Artwork by Sophie Meserow, Riverdale Grade School, Portland August 14, 2000

REPORT OF THE FOREST 

PRACTICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE 

ON SALMON AND WATERSHEDS
The Report of the Ad Hoc Forest Practices Advisory 

Committee on Salmon and Watersheds is also available on 

the Department of Forestry’s web page at 

http//www.odf.state.or.us/FP/FPAC/TOC.htm.

For additional copies, please contact the Oregon Department 

of Forestry, 2600 State Street, Salem, Oregon 97310 

(phone: 503-945-7470) for ordering information.
REPORT OF THE AD HOC FOREST 

PRACTICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE 

ON SALMON AND WATERSHEDS

TO

THE OREGON BOARD OF FORESTRY

August 2000


i

Report of the Forest Practice Advisory Committee

Table of Contents

Introduction/Overview.........................................................................................................1

Executive Summary - Consensus and Strong Agreement Recommendations.....................7

Discussion of Consensus Recommendations and Strong Agreement................................15

Section A – Fish Passage Issue Paper.............................................................................. A-i

Section B – Forest Roads Issue Paper.............................................................................. B-i

Section C – Landslides Issue Paper ................................................................................. C-i

Section D – Riparian Functions Issue Paper.................................................................... D-i

Appendix 1 – Executive Order 99-01 and Committee Charter......................................... 1-i

Appendix 2 – Key Committee Correspondence ............................................................... 2-i

Appendix 3 – Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team Report................................ 3-i
ii
iii

The Forest Practices Advisory Committee on Salmon and Watersheds are:

Ron Cease, Chair, Hatfield School of Government, Portland State University

Geoff Pampush, Oregon Trout

Dan Newton, Oregon Forest Industries Council

Paul Ketcham, Portland Audubon Society

Gary Springer, Oregon Small Woodlands Association

Bill Arsenault, Oregon Small Woodlands Association

Paul Heikkila, Commercial Fishing/OSU Sea Grant Extension

Bill Street, Labor/Machinist Union

Liz Hamilton, Northwest Sportsfishing Industry Association

Blake Rowe, Oregon Forest Industries Council

Sue Cameron, Oregon Counties

Tom Hirons, Associated Oregon Loggers

Mary Scurlock, Pacific Rivers Council

The Committee’s meetings were facilitated by:

Connie Green, Chemeketa Community College

Vicki Willis, Chemeketa Community College

The Committee’s work was assisted by the following staff:

Jeff Boechler, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

Paula Burgess, Governor’s Natural Resource Advisor

Peter Green, Governor’s Natural Resource Office

Dick Pederson, Department of Environmental Quality

Tom Rosetta, Department of Environmental Quality

Mike Barsotti, Oregon Department of Forestry

Liz Dent, Oregon Department of Forestry

Jo Emrick, Oregon Department of Forestry

Diana Enright, Oregon Department of Forestry

Kathleen Gomez, Oregon Department of Forestry

Ann Hanus, Oregon Department of Forestry

Brad Knotts, Oregon Department of Forestry

Ted Lorensen, Oregon Department of Forestry

Keith Mills, Oregon Department of Forestry

Joe Misek, Oregon Department of Forestry

David Morman, Oregon Department of Forestry

Rod Nichols, Oregon Department of Forestry

Jim Paul, Oregon Department of Forestry

John Seward, Oregon Department of Forestry

Dave Stere, Oregon Department of Forestry

Cassandra Webber, Oregon Department of Forestry

Julie Welp, Oregon Department of Forestry
iv
1

Introduction/Overview

The Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds

The Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds is conceived as a means to restore our native fish 

populations and their aquatic systems to productive and sustainable levels that will provide 

substantial environmental, cultural, and economic benefits. 

The success of the Oregon Plan rests on the efforts and contributions of all Oregonians. Given 

the breadth of the undertaking, accomplishing its goals requires cooperation across the entire 

economic and geographic spectrum of the state. The Oregon Plan needs an engaged public 

concerned about the fate of the salmon and our watersheds. A cooperative undertaking, it melds 

the efforts of state, local, federal, tribal and private organizations, landowners and individuals. 

Although it rests on a strong foundation of protective regulations, the Oregon Plan transcends 

regulation and encourages nonregulatory efforts to improve conditions for salmon and water 

quality. Some of the most important contributions to the Oregon Plan have been accomplished 

by private and quasi-governmental actions through watershed councils and voluntary restoration 

and enhancement activities. 

The Oregon Plan spans the range of land uses and activities impacting salmon and water quality, 

including forest management, agriculture, fisheries, water management, hatchery management, 

industry and urban development. Governor Kitzhaber recognizes each of these interests and the 

roles of state agencies to achieve the goal of the Oregon Plan in his Executive Order No. EO 99-

01 on the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds (Appendix 1). Many efforts have been 

launched to contribute to the Oregon Plan including watershed council plans and projects, 

Oregon's S.B. 1010 process dealing with the effects of agricultural practices on water quality, 

and forestland owner voluntary contributions. This report focuses entirely on commercial forest 

operations and forest practices.

The Ad Hoc Forest Practices Advisory Committee on Salmon and Watersheds 

In the spirit of the Oregon Plan and in accordance with Governor Kitzhaber’s Executive Order 

No. EO 99-01, the Board of Forestry created a diverse committee of Oregonians. The committee 

was charged with: (1) determining what, if any, changes to forest practices, both regulatory and 

voluntary, are necessary to meet water quality standards and to protect and restore salmonids; 

and (2) making specific recommendations to the Board of Forestry. The committee’s Charter 

(see Appendix 1) sets forth its background and purpose, parameters and assumptions, charge 

from the board, membership, and roles and responsibilities.

The Ad Hoc Forest Practices Advisory Committee (FPAC) has thirteen members representing a 

diverse group of Oregonians who care deeply about our salmon and watersheds: small and large 

forest landowners, and representatives of environmental and sports-fishing organizations, 

logging and commercial fishing interests, local government, and labor unions. The committee 

met for a year and a half beginning in January 1999. The members include:

Ron Cease, Chair, Hatfield School of Government, Portland State University

Geoff Pampush, Oregon Trout

Dan Newton, Oregon Forest Industries Council
2

Paul Ketcham, Portland Audubon Society

Gary Springer, Oregon Small Woodlands Association

Bill Arsenault, Oregon Small Woodlands Association

Paul Heikkila, Commercial Fishing/OSU Sea Grant Extension

Bill Street, Labor/Machinist Union

Liz Hamilton, Northwest Sportsfishing Industry Association

Blake Rowe, Oregon Forest Industries Council

Sue Cameron, Oregon Counties

Tom Hirons, Associated Oregon Loggers

Mary Scurlock, Pacific Rivers Council

Committee members examined the scientific literature and monitoring results and heard from 

scientists and policymakers. They received and reviewed a report on forest practices from the 

Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team (IMST), a distinguished team of scientists that was 

established by the legislature to analyze and recommend the scientific basis for the Oregon Plan. 

The committee deliberated on a series of issue papers, sought scientific review of the issue 

papers, and debated options to achieve objectives relating to fish passage, landslides, roads, 

landscapes, and riparian functions. The issue papers were organized in a manner to help the 

Board of Forestry consider scientific, operational, economic and policy issues. The papers set 

forth a large number of options that were developed and considered by the committee.

Committee members traveled to both the eastern and western sides of the state where they 

examined forest sites, streams, riparian areas and watersheds; considered fish, water quality and 

forest management needs; gained a deeper understanding of the scientific issues, operational 

constraints and tradeoffs; and discussed their points of view. 

They met a total of 29 days, with the first public meeting on January 14, 1999 and their last 

meeting on June 9, 2000. The meetings were long, often difficult, and thought provoking. 

Members devoted a significant amount of time learning about the complex interactions between 

terrestrial and aquatic habitat and the effects on water quality. The full range of options 

considered is shown in the issue papers. Following lengthy deliberations, the committee 

achieved consensus or strong agreement on 24 recommendations that included not only 

regulatory changes, but also incentives and voluntary activities. On some recommendations, the 

views of individual committee members differed, and these differences are noted in the report. 

The members of the committee believe their work is complete. The recommendations were 

supported by members of the committee in the spirit of making significant and positive 

contributions for salmon and watersheds. The committee members embarked on their task with 

the understanding that they were working to advance the Oregon Plan. The effort did not 

attempt to specifically address sufficiency for particular federal laws or regulations, such as the 

federal Endangered Species Act or Clean Water Act.

There are some follow-up actions that will need to be addressed by the Board of Forestry. These 

tasks are:

Further exploration of incentives through the board charging the Committee for Family 

Forestlands to explore and build on the incentive options developed by the FPAC.
3

Directing the department to work with interests in eastern Oregon to develop riparian 

measures for eastern Oregon forests.

Ensuring the rule proposals are supported by the findings required under rulemaking 

authority ORS 527.714.

While there are often 13 different opinions among the committee members, it is fair to say that 

there are two dominant mindsets. These two mindsets reflect viewpoints regarding a range of 

issues and how facts are received and interpreted by the committee members. These two 

mindsets had differences in viewpoints about the desired future conditions, the acceptable levels 

of risk and the probability of adverse effects. There were also different views on the relative 

importance of unintended consequences - land use change, disincentives for management, and 

maintaining a viable forest-based economy. The facilitators, committee members, and staff 

worked diligently to create solutions that considered and balanced the range of viewpoints and 

that reflected a spirit of compromise. 

Summary of Major Issues 

In carrying out their charge, the committee chose first to review four major technical issues 

related to the protection and restoration of salmonids: fish passage, forest roads, landslides, and 

riparian function. With the September 1999 delivery of the IMST Report to the committee, a 

fifth issue, “Landscapes” was added for committee discussion.

Fish Passage 

Movement of fish throughout a watershed is necessary for a number of life history needs. 

Upstream and downstream migration of juveniles during low summer flow is often needed so

they can find suitable habitat (e.g., avoid warm water temperatures, find food, escape predators, 

avoid competition, etc.). During winter, juveniles may move upstream or into side tributaries 

and off-channel habitats to escape flood flows. 

Upstream migration of juveniles has been observed related to the presence and availability of 

beaver ponds and other fish-rearing habitat. Upstream migration of adults is important for access 

to spawning grounds. Loss of fish passage at road crossings and other human-caused barriers 

has many potential effects, including loss of habitat access and changes in fish genetics or 

community assemblages. “Impediment construction” has been identified as a major factor 

leading to the decline of salmonids in western Oregon. Fish passage blockages are a problem for 

virtually every type of land use, with many of the most important barriers for salmonids being 

found on public roads and highways.

Forest Roads 

All streams under natural conditions have sediment inputs at varying levels from terrestrial sources 

(background levels) depending upon soil, topography, vegetation, and rainfall. Sediment enters 

water through various processes that include soil surface erosion, channel erosion, and mass 

movements (e.g., landslides, debris flows), and these inputs can be either chronic or episodic. 

Studies have indicated that high sediment levels can affect fish by increasing mortality, altering 

habitat, reducing growth rates, causing physiological stress, impairing homing instincts, and 

reducing feeding rates. Historically, forest roads (as opposed to timber harvesting) have been the 
4

primary source of sediment from forest management activities in the western United States. 

High risk factors for forest roads include road surface erosion, road fill failure, and the proximity 

and hydrologic connection of road segments to streams. Roads can also directly alter stream 

channels and fish habitat, especially when roads are constructed parallel to streams and within 

the floodplain. 

Landslides 

Landslides are the dominant processes for erosion on steep forested slopes in western Oregon 

and throughout the Pacific Northwest (Swanson et al., 1987). A landslide is the movement of a

mass of soil, rock or debris down slope. The typical landslide on steep forestlands begins as a 

relatively small and shallow feature (typical dimensions of 3 feet in depth, 30 feet in width, and 

40 feet in length), and can initiate debris flows (a semi-fluid mass scouring or partially scouring 

soils on the slope along its path). Upon entering stream channels, debris flows often carry large 

amounts of wood and are referred to as debris torrents. Landslides can be both beneficial and 

detrimental to aquatic habitat. For example, they can deliver needed large wood and gravel that 

will benefit aquatic habitat, but they can also deposit sediment that will clog spawning beds.

Forest practices may alter both physical and biological (vegetative) slope properties that 

influence slope stability and the occurrence of shallow rapid landslides. Physical alterations can 

include slope steepening, slope-water effects, and changes in soil strength. Most physical 

alterations are the result of roads and skid roads. 

Riparian Function 

Large wood, shade (stream temperature), bank stability, litterfall, sediment filtration, and 

floodplain processes are all riparian functions in forests. While some or all of these functions 

may be provided for either directly or indirectly by the current forest practice rules and Oregon 

Plan voluntary measures, large wood, bank stability, and stream temperature are the primary 

functions that the rules and measures are designed to address. 

Large wood (also referred to as large woody debris; coarse woody debris; large organic debris) is 

an important component of salmonid habitat. Large wood is a key factor in the development of 

channel form, including off-channel rearing backwaters, side channels, and pools and riffles, that 

are important for salmon. Large wood loading of streams has been correlated to winter survival 

of juvenile salmonids and can increase fish numbers within a given watershed. Reductions in 

large wood will often result in habitat simplification, which has been shown to reduce the 

diversity of fish species. 

Stream temperature is an important component of fish habitat and has a direct effect on the 

growth and survival of salmonids. The effect on fish of changes in stream temperature varies 

between species and within the life cycle of a given species (DEQ, 1995). Critical life stages 

that occur during the warmest months in the summer are of particular concern. The various 

physiological and ecological processes of salmonids that are affected by temperature are well 

documented. Exposure to temperatures above optimum levels has the potential to adversely 

affect salmonid survival and recovery. The presence of cool-water refugia can help salmonids 

avoid areas with adverse stream temperatures and help sustain a population of sensitive species. 

When ambient stream temperatures are too warm, sensitive aquatic species can inhabit these 
5

patches of cool water habitat. Deep pools, cool springs, subsurface flow, and the junction of 

cooler tributary streams are all examples of cool-water refugia. 

Landscapes 

The IMST Report includes recommendations of which most could be considered within 

Oregon’s current policy and socio-economic frameworks. One of their two longer-term policy 

recommendations is that Oregon should develop a new policy framework to encompass the 

landscape (large watershed) level within the range of wild salmonids in Oregon. 

The IMST report recommends a number of landscape elements that the committee considered 

(see Appendix 3 - IMST Report). The committee devoted one full meeting to hearing scientific 

and policy information on this topic and discussing the issue of “landscapes.” During this 

meeting, the committee sought further advice from the IMST Chair about the landscape 

recommendations. Based substantially on input from the IMST Chair and the other participants 

at the meeting, the committee concluded that this was a longer-term issue outside the sphere of 

influence of the committee. Therefore, an issue paper was not developed, and the committee 

chose to recommend that the issue be moved forward to other policy-making bodies, including 

the Board of Forestry, for future action. The recommendations include a number of specific 

actions to help facilitate the development of landscape approaches.

Incentives 

The committee discussed many methods to implement its recommendations. Among these 

methods were a number of incentive-based efforts. However, the committee recognized that 

many of the incentive-based methods need further development and that additional ideas are 

needed to help balance the regulatory recommendations that it has proposed. Therefore, the 

committee recommends that incentives be further explored through the Committee for Family 

Forestlands being charged by the Board of Forestry to explore and build on the incentive options 

developed by the committee.

Development of the Issue Papers 

The committee developed an issue paper for each of the four major technical issues, outlining the 

current scientific findings, watershed-scale effects, a description and evaluation of current 

applicable voluntary and regulatory measures, and suggestions for possible additional voluntary 

and/or regulatory measures. Each paper was peer reviewed by a number of scientists from across 

the Pacific Northwest with expertise specific to the issues, and their comments were reviewed 

and utilized by the committee. The papers also included the analyses and recommendations of 

the Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team related to the four issues. The papers served as 

the basis for evaluating the sufficiency of current voluntary and regulatory measures in 

maintaining water quality and protecting and restoring salmonids. 

Out of these papers came a list of possible options designed to address those issues identified 

within the papers as opportunities to improve on existing measures. The committee spent many 

meetings discussing the four major issues and then developing and evaluating the various options 

under each issue. These papers serve as a permanent record of the breadth of technical 

information used by the committee in determining what specific recommendations were to go 

forward to the Board of Forestry. 
6
7

Executive Summary

Forest Practices Advisory Committee on Salmon and Watersheds

Consensus and Strong Agreement Recommendations

The following is a summary of the recommendations that have received either “consensus” or 

“strong agreement” among committee members. “Consensus” support means all committee 

members, present or represented by proxy at the meeting where the recommendation was 

discussed, expressed support. “Strong Agreement” means no more than three of the 

thirteen committee members expressed nonsupport. “Majority ” support referenced in the body 

of the report means at least seven committee expressed support, but four to six committee 

members expressed nonsupport.

Fish Passage

Recommendation A: The forest practice rules should be revised to ensure that if an upstream 

reach has the natural capacity to be a fish bearing stream, but is currently a nonfish bearing 

stream because of a stream crossing structure that cannot pass fish, the reach will be classified as 

a fish bearing stream. The extent of potential fish use upstream of the blockage will be 

determined using guidance to be developed based on field fish presence surveys and interim 

criteria. (See Option #1 under Fish Passage for more information.)

Recommendation B: Forest landowners should accelerate the identification, prioritization, and 

restoration of existing stream crossing structures (typically culverts) that currently do not pass 

fish on streams inhabited at any time of the year by anadromous or game fish species, or fish that 

are listed as threatened or endangered species under the federal or state endangered species acts. 

A new source of funding is necessary to encourage stream crossing repair work. The new funds 

could be generated based on forestland ownership, on timber harvested, on acres harvested, on 

road miles, or through some other mechanism (a preference for a per acre assessment based on 

forestland ownership was expressed by the committee). Landowners could then apply for a 

credit against expenses incurred in voluntarily remediating legacy road and culvert problems.

(See Option #2 under Fish Passage for more information) The funding mechanism would be 

phased out as landowners completed repair work.

Recommendation C: The forest practice rules should be revised to incorporate a physical habitat 

approach to designating fish use and nonfish use streams. The Oregon Department of Forestry 

(ODF) has developed interim classification guidelines to designate fish use based upon the 

physical characteristics of a stream. These guidelines were based upon fish presence survey data 

and could be used to classify streams that are “fish use.” The guidelines use either mapped or 

on-the-ground physical characteristics. The current stream classification rules would be 

amended to establish that fish use streams are any streams that meet the habitat criteria. The 

habitat criteria may need to be modified and improved based upon more recent and complete 

survey data. Key issues that will need to be addressed include the acceptable margin of error in 

applying a habitat model and opportunities for landowners to request field verification of habitat 
8

criteria. Fish presence survey data, when available, will supercede the guidelines in designating 

fish or nonfish use. (See Option #3 under Fish Passage for more information.)

Recommendation D: A funding source should be created for family forest landowners or the 

state should otherwise assist family forest landowners in obtaining funds from existing sources to 

expand the current voluntary road assessment effort to family forestland owners. This financial 

assistance would also be used to help family forest landowners replace stream crossings that are 

not adequately passing fish. (See Option #4 under Fish Passage for more information.)

Forest Roads

Recommendation E: To address existing roads constructed using past practices or methods, such 

roads should be systematically evaluated and mitigated where appropriate for negative impacts 

or risks to:

1. Waters of the state;

2. Passage of juvenile/adult anadromous fish; and

3. Downstream passage of habitat elements.

“Other land-use” roads should use at least the same best management practices (BMPs) as 

required for forestlands. 

The department should create specific road maintenance guidelines for high hazard locations by 

developing and making improved guidance available to operators and regulators. The 

department should be given general authority to require additional cross drainage installation as a 

maintenance requirement prior to an operation when current road condition and a proposed use 

will impair water quality. (See Option #6 under Forest Roads for more information.)

Recommendation F: Cross drainage structures on new roads should be installed so that the risk 

of sediment delivery to waters of the state from new roads is minimized. 

While this is the current standard, the department should provide better guidance and training for 

achievement of the rules. Current rules provide authority for installation and maintenance of 

road cross drains. Training and improved guidance that would emphasize the need for adequate 

spacing and the proper installation of road cross drains would be developed and implemented for 

operators/landowners and regulators. 

The forest practice rules should be revised to better clarify the objectives for cross drainage. For 

example, the rules might state that the objectives are to ensure that cross drains are installed in 

adequate numbers and in proper locations so that:

1. Road surfaces are protected from erosion and water retention;

2. Erosion of the roadside ditch is minimized;

3. Ditch water is not discharged onto unstable slopes; and

4. The amount of ditch water (and associated sediment) discharging directly into a stream is 

minimized. (See Option #7 under Forest Roads for more information.) 
9

Recommendation G: The forest practice rules should be modified to more specifically address 

wet-weather hauling. This should include development of two criteria, probably in rule form, to:

1. Address road use in wet weather to ensure that durable surfacing or other effective methods 

are used on road segments that can deliver sediment to streams; and 

2. Require operators to cease heavy truck traffic on roads when the road surface is breaking 

down (only for segments that are delivering sediment to streams). “Breaking down” would 

be defined by both depth of ruts and by depth of muddy, fine sediment on the road. (See 

Option #8 under Forest Roads for more information.)

Recommendation H: The department should develop clear decision-making criteria for 

evaluating proposed road locations in areas where there is a high risk of landslides, surface 

erosion, or of direct physical alteration to streams, riparian areas, lakes or wetlands. The criteria 

should identify preferred locations and construction practices that will result in roads being 

constructed in a manner that results in the lowest overall impact to water quality and fish habitat 

while allowing the landowners to achieve their management objectives (Method 5). The criteria 

should also direct the Department of Forestry to not approve road construction or reconstruction 

in the sensitive areas described above, if viable alternatives exist. (See Option #10 under Forest 

Roads for more information.)

Recommendation I: Means should be developed or provided for the movement of large wood 

and sediment downstream at those crossings which may otherwise restrict movement. The 

transport mechanisms for large wood and sediments may be either stream storm flows or 

channelized debris flows. (See Forest Roads Option #12 for more information.)

Recommendation J: Improved cooperative road system planning, maintenance and use is needed 

between federal and private forest landowners. (See Option #16 under Forest Roads for more 

information.)

Recommendation K: Future forest road best management practice compliance and effectiveness 

monitoring should be implemented within the context of the Forest Practices Program’s strategic 

monitoring plan and prioritized in context with available monitoring resources and other 

monitoring needs. (See Option #18 under Forest Roads for more information.)

Recommendation L: Additional training on forest road construction and maintenance should be 

provided for landowners and operators. (See Option #19 under Forest Roads for more 

information.)

Recommendation M: The forest practice rules should be changed to require prior approval for 

ground-based harvesting on steep slopes where there is a significant risk of sediment delivery to 

streams. (See Option #57 under Forest Roads for more information.)

Recommendation N: A road closure program should be developed that forest landowners, the 

Department of Forestry, and local law enforcement can use to limit public access onto sensitive 

road systems that have a high risk of delivering sediment to streams, or that directly impact 

aquatic habitat. (See Option #59 under Forest Roads for more information.)
10

Landslides

Recommendation O: All landslide-prone locations (now called “high-risk sites”) should be 

identified prior to timber harvest operations. During the notification process, the department 

should inform the operator of the likely presence of high-risk sites in the operation area, based on 

coarse screen maps. The operator would then be expected to more specifically locate sites within 

the operation area by field reconnaissance. There is also the expectation that “significant” areas 

of high-risk sites which are not mapped will also be identified by the operator. (See Option #45 

under Landslides for more information.)

Recommendation P: The department should identify stream channels which are prone to debris 

flows and torrents. Identifying those channels which are capable of transporting large wood to 

Type F streams could make it possible to focus riparian prescriptions on those streams where 

greater (fish bearing) benefit to aquatic habitats are likely. 

The department should inform the operator during the notification process of the likely presence 

of debris flow-prone channels, based on coarse screen maps. The operator would then be 

expected to more specifically locate debris flow-prone channels by field reconnaissance. ODF 

would provide specific criteria to be used in field identification. (See Option #46 under 

Landslides for more information.)

Recommendation Q: The locations most prone to landslides (now called “high-risk sites”) 

should be managed with techniques that minimize impacts to soil and water resources.

To achieve this objective, the best management practices used to protect high-risk sites that are 

currently in guidance should be incorporated into the forest practice rules (Method 1) and a 

better case history basis for evaluating the effectiveness of those practices should be developed 

(Method 6). These standard practices are designed to minimize ground alteration/disturbance on 

high-risk sites from logging practices. (See Option #47 under Landslides for more information.)

Recommendation R: It is important to leave trees or downed wood in locations where they 

provide wood to be moved by debris flows into fish bearing streams. 

To achieve this objective, it is realistic or appropriate to use a menu of potential methods to leave 

trees or downed wood, depending upon likelihood of wood delivery and operational efficiency. 

It is not appropriate to rely on a single strategy to provide this potential source of large wood. 

The operator should be required to select an appropriate option in cooperation with ODF. (See 

Option #61 under Landslides for more information.)

Riparian Functions

Recommendation S: The active placement of large wood or other structures in streams 

deficient in wood or other structures is necessary for short-term aquatic habitat improvement, 

but it should be done in a manner that still assures the timely achievement and maintenance of 

characteristics of mature forest conditions in the riparian management area in the longer term. 
11

A menu of methods should be developed to prioritize and guide placement of large wood. This 

menu should include as one method placing wood along streams during an adjacent entry for 

harvesting. (See Option #20 under Riparian Functions for more information.)

Recommendation T: Additional department resources should be allocated to monitoring the 

effectiveness of the water protection rules. At a minimum, current levels of monitoring must be 

maintained. Adequate resources should also be provided to enable the department to conduct 

effectiveness monitoring related to the large wood objectives of the Oregon Plan for Salmon and 

Watersheds and water quality standards, as well as continued best management practices 

compliance monitoring. Coordination with other agencies on monitoring projects is essential. 

(See Option #30 under Riparian Functions for more information.)

Recommendation U: The State of Oregon should develop a clearer and more comprehensive 

policy on riparian management that addresses all land uses. The committee did not discuss 

whether such a policy should require uniform protection on all land uses. However, the policy 

should, at a minimum, establish a baseline standard for resource protection and both clarify and 

explicitly describe Oregon’s expectations for different land uses if some land uses will be 

required to meet a higher protection standard than others. (See Option #41 under Riparian 

Functions for more information.) 

Recommendation V: The following list of changes are recommended to increase the protection 

and restoration of riparian functions. Further clarification and/or guidance on a number of these 

points will be needed to further develop these concepts. 

1. Harvesting Cap 40%

In western Oregon, manage any harvesting within the Riparian Management Area (RMA) 

so that the retained conifer basal area exceeds the basal area standard target, or 60 percent 

of the pre-harvest basal area, whichever is greater.

2. No Touch Area 1⁄2 of RMA

The no-touch width will be equal to one-half the width of the entire RMA.

3. Largest Trees 10 Out of 20 Largest

Retain 10 of the 20 largest trees per 1,000 feet outside of the no-touch width that will best 

achieve aquatic riparian functions. Subject to FPF approval, the landowner would 

identify tree locations in a written plan demonstrating how this objective will be met. 

There would be discretion to also consider operational issues and the value of the trees, as 

long as best achieving aquatic riparian functions remains the primary objective.

4. Type N Streams (Nonfish Bearing) Forest Practice Forester Discretion

a. Small Type NT streams are: 1) Perennial Small Type N (temperature) streams 

that are tributary and contribute at least 30% of the flow to small and medium 

Type F streams and that have a drainage area larger than “X” acres (basin size to 

be set by georegion, 40 acres for the coast range). Initial classification will be 

based on basin size, but landowners may delist streams or stream segments 

verified as nonperennial. 2) Small Type N (torrent) streams with drainage basins 
12

greater than 30 acres, in which more than 75% of the basin has been mapped as 

“high” or 50% “extreme” debris flow hazard (by the State Forester) and which 

have a high probability of wood delivery to Type F streams.

b. Small NT stream protection: 1) Up to the first 500 feet of Type NT (temperature) 

stream above the confluence with a Type F stream will have a 50-foot search 

zone, each side. Within the search zone, retain 4 square feet of trees per each 

100 feet of perennial flow (up to 500 feet) and all nonmerchantable conifer on 

each side of the stream. Trees left along these streams to satisfy the basal area 

requirement can be counted as in-unit leave trees. 2) “Torrent” type NT streams 

will be protected as follows - FPF, working with the landowner, has discretion to 

direct retention of in-unit trees to 50’ x 500’ search zone (each side).

5. In-growth 25% Adjustment for Small Streams

The standard target will be recalculated for small Type F streams using the same per-acre 

basal area as large streams, minus 25 percent for in-growth. The standard target will also 

be recalculated for medium Type F streams, using the same per-acre basal area as large 

streams.

6. Riparian Specialist

The Oregon Department of Forestry will designate a riparian specialist in each 

administrative area who will be available to inventory and prepare riparian prescriptions 

for landowners, at their request. These specialists will be new positions funded by funds 

other than the harvest tax.

