Analysis and 

Documentation

During FY 2008, the Coos Bay District completed four environmental assessments (EA), 16 

categorical exclusions (CX), and two administrative determinations (DNA). These environmental 

documents vary in complexity, detail, and length depending on the project involved.

A CX is used when a new proposal fits a category, listed in Department or BLM manuals, that has 

been determined to not individually or cumulatively cause significant environmental effects and is 

exempt from requirements to prepare an environmental analysis. A DNA is often prepared when 

a previously prepared EA fully covers a proposed action and no additional analysis is needed. 

An EA is prepared to determine whether or not a new proposed action or alternative will 

significantly affect the quality of the human environment. If the action is determined to not have a 

significant affect, this conclusion is documented in a “Finding of No Significant Impact.” 

Major proposals that will significantly affect the environment, as defined by BLM Department 

Manual 516 DM 11.8, and that have not been previously analyzed; require that an EIS be prepared.

Protest and Appeals

The District received no protests of forest management actions in FY 2008.
Coos Bay District

 52

Coordination and Consultation

The District continues to conduct a considerable amount of coordination and consultation with 

other federal agencies, state and local governments, and private organizations. Listed below are 

examples of the coordination and consultation that routinely occur. Additional instances of 

cooperation can be found in the Partnership section of this document. 

•	 ESA coordination/consulting/conferencing with both USFWS and NMFS Fisheries.

•	 Coordination with Oregon State Department of Environmental Quality in the development 

of Water Quality Management Plans.

•	 Coordination with several Watershed Associations and Councils, from Coos, Curry, and 

Douglas Counties to facilitate habitat restoration projects.

•	 Participation and leadership in the Snowy Plover Working Group composed of federal 

and state agencies concerned with the long-term viability of the coastal population of the 

Western Snowy Plover.

•	 Consulting with BIA and local Tribes on issues such as the Coquille Forest and other cultural 

issues.

•	 Coordination with a private company on the application to construct a natural gas pipeline 

across public lands.

•	 Management of the Cape Blanco Lighthouse in conjunction with the U.S. Coast Guard, 

Oregon Parks and Recreation Department, the Confederated Tribes of the Siletz Indians of 

Oregon, and the Coquille Indian Tribe.

•	 Participation in the Coos County Regional Trails Partnership.

•	 Participation in the Reedsport’s Tsalila Festival, and Bay Area Fun Festival Mountain Bike 

Race.

•	 The District maintained an active role with the Oregon Coastal Environments Awareness 

Network (OCEAN), to develop the Coastal Environments Learning Network.

Research

No new initiatives in research were started on the District in FY 2008. The District continues to 

engage in the ongoing studies as listed below.

The Cooperative Forest Ecosystem Research (CFER) program is a cooperative between BLM; the 

Biological Resources Division, U.S. Geologic Service; Oregon State University; and the Oregon 

Department of Forestry. CFER has recently developed a web site (http//www.fsl.orst.edu/cfer) 

which provides current information on ongoing research projects. 

Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center (FRESC) is one of 16 science and technology 

centers in the U.S. Geologic Service. FRESC provides research services for most Department of 

Interior Bureaus in the western United States. Current information on FRESC projects can be 

obtained from their web site (http//fresc.fsl.orst.edu).

A number of research studies involving the management and development of young forest stands, 

recruitment of large woody debris and fish habitat and movement were conducted on BLM 

administered lands within the Coos Bay District. Examples of current on-going research on the 
Annual Program Summary Fiscal Year 2008

53

District are:

•	 West Fork Smith River Salmonid Life-Cycle Monitoring (Oregon Department of Fish 

and Wildlife): As part of the monitoring the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds, 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) and the BLM are conducting a multiyear research study on production and survival of salmonid fishes with the primary focus on 

Oregon Coast coho salmon. The importance of this study is that it estimates the freshwater 

and marine survival of both juvenile and adult salmonids and freshwater population 

numbers. This study began in 1999 and is one of eight sites Statewide. The Coos Bay BLM 

has entered a partnership with the ODFW to assist with funding of the operation of this trap. 

Numbers obtained from trapping can be found in Table 6 of this Annual Program Summary.

•	 In June, 2008, a study the Umpqua Field Office participated in with the Northwest Fisheries 

Science Center was published in the North American Journal of Fisheries Management. The 

published paper is titled “Adult coho salmon and steelhead trout use of boulder weirs in 

Southwest Oregon streams” and it can be downloaded from the following web site: 

http://afs.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1577%2FM07-085.1

•	 National Council of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream Improvement (National 

Council of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream Improvement): Coos Bay BLM entered its 

sixth year as a participant in a cooperative project with the NCASI to investigate the habitat 

use of northern spotted owls in the Coos Bay District. The project will evaluate the response 

of northern spotted owls to timber management activities, particularly commercial thinning 

harvest prescriptions. The project finished the last year of telemetry field work and will 

begin gathering vegetation data. NCASI serves as an environmental resource for the forest 

products industry. Coos Bay BLM provided $12,000 in special project funds to support the 

project.

•	 Vegetation response to variable density thinning in young Douglas-fir forests: The Coos 

Bay District hosts two study sites included in the Density Management and Riparian Buffer 

Study. The Density Management and Riparian Buffer Study is a collaborative effort among 

the BLM, Pacific Northwest Research Station, US Geological Society, and Oregon State 

University to develop and test options for young stand management to create and maintain 

late-successional forest characteristics in western Oregon. A study overview and links to 

reports and papers generated by this study can be found on the Internet at http://ocid.nacse.

org/nbii/density/.
Coos Bay District

 54

RMP Maintenance and Amendments

The Coos Bay District Resource Management Plan and Record of Decision (RMP/ROD) was 

approved in May 1995. Since then, the District has been implementing the plan across the entire 

spectrum of resources and land use allocations. As the plan is implemented, it sometimes becomes 

necessary to make minor changes, refinements, or clarifications of the plan. These actions are called 

plan maintenance. They do not result in expansion of the scope of resource uses or restrictions or 

changes in terms, conditions and decisions of the approved RMP/ROD. Plan maintenance does not 

require environmental analysis, formal public involvement or interagency coordination.

The following minor changes, refinements, or clarifications have been implemented as a part of 

plan maintenance for the Coos Bay District for the second decade of implementation, 2005 to 

2008. These are condensed descriptions of the plan maintenance items; detailed descriptions are 

available at the Coos Bay District Office by contacting Steven Fowler. For plan maintenance items 

implemented during period of FY 1995-2004, refer to Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary 

and Monitoring Report – FY 2004. 

Plan Maintenance for FY 2005 •	 No plan maintenance was undertaken in FY 2005.

•	 The District did not acquire nor dispose of any lands in FY 2005.

Table 1 published in the Coos Bay RMP ROD is shown below in Table 26 to reflect acquisitions 

and disposals between 1995 to 2004.

Table 26. (Revised) BLM-Administered Land in the Planning Area by County (In Acres)

County O&C CBWR PD Acquired Other Total Surface 1 Reserved 

Minerals

Coos 93,943 60,447 6,464 414 0 161,268 7,828

Curry 3,258 0 28,762 270 0 32,290 2,589

Douglas 123,558 636 6,302 135 0 130,631 1,735

Lane 154 0 401 0 0 555 0

Totals 220,913 61,083 41,929 819 0 324,744 12,152

1 Acres are based on the master title plat and titles for land acquisitions and disposals. It reflects changes in ownership and land status from 

March 1993 to September 2003. Acres are not the same as shown in the GIS.

Plan Maintenance for FY 2006 

•	 No plan maintenance was undertaken in FY 2006.

Plan Maintenance for FY 2007 

•	 Redefine “Early Seral Stage” in the Glossary

The current definition incorrectly defines “Early Seral Stage” as the period of a stand from age 15 

to 40 which more appropriately defines “Mid-Seral Stage”. The new definition “The period from 
Annual Program Summary Fiscal Year 2008

55

disturbance to crown closure of conifer stands usually occurring from 0 – 15 years. Grass, herbs, 

or brush are plentiful” will be identical to that used in Roseburg and Eugene District.

Plan Maintenance for FY 2008

•	 Modification of RMP Monitoring Questions

This plan maintenance modifies or removes monitoring questions listed in the Coos Bay RMP 

Monitoring Plan –. Appendix L The RMP acknowledged that the Monitoring Plan established 

in 1995 was not complete at that time and that adjustments could be made to reflect whether 

questions were still relevant. 

The past thirteen years of monitoring has a developed a consistent pattern of response to 

numerous questions. Several questions were removed as a result of current Amendments to the 

RMP; others pertained to tasks that have been implemented. Questions pertaining to monitoring 

of projects consistent with RMP Management Direction have been retained.

RMP Amendments for FY 2004 

Port-Orford-Cedar Management Amendment to the Coos Bay RMP

The management direction for Port-Orford-cedar (POC) was amended by the Record of Decision 

for the “Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement – Management of Port-Orford-Cedar 

in Southwest Oregon.” This May 2004 ROD amends the RMPs for the Coos Bay, Roseburg, and 

Medford BLM Districts. The Decision provides for “disease-control procedures and planning 

processes” in the management of POC. This 2004 ROD is the result of U.S. District Court ruling 

stating that “the Coos Bay Resource Management plan did not contain an adequate analysis of the 

effects of timber sales on the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on POC and its root disease.” 

Copies of the ROD and Final SEIS may be obtained by writing the Bureau of Land Management at 

PO Box 2965, Portland, Oregon 97208.

RMP Amendments for FY 2007 

2007 Survey and Manage Amendment to the Northwest Forest Plan

The Survey and Manage standards and guidelines were removed in July 2007 through the 

signing of the Record of Decision (ROD) for the “Final Supplemental to the 2004 Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure 

Standards and Guidelines.” This Decision discontinues the Survey and Manage program and 

transfers selected Survey and Manage taxa to Agency Special-Status Species Programs (SSSP). 

This supplemental was written in response to a U.S. District Court ruling that deemed the 2004 

Supplemental EIS pertaining to survey and manage inadequate.

Copies of the ROD and Final SEIS may be obtained by writing the Bureau of Land Management at 

PO Box 2965, Portland, Oregon 97208, or they can be accessed at http://www.reo.gov/
Coos Bay District

 56

Western Oregon Resource Management Plan Revisions (WOPR)

In August 2003, the U.S. Department of Justice, on behalf of the Secretary of Interior and the 

Secretary of Agriculture signed a Settlement Agreement which settles litigation with the American 

Forest Resource Council, and the Association of O&C Counties, hereafter referred to as the 

Settlement Agreement, (AFRC v. Clarke, Civil No. 94-1031-TPJ (D.D.C.). Among other items in 

the Settlement Agreement the BLM was required to revise the six existing Resource Management 

Plans by December, 2008 in western Oregon consistent with the O&C Act as interpreted by 

the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Under the Settlement Agreement, the BLM was required to 

consider an alternative in the land use plan revisions which will not create any reserves on O&C 

lands, except as required to avoid jeopardy under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) or meet other 

legal obligations. 