7. Similar Prescriptions for All Large and Medium Streams

Large and medium Type N stream prescriptions will be the same as the equivalent size 

Type F.

8. Monitoring

The effectiveness of the small Type N stream prescription will be a monitoring priority.

9. Alternative Vegetation Retention Prescriptions

The existing alternative vegetation retention prescriptions (e.g., hardwood conversions) 

may be applied to all riparian management areas (RMAs).

10. Preventing Sediment Delivery 

The purpose statement for harvesting rules will be modified to better describe the 

objective of preventing sediment delivery to channels. The current requirement not to 

locate skid trails within 35 feet of Type F or D streams will be extended to all streams. 

Skid trails will be defined as an excavated trail used to yard logs with more than one turn.

11. Measurement of Riparian Management Area/Channel Migration Zone

The riparian management area (RMA) will be measured from the current points of 

measurement except for areas designated by the State Forester as a channel migration 

zone (CMZ). A CMZ is an unconstrained reach of stream that, in the judgment of the 

forester, is likely to have channel movement that can go outside the RMA widths within 
13

the period of a rotation (50-100 years). Within the CMZ, the no-touch area will be 

measured from the high-water mark of the channel (same as current rules). The outer 

edge of the CMZ will be based upon guidance to be developed by a technical committee. 

Retained trees in the CMZ shall be no less than the basal area standard target.

12. Type N and Small Type F Streams

Landowners would get credit for in-unit leave trees.

13. Conceptual Agreement About the Use of “Stratification”

In recognizing that riparian stands are not homogenous and that applying a single target 

for the RMA can prevent appropriate management in patches with conifer “over” 

stocking, agreement was reached on the concept of stratification. The details of how to 

do it in the field are to be developed. Stratification could allow an RMA to be divided 

into segments with a different management approach applied to each segment based on 

the specific conditions in the segment.

14. “Provide for Placement of Large Wood” is Supported as a Concept 

(See “Subcommittee” Riparian Option under Riparian Functions for more information.) 

Landscapes

Recommendation W: The Board of Forestry should ask the Governor to:

Convene a collaborative process for landscape-scale approaches to protect and recover 

salmonids and provide and protect clean water across land uses and ownerships:

1. Identifying and evaluating current policy frameworks and scientific findings related to 

landscape management;

2. Developing common protocols for watershed assessment and monitoring;

3. Review existing and proposed watershed assessment protocols and recommend a means 

to achieve an effective assessment;

4. Identifying research needs, regulatory and nonregulatory policies, and technical methods 

to support landscape-scale approaches; and 

5. Improving cooperative approaches and partnerships among local, state and federal 

governments, and private landowners.

Strengthen “Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds” support for basin and watershed-scale 

assessment, collaboration, and restoration by:

1. Linking funding support for Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB) projects to 

basin and watershed priorities and those projects that are supportive of the goals of the 

Oregon Plan;

2. Increasing long-term financial support for watershed councils and coordinators;
14

3. Boosting funding to state agencies to enhance technical support to watershed councils 

and restoration activities of watersheds;

4. Setting priorities, where possible, according to the identification of limiting factors on 

fish runs;

5. Assembling a local/state/federal team to solve watershed and landscape-level problems 

that involve multiple governmental agencies. The team would recommend positive 

changes to reduce/eliminate duplication, do away with actions that are counter to the 

Oregon Plan, and improve communications. Where appropriate, nongovernmental 

representatives should be included; and

6. Ensuring the long-term viability of the Oregon Plan by implementing Executive Order 

EO99-01.

Support increased funding for scientific research and the establishment of a natural resource 

research institute to address landscape/watershed scientific questions and Oregon Plan policy 

issues using a multidisciplinary approach; and 

Strengthen policies to encourage maintenance of the forestland base and increase it through 

afforestation of suitable lands, since forests provide the best and most essential habitat 

components for salmonids.

Recommendation X: The Board of Forestry should:

Include the policy objectives of the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds as part of its 

next revision of the Board’s strategic plan, The Forestry Program for Oregon;

Investigate, develop, and promote incentives--such as expanding the federal Conservation 

Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP), providing financial assistance, using forest 

stewardship plans, and easing anti-trust restrictions to encourage forest landowners to 

encompass broader landscape goals in their management plans; and

Continue to investigate and analyze forest conditions across the landscape through:

1. The Department of Forestry’s Forest Assessment Project which has forged partnerships 

with Oregon State University and the Pacific Northwest Research Station; and

2. Data and models developed in other projects such as the Umpqua Land Exchange and the 

Sierra Nevada Project.
15

Discussion of Consensus and Strong Agreement Recommendations

The committee identified and discussed over 60 recommendations. All of these 

recommendations are identified and discussed in each of the four issue papers (see Sections A –

D). For the recommendations with consensus or strong agreement, this section provides detailed 

information about the recommendation, including its objective, methods for implementation, its 

benefits and costs, and resources needed for implementation.

Fish Passage Option #1: Riparian Functions Above Fish

Impassible Stream Crossing Structures

Objective:

To provide for riparian functions along stream reaches above fish impassable stream crossing 

structures that have a high probability of recolonization by salmonids once the structure is 

replaced/improved.

Recommendation:

The Committee reached a consensus that the forest practice rules should be revised to ensure that 

if an upstream reach has the natural capacity to be a fish bearing stream but is currently a nonfish 

bearing stream because of a stream crossing structure that cannot pass fish, the reach will be 

classified as a fish bearing stream. The extent of potential fish use upstream of the blockage will 

be determined using guidance to be developed based on field fish presence surveys and interim 

criteria. 

Additional information on this option: 

In the future, when the barrier is removed, a process that field-verifies reoccupation and 

establishes the actual end point of fish is desirable and should be planned for. Such a survey 

could be conducted a set number of years after the barrier removal occurs. 

The Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission and the Oregon Board of Forestry have entered 

into a Memorandum of Understanding which affirms the board‟s role and the ODF‟s role in 

ensuring fish passage is provided when roads are constructed, reconstructed, or maintained in 

conjunction with commercial forest operations; and specifies under what conditions the 

statutory requirement to maintain fish passage may be waived by Oregon Department of Fish 

and Wildlife staff for activities associated with commercial forest operations regulated under 

the Oregon Forest Practices Act. 

IMST recommendation #15 calls for culverts and other structures to be modified to permit 

the passage of juvenile and adult salmonids upstream and downstream at forest road-stream 

crossings.
16

Benefits:

The most important benefit of this recommendation is that reaches of a stream that may be 

reoccupied by fish once a barrier is removed will have retained vegetation to facilitate 

reoccupation and help maintain and restore good fish habitat over time. Increased riparian 

vegetation retention could, over time, help to maintain or improve water quality. This option 

could also remove a disincentive to replace a barrier in a timely manner. It may also remove an 

incentive to harvest a reach above the barrier before replacement. The option also eliminates an 

unfair dichotomy about how streams are classified. Currently, if fish presence surveys have not 

been conducted above a culvert, then the interim guidelines are applied and the appropriate reach 

above the culvert is treated as a Type F stream. If fish presence surveys have confirmed the 

absence of fish above a barrier, than the entire stream above the barrier is treated as a Type N 

stream.

Costs:

Landowners/Operators: Significant, potentially high for some landowners.

State Government: Potential reduction in harvest and income tax revenues.

Local Governments/Communities: Potential reduction in tax and income tax revenues.

Additional harvest restrictions will be imposed for those stream reaches with a classification 

change from nonfish to a fish bearing stream. Given the relatively large number of stream 

crossing structures that determine the end of fish use, the length of streams affected could be 

relatively significant. Based on current RMA widths, one additional acre of forestland would 

incur total or partial timber harvest restrictions for each 436-foot segment of small stream length 

reclassified as fish bearing. Landowner costs, primarily in terms of reduced timber revenues, 

will be increased. Costs will vary significantly among landowners, and for some the cost could 

be substantial. The actual costs will depend upon the stream length and the level of protection 

required. This option might also create a potential conflict between upstream and downstream 

neighbors (for example: where a downstream landowner is reluctant to replace the culvert, while 

the upstream owner is required to provide Type F stream protection).

Resources needed:

Rulemaking required.

Administrative actions required.

A quantitative cost assessment to identify acreage and timber values impacted by this option is 

needed.

Some form of tracking system will be needed to maintain the identity and location of stream 

crossing structures that are the end of fish use. In general, these data are available for completed 

surveys, but not for channels that have not yet been surveyed. Current stream classification 

maps could be used for this purpose. The interim classification guidelines should be reassessed 

as part of this process and may need to be modified. This assessment would be based upon the 

additional survey information that has been collected since the original guidelines were 

developed.
17

Fish Passage Option #2: Restoring Fish Passage at Existing 

Forest Road Stream Crossings

Objective:

To facilitate the identification, prioritization, and restoration of existing stream crossing 

structures that currently do not pass fish. 

Recommendation:

The committee reached a consensus that forest landowners should accelerate the identification, 

prioritization, and restoration of existing stream crossing structures (typically culverts) that 

currently do not pass fish on streams inhabited at any time of the year by anadromous or game 

fish species or fish that are listed as threatened or endangered species under the federal or state 

endangered species acts.

Twelve committee members (WS, DN, RC, BA, GS, SC, GP, BR, LH, PK, PH, MS) support the 

creation of a new revenue source to encourage stream crossing repair work. The revenue source 

could be generated on forestland ownership, on timber harvested, on acres harvested, on road 

miles, or through some other mechanism (a preference for a per acre assessment based on 

forestland ownership was expressed by the committee). Landowners could then apply for a 

credit against expenses incurred in voluntarily remediating legacy road and culvert problems. 

(Method 4). This method was initially developed by the committee members representing OFIC, 

and their support of the method was subject to the following five conditions:

1. The method should be part of a final package of consensus proposals recommended by 

the Forest Practices Advisory Committee to the Board of Forestry.

2. Agreement among industrial and nonindustrial forest landowners on an acceptable taxing 

mechanism to present to the Legislature as soon as possible.

3. Agreement on a nonbureaucratic, easy-to-administer, landowner-friendly reporting 

process to certify tax credit-eligible remediation projects. For example, the tax credit 

form could be the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board Reporting Form (appropriately 

modified if needed), with project acceptance by the Department of Forestry and financial 

audit by the Department of Revenue.

4. When/if the Department of Forestry certifies that remediation of legacy road and culvert 

problems on a given ownership or ownership block is not needed, or has been completed 

and no further work is needed, additional taxes for this purpose associated with such 

ownership would not be assessed.

5. This method replace and not be in addition to other methods considered under this option 

(Methods 1, 2, and 3).
18

Seven committee members (RC, GP, BA, SL, MS, LH, PK) support requiring landowners to 

inventory fish passage barriers and that such barriers be repaired within a specified time period. 

The survey could be required over a four-year period, and the remediation of fish passage 

problems completed over a ten-year period (Method 2). Other committee members believe 

Method 4 is a preferable mechanism to achieve the option objective. It was also pointed out that 

many landowners are already doing this work voluntarily under the Oregon Plan on very similar 

timelines. Other landowners may need financial assistance to implement this method.

Six committee members (GP, RC, SC, JS, PK, LH) support requiring that fish passage be 

restored for any culvert on a road that is within an active harvest operation within one year after 

completion of the harvest (Method 1). Other committee members opposed this method as an 

arbitrary constraint on a landowner‟s ability to prioritize work, i.e., the highest priority culverts 

are not necessarily associated with active harvesting. Focusing limited funds on harvest units 

means higher priority work will not be done. One member stated that the application of this 

method should be limited to “core areas” or other critical areas.

Four committee members (RC, SC, LH, PK) support the creation of a support service within the 

ODF for road assessment information. This nonregulatory service would catalog potential fish 

passage culverts and aid in design standards and in obtaining stewardship grant money, if needed 

(Method 3). One committee member suggested that the method collect data on a watershed 

basis. Another member said this method could not stand alone and would have to be combined 

with other methods. A third member suggested that cataloging may be less important than other 

tasks, such as aiding in design standards, and implementation and compliance with written plans. 

Other committee members opposed establishing major new data collection and management 

function for the department. They also stated such a process should be driven solely by 

landowner demand for the service. It was also not clear how this method would support the 

highest priority repair work getting done. 

Additional information on this option:

A large number of stream crossings in Oregon currently do not pass juvenile and adult fish up 

and downstream. 

Protocols for road assessments have been developed, as have criteria for fish passage. Recent 

training efforts have been implemented to improve the technical understanding of the design 

criteria.

When culverts are replaced on Type F streams under existing rules, written plans are required 

and some level of design review service is provided for forestlands. 

New or replaced culverts on Type F streams are required to pass both adult and juvenile fish.

Many landowners are participating with watershed councils to help establish restoration 

priorities and facilitate grant writing. 

Through the Oregon Plan, OFIC landowners statewide have already implemented a voluntary 

program to identify risks from roads and to address those risks. The objectives of this 

program are to: 

1. Implement a systematic process to identify road related risks to salmon and steelhead 

recovery; 
19

2. Establish priorities for problem solution; and 

3. Design and implement actions to reduce road-related risks.

This option is aimed at accelerating culvert replacement above what is currently being done, 

especially for family forest landowners who often do not have adequate resources to address 

this issue. 

There are a number of different ways to implement this option. Either a rule-based or 

voluntary approach could be used. 

For Method 3, there are a number of possible ways of providing a “service” to support road 

assessment and mitigation. Information could be forwarded to watershed councils to be 

incorporated into watershed assessments and action plans. 

The Method 4 tax program would remain in effect for no more than ten years -- the original 

time line anticipated for the voluntary legacy roads and culverts commitment made by OFIC 

landowners. Owners of private forestland who are not OFIC members could choose to either 

pay the tax or receive a tax credit by addressing legacy problems on their land. Tax revenues 

collected that are not "refunded" through the tax credit program would be deposited in a 

special account within the state's watershed enhancement fund. Revenues in the special 

account would be used exclusively to address legacy road problems on forestland.

If Method 4 was based on a harvest tax, a sufficient carry-forward and carry-back provision 

would be included to ensure that infrequent harvesters could take advantage of the tax credit.

Method 4 could be further developed to address sedimentation issues in eastern Oregon, 

while focusing on fish passage issues in western Oregon.

Related issues to this option include the occurrence of forest roads where the maintenance 

responsibility involves more than one party and poorly maintained public roads that cross 

private property.

IMST recommendation #15 calls for culverts and other structures to be modified to permit 

the passage of juvenile and adult salmonids upstream and downstream at forest road stream 

crossings.

Benefits:

Method 1: Linking fish passage restoration activities to an active harvest operation would 

accelerate culvert replacement and tie restoration timing and location to activities that produce 

revenue. 

Method 2: Requiring inventories and remediation activities within a specified time period 

provides for some flexibility for the landowner. 

Method 3: Creating a support service will aid in the tracking of culvert work progress and 

provide assistance to landowners who lack adequate resources, specifically family forest 

landowners. This will also potentially aid in the prioritization of culvert work for watershed 

councils and allow for the more efficient use of limited resources. 

Method 4: This tax brings fish passage to every landowner‟s attention. It rewards actual work 

and allows exemption when work is complete. This program could be expanded to other land 

uses.
20

Costs:

Landowners/Operators: Significant, potentially high for some landowners. Shortand long-term costs will be increased for landowners with 

some of these approaches. A key factor in determining 

costs to a individual landowner will be the number and type 

of stream crossing structures on their ownership currently 

not adequately passing fish. 

Method 1: Linking fish passage restoration activities to an 

active harvest operation may draw resources away from 

other higher culvert and road priorities. This would require 

shifting landowner resources from other actions that may 

have greater benefits to fish. 

Method 2: No significant costs.

Method 3: ODF will need additional resources to build and 

maintain a support service for road assessment information 

and the personnel necessary to manage such a service. It is 

not clear how the data might be used to improve outcomes 

over current systems. 

Method 4: A well designed tax program would result in 

low or no increase in taxes for landowners who 

aggressively address fish passage barriers on their 

ownership. 

State Government: Potentially significant administrative costs to implement 

Methods 3 and 4. Methods 1 and 2 may also increase costs 

for monitoring and evaluating stream crossing 

improvements.

Local Governments/Communities: Insignificant, except as a forest landowner.

Resources needed:

New or amended rules and/or legislation will be needed, as well as resources to monitor the 

completion of stream crossing inventories and the effectiveness of the repairs to fish passage 

barriers. Multi-land use inventories of problem culverts and relative length of habitat above the 

problem barrier could be needed for some methods. Resources to coordinate restoration efforts 

through ODF, ODFW or a watershed council are needed. For some methods, funding may be 

needed to assist family forest landowners.
21

Fish Passage Option #3: Classifying Fish Use Streams Based 

on Physical Habitat Criteria

Objective:

To provide a more effective and efficient means of classifying streams for “fish use.”

Recommendation:

Twelve of the 13 committee members (RC, BA, DN, BR, GS, WS, SC, MS, PH, GP, PK, LH) 

recommend that the forest practice rules be revised to incorporate a physical habitat approach to 

designating fish use and nonfish use streams. ODF has developed interim classification 

guidelines to designate fish use based upon the physical characteristics of a stream. These 

guidelines were based upon fish presence survey data and could be used to classify streams that 

are “fish use.” The guidelines use either mapped or on-the-ground physical characteristics. The 

current stream classification rules would be amended to establish that fish use streams are any 

streams that meet the habitat criteria. The habitat criteria may need to be modified and improved 

based upon more recent and complete survey data. Key issues that will need to be addressed 

include the acceptable margin of error in applying a habitat model and opportunities for 

landowners to request field verification of actual fish presence. Fish presence survey data, when 

available, will supercede the guidelines in designating fish use. 

This recommendation does not address the level of protection that should be provided to 

different types of streams. Some members supporting this option do not endorse using fish use 

as the main determinant of riparian protection levels. 

Additional information on this option: 

The current water classification scheme is based on the presence or absence of fish. The 

survey process to determine presence/absence is time-consuming, limited to a short season, 

and requires significant funding ($500,000 per biennium, although costs are relatively low 

compared to the resources that may or may not be retained based upon the results). 

ODF funded 22 survey crews in 1998 and 14 in 1999; however budget shortfalls prevented 

the fielding of any crews in 2000.

Fish presence surveys are becoming more restricted due to the listing of fish under the 

federal ESA. 

The surveys also provide useful information to identify barriers to fish passage, identify 

unmapped stream channels, identify restoration opportunities, and create a baseline of fish 

distribution information. However, surveys can produce unreliable results when fish 

populations are depressed or there are other environmental factors such as drought or 

extreme flows.
22

The survey-based approach potentially reduces the amount of fish habitat maintained over 

time. This can occur where salmonid habitat in a given stream reach may not be maintained 

as well as it might under a Type F classification over time because fish were not present at 

the time the fish survey was conducted. 

Data indicate that models used to predict fish use in gentle topography have better predictive 

ability than models applied in steep topography. In either case, a policy choice must be made 

concerning the acceptable predictive ability. A more conservative model (error on the side of 

over-predicting fish habitat) may be acceptable since the rules would also include a process 

to field survey at the initiative of the landowner.

Stream reaches capable of supporting fish above impassible stream crossing structures would 

be classified as Type F under Fish Passage Option #1.

Benefits:

This recommendation will potentially increase the amount of habitat available to salmonids over 

time by requiring the maintenance of riparian management areas in stream reaches that may have 

historically supported salmonid populations. Funds currently used to conduct the surveys can be 

partially allocated to other needs/activities. The recommendation may reduce classification 

problems resulting from survey errors or other survey biases. The recommendation provides an 

option if the listing of fish precludes the use of efficient survey methods (electroshocking).

Costs:

Landowners/Operators: Significant, but highly variable among landowners.

State Government: Insignificant, if existing funding for fish presence surveys 

is maintained and reallocated. Potential reduction in 

harvest and income tax revenues.

Local Governments/Communities: Potential reduction in tax and income tax revenues.

Landowner costs will potentially be increased since additional harvest restrictions will be 

imposed for those stream reaches where there is a stream classification change from nonfish 

bearing to fish habitat. The other values of the surveys such as identifying barriers to fish 

passage, unmapped stream channels, and creating a baseline of fish distribution information will 

be lost. Modeling error could result in either inadequate protection for some fish-use streams or 

unnecessary costs to landowners. 

ODF fielded 14 survey crews in 1999. Budget reductions resulted in Forest Practices Program 

funds not being available for fish presence surveys in 2000.

Resources needed:

Administrative actions and potential rulemaking required.
23

A quantitative cost assessment to identify acreage and timber values impacted by this option is 

needed.

The interim classification guidelines will need to be reviewed and revised to develop predictive 

models for fish use. Agreement will be needed about the acceptable error rate. Classification 

maps will need to be updated. A choice will also need to be made when the classification change 

would occur and whether ODF, ODFW or the landowner will physically survey the stream or 

apply the mapped-based approach. The choice might well be different based upon topography or 

region. Resources to provide for an appropriate level of field and guideline verification are 

necessary.
24

Fish Passage Option #4: Funding Source for Family Forestland Road 

Assessments and Stream Crossing Replacements

Objective:

To identify and restore fish passage on family forestlands.

Recommendation:

Eleven committee members (PK, MS, RC, LH, SC, GP, BA, WS, GS, PH, TH) recommend that 

a funding source be created for family forest landowners or that the state otherwise assist family 

forest landowners in obtaining funds from existing sources to expand the current voluntary road 

assessment effort to family forestland owners. This financial assistance would also be used to 

help family forest landowners replace stream crossings that are not adequately passing fish. Two 

members could not support this option objective unless the incentives applied to all forest 

landowners.

Eight members (RC, LH, PK, SC, BA, BR, GS, WS) support the establishment of a capital 

investment loan program like the Forest Resource Trust that would provide a low cost loan to 

family forest landowners for road and culvert repair that would be repaid at the time of a harvest 

(Method 4). Some members were skeptical that general funds would be available for this 

method and suggested that another source would need to be identified. 

Seven members (PK, RC, LH, MS, SC, GS, BA) support providing a tax credit for culvert 

restoration for the next ten-year period that would provide a credit for replacement of culverts 

that would restore “high” priority habitat (Method 1). One member was concerned that the tax 

credit remain less than 100 percent. Another member questioned whether the tax credit would 

motivate new or different restoration efforts and was concerned that otherwise bad stewards 

could still be rewarded. Two members could not support this option objective unless the 

incentives applied to all forest landowners.

Seven members (RC, SC, GP, MS, BA, GS, WS) also support establishing a combined account 

for culvert replacement utilizing earmarked Ballot Measure 66 funds, ODFW Restoration and 

Enhancement funds, a new fishing license surcharge, public and landowner contributions, and/or 

federal funds (Method 3). The sources and proportions of source funds raised questions and 

concerns by some committee members. Two members could not support this option objective 

unless the incentives applied to all forest landowners.

Five members (SC, BA, RC, GS, WS) support floating a bond issue that would be repaid with 

Ballot Measure 66 funds to provide a specific account for culvert replacement (Method 2). The 

committee members expressed concerns and questions regarding mechanisms for bond 

repayment.
25

Additional information on this option:

This option can be compared with the existing Forest Resource Trust which provides 

financial assistance to forest landowners desiring to reforest underproductive lands through 

long-term, below market rate loans.

Some committee members support a menu of methods be offered to forest landowners.

The proposed methods would need thresholds for high priority habitat to be set based upon 

factors including size of stream, stream gradient, type of habitat restored, and length of 

habitat with restored access. 

For Method 1, the tax credit would sunset in ten years and replacement would then be at the 

cost of the landowner.

The riparian specialists that would be added to ODF staff under the Riparian Functions 

options could help identify needs and implement this option.

IMST recommendation #15 calls for culverts and other structures to be modified to permit 

the passage of juvenile and adult salmonids upstream and downstream at forest road stream 

crossings.

Benefits:

This option would provide a funding mechanism to accelerate culvert replacements on family 

forestlands. Since family forestlands tend to be lower in a basin and are often located along 

larger and lower gradient systems favored by coho salmon, access to substantial overwintering

coho habitat might be restored.

Costs:

Landowners/Operators: Minor.

State Government: Potential increase in workload for the Forestry Assistance 

Program of the Department of Forestry. Funding sources 

or tax credits could reduce funds available for other state 

programs.

Local Governments/Communities: Insignificant.

New funding would be needed and may draw resources away from other higher priority state 

programs. Ideally, the direct costs to family forest landowners would be minor.

Resources needed:

Possibly legislation, funding sources, and a prioritization system.
26

Forest Roads Option #6: Systematic Evaluation and Mitigation of Existing 

Substandard Roads

Objective:

To address existing roads constructed using past practices or methods. Existing roads are to be 

systematically evaluated and mitigated where appropriate for negative impacts or risks to:

1. Waters of the state (turbidity/sedimentation);

2. Passage of juvenile/adult anadromous fish;

3. Downstream passage of habitat elements (wood and gravel).

Recommendation:

The committee reached consensus on the option objective.

The committee recommends that “other land-use” roads should use at least the same Best 

Management Practices (BMPs) as required for forestlands. 

The committee reviewed seven methods to achieve this objective. 

Consensus was reached that the department should create specific road maintenance guidelines 

for high hazard locations, by developing and making available to operators and regulators 

improved guidance (Method 5). 

Consensus was also reached that the department should be given general authority to require 

additional cross drainage installation as a maintenance requirement prior to an operation when 

current road condition and a proposed use will impair water quality (Method 7). 

Other methods were considered which received less than consensus support: 

With funding available and appropriate criteria in place, eight committee members (BR, PK, PH, 

GP, SC, BA, RC, DN) would support the creation of financial incentives, such as a tax credit to 

encourage vacating roads in areas where risk to water quality and aquatic habitat is greatest 

(Method 4). 

Seven members (PK, GP, PH, MS, LH, -- plus RC, SC if voluntary) supported landowners 

completing road inventory and mitigation work within operation areas, and potentially also along 

the haul route at the time of harvest (Methods 1 (operations area) and 2 (haul route)). ODF and 

the operator would review roads within the harvest unit and apply appropriate mitigation. Those 

not supporting these methods expressed concerns that they may not focus on sites which are a 

high priority for improvement. Mitigation would be a function of an operation‟s location instead 

of where the greatest risk to natural resources may be.
27

Seven committee members (PK, GP, MS, LH, PH, -- plus RC, SC only if voluntary) supported 

landowners developing and implementing a maintenance plan by ownership (Method 3). This 

would include a systematic road survey to identify and prioritize road maintenance needs, similar 

to current Oregon Plan Road Hazard and Risk Reduction project. Those not supporting this 

method state that it is already being implemented through the Oregon Plan Road Hazard and 

Risk Reduction Project and that resources used to develop the plan will be diverted from doing 

on-the-ground work.

Five members of the committee (MS, LH, SC, GP, RC) support the prioritization of road 

maintenance and repairs, with those roads that exist on high-risk sites being given a high priority 

(Method 6). Two other members did not support making the high-risk site designation an 

automatic trigger for high priority maintenance and repairs.

Additional information on this option:

This proposal includes a suite of improved practices that would be applied to roads needing 

improvement:

Past Practice Improved Practices

1. Sidecast construction on steep slopes.

2. “High” fills.

3. Stream crossing culverts sized to pass up to a 

25-year storm event.

4. Downstream side of stream crossing fills not 

armored with rip-rap.

5. Fills not designed to allow for overtopping 

by high stream flow.

6. Passage of large wood hindered by stream 

crossings.

7. Passage of gravels hindered by stream 

crossings.

8. Fish passage through culverts may be 

problematic for adults and juveniles.

9. Road cross drain spacing may not meet 

standard spacing criteria:

a. Ditch erosion.

b. Discharge onto steep slopes.

c. Ditch water drains directly into streams.

10. Unneeded roads abandoned “as-is”.

1. Full-bench design, end-haul construction on 

steep slopes.

2. “Low” fills.

3. Steam crossing culverts sized to pass up to a 

50-year storm event.

4. Downstream side of stream crossing fills 

armored with rip-rap.

5. Stream crossing fills designed to allow 

overtopping by streamflow.

6. Facilitate passage of large wood over/through 

stream crossing fills.

7. Facilitate passage of gravel over/through 

stream crossing fills.

8. Adult and juvenile fish passage through 

culverts and maintenance of passage required.

9. Cross drain spacing is such that ditch erosion 

is minimized, drain water not directed onto 

steep slopes, ditch water not directed into 

streams.

10. Unneeded roads stabilized and vacated.

Some forest landowners have implemented a voluntary program under the Oregon Plan to 

inventory roads and mitigate problems, which includes some of the “improved practices” 

identified in this option. Protocols for this process have been developed and priorities for 

mitigation have already been established.

Where necessary, ODF would develop and make available guidance to landowners/operators 

and regulators on methods to achieve the improved practices.

The technology would need to be developed for several of these improved practices; 

however, most are being implemented with current knowledge.
28

This option includes a number of practices that fall under current forest practice rules. 

Administration of the current maintenance rules is often reactive, requiring the Forest 

Practice Forester (FPF) to identify likely problem areas. For example, the department 

currently only has the authority to require additional cross drainage installation as a 

maintenance requirement prior to an operation when current road condition and a proposed 

use will impair water quality. The intent of this option is to shift efforts to a more proactive 

stance. 

Some of the proposed methods could potentially be included as components to a stewardship 

plan (see OAR Chapter 629, Division 606).

ODF and Oregon State University occasionally offer forest road design, construction and 

maintenance training (one such session was held in March 2000).

This option incorporates elements of IMST recommendation #8 (develop and implement 

standards or guidelines that reduce the length of roadside drainage ditches that discharge into 

channels); #9 (implement the standards and guidelines for the length of roadside drainage 

ditch between cross drainage structures, especially on steep-gradient roads), #10 (require the 

flow capacity of cross drainage structures and stream crossing structures and culverts to meet 

current design standards); #11 (provide for the stabilization of roads not constructed to 

current standards in critical locations; and #15 (modify culverts and other structures to permit 

the passage of juvenile and adult salmonids upstream and downstream at forest road-stream

crossings).

Benefits: Actively used road systems will more quickly be brought up to current standards 

where appropriate. Reduced sediment delivery will further limit possible impacts to salmonids 

and changes in channel form.

Methods 1 and 2: Harvest often creates positive cash flow (some harvests may not create 

positive cash flow, such as hardwood conversions and salvage operations) which may make 

funds available for mitigation projects.

Method 3: A more systematic effort can result in more efficient prioritization and mitigation of 

problem sites.

Method 4: Reduced road mileage in sensitive locations.

Method 5: Landowners would have access to the latest road techniques.

Method 6: A more systematic effort results in more efficient prioritization and mitigation of 

problem sites. 

Method 7: Cross drain spacing will be improved on roads where proposed use will impair water 

quality.
29

Costs:

Landowners/Operators: Moderate to high costs for some landowners.

State Government: Increased workload for Forest Practices Foresters. An 

administrative mechanism would need to be developed for 

ODF and Department of Revenue to implement Method 4.

Local Governments/Communities: Insignificant, except as a landowner. 

Methods 1 and 2: Will not address those roads where harvest entry is not planned for some time. 

Timing of mitigation activities may interfere with harvest/haul; some mitigation work limited to 

in-stream work period. Timber owner may not control haul route(s). Revenue from the harvest 

may not cover cost of mitigation. Questions remain as to how much money landowners and 

operators should be asked to spend on mitigation and how to allocate costs when there are 

multiple road users.

Method 4: May result in greater road length on nonsensitive sites as replacement access. 

Difficult to gauge the length and location of road length likely to be vacated. Roads traversing 

mixed ownerships would be problematic.

Method 7: Linking cross drainage installation to an operation may not be an efficient means to 

address improper spacing. Also, the operator may not control the haul route.

Resources needed:

Rulemaking required.

Statutory change for tax credit option needed.

Administrative actions required.

Depending on the specific method(s) chosen, some sort of tracking system will be needed to 

identify road segments where inventory and mitigation is needed and has occurred. 

Statutory changes would be needed if the intent is to accomplish the objective of this option on 

other land use roads or on historic roads not currently subject to Forest Practices Act regulation.
30

Forest Roads Option #7: Cross Drainage Structures on New Roads

Objective:

To minimize the risk of sediment delivery to streams by ensuring that adequate cross drainage 

design and construction occurs on new roads. 

Recommendation:

The committee reached a consensus that cross drainage structures on new roads should be 

installed so that the risk of sediment delivery to waters of the state from new roads is minimized. 

The committee reached a consensus that, while this is the current standard, the department 

should provide better guidance and training for achievement of the rules (Method 2). Current 

rules provide authority for installation and maintenance of road cross drains. Training and 

improved guidance would be developed and implemented for operators/landowners and 

regulators that would emphasize the need for adequate spacing and the proper installation of road 

cross drains. 

The committee reached a consensus that the forest practice rules should be revised to better 

clarify the objectives for cross drainage (Method 3). For example, the rules might state that the 

objectives are to ensure that cross drains are installed in adequate numbers and in proper 

locations so that:

1. Road surfaces are protected from erosion and retaining water;

2. Erosion of the roadside ditch is minimized;

3. Ditch water is not discharged onto unstable slopes; and

4. The amount of ditch water (and associated sediment) discharging directly into a stream is 

minimized.

Six (GS, SC, PK, MS, RC, BA) committee members agreed that it is prudent to make changes to 

existing rules so that they include specific criteria for installation and spacing of cross drainage 

structures (Method 1). This would include the maximum culvert spacing by road grade and 

maximum distance to cross drains above stream crossings. Both cases would include appropriate 

alternatives for steep fills and high risk sites. Other members stated that it would be difficult to 

develop universal criteria given the high variability in site conditions. Method 3 also deals with 

this issue.
31

Additional information on this option: 

Other existing road issues are included under Forest Roads Option #6. Cross drains should 

not be confused with stream crossing culverts. Cross drains take water from the inboard side 

of the road and route it under/across the road and discharge the water downslope from the 

road.

Recent ODF monitoring studies have found that many existing roads have drainage systems 

that are not designed to filter sediment. A secondary finding (less commonly associated with 

sediment delivery to streams) was that steep roads often have inadequate spacing of cross 

drainage structures (excessive distance between cross drains).

Current rules are objective based and do not include specific cross drainage spacing criteria. 

Training and improved guidance could be developed and implemented for operators/ 

landowners and regulators that would emphasize the need for adequate spacing and 

installation of road cross drains.

For additional information, see Option 19.

The number of factors that influence proper cross drainage spacing (including but not limited 

to: soil properties, slope steepness, road grade, rainfall characteristics and proximity to 

streams) make it very difficult to put a science-based criteria in rule form.

Current rules could be modified to help operators install culverts to more efficiently keep 

sediment out of streams.

IMST recommendation #8 calls for the department to develop and implement standards or 

guidelines that reduce the length of roadside drainage ditches that discharge into channels.

IMST recommendation #9 calls for the department to implement the standards and 

guidelines for the length of roadside drainage ditch between cross drainage structures, 

especially on steep-gradient roads.

Benefits:

It is possible to further reduce delivery of sediment to streams through improved cross drainage 

practices. These practices will also better protect the landowners‟ investment in their road 

system. 

Training under Method 2 will help improve application of sound road drainage practices.

Application of Method 3 will reduce sediment delivery from newly constructed roads.
32

Costs:

Method 1:

Landowners/Operators: Minor, possibly moderate increase in costs associated with 

some additional installations of cross drains. Each new 

culvert installation costs about $500. Other cross drains 

(dips and cross ditches) may cost less than $50 each. 

Currently, as part of the Road Hazard and Risk Reduction

project, many landowners are voluntarily adding additional 

culverts.

State Government: Minor, for rule revisions, training and administration.

Local Governments/Communities: Insignificant, unless these practices are applied to all land 

uses, where the cost would be significant.

Method 2:

Landowners/Operators: Insignificant costs associated with employees attending 

training.

State Government: Minor costs to develop and administer training; some 

reallocation of resources away from rule administration.

Local Governments/Communities: Insignificant costs associated with employees attending 

training.

Method 3:

Landowners/Operators: Minor costs associated with some increased use of cross 

drainage culverts and other structures, and additional onthe-ground design work to more precisely locate new cross 

drains.

State Government: Minor costs to develop rules and training, and for rule 

administration.

Local Governments/Communities: Insignificant, unless required to use these practices on local 

government managed roads where costs would be 

significant.

Resources needed: 

Minor reallocation of existing staff resources for training.

Additional resources may be needed to implement rule making. 
33

Forest Roads Option #8: Conditions for Wet Weather Hauling

Objective:

To address roads that are at risk of sediment delivery to streams due to hauling operations 

conducted during periods of significant precipitation.

Recommendation:

The committee reached a consensus that the rules should be modified to more specifically 

address wet-weather hauling. This would include development of two criteria, probably in rule 

form, to:

1. Address road use in wet weather to ensure that durable surfacing or other effective methods 

are used on road segments that can deliver sediment to streams; and 

2. Require operators to cease heavy truck traffic on roads when the road surface is “breaking 

down” (only for segments that are delivering sediment to streams). Breaking down would 

be defined by both depth of ruts and by depth of muddy, fine sediment on the road.

Additional information on this option: 

During periods of significant precipitation, road surfaces that are not constructed with 

adequate surface materials and spacing of drainage structures are a potential source of fine 

sediment delivery by allowing sediment-laden waters to enter stream channels directly. 

Hauling operations conducted on roads with poor drainage can further increase the risk of 

sediment delivery.

One area not directly addressed by the Forest Practice rules is sediment problems related to 

road use. Increased turbidity can be associated with the use of roads during rainy or thawing 

periods. Currently, within the guidance for the road maintenance rules, operators are directed 

to stop hauling when FPFs observe high levels of turbidity entering streams. However, there 

are currently no rules that address the specific level of turbidity that is considered acceptable 

during wet season hauling.

The committee stated that BMPs for road use should be extended to other land uses.

IMST recommendation #12 calls for the forest practice rules to be changed to require 

durable surfacing on wet-season haul roads and that operators be required to cease hauling 

before surfaces become soft or “pump” sediment to the surface.

Benefits:

There is the potential to further reduce delivery of sediment to streams through improved road 

surface management practices. These practices will also better protect the landowners' 

investment in their road system. 
34

Costs:

Landowners/Operators: Moderate to significant increase in costs associated with 

expense of additional surfacing, and in some cases 

temporary loss of ability to haul timber. The cost of 

additional surfacing is expected to vary from $100 to 

$2,500 per each stream crossing, depending on the region 

and length of road that drains to that crossing. The value of 

temporary loss of road use is very difficult to quantify. The 

number of crossings affected depends on the planned wet 

season uses of roads.

State Government: Moderate, for rule revisions, training, and administration of 

new rules.

Local Governments/Communities: Insignificant, unless they are required to use similar 

practices as forest landowners. In that case, costs would be 

significant. 

Resources needed: 

Requires rulemaking.
35

Forest Roads Option #10: Developing Decision Criteria for Evaluating 

Proposed Road Construction or Reconstruction in Sensitive Sites.

Objective:

To reduce the potential of sediment delivery or other undesirable effects to streams from new 

roads located where there is a high risk of landslides, surface erosion, or of direct physical 

alteration to streams, riparian areas, lakes, or wetlands.

Recommendation:

The committee reached a consensus that the department should develop clear decision-making 

criteria for evaluating proposed road locations in areas where there is a high risk of landslides, 

surface erosion, or of direct physical alteration to streams, riparian areas, lakes, or wetlands. The 

criteria should identify preferred locations and construction practices that will result in roads 

being constructed in a manner producing the lowest overall impact to water quality and fish 

habitat while allowing the landowners to achieve their management objectives (Method 5). The 

criteria should also direct the Department of Forestry not to approve road construction or 

reconstruction in the sensitive areas described above, if viable alternatives exist. 

Five committee members (GP, PK, SC, PH, MS) support that, in areas where roads constructed 

using current BMPs are likely to degrade water quality, the creation by the department of 

additional restrictions on the locations of new roads in riparian management areas, high risk 

sites, unstable slopes, flood plains, wetlands, and side channels (Method 3). Other members did 

not support this method and requested clarification on what “likely to degrade water quality” 

means. They believe that new roads constructed under current best management practices, 

combined with the consensus agreements to increase the requirements for cross drainage, stream 

crossings, wet weather hauling, etc., are very unlikely to degrade water quality.

Four committee members (GP, PK, MS, LH) recommend the forest practice rules be modified to 

prohibit construction of roads on high risk sites (Method 4). Other members opposed this

method.

Four committee members (GP, PK, SC, MS) recommend the forest practice rules be modified to 

ensure roads constructed across high risk sites are constructed with no fill and also with „failsafe‟ drainage systems (Method 1). Other members pointed out this outcome is already required, 

where feasible. 

Three committee members (GP, PK, SC ) recommend the forest practice rules be modified to 

require that written plans for road construction and timber harvesting operations on landslideprone locations be prepared by a geoscience professional (Method 2). Other members opposed 

this method due to the added cost to landowners and because the need for geoscience 

professional involvement could not be justified in every situation. They also pointed out that the 

geoscience professional may not always have forest road construction or harvesting experience. 
36

Additional information on this option:

Roads that are built on some steep slopes above streams or that directly fill or excavate in 

streams, floodplains, lakes or wetlands can have much greater impacts on water quality and 

aquatic resources than roads elsewhere across the landscape. If these roads are constructed, 

action should be taken to minimize or eliminate the risks they pose to aquatic resources to the 

maximum extent practicable. 

More discussion is needed on the appropriate definition of a “high risk site”.

Current rules require that operators shall “avoid locating roads on steep slopes, slide areas, 

high risk sites, and in wetlands, riparian management areas, channels or floodplains where 

viable alternatives exist.” Prior approval of the State Forester is required before roads can be 

constructed or reconstructed in such locations.

There are cases where roads should not be constructed. The current rule language allows 

ODF to require written plans and to not approve construction or reconstruction when the risk 

of such action is too great. However, the application of the current rule language requires a 

conservative interpretation to ensure that the desired level of resource protection is 

consistently achieved. 

It is not clear to some on the committee what the basis for decision-making is under current 

rules. However, the field site visited by committee members in eastern Oregon where ODF 

did not approve proposed road reconstruction represents the type of decision-making 

supported by the committee members to present on the tour.

It was determined that Methods 1 to 4 could be implemented under current rules, but the 

department lacked a decision-making criteria to evaluate these and other possible methods. 

Therefore, the committee developed and endorsed Method 5, which could incorporate 

Methods 1 through 4 into a menu of administrative options.

The committee expressed consensus support for ODF‟s current conservative interpretation of 

existing rules, as demonstrated on the eastern Oregon tour. 

Some committee members believe the current system under the forest practice rules is 

working and that it is not possible to develop clear and specific criteria for variable field 

situations that defy standard solutions. Any option chosen should not reduce the incentive 

for FPFs to seek “win-win” solutions with operators. Also, the concept of “sensitive areas” 

is not well defined. They believe the risk to resources is primarily from older roads, not new 

construction, and that topic is covered by other options.

IMST recommendation #7 calls for the forest practice rules to be changed to eliminate 

language that equivocates on resource protection in favor of forest operations. 

Recommendation #14 calls for continued application of best management practices on high 

risk slopes.
37

Benefits:

This option will reduce the risk of major impacts to streams and water quality. This proposal is 

likely to result in the “removal” over time of high impact (especially draw bottom) roads that 

might otherwise be proposed for reconstruction where alternatives exist.

Costs:

Landowners/Operators: Significant, potentially high for some landowners, as 

compared to current practices. Road construction and 

timber harvesting costs will be increased in some steep 

slope areas. Compared to Methods 1 through 4, Method 5 

may provide more flexibility to address site-specific 

situations, perhaps resulting in lower cost solutions. Longterm costs may be reduced by vacating creek bottom roads 

that require “reconstruction” to maintain their use. Based 

on past experience, these situations will be relatively 

uncommon. Costs could be reduced and progress enhanced 

by providing some grants to assist in vacating some roads. 

Costs could be reduced by developing equitable procedures 

for the use of roads on other ownerships, particularly 

federal lands (See Option #16).

State Government: Insignificant.

Local Governments/Communities: Insignificant, except as a landowner.

Resources needed:

Administrative resources are needed. Rulemaking may be needed to formalize decision-making 

criteria.

The resources needed depend upon how the criteria will be applied in approving or disapproving 

roads. The focus of the rules will be to require that “roads are located or reconstructed in the 

location with the lowest overall impact to water quality and fish habitat while meeting land 

management objectives.” These criteria will most likely require additional oversight and review 

by ODF, and/or professional design by the landowner. While these situations are relatively 

uncommon, they can require substantial ODF and landowner resources on a case-by-case basis.
38

Forest Roads Option #12: Stream Crossings that Pass Large 

Wood and Gravel

Objective: 

To provide or develop means for the movement of large wood and sediment downstream at those 

crossings which may otherwise restrict movement. The transport mechanisms for large wood 

and sediments may be either stream storm flows or channelized debris flows.

Recommendation:

Twelve of the committee members (RC, BR, DN, PK, MS, GS, BA, TH, PH, GP, LH, WS) 

supported this objective.

A committee member not supporting this objective expressed concern for downstream impacts of 

large wood and sediment on public and private property and infrastructure.

Additional information on this option:

This option proposes to develop a broader range of engineering designs for stream crossing 

structures that will improve passage of large wood and sediment, both during high flows and 

for debris flow-prone channels.

Increased use of fords may improve passage of large wood and sediment compared to 

culverts and bridges.

A program to move sediment and large wood from the upstream sides of crossings to the 

downstream sides using machinery might be beneficial. This could be done as a part of 

routine road maintenance on culverts and bridges as an alternative to removing the material 

from the stream system. 

This option relates to a topic also referenced by IMST recommendation #19 which requests 

the Oregon Forest Research Laboratory, in collaboration with ODFW, to develop forest road 

stream crossing strategies that facilitate the passage of large wood at road stream crossings.

Benefits:

Crossings designed to allow for large wood and sediment passage, as well as machine-assisted 

movement of material, would reduce the influence of roads and road fills on the delivery of 

sediment and large wood to fish bearing streams, helping restore the natural disturbance regime 

that has maintained salmonid habitat in the past.
39

Costs:

Landowners/Operators: Moderate to high, depending upon the nature of the 

structure or amount of wood and sediment which may 

require removal.

State Government: Potentially significant increase in workload for forest 

practices foresters.

Local Governments/Communities: Low. Potential increase in large wood reaching developed 

areas downstream.

The practices needed to achieve this objective are largely undeveloped and untested.

Resources needed:

Rulemaking required.

Administrative actions required.

ODF, other agencies, and landowner representatives will need to collaborate on stream crossing 

designs and other techniques appropriate for passage of large wood and sediment. Technical, 

administrative and legal barriers should be discussed and removed if they are interfering with the 

achievement of this objective.
40

Forest Roads Option #16: Develop Policies and Incentives for Cooperative 

Forest Road System Planning

Objective:

To encourage cooperative forest road system planning, design and use between different 

landowners in order to minimize the duplication and construction of unnecessary forest roads.

Recommendation:

The committee reached a consensus that improved cooperative road system planning and use is 

especially needed between federal and private forest landowners.

Seven of the 13 committee members (PH, GP, MS, PK, LH, BA, RC) recommend that the Board 

of Forestry and ODF develop more proactive policies and incentives to encourage cooperative 

forest road system planning, design and use between different landowners in order to minimize 

the duplication and construction of unnecessary forest roads. 

Stronger consensus was not reached because some committee members believed the 

recommendation was unnecessary, it would be difficult to compel private landowners to 

cooperate, or because they believed the recommendation should be solely focused on federal 

road use issues. The committee did not agree on a regulatory approach to cooperative road 

planning and use. More study is needed to clarify any legal obstacles that could limit a 

regulatory approach.

Additional information on this option: 

Forestland in Oregon is often in a checkerboard or fragmented pattern of mixed ownership. 

There are situations where a landowner may have the opportunity to access his/her property 

using another landowner‟s road system and thereby reduce the length of new road that must 

be built for an operation. 

Currently a number of disincentives exist, especially for federal lands, which prevent private 

landowners from using road systems on another ownership. Sometimes this results in the 

duplication of road systems and parallel roads being built on opposite sides of property lines. 

When these duplicate roads are built in high risk areas, it can increase the risk of sediment 

delivery and other adverse effects to streams. 

The recommendation of a majority of committee members is to request that the Board of 

Forestry and ODF be more proactive in their efforts to minimize the construction of 

unnecessary forest roads that are built due to existing disincentives for cooperative road 

system planning, design, and use.
41

Specific approaches that should be considered include, but are not limited to:

1. Working through administrative and Congressional channels to remove federal 

disincentives to cooperative federal/private road planning and use;

2. Encouraging the evaluation of existing road systems on the landscape during watershed 

assessments, with attention focused on opportunities to reduce or prevent duplicative 

roads;

3. Prior to the construction of new roads, alerting landowners to opportunities to use 

existing multi-landowner road systems that are more efficient and protective of forest 

resources; and 

4. Recognizing and highlighting examples of successful cooperative road planning and use. 

Incentives will likely be needed to improve private cooperative road system planning and 

use. Many landowners have already established such agreements. However, development of 

new agreements with the federal agencies appears to be problematic. It appears that the 

current system rewards federal agencies for not cooperating with private landowners. 

In other cases, neighboring private landowners (sometimes, but not always, those who are 

using their lands for other purposes) may set unreasonable conditions on road use. Costs 

may be so inflated that it is far less costly for the affected landowner to construct a new road, 

even when new road construction is expensive (over $100,000 per mile of road). 

IMST recommendation #2 calls for ODF to develop a policy framework to encompass 

landscape (large watershed) level planning and operations on forests within the range of wild 

salmonids in Oregon. 

Benefits:

There is the potential to reduce the length of new roads built and decrease the risk of sediment 

delivery to streams where this recommendation prevents unnecessary roads from being built in 

high risk areas. Landowners will also reduce operational costs if they do not have to build and

maintain additional unnecessary roads.

Costs:

Landowners/Operators: Insignificant costs associated with cooperative planning 

that is already occurring. The cost of additional incentives 

is unknown.

State Government: Insignificant costs associated with cooperative planning 

that is already occurring. The cost of additional incentives 

is unknown.

Local Governments/Communities: Insignificant costs associated with cooperative planning 

that is already occurring. The cost of additional incentives 

is unknown.
42

Private property rights are likely to be a barrier to compelling some landowners to make their 

roads available to others through regulation. State government has limited influence on federal 

policies that act as a disincentive to cooperative road system planning, design and use between 

federal and private land managers. 

Resources needed: 

At this time, no additional resources have been identified as being needed to implement this 

recommendation.
43

Forest Roads Option #18: Road BMP Compliance 

and Effectiveness Monitoring

Objective: 

Evaluate the need for further road compliance and effectiveness monitoring, and implement 

monitoring as necessary. 

Recommendation:

The committee reached a consensus that future forest road best management practice compliance 

and effectiveness monitoring should be implemented within the context of the Forest Practices 

Program‟s strategic monitoring plan and prioritized in context with available monitoring 

resources and other monitoring needs.

Additional information on this option: 

Road monitoring activities that have been completed include: landslides (in Robison and 

others, 1999) and road surface drainage (ODF, 1996). Currently, ODF has no monitoring 

information on turbidity associated with winter hauling or on-the-ground verification of 

voluntary road hazard and risk reduction project repairs. The need for monitoring under the 

road hazard and risk reduction project is included in the Oregon Plan for Salmon and 

Watersheds. However, there are currently no specific plans or funding to implement this 

monitoring. The fact that the advisory committee was asked to develop policy 

recommendations on these topics without monitoring data in hand demonstrates a disconnect 

that currently exists between policy processes and monitoring processes. 

Currently, as part of the Best Management Practices (BMP) Compliance Audit Project, ODF 

is monitoring compliance with the road construction and maintenance rules along with a 

large number of other harvesting and water protection rules. This project is a two-year effort 

to provide a systematic, random "audit" of forest practice rule compliance. 

ODF will assess the need to continue and expand on this project based on the study results 

and through a review process that involves key stakeholders. The BMP pilot study has 

already identified a need to more specifically monitor BMP effectiveness during rainy-season 

hauling. The current project is not gathering information on sediment associated with wet 

weather use of roads.

Currently available information indicates that roads are the single greatest chronic source of 

fine sediment delivery to stream systems associated with forest practices. However, 

currently available information also confirms that when properly implemented, forestry 

BMPs are effective at reducing delivery of sediment to the waters of the state. 

Instream measures of water quality are an integration of everything upslope. Consequently, 

instream measurements can be a diluted or exaggerated version of what is occurring higher 

up in the channel network or on adjacent slopes. It is usually easier to accurately identify a 

road drainage-related sediment source and to quantify the volume of sediment it produced 
44

than it is to measure sediment in the stream and work backwards to the source. In this 

context, road-related water quality protection compliance monitoring may reveal more useful 

information than water quality protection effectiveness monitoring. 

Benefits: 

The BMP Compliance Audit Project will provide ODF with the most current information on 

compliance and effectiveness of the construction and maintenance rules over time. The results 

of this project will be used to determine if an expanded, or perhaps a more focused, compliance 

and effectiveness monitoring of forest road BMPs is needed and whether such work should be a 

high priority in future monitoring strategic plans. 

Costs: 

Landowners/Operators: Insignificant, limited to a potential increase in harvest taxes 

to fund expanded monitoring.

State Government: Significant, if monitoring program is further expanded.

Local Governments/Communities: Insignificant.

Any further increased emphasis on, and ODF commitment to, long-term road rule compliance 

and effectiveness monitoring will use limited program resources that could address other high 

priority monitoring objectives. These objectives change over time in response to new policy 

processes. 

Resources needed: 

Administrative actions and long-term budgetary commitment required.

Additional resources would be needed for ODF to prioritize and maintain a long-term monitoring 

effort devoted specifically to road issues. However, should the monitoring effort be considered 

within the current monitoring strategy and prioritized accordingly, no additional resources would 

be needed.
45

Forest Roads Option #19: Road Construction and Maintenance Education

Objective:

Provide continuing education for landowners and operators specific to the road construction 

and maintenance rules.

Recommendation:

The committee reached a consensus that additional training on forest road construction and 

maintenance should be provided for landowners and operators. 

Additional information on this option: 

ODF and OSU organized a “Road Stewardship Workshop” held on March 7 and 8, 2000.

A Forest Road Management Guidebook is complete. This guidebook helps landowners 

determine what repairs are needed on older roads.

Engineers working for private forest landowners and ODF have collaboratively provided 

several training sessions for operators over the last two years.

Many ODF districts have provided road maintenance training for operators over the last two 

years.

Benefits:

Training is an essential element of a BMP program. Operators cannot effectively protect streams 

and fish habitat without the appropriate knowledge, skills and abilities. 

Costs:

Landowners/Operators: Minor costs associated with employees helping develop 

and attend training.

State Government: Minor costs to develop and administer training, some 

reallocation of resources away from rule administration.

Local Government: Insignificant costs associated with employees attending 

training.

Resources needed: 

Funds and personnel needed to develop and implement training.
46

Forest Roads Option #57: Steep Slope Ground Skidding

Objective:

To reduce the potential of sediment delivery or other undesirable effects to streams from skid 

roads constructed on steep slopes.

Recommendation:

The committee reached a consensus that the forest practice rules should be changed to require 

prior approval for ground-based harvesting on steep slopes where there is a significant risk of 

sediment delivery to streams. 

Additional information on this option: 

Skid roads or trails are used by tracked or wheeled skidding machines to move logs from the 

stump to the landing. They can be constructed and used at much steeper grades than roads 

used for trucks.

A prior approval requirement for ground skidding in high erosion hazard locations could 

reduce the risk of sediment delivery to waters of the state. It will also help operators to better 

plan operations in these locations and to modify operations where risk of sediment delivery is 

greatest. In some cases, planning activity may reduce operational costs.

In very limited cases, operators will need to use cable yarding instead of ground-based 

harvesting systems.

A technical process is needed to develop specific criteria.

Benefits: 

This option will reduce the risk of sediment delivery to waters of the state. It will also help 

operators to better plan operations in these locations and to modify operations where risk of 

sediment delivery is greatest. In some cases, planning activity may reduce operational costs.

Costs:

Landowners/Operators: Minor in northwest Oregon; moderate in parts of southwest 

Oregon and northeastern Oregon (where ground skidding 

on steep slopes is not uncommon). In limited cases, the 

additional planning could reduce operating costs, but in 

other cases the cost of changing from a ground-based to a 

cable yarding system could be as much as a $50 per 

thousand board foot cost.

State Government: Minor, for rule revisions, training and administration.

Local Governments/Communities: Insignificant, although there may be isolated cases where 

these changes cause a landowner to delay timber harvesting. 

Resources needed: 

Rulemaking is required.
47

Forest Roads Option #59: Voluntary Road Closure Program

Objective:

To create a road closure program that forest landowners, the Department of Forestry, and local 

law enforcement would use to limit vehicle access onto sensitive road systems that have a high 

risk of delivering sediment to streams or that can directly impact aquatic habitat.

Recommendation:

The committee reached a consensus that a road closure program should be developed that forest 

landowners, the Department of Forestry, and local law enforcement can use to limit public access 

onto sensitive road systems that have a high risk of delivering sediment to streams or that can 

directly impact aquatic habitat. 

Additional information on this option:

Legacy roads, roads built on steep slopes and unstable soils, or unsurfaced roads that have 

the potential to deliver sediment to streams should be closed to public vehicle traffic during 

the rainy months. 

Currently, ORS 164.270 allows a landowner to close roads to motor-propelled vehicles. This 

statute is under the criminal trespass laws and it is not clear what the attached penalty is, but 

enforcement requires a complaint by the landowner through the local district attorney. 

Enforcement is difficult under the trespass laws.

Under the proposed approach, landowners would close roads to vehicles for the purposes of 

protecting water quality. 