Following issuance of the DRAFT Environmental Impact Analysis for the Revision of the Resource 

Management Plans of the Western Oregon Bureau of Land Management Districts in August 2007, 

a 120-day Public Comment period followed, closing on January 11, 2008. The BLM held more 

than 170 public meetings and received almost 30,000 comments. These comments from scientists, 

tribes, interest groups, government entities were analyzed and the BLM Oregon State Office 

released the FINAL Environmental Impact Statement on October 2008. The document completed 

a 60 - day consistency review by the Oregon State Governors’ Office. The Record of Decision for 

the Coos Bay District was signed December 30, 2008.

Copies of the 2008 Coos Bay District Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan are 

available at: http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/coosbay/plans/coosbayrmp.php
Annual Program Summary Fiscal Year 2008

57

Resource Management Plan Monitoring 

Provincial Implementation and Effectiveness monitoring of the Northwest Forest Plan are 

conducted at higher levels, larger spatial scales, and longer duration. The nature of questions 

concerning effectiveness monitoring generally require some maturation of implemented projects 

and research in order to discern results. This monitoring will be conducted in future years and at 

provincial or regional scales. Specific implementation monitoring at the Coos Bay District level 

follows this section in the Resource Management Plan FY 2008 Monitoring Report.

Province Level Implementation Monitoring

No Provincial level monitoring was performed this past year or are planned for the next year.

Results of the FY 2005 Provincial Monitoring are available on the internet

(http://www.reo.gov/monitoring/reports).

Effectiveness Monitoring

The Interagency Regional Monitoring Program continues to conduct effectiveness monitoring of 

the Northwest Forest Plan. Multiple reports were issued in 2005 and 2006 commensurate with 

the 10 year implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan. No new findings were issued in 2008; 

however a 10-year Synthesis Summary Report was released. In addition, an overall summary of 

ongoing research was for 2006 contains relevant information.

V. Rapp. 2008. Northwest Forest Plan- the first 10 years (1994-2003): first decade results of the 

Northwest Forest Plan. PNW-GTR-720.

Annual - Progress Report 2006 - Interagency Regional Monitoring and Research 

Accomplishment. Northwest Forest Plan. 

Additional information on the Effectiveness Monitoring program is available on the internet 

(http://www.reo.gov/monitoring). 
Coos Bay District

 58

Coos Bay District Resource Management Plan FY 

2008 Monitoring Report

Introduction

This report compiles the results and findings of implementation monitoring of projects initiated 

during the 2008 fiscal year as part of the Coos Bay District Resource Management Plan. It meets 

the requirements for monitoring and evaluation of resource management plans at appropriate 

intervals within BLM planning regulations (43 CFR 1610.4-9). This RMP monitoring plan does 

not identify all the monitoring conducted on the Coos Bay District; activity and project plans may 

identify monitoring needs of their own. 

The list of monitoring questions has been modified from previous Reports as a result of plan 

maintenance conducted in 2008 (see the section on Plan Maintenance). 

Process

Projects initiated during FY 2008 were initially selected for monitoring as they were routed 

through the District Environmental Coordinator or Procurement department. Every fifth project 

was selected to formulate the initial 20 percent criteria. The initial random number process 

was supplemented by adding one timber sale project, Purdy Creek DM, to meet the 20 percent 

requirements. 

Projects selected in previous years, but not completed during that year, were carried forward into 

the current monitoring cycle. These projects have already been monitored for documentation and 

are only being monitored for actual on-the-ground implementation.

A total of 7 projects were monitored in FY 2008; 6 projects initiated in FY 2008 and 1 from the 

previous year. 

Table 27 lists those projects initiated in FY 2008; selected projects are in bolded font. Table 28 

displays the distribution of projects available for selection and those selected for monitoring.
Annual Program Summary Fiscal Year 2008

59

Table 27. FY 2008 Project Numbers

Project 

Number

Project specific identification 

Name, unit number, etc. NEPA doc Contact No.

01 Sudden Oak Death Treatment EA OR128-03-02 DNA 1 HAC087W00

Myrtlewood FO Tree Planting & Tubing CX OR 120-08-01 HAP081001

02 Bid Item 1 – initial plant Curry 88 ac

03 Bid Item 2 – initial plant 5 ac

04 Bid Item 3 – interplant- Curry 22 ac

Umpqua 08 Tree Planting & Tubing CX OR 120-08-03 HCD080506

05 Bid Item 1 – initial plant 166 ac

06 Bid Item 2 – interplant 27 ac

Umpqua Noxious Weed Control EA OR120-97-11 HAC081001

07 Bid Item 1 – Broom sp. 600 ac

08 Bid Item 3 – Himalaya sp. 200 ac

09 Bid Item 4 – Knotweed 3 ac

10 Bid Item 5 – Beachgrass 24 ac

Myrtlewood FO FY 08 Manual Maintenance CX OR 120-08-03 HAC081007

11 Bid Item 1 – cut all 129 ac

12 Bid Item 2 – cut all South 132 ac

13 Bid Item 3 – cut all South 17 ac

14 Elk Creek CT EA OR128-03-17 OR120-TS08-35

15 Russell Creek Fish Passage HAP081004

16 Dean’s Creek Pasture Maintenance EA OR125-04-08

17 Manual Fuels Treatment HCHR EA OR120-04-07

Umpqua FO FY 08 Manual Maintenance CX OR120-08-03 HAP073014

18 Bid Item 1 – cut hdwds 6 ac

19 Bid Item 2 – cut all 12 ac

Myrtlewood FO FY 2008 PCT CX OR120-08-03 HAP081025

20 Bid Item 1 – 13’x 13’ 353 ac

21 Bid Item 2 – 13’x 13’ 451 ac

Umpqua FO FY 2008 PCT CX OR120-08-03 HAP081022

22 Bid Item 1 – 13’x 13’ 312 ac

23 Bid Item 2 – 15’x 15’ 292 ac

24 Purdy Creek DM EA OR125-05-01 OR120-TS08-01

25 Bitter Cherry EA OR125-04-17 OR120-TS08-02

Projects carried over from previous years:

2007-21 Myrtlewood FO FY2007 PCT Bid Item 1 - 792 ac

2007-31* Camas Powerline CT OR120 TS07-33
Coos Bay District

 60

Summary of Findings and Recommendations

The results of our fourteenth year of monitoring evaluation continue to support earlier 

observations that, overall, the District is doing an excellent job of implementing the 1995 

Coos Bay District RMP. Timber sales are mostly limited to commercial thinning or density 

management. The number of restoration projects decreased this past year due to the lack of 

funding from the Secure Rural Schools Act. 

Based on review, all the selected projects are in conformance with their documentation and each 

project selected for monitoring was implemented in accordance with its contract. 

Table 28. FY 2008 Projects Available and Selected for Monitoring by Selection

Factors

Type of Project Number available 

for Selection

Number Selected in

Myrtlewood FO Umpqua FO

Advertised Timber Sales 4 0 1 25%

....Regeneration Harvest 0 - - -

....Thinning/Density Management 4 0 1 25%

....Salvage Sales 0 - - -

Silvicultural Projects 14 2 2 29%

Road Decommissioning 0 - - -

Culvert Replacement 1 0 0 0%

Stream Habitat Improvement 0 - - -

Noxious Weeds 4 0 1 25%

Recreation Projects 0 - - -

Other 3 0 0 0%

Within Riparian Reserves 1 19 0 4 21%

Within Key Watersheds 1 6 0 2 33%

Within LSRs1 7 0 3 43%

Within ACECs 2 0 0 0%

Within VRM Class II or III areas 1 0 0 0%

Within Rural Interface Area 0 - - -

Total Available /Selected 2 6/26 2/11 4/15

18% 27%

1 Projects selected were included in Timber sales, Silvicultural, Right-of-Way, or other projects listed above. 2 The number of projects available for selection and selected are not additive, as many occurred within 

Timber Sales, Silvicultural, Culvert Replacement, Habitat Improvement, Right-of-Way, or Other projects listed above.
Annual Program Summary Fiscal Year 2008

61

Coos Bay District Specific Monitoring Questions 

Riparian Reserves

Monitoring Requirement:

1. The files on each year’s on-the-ground actions will be checked annually to ensure that 

watershed analyses were completed prior to project initiation 

Monitoring Performed:

All 6 selected projects in Table 28 of this Annual Program Summary were reviewed.

Finding:

For most projects, the watershed analysis is of an older vintage and concerns specific to the current 

activity are not often identified. Some watershed analyses are being updated for watersheds 

concurrent with timber sale activity. 

However, the watershed analysis process is of marginal utility as a source of ‘new’ information. 

Watershed analysis was intended to form the basis for understanding ecological functions, 

processes, and their interactions on a watershed scale. These first iteration analyses have been 

completed for most watersheds (refer to Table 3 of this APS). Watershed analysis was not intended 

to analyze information at the project scale for a proposed activity; that is the role of NEPA. 

Analytical questions necessary for the Decision process are being addressed in the accompanying 

NEPA documentation and, in the case of timber sale projects; the NEPA addresses cumulative 

effects at an appropriate scale commensurate with the project. 

Monitoring Requirement:

2. At least 20 percent of management activities within each resource area will be examined before 

project initiation and re-examined following project completion to determine whether the width 

and integrity of the Riparian Reserves were maintained. 

Monitoring Performed:

2008-08Bid Item 3 of the Umpqua Noxious Weed Control

2008-18Bid Item 1 of the Umpqua FO FY 2008 Manual Maintenance 

2008-23Bid Item 2 of the Umpqua FO FY 2008 PCT 

previously selected projects include:

2007-21Bid Item 1 of the Myrtlewood FO 2007 PCT 

Finding:

Silvicultural activities did not modify Riparian Reserve widths and did comply with the 

Management Direction for Riparian Reserve management. No activity occurred on either the 

Purdy Creek or Camas Powerline timber sales this season.

Monitoring Requirement:

3. The Annual Program Summary will report what silvicultural practices are being applied to 

meet the Management Direction for Riparian Reserves. 
Coos Bay District

 62

Monitoring Performed:

2008-08Bid Item 3 of the Umpqua Noxious Weed Control

2008-18Bid Item 1 of the Umpqua FO FY 2008 Manual Maintenance 

2008-23Bid Item 2 of the Umpqua FO FY 2008 PCT 

previously selected projects include:

2007-21Bid Item 1 of the Myrtlewood FO 2007 PCT 

Finding:

The silvicultural projects are intended to reduce the amount of noxious weeds, promote survival 

and growth of desirable riparian vegetation. Timber sale projects are intended to provide for 

growing space for large conifers and enhance understory development. These are consistent with 

the Management Direction for Riparian Reserves.

Monitoring Requirement:

4. At least 20 percent of the activities that are conducted or authorized within Riparian Reserves 

will be reviewed to identify whether the actions were consistent with RMP Management Direction. 

In addition to reporting the results of this monitoring, the Annual Program Summary will also 

summarize the types of activities that were conducted or authorized within Riparian Reserves. 

Monitoring Performed:

2008-08Bid Item 3 of the Umpqua Noxious Weed Control

2008-18Bid Item 1 of the Umpqua FO FY 2008 Manual Maintenance 

2008-23Bid Item 2 of the Umpqua FO FY 2008 PCT 

previously selected projects include:

2007-21Bid Item 1 of the Myrtlewood FO 2007 PCT 

Finding:

Based on the findings to other questions in this monitoring section, it is concluded that activities 

within the Riparian Reserves were consistent with the RMP management direction. 

Of the 26 projects selected for monitoring in FY 2008 listed in Table 28, 19 of thee were conducted 

in the Riparian Reserves. The types of activities conducted within the Riparian Reserves are:

category number

silvicultural vegetation management

pre-commercial (planting, release, etc.) 11

commercial thinning 4

riparian conversions 0

noxious weed control 3

in-stream and/or channel restoration 0

culvert replacement 0

road decommissioning/improvement 0

terrestrial habitat improvement 1

sudden oak death treatment 0
Annual Program Summary Fiscal Year 2008

63

Monitoring Requirement:

5. All new structures and improvements within a Riparian Reserve will be monitored during 

and after construction to ensure that it was constructed to: minimize the diversion of natural 

hydrologic flow paths, reduce the amount of sediment delivery into the stream, protect fish and 

wildlife populations, and accommodate the 100-year flood. 

Monitoring Performed:

This question did not apply to projects monitored in FY 2008.

Finding:

Monitoring Requirement:

6. A) Are all mining structures, support facilities, and roads located outside the Riparian Reserves? 

B) Are those located within the Riparian Reserves meeting the Management Direction for 

Riparian Reserves? 

C) Are all solid and sanitary waste facilities excluded from Riparian Reserves or located, 

monitored, and reclaimed in accordance with SEIS ROD Standards and Guidelines and 

RMP management direction? 

Finding:

No change from the previous year - There are no mining structures or support facilities within the 

District. No Plans of Operations have been filed during fiscal year 2008.

Conclusion:

RMP requirements have been met.

Late-Successional Reserves

Monitoring Requirement:

1. What activities were conducted or authorized within Late-Successional Reserves and how 

were they compatible with the objectives of the Late-Successional Reserve Assessment? Were the 

activities consistent with RMP Management Direction, and Regional Ecosystem Office review 

requirements and the Late-Successional Reserve assessment? 

Monitoring Performed:

2008-08Bid Item 3 of the Umpqua Noxious Weed Control

2008-18Bid Item 1 of the Umpqua FO FY 2008 Manual Maintenance 

2008-23Bid Item 2 of the Umpqua FO FY 2008 PCT 

Finding:

Review of the above projects indicates that they followed Management Direction for LSRs. The 

silvicultural activities are discussed in the Late-Successional Reserve Assessment and do not require 

further REO review. They are designed to accelerate development of late-successional habitat by, 

promoting the survival of conifer species, controlling tree stocking, or remove noxious weeds. 
Coos Bay District

 64

Monitoring Requirement:

2. What is the status of efforts to eliminate or control non-native species which adversely impact 

late-successional objectives? 

Finding:

No change from the previous year - Control of nonnative species occurring within LSRs is 

discussed in both the Oregon Coast Province - Southern Portion and the South Coast - Northern 

Klamath LSR Assessments. The noxious weed program is concentrating weed control along 

transportation routes, some of which are within LSRs. The intent is to control the spread of 

primarily broom species into uninfected areas.

Conclusion:

RMP requirements have been met.

Matrix

Monitoring Requirement:

1. Each year at least 20 percent of regeneration harvest timber sales in each resource area will 

be selected for examination by pre- and post-harvest (and after site preparation) inventories to 

determine snag and green tree numbers, heights, diameters and distribution within harvest units. 

The measure of distribution of snags and green trees will be the percent in the upper, middle 

and lower thirds of the sale units monitored. Snags and green trees left following timber harvest 

activities (including site preparation for reforestation) will be compared to those that were marked 

prior to harvest.

The same timber sales will also be inventoried pre- and post-harvest to determine if SEIS ROD 

and RMP down log retention direction has been followed.

Monitoring Performed:

There were no regeneration timber sales sold this past fiscal year.

Monitoring Requirement:

2. At least 20 percent of the files on each year’s timber sales will be reviewed annually to 

determine if silvicultural prescriptions are compatible with the Management Direction for the 

respective land use allocation. 

Monitoring Performed:

2008-24Purdy Creek DM Timber Sale

Finding:

Ecosystem goals are set forth by the Management Direction for each Land Use Allocation, 

therefore, the creation of ecosystem goals for each sale is redundant. The sales are consistent with 

the Management Direction for the respective land use allocation. Both are thinning sales designed 

to control stocking levels to maintain trees growth and vigor. Purdy Creek DM sale follows 

guidance from the South Coast – Northern Klamath LSR Assessment.
Annual Program Summary Fiscal Year 2008

65

Monitoring Requirement:

3. All proposed regeneration harvest timber sales in watersheds with less than 15 percent latesuccessional forest remaining will be reviewed prior to sale to ensure that a watershed analysis has 

been completed. 

Finding:

There were no regeneration timber sales sold this past fiscal year.

Conclusion:

RMP requirements have been met.

Air Quality

Monitoring Requirement:

1. Each year at least 20 percent of the construction activities and commodity hauling activities will 

be monitored to determine if dust abatement measures were implemented. 

Monitoring Performed:

No activity occurred on the sales selected for FY 2008 or from previous years

Finding:

No construction or timber harvest operations occurred during the fiscal year that required dust 

abatement measures.

Conclusion:

Overall, RMP requirements have been met.

Water and Soils

Monitoring Requirement:

1. Each year at least 20 percent of the timber sales and other relevant actions stratified by 

management category will be randomly selected for monitoring to determine whether Best 

Management Practices (BMPs) were implemented as prescribed. The selection of management 

actions to be monitored will be based on beneficial uses likely to be impacted, and for which BMPs 

are being prescribed. 

Monitoring Performed:

No activity occurred on either the Purdy Creek or Camas Powerline timber sales this season

Finding:

Appropriate BMPs were designed to avoid or mitigate potential impacts to water quality and soils 

productivity. Review of the respective contracts for each sale reveal that BMPs were included. 
Coos Bay District

 66

Monitoring Requirement:

2. Has BLM informed owners/operators of public water supply systems when proposing projects 

in State-designated, Source Water Protection Areas? 

Finding:

The District does not have agreements with the cities of Myrtle Point or Coquille that use water 

from source water watersheds, involving multiple ownerships including BLM lands.

Monitoring Requirement:

3. What is the status of identification of in-stream flow needs for the maintenance of channel 

conditions, aquatic habitat, and riparian resources? 

Finding:

No in-stream flow needs were identified in FY 2008.

Monitoring Requirement:

4. What watershed restoration projects are being developed and implemented? 

Finding:

No new watershed restoration projects were approved in FY 2008 due to the expiration of the 

Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000. Several projects funded in 

FY 2007 were implemented in 2008, as shown below. 

Culvert Replacement Projects - 1 

In-stream Wood Placement - 2

Noxious Weed Control – 1

Helipond maintenance - 1

Watershed monitoring studies - 1

Watershed-scale restoration project - 1

Monitoring Requirement:

5a. What is the status of the reconstruction of roads and associated drainage features identified in 

watershed analysis as posing a substantial risk? 

5b. What is the status of closure or elimination of roads to further Management Direction for 

Riparian Reserves and to reduce the overall road mileage within Key Watersheds? 

5c. If funding is insufficient to implement road mileage reductions, are construction and 

authorizations through discretionary permits denied to prevent a net increase in road mileage 

in Key Watersheds? 

Finding:

5a. Roads requiring deferred maintenance are identified through general condition surveys and 

timber sale preparation, not through watershed analysis. This maintenance usually revolves 

around drainage concerns; i.e., ditch cleaning, minor culvert installation, and sometimes 
Annual Program Summary Fiscal Year 2008

67

water dip/bar construction. These roads do not constitute a ‘substantial risk’ and maintenance 

needs are addressed as funding and project opportunities arise.

5b. Continuing in FY 2008, emphasis on road closures remains on road density objectives, not 

necessarily within Key Watersheds. Most closure opportunities are in conjunction with 

timber sales and most new construction and some older roads not needed for near term 

management are often decommissioned. Forest management actions within Key watersheds 

continue to meet the no-net gain in road mileage. 

5c. No change from the previous year –It is not policy to deny access to lands of private parties. 

BLM will review any request and fulfill its obligations under the appropriate laws and 

regulations governing issuance of such permits. 

Monitoring Requirement:

6. What is the status of cooperation with other agencies in the development of watershed-based 

research and other cooperative agreements to Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives? 

Finding:

No change from the previous year - fish biologists and other specialists were actively involved 

with the Coos and Coquille Watershed Associations, the Umpqua Sol & water District, Smith 

River, Lower Rogue Council, and South Coast Watershed Councils. Specialists provided technical 

support in the form of project recommendations, design and evaluation, basin action planning, 

monitoring plan development and implementation, database management, and special resources 

(such as aerial photography). MOUs have been developed between the District and each of the 

Associations/Councils.

Conclusion:

RMP requirements have been met.

Wildlife Habitat

Monitoring Requirement:

1. Each year at least 20 percent of BLM actions within each resource area, on lands including or 

near special habitats, will be examined to determine whether special habitats were protected. 

Monitoring Performed:

None of the 6 selected projects for FY 2008 were within special habitats.

Monitoring Requirement:

2. What is the status of designing and implementing wildlife habitat restoration projects? 

Finding:

Restoration projects included: maintenance of snowy plover habitat, and elk meadow improvement. 

More detail can be found in the Wildlife Habitat section of this Annual Program Summary.
Coos Bay District

 68

Monitoring Requirement:

3. What is the status of designing and constructing wildlife interpretive and other userenhancement facilities? 

Finding:

Restoration projects included: maintenance of snowy plover habitat, elk meadow improvement, 

and snag creation. Wildlife interpretation focused primarily on the snowy plover, bats and 

career planning. Snowy plover outreach is accomplished on-site and in a coordinated statewide program. Bat programs are offered at area schools and through volunteer opportunities. 

Career information is provided each year at “Women in Science”. Interpretive hikes and evening 

programs at recreation sites were used to discuss more general wildlife topics. More detail can 

be found in the Environmental Education and Wildlife Habitat section of this Annual Program 

Summary.

Conclusion:

RMP requirements have been met.

Fish Habitat

Monitoring Requirement:

1. The Annual Program Summary will report on the status of the design and implementation of 

fish habitat restoration and habitat activities.

Finding:

No new watershed restoration projects were approved in FY 2008 due to the expiration of the 

Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000. Several projects funded in 

FY 2007 were implemented in 2008, as shown below. 