Identifying candidate roads could be done with ODF and ODFW input. Road closure signs

would be posted to indicate what type of public access is allowed (e.g., foot traffic but no 

motorized vehicles). User groups, such as motorcycle or off-road clubs, would be informed. 

Agreements for enforcement with local sheriffs or state police would be needed and trespass 

citations and procedures would need to be clarified. It is envisioned that violating a road 

closure would be a misdemeanor offense, subject to uniform citation and civil penalty, and 

enforceable by local sheriffs, the state police, or possibly ODF.

Assessed civil penalties would be deposited to the “Forest Incentive Fund” (also see Forest 

Roads Option #58). This fund could provide money for gates and posters, plus repairs 

caused by persons trespassing on closed roads.

There may be a linkage between this option and Option #16: Cooperative Forest Road 

System Planning.

Emphasis is also needed for public outreach and education on the importance of “treading 

lightly” when recreating on forestlands.

This option has the potential to greatly reduce public recreation access during the rainy 

season. Compounded by increasing closures to vehicles on federal lands, this option could 

particularly restrict big game hunting is some areas and concentrate it elsewhere.
48

The committee requested further clarification and development of this option. 

Oregon recently began offering “Oregon Ag” license plates. The plates were designed by the 

Oregon Agricultural Education Foundation, which sponsors and supports community 

agriculture, forestry, and natural resource education and research projects. The plates cost 

ten dollars more than regular plates, with a portion of the proceeds supporting the 

foundation‟s work. Several committee members supported the development of a similar 

program specific to forestry, with proceeds going to the “Forest Incentive Fund.” 

This option indirectly addresses IMST recommendation #12 which, in part, calls for 

operators to be required to cease hauling before surfaces become soft or “pump” sediment to 

the surface.

Benefits:

This option would reduce the impact of unauthorized vehicle damage done to roads. Such 

damage can result in significant sediment delivery to streams. Road maintenance costs for 

landowners may also be reduced if this option is implemented.

Costs:

Landowners/Operators: Insignificant.

State Government: Potential administration and enforcement costs to state 

agencies. There would be a cost of establishing the road 

closure program and allocating the incentive funds to repair 

damage.

Local Governments/Communities: Insignificant.

Resources needed:

Agency administrative support. Potential rule or statute changes to set up road closure program 

and Forest Incentive Fund. Enforcement actions require resources. Moving this issue out from 

“trespass law” to a uniform citation with a civil penalty would make enforcement much easier. 

If ODF was to enforce this option, additional resources might be needed, particularly in the civil 

penalty section.
49

Landslides Option #45: Identifying High Risk Sites

Objective:

To ensure that all landslide prone locations (now called “high risk sites”) are identified prior to 

timber harvest operations.

Recommendation:

The committee reached consensus on the objective.

The committee also reached consensus that a combination of Methods 1 and 2 should be used to 

achieve the objective. During the notification process, the department should inform the 

operator of the likely presence of high risk sites in the operation area, based on coarse screen 

maps (Method 1). The operator would then be expected to more specifically locate sites within 

the operation area by field reconnaissance (Method 2). There is also the expectation that “large” 

areas of high risk sites (which happen to not be in the mapped areas) will also be identified by 

the operator. 

Five committee members (PK, GL, RC, SC, MS) supported a proposed method that would 

require identification of high risk sites by a geoscientist employed by the operator (Method 3). 

Four members expressed opposition to this method, citing the high cost of hiring a consultant 

and pointing out the IMST report supports current approaches.

Additional information on this option:

The current rules require that forest practices foresters inform the operator of the presence of 

high risk sites (HRS).

Agreement will be needed on the technical basis for the creation of the coarse screen maps 

under Method 1. 

This option is intended to create additional tools to ensure that HRS are identified prior to 

operations. The committee‟s intent is to focus this option on timber harvest operations. The 

forest practice rules already address road locations involving high risk sites.

HRS identification will be a function of operator competency and diligence in locating such 

sites. By way of analogy, ODF already expects operators to properly notify about the 

presence or absence of Type F streams and apply appropriate practices, regardless of whether 

ODF has identified the stream as fish bearing or not.

IMST recommendation #13 (tree retention on high risk slopes) and recommendation #14

(continue to apply BMPs on landslide prone slopes) are recommendations which apply to 

high risk sites. They do not specifically address site identification; however, proper site 

identification is implicit for the recommendations to be effective.
50

Benefits:

Combined Methods 1 and 2 provide a simple, fairly conservative screen for HRS.

Method 3 may provide a more thorough identification of high hazard locations and risk 

characterization and may result in a more targeted application of harvesting practices 

commensurate with the downslope risk to resources.

Costs:

Landowners/Operators: Moderate for combined Methods 1 and 2. Method 3 is 

higher and would typically cost landowners or operators 

about $500 to $1500/ harvest unit for a geoscientist field 

reconnaissance and report. Costs could be higher 

depending on the complexity of the site.

State Government: Moderate for combined Methods 1, 2, and 3.

Local Governments/Communities: Insignificant; however, identification of high risk sites will 

require local governments to take actions to prevent future 

downslope development.

Resources needed: 

Rulemaking will be needed to clarify agency and landowner/operator responsibilities and HRS 

identification criteria. ODF will be required to create and maintain a high risk map or database, 

notify operators based on screening for high risk sites, review reports on high risk sites, whether 

done by foresters or geoscientists, and monitor compliance and results.
51

Landslides Option #46: Identifying Debris Flow Risk for Streams

Objective: 

Identify stream channels which are prone to debris flows and torrents. Identifying those 

channels which are capable of transporting large wood to Type F streams could make it possible 

to focus riparian prescriptions on those streams where greater benefit to aquatic habitats are 

likely.

Recommendation: 

Consensus was reached that the department should identify stream channels which are prone to 

debris flows and torrents. Identifying those channels which are capable of transporting large 

wood to Type F streams could make it possible to focus riparian prescriptions on those streams 

where greater benefit to aquatic habitats are likely.

The committee reached consensus that the department should inform the operator during the 

notification process of the likely presence of debris flow-prone channels, based on coarse screen 

maps. The operator would then be expected to more specifically locate debris flow-prone 

channels by field reconnaissance. ODF would provide specific criteria to be used in field 

identification (Method 1).

Six committee members (PK, SC, LH, GP, MS, RC) recommended that debris flow-prone 

channels be identified by a geoscientist employed by the operator (Method 3). Those opposed 

cited the high cost of hiring a consultant.

Five committee members (PK, SC, LH, GP, MS) supported the operator identifying the presence 

of debris flow-prone channels using criteria in rule form (Method 2). The operator would notify 

the department of the presence of such channels during the notification process, using the 

identification criteria as stated in rule form. Method 2 differs from Method 1 in that ODF would 

not provide information to the operator based on coarse screen maps. Several other members 

would apparently support this method if further clarifications/qualifications were made part of 

the option and method. One member again questioned the need for identifying debris flow-prone 

channels.

Committee recommendations on riparian functions options may also relate to this option.

Additional information on this option:

Currently, the rules do not explicitly require identification or treatment of debris flow-prone 

channels (DFPC) for the purposes of providing large wood to Type F streams.

This option is directly related to components of the Subcommittee Riparian Option.
52

IMST recommendation #13 calls for the retention of trees in likely debris torrent tracks to 

increase the likelihood of large wood transport to streams from debris torrents. Inherent in 

this recommendation is the need to identify potential debris torrent track channels.

Benefits:

Method 1 provides a simple, fairly conservative screen for debris flow-prone channels (DFPC).

Since the operator is entirely responsible for DFPC identification under Method 2, this method 

lessens the “up-front” agency workload.

Of all three methods, Method 3 may provide the most thorough identification of DFPCs.

Costs:

Landowners/Operators: Moderate for Methods 1 and 3. Method 3 would typically 

cost landowners or operators about $500 to $1500/harvest 

unit for a geoscientist field reconnaissance and report. 

Costs could be much higher depending on the complexity 

of the site.

State Government: Moderate for Methods 1, 2, and 3.

Local Governments/Communities: Insignificant; however, identification of debris flow-prone 

channel sites will require local governments to take actions 

to prevent future downslope development.

DFPC identification will be a function of operator competency and diligence in locating such 

sites. By way of analogy, ODF currently expects operators to properly notify about the presence 

or absence of Type F streams and apply appropriate practices, regardless of whether ODF has 

identified the stream as fish bearing or not.

Resources needed: 

Rulemaking to clarify responsibilities and DFPC identification criteria.
53

Landslides Option #47: Management of High-Risk Sites

Objective:

To minimize adverse impacts on soil and water resources that result from management practices 

on high risk sites.

Recommendation:

Consensus was not reached on the objective wording, but the committee did reach a consensus 

that locations most prone to landslides (now called “high risk sites”) should be managed with 

techniques that minimize impacts to soil and water resources. 

The committee also reached consensus that to achieve this objective, the best management 

practices that are currently used in guidance to protect high risk sites should be incorporated into 

the forest practice rules (Method 1) and a better case history basis for evaluating the 

effectiveness of those practices should be developed (Method 6). These standard practices are 

designed to minimize ground alteration/disturbance on high risk sites from logging practices. 

The IMST recommendation suggests additional case history evaluation of practices used on high 

risk sites, but it is unclear how such a case study approach would be developed. 

Five committee members (GP, LH, PK, MS, SC) agreed that it is prudent to base practices on a 

written plan prepared by a geoscience professional (Method 2). The other members felt that the 

cost for this method was greater than the benefit, especially since most geoscientists have a 

limited understanding of specific forest practices. 

The same five committee members supported leaving trees on high risk sites that may influence 

slope stability (Method 3). 

Limiting the percent of high risk sites in young age classes on a watershed level, by ownership, 

(Method 4) was also supported by five committee members. 

Method 5, a harvest prohibition on some or all high risk sites, was supported by four members. 

The members that did not support Methods 3, 4 and 5 expressed concern about the high potential 

cost of these measures, given that the effect of timber harvesting on landslides may be primarily 

limited to changing the timing of landslide occurrence.

Committee recommendations on riparian functions options may also relate to this option.

Additional information on this option:

Current rules require specific harvesting practices be employed on high risk sites. These 

practices are designed primarily to limit ground disturbance so that the landslide risk will not 

be increased. 
54

The rules and/or guidance do not require merchantable trees to be left on the site to possibly 

play a role in stabilizing the slope either through mechanical (root reinforcement) or 

hydrological (water routing) mechanisms.

Timber harvesting can affect landslide occurrence in areas with high landslide risk. Higher 

landslide densities and erosion volumes were found in stands that had been harvested in the 

previous nine years, as compared to forests older than one hundred years, in three out of four 

ODF storm monitoring study areas. Forested areas between the ages of 10 and 100 years 

typically had lower landslide densities and erosion volumes than found in the mature forest 

stands.

In the locations adjacent to landslides surveyed in the ODF storm monitoring study, 

landowners and loggers complied with the forest practice harvesting rules (as changed in 

1983) to minimize ground disturbance and slash accumulations on landslide prone sites.

Any disturbance that removes vegetation on steep, landslide prone locations may result in a 

temporary increase in landslide occurrence. Both the length of time these locations 

experience periods of reduced forest cover and the extent of lands with reduced vegetative 

cover can affect landslide density and erosion rate. 

Some evidence indicates small areas of tree retention on high risk sites may increase 

landslide occurrence.

IMST recommendation #13 (tree retention on high risk slopes) and recommendation #14

(continue to apply best management practices on landslide prone slopes) are 

recommendations which apply to the management of high risk sites.

Benefits:

Combined Methods 1 and 6 provide some additional assurance that harvesting methods will 

reduce ground disturbance on high risk sites, and that an attempt will be made to develop more 

case study information on the effectiveness of different practices. 

Method 2 will improve the assessment of potential debris flow initiation and characteristics, and 

the resources that could be affected by landslides from high risk sites. 

Managing the quality of high risk sites (i.e., the amount of large wood left on the site) will 

potentially increase the amount of large wood delivered to streams (Method 3); however, 

Option #46 is more likely to affect wood delivery to channels than this option. 

Method 4 will control the portion of high risk site in vegetative conditions with higher rates of 

landslide occurrence in watersheds and may result in lower long-term costs than a strict 

prohibition of operations on high risk sites.

Method 5 might prevent some or most of the temporary increase in landslide occurrence in most 

landslide surveys. 
55

Costs:

Combined Methods 1 and 6:

Landowners/Operators: Little change from current practice.

State Government: Moderate cost of developing and implementing the 

necessary case studies. 

Local Governments/Communities: Insignificant.

Method 2:

Landowners/Operators: Method 2 would typically cost landowners or 

operators about $500 to $1500/harvest unit for a 

geoscientist field reconnaissance and report. Costs 

could be much higher depending on the complexity 

of the site. There would also be the increased cost 

associated with leaving additional trees, since 

geotechnical reports are typically conservative.

State Government: Possible reduction in harvest and income tax 

revenues.

Local Governments/Communities: Possible reduction in harvest and income tax 

revenues.

Methods 3 and 5:

Landowners/Operators: Significant to very major increased costs associated 

with leaving more timber (especially under 

Method 5) unharvested, possibly in perpetuity. 

Potential increase in landslide occurrence from 

windthrow.

State Government: Possible reduction in harvest and income tax 

revenues. 

Local Governments/Communities: Possible reduction in harvest and income tax 

revenues.

Method 4:

Landowners/Operators: Moderate to significant increased costs associated 

with delays in harvesting timber, depending on land 

ownership.

State Government: Moderate costs associated with increased 

administration for complex regulations. Possible 

reduction in harvest and income tax revenues.

Local Governments/Communities: Possible reduction in harvest and income tax 

revenues.
56

Resources needed: 

A quantitative cost assessment to identify acreage and timber values impacted by this option is 

needed.

Rulemaking will be needed to describe current practices in rule form.

Additional resources may be needed for administration of practices.

Rulemaking and potential statute changes to implement Methods 2 through 5. 
57

Landslide Option #61: Large Wood Sources From Hillslope

Areas and Debris Flow Channels

Objective:

To supply large wood inputs from debris flow-prone channels and hillslope areas that have the 

potential to deliver large wood to fish bearing streams of a quality and quantity sufficient to 

provide important habitat functions in those streams.

Recommendation:

All committee members except one (TH) agreed that it is important to leave trees or downed 

wood in locations where they provide wood to be moved by debris flows into fish bearing 

streams. There was concern expressed by several committee members about the potential high 

cost of this option.

To achieve this objective, all committee members but one (TH) agreed that is was appropriate to 

use a menu of potential methods to leave trees or downed wood, depending upon likelihood of 

wood delivery and operational efficiency (Method 5). The committee felt that is was not 

appropriate to rely on a single strategy to provide this potential source of large wood. The 

operator would be required to select an appropriate option in cooperation with ODF.

Five members (GS, BA, SC, GP, MS) supported the placement of additional “down large wood” 

on sites or channels with the likelihood to deliver the wood to Type F streams (Method 6).

Four committee members (MS, LH, GP, PK) supported leaving trees on high risk sites likely to

deliver wood to Type F streams (Method 1). 

Four committee members (PK, MS, GP, LH) supported leaving additional trees in headwall and 

upslope areas (Method 3). 

The same four members supported using a riparian management area for small, Type N debris 

flow-prone channels (Method 4). Note: “Strong agreement” was reached for a similar method 

as part of the riparian proposal.

Two committee members (MS, GP) supported locating in-unit leave trees (some or all of the 

current two per acre) in hillslope and headwall areas (Method 2). 

Additional information on this option:

There is increasing scientific evidence that wood contained in debris flows is an important 

source of large wood for downstream fish habitat. These areas include likely debris flow 

paths, which are typically steep hillslopes below high risk (hazard) sites, and above steep 

stream channels (a portion of small Type N streams). While these areas are providing some 
58

level of functional large wood inputs under the current rules, the rules were not specifically 

designed to provide sources of large wood from these areas.

Debris torrents that traveled further than expected in the ODF study were on average larger 

and had younger riparian vegetation near their terminus. Thus, in terms of determining 

landslide run-out distance, channel junction angles and channel gradient are the primary 

factors, while landslide volume and composition of the riparian area along debris torrentprone channels may be important secondary factors.

This option is directly related to components of the Subcommittee Riparian Option, and there 

is the opportunity to explore Option #61 as an element of that option.

IMST recommendation #13 calls for the retention of trees on “high risk slopes” and in 

likely debris torrent tracks to increase the likelihood that large wood will be transported to 

streams when landslides and debris torrents occur.

Benefits:

Methods 2 and 3 could result in some increased wood delivery to channel, but will also result in 

fewer trees in other locations on the landscape. 

In most cases, Method 4 is believed to be the most efficient means of providing wood for debris 

flows. 

Method 5 provides the greatest landowner flexibility and may result in better site-specific 

prescriptions. 

Method 6 may be the lowest cost method for landowners and may be most efficient where wood 

loadings are low or where tree retention is unworkable.

Costs:

Given the lack of specifics under Option #61, it is very difficult to evaluate costs. Therefore, this 

discussion is limited in accuracy.

Trees in some locations (especially certain actively moving landslides) have a fairly high 

potential to be moved into stream channels. However, most high risk sites fail very infrequently, 

so leaving trees on the actual high risk site (Methods 1, 2, and 3) may be a very inefficient means 

for ensuring hillslope delivery of large wood.

Landowners/Operators: It is likely that Method 2 will result in little or no 

increased cost to landowners. Methods 1, 3, 4, 5, 

and 6 will increase landowner costs. The 

significance of this increase depends on the number 

of additional trees or logs that are left on site and 

could very well be significant.

State Government: Reduced harvest tax revenues could result, 

depending on the number of trees left on site. Also, 
59

increased costs for administration of practices, 

depending on the complexity of these practices.

Local Governments/Communities: Reduced harvest tax revenues, depending on the 

number of trees left on site.

Resources needed: 

A quantitative cost assessment to identify acreage and timber values impacted by this option is 

needed. Rulemaking may be needed. Possibly additional agency resources needed to administer 

more complex regulations.
60

Riparian Functions Option #20: Active Placement of Large Wood

Objective:

To provide additional large wood to streams by actively placing the wood in areas where it will 

provide the greatest benefits to salmonids, while assuring the timely achievement and 

maintenance of characteristics of mature forest conditions.

Recommendation:

The committee reached a consensus that the active placement of large wood in streams is 

necessary for short-term aquatic habitat improvement, but it should be done in a manner that still 

assures the timely achievement and maintenance of characteristics of mature forest conditions in 

the longer term. The committee also agreed that a menu of methods should be developed to 

prioritize and guide large wood placement activities. This menu should include placing wood 

along streams during an adjacent harvesting entry as one method.

The committee could not agree on whether the current system of basal area credits for active 

large wood placement should be continued. Some members (LH, PK, MS, GP) are concerned 

about any short-term reduction in riparian function as a trade-off for active large wood 

placement. Other committee members believe landowners will be less likely to initiate active 

large wood placement projects unless some sort of incentive is provided. 

Possible methods for active large wood placement supported by a majority of committee 

members in a menu approach include: 

Method 1: Placing wood along fish bearing streams during an adjacent harvesting entry. Some 

committee members (GS, BA, and SC) felt that harvest should not be the only trigger. 

Method 2: Placing large wood along Type N and D (Domestic) streams prone to debris flows 

that are likely to deliver the wood to fish bearing streams downstream. Some committee 

members (LH, PK, GP) preferred to leave the trees standing so that other RMA functions were 

retained until natural delivery could take place. 

There was little committee support (RC, SC, LH, DN, BR, MS, GS, BA, PK, GP not supporting) 

for placing large wood upslope (i.e., in small draws and hollows) of Type N and Type D streams 

prone to debris flows that are likely to deliver the wood to fish bearing streams downstream 

(Method 3). The basis for the lack of support by some committee members is the high degree of 

uncertainty of eventual large wood delivery to the stream. For large wood that is not placed 

directly in Type F streams, there will be a time lag between when it is placed and when it is 

utilized for fish habitat. If this time lag is too long, the large wood may be at a stage of 

decomposition where it can no longer provide the same level of function as a “fresh” piece of 

large wood.
61

Additional information on this option:

It is widely believed that current levels of large wood in many streams are significantly lower 

than what occurred historically. Where riparian areas are generally lacking in large diameter 

trees, the active placement of key pieces from off-site sources can be critical to the creation 

of habitat functions in the short term. In order to accelerate the rate of large wood input that 

is occurring under the current rules and measures, additional large wood can be actively 

placed in the appropriate streams.

The active placement of large wood is dependent upon the availability of source wood and 

the cost of placement.

The 1999 Oregon Plan restoration guide recommends that the large wood for active 

placement come from outside the riparian management area (RMA).

The opportunity to implement this option may be limited by federal permit requirements.

Benefits: 

The most important benefit of this recommendation is the potential for immediate habitat 

improvement, provided the overall effectiveness of the RMA is not reduced.

The placement of large wood during an adjacent entry for harvesting (Method 1) is an expedient 

means of achieving immediate habitat improvement, because the equipment necessary for 

placement is already at the site. An added benefit is that large wood can be strategically placed 

for maximum habitat improvement and retention. In areas well stocked with conifers, felling 

some trees into or across streams as a part of a thinning operation may also improve the growth 

potential of the remaining standing trees.

The benefit of Method 2 is that large wood could potentially be delivered to the stream via debris 

flows, thus reducing the time and cost involved in active placement.

The benefit of Method 3 is that large wood would be available for delivery through debris flows.

Costs:

Landowners/Operators: Significant, potentially high for some landowners for 

placement and forgone timber revenue. Incentives, such as 

basal area credits, in-unit leave tree credits, or tax credits 

may offset this cost. There is a direct financial cost to the 

landowner from the cost of placement and of the material 

used.

State Government: Insignificant.

Local Governments/Communities: Large wood inputs may increase downstream risks to 

developments in or near streams.

Resources needed:

Rulemaking required. Administrative actions required. Possible incentive legislation needed.
62

Riparian Functions Option #30: Water Protection Rule Compliance and 

Effectiveness Monitoring

Objective:

To continue monitoring forest practice water protection rule effectiveness and compliance.

Recommendation: 

The committee reached a consensus that additional department resources should be allocated to 

monitoring the effectiveness of the water protection rules. At a minimum, current levels of 

monitoring must be maintained. Adequate resources should also be provided to enable the 

department to conduct effectiveness monitoring related to the large wood objectives of the 

Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds (OPSW) and water quality standards, as well as 

continued best management practices compliance monitoring. Coordination with other agencies 

on monitoring projects is encouraged.

Additional information on this option:

Monitoring the effectiveness of the forest practice rules in protecting riparian functions must 

occur in order to understand how the rules are being implemented and to evaluate whether or 

not they are achieving their objectives. Such work has been the highest priority for the 

Forest Practices Monitoring Program since the 1994 rule revisions. 

Currently, ODF is also monitoring compliance with the water protection rules. This work is 

part of a broader three-year project to monitor compliance with the forest practice rules in 

general.

IMST recommendation #6 calls for completion of the study of the effectiveness of the 

forest practice rules in providing large wood for the short and long term.

Benefits:

Maintaining, and if possible, increasing resources allocated to effectiveness and compliance 

monitoring will allow a more thorough analysis of the actual effect of the rules related to aquatic 

large wood and stream temperature issues. This work will also allow for a continuation of ODF 

compliance monitoring over time and potentially increase the quantity of useful information 

available to evaluate forest practice rule implementation. Additional resources allocated to 

monitoring will also allow an evaluation of the implementation and effectiveness of other 

Oregon Plan measures. 
63

Costs:

Landowners/Operators: Potential minor increase in harvest tax rates to increase 

monitoring resources.

State Government: A stable source of long-term funding is needed to maintain 

or increase monitoring resources.

Local Governments/Communities: Insignificant.

Resources needed:

Long-term budgetary commitment needed.

A long-term budgetary commitment to monitoring is needed since studies often take more than 

one biennium to complete successfully. Additional resources are especially needed if the 

program will be asked to expand its monitoring efforts. 
64

Riparian Function Option #41: Statewide Riparian Management Policy

Objective: 

To develop a statewide riparian management policy.

Recommendation: 

The committee reached a consensus that the State of Oregon should develop a clearer and more 

comprehensive policy on riparian management that addresses all land uses. The committee did 

not discuss whether such a policy should require uniform protection on all land uses. However, 

the policy should, at a minimum, establish a baseline standard for resource protection and both 

clarify and explicitly describe Oregon‟s expectations for different land uses if some land uses 

will be required to meet a higher protection standard than others. 

Additional information on this option:

Currently there are conflicting policies across the state that deal with the management of 

riparian areas and large wood in streams. 

Riparian vegetation and instream wood protection policies and regulations vary substantially 

across the state and between different land use sectors. As an example, a number of cities 

and counties are actively removing large wood to reduce the risks of flooding and property 

damage. At the same time, forestland owners upstream are being asked to put more large 

wood into streams. 

Inconsistent riparian protection policies may unintentionally be encouraging the conversion 

of forestland to other land uses, resulting in a potential decrease in fish habitat and water 

quality. 

Uniform riparian buffers may not be practical and could result in unintended consequences, 

such as increased pressure to expand urban growth boundaries.

If a statewide policy explicitly sets different protection goals for different land uses, perhaps 

the policy could be used as a basis for rewarding, through incentives or tax breaks, those 

private landowners who are asked to provide disproportionate protection to public resources.

IMST recommendation #2 calls for ODF to develop a policy framework to encompass 

landscape (large watershed) level planning and operations on forests within the range of wild 

salmonids in Oregon. 

Benefits:

A uniform standard of riparian protection across all land uses would spread the burden of 

managing riparian areas and providing large wood to streams equally among all landowners. 

There is the potential to increase the total stream miles that provide high quality fish habitat by 

maintaining vegetation and large wood on streams in land uses that currently do not provide such 

habitat. Since the majority of large wood originates from areas closest to the stream, this option 
65

will provide significantly more large wood input as compared to an equivalent widening of

buffers of forestlands only. For example, creating 100-foot buffers on large fish bearing streams 

regardless of land ownership would provide significantly more large wood as compared to 

doubling the 100-foot riparian management area on large fish bearing streams on forestlands 

only. 

Costs:

Landowners/Operators: Potential additional costs for agricultural and urban 

landowners if additional limitations are placed on the use of 

their lands.

State Government: Insignificant.

Local Governments/Communities: Potentially significant cost if required to expand regulation 

and riparian protection. 

The addition of large wood to some streams in agricultural and urban areas could increase 

physical hazards to property and public safety. Where additional large wood creates debris dams 

and diverts stream flows in lowland areas during periods of high runoff, there will be an increase 

in the potential for flood damage and channel migration. 

Resources needed: 

Interagency coordination and statutory changes required.

State agency and stakeholder coordination through the Oregon Plan Core Team and the 1999 

HB 3393 Large Wood Working Group is needed to begin development of this policy.
66

“Subcommittee” Riparian Option

(In Lieu of Options 26, 38, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, and 67)

In January 2000, a six-member subcommittee was appointed by the full committee to address 

riparian issues. This was difficult work for obvious reasons. The subcommittee met on several 

occasions and joined in one field tour. The subcommittee‟s work was conducted with the 

assistance of facilitators and the Governor‟s Office. Eventually, a four-person negotiating team 

was formed from the subcommittee. Several negotiating sessions were conducted. Ultimately, 

the negotiating team and the subcommittee came to agreement on the “riparian package” 

described below.

Objective: 

The Riparian Subcommittee did not agree to an objective for this option.

Recommendation: 

Ten committee members (WS, SC, RC, BR, BA, GS, DN, LH, GP, PH) support the following 

proposal. Further clarification and/or guidance on a number of these points will be needed to 

further develop these concepts. 

Riparian Subcommittee

Points of Agreement

1. Harvesting Cap 40%

In western Oregon, manage any harvesting within the RMA so that the retained conifer 

basal area exceeds the basal area standard target, or 60 percent of the pre-harvest basal 

area, whichever is greater.

2. No Touch Area 1⁄2 of RMA

The no-touch width will be equal to one-half the width of the entire RMA.

3. Largest Trees 10 out of 20 Largest

Retain 10 of the 20 largest trees per 1,000 feet outside of the no-touch width that will best 

achieve aquatic riparian functions. Subject to FPF approval, the landowner would 

identify tree locations in a written plan demonstrating how this objective will be met. 

There would be discretion to also consider operational issues and the value of the trees, as 

long as best achieving aquatic riparian functions remains the primary objective.

4. Type N Streams Forest Practices Forester Discretion

a. Small Type NT streams are: 1) Perennial Small Type N (temperature) streams 

that are tributary and contribute at least 30% of the flow to small and medium 

Type F streams and that have a drainage area larger than “X” acres (basin size to 

be set be georegion, 40 acres for the coast range). Initial classification will be 

based on basin size, but landowners may delist streams or stream segments 
67

verified as nonperennial. 2) Small Type N (torrent) streams with drainage basins 

greater than 30 acres, in which more than 75% of the basin has been mapped as 

“high” or 50% “extreme” debris flow hazard by the State Forester and which have 

a high probability of delivery to Type F streams.

b. Small NT stream protection: 1) Up to the first 500 feet of Type NT (temperature) 

stream above the confluence with a Type F stream will have a 50-foot search 

zone, each side. Within the search zone, retain 4 square feet of trees per each 

100 feet of perennial flow (up to 500 feet) and all nonmerchantable conifer on 

each side of the stream. Trees left along these streams to satisfy the basal area 

requirement can be counted as in-unit leave trees. 2) “Torrent” Type NT streams 

will be protected as follows - FPF, working with the landowner, has discretion to 

direct retention of in-unit trees to 50 x 500‟ search zone (each side).