Culvert Replacement Projects - 1 

In-stream Wood Placement - 2

Noxious Weed Control – 1

More detail can be found in the Fish Section of this Annual Program Summary.

Monitoring Requirement:

2. The Annual Program Summary will report on the status of cooperation with federal, tribal, 

and state fish management agencies to identify and eliminate impacts associated with poaching, 

harvest, habitat manipulation, and fish stocking which threaten the continued existence and 

distribution of native fish stocks inhabiting federal lands. The Summary will also identify any 

management activities or fish interpretive and other user-enhancement facilities which have 

detrimental effects on native fish stocks. 

Monitoring Performed:

All 6 selected projects as per Table 27 of this Annual Program Summary were monitored to assess 

whether potential impacts to fish were being identified. 
Annual Program Summary Fiscal Year 2008

69

Finding:

No change from the previous year - BLM continues to work within the 1997 MOU with ODFW, 

regarding cooperative and comprehensive aquatic habitat inventory, to identify physical conditions 

threatening the continued existence and distribution of native fish stocks on federally-managed 

lands. Monitoring did not identify any project which had a detrimental effect on fish stocks.

Monitoring Requirement:

3. At least 20 percent of the files on each year’s timber sales and other relevant actions will be 

reviewed annually to evaluate documentation regarding fish species and habitat and related 

recommendations and decisions in light of policy and RMP management direction. If mitigation 

was required, review will ascertain whether such mitigation was incorporated in the authorization 

document, and the actions will be reviewed on the ground after completion to ascertain whether 

the mitigation was carried out as planned. 

Monitoring Performed:

All 6 selected projects as per Table 27 of this Annual Program Summary were monitored to assess 

whether potential impacts to fish were being identified. 

Finding:

Streams adjacent to all projects are assessed to determine what species are present. The activity 

is then assessed to determine what impacts might occur to fish habitat or water quality. Design 

features are incorporated to eliminate or reduce impacts. Field review of implemented projects 

indicates that design measures were implemented.

Conclusion:

RMP requirements have been met.

Special Status and SEIS Special Attention Species Habitat

Monitoring Requirement:

1. Each year at least 20 percent of all management actions will be selected for examination prior 

to project initiation and re-examined following project completion to evaluate documentation 

regarding special status species and related recommendations and decisions in light of ESA 

requirements, policy, and RMP management direction. If mitigation was required, review will 

ascertain whether such mitigation was incorporated in the authorization document, and the 

actions will be reviewed on the ground after their completion to ascertain whether the mitigation 

was carried out as planned. 

Monitoring Performed:

All 6 selected projects in Table 27 of this Annual Program Summary were monitored to assess 

whether potential impacts to special status species were being identified. 
Coos Bay District

 70

Finding:

No change from the previous year. Review of NEPA documentation indicates that both listed 

and non-listed special status species are being addressed in development of projects. Activities 

within the habitat of listed species (under the Endangered Species Act) are evaluated and if 

necessary consultation with the respective regulatory agency under Section 7 of the Endangered 

Species Act occurs. 

Assessment of impacts to other (non-listed) special status species follows the guidelines of the 

Bureau’s Special Status Species program. Depending upon the habitat, it is determined what 

species might occur and in most cases field surveys are conducted if needed to determine 

presence. The activity is then assessed to determine what potential impacts might occur. Full 

project implementation or use of mitigation measures are at the discretion of the Field Managers.

Monitoring Requirement:

2. What coordination with other agencies has occurred in the management of special status species? 

Finding:

No change from the previous year. Coordination with FWS and NMFS occurs during Level 1 

discussions and consultation for proposed projects for listed species. The RMP provides overall 

direction for management of northern spotted owls and marbled murrelets. 

Management of sensitive species is prioritized through a coordinated process with the Forest 

Service, FWS and BLM at a state and regional scale. Data from surveys of fisher, bald eagles, snowy 

plovers, murrelets, peregrine falcons and bats are provided to various partners who monitor these 

species on a state or regional basis. 

Monitoring Requirement:

3. What land acquisitions occurred or are underway to facilitate the management and recovery of 

special status species? 

Finding:

No acquisitions occurred or were undertaken in FY 2008. 

Monitoring Requirement:

4. What site-specific plans for the recovery of special status species were, or are being, developed? 

Finding:

Coos Bay BLM implemented the seventh year of predator control for western snowy plovers; 

other projects for snowy plover recovery are listed in the Wildlife Section of this Annual Program 

Summary. The New River ACEC Plan and the North Spit Plan both provide management 

direction to Coos Bay BLM for management actions to support western snowy plover recovery.

Since 1997, the recovery of western lily has been addressed by an off-site population study at New 

River ACEC through a Challenge Cost Share (CCS)project with Berry Botanic Garden. In 2008, 

another CCS was begun to monitor and augment a small population of western lily found in 2003 

in the New River ACEC. Both these CCS projects address the 1998 recovery plans for the species.
Annual Program Summary Fiscal Year 2008

71

Monitoring Requirement:

5. What is the status of analysis which ascertains species requirements or enhances the recovery or 

survival of a species? 

Finding:

No change from the previous year - The Section 7 consultation streamlining process developed 

in FY 1996 was used again this year. Coos Bay biologists participate on Level 1 Teams with both 

USFWS and NMFS. The District Manager represents the District on the Level 2 Team. Approved 

protocol for marbled murrelets, disturbance buffers for bald eagles, and current guidelines for 

northern spotted owls were used in preparation of all biological assessments for the consultation 

process with the USFWS. Yearly monitoring ensures that Terms and Conditions are followed in 

all project activities. In addition, the District participates on the team implementing the Western 

Snowy Plover Recovery Plan in Recovery Unit 1. Coos Bay BLM continues to place a high priority 

on implementing as many of the measures recommended for recovery of Western Snowy Plovers 

as possible. Challenge Cost Share funds were successfully obtained for much of this work and also 

for monitoring of a western lily population found on district. 

Monitoring Requirement:

6. What is the status of efforts to maintain or restore the community structure, species 

composition, and ecological processes of special status plant and animal habitat? 

Finding:

Open dune communities, at New River and North Spit ACECs, are being restored for western 

snowy plovers and pink sand verbena. Additionally, an introduced population and a naturally 

occurring population of the endangered western lily at the New River ACEC have received 

vegetation management (pruning of competing vegetation).

The Coos Bay District continues to restores habitat for northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet 

through density management thinning in LSR. The objective of these sales is to promote late 

successional habitat characteristics on previously harvested over-stocked stands.

Conclusion:

RMP requirements have been met.

Special Areas

Monitoring Requirement: 

1. Annually, at least 20 percent of the files on all actions and research proposals within and 

adjacent to special areas will be reviewed to determine whether the possibility of impacts on 

ACEC values was considered, and whether any mitigation identified as important for maintenance 

of ACEC values was required. If mitigation was required, the relevant actions will be reviewed on 

the ground, after completion, to ascertain whether it was actually implemented. 
Coos Bay District

 72

Monitoring Performed:

None of the 6 selected projects for FY 2008 were within special habitats.

Monitoring Requirement:

2. What is the status of the preparation, revision, and implementation of ACEC management plans? 

Finding:

No management plans have been prepared or revised during 2008. An update of the North Spit 

Plan, which includes the North Spit ACEC, was completed in FY 2006. Management plans for 

other ACECs within the Umpqua Field Office are completed.

The New River ACEC management plan was updated in FY 2004. The North Fork Hunter Creek 

/ Hunter Creek Bog ACEC Management Plan was completed in FY 1996 with implementation 

beginning in FY 1997. 

Monitoring Requirement:

3. What environmental education and research initiatives and programs are occurring in the 

Research Natural Areas and Environmental Education Areas? 

Finding:

No new research or environmental education initiatives were started in the Cherry Creek RNA or 

the Powers Environmental Education Area in 2008. 

Monitoring Requirement:

4. Are existing BLM actions and BLM authorized actions and uses not consistent with 

management direction for special areas being eliminated or relocated? 

Monitoring Performed:

None of the 6 selected projects for FY 2008 were within special habitats.

Monitoring Requirement:

5. Are actions being identified which are needed to maintain or restore the important values of the 

special areas? Are the actions being implemented? 

Finding:

A list of actions implemented within ACECs is listed in the Special Areas section of this Annual 

Program Summary. 

Conclusion:

RMP requirements have been met.
Annual Program Summary Fiscal Year 2008

73

Cultural Resources Including American Indian Values

Monitoring Requirement:

1. At least 20 percent of the files on each year’s timber sales and other relevant actions (e.g., rightsof-way and in-stream structures) will be reviewed annually to evaluate documentation regarding 

cultural resources and American Indian values and decisions in light of requirements, policy, 

and RMP management direction. If mitigation was required, review will ascertain whether such 

mitigation was incorporated in the authorization document, and the actions will be reviewed on 

the ground after completion to ascertain whether the mitigation was carried out as planned. 

Monitoring Performed:

All 6 selected projects in Table 27 of this Annual Program Summary were reviewed. 

Finding:

Cultural resources were addressed in the documentation for each project reviewed. Clearances for 

projects are a routine part of the analysis; no sites were identified. 

Furthermore, all contacts contain stipulations protecting cultural resources if discovered during 

implementation.

Monitoring Requirement:

2. What efforts are being made to work with American Indian groups to accomplish cultural 

resource objectives and achieve goals outlined in existing memoranda of understanding and to 

develop additional memoranda as needs arise? 

Finding:

No change from the previous year. The District continued to maintain an MOU with two of 

the tribes whose area of interest extends to Coos Bay BLM lands. The District Native American 

Coordinator, as well as other staff and management, maintain a working relationship with 

federally-recognized tribes whose current interests extend to Coos Bay BLM lands. 

Monitoring Requirement:

3. What public education and interpretive programs were developed to promote the appreciation 

of cultural resources? 

Finding:

Over 3,000 public tours were presented to over 15,000 visitors at the oldest remaining lighthouse 

in Oregon. The tour and associated interpretive displays illustrate the life of lighthouse keepers 

and their families during the time when this was a remote outpost.

Conclusion:

RMP requirements have been met.
Coos Bay District

 74

Visual Resources

Monitoring Requirement:

1. Twenty percent of the files for timber sales and other substantial projects in VRM Class II or III 

areas will be reviewed to ascertain whether relevant design features or mitigating measures were 

included. 

Monitoring Performed:

None of the 6 selected projects for FY 2008 were within VRM Class II or III.

Finding:

Conclusion:

Overall, RMP requirements have been met.

Wild and Scenic Rivers

Monitoring Requirement:

1. Annually, the files on all actions and research proposals within and adjacent to Wild and 

Scenic River corridors will be reviewed to determine whether the possibility of impacts on 

the outstandingly remarkable values was considered, and whether any mitigation identified as 

important for maintenance of the values was required. If mitigation was required, the relevant 

actions will be reviewed on the ground, after completion, to ascertain whether it was actually 

implemented. 

2. The Annual Program Summary will report progress on preparation and revision of Wild and 

Scenic River management plans, their conformance with the Management Direction for Riparian 

Reserves, and the degree to which these plans have been implemented. 

Monitoring Performed:

All 6 selected projects in Table 27 of this Annual Program Summary were reviewed.

Finding:

No change from the previous year - there are no Designated Wild and Scenic corridors within the 

Coos Bay District. There are, however, four ‘eligible-but not-studied’ river segments that could 

meet a recreational classification. No activities have occurred adjacent to these river segments that 

would have a negative effect on their identified ‘outstandingly remarkable’ values.

Conclusion:

RMP requirements have been met.
Annual Program Summary Fiscal Year 2008

75

Rural Interface Areas

Monitoring Requirement:

Each year at least 20 percent of all actions within the identified rural interface areas will be 

selected for examination to determine if special project design features and mitigation measures 

were included and implemented as planned. 

Monitoring Performed:

No actions occurred within rural interface areas this past fiscal year.

Socioeconomic Conditions

Monitoring Requirement:

1. What strategies and programs have been developed, through coordination with state and local 

governments, to support local economies and enhance local communities? 

Finding:

No change from the previous year - The District has made good use of new procurement 

authorities to support local businesses. These include:

•	 Using the “Best Value Procurement” process, award contracts and purchases to local business 

when it can be demonstrated the local capabilities result in a better product or outcome.

•	 Awarding contracts between $2500 and $25,000 to “small businesses.”

•	 Direct mailing of contract solicitations to local contractors, in addition to the Bureau’s 

eCommerce contract advertising program.

•	 Using check-writing capabilities to provide prompt payment to business with a minimum of 

paperwork.

Monitoring Requirement:

2. What is the status of planning and developing amenities (such as recreation and wildlife viewing 

facilities) that enhance local communities? 

Finding:

Dean Creek Elk Viewing Area is a highly popular Watchable Wildlife site (attracting 

approximately 400,000 visitors annually) situated just outside of Reedsport, OR. Much progress 

was made this year in addressing some serious management concerns with the Dean Creek Elk 

Viewing Area. Efforts to maintain elk forage included mowing approximately 240 acres, burning 

about 100 acres, annual noxious weed removal, and creating 10 acres of upland forage on 400 

acres. These actions will assure that the Dean Creek Elk Viewing area remains as a major tourist 

attraction in western Douglas County.

Conclusion:

RMP requirements have been met.
Coos Bay District

 76

Recreation

Monitoring Requirement:

1. What is the status of the development and implementation of recreation plans? 

Findings:

A complete list of completed management plans for recreation site and trails is listed below:

Umpqua Field Office

•	 Wells Creek Guard Station Business Plan, completed 2006

•	 Coos Bay Shorelands SRMA - completed 1995, updated in 2006.

•	 Loon Lake Business Plan – completed 2005. 

•	 Loon Lake SRMA Management Plan - completed 2002. 

•	 Vincent Creek House historical assessment completed FY 2001.

•	 Smith River Falls & Vincent Creek Campgrounds Site Plans - completed FY 1999.

•	 Big Tree recreation site - recreation plan completed FY 1999.

•	 Dean Creek Elk Viewing Area SRMA- completed 1993, amended 1998.

•	 Blue Ridge multi-use trail plan - completed 1998. 

•	 Park Creek Campground Site Plan - completed 1998.

•	 Loon Lake SRMA Operations Plan - completed 1997.

Myrtlewood Field Office

•	 Cape Blanco Business Plan – completed 2005.

•	 New River ACEC/SRMA Management Plan - completed 1995. Plan Update completed in 

2004. Visitor use monitoring plan initiated in FY 2001.

•	 Sixes River SRMA - Recreation Area Management Plan - completed FY 2000.

•	 Hunter Creek Bog ACEC Management Plan - completed 1996 (trail planning FY 1999).

•	 Euphoria Ridge Trail - completed 1999.

•	 Doerner Fir trail plan & trail head construction - completed FY 1999. 

•	 Cape Blanco Lighthouse National Historic Site - Interim Management Plan completed 1996.

Recreation sites are being managed in accordance with these plans.

Conclusion:

RMP requirements have been met.

Timber Resources

Monitoring Requirement:

1. The Annual Program Summary will report both planned and non-planned volumes sold. The 

report will also summarize annual and cumulative timber sale volumes, acres to be harvested, 

and stand ages and types of regeneration harvest for General Forest Management Areas and 

Connectivity/Diversity Blocks, stratified to identify them individually. 
Annual Program Summary Fiscal Year 2008

77

Finding:

Timber sale information is displayed in the Forest Management section and Table B1 of Appendix 

B of this Annual Program Summary.

Monitoring Requirement:

2. An annual district-wide report will be prepared to determine if the silvicultural and forest 

health practices identified and used in the calculation of the ASQ were implemented. This report 

will be summarized in the Annual Program Summary. 

Finding:

Silvicultural information is displayed in Table 19 of this Annual Program Summary. Intensive 

forest practices are dependant upon regeneration harvest; the amount of intensive reforestation 

practices is commensurate with the acres of regeneration harvest, both of which are below 

projections. 

Conclusion:

RMP requirements have been met.

Noxious Weeds

Monitoring Requirement:

1. Review the files of at least 20 percent of each year’s noxious weed control applications to 

determine if noxious weed control methods were compatible with the RMP Management 

Direction for Riparian Reserves. 

Monitoring Performed:

2008-08Bid Item 3 of the Umpqua Noxious Weed Control – Blackberry control

Findings:

Review of the NEPA document and the contract indicate that the project was compatible with 

the Management Direction for Riparian Reserves. The project is intended to reduce the spread of 

noxious weeds by controlling key species along roads. This approach will also reduce the spread 

into Riparian Reserves. The contract specified that weeds be hand-pulled adjacent to live streams. 

Field review of the project revealed that contract specifications were followed.

Conclusion:

RMP requirements have been met.

Fire/Fuels Management

Monitoring Requirement:

1. Are Wildfire Situation Analyses being prepared for wildfires that escape initial attack? 
Coos Bay District

 78

Finding:

Wildfire Situation Analyses are prepared for wildfires fires escaping initial attack. In FY 2008, the 

Coos Bay District had three human caused fires totaling 0.5 acres and six lightning fires totaling 

3.7 acres. None of these escaped initial attack

Monitoring Requirement:

2. What is the status of the interdisciplinary team preparation and implementation of fuel hazard 

reduction plans? 

Finding:

Interdisciplinary teams review projects that produce activity fuels, such as timber sales, 

silivicultural treatments, and restoration efforts to determine if the additional fuels generated 

create an additional fire hazard and identify mitigation measures. 

Conclusion:

RMP requirements have been met.

Port-Orford-Cedar 

Monitoring Requirement:

1. The agencies will address current accomplishments including levels of established conservation 

seedbanks in annual updates for the resistance breeding program.

Finding:

In fiscal year 2008, the Coos Bay District made field collections from 16 Port-Orford-cedar trees 

over two breeding zones that appear to be resistant to the pathogen Phytophthora lateralis. These 

were tested by the Dorena Genetic Resource Center and Oregon State University. The available 

resistant seed program is still being developed with Dorena. Most of the collections from all of the 

breeding zones have been made within the Coos Bay District.

Monitoring Requirement:

2. What are the general activities that have been accomplished for maintaining and reducing the 

risk of Phytophthora lateralis infections?

Finding:

Vehicle washing and occasional roadside sanitation are the primary disease control measures 

being employed by the Coos Bay District. These measures are included in timber sale and service 

contracts within the range of Port-Orford-cedar as needed. Additionally, all commercial thinning 

and density management stand treatments retain, where feasible, Port Orford cedar on sites at a 

low risk for infection; that is, all Port-Orford-cedar that is 50’ from roads and streams.
Annual Program Summary Fiscal Year 2008

79

Glossary

Allowable Sale Quantity (ASQ) - The gross amount of timber volume, including salvage, that may be 

sold annually from a specified area over a stated period of time in accordance with the management plan. 

Formerly referred to as “allowable cut.” 

Anadromous Fish - Fish that are hatched and reared in freshwater, move to the ocean to grow and 

mature, and return to freshwater to reproduce. Salmon, steelhead, shad are examples.

Archaeological Site - A geographic locale that contains the material remains of prehistoric and/or 

historic human activity.

Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) - An area of BLM-administered lands where special 

management attention is needed to protect and prevent irreparable damage to important historic, 

cultural or scenic values, fish and wildlife resources or other natural systems or processes; or to protect 

life and provide safety from natural hazards. (Also see Potential ACEC.)

Best Management Practices (BMP) - Methods, measures, or practices designed to prevent or reduce 

water pollution. Not limited to structural and nonstructural controls, and procedures for operations and 

maintenance. Usually, BMPs are applied as a system of practices rather than a single practice.

Biological Diversity - The variety of life and its processes, including a complexity of species, 

communities, gene pools, and ecological function.

Board Foot (BF) - A unit of solid wood that is one foot square and one inch thick.

Candidate Species - Those plants and animals included in Federal Register “Notices of Review” that are 

being considered by the Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for listing as threatened or endangered. The 

category that is of primary concern to BLM is:

Category 1. Taxa for which the USFWS has substantial information on hand to support proposing the 

species for listing as threatened or endangered. Listing proposals are either being prepared or have 

been delayed by higher priority listing work.

Commercial Thinning (CT) - The removal of merchantable trees from an even-aged stand to encourage 

growth of the remaining trees.

Connectivity/Diversity blocks - Connectivity/Diversity blocks are specific lands spaced throughout the 

Matrix lands, which have similar goals as Matrix but have specific Standards & Guidelines which affect their 

timber production. They are managed on longer rotations (150 years), retain more green trees following 

regeneration harvest (12-18) and must maintain 25-30 percent of the block in late successional forest.
Coos Bay District

 80

Coos Bay Wagon Road (CBWR) Lands - Public lands granted to the Southern Oregon Company and 

subsequently reconveyed to the United States.

Cubic Foot - A unit of solid wood that is one foot square and one foot thick.

Cumulative Effect - The impact that results from identified actions when they are added to other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of who undertakes such other actions. 

Cumulative effects can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place 

over a period of time.

Density Management (DM or DMT)- Cutting of trees for the primary purpose of widening their 

spacing so that growth of remaining trees can be accelerated. Density management harvest can also 

be used to improve forest health, open the forest canopy, or accelerate the attainment of old growth 

characteristics if maintenance or restoration of biological diversity is the objective.

District Defined Reserves - Areas designated for the protection of specific resources, flora, fauna, and 

other values. These areas are not included in other land use allocations nor in the calculation of the ASQ.

Endangered Species - Any species defined through the Endangered Species Act as being in danger of 

extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range and published in the Federal Register. 

Environmental Assessment (EA) - A systematic analysis of site-specific BLM activities used to 

determine whether such activities have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment and 

whether a formal environmental impact statement is required and also to aid an agency’s compliance 

with NEPA when no EIS is necessary.