5. In-growth 25% Adjustment for Small Streams

The standard target will be recalculated for small Type F streams using the same per-acre 

basal area as large streams, minus 25 percent for in-growth. The standard target will also 

be recalculated for medium Type F streams, using the same per-acre basal area as large 

streams.

6. Riparian Specialist

The Oregon Department of Forestry will designate a riparian specialist in each 

administrative area who will be available to inventory and prepare riparian prescriptions 

for landowners at their request. These specialists will be new positions funded by the 

General Fund.

7. Similar Prescriptions for All Large and Medium Streams

Large and medium Type N stream prescriptions will be the same as the equivalent size 

Type F.

8. Monitoring

The effectiveness of the small Type N stream prescription will be a monitoring priority.

9. Alternative Vegetation Retention Prescriptions

The existing alternative vegetation retention prescriptions (e.g., hardwood conversions) 

may be applied to all riparian management areas (RMAs).

10. Preventing Sediment Delivery 

The purpose statement for harvesting rules will be modified to better describe the 

objective of preventing sediment delivery to channels. The current requirement not to 

locate skid trails within 35 feet of Type F or D streams will be extended to all streams. 

Skid trails will be defined as an excavated trail used to yard logs with more than one turn.

11. Layout of Riparian Management Area Where a Channel Migration Zone Exists

The riparian management area (RMA) is measured from the current points of 

measurement except for areas designated by the State Forester as a channel migration 

zone (CMZ). A CMZ is an unconstrained reach of stream that in the judgment of the 
68

forester is likely to have channel movement that can go outside the RMA widths within 

the period of a rotation (50-100 years). Within the CMZ, the no touch area will be 

measured from the high water mark of the channel (same as current rules). The outer 

edge of the CMZ will be based upon guidance to be developed by a technical committee. 

Retained trees in the CMZ shall be no less than the basal area standard target.

12. Type N and Small Type F Streams: Landowners would get credit for in-unit leave trees.

13. Conceptual Agreement About the Use of “Stratification.”

In recognizing that riparian stands are not homogenous and that applying a single target 

for the RMA can prevent appropriate management in patches with conifer 

“overstocking,” the committee agrees to the concept; the details of how to do it in the 

field are to be developed. Stratification could allow an RMA to be divided into segments 

with a different management approach applied to each segment, based on the specific 

conditions in the segment.

14. “Provide for placement of large wood” is supported as a concept. No agreement on 

details.

Additional information on this option:

The IMST has recommended the following with regard to riparian protection issues:

Better address floodplains and areas where channels may migrate beyond current areas 

protected within RMAs.

Ensure retention of larger trees.

The target for mature conifer forest should be based upon the characteristics of 160-year-old 

stands. 

For medium and small streams increase the retention level for conifer trees.

There is not a scientific basis to treat nonfish bearing streams differently than fish bearing 

streams.

ODF monitoring data has indicated that:

Variability of riparian stands is great.

Stocking of conifers, particularly along small- and medium-sized streams, is generally better 

than assumed in calculating the original basal area targets.

Changes in measurable shade after harvest are common for small streams, though most 

changes are less than a 30 percent reduction and are temporary. Pre-operation shade levels 

may recover within 2 to 3 years after harvest.

Average diameter distribution does not substantially change after harvest entry.

A limited number of large trees are selectively harvested from RMAs.

More often than not, RMAs are not managed under the various options available to 

landowners.
69

Other conclusions:

The incentive most effective to encourage management is the ability to harvest trees, now 

and in the future.

Thinning in the short term can increase tree growth rates and potential large wood delivery in 

the long term.

Thinning in the short term may reduce the probability of wood delivery and other riparian 

functions in the short term.

Based upon the ODFW stream habitat assessment data, the number of conifer trees in RMAs 

over 20 inches dbh (Diameter at Breast Height) is relatively low.

Based upon the ODFW stream habitat assessment data, instream key pieces of large wood 

(>24 inches) are limited within stream channels.

Based upon the ODFW stream habitat assessment data, in the coast range, conifer seedlings 

are rare within the RMAs.

Other land uses have not generally protected riparian functions at levels near current (Forest 

Practices Act) FPA standards.

Benefits:

The amount of large wood and other riparian function available to streams is likely to be 

significantly increased in the short term. The amount of potential large wood left standing within 

RMAs that will be available in the future will roughly double as compared to what the current 

rules achieve. The various options available under this proposal maintain flexibility to tailor 

riparian management prescriptions to site-specific conditions. This flexibility is more likely to 

better optimize riparian function and emulate historical conditions as compared to the current 

rules. 

Increased vegetation along small Type F and N streams, and along medium Type N streams will 

provide additional shade levels that in some cases will improve stream temperatures and may 

provide additional summer habitat for salmonids.

The elements of this option regarding debris torrents are also related to the committee 

recommendations under Landslides Options #46 and #61. 

Costs:

Landowners/Operators: Additional costs, significant for many landowners resulting 

from decreased timber harvest revenue.

State Government: Significant costs to fund three riparian specialists 

(approximately $500,000 in the first biennium).
70

Local Governments/Communities: Potential reduction in harvest tax revenues. Potential 

effects from movement of increased levels of large wood 

from forested streams. Significant to local governments 

that actively manage forestland for timber harvest. 

The incentive to actively manage the RMA is reduced. If active management does not occur in 

those RMAs that can most benefit from it, in terms of maximizing riparian functions, short- and 

long-term large wood inputs will not be optimized. Landowner costs in terms of timber not 

available to harvest will roughly double as compared to what is not available to harvest under the 

current rules. Harvesting, roading, and silvicultural costs will increase due to the increase in 

extent and content of RMAs.

Incentives available to encourage restoration will be reduced.

Resources needed: 

A quantitative analysis of timber and acreage values impacted and benefits provided. Funding 

for three riparian specialists. Staff time and resources to complete rulemaking, training and 

monitoring. 
A-i

Section A

Fish Passage Restoration

Issue: What are the adverse effects of forest road stream crossings 

on the distribution and movement of fish? How might these effects 

be further reduced?

Forest Practices Advisory Committee on Salmon and Watersheds
A-ii
A-iii

Table of Contents

I. CURRENT SCIENTIFIC FINDINGS .............................................................................................................. A-1

II. WATERSHED-SCALE EFFECTS................................................................................................................. A-6

NATURAL VARIABILITY ........................................................................................................................................ A-6

FOREST MANAGEMENT ......................................................................................................................................... A-6

OTHER LAND USES................................................................................................................................................ A-7

III. OBJECTIVES OF CURRENT MEASURES AND RULES ....................................................................... A-7

OREGON PLAN OBJECTIVES................................................................................................................................... A-7

FPA OBJECTIVES................................................................................................................................................... A-7

IV. DESCRIPTION OF MEASURES AND RULES.......................................................................................... A-8

OREGON PLAN MEASURES .................................................................................................................................... A-9

FPA STANDARDS AND RULES ............................................................................................................................. A-10

V. EVALUATION OF MEASURES AND RULES.......................................................................................... A-10

VOLUNTARY MEASURES ..................................................................................................................................... A-10

CURRENT RULES ................................................................................................................................................. A-11

VI. POSSIBLE ADDITIONAL MEASURES AND/OR RULES .................................................................... A-15

OPTION #1 ........................................................................................................................................................... A-15

OPTION #2 ........................................................................................................................................................... A-16

OPTION #3 ........................................................................................................................................................... A-18

OPTION #4 ........................................................................................................................................................... A-19

OPTION #5 ........................................................................................................................................................... A-20

REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................................................... A-21

APPENDIX A........................................................................................................................................................ A-25
A-iv
A-1

I. Current Scientific Findings

Overview

Movement of fish throughout a watershed is necessary for a number of life history needs. 

Upstream and downstream migration of juveniles during low summer flow is often needed so

they can find suitable habitat (e.g., to seek cool water refugia). During winter, juveniles may 

move upstream or into side tributaries and off-channel habitats to escape flood flows. Upstream 

migration of juveniles has been observed related to the presence and availability of beaver ponds 

and other fish-rearing habitat. Upstream migration of adults is important for access to spawning 

grounds. 

Loss of fish passage at road crossings and other human-caused barriers has many potential 

effects, including:

Loss of access to spawning, rearing, and winter habitat;

Loss of genetic diversity in an upstream reach for resident fish, as fish can go 

downstream but not back upstream;

Loss of range for juvenile fish that may migrate upstream at certain times of the year;

Loss of nutrients (from the carcasses of anadromous spawning adults) to reaches 

upstream of passage problems;

Changes in fish genetics or community assemblages upstream of fish passage 

impediments (stronger swimming fish species, more hearty gene pools, or only certain 

life stages can pass upstream while other fish cannot); and

Loss of resident fish populations in small streams after extreme flood or drought events 

that evacuate the fish from the reach and prevent their return.

The Botkin Report (1995) and other studies have identified “impediment construction” as a 

major factor leading to the decline of salmonids in western Oregon.

Discussion

Some of the primary motives fish have to move or migrate are to satisfy basic requirements for 

reproduction, habitat (i.e., food, cover, thermal regime), and refuge. On an annual basis, 

upstream migration of adult salmon occurs in many Oregon streams and rivers. Spawning 

salmon, however, do not arrange themselves haphazardly in a watershed but instead seek 

particular habitats according to stream size, substrate and water velocity. For example, pink and 

chum salmon do not stray far from the estuary, while steelhead and cutthroat trout can be found 

in small headwater streams. Selecting certain niches in the freshwater network for spawning is 

beneficial to the resultant juveniles by reducing competition for limited resources.

While upstream movement of reproducing adults and young salmon heading down river to reach 

ocean feeding grounds are familiar phenomena, other types of fish migration or movement occur 

but are less obvious. Both juvenile salmon and resident trout have been observed to move both 

up and downstream in response to various environmental factors. This includes seeking refuge 

from elevated stream temperatures, extreme flow conditions and predation, or seeking less 
A-2

densely populated areas with better opportunities for food and cover (Bustard and Narver, 1975; 

Cederholm and Scarlett, 1981; Everest, 1973; Fausch and Young, 1995; Gowan et al., 1994; 

Hartman and Brown, 1987; Reiser and Bjornn, 1979; Shirvell, 1994). For some juvenile fish, 

upstream migration can be an important part of their life cycle, such as sockeye salmon fry 

swimming upstream to reach a rearing lake. Coho juveniles have also been noted in several 

studies to migrate upstream in the fall into sidewater channels and tributaries (Bustard and 

Narver, 1975; Cederholm and Scarlett, 1981; Skeesick, 1970). While the exact reason for this 

migration strategy is unknown, there is growing evidence that coho juveniles overwintering in 

these areas have significantly higher survival rates (Bustard and Narver, 1975).

Information about the swimming ability of Pacific Northwest salmonids is not abundant, 

especially for juveniles. It appears, however, that for most species the greater the fork length 

(length from nose to fork of tail), the greater the swimming ability (Jones et al., 1974; Bell, 

1986). There is a marked difference in performance between adult and juvenile coho, as well as 

a demonstration of superior swimming capability of steelhead. The swimming ability of a fish 

can also be affected by the distance already traveled, turbidity, temperature, oxygen levels, water 

depth, water velocity, and the general health of the fish. 

From this discussion, it is apparent that barriers to movement caused by road crossings can 

prevent fish from meeting their basic requirements for reproduction, habitat, and refuge. Delays 

and barriers due to stream crossings can be divided into three different categories (Dane, 1978), 

each with different potential impacts to fish (Table 1).

Table 1: Barriers to Fish Passage and Their Potential Impacts.

Barrier Category Definition Potential Impacts

Total Impassable to all fish at all 

times.

1) Exclusion of fish entirely or from portions of a 

watershed.

2) Isolation of fish populations upstream of barrier.

Partial Impassable to some fish at 

all times.

1) Exclusion of certain fish species or ages entirely 

or from portions of a watershed.

2) Isolation of certain fish species or ages upstream 

of barrier.

Temporary Impassable to all fish 

some of the time.

1) Delay of movement beyond the barrier 

 for some period of time.

The problem of human-caused barriers to fish passage in the Pacific Northwest appears to be 

very significant. In the Skagit River basin in Washington State, impassable culverts are 

responsible for 13 percent of the total decrease in summer rearing habitat on all ownerships 

(Beechie et al., 1994). This decrease in summer rearing habitat was considered greater than the 

sum total effects of all other forest management activities combined. Another study reported that 

as many as 75 percent of culverts in forested watersheds are either outright blockages or 

impediments to fish passage based upon field surveys done in Washington State (Conroy, 1997). 

Of the 532 fish presence surveys conducted on forestlands in Oregon coastal basins during the 

1995 survey season, 15 percent (n=79) of the confirmed end of fish use were due to human 

barriers. Road culverts make up the largest percentage of the barriers (96 percent), with various 
A-3

types of dams comprising the balance. An additional 3 percent of the surveys identified culverts 

with an upstream population of resident trout, but they were impassable to anadromous fish. 

Surveys of county and state highways conducted by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 

(ODFW) for the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) have found hundreds of culverts 

that were assumed to at least partially block fish passage (Al Mirati, personal communication, 

1999). The roads surveyed were frequently located low in a drainage system and thus may be 

impacting passage for a large array of fish species.1 The state and county road survey found the 

following number of problem culverts in Oregon:

Coastal Basins – 1,140 crossings

Lower Willamette – 167 crossings

Upper Willamette – 771 crossings

Grande Ronde & Imnaha – 83 crossings

John Day Basin – 260 crossings

The ODFW and Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) have developed fish passage guidelines 

to help ensure that any artificial obstructions placed across a stream will not pose a barrier to the 

movement of adult and juvenile salmonids, both resident and anadromous. 

Table 2 provides a general summary of the criteria found in the ODFW fish passage guidelines 

and the related biological factors. To simplify the complexity of the guidance criteria, ODF has 

taken a more conservative approach to fish passage by requiring that in all cases, road crossings 

must be designed to pass juvenile fish. Since these smaller fish are less capable swimmers, 

providing conditions that meet their passage needs will also assure that the needs of the adult fish 

are also met. The design alternatives in the ODF guidelines also eliminate the need for trying to 

design for specific water velocities in the pipe barrel. Thus, while the alternatives in the ODF 

guidelines do not explicitly contain the criteria contained in Table 2, their design is based on 

consideration of these criteria. 

In western Oregon forestlands, passage conditions are most commonly designed to meet the 

needs of juvenile or adult coho, chinook, steelhead, and rainbow and cutthroat trout. In central 

and eastern Oregon, structures are most commonly designed to pass juvenile or adult chinook, 

steelhead, rainbow, cutthroat or bull trout. Obviously, predicting when and where fish will need 

access is challenging, and coordination with a fisheries biologist is essential for identifying the 

proper species, age, and time of year to account for in designing the drainage feature. While the 

ODFW guidelines provide criteria for designing crossings for the adults of different salmonid 

species, in most cases the crossing will be designed for the passage of all juvenile fish.2

 

1 The criteria used in the ODFW-ODOT survey included: (1) a slope greater than 1%, and (2) an outlet jump 

greater than one foot if only adult passage was considered and six inches if juvenile passage was also considered. If 

a jump occurred, the pool needed to be 1.5 – 2.0 times deeper than the height of the jump. Another condition that 

put culverts into the problem category were inlet deposits and drops at the inlet which was termed “diving flow.”

2 The ODFW guidelines advise that the culvert should be designed to pass fish for at least 90% of the streamflow for 

a given season when fish are likely to pass. In other words, the culvert should pose a fish passage problem only 

10% of the time. ODF guidelines are designed to pass all juvenile fish, and a site-specific plan would be required 

where this may not be possible.
A-4

Table 2: Biological Factors Related to Fish Passage Criteria. 

FISH PASSAGE CRITERIA AND RELATED BIOLOGICAL FACTORS 

General Regulatory Criteria Biological Factors

Water velocity in culvert Swimming speed

Water depth in culvert Submergence (sufficient depth for swimming)

Design flow criteria Delays, dispersion

Height between culvert outlet and water surface Jumping ability

Timing of in-stream work Emergence (silting in of redds)

Migration - delays or reduction of adult spawners

The most problematic characteristics of culverts that are often readily identifiable in the field 

include:

High velocities or sudden changes in velocity at the culvert inlet, outlet, or within the 

barrel;

Excessive jumps at the culvert inlet or outlet;

Shallow water depths within the structure; and

A lack of resting pools at the culvert inlet, outlet, or within the barrel.

Design considerations for minimizing these adverse effects should include managing water 

velocities in and around the culvert, preventing drops in and around the culvert, and providing 

adequate water depth within the culvert. For a comprehensive discussion on these considerations 

refer to Appendix A. 

In terms of fish passage restoration activities on a landscape scale, there are seven basic steps 

that should be considered:

1. Find and prioritize problem road/stream crossings.

2. Get information about the stream and other conditions at the crossings to be restored.

3. Decide if the installation can be repaired, improved, or whether it must be replaced.

4. Decide on a design strategy based on information collected at the site.

5. Prepare a design.

6. Install new road/stream crossing structure.

7. Monitor and maintain the road/stream crossing structure.

There are several methods being used to survey culvert conditions in Oregon. Two prominent 

methods are the ODFW culvert survey form and the ODF Road Hazard Survey Protocol (ODF, 

1998). The ODFW survey form was used to evaluate culverts on state and county roads. The 

ODF survey protocol has been used on forest roads. Key measurements from the culvert 

assessments used in passage evaluations are the culvert slope, outlet drop, and outlet pool 

dimensions. The information from these key measurements can be used to estimate if a culvert 

is partially or totally blocking fish passage, or poses a moderate to high risk of catastrophic 

crossing failure. 
A-5

Partial fish passage blockage refers to stream crossings that are not allowing juvenile salmonid 

fish passage because of their design, maintenance, or condition. Generally, juvenile salmon 

passage requires two feet per second or less velocity, outlet perching less than six inches, and 

little to no inlet constriction or drop. In addition, the culvert should be free from debris that may 

concentrate flow and increase velocities. Flow depths should be 12 inches or more in the culvert, 

or the culvert should have a simulated natural streambed similar to conditions in the natural 

channel. 

Total fish passage blockage refers to instances in which the design, maintenance, or condition of 

the stream crossing is such that most (if not all) adult and juvenile salmonids cannot move 

upstream through the crossing structure. Blockage results where conditions exceed most adult 

anadromous salmonid swimming capabilities. Generally, this occurs where culvert water 

velocities exceed 10 feet per second, outlet drops are over 4 feet or over 1 foot without adequate 

jump pools, or extreme inlet drops or material in the culvert causes barriers. Water depths 

should be 8 inches or more in the culvert at higher flows or the culvert should have a simulated 

natural streambed similar to conditions in the natural channel. 

There are primarily five ways to improve fish passage at existing crossings without replacing the 

structure. These methods include adding baffles to the structure, adding sediment or sediment 

catching devices inside a culvert, backwatering through the crossing by installing downstream 

weir(s), removing debris, or modifying the inlet or inlet approach to remove an inlet constriction. 

Adding baffles to an existing crossing will decrease the peak flow capacity, so this option should 

only be used for culverts that have excess capacity. Baffles should only be added when other 

factors such as outlet drop or inlet constriction are dealt with as well. Materials to use for baffles 

on existing culverts can be concrete or metal. However, retrofitting metal baffles using bolts 

may cause the baffle to rip the culvert barrel if the culvert is made of corrugated metal pipe. 

Probably the most common use of baffle retrofits is for large properly sized concrete culverts 

that have little slope and no inlet or outlet problems. Baffle maintenance must also be 

considered, especially in streams where the transport of large substrate or wood occurs. These 

materials can damage baffles and require future replacement or maintenance.

Recruiting and retaining stream substrate in culverts can also improve passage conditions. 

Clancy and Reichmuth (1990) introduced a detachable fishway design for a sediment catcher in 

culverts. This particular type of sediment catcher employs angle iron and attaches to the inlet 

end of the culvert by a hook or T-bar, so it requires no bolting inside the culvert. Like baffles, 

sediment-catching devices should only be used for culverts that have adequate capacity and do 

not have other fish passage problems that cannot be easily mitigated. Sediment catchers along 

with placed and naturally deposited streambed material can allow for the creation of a simulated 

natural channel in the culvert. This option should only be used for culverts that have a width of 

span similar to that of the natural active channel (Clancy and Reichmuth, 1990).

Backwatering through the culvert by using a series of weirs downstream of the culvert can be an 

effective way of mitigating fish passage at some crossings. However, in a published field 

survey, almost all installations that used this strategy had problems with fish passage (Browning, 

1990). If this strategy is used, the weirs downstream of the culvert should have a drop between 

the weir top and the downstream residual pool of no more than 6 inches. The first weir 
A-6

downstream of the culvert should also be a channel width or 20 feet downstream to avoid 

damage from the force at culvert outlets. Subsequent weirs should be placed downstream at an 

interval of approximately one channel width, with each weir designed to take up no more than 

six inches of drop from the residual pool to the top of the weir. As with baffles, the long-term 

maintenance of weirs must be considered before selecting this strategy.

II. Watershed-Scale Effects

Natural Variability

Over time and space, “natural” fish passage varies due to a range of disturbance and geological 

factors. Streams are complicated systems conveying and storing large amounts of water, 

energy, wood, sediment, and bedload material. The combination of these elements result in an 

elaborate pattern of flow, water temperature and channel forms (i.e., riffles, pools, runs, glides, 

and side channels) over both space and time. The natural forces that created these patterns also 

produce barriers and delays to fish passage at waterfalls, landslides, debris jams, and channel 

constrictions, and during times of extreme flows and temperatures. Native fish have evolved 

with these patterns, resulting in behavior and swimming capabilities adapted to the range of 

natural conditions. Many natural barriers are transitory (e.g., debris dams), and fish can soon 

reoccupy lost territory or reconnect genetically after a barrier is modified or eliminated. 

Human-made barriers such as dams and impassable stream crossings have increased the delays 

and barriers to fish passage well above natural levels. In some cases, human-made barriers may 

be in place for periods much longer than a similarly occurring natural barrier. In particular, 

human-caused barriers may pose the most significant watershed-scale impact to fish with 

migratory life histories and specialized habitat needs such bull trout. For the species with 

various life histories such as bull trout or cutthroat trout, fish passage problems may negatively 

impact some life history forms while not others.

Forest Management 

The management of forests has resulted in an overlay of roads across the landscape. Where 

stream crossings are inadequately designed and maintained, they may prevent fish from meeting 

their basic requirements for reproduction, habitat, and refuge. Crossings may also produce 

broader ecosystem effects due to impacts on large wood routing, nutrient cycling, delays to 

movement, and genetic health of fish populations. 

Other forest management activities such as timber harvesting may have altered stream 

temperatures or caused channel changes that may delay or prevent fish passage. Timber 

harvesting can increase summer and fall flows, possibly improving some fish passage 

opportunities. While the extent of fish passage problems related to stream crossing structures 

has been quantified to some degree, other forest management effects related to fish passage at a 

watershed-scale level have not been well documented. As described later, systems are in place 

for forestlands to address many of the fish passage problems over time. 
A-7

Other Land Uses

All other land-uses also have impacted or disrupted the movement of fish. However, due to 

different regulatory mechanisms and much less voluntary action, the potential to manage the fish 

passage problems associated with other land-uses appears less optimistic. Nonforest road 

crossings often do not fall under the regulatory oversight of the Oregon Removal/Fill Act: only 

crossings that require more than 50 cubic yards of fill, or exist within streams identified as 

“Essential Indigenous Anadromous Salmonid Habitat” will have regulatory oversight. Since 

other land-uses often create barriers lower in a drainage system, the potential negative impacts 

from these activities may be relatively greater.

III. Objectives of Current Measures and Rules

Oregon Plan Objectives

The Oregon Plan objectives include the elimination of artificial obstructions to fish passage 

necessary to access key habitat for critical life stages of salmonids:

Identify all human-created passage impediments to coastal stream segments usable or 

potentially usable by salmonids, and categorize those segments according to the amount 

and/or quality of potential habitat by 2010. Establish and maintain a list of “significant” 

barriers for restoration priority or that block access to more than 600 feet of stream.

Ensure that human activities in coastal streams currently accessible to salmonids do not block 

or otherwise segment those streams so as to limit accessibility.

Remedy 15 percent of the significant human-created impediments to fish passage in coastal 

streams per biennium.

FPA Objectives

The fish passage objectives of the Forest Practices Act are to allow and maintain upstream and 

downstream passage for both adult and juvenile fish during conditions when fish movement 

normally occurs. This objective applies to all stream crossings installed after September 1994. 

A second objective is to require restoration of fish passage through crossing structures installed 

prior to 1994 at the time the structure would be replaced under a normal life span. A final 

objective is to encourage voluntary restoration of passage prior to replacement under a normal 

life span.

The purpose of the water classification rules is to match the physical characteristics and 

beneficial uses of a water body to a set of appropriate protection measures. In the current 

classification system, fish use is a key beneficial use. For the purpose of the classification 

system, “fish use” means “inhabited at any time of the year by anadromous or game fish species, 

or fish that are listed under the federal or state endangered species act.”
A-8

IV. Description of Measures and Rules

The ODFW by statute is the lead state agency for all types of fish passage concerns in Oregon. 

In keeping with this role, ODFW has produced guidelines regarding fish passage. The statutes 

require that fish passage be provided where anadromous, food or game fish species are present. 

On state and private lands, the ODF and Division of State Lands (DSL) also regulate fish 

passage in a manner compatible with ODFW. A Memorandum of Agreement among the 

agencies has been developed to guide the consistent application of technical requirements to 

achieve fish passage. On federal lands, the Forest Service and other federal landholders are to 

comply with ODFW rules and statutes. In areas with endangered fish species listings, fish 

passage authority is also given to National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

The ODFW guidelines specify maximum velocities, entrance drops, and minimum water depth 

criteria for culverts. The ODFW guidelines specify a preference for using bridges but also allow 

for culverts that simulate natural streambed conditions, nonembedded culverts placed essentially 

flat, and culverts using baffles or weirs in order of decreasing preference.

ODF has also produced regulatory guidance designed for landowners and operators regarding 

fish passage that describes crossing alternatives that will likely pass fish under different 

situations (Robison et al., 1999). The differing situations include stream gradient, stream valley 

fill present, and specific type of strategy involved. These guidelines (both old and new) require 

that culverts designed to have no sediment in them be placed essentially flat (less than or equal to 

0.5 percent gradient), and that culverts designed to simulate natural bed conditions be designed 

for stream widths similar to the natural stream width and be placed at a gradient similar to or 

somewhat below natural stream gradient. A training document designed to guide fish passage on 

state and private forestlands has been developed. 

DSL regulates the standards for fish passage for structures requiring removal/fill permits. 

Permits are required for fills in excess of 50 cubic yards of material or for any amount of fill in 

stream segments designated as “Essential Indigenous Anadromous Salmonid Habitat.” The 

expedited general authorization approval process, as well as fill and removal permit information 

for road construction on nonforest lands, is available on the World Wide Web at 

[http://statelands/dsl.or.us/roadinfo.htm]. 

There are several other nonregulatory programs regarding fish passage in Oregon. Within the 

Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds, there are two primary forestry measures that relate to 

fish passage (ODF 15 and ODF 25). These two voluntary measures target the identification and 

correction of road-related problems on private industrial forestlands over the next ten years. In 

addition, Oregon‟s Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB) and ODFW‟s Restoration and 

Enhancement Board provide funding to projects that enhance fish habitat and watershed 

function, including fish passage improvement projects. 
A-9

Oregon Plan Measures

The Oregon Plan contains several voluntary measures with the goal of identifying and correcting 

obstructions and impediments to fish passage. The following is a brief description of these 

measures that have a direct impact on fish passage:

ODF 1S: Road Erosion and Risk Project –

Many forest roads built prior to the development of the Oregon Forest Practices Act or prior 

to the current BMPs pose increased sediment risk to fish habitat. Industrial forest 

landowners have agreed to implement a voluntary program to identify risks from roads and to 

address those risks. This action is making improvements to road elements such as road fills, 

stream crossings, and drainage and surface problems to improve fish passage and habitat. As 

part of this measure, a road management guidebook has been developed that includes 

alternatives for solving identified problems.

ODF 2S: State Forest Lands Road Erosion and Risk Project –

This measure, similar to ODF 1S, will identify risks from roads on state-owned lands. This 

effort will upgrade at least 130 miles of road in each of the next three biennia.

ODF 16S: Evaluation of Adequacy of Fish Passage Criteria –

Technical criteria and guidelines for fish passage have been recently established. These 

criteria and guidelines will be followed by all state agencies when designing or approving 

projects. However, the criteria and guidelines, while developed using the best available 

science, have not been validated by monitoring. The objective of this measure is to verify 

that the criteria and guidelines used for the design of stream crossing structures will allow for 

the passage of both adult and juvenile fish.

ODF 46S: Fish Passage Surveys (Weyerhaeuser) –

The Coos Watershed Association and Weyerhaeuser have completed an analysis of all 

“major” anadromous fish culverts in the Coos River Watershed. Weyerhaeuser will contract 

with ODFW to evaluate stream conditions above culverts that are fish passage limiting to 

establish priority for enhancement.

Measures contained within the Oregon Plan which have some effect on fish passage through 

monitoring, surveys, and restoration projects include the following:

ODF 5S - North Coast Salmonid Habitat Restoration Project

ODF 6S - Mid-Coast Restoration Project

ODF 10S - Forest Practices Monitoring Program

ODF 13S - Storms of 1996 Monitoring Project

ODF 23S - BMP Compliance Audit Program

ODF 25S - Fish Presence/Absence Surveys and Fish Population Surveys

ODF 32S - Fish Presence Survey

ODF 52S - South Coast Technical Advisory Team
A-10

FPA Standards and Rules

The forest practice rules since their inception in 1972, have required “adequate” fish passage. 

Prior to 1994, this was interpreted to mean passage of adult fish upstream at “Class I” stream 

crossing. Thus, culverts installed between 1972 and 1994 to provide adult passage may not be 

providing juvenile passage. During this time, there was also no requirement that passage 

conditions be maintained following culvert installation. The current standard of protection 

adopted in 1994 under the forest practice rules for fish passage is to design, construct, and 

maintain stream crossing structures to allow migration of adult and juvenile fish upstream and 

downstream during conditions when fish movement normally occurs. Guidance describing 

structural designs to meet this standard has been developed.

Stream Crossing Structures OAR 629-625-320(2)

“Operators shall design and construct stream crossings (culverts, bridges and fords) to:

(a) Pass a peak flow that at least corresponds to the 50-year return interval. When 

determining the size of culvert needed to pass a peak flow corresponding to the 50-year 

return interval, operators shall select a size that is adequate to preclude ponding of water 

higher than the top of the culvert; and

(b) Allow migration of adult and juvenile fish upstream and downstream during conditions 

when fish movement in that stream normally occurs.”

Road Maintenance OAR 629-625-600(8)

“In order to maintain fish passage through water crossing structures, operators shall:

(a) Maintain conditions at the structures so that passage of adult and juvenile fish is not 

impaired when fish movement normally occurs. This standard is required only for roads 

constructed or reconstructed after September 1994, but is encouraged for all other roads; 

and

(b) As reasonably practical, keep structures cleared of woody debris and deposits of sediment 

that would impair fish passage.

(c) Other fish passage requirements under the authority of ORS 498.268 and 509.605 that are 

administered by other state agencies may be applicable to water crossing structures, 

including those constructed before September 1, 1994.”

V. Evaluation of Measures and Rules

Voluntary Measures

The following basic steps to restoring fish passage at road/stream crossings are in place for a 

large portion of forestland and for state and county highways:

1. Find and prioritize problem road/stream crossings.

2. Get information about the stream and other conditions at the crossings to be restored.

3. Decide if the installation can be repaired, improved, or whether it must be replaced.

4. Decide on a design strategy based on information collected at the site.

5. Prepare a design.
A-11

6. Install new road/stream crossing structure.

7. Monitor and maintain the road/stream crossing structure.

The ODF survey protocol is currently being used on forestlands. A substantial portion of the 

survey effort has been completed on industrial and state-owned forestlands. The current factor 

limiting accomplishment of the passage restoration objectives is the actual completion of the 

restoration projects. However, on forestlands, substantial progress is currently being made. 

For example, the Oregon Plan Watershed Restoration Inventory reports that 530 culverts were 

removed, replaced, upgraded or installed for fish passage in 1996-97. In 1998, about 300 

culverts were removed, replaced, upgraded, or installed for fish passage, opening 200 miles for 

fish use. About 80 percent of the effort was by industrial forest landowners. The actual number 

of structures is likely higher, since between 2 percent and 20 percent of road improvement 

projects did not provide information on culverts affected. 

Stakeholders on forestlands are committed to continuing these types of activities into the future. 

Industrial forest landowners have estimated spending approximately $13 million a year, or 

$130 million over the next 10 years, on these projects in the coastal Evolutionary Significant 

Units (ESUs) alone. State Forest Lands have committed to spending over $2.5 million during 

the „99-„01 biennium for the restoration of roads and replacement of culverts and other stream 

crossing structures damaged by the 1996 storm. State Forest Lands are also proposing to spend 

an additional $2.5 million dollars in each of the next three biennia to improve roads, including 

stream crossing structures. 

How successful these and future activities will be in restoring fish passage is uncertain at this 

time. Nonetheless, road issues, especially fish passage restoration, are being emphasized 

statewide and significant accomplishments have been made. Success must be evaluated over 

time through continued implementation and effectiveness monitoring. These evaluation 

mechanisms are in place for forestland restoration actions.

Current Rules

Fish use surveys have been completed on approximately 20 percent of all forested streams. In 

addition to determining the presence of fish, the surveys have provided useful information about: 

(1) barriers to fish passage, (2) unmapped stream channels, and (3) baseline fish distribution. 

Where surveys have not been completed, an interim classification system for fish presence is 

providing a reasonable proxy for actual classification. Issues that have arisen with regard to the 

classification system include concerns about classifying streams as nonfish use when the absence 

of fish could be caused by a human-caused passage barrier, and classifying streams when the 

channel has been recently torrented (especially after the 1996 storms). There is also a desire to 

get fish presence data available on a GIS-based system to enhance the ability to update and 

distribute maps.

At the current survey rate, it is expected that the fish presence surveys will be about 80 to 

90 percent complete in the next six to eight years at a total cost of $3 to 4 million. There are 
A-12

significant concerns that this level of funding may not be available for these efforts. Some also 

question whether this is the most productive area to spend limited salmon restoration funds.

The ODF fish passage guidance was released in June 1995 and is updated as new information 

becomes available (last updated June 1999). While this guidance is based on the most current 

science available, effectiveness and implementation monitoring must be conducted to verify that 

these guidelines are achieving the goal of restoring fish passage. The ODF monitoring program 

is currently conducting a stream crossing compliance pilot study that is discussed below. 

Significant training about fish passage design was provided by ODF and others to help address 

some of the issues identified by the pilot study. 

Under the new rules, fish passage is required for those stream crossings that have been 

constructed or reconstructed after September 1994. Culverts installed between 1972 and 1994, 

while providing adult passage, may not be providing juvenile passage. As older culverts are 

replaced, they will be required to meet the current standard. If a Type F stream extends up to, 

but not beyond the culvert outlet, that culvert would have to be designed to pass fish when it is 

eventually replaced under regular road maintenance. Currently, if it is determined that the 

upstream reach has the capacity to be a fish bearing stream but is currently a nonfish bearing 

stream because of a culvert that cannot pass fish, that upstream reach will remain classified as a 

nonfish bearing stream. 

Stream Crossing Study Preliminary Results

The ODF conducted a pilot study in the summer of 1998 to examine compliance with the ODF fish 

passage guidance. Twenty of the stream crossings monitored were volunteered for assessment 

(“volunteer sites”). An additional 37 sites were selected in a random stratified manner so that sites 

with both Type F streams and a newly constructed or reconstructed road were included. The study 

focused on juvenile fish passage. 

Since the 1998 sample is not a random sample, the results presented from these data may not be 

representative. The 1999 sample will be able to confirm or reject these preliminary findings with 

statistical validity. Nonetheless, the 1998 data provide the best information available to date and 

therefore policy decisions are likely to be based in part on the results of this study. The 

preliminary data indicate that guidelines, education, and outreach need to be emphasized to 

increase the likelihood that stream crossing structures will meet the ODF guidelines.

Preliminary results are presented in three categories: Written Plans, Implementation of 

Guidelines, and Juvenile Fish Passage. In the following discussions, results will often be reported 

separately for “selected” versus “volunteered” sites. 

Written Plans: Thirty-three out of 57 sites (58 percent) contained the necessary information to 

determine which fish passage alternative was being used. It is important that written plans reflect 

this information for both administrative and monitoring purposes. When the fish passage

alternative is not clearly stated (42 percent of the sites), assumptions must be made to determine 

if the guidelines were properly implemented and if the installation goals were achieved.
A-13

Did the written plan contain the recommended information for the particular alternative? 

Only eight of 29 of the selected sites (28 percent) and 4 of the volunteered sites (20 percent) 

contained the minimum amount of recommended information. The technical ODF guidelines 

provide a list of data that should be included in written plans to allow department personnel to 

judge the soundness of the installation proposal.

Was the written plan properly implemented?

This is the most basic compliance question that can be answered. Forty percent of the selected 

sites and 60 percent of the volunteered sites implemented the alternatives described in the written 

plans (Table 3). Eleven percent of the selected sites and 15 percent of the volunteered sites did 

not implement the alternatives described in the written plans. The remaining sites fall into one of 

two categories: unknown and undecided. Unknown alternatives will not be assigned an 

alternative, because of a lack of information in the written plan. Undecided will be assigned one 

of three alternatives after further review.

Table 3. Selected Sites That Achieved The Alternatives Described In The Written Plan.

Category Number of Sites Percent of Total

Selected Volunteer Selected Volunteer

Unknown 8 4 22% 20%

Undecided 10 1 27% 5%

Yes achieved written plan 15 12 40% 60%

No did not achieve written plan 4 3 11% 15%

 TOTAL 37 20 100% 100%

Likelihood to Pass Juvenile Fish: There are four assumptions made in determining the likelihood 

of an installation to pass juvenile fish: (1) bridges and open-bottom arches are likely to pass 

juvenile fish; (2) culverts installed at or less than 0.5 percent gradient with no outlet drop are 

likely to pass juvenile fish; (3) stream-simulated culvert strategies are likely to pass juvenile fish; 

and (4) baffled culverts with no outlet drop are likely to pass juvenile fish. Based on these 

assumptions, survey results indicate that the selected sites had less likelihood of passing fish than 

the volunteer sites. Fifty-one percent of the selected sites were likely to pass juvenile fish, while 

80 percent of the volunteered sites were likely to provide juvenile fish passage (Table 4). These 

results indicate that the selected and volunteered sites should not be pooled together. The ODF 

guidelines provide much greater detail and breadth of scenarios that need to be considered when 

installing structures, and this is discussed below.

Table 4. Likelihood of Passing Fish by Site Selection Process.

Site Selection Process Juvenile fish passage Number of sites (Percent)

Selected Yes 19 (51%)

Selected No 18 (49%)

Volunteer Yes 16 (80%)

Volunteer No 4 (20%)

Implementation of Guidelines on the Selected Sites: Field data collected at each selected site 

(excluding the volunteer sites) were compared with the appropriate guidelines. Each installation 

was evaluated against the specific criterion defined in the ODF alternatives regarding stream and 

valley characteristics, outlet jump, outlet mitigation, culvert dimensions, and sediment retention. 
A-14

For the 22 selected sites where the alternative was identified, the installation was rated as 

“accept” (i.e., the guidelines were properly implemented), “further review” (i.e., borderline 

instances), or “reject” (i.e., the guidelines were not properly implemented). The standards by 

which to do this are described in the ODF guidelines (Robison, 1995 and 1997). Results indicate 

that 36 percent of the installations implemented the guidelines successfully, 36 percent warrant 

further review, and 28 percent did not implement the guidelines properly (Table 5). 

Guideline implementation and the likelihood of the installation to pass juvenile fish can be 

evaluated together. This evaluation identifies an apparent discrepancy in Table 5. For example, 

a site may not meet the ODF guidelines yet pass juvenile fish, or visa versa. Of the six sites that 

did not implement the guidelines, one was likely to pass juvenile fish. This situation was a 

countersunk culvert (Alternative 4), which based on field data, was actually installed at a 

gradient lower than recommended for the stream gradient. Under Alternative 4, culverts should 

not be countersunk such that the stream gradient minus the culvert gradient is greater than 

1 percent. However, the culvert was retaining sediment and therefore was assumed likely to pass 

juvenile fish. The juvenile fish passage rates did not change much from that shown in Table 3, 

when the unknown alternatives were dropped. Fifty-five percent of the sites are likely to pass 

juvenile fish, and 45 percent are not likely (Table 5).

Table 5. Proper Implementation Of Stream Crossing Guidelines And Providing For Juvenile Fish Passage 

(Excludes Volunteer Sites And Sites Where The Alternative Was Unknown).

LIKELIHOOD 

TO PASS 

JUVENILE FISH Determination of Proper Implementation of the ODF Guidelines

Accept Further Review Reject Total

Yes 8 3 1 12 (55%)

No 0 5 5 10 (45%)

 Total 8 (36%) 8 (36%) 6 (28%) 22

Juvenile Fish Passage Summary

The results indicate that only 40 percent of the selected sites were in compliance with their 

written plans. Furthermore, only 22 percent contained the minimum amount of information 

recommended in the guidance. Compliance with the written plan was slightly improved for 

volunteered sites (60 percent). Fifty-eight percent of all the sites contained enough detail to 

determine which ODF alternative was being used. These results suggest a need for an increased 

emphasis on written plan criterion and tools for department personnel to use when determining 

compliance.

Only 51 percent of the selected sites are likely to pass juvenile fish, while 80 percent of the 

volunteered sites are likely to pass juvenile fish. The majority of the selected sites either 

successfully implemented the guidelines (36 percent) or needed further review (36 percent). 

Twenty-eight percent did not meet the guidelines. With such a small sample size, it is dangerous 

to apply these numbers to the total population of new installations. However, it does emphasize 

two important points: 

1. ODF is on a fairly steep learning curve at this point with regard to successful implementation 

of the guidelines. The guidelines are fairly new (two years for the most recent), and the 
A-15

landowner, operators, and department personnel are still learning how to achieve the fish 

passage standards. In addition, ODF guidelines are very specific in terms of achieving 

juvenile fish passage and require rigorous designs not yet seen on other ownerships 

(e.g., 0.5 percent gradient). Furthermore, when comparing these compliance rates with those 

reported from other agencies, it is critical to know what criterion the other agencies are using 

and what monitoring techniques were used. ODF is unaware at this point of any other 

agency performing such detailed measurements of compliance.

2. While the sample size is extremely low, these results emphasize the need for increased 

training on the guidelines and the need to incorporate some of the technical guideline 

criterion into the ODF Guidance Manual.

VI. Possible Additional Measures and/or Rules

Option #1

Objective:

To provide for riparian functions along stream reaches above impassable stream crossing 

structures that have a high probability of recolonization by salmonids once the structure is 

replaced/improved.

Description:

If an upstream reach has the capacity to be a fish bearing stream but is currently a nonfish 

bearing stream because of a stream crossing structure that cannot pass fish, the forest practices 

rules would be amended or voluntarily applied so that the upstream reach would be classified as 

a fish bearing stream. The extent of potential fish use upstream of the blockage would be 

determined using the interim guidance criteria. 

Methods/Approaches:

ODF has developed interim guidelines to designate fish use based upon the physical 

characteristics of a stream. These guidelines were based upon the fish presence survey data and 

would be used for stream segments above human-caused barriers to designate the Type F reach. 

The guidelines use either a map or on-the-ground physical characteristics.

1. Voluntary – landowners could agree to implement this approach following the interim fish 

use guidelines on a voluntary basis. This approach would be easy to implement and track 

since it would be done on an operation by operation basis.

2. Regulatory – the current stream classification rules would be amended to establish that when 

fish use ends at a human-caused culvert (or other barrier), then the classification of fish use 

will be extended above the culvert to a point that would be established following the current 

interim criteria.

In either case, a process that field-verifies reoccupation in the future and establishes the actual 

end point of fish use may be desirable and would be included. Such a survey could be conducted 
A-16

a set number of years after the culvert replacement occurs. Also in either case, a process to 

consider options other than restoring fish passage for very short lengths of stream could be 

allowed so long as the appropriate length of stream above the culvert was protected as fish 

bearing as part of the mitigation for loss of habitat.

Benefits:

The most important benefit is that reaches of stream that will be reoccupied by fish once a 

culvert is replaced will have retained vegetation to facilitate reoccupation and help maintain and 

restore good fish habitat over time. This option could also remove a disincentive to replace a 

culvert in a timely manner. It may remove an incentive to harvest a reach above the culvert 

before culvert replacement. The option eliminates an unfair dichotomy about how streams are 

classified. Currently, if fish presence surveys have not been conducted above a culvert, than the 

interim guidelines are applied and the appropriate reach above the culvert is treated as a Type F 

stream. If fish presence surveys have confirmed the absence of fish above a culvert, than the 

entire stream above the culvert is treated as a Type N stream.

Costs:

Landowner costs will be increased. Additional harvest restrictions will be imposed for those 

stream reaches with a classification change from nonfish to a fish bearing stream. Given the 

relatively large number of culverts that determine the end of fish use, the length of stream 

affected could be relatively significant. The actual costs will depend upon the stream length and 

the level of protection required. This option might also create a potential conflict between 

upstream and downstream neighbors: for example, where a downstream landowner is reluctant to 

replace the culvert, while the upstream owner is required to provide Type F stream protection.

Resources needed:

Some form of tracking system will be needed to maintain the identity and location of culverts 

that are the end of fish use. In general, these data are available for completed surveys, but not for 

channels that have not yet been surveyed. Current stream classification maps could be used for 

this purpose. The interim classification guidelines should be re-assessed as part of this process 

and may need to be modified. This assessment would be based upon the additional survey 

information that has been collected since the original guidelines were developed.

Option #2 

Objective:

To facilitate the identification, prioritization, and restoration of existing culverts that currently do 

not pass fish. 

Description:

A large number of stream crossings in Oregon currently do not pass juvenile and adult fish up and 

downstream. However, on forestland, a protocol for road assessments has been developed, as 

have criteria for fish passage. When stream crossings are established or replaced on Type F 

streams, written plans are required and some level of design review service is provided for 

forestlands. Many landowners are participating with watershed councils to help establish 

restoration priorities and facilitate grant writing. Recent training efforts have been implemented to 
A-17

improve the technical understanding of the design criteria. This option is aimed at accelerating 

culvert replacement above what is currently being done, especially for family forestland owners 

who often do not have adequate resources to address this issue. 

Methods/Approaches:

There are a number of different ways to implement this option. Either a rule-based or voluntary 

approach could be used. Listed below are specific methods that have been deliberated by the 

Forest Practices Advisory Committee (FPAC):

1. Require that fish passage be restored for any culvert on a road that is within an active harvest 

operation within one year after completion of the harvest.

2. Require that landowners inventory fish passage barriers and that such barriers be repaired 

within a specified time period. The survey could be required over a four-year period and the 

remediation of fish passage problems completed over a ten-year period. This could be part of 

an overall road inventory and risk reduction plan. Financial incentives may be needed to 

fully implement this method.

3. Create a support service within the ODF for road assessment information. There are a 

number of possible ways of providing a “service” to support road assessment and mitigation. 

This nonregulatory service would catalog potential fish passage culverts and aid in design 

standards and in obtaining stewardship grant money, if needed. Information could be 

forwarded to watershed councils to be incorporated into watershed assessments and action 

plans.

4. The Conditional OFIC Proposal (in the Forest Roads Issue Paper). Part of this proposal is to 

address fish passage problems associated with legacy roads and culverts.

Benefits:

Linking fish passage restoration activities to an active harvest operation would accelerate culvert 

replacement and tie restoration timing and location to activities that produce revenue. Requiring 

inventories and remediation activities within a specified time period provides for some flexibility 

for the landowner. Creating a support service will aid in the tracking of culvert work progress 

and provide assistance to landowners who lack adequate resources, specifically nonindustrial 

private landowners (NIPLs), also known as family forestland owners. This will also potentially 

aid in the prioritization of culvert work for watershed councils and allow for the more efficient 

use of limited resources. 

Costs:

Short- and long-term costs will be increased for landowners with some of these approaches. 

Linking fish passage restoration activities to an active harvest operation may draw resources 

away from other higher culvert and road priorities. This would require shifting landowner 

resources from other actions that may have greater benefits to fish. The ODF will need 

additional resources to build and maintain a support service for road assessment information and 

the personnel necessary to manage such a service. It is not clear how the data might be used to 

improve outcomes over current systems.

Resources needed:

New or amended rules and/or financial incentives. A method of tracking the completion of 

restoration actions tied to operations. A process to track the inventory and repair of barriers. 

Multi-land use inventories of problem culverts and relative length of habitat above the problem 
A-18

barrier. Resources to coordinate restoration efforts through ODF, ODFW, or a watershed 

council. Funding for restoration.

Option #3

Objective:

To provide a more effective and efficient means of classifying streams for “fish use.”

Description:

Revise the forest practice rule definition of Type F and Type N streams based upon a physical 

habitat approach to classify fish use and nonuse streams.

The current water classification scheme is based on the presence or absence of fish. The survey 

process to determine presence/absence is time-consuming, limited to a short season, and requires 

significant funding (though costs are relatively low compared to the resources that may or may 

not be retained based upon the results). Fish presence surveys are becoming more restricted due 

to the listing of fish under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). The surveys also provide 

useful information to identify barriers to fish passage, identify unmapped stream channels, and 

create a baseline of fish distribution information. However, surveys can produce unreliable 

results when fish populations are depressed or there are other environmental factors such as 

drought or extreme flows.

This survey-based approach potentially reduces the amount of mature forest riparian habitat 

maintained over time. This can occur where older forest structure along a given stream reach 

may not be maintained as well as it might under a Type F classification over time because fish 

were not present at the time the fish survey was conducted. 

Methods/Approaches:

ODF has developed interim classification guidelines to designate fish use based upon the 

physical characteristics of a stream. These guidelines were based upon fish presence survey data 

and could be used to classify streams that are “fish habitat.” The guidelines use either mapped or 

on-the-ground physical characteristics. The current stream classification rules would be 

amended to establish that fish habitat streams are any streams that meet the habitat criteria. The 

habitat criteria may need to be modified and improved based upon more recent and complete 

survey data. One of the key issues that will need to be addressed is the acceptable margin of 

error in applying a habitat model. Data indicate that models used to predict fish use in gentle 

topography have less error than models applied in steep topography. In either case, a policy 

choice must be made concerning the acceptable predictive error. A more conservative model 

(error on the side of over-predicting fish habitat) could be used since the rules would also have a 

process to field survey at the request of the landowner. This option would most likely need to 

be applied in combination with Option #1 to avoid a range of potential inconsistencies. 

Benefits:

This will potentially increase the amount of mature forest habitat available to salmonids over 

time by allowing the maintenance of such habitat in stream reaches that may have historically 
A-19

supported salmonid populations. Funds used to conduct the surveys can be allocated to other 

needs/activities. May reduce classification problems resulting from survey errors or other survey 

biases. Provides an option if the listing of fish precludes the use of efficient survey methods 

(electroshocking).

Costs:

Landowner costs will potentially be increased since additional harvest restrictions will be 

imposed for those stream reaches where there is a stream classification change from nonfish 

bearing to fish habitat. Conversely, this may also potentially decrease the amount of mature 

forest habitat available to salmonids over time if the habitat model incorrectly classifies habitat 

that is used by fish as nonfish habitat. The other values of the surveys such as identifying 

barriers to fish passage, unmapped stream channels, and creating a baseline of fish distribution 

information will be lost.

Resources needed:

The interim classification guidelines would need to be reviewed and revised to develop 

predictive models for fish use. Agreement would be needed about the acceptable error rate. 

Classification maps would need to be updated. A choice would also need to be made when the 

classification change would occur and whether ODF, ODFW or the landowner would physically 

survey the stream or apply the mapped-based approach. The choice might well be different 

based upon topography or region. Resources are probably adequate to process field survey 

requests, assuming that demand for this service does not increase substantially. However, some 

accommodation for scheduling surveys would be necessary due to the limited field season.

Option #4

Objective:

To identify and restore fish passage problems on family forestland owners (5,000 acres or less).

Description:

Create a funding source for family forestland owners or assist family forestland owners in 

obtaining funds from existing sources to expand the road assessment effort to family forestland 

owners. This financial assistance would also be used to help family forestland owners replace 

stream crossings that are not adequately passing fish. The program might be similar to the Forest 

Resource Trust.

Methods/Approaches:

1. Provide a tax credit for culvert restoration for the next ten-year period which would restore

access to “high” priority habitat. The thresholds for high priority habitat would be set based 

upon factors including size of stream, stream gradient, type of habitat restored, and length of 

habitat with restored access. The credit would sunset in ten years and replacement would 

then be at the cost of the landowner.

2. Float a bond issue that would be repaid with Ballot Measure 66 funds to provide a specific 

account for culvert replacement. This approach would also have a priority system.
A-20

3. Establish a combined account for culvert replacement utilizing earmarked Ballot Measure 66 

funds, ODFW Restoration and Enhancement funds, new fishing license surcharge, public and 

landowner contributions, and/or federal funds. This approach would also have a priority 

system.

4. Establish a capitol investment loan program like the Forest Resource Trust that would 

provide a low cost loan to family forestland owners for road and culvert repair that would be 

repaid at the time of a harvest. This approach would also have a priority system.

Benefits:

This would provide a funding mechanism to accelerate culvert replacements on family 

forestlands. Since family forestlands tend to be lower in a basin and are often located along 

larger and lower gradient systems favored by coho salmon, access to substantial overwintering 

coho habitat might be restored.

Costs:

Funding would be needed and may draw resources away from other higher priorities. Ideally, 

the direct costs to family forestland owners would be minor.

Resources needed:

Possibly legislation, funding sources, and a prioritization system.

Option #5

Objective:

Encourage the use of bridges as the stream crossing design standard of choice.

Methods/Approaches:

Amend the rule guidance to encourage the use of bridges instead of culverts to the maximum 

extent practicable.

Benefits:

Fish passage would be ensured wherever a bridge would be installed. Bridges have a more 

limited likelihood of resource damage from catastrophic failure as compared to culverts and fills. 

Bridges are also are more likely to provide for the downstream movement of large woody debris 

and sediment.

Costs:

Bridges are very costly to install compared to other options that can also successfully pass fish, 

though long-term maintenance costs are less. Focusing limited resources on bridges would very 

likely mean that other efforts to improve fish passage could be significantly reduced.

Resources needed:

Lower cost design and construction options for bridges. Possible financial incentives.
A-21

References

Barber, M. E., and R. C. Downs. 1996. Investigation of Culvert Hydraulics Related to Juvenile 

Fish Passage. Washington State Transportation Center. Washington State University, 

Dept. of Civil and Environmental Eng., Pullman, Washington. Prepared for: Washington 

State Transportation Commission, Department of Transportation.

Bates, K. M. 1995. Fishway Design Guidelines for Pacific Salmon. Excerpts for Bureau

of Land Management Culvert Design Workshop. January 11-12. 13 Chapters. 

Beechie, T., et al. 1994. Estimating Coho Salmon Rearing Habitat and Smolt Production Losses 

in a Large River Basin, and Implications for Habitat Restoration. North American Journal 

of Fisheries Management 14:797-811.

Behlke, C. E., D. L. Kane, R. F. McLean, and M. D. Travis. 1989. Field Observations of Arctic 

Grayling Passage Through Highway Culverts. Trans. Res. Record 1224. pp. 63-66.

Behlke, C. E., D. L. Kane, R. F. Mclean, and M. D. Travis. 1990. Fundamentals of Culvert 

Design for Passage of Weak Swimming Fish. Report No. FHWA-AK-RD-90-10. 153 pp.

Bell, M. C. 1986. Fisheries Handbook of Engineering Requirements and Biological Criteria. 

Fish Passage Development and Evaluation Program, Corps of Engineers, North Pacific 

Division, Portland, Oregon. 290 pp.

Botkin, D., K. Cummins, T. Dunne, H. Reiger, M. Sobel, and L. Talbot. 1995. Status and 

Future of Salmon of Western Oregon and Northern California: Findings and Options. The 

Center for the Study of the Environment, Santa Barbara, California.

Bradley, J. B., D. T. Williams, and P. C. Klingeman. 1989. Short Course Notes: Sediment 

Problems in Rivers. Printed by Water Resources Institute, Oregon State University, 

Corvallis, Oregon. January 1989.

Browning, M. C. 1990. Oregon Culvert Fish Passage Survey. Western Federal Lands Highway 

Division, Federal Highway Administration. Volumes 1 and 2.

Bustard, D. R., and D. W. Narver. 1975. Aspects of the Winter Ecology of Juvenile Coho 

Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and Steelhead Trout (Salmo gairdneri). J. Fish Res. Board 

Can. 32:667-680.