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) - A formal document to be filed with the Environmental 

Protection Agency and that considers significant environmental impacts expected from implementation 

of a major federal action.

Extensive Recreation Management Areas (ERMAs) - All BLM-administered lands outside Special 

Recreation Management Areas. These areas may include developed and primitive recreation sites with 

minimal facilities.

General Forest Management Area (GFMA) - Forest land managed on a regeneration harvest cycle of 

70-110 years. A biological legacy of six to eight green trees per acre would be retained to assure forest 

health. Commercial thinning would be applied where practicable and where research indicates there 

would be gains in timber production.

Green Tree Retention - A stand management practice in which live trees—as well as snags and large 

down wood—are left as biological legacies within harvest units to provide habitat components over the 

next management cycle. 
Annual Program Summary Fiscal Year 2008

81

Harvested Volume or Harvested Acres - Refers to timber sales where trees are cut and taken to a mill 

during the fiscal year. Typically, this volume was sold over several years. This is more indicative of actual 

support for local economies during a given year.

Hazardous Materials - Anything that poses a substantive present or potential hazard to human health or 

the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed of, or otherwise managed.

Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) – A group of individuals with varying areas of specialty assembled to 

solve a problem or a task. The team is assembled out of recognition that no one scientific discipline is 

sufficiently broad enough to adequately analyze the problem and proposed action.

Land Use Allocations (LUA) - Allocations that define allowable uses/activities, restricted uses/activities, 

and prohibited uses/activities. They may be expressed in terms of area such as acres or miles. Each 

allocation is associated with a specific management objective.

Late-Successional Forests - Forest seral stages that include mature and old-growth age classes, 80 

years and older.

Late-Successional Reserve (LSR) - A forest in its mature and/or old-growth stages that has 

been reserved.

Matrix Lands - Federal land outside of reserves and special management areas that will be available for 

timber harvest at varying levels.

Noxious Plant/Weed - A plant specified by law as being especially undesirable, troublesome, and difficult 

to control.

O&C Lands - Public lands granted to the Oregon and California Railroad Company and subsequently 

revested to the United States, that are managed by the BLM under the authority of the O&C Lands Act.

Offered (sold) Volume or Offered (sold) Acres - Any timber sold during the year by auction or 

negotiated sales, including modifications to contracts. This is more of a “pulse” check on the district’s 

success in meeting ASQ goals than it is a socioeconomic indicator, since the volume can get to market 

over a period of several years. It should be noted that for this APS we are considering “offered” the same 

as “sold”. Occasionally sales do not sell. They may be reworked and sold later or dropped from the 

timber sale program. Those sold later will be picked up in the APS tracking process for the year sold. 

Those dropped will not be tracked in the APS process.

Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) - Any motorized track or wheeled vehicle designed for cross country travel 

over natural terrain. (The term “Off-Highway Vehicle” is used in place of the term “Off-Road Vehicle” to 

comply with the purposes of Executive Orders 11644 and 11989. The definition for both terms is the same.)
Coos Bay District

 82

Off-Highway Vehicle Designation

Open: Designated areas and trails where off-highway vehicles may be operated subject to operating 

regulations and vehicle standards set forth in BLM Manuals 834l and 8343.

Limited: Designated areas and trails where off-highway vehicles are subject to restrictions limiting 

the number or types of vehicles, date, and time of use; limited to existing or designated roads and 

trails.

Closed: Areas and trails where the use of off-highway vehicles is permanently or temporarily 

prohibited. Emergency use is allowed.

Plantation Maintenance - Actions in an unestablished forest stand to promote the survival of desired 

crop trees.

Plantation Release - All activities associated with promoting the dominance and/or growth of desired 

tree species within an established forest stand.

Pre-commercial Thinning (PCT)- The practice of removing some of the trees less than merchantable 

size from a stand so that remaining trees will grow faster.

Prescribed Fire - A fire burning under specified conditions to accomplish certain planned objectives. 

“Projected Acres” - are displayed by modeled age class for the decade. These “modeled” age class acres 

are estimates derived from modeling various silvicultural prescriptions for regeneration, commercial 

thinning, and density management harvest. Modeled age class acre projections may or may not 

correspond to “Offered” or “Harvested” age class acres at this point in the decade. Additional age classes 

are scheduled for regeneratrion, commercial thinning, or density management harvest at other points in 

the decade.

Public Domain Lands (PD) - Original holdings of the United States never granted or conveyed to other 

jurisdictions, or reacquired by exchange for other public domain lands.

Regeneration Harvest (RH) - Timber harvest conducted with the partial objective of opening a forest 

stand to the point where favored tree species will be re-established.

Regional Ecosystem Office (REO) - The main function of this office is to provide staff work and 

support to the Regional Interagency Executive Committee so the standards and guidelines in the forest 

management plan can be successfully implemented. 

Research Natural Area (RNA) - An area that contains natural resource values of scientific interest and is 

managed primarily for research and educational purposes.

Resource Management Plan (RMP) - A land use plan prepared by the BLM under current regulations in 

accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act.
Annual Program Summary Fiscal Year 2008

83

Right-of-Way (R/W or ROW) - A permit or an easement that authorizes the use of public lands for 

specified purposes, such as pipelines, roads, telephone lines, electric lines, reservoirs, and the lands 

covered by such an easement or permit.

Riparian Reserves – Designated riparian areas found outside Late-Successional Reserves.

Rural Interface Areas (RIA) - Areas where BLM-administered lands are adjacent to or intermingled 

with privately-owned lands zoned for 1- to 20-acre lots, or areas that already have residential 

development.

Seral Stages - The series of relatively transitory plant communities that develop during ecological 

succession from bare ground to the climax stage. There are five stages:

Early Seral Stage: The period from disturbance to crown closure of conifer stands usually occurring 

from 0 to 15 years. Grass, herbs, or brush are plentiful.

Mid Seral Stage: The period in the life of a forest stand from crown closure to first merchantability. 

Usually ages 15 through 40. Due to stand density, the brush, grass, or herbs rapidly decrease in the 

stand. Hiding cover is usually present.

Late Seral Stage: The period in the life of a forest stand from first merchantability to culmination of 

mean annual increment. Usually ages 40 to 100 years of age. Forest stands are dominated by conifers 

or hardwoods; canopy closure often approaches 100 percent. During this period, stand diversity is 

minimal, except that conifer mortality rates and snag formation will be fairly rapid. Big game hiding 

and thermal cover is present. Forage is minimal except in understocked stands.

Mature Seral Stage: The period in the life of a forest stand from culmination of mean annual 

increment to an old-growth stage or to 200 years. Conifer and hardwood growth gradually decline, 

and larger trees increase significantly in size. This is a time of gradually increasing stand diversity. 

Understory development increases in response to openings in the canopy from disease, insects, and 

windthrow. Vertical diversity increases. Larger snags are formed. Big game hiding cover, thermal 

cover, and some forage are present.

Old-Growth: This stage constitutes the potential plant community capable of existing on a site 

given the frequency of natural disturbance events. For forest communities, this stage exists from 

approximately age 200 until the time when stand replacement occurs and secondary succession 

begins again. Depending on fire frequency and intensity, old-growth forests may have different 

structures, species composition, and age distributions. In forests with longer periods between natural 

disturbance, the forest structure will be more even-aged at late mature or early old growth stages.

As mortality occurs, stands develop greater structural complexity. Replacement of trees lost to fire, 

windthrow, or insects results in the creation of a multi-layered canopy. There may be a shift toward 

more shade-tolerant species. Big game hiding cover, thermal cover, and forage is present.
Coos Bay District

 84

Silvicultural Prescription - A professional plan for controlling the establishment, composition, 

constitution, and growth of forests.

Site Preparation - Any action taken in conjunction with a reforestation effort (natural or artificial) to 

create an environment that is favorable for survival of suitable trees during the first growing season. 

This environment can be created by altering ground cover, soil, or microsite conditions through using 

biological, mechanical, or manual clearing, prescribed burns, herbicides, or a combination of methods.

Special Forest Products (SFP) - Firewood, shake bolts, mushrooms, ferns, floral greens, berries, mosses, 

bark, grasses, and other forest material that could be harvested in accordance with the objectives and 

guidelines in the proposed resource management plan.

Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA) - An area where a commitment has been made to 

provide specific recreation activity and experience opportunities. These areas usually require a high level 

of recreation investment and/or management. They include recreation sites, but recreation sites alone do 

not constitute SRMAs.

SEIS Special Attention Species - a term which incorporates the “Survey and Manage” and “Protection 

Buffer” species from the Northwest Forest Plan. (RMP32).

Special Status Species (SSS) - Plant or animal species falling in any of the following categories:

•	 Threatened or Endangered Species

•	 Proposed Threatened or Endangered Species

•	 Candidate Species

•	 State Listed Species

•	 Bureau Sensitive Species

•	 Bureau Assessment Species

•	 Bureau Tracking Species 

•	 Species of Concern

Visual Resource Management (VRM) - The inventory and planning actions to identify visual values 

and establish objectives for managing those values and the management actions to achieve visual 

management objectives.
Annual Program Summary Fiscal Year 2008

85

Acronyms/Abbreviations

ACEC - Area of Critical Environmental Concern

ACS - Aquatic Conservation Strategy 

APS - Annual Program Summary 

ASQ - Allowable Sale Quantity

BA - Biological Assessment 

BIA - Bureau of Indian Affairs

BLM - Bureau of Land Management

BMP - Best Management Practice

CBWR - Coos Bay Wagon Road

CCF - Hundred cubic feet

C/DB - Connectivity/Diversity Blocks

CIT - Coquille Indian Tribe

COE - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

CT - Commercial Thinning

CWA - Clean Water Act 

CWD - Coarse woody debris

CX - Categorical Exclusions

DBH - Diameter Breast Height

DEQ - Department of Environmental Quality

DM / DMT - Density Management

EA - Environmental Analysis

EIS - Environmental Impact Statement

ERFO - Emergency Relief Federally Owned

ERMA - Extensive Recreation Management Areas

ESA - Endangered Species Act

ESU - Evolutionarily Significant Unit

FEIS - Final Environmental Impact Statement

FONSI - Finding of No Significant Impacts

FY - Fiscal Year

GFMA - General Forest Management Area

GIS - Geographic Information System

GPS - Global Positioning System

IDT - Interdisciplinary Teams

ISMS - Interagency Species Management System

JITW - Jobs-in-the-Woods

LSR - Late-Successional Reserve

LUA - Land Use Allocation

LWD - Large woody debris

MBF - Thousand board feet

MFO - Myrtlewood Field Office
Coos Bay District

 86

MMBF - Million board feet

MOU - Memorandum of Understanding

NEPA - National Environmental Policy Act

NFP - Northwest Forest Plan

NHS - National Historic Site

NRDA - Natural Resource Damage Assessment

NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

OCEAN - Oregon Coastal Environment Awareness Network

O&C - Oregon and California Revested Lands

ODFW - Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

ODOT - Oregon Department of Transportation

OHV - Off-Highway Vehicle

OSU - Oregon State University

PAC(s) - Provincial Advisory Committee(s)