Cederholm, C. J., and W. J. Scarlett. 1981. Seasonal Immigrations of Juvenile Salmonids into 

Four Small Tributaries of the Clearwater River, Washington, 1977-1981. IN: Brannon, 

E. L. and E. O. Salo, editors. 1981. Salmon and Trout Migratory Behavior Symposium. 

Washington Department of Natural Resources, Forks, Washington. pp. 98-110.

Clancy C. G., and D. R. Reichmuth. 1990. A Detachable Fishway for Steep Culverts. N. Am. 

Jour. Of Fish. Man. 10(2):244.246.

Conroy, S. C. 1997. Habitat Lost and Found. Washington Trout Report. Vol. 7:1
A-22

Dane, B. G. 1978. A Review and Resolution of Fish Passage Problems at Culvert Sites in 

British Columbia. Fisheries and Marine Service Technical Report No. 810. 126 pp.

Everest, F. H. 1973. Ecology and Management of Summer Steelhead in the Rogue River. 

Fishery Res. Rep. No. 7, Oregon State Game Commission. 48pp.

Everest, F. H., N. B. Armantrout, S. M. Keller, W. D. Parante, J. R. Sedell, T. E. Nickelson, 

J. M. Johnston, G. N. Haugen. 1985. In Brown, E. R., ed. 1985. Management of Wildlife 

and Fish Habitats in Forests of Western Oregon and Washington. Part 1. Chapter 

Narratives. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. Chapter 10, pp. 199-230.

Fausch, K. D., and M. K. Young. 1995. Evolutionarily Significant Units and Movement of 

Resident Stream Fishes: A Cautionary Tale. American Fisheries Society Symposium. 

17:360-370.

Fish Commission of Oregon, Water Resources Section. 1969. Some Effects of Delay on 

Migrating Adult Salmon. 2 pp.

Gebhards, S., and J. Fisher. 1972. Fish Passage and Culvert Installations. Idaho Fish and Game 

Department. 12 pp.

Gowan, C., M. K. Young, K. D. Fausch, and S. C. Riley. 1994. Restricted Movement in 

Resident Stream Salmonids: A Paradigm Lost? Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 51: 2626-2637.

Grant, G. E., F. J. Swanson, and M. G. Wolman. 1990. Pattern and Origin of Stepped-Bed 

Morphology in High-Gradient Streams, Western Cascades, Oregon. Geological Society of 

America Bulletin. v. 102, pp. 340-352.

Groot, C., and L. Margolis, eds. 1991. Pacific Salmon Life Histories. UBC Press. University 

of British Columbia. Vancouver, B.C. 564 pp.

Hartman, G. F., and T. G. Brown. 1987. Use of Small, Temporary, Floodplain Tributaries by 

Juvenile Salmonids in a West Coast Rain-Forest Drainage Basin, Carnation Creek, British 

Columbia. Can. J. Fish Aquat. Sci. 44:262-270.

Jones, D. R., J. W. Kiceniuk, and O. S. Bamford. 1974. Evaluation of the Swimming 

Performance of Several Fish Species from the Mackenzie River. J. Fish. 

Normann, M. N., and others. 1985. Hydraulic Design of Highway Culverts. Report FHWA-IP85-15. Federal Highway Administration.

Oregon Department of Forestry Stream Classification Guidance for Fish Bearing Status. Available 

from Oregon Department of Forestry, Forest Practices Section, Salem, Oregon, 97310.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and Oregon Department of Forestry. 1995. Fish 

Presence Surveys. Available from ODF or ODFW local offices.

Oregon Department of Forestry. 1997. Road Risk Survey Protocol. Available from Oregon 

Department of Forestry, Forest Practices Section, Salem, Oregon, 97310.
A-23

Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). 1990. Hydraulics Manual. Oregon Department 

of Transportation, Salem, Oregon.

Powers, P. E., et al. 1998. Culvert Hydraulics Related to Upstream Juvenile Salmon Passage. 

June 20, 1996. Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife Habitat Program.

Powers, P. D., and J. F. Orsborn. 1985. Analysis of Barriers to Upstream Fish Migration. Final 

Report, Part 4 of 4. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering; Washington 

State University. Pullman, Washington. (U.S. Department of Energy, Bonneville Power 

Administration, Division of Fish and Wildlife, Portland, Oregon.) 120 pp.

Reiser, D. W., and T. C. Bjornn. 1979. Habitat Requirements of Anadromous Salmonids. 

USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-96. 54 pp.

Robison, E.G., A. Mirati, and M. Allen. 1999. Oregon Road/Stream Crossing Restoration 

Guide: Spring 1999. Oregon Department of Forestry, Forest Practices Section, Salem, 

Oregon, 97310.

Shirvell, C. S. 1994. Effect of Changes in Streamflow on the Microhabitat Use and Movements 

of Sympatric Juvenile Coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and Chinook Salmon (O. 

tshawytscha) in a Natural Stream. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 51:1644-1652.

Skeesick, D. G. 1970. The Fall Immigration of Juvenile Coho Salmon into a Small Tributary. 

Res. Rep. Fish Comm. Oreg. 2: 90-95.

Strahler, A. N. 1964. Quantitative Geomorphology of Drainage Basins and Channel Networks; 

Section 4-2 in Handbook of applied hydrology (ed. Ven te Chow), McGraw-Hill, New 

York.

Thorne, C. R., and L. W. Zevenbergen. 1985. Estimating Mean Velocity in Mountain Rivers. 

J. Hydraul. Eng. (ASCE) 111(4): 612-624.

Travis, M. D., and T. Tilsworth. 1986. Fish Passage through Poplar Grove Creek Culvert, 

Alaska. Transportation Res. Rec. 1075. pp. 21-26.

U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. 1994. Hydraulic Design of Flood Control Channels , June 30, 

1994. EM 1110-2-1601.

Webb, P. W., and D. Weihs, eds. 1983. Fish Biomechanics. Praeger Publishers. New York, 

New York. 398 pp.

White, D. 1997. Hydraulic Performance of Countersunk Culverts in Oregon. Oregon State 

University, Master‟s Thesis.
A-24
A-25

Appendix A

Water Velocities

When flows through a drainage feature create conditions that are impassable to fish, their up or 

downstream movement is delayed for as long as that condition persists. This can occur at either 

extreme of high or very low flow conditions. Adult spawning migrations are commonly timed 

with freshets that may result in excessive velocities or other impassable conditions in culverts for 

a period of time. Migration delays can result in a number of negative impacts on fish (Fish 

Commission of Oregon, 1969; Groot and Margolis, 1991; Travis and Tilsworth, 1986):

1. Increased metabolic cost--Excessive delays in migration cause fish to expend stored energy 

necessary for successful migration, maturation and spawning before reaching their 

destination, resulting in weakened fish more disposed to disease or pre-spawning mortality. 

Salmon usually stop feeding before entering fresh water and depend on bodily reserves of fat 

and protein for migration, further maturation, spawning and redd defense until they die. 

Body fat reserves of sockeye salmon in the Fraser River were observed to be over 90 percent 

depleted in females and nearly 90 percent depleted in males at the time of death after 

spawning. Considering that some salmon species, like those on the Snake River runs, will 

travel up to 900 miles to reach their spawning grounds, efficient use of stored energy reserves 

is critical to successful reproduction.

2. Delay in spawning timing under favorable conditions--Delayed fish may arrive at holding 

or spawning areas later than normal thus missing their normal spawning periods, which may 

be timed with crucial flow and water temperature conditions necessary for egg and fry 

survival.

3. Reduced spawner distribution--The distribution of spawning fish can be adversely affected 

by delays. If fish cease to move upstream, headwater areas may be poorly seeded with redds 

while the number of nests below the barrier may be beyond the carrying capacity of the area. 

Late spawners in areas with high redd densities may dig up eggs previously deposited, 

resulting in mortality to the progeny of earlier spawning fish.

4. Increased mortality due to predation--During a study of the ability of Arctic grayling to 

pass through a 110-foot long, 5-foot diameter highway crossing pipe, the fish were prevented 

from passing through for eight days during a period of high flow (Travis and Tilsworth, 

1986). The study observed that sport fisherman took a substantial number of fish holding in 

the pool below the culvert.

5. Reduced female fecundity--Female fish subject to harassment, disease, poor environmental 

conditions, depletion of bodily reserves or high spawning densities have been noted to not 

fully spawn but retain a substantial percentage of eggs.

6. Reduced juvenile survival--Juveniles or resident fish seeking more abundant food, cover, or 

favorable water temperature conditions, as well as refuge from high flows or predation, may 

have to remain in less than ideal habitat conditions while passage conditions are unsuitable. 

The pattern of water velocity in a natural channel is very complex. A wide variety of swimming 

conditions are available for fish, ranging from high velocities and turbulence in the main flow to 

quite slow, calm water along the stream edge, around large boulders and wood, or within side 

channels. Even though average stream velocities could be much greater than the ability of adult 
A-26

or juvenile fish to pass, there are abundant low-velocity zones near and within the boundary 

layers of roughness elements such as bed material and logs that facilitate upstream movement. 

Coho salmon observed navigating rapids in the Somass River, British Columbia, swam quickly 

through the rapids then held in a quiet pool for some time (Groot and Margolis, 1991). This 

burst and rest pattern is likely the way that fish maneuver through high velocity zones and jumps 

in drainage features, fish ladders, weirs or baffle systems. If the maximum time for maintaining 

either sustained or burst speeds is reached before a resting area is available the fish will be swept 

back downstream. 

The potential energy due to differences in elevation can result in increased water velocities as 

water moves down hill. The greater the elevation change between a culvert inlet and the outlet, 

the more challenging managing water velocity becomes. The velocity profile of a culvert can 

present a rather homogenous pattern of high water velocities with few zones of slow, calm water. 

This may lead to the assumption that fish pass through a culvert at their maximum possible speed 

in order to minimize their exposure to increased water velocity. It has been observed, however, 

that fish do not always pass through culverts at their maximum possible speed. Behlke et al. 

(1989) speculate that fish navigating through culverts of unknown lengths will not expend 

energy at their full potential but will move ahead slowly to conserve energy. This theory is 

supported by field observations where fish passage through culverts took longer than expected. 

Fish tend to occupy areas of water that have lower velocities (Powers et al., 1998; and Belhke et 

al., 1990). In culverts that have obstructions to flow, there tends to be more areas of slower 

water that fish can occupy and rest between periods when they must negotiate high velocity 

water. Common areas where low velocity occurs are along the margin of the culvert, 

immediately downstream of boulders, and along the bottom of the stream. Examination of the 

average velocity of most steep gradient streams shows that natural streams are out of compliance 

for juvenile fish passage. The reason fish can negotiate these streams is because of these areas of 

relatively low water velocity dispersed throughout steep gradient streams. One reason wide or 

embedded culverts are preferable is to provide more opportunities for these low velocity areas. 

Culverts in which the water is constricted into a narrow flume provide little opportunity for these 

low velocity rest areas to occur.

Juvenile salmon swimming upstream in culverts have been observed to take advantage of low 

velocity zones located close to the culvert wall (Barber and Downs, 1996). Apparently, up to 

certain velocities, the roughness of the corrugated culvert wall provides a low velocity boundary 

zone where passage for these small fish is possible. At higher velocities, however, the 

turbulence created by pipe corrugations can overwhelm small, juvenile fish, whereas a smooth 

pipe may still allow fish passage. The following are some of the ways in which culverts can 

become velocity barriers to fish passage:

Reduce the cross-sectional area of flow

Reduce roughness

Increase the gradient (by straightening the stream channel)

Present a uniform velocity distribution with a lack of resting areas
A-27

Placing a culvert at too steep of a gradient is a common cause of excessive velocities, though 

even moderate velocities can be a barrier if the culvert length is beyond the endurance of the fish. 

Sudden changes in velocity at the culvert inlet, outlet or within the barrel due to debris or culvert 

design can also be barriers to fish.

On relatively flat streams (streams from 0-3 percent) there is little elevation change to contend 

with, and several strategies can work to manage the small amount of potential energy. However, 

on steep streams (greater than 10 percent), the challenge becomes difficult and limited options 

are available to reduce velocities to acceptable levels. There are essentially four ways to prevent 

excessive velocities from becoming a barrier to fish passage inside a culvert.

1. Eliminate high velocities by making the culvert flat.

2. Create roughness to cause energy dissipation so that most of energy does not go into velocity 

production.

3. Use backwatering and drops and pools to dissipate the energy instead of constant high 

velocity

4. Create velocity “shadows” or resting places inside a culvert so that fish can rest or stop inside 

the culvert in areas with low velocity.

Placing a culvert at a low gradient is one of the best design strategies to provide for fish passage. 

In essence, the design is simple in that it reduces velocity by reducing potential energy dissipated 

in the culvert (i.e., change in elevation between the inlet and the outlet). Since culverts typically 

have very low roughness, it is important to place the culvert flat as most energy will be converted 

to velocity in bare culverts. Excessive velocities for juvenile fish passage can be found in 

culverts with as little as 0.5 percent gradient so careful installation is necessary to create culverts 

that are very close to level.

Roughness in a culvert causes the potential energy to be expended in other ways than velocity, 

creating turbulence with areas of reduced velocity. Streambed simulation designs attempt to 

mimic the natural roughness of a stream channel inside a culvert. Traditionally (i.e., before fish 

passage was a significant concern) a hydraulically efficient culvert was thought to be one that 

converts most energy into velocity and has very little roughness. Therefore, an efficient culvert 

could convey more water with the same opening size. Unfortunately for fish, an “efficient 

culvert” has extreme velocities, and excess velocity and energy often scours the streambed 

resulting in an excessive drop at the outlet. 

The ODFW guidelines regarding maximum allowable velocities in culverts are designed to allow 

the weakest fish to swim at a sustained speed through a culvert without resting. Streambed 

simulation designs such as bridges, open arch culverts, and embedded culverts are the preferred 

design alternatives and do not have design water velocities, but nonembedded culvert designs 

that can meet the maximum allowable velocities are acceptable.

The assignment of risk is used in determining how large a streamflow the culvert is designed to 

handle during peak flow events. The ODFW guidelines recommend that road/stream crossing 

accommodate the largest streamflow that would occur in a given hundred-year period (i.e., the 
A-28

100-year flow) “to the integrity of the structure.”3 The ODF, in contrast, calls for culvert designs 

for the 50-year flow to the top of the culvert, or to three feet below the bridge bottom for bridges. 

In terms of culvert sizing, the difference between a 50-year and 100-year flood is about 

20 percent in most cases. However, designing to the integrity of the crossing structure such as 

ODFW requires would allow for smaller culverts and bridge openings than designing to the top 

of the culvert. Also, understanding the integrity of the stream crossing structure requires 

advanced geotechnical analysis for culvert fills and is difficult to regulate or give guidelines for. 

For this reason, the ODF guidelines require a design for the 50-year peak flood flow and uses the 

top of the culvert or three feet below the bridge bottom as design criteria. (Likewise, stream 

crossings that use a streambed simulation design must also be able to pass a 50-year flow and 

still be able to pass fish.) 

Culvert Drops

Salmonids in media images are shown performing amazing feats of jumping and swimming 

ability. It is important to consider, however, that like many engineering problems, a factor of 

safety is desired, a “fish safety factor” (Gebhards and Fisher, 1972). A given run of fish may 

have several different age classes and sizes, so it is desirable to design for the smaller, weaker 

fish in order to obtain a maximum percentage of fish passage.

Fish have been observed to jump considerable heights and distances to clear obstacles, especially 

adult salmon on their upstream spawning migration. Few studies of the ability of fish to jump 

have actually been conducted, however, and this is especially true for young and small fish. 

Drops in water surface can occur at the inlet, inside, and at the outlet of the culvert. The most 

common drop seen in old culverts is the outlet drop in which erosion downstream from the outlet 

has caused the culvert to become perched. Unless the drops are minimal and there is an adequate 

pool downstream and upstream for resting, these drops can inhibit or block fish passage. Outlet 

drops are due to excess energy in the culvert being applied to the streambed downstream, causing 

scour of the streambed. Narrow culverts that concentrate flow and have little roughness create 

excess velocity that is dissipated downstream. Designing a culvert that is adequately wide and 

has adequate roughness should prevent downstream scour. However, additional steps like 

backwatering from a downstream weir or rip-rapping the downstream end may be desirable to 

prevent scour downstream and provide adequate water depth inside the culvert.

The culvert inlet can also have a drop if the culvert is sunken relative to the streambed and no 

material has collected inside the culvert. In this case the fish will be moving through a culvert 

which typically has less resting areas and they now must use burst speed to move through this 

inlet drop. For juvenile fish this may not be possible. For this reason (as well as others), sunken 

culverts should be embedded so as to prevent inlet drop. 

Inlet drop can also occur when a culvert constricts flow at the inlet. This occurs when a wide 

stream enters a narrow culvert (especially one that has a projecting inlet). In these situations, 

 

3

“To the integrity of the structure” means that any flow above the 100-year flow will over-top the structure. If the 

structure were a bridge this would mean to the top of the bridge. If it were a culvert, “the structure” would be to the 

top of the fill.
A-29

water concentrates and water velocity increases at the inlet, causing the water elevation to drop. 

When there is a flow constriction, material tends to scour out and embedded culverts become 

bare near the inlet, creating the bed drop described above. The use of wide pipe-arch culverts 

sized to match the active stream width can potentially prevent this kind of inlet drop from 

occurring.

Drops can occur inside the culvert because of wood and sediment deposition (“clumping”), or by 

the culvert settling into the sub-grade, creating an uneven slope. To prevent material from 

clumping together, field checks of culverts are critical. To prevent settling, steps need to be 

taken to make sure the sub-grade is stable before installation. 

Culverts placed at slopes substantially less than the stream gradient can result in impassable 

jumps at the culvert outlet. Designs that do not adequately account for the potential for 

streambed scour below the culvert can also result in excessive outlet jumps. The lack of a resting 

pool below the outlet can also impede fish passage. 

Water Depth

Research concerning conditions for successful upstream migration of adult salmon and trout 

show that the depth of water in a drainage structure is critical to fish passage for the following 

reasons (Dane, 1978):

1. Partially submerged fish do not get maximum thrust from body and tail movements.

2. Incompletely submerged gills promote oxygen starvation and reduced swimming ability and 

endurance.

3. Shallow water increases bodily contact with the channel bottom, causing physical injury and 

increasing the risk of predation.

A number of conditions can lead to insufficient depth in culverts including: placing structures at 

too steep of a gradient; using wide, flat-bottomed structures; or having a structure in a site where 

it is necessary to design for highly variable flow conditions (very high and very low flows). 

Aprons for bridges or concrete box culverts can also result in depths that are too shallow for fish 

passage.
A-30
B-i

Section B

Forest Roads

Issue: What are the effects of forest roads on the sediment regime 

and on aquatic habitat? Are these effects preventing the recovery of 

salmon and what might be done to reduce possible adverse effects?

Forest Practices Advisory Committee on Salmon and Watersheds
B-ii
B-iii

Table of Contents

I. CURRENT SCIENTIFIC FINDINGS AND MONITORING RESULTS......................................................B-1

II. WATERSHED-SCALE EFFECTS..................................................................................................................B-5

FOREST ROADS....................................................................................................................................................B-5

OTHER LAND-USES.............................................................................................................................................B-8

III. OBJECTIVES OF CURRENT MEASURES AND RULES.........................................................................B-8

OREGON PLAN OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................................................B-8

FPA OBJECTIVES.................................................................................................................................................B-9

IV. DESCRIPTION OF MEASURES AND RULES...........................................................................................B-9

OREGON PLAN MEASURES..................................................................................................................................B-9

FPA STANDARDS AND RULES ...........................................................................................................................B-10

V. EVALUATION OF MEASURES AND RULES ...........................................................................................B-12

VOLUNTARY MEASURES...................................................................................................................................B-12

CURRENT RULES ...............................................................................................................................................B-13

INDEPENDENT MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCE TEAM (IMST) RECOMMENDATIONS.........................................B-15

VI. POSSIBLE ADDITIONAL MEASURES AND/OR RULES......................................................................B-17

OPTION #6 - ROAD MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR.........................................................................................B-17

OPTION #7 - CROSS DRAINAGE STRUCTURES ON NEW ROADS...................................................................B-20

OPTION #8 - WET-WEATHER HAULING.......................................................................................................B-23

OPTION #10 - LOCATING NEW ROADS AND ROAD RECONSTRUCTION IN LOCATIONS WITH HIGH POTENTIAL 

RESOURCE IMPACTS................................................................................................................B-24

OPTION #11 - MORE SPECIFIC RULE OBJECTIVES.........................................................................................B-25

OPTION #12 - STREAM CROSSINGS THAT PASS LARGE WOOD AND GRAVEL...............................................B-26

OPTION #13 - WATERSHED-SCALE EFFECTS.................................................................................................B-27

OPTION #15 - GIS DATABASE .......................................................................................................................B-28

OPTION #16 - COOPERATIVE ROAD USE AND PLANNING (COMBINED OPTIONS 16 AND 53)........................B-29

OPTION #18 - ROADS MONITORING PROGRAM .............................................................................................B-30

OPTION #19 - CONTINUING EDUCATION........................................................................................................B-31

OPTION #57 - GROUND-BASED HARVESTING ON STEEP SLOPES ..................................................................B-32

OPTION #58 - LICENSE PLATE FUNDING TO THE “FOREST INCENTIVE FUND” ..............................................B-32

OPTION #59 - ROAD CLOSURE PROGRAM .....................................................................................................B-33

OPTION #60 - UPSTREAM-DOWNSTREAM PROGRAM....................................................................................B-34

REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................................................B-36

ATTACHMENT A ................................................................................................................................................B-39
B-iv
B-1

I. Current Scientific Findings and Monitoring Results

All streams under natural conditions have sediment inputs at varying levels from terrestrial 

sources (background levels) depending upon soil, topography, vegetation and rainfall. Sediment 

enters water through various processes that include soil surface erosion, channel erosion and 

mass movements (landslides, debris flows), and these inputs can be either chronic or episodic. 

Studies have indicated that high sediment levels can affect fish by increasing mortality, reducing 

growth rates, causing physiological stress, impairing homing instincts, and reducing feeding 

rates. 

Efforts to relate sediment concentration to fish response had mixed results (Everest et al., 1987). 

Some studies have found that increased sedimentation reduces egg and alevin survival. 

However, not all sediment increases have detrimental effects and there are cases where fish have 

maintained large and viable populations in streams with high chronic loads of fine sediment 

(Everest et al., 1987). Fish appear to react most negatively when fine sediment concentrations

are both high and persistent (Newcombe and MacDonald 1991). Whether effects of increased 

sediment are adverse depends upon the nature and timing of the delivery, the type of material 

delivered, and the prior condition of the stream. 

Massive levels of fine sediment delivery can produce changes in channel habitat by reducing 

pool frequency, depth and volume (Coats et al., 1985; Megahan et al., 1980). Streams that have a 

limited supply of coarse sediments, or minimal ability to retain these materials, can experience 

reductions in habitat quality through channel degradation, sometimes resulting in channels 

scoured to bedrock in mountain streams. Habitat can potentially be enhanced if mass erosion 

delivers material to streams where coarse sediment is limited (Botkin 1995; Everest et al., 1987). 

Fine sediment can also affect the production of aquatic insects (fish food organisms) (Hicks et 

al., 1991).

The effects of increased sediment delivery from roads depend upon numerous factors. Most fine 

sediment from surface erosion processes is delivered during common rainfall events and is 

relatively chronic. Road-related landslides and stream crossing failures can result in significant 

sediment impacts from the volume of material in the failed fill and also by scouring headwater 

channels for some distance. These types of sediment inputs tend to be episodic and are often the 

result of large rainfall events. The IMST report also includes similar findings on the differences 

between chronic and episodic sources of road sediment (pp. 23-26).

It is roads rather than timber harvesting that historically have been the primary source of 

sediment from forest management activities in the western United States (Megahan and 

Ketcheson, 1996). High-risk factors for forest roads include road surface erosion, road-fill 

failure, and the proximity and hydrologic connection of road segments to streams. Roads can 

also directly alter stream channels and fish habitat, especially when roads are constructed parallel 

to streams and within the floodplain. The effects of roads on fish passage are covered in another 

issue paper.
B-2

Research has shown newly constructed or reconstructed roads may have ten times more surface 

erosion the first winter after construction as compared to subsequent years (Megahan and Kidd, 

1972; Megahan, 1974; Luce and Black, 1999). This results from increased erodibility because of 

soil disturbance during construction, and the lack of erosion pavement and vegetation to protect 

the soil surface, which can in large part be mitigated by applying Best Management Practices 

(BMPs) to protect the soils immediately after construction.

During periods of wet weather, road surfaces that are not constructed with adequate surface 

materials and spacing of drainage structures are a potential source of fine sediment delivery by 

allowing sediment-laden waters to enter stream channels directly. Hauling operations conducted 

on roads with poor drainage can further increase the risk of sediment delivery (Bilby et al., 1989; 

Reid and Dunne, 1984). Fill failure is also a risk, especially for those roads not constructed to 

current standards. Sidecast roads, roads built on old railroad crossings with relatively deep fills, 

and stream crossings with inadequately designed and sited culverts are examples of forest road 

features with increased fill failure risk. Road segments that are close to streams and stream 

crossings also have an increased risk of sediment delivery. The likelihood of road surface runoff, 

fill failure, and washouts delivering sediment to the stream channel increases the closer a road 

segment is located to a stream. 

Different studies report variable effects of forest roads on the hydrology of forested basins. 

Adams and Ringer (1994) reviewed the results of 14 published research reports that examined 

the relationship between forest roads and water quantity. The findings of these studies were 

mixed. The reviewers state the following: 

“Some studies have shown no effects of roads, while others found that forest road 

construction increased peak flows in small, upland watersheds. In these locations, 

streamflow effects appear to be directly related to the total area within the watershed 

of roads and other heavily compacted surfaces that are relatively impermeable to 

water. In larger watersheds, little or no effect on streamflows is expected because 

forest roads and other impermeable areas on forest lands typically represent a 

relatively small area.”

King et al. (1984), examined a number of streamflow variables following forest road construction

(maximum streamflow, date of maximum streamflow, annual minimum streamflow, annual 

water yield, and the 5 percent, 25 percent and 75 percent exceedance flows). No significant 

changes in the above parameters were detected, with the exception that an increase occurred in 

the 25 percent exceedance flow in one watershed and a decrease in the 5 percent exceedance flow 

in another watershed. Thomas and Megahan (1998) re-examined a study by Jones and Grant 

(1996) examining road building and harvesting effects on peak flows. For large watersheds (60-

600 km2), no peak flow effects were detected on one watershed and the results were inconclusive 

for two others. For small watersheds, (60-101 hectares1):

“Peak flows were increased up to 90 percent for the smallest peak events on the clearcut watershed and up to 40 percent for the smallest peak flows on the patch-cut and 

 

1

1 hectare = 2.47 acres.
B-3

roaded watershed. Percentage treatment effects decreased as flow event-size increased 

and were not detectable for flows with 2-year return intervals or greater on either 

treated watershed.” (Thomas and Megahan, 1998)

Roads create a contiguous linear physical alteration to hillslopes, as shown in Figure 1. To create 

the running surface, or tread, it is necessary to excavate into the natural hillslope. On less steep 

slopes, this excavated material can be used as fill to make a portion of the running surface. Prior 

to the mid-1980s, excavated soil and rock from full-bench road construction was generally 

sidecast onto very steep slopes immediately below the road prism. These steeply sloped sidecast 

fills were often associated with landslides. Both cut- and fillslopes are steeper than the natural 

slopes, and, at least for some period of time after construction, are not vegetated. Thus, cut- and 

fillslopes have a higher landslide potential than the native hillslopes. Roads also alter the flow of 

water. Road cuts may intercept shallow groundwater, and the road surface normally collects 

surface water. This water is routed along the road to a location where it is discharged downslope 

of the road. Roads must also periodically cross streams. While most forest stream crossing 

structures are culverts, other designs include fords and bridges. During high flows, stream flows 

and/or road runoff can exceed culvert capacity, and/or bedload and floating debris may reduce or 

block the flow of water through the culvert. When drainage system capacity is exceeded, fill 

washouts, gullies, or landslides may occur in, or below the fill, or further down the road. 

Stream crossing culverts and bridges are subject to plugging by woody debris and sediment and/or 

their capacity being exceeded by high flows. If water backs up and flows over the surface, a washouttype failure similar to a dam breaching may occur. When a road grade climbs through the stream 

crossing, there may be a high potential for channel diversion down the road (Weaver and Hagans, 

1994). Such diversions can cause large gullies running long distances down the road and can cause 

additional landslides and washouts as well. The concentration of road drainage can also be 

associated with interactions between road systems and channels in steep terrain, causing gullies 

or increasing the risk of landslide occurrence at culvert outfalls (Montgomery, 1994).

Road systems may have the potential to block the downstream movement of large wood (LW). 

Where a stream crossing blocks the passage of LW there is the potential for a dam-break flood to 

occur as debris and water back up behind the crossing. Dam-break floods can result in a debris 

torrent causing significant impacts to the downstream reach in the form of scour and deposition. 