PD - Public Domain Lands

PIMT - Provincial Implementation Monitoring Team

PL - Public Law

PNW - Pacific Northwest Research Station

POC - Port-Orford-Cedar

R&PP - Recreation and Public Purpose

REO - Regional Ecosystem Office

RH - Regeneration Harvest

RIEC - Regional Interagency Executive Committee

RMP - Resource Management Plan

RMP/ROD - The Coos Bay District Resource Management Plan and Record of Decision

ROD - Record of Decision

RR - Riparian Reserve

R/W - Right-of-Way

SEIS - Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

S&M - Survey and Manage

SRMA - Special Recreation Management Areas 

SSS Special Status Species

SSSP Special Status Species Program

TMO - Timber Management Objective(s)

TNC - The Nature Conservancy

UFO - Umpqua Field Office

USFS - U.S. Forest Service

USFWS - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS - U.S. Geologic Service

WQMP - Water Quality Management Plan
Annual Program Summary Fiscal Year 2008

87

Appendix A 

Coos Bay District Watershed Analysis Summary 

 (Reported acres are for Coos Bay District only. Some analyzes included additional acres on other BLM Districts. 1)

Name Iteration BLM 

Acres on 

Coos Bay 

District

Non- BLM 

Acres

Total Acres Square 

Miles

Percent 

BLM

BLM acres: 

Running total 

of first iteration 

accomplishment 

Percent of Coos Bay District 

covered by a first iteration 

WSA based the following 

total BLM acres:

321,746

FY 94

Lower Umpqua Frontal 1st 13,826 26,088 39,914 62 35%

Middle Fork Coquille 1st 42,773 101,145 143,918 225 30%

Total FY 94 56,599 127,233 183,832 287 31% 56,599 18%

FY 95

Sandy Creek 2 2nd 5,943 6,785 12,728 20 47%

Smith River 3 1st 2,826 1,853 4,679 7 60%

Paradise Creek 1st 6,648 5,590 12,238 19 54%

Middle Creek 1st 19,393 13,063 32,456 51 60%

North Coquille 4 1st 7,544 20,275 27,819 43 27%

Fairview 5 1st 6,725 12,533 19,258 30 35%

Middle Umpqua Frontal 6

(Waggoner Ck Drainage)

1st 1,050 2,335 3,385 5 31%

Total FY 95 (includes 1st, 2nd

iteration acres)

49,079 60,099 109,178 171 45%

FY 95 1st iteration only 44,186 55,649 99,835 156 44% 100,785 31%

FY 96

Sandy Remote 7 2nd/ 3rd 10,374 13,620 23,994 37 43%

Middle Smith River 1st 22,400 29,909 52,309 82 43%

Mill Creek 1st 24,506 60,653 85,159 133 29%

Oxbow 1st 23,463 17,956 41,419 65 57%

Lower South Fork Coquille 1st 7,353 48,716 56,069 88 13%

West Fork Smith River 1st 11,121 5,200 16,321 26 68%

Tioga Creek 8 1st 15,788 8,866 24,654 39 64%

Total FY 96 (includes 1st, 

2nd / 3rd iteration acres)

115,005 184,920 299,925 469 38%

FY 961st iteration only 104,631 171,300 275,931 431 38% 205,416 64%

FY 97

Big Creek 9 2nd 10,083 6,586 16,669 26 60%

Smith River 10

(North Smith)

2nd it. ac. 33,519 35,875 69,394 108 48%

1st it. ac. 3,694 68,210 71,904 112 5%

Upper Middle Umpqua 1st 7,235 22,206 29,441 46 25%

Middle Main Coquille/ No. 

Fk. Mouth/ Catching Ck.

1st 5,728 83,858 89,586 140 6%

North Fork Chetco 1st 9,263 16,299 25,562 40 36%

Total FY 97 

(1st plus subsequent iteration acres)

69,522 233,034 302,556 473 23%

FY 97 1st iteration acres only 25,920 190,573 216,493 338 12% 231,336 72%

FY 98

Middle Umpqua Frontal 11 2nd 22,634 40,505 63,139 99 36%
Coos Bay District

 88

Name Iteration BLM 

Acres on 

Coos Bay 

District

Non- BLM 

Acres

Total Acres Square 

Miles

Percent 

BLM

BLM acres: 

Running total 

of first iteration 

accomplishment 

Percent of Coos Bay District 

covered by a first iteration 

WSA based the following 

total BLM acres:

321,746

Lower Umpqua 12 1st 1,548 58,688 60,236 94 3%

Hunter Creek 13 1st 3,564 24,609 28,173 44 13%

Total FY 98

(1st plus subsequent iteration acres)

27,746 123,802 151,548 237 18%

FY 98 1st iteration only acres 5,112 83,297 88,409 138 6% 236,448 73%

FY 99

South Fork Coos River 2nd it. ac. 15,788 8,866 24,654 39 64%

1st it. ac. 16,047 117,371 133,418 208 12%

East Fork Coquille 1st 45,636 38,369 84,005 131 54%

Lobster Creek 14 1st 1,402 42,723 44,125 69 3%

Total FY 99 

(1st plus subsequent iteration acres)

78,873 207,329 286,202 447 28%

FY 99 1st iteration only acres 63,085 198,463 261,548 409 24% 299,533 93%

FY 2000

South Fork Coos River 15 3rd 31,835 126,237 158,072 247 20%

Total FY 2000 

(1st plus subsequent iteration acres)

31,835 126,237 158,072 247 20%

FY 2000 1st iteration only acres 0 0 0 0 0% 299,533 93%

FY 2001

North Fork Coquille 16 2nd 36,861 61,606 98,467 154 37%

South Fork Coos River 17 3rd 31,835 126,237 158,072 247 20%

Total FY 2001 

(1st plus subsequent iteration acres)

68,696 187,843 256,539 401 27%

FY 2001 1st iteration only acres 0 0 0 0 0% 299,533 93%

FY 2002

Oxbow 18 2nd 23,463 17,956 41,419 65 57%

Upper Umpqua 19 2nd 6,396 19,511 25,907 40 25%

Total FY 2002 

(1st plus subsequent iteration acres)

29,859 37,467 67,326 105 44%

FY 2002 1st iteration only acres 0 0 0 0 0% 299,533 93%

FY 2003

Middle Umpqua River 20 2nd 22,626 40,513 63,139 99 36%

Total FY 2003 

(1st plus subsequent iteration acres)

22,626 40,513 63,139 99 36%

FY 03 1st iteration only acres 0 0 0 0 0% 299,533 93%

FY 2004

add’l chapters for Middle 

Umpqua River

2nd 22,626 40,513 63,139 99 36%

Total FY 2004 

(1st plus subsequent iteration acres)

22,626 40,513 63,139 99 36%

FY 04 1st iteration only acres 0 0 0 0 0% 299,533 93%

FY 2005

Mill Creek-Lower Umpqua 

River 21

2nd 24,800 61,100 85,900 134 29%

Total FY 2005 

(1st plus subsequent iteration acres)

24,800 61,100 85,900 134 29%

FY 05 1st iteration only acres 0 0 0 0 0% 299,533 93%

FY 2006

no watershed analysis completed
Annual Program Summary Fiscal Year 2008

89

1

	 Some acre figures in this table are different from those reported in previous years. Large changes are the result of excluding those acres covered by our

watershed documents that are outside the Coos Bay District boundary. Small changes are attributable to differences in sort criteria used to obtain these

acres using GIS.

2

	 Sandy Creek Subwatershed is in the Middle Fork Coquille Watershed and is a more specific analysis at the subwatershed scale.

3

	 Roseburg District BLM prepared the Smith River (covers Coos Bay’s Lower Upper Smith Subwatershed) watershed analysis document. Only those

acres on Coos Bay District are reported in this table.

4

	 The hydrologic unit used in this document was based on the superceded analytical watershed GIS theme. Hudson Drainage was moved from the North

Coquille Subwatershed to the Fairview Subwatershed when we corrected the subwatershed boundaries.

5

	 See footnote 4

6

	 Roseburg District BLM prepared this document

7

	 The Sandy Remote Watershed Analysis covers the Sandy Creek and Remote Subwatersheds. They are both parts of the Middle Fork Coquille

Watershed, which was analyzed at the watershed scale in a FY 1994 document. The Sandy Remote Watershed Analysis is a more specific analysis at

the subwatershed scale.

8

	 Replaced by the FY 2000 version of the South Fork Coos Watershed Analysis.

9

	 Big Creek Subwatershed is in the Middle Fork Coquille Watershed and is a more specific analysis at the subwatershed scale.

10

	 The Siuslaw National Forest prepared the North Smith Watershed Analysis document. The document was prepared at the watershed scale and

encompasses some areas previously covered by the Coos Bay District at the subwatershed scale. Only acres within the Coos Bay District boundaries

are shown in the table.

11

	 This 2nd iteration document addresses management activities and the attainment of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives in the Middle Umpqua

Frontal Watershed. The 1st iteration documents covering this assessment are the 1994 Lower Umpqua Frontal, the 1995 Paradise Creek, and the

western part of the 1997 Upper Middle Umpqua watershed analyses.

12

	 The Siuslaw National Forest prepared the Lower Umpqua Watershed Analysis (Lower Umpqua Frontal) with in put from the Coos Bay BLM office.

13

	 The Siskiyou National Forest contracted with Engineering Science and Technology to prepare the Hunter Creek Watershed Analysis. Coos Bay BLM

Office input and information used to prepare the document.

14

	 The Siskiyou National Forest will do this analysis with BLM in put.

15

	 Listed as version 1.2. Replaces the FY 1996 Tioga Creek and the FY 1999 South Fork Coos River documents

16

	 Replaces the FY 1994 Middle Creek, North Coquille, and Fairview documents. Also replaces the North Fork Mouth Subwatershed portion of the FY

1997 Middle Main Coquille/ North Fork Mouth/ Catching Creek document

17

	 Replaces the FY 1996 Tioga Creek, and the FY 1999 and FY 2000 South Fork Coos River documents

18

	 Replaces the FY 1996 Oxbow document.

19

	 The Roseburg District BLM will do this analysis with Coos Bay District input

20

	 Replaces the FY 1994 Lower Umpqua Frontal (Middle Umpqua Frontal), FY 1995 Paradise Creek, and a portion of the FY 1997 Upper Middle Umpqua

documents.