While debris torrents are a naturally occurring phenomenon that can add needed wood and 

sediment to a stream reach, an increase in the frequency and magnitude of debris torrents caused 

by human activity can have negative effects on aquatic habitat and riparian functions. The 

blockage of LW can also have downstream effects even if a dam-break flood does not occur. 

Where a downstream reach depends on a supply of large wood delivered during peak flows, road 

crossings not designed to pass LW can reduce upstream sources of wood and have a negative 

effect on riparian functions and aquatic habitat conditions.
B-4

Figure 1. Typical Locations of Road Associated Landslides Surveyed: In the Cutslope (1), 

In the Fillslope (2), and Associated with Drainage Discharge and Below the Fill (3). Note: 

The road construction depicted in this figure is not allowed under current FPA road 

construction rules. New roads built on steep slopes require full-bench and end-haul 

construction.

Landslides are typically the dominant erosion mechanism in areas with steep slopes. Landslide 

frequency can be greatly accelerated by road management practices (Sidle et al., 1985). For 

example, Megahan and Kidd (1972) found that 70 percent of accelerated sediment production in 

an Idaho batholith study site was associated with road-related landslides. Piehl et al., (1988) 

found only two landslides at culvert outlets, yet they comprised 72 percent of the total outlet 

erosion associated with 515 cross drainage culverts.

The location of landslide initiation in relation to the road prism has a significant influence on 

potential sediment delivery to streams. Landslides affecting the cutslope portion of the road are 

typically deposited in the road. While road surface runoff may erode the deposits of cutslope 

landslides, the landslide deposit may also divert surface waters away from designed drainage 

structures or divert water onto fillslopes. Fillslope failures are more likely to become debris flows, 

increasing in size and then entering intermittent and perennial channels.

For slopes that are considered at high risk for landslide potential, a technique known as endhauling can be used to transport excess excavated materials to more stable waste area locations 
B-5

(this is required in Oregon). Using steeper grades to keep roads on ridgetops can be a 

significantly less expensive road system design as compared to having to end-haul for steep 

slopes. Relocating roads in lower-risk areas is also an effective means of landslide prevention. 

However, where these practices are not possible, end-hauling may be an effective, albeit 

expensive, technique for reducing landslides (Sessions et al., 1987).

II. Watershed-Scale Effects

Forest Roads

Forest road systems can have watershed-scale effects. These effects can be similar to natural 

processes, or may be related to non-naturally occurring physical and chemical alterations. 

Determining the specific causes of watershed-scale effects can be difficult or impossible, 

especially in watersheds with a history of multiple disturbances. However, it may be possible to 

associate some of the aforementioned conditions with certain road practices at specific locations.

 

Watershed-scale effects of forest road systems may include chronic turbidity during wet periods 

from repeated truck use (Bilby et al., 1989); changes in channel morphology and substrate 

composition; changes in peak flows in small basins; addition of certain pollutants (petroleum 

products, accidental spills); and the prevention of downstream movement of large wood and/or 

sediment.

Cumulative sedimentation impacts from timber harvesting and other forest management 

activities are often overshadowed by those of roads (Reid, 1993). Cumulative effects have been 

the focus of much modeling. Watershed-scale effects, or cumulative effects within a watershed, 

may be the result of a single source, the additive result of many sources, or the complex 

interactions between a number of different sources.

The dominant road-related sources for direct watershed-scale effects include road runoff delivery 

to stream channels (chronic erosion and potential peak flow changes in small watersheds); 

landslides (which tend to have larger volumes than nonroad landslides) (Robison et al, 1999); 

washouts related to stream crossings; and streams adjacent roads.

Indirect effects of forest roads are sometimes considered cumulative effects. These depend in 

large measure on control of access to recreational and unauthorized road users and are considered 

uncommon on many private lands where access is controlled. These indirect effects can include 

increased fishing pressure (legal and illegal); access for fish stocking or illegal introduction of 

non-native species; traffic damage to the surface and drainage system; garbage dumping; and 

accidental petroleum and chemical spills.

Other examples of watershed-scale effects include landslides that become larger debris torrents 

that scour long lengths of stream channel; road fills failing when impacted by up-slope landslides 

increasing the volume of debris flows; debris flows stopping at road fills and plugging drainage 

structures; stream crossing structures that do not pass large wood to fish bearing streams 

downslope; traffic-turbidity sources related to multiple forest operations; cascading washouts 
B-6

(where one culvert becomes plugged, sending the stream down the road, and exceeding culvert 

capacity at every culvert encountered along the road); and synchronous connection of ditches to 

waterways.

Past models have often evaluated cumulative effects using road density (USFS, 1988). Reid 

(1993) describes a number of problems with the use of the Equivalent Roaded Area (ERA) 

model and other older cumulative effects models. The Distributed Hydrology-Soil-Vegetation 

Model (DHSVM) is designed to look at hydrologic changes (peak flows) associated with roads 

and other forest practices (Storck et al., 1998). Models are being developed to evaluate the 

generation of surface erosion from roads. These include SEDMODL through the efforts of Boise 

Cascade Corporation (George Ice, personal communication, 1999) and WEPP under 

development by the U.S. Forest Service (Tysdal et. al., 1997).

One problem with using road density to evaluate potential watershed-scale effects is that, 

depending on road size, design, location, construction and maintenance techniques, roads can 

have very different effects on water resources. Road-related landslides that enter stream channels 

are uncommon if hillslope steepness is less than 50 percent (Robison et al., 1999). Chronic 

delivery of sediment to stream channels is rare on ridge top roads, while most stream adjacent 

roads have a high potential for chronic sediment delivery (ODF, 1996). Washouts are more 

common on roads with undersized drainage structures, high fills and long steady grades (Weaver 

and Hagans, 1994; ODF, 1997). All of these factors can be independent of road density. For 

example, the greatest road densities identified in the “Storm Impacts of 1996” study was found in 

the Vernonia and Estacada study areas (4.6 and 3.3 miles per square mile). Nevertheless, these 

areas had the fewest road washouts, and the lowest volume of road-associated sediment delivery 

to streams as compared to the other six study areas (Robison et al. 1999). Therefore, the road 

area disturbed in “critical locations” is probably a much better indicator of cumulative effects 

than is road density. The IMST report concludes, “The reported relationships between road 

density and sedimentation provide only qualitative guidance for landscape-level planning and 

management. Monitoring and more case history analyses will provide a stronger basis for 

policy.”

Watershed-scale effects depend on the length and characteristics of roads in critical locations, 

and on the timing of both the disturbance and subsequent effects of the disturbance. Historical 

practices further complicate the assessment of the watershed-scale effects of forest roads. 

Logging railroads required the construction of high fills, often using logs for drainage structures. 

These structures are very susceptible to major washouts that resemble dam-break floods. Roads 

next to streams were a common practice in the past and have resulted in the loss of side-channel 

habitat. Stream relocation to reduce the number of road crossings was also a common historical 

practice (for example, the East Fork of the Millicoma River and the Luckiamute River). 

Specific watershed-scale effects that can be attributable to increased sedimentation from roads 

include:

Aggradation or degradation (both processes can change channel morphology and instream habitat);

Debris flow or dam-break-flood scour or deposition;

Straightened channels and increased gradients;

Chronic high turbidity;

Channel bed instability; and

Deposition of fine sediment in gravels, especially during low flow periods.
B-7

Indicators of high potential for possible watershed-scale effects from roads may include:

A higher amount of roads connected to stream channels (over 40 percent is above 

average), especially on watersheds with “high” traffic levels;

Many fill or sidecast constructed roads on steep slopes;

A large number of older stream crossing fills over 15 feet deep;

Wide distances between road cross drains;

Active winter hauling on a large percent of a watershed where roads are connected to 

streams and the road surface is not adequately rocked with durable materials; and

Road drainage directed onto unstable slopes.

Most roads will have some effect on their watersheds. Determining when this effect is at a level 

that is degrading water quality is difficult to determine without some understanding of the 

following issues:

The background variability in the disturbance parameter;

The nature of the channel system and streamflows;

The size of sediments supplied to the channels;

The effects of the disturbance parameter on aquatic life;

The extent of the disturbance in streams; and

The recovery period.

Watershed-scale effects related to current practices can be mitigated by:

Alternative BMPs;

Avoiding or limiting the extent of certain practices (i.e., roads in steep terrain and 

adjacent to channels); and

Limiting the timing of disturbance (i.e., reducing heavy truck traffic during very wet 

periods on roads that pose an unacceptable risk of delivering fine sediment).

Watershed-scale effects that have already occurred are often difficult or impossible to mitigate 

over short time periods (relative to several generations of the fish species of concern). 

Watershed-scale effects that have not occurred (e.g., potential fill-related landslides and 

subsequent debris flows from roads on steep slopes) can be prevented in many cases through 

certain road management techniques.

Most of the potential watershed-scale effects of roads are likely related to roads designed and 

constructed under older administrative rules. These make up the majority of the roads on the 

landscape and were often constructed with practices that present a greater risk of adverse effects 

to aquatic habitat. These practices included:

Placement of fills and waste materials on very steep slopes;

Construction of roads up “stream bottoms;”

Undersized and deteriorated stream crossing structures;

Inadequate cross drainage; and 

Inadequate surfacing.
B-8

Treatment of older roads may be the most effective means of reducing watershed-scale effects. 

Sidecast pull-back, road vacation and relocation, replacement of undersized culverts, installation 

of additional cross drains, resurfacing, and other practices are methods available to mitigate 

impacts from older roads. Effectiveness of these treatments probably depends on many factors, 

including original road construction practices, proximity to stream channels, slope steepness, soil 

properties, on-site vegetation, and channel morphology.

The IMST report states “3. Develop policy that brings roads not constructed to current standards, 

and other hazardous settings in critical locations into compliance with current standards. This 

means having the current OFPA Rules applied to actions taken before the current Rules were in 

force. In many cases, the operator acted in good faith and within the rules of the day, but the 

outcome is not scientifically consistent with the mission of the Oregon Plan; thus, a provision by 

which remediation is accomplished is needed.”

Other Land-Uses

Forest roads should be viewed within the context of all roads. Historical settlement patterns and 

ease of construction (relative to mountainous slopes) have resulted in many miles of roads built 

in valley bottoms near streams to access agricultural, rural and urban areas. These roads often 

parallel low gradient streams (which historically tended to have very productive salmonid 

habitat) and cross numerous tributaries. Culverts in these areas that are barriers to fish passage 

may block many miles of stream habitat on these low gradient streams. In a recent survey of 

county and state highways in western Oregon, over 1,200 culverts were found to be barriers to 

fish passage (Office of the Governor, 1999). These highways are typically located downstream 

of forestlands and therefore may limit or block access to upstream fish habitat. Many of the same 

road construction practices that occurred historically on forestland also occurred on other lands, 

and thus will have similar potential watershed-scale effects. The relatively large network of 

nonforest roads in close proximity to streams that are currently providing, or have the potential to 

provide, quality fish habitat are likely to have significant impact on the maintenance and recovery 

of salmonids. 

III. Objectives of Current Measures and Rules

Oregon Plan Objectives

The following are interim habitat objectives for substrate conditions (sediment) under the Oregon 

Plan: 

i.) In cooperation with local groups and federal agencies, refine, by reach or stream type, 

all the substrate elements needed to support healthy salmonid stocks in all coastal streams 

by 2002.

ii.) In the interim, habitat objectives for substrate conditions are to provide:

For streams that have from 1 - 4 percent stream gradient, the objective is 35 percent 

gravel availability in 70 percent of the stream length - that is, deposits predominately 

gravel sized with less than 10 percent fines (% area). For streams outside this gradient 

range, available gravel is expected to be lower because of natural processes.
B-9

iii.) In cooperation with watershed councils, private landowners, and local, state and 

federal agencies, create watershed assessments and action plans in every basin in all 

steelhead ESUs that gives the status of current channel substrate conditions and 

prioritizes options for further study, restoration, and protection by 2002.

iv.) Ensure that existing programs prevent, minimize, or mitigate the effects of human 

activities that would modify substrate composition in coastal streams, or the upstream and 

upland processes that generate instream substrate diversity, to the detriment of salmonids 

beyond present (1997) conditions.

v.) Restore substrate abundance and distribution elements necessary for healthy salmonid 

stocks, and/or the upstream and upland processes that would replenish them naturally in 

2 to 5 percent of altered stream miles per biennium. Altered streams would be identified 

via published reports and watershed assessments.

FPA Objectives

Purpose 629-625-000

(3) “The purpose of the road construction and maintenance rules is to establish standards 

for locating, designing, constructing and maintaining efficient and beneficial forest roads; 

locating and operating rock pits and quarries; and vacating roads, rock pits, and quarries 

that are no longer needed, in manners that provide the maximum practical protection to 

maintain forest productivity, water quality, and fish and wildlife habitat.”

IV. Description of Measures and Rules

Oregon Plan Measures

The Oregon Plan Road Hazard Identification and Risk Reduction Projects (measures ODF 1S 

and ODF 2S) are currently being implemented. Many forest roads built prior to the Oregon 

Forest Practices Act, or prior to the current BMPs, continue to pose increased risk to fish habitat. 

Industrial forest landowners and state forestlands are currently implementing a voluntary 

program to identify risks to salmon from roads and address those risks. The purposes of this 

project are:

1. Implement a systematic process to identify road-related risks to salmon and steelhead 

recovery.

2. Establish priorities for problem solution.

3. Implement actions to reduce road-related risks.

The Road Hazard Identification and Risk Reduction Project is a major element of the Oregon 

Plan. The two major field elements of this project are (1) surveying roads using the Forest Road 

Hazard Inventory Protocol, and (2) repairing problem sites identified through the protocol. Road 
B-10

repairs conducted as a result of this project include improving fish passage, reducing washout 

potential, reducing landslide potential, and reducing the delivery of surface erosion to streams. 

Roads assessed by this project include all roads on Oregon Forest Industry Council (OFIC) 

member forestland, plus some other industrial and nonindustrial forestland, regardless of when 

they were constructed. Industrial forest landowners have estimated spending approximately $13 

million a year, or $130 million over the next 10 years, on this project for the coastal ESUs alone. 

However, the effort is not limited to, nor bound by, this funding estimate. Funding for the 

implementation of this measure within the other ESUs will be reflective of road problems found.

Under ODF 2S, the State Forests program has spent over $2.5 million during the last biennium 

(1997-1999) for the restoration of roads, replacement of culverts and other stream crossing 

structures damaged by the 1996 storm. State Forests program is also proposing to spend an 

additional $2.5 million dollars in each of the next two biennia to improve roads, including stream 

crossing structures. This effort will upgrade approximately 130 miles of road in each biennium. 

In addition to ODF 1S and 2S, there are additional measures under the Oregon Plan that address 

road management concerns:

ODF 16S - Evaluation of the Adequacy of Fish Passage Criteria: Establish that the criteria and 

guidelines used for the design of stream crossing structures pass fish as intended 

under the goal. 

ODF 34S - Improve Fish Passage BMPs on Stream Crossing Structures: Ensure that all new 

stream crossing structures on forestland installed, or replaced, after the fall of 1994 

will pass both adult and juvenile fish upstream and downstream.

FPA Standards and Rules

For the purposes of this issue paper, the following definitions will apply. A “road” normally 

refers to truck (sometimes called “haul”) roads. Skid roads or trails (used by tracked or wheeled 

skidding machines to move logs from the stump to the landing) are only addressed in relation to 

ground-based harvesting on steep slopes in this issue paper. The Forest Practices Rules 

recognize three types of roads:

Active: Roads used for removing commercial forest products (regardless of the year 

constructed).

Inactive: Roads used for forest management purposes other than log hauling (regardless 

of the year constructed).

Vacated: Roads that have been purposely “put to bed”, stabilized, and are impassible. 

Current road maintenance rules (see Attachment A) require maintenance of both “active” and 

“inactive” roads. The term “legacy” road is not defined in the administrative rules. It is widely 

used in the public dialogue regarding forest road issues and has a different meaning depending on 

when and where it is used. ODF considers “legacy” roads to be synonymous with “abandoned” 

roads. Regardless of when a road was built, if it has been used for hauling logs or forest 
B-11

management since 1972, it is subject to regulation under the Forest Practices Act. The term 

“older” road is also used sometimes. The administrative rules continually evolve in response to 

changes in scientific knowledge; since the creation of the 1973 administrative rules, major 

revisions to the road rules occurred in 1978, 1983, and 1994. ODF considers “old” roads to be 

those built prior to the 1983 rule changes (i.e., roads built before end-hauling of material 

excavated from the road prism on steep slopes). 

On nonfederal forestlands, BMPs within the Forest Practices Act regulate road design, 

construction, and maintenance. The bulk of the BMPs are directed at minimizing sediment 

delivery to channels. The primary goals of the road rules are to protect: (1) the water quality of 

streams, lakes, and wetlands; (2) fish and wildlife habitat; and (3) forest productivity. 

The Board of Forestry revised several BMPs related to road design when the new Water 

Protection Rules were adopted in the fall of 1994. Significant changes made to the road 

construction rules include the following:

The requirement for operators not to locate roads in riparian management areas, flood plains, 

or wetlands unless all alternative locations would result in greater resource damage. 

The requirement for operators to design stream crossings to both minimize fill size and

minimize excavation of slopes near the channel. A mandatory written plan is required for 

stream crossing fills over 15 feet deep.

The requirement to design stream crossing structures for the 50-year flow with no ponding, 

rather than the 25-year storm with no specification of allowable ponding.

The requirement that stream crossing structures be passable by juvenile fish as well as adult 

fish.

The requirement that fish must be able to access side channels.

The requirement that stream structures constructed under these rules must be maintained for 

fish passage.

In determining the location of a new road, operators are required to avoid steep slopes, slides, 

and areas next to channels or in wetlands to the extent possible. Existing roads should be used 

when possible, and stream crossings should be used only when essential. The design of the road 

grade must vary to fit the local terrain and the road width must be minimized. The operator must 

also follow specific guidelines for stream crossing structures (listed above). Cross drainage 

structures must be designed to divert water away from channels so that runoff intercepted by the 

road is dispersed onto the hillslope before reaching a channel. The specific method used is up to 

the operator, but the end result should be the dispersal of water running off of the road and the 

filtering of fine sediment before the water reaches waters of the state.

Construction and maintenance activities should be done during low water periods and when soils 

are relatively dry. Excavated materials must be placed where there is minimal risk of those 

materials entering waters of the state, and erodible surfaces must be stabilized. Landings must be 

built away from streams, wetlands, and steep slopes. 

Road maintenance is required on all active and inactive roads. Regardless of when a road was 

constructed, if the road has been used as part of an active operation after 1972, it is subject to all 

maintenance requirements within the current rules. Culverts must be kept open, and surface road 
B-12

drainage and adequate filtering of fine sediment must be maintained. If the road surface becomes 

unstable or if there is a significant risk of sediment running off of the road surface and entering 

the stream, road activity must be halted and the erodible area must be stabilized. Abandoned 

roads constructed prior to 1972 and not used for forest management since that time are not 

subject to Forest Practices regulatory authority.

All roads in use since 1972 must either be maintained or vacated by the operator. Vacated roads 

must be effectively barricaded and self-maintaining, in terms of diverting water away from 

streams and off of the former road surface, where erosion will remain unlikely. Methods for 

vacating roads include pulling stream crossing fills, pulling steep side cast fills, and cross 

ditching. It is up to the landowner to choose between vacating a road and maintaining a road. If 

a road is not vacated, the operator is required to maintain the road under the current rules whether 

it is active or inactive, however they are not required to bring the design up to current standards 

outside of the normal maintenance and repair schedule. 

Many active and inactive roads were constructed prior to current BMPs. The design standards of 

these older roads pose a higher sediment delivery risk than roads constructed under current 

design standards. Roads built under older standards are not required to be brought up to current 

design standards until either a segment needs to be reconstructed or the road shows immediate 

signs of failure that would damage waters of the state (i.e., collapsing culverts, actively moving 

hillslopes, drainage waters causing gullying, etc.). For example, design standards for stream 

crossings were recently changed. This change did not immediately require that operators replace 

all older culverts with new larger culverts. However, as the older culverts are replaced as part of 

the overall road maintenance required under the rules, they must be replaced with culverts that 

meet the new standards.

The department estimates that the majority of existing forest roads were constructed prior to 

1983 (in other words, prior to rule changes which improved construction practices on steep 

slopes). 

One area not directly addressed by the rules is sediment problems related to road use. Increased 

turbidity can be associated with the use of roads during rainy or thawing periods (Bilby et al., 

1989; Reid and Dunne, 1984). Currently, within the guidance for the road maintenance rules, 

operators are directed to stop hauling when FPFs observe high levels of turbidity entering 

streams. However, there are currently no rules that address the specific level of turbidity that is 

considered acceptable during wet season hauling.

V. Evaluation of Measures and Rules

Voluntary Measures

Evaluation of the Oregon Plan voluntary measures is limited since the Plan has been in effect for 

less than two years. It is difficult to assess the effectiveness of measures that have not been given 

a chance to work. The Oregon Plan measures must be examined in light of what they attempt to 
B-13

achieve, and some assessment of risk must be determined in terms of how likely it is that the 

current measures will achieve the stated goals.

The Oregon Plan Road Hazard Identification and Risk Reduction Project (measures ODF 1S and 

ODF 2S) is currently being implemented within the Core Areas, on State Forest Lands, and on 

private forestlands. Table 1 is a summary of all road and culvert improvement activities that 

have occurred under the Oregon Plan in 1996-97. Table 2 shows the trend in the miles of roads 

surveyed.

Table 1: Summary of 1996-97 Road Improvement Activities (From: The Oregon Plan Watershed Restoration 

Inventory, 1998)

Road Improvements Miles of Road*

Roads Surveyed 3769

Roads Upgraded/Improved (Legacy Road Reconstruction) 843

Roads Closed/Vacated 52

Roads Obliterated/Decommissioned 9

Roads Relocated 5

Culvert Improvements # of Structures*

Culverts replaced, upgraded, or installed for peak flow passage/surface drainage 3350

Culverts removed, replaced, upgraded or installed for fish passage 530

*Miles of road and number of structures are underestimated. Depending on the activity, between 2 percent and 20 percent of road improvement 

projects did not provide information on mileage or number of structures.

Table 2: Trends in Road Miles Surveyed 1995-1998 (From: S. Maleki, Governors Watershed Enhancement 

Board)

Year Miles of Road

1995 308

1996 703

1997 30071

1998 7629

1

Discrepancy in miles surveyed for this year compared to Table 1,

due to differences in database.

How much these and future improvement activities will affect the recovery of salmonids is 

uncertain. This must be evaluated over time through continued implementation and effectiveness 

monitoring.

Current Rules

Evaluation of current rules is based in large part on the results of ODF monitoring since practices 

used in other regions may be very different, and also because road management practices have 

changed significantly over time.

How effective are the current BMPs at minimizing the delivery of sediment to channels? The 

latest ODF monitoring data shows that about one-third (29 -39 percent) of active and inactive 
B-14

roads on state and private lands can deliver sediment to streams by ditch delivery (ODF, 1996). 

There is the potential for significant amounts of sediment to be delivered from these sources 

during hauling operations, especially during the wet season. For the portions of the road network 

where sediment delivery is occurring, a number of issues have been identified that are 

contributing to the problem:

1. Monitoring has shown that there is a general lack of filtering of drainage waters near streams. 

A number of cases were observed where cross drainage structures where not in place to filter 

road runoff before reaching stream crossings.

2. Steep-gradient roads tend to have cross drainage structures at wider spacing than lowergradient roads. Under the current rules, road design and maintenance practices should result 

in steep-gradient roads having cross drainage structures with narrower spacing relative to 

lower-gradient roads.

3. There are inconsistencies in drainage practices between georegions, with special concerns in 

the Siskiyou georegion.

4. In some areas, road maintenance and repair is inadequate according to the rules.

The following are conclusions from Robison et al. (1999). These findings include the most 

current information addressing the adequacy of the forest practice rules related to landslides and 

forest roads.

1. Landslides associated with forest roads made up a smaller percentage of the total landslides 

in the ODF study than road-associated landslides did in most previous studies.

2. The road-associated landslides identified during the ODF study were smaller, on average, 

than road-associated landslides in past studies. However, these road-associated landslides 

were four-times larger on average than those landslides not associated with roads.

3. Landslides that delivered sediment to stream channels rarely occurred on roads crossing 

slopes of less than 50 percent, especially when those roads had well spaced drainage systems 

and fills of minimal depth.

4. Road fill placed on steep slopes creates an increased landslide hazard even where no drainage 

water is directed to those fills.

5. Road-drainage waters directed onto very steep slopes create an increased landslide hazard 

even when there is no road fill placed on those very steep slopes.

6. In the ODF study, washouts were a significant problem in Tillamook, and to a lesser extent in 

Vida study areas. Washouts were often related to undersized culverts (installed prior to 

current rule requirements). 

7. Based on the lower numbers of road-associated landslides surveyed in the ODF study and on 

the smaller sizes of these landslides (as compared with previous studies), current road 

management practices are likely reducing the size of road-associated landslides as well as the 

number of landslides.

In addition to the conclusions from Robison et al. (1999), there are three other studies that 

examined current road construction standards. A road damage inventory conducted in 

Washington found that roads constructed in the last 15 years survived a landslide-inducing storm 

with minimal damage, while roads constructed earlier had very high damage rates (Toth, 1991). 
B-15

Department of Forestry landslide monitoring has made similar findings (Mills, 1991). Although 

most surface erosion tends to occur in the first few years after construction, or during periods of 

heavy traffic use, landslides can occur many decades after original construction. Roads built 

using current construction practices (steep grades, full-bench design, and end haul construction) 

have been found to reduce landslide frequency and size relative to roads constructed using pre1984 practices (Sessions, 1987).

Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team (IMST) Recommendations

The IMST made a total of 19 recommendations in its forestry project report of September 14, 

1999. Ten of their recommendations are directly or indirectly related to the effects of forest 

roads on the sediment regime or on aquatic habitat. These ten recommendations are listed below, 

followed by the applicable issue paper options.

Recommendation 2. ODF should develop a policy framework to encompass landscape (large 

watershed) level planning and operations on forests within the range of wild salmonids in 

Oregon.

Roads Issue Paper Option(s):

Option #13 - Watershed-Scale Effects

Option #16 - Cooperative Road Use and Planning (Combination of Options 16 and 53)

Recommendation 7. Provide enhanced certainty of protection for “core areas”.

Roads Issue Paper Option(s):

Option #10 - New Roads in High-risk Sites/Sensitive Areas (Combination of Options 10, 49, 50, 

and 51)

Option #11 - More Specific Rule Objectives

Option #57 - Ground-based harvesting on steep slopes.

Recommendation 8. Develop and implement standards or guidelines that reduce the length of 

roadside drainage ditches that discharge into channels.

Roads Issue Paper Option(s):

Option #7 – Cross Drainage Structures

Recommendation 9. Implement the standards and guidelines for the length of roadside drainage 

ditch between cross drainage structures, especially on steep-gradient roads.

Roads Issue Paper Option(s):

Option #7 – Cross Drainage Structures

Recommendation 10. Require the flow capacity of cross drainage structures and stream 

crossing structures and culverts to meet current design standards.

Roads Issue Paper Option(s):

Option #6 - Road Maintenance and Repair (Combination of Options 6, 9, 14, 17, 52, and 55)
B-16

Recommendation 11. Provide for the stabilization of roads not constructed to current standards 

(including “old roads and railroad grades”) in critical locations. Stabilization means reduction or 

elimination of the potential for failure.

Roads Issue Paper Option(s):

Option #6 - Road Maintenance and Repair (Combination of Options 6, 9, 14, 17, 52, and 55)

Recommendation 12. Require durable surfacing on wet-season haul roads and require that 

hauling cease before surfaces become soft or “pump” sediment to the surface.

Roads Issue Paper Option(s):

Option #8 - Wet-Weather Hauling

Recommendation 14. Continue to apply the current best management practices (BMP) 

approach to the management of forestlands with significant landslide potential, and develop a 

better case history basis for evaluating the effectiveness of BMP in this area.

Roads Issue Paper Option(s):

Option #10 - New Roads in High-risk Sites/Sensitive Areas (Combination of Options 10, 49, 50, 

and 51)

Recommendation 16. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) and ODF should 

develop a collaborative program of monitoring to quantify the linkages between parameters of 

ecosystem condition and wild salmonid recovery.

Roads Issue Paper Option(s):

Option #18 - Roads Monitoring Program

Recommendation 19. The Oregon Forest Research Laboratory (FRL) in collaboration with 

ODFW, should develop forest road stream crossing strategies that facilitate the passage of large 

wood at stream crossings.

Roads Issue Paper Option(s):

Option #12 – Stream Crossing Designs

This issue paper includes options that deal with all of the IMST recommendations that are related 

to roads. Two options in this issue paper are not directly addressed in the IMST 

recommendations (Options 15 and 19). It is recognized that all options require further technical 

policy development.
B-17

VI. Possible Additional Measures and/or Rules

Option #6: Road Maintenance and Repair (Combination of Options 6, 9, 17, 52, and 55, 