21 Replaces the FY 1996 Mill Creek document.

Name Iteration BLM 

Acres on 

Coos Bay 

District

Non- BLM 

Acres

Total Acres Square 

Miles

Percent 

BLM

BLM acres: 

Running total 

of first iteration 

accomplishment 

Percent of Coos Bay District 

covered by a first iteration 

WSA based the following 

total BLM acres:

321,746

FY 06 1st iteration only acres 0 0 0 0 0% 299,533 93%

FY 2007

West Fork Smith River supplement 

to 1std

11,121 5,200 16,321 26 68%

FY 07 1st iteration only acres 0 0 0 0 0% 299,533

FY 2008

Sixes River 2nd 2,107 83,726 85,833 134 2.5%

New River Frontal 1st 4,354 95,017 99,371 155 4.3%

Total FY 2008 

(1st plus subsequent iteration acres)

6,461 178,743 185,204 289 4%

FY 08 1st iteration only acres 4,354 95,017 99,371 155 4.3% 303,887 94%

Planned for FY 2009

no watershed analysis is planned
Coos Bay District

 90
Annual Program Summary Fiscal Year 2008

91

 Appendix B Comparison Between ROD Projections and 

Actual Harvest

Table B-1 displays the anticipated acres and volume to be harvested from the Matrix LUA by age 

class, either by regeneration harvest and/or commercial thinning and selective cut/salvage for 

the second decade, as well as the accomplishments for FY 2008. Only conifer volume harvested 

from the Matrix counts toward the ASQ volume projection. It was recognized that density 

management treatments within the Riparian Reserves (RR) or Late-Successional Reserves (LSR) 

would occur to provide habitat conditions for late-successional species, or to develop desired 

structural components meeting the Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives. It was estimated 

that approximately 5 MMBF could be harvested from these LUAs annually. Volume harvested 

from the RR or LSR LUAs does not contribute to the ASQ. 

It should be noted that this table only includes conifer volume (not hardwood volume) and 

does not include acres or volume from road construction. It does include acres associated with 

hardwood conversion (regeneration harvest in all LUAs). Some pockets of conifer may have been 

within the hardwood conversion acreage. These pockets may have been thinned which shows up 

with the conifer volume reported. In cases were there was only hardwood volume, only acreage 

would be reported. Regeneration harvest acres and volumes for GFMA or C/DB shown in age 

classes less than 60 years of age are hardwood conversions or some salvage units. Regeneration 

harvest acres and volumes in the LSR or RR are hardwood conversions.
 92

Table B-1. ROD Harvest Projections and Annual Accomplishments (Acres and MMBF by Age Class)

ROD 2nd Decadal Projection Accomplishment FY 2008 Accomplishments FY 05 to FY 2014

AgeClass

RegenerationHarvest Thinning Regeneration Harvest Thinning/Selective Cut Regeneration Harvest Thinning/Selective Cut

LUA Acres Volume 1 Acres Volume 1 LUA Acres Volume 1 Acres Volume 1 LUA Acres Volume 1 Acres Volume 1

GFMA 2 0 0 0 0 GFMA 0 0 0 0 GFMA 0 0 0 0

20-29 C/DB 0 0 0 0 C/DB 0 0 0 0 C/DB 0 0 0 0

RR 3 0 0 0 0 RR 3 0 0 0 0

LSR 3 0 0 0 0 LSR 3 0 0 29 0.353

Sub-total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 0.353GFMA 2 0 0 0 0 GFMA 14 0.045 84 1.093 GFMA 14 0.045 116 1.590

30-39 C/DB 0 0 0 0 C/DB 0 0 0 0 C/DB 0 0 0 0

RR 3 4 0 60 0.780 RR 3 4 0 95 1.154

LSR 3 0 0 0 0 LSR 3 23 0 515 5.479

Sub-total 0 0 0 0 18 0.045 144 1.873 41 0.045 726 8.223

GFMA 2 0 0 600 5.0 GFMA 0 0 159 1.363 GFMA 14 0.175 943 14.934

40-49 C/DB 0 0 0 0 C/DB 0 0 0 0 C/DB 0 0 0 0

RR 3 50 0 35 0.398 RR 3 63 0.048 407 6.598

LSR 3 0 0 0 0 LSR 3 291 0.568 762 10.127

Sub-total 0 0 600 5.0 50 0 194 1.761 368 0.791 2,112 31.659

GFMA 2 0 0 500 6.0 GFMA 14 0.041 333 3.539 GFMA 92 0.878 1,449 20.242

50-59 C/DB 0 0 0 0 C/DB 0 0 0 0 C/DB 0 0 0 0

RR 3 17 0 174 2.292 RR 3 62 0.113 966 13.560

LSR 3 67 0 301 3.953 LSR 3 127 0 1,530 24.497

Sub-total 0 0 500 6.0 98 0.041 808 9.784 281 0.991 3,945 58.299

GFMA 2 3,200 122.0 0 0 GFMA 0 0 179 2.221 GFMA 142 4.450 599 10.466

60-79 C/DB 0 0 0 0 C/DB 0 0 0 0 C/DB 0 0 0 0

RR 3 0 0 44 0.588 RR 3 5 0.002 279 4.860

LSR 3 0 0 182 2.217 LSR 3 42 0 564 6.889

Sub-total 3,200 122.0 0 0 0 0 405 5.026 189 4.452 1,442 22.215
93

Table B-1. ROD Harvest Projections and Annual Accomplishments (Continued)

ROD 2nd Decadal Projection Accomplishment FY 2008 Accomplishments FY 

AgeClass

RegenerationHarvest Thinning Regeneration Harvest Thinning/Selective Cut Regeneration Harvest 

LUA Acres Volume 1 Acres Volume 1 LUA Acres Volume 1 Acres Volume 1 LUA Acres Volume 

80-99 GFMA 2 700 20.0 0 0 GFMA 0 0 2 0.027 GFMA 0 

C/DB 0 0 0 0 C/DB 0 0 0 0 C/DB 0 

RR 3 0 0 7 0.095 RR 3 0 

LSR 3 0 0 0 0 LSR 3 0 

Sub-total 700 20.0 0 0 0 0 9 0.122 0 

100-199 GFMA 2 3,100 147.0 0 0 GFMA 0 0 0 0 GFMA 8 0

C/DB 0 0 0 0 C/DB 0 0 0 0 C/DB 3 0

RR 3 0 0 0 0 RR 3 0 

LSR 3 0 0 0 0 LSR 3 0 

Sub-total 3,100 147.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0

200 + GFMA 2 600 21.0 0 0 GFMA 0 0 0 0 GFMA 0 

C/DB 0 0 0 0 C/DB 0 0 0 0 C/DB 0 

RR 3 0 0 0 0 RR 3 0 

LSR 3 0 0 0 0 LSR 3 0 

Sub-total 600 21.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Totals GFMA 2 7,600 310.0 1,100 11.0 GFMA 28 0.086 757 8.243 GFMA 270 5

C/DB 0 0 0 0 C/DB 0 0 0 0 C/DB 3 0

RR 3 71 0 320 4.153 RR 3 134 0

LSR 3 67 0 483 6.170 LSR 3 483 0

ASQ Totals 7,600 310.0 1,100 11.0 28 0.086 757 8.243 273 6

Non ASQ Totals 0 0 0 0 138 0 803 10.323 617 0

Grand Totals 7,600 310.0 1,100 11.0 166 0.086 1,560 18.566 890 6

1 Only coniferous volume from the Matrix contributes to the ASQ. Includes only sold advertised sales. Does not include hardwood or miscellaneous volume harvested. 2 ROD commitment is for the Matrix only; Matrix includes both the General Forest Management Area (GFMA) and Connectivity/Diversity Blocks (C/B).3 No ROD commitment for the Riparian Reserves (RR) or Late-Successional Reserves (LSR) – Opportunity to treat where treatments meet the Objectives for these LUAs.
Coos Bay District

 94

Appendix B-2: Allowable Sale Quantity (ASQ) Reconciliation

Evaluation Period: FY05-14

Coos Bay District

South Coast – Curry SYU

FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 05 thru 14

CCF MBF CCF MBF CCF MBF

ASQ Volume **1 Advertised & Sold

Negotiated

Modification

5450-5 (Short form)

27,091

0

3,442

11

14,831

0

2,025

7

15,854

863

4,618

43

9,154

524

2,679

26

99,650

1,817

10,786

131

56,675

1,135

6,228

75

Totals: 30,544 16,863 21,378 12,383 112,384 64,113

Autonomous Program 

Summaries **2

Key Watershed

5900 (Salvage/Forest Health)

5810 (Timber Pipeline)

946

1,514

21,871

564

865

12,161

6,022

7,097

13,872

3,455

3,901

7,817

14,131

13,703

84,807

8,483

7,600

48,037

Planned Total ASQ for FY 2005 thru FY 2014 450,000 3 270,000 4

Planned ASQ for Key Watersheds for FY 2005 thru FY 2014 40,000 3 24,000 4

Non - ASQ Volume Advertised & Sold

Negotiated

Modification

5450-5 (Short form)

60,991

455

5,528

74

33,165

262

3,237

45

25,567

389

8,574

54

13,764

233

5,072

34

168,747

1,130

20,403

302

91,659

657

11,979

173

Totals: 67,048 36,709 34,584 19,103 190,582 104,468

Autonomous Program 

Summaries **2

Key Watershed

5900 (Salvage/Forest Health)

5810 (Timber Pipeline)

2,333

19,409

18,455

1,318

10,936

10,281

3,727

22,942

10,592

1,923

12,666

5,837

23,240

77,609

71,181

12,804

43,036

39,168

All Volume

(ASQ + Non – ASQ)

Advertised & Sold

Negotiated

Modification

5450-5 (Short form)

88,082

455

8,970

85

47,996

262

5,262

52

41,421

1,252

13,192

97

22,918

757

7,751

60

268,397

2,947

31,189

433

148,334

1,792

18,207

248

Grand Totals: 97,592 53,572 55,962 31,486 302,966 168,581

Autonomous Program 

Summaries **2

Key Watershed

5900 (Salvage/Forest Health)

5810 (Timber Pipeline)

3,279

20,923

40,326

1,882

11,801

22,442

9,749

30,039

24,464

5,378

16,567

13,654

37,371

91,312

155,988

21,287

50,636

87,205

**1 Volume from the Harvest Land Base that “counts” (is chargeable) towards Allowable Sale Quantity (ASQ) accomplishments.

**2 Autonomous Program Summaries figures are for information purposes and are included in the ASQ and/or Non-ASQ figure respectively. 3CCF Volume for the period calculated as follows: Planned Total ASQ = (45,000 CCF X 10 yrs)

Key Watershed ASQ = (4,000 CCF X 10 yrs) 4 MBF Volume for the period calculated as follows: Planned Total ASQ = (27,000 MBF X 10 yrs)

Key Watershed ASQ = (2,400 MBF X 10 yrs)

BLM/OR/WA/AE-09/057+1792

PENALTY	FOR	PRIVATE	USE,	$300OFFICIAL	BUSINESS_____________North	Bend,	Oregon	974591300	Airport	LaneCoos Bay District Offi ceBureau of Land ManagementUnited States Department of the Interior PRIORITY	MAIL

Bureau	of	Land	Management

POSTAGE	AND	FEES	PAID

Permit	No.	G-76
SPINE TEXT

Coos Bay Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report 2008Bureau of Land Management - Coos Bay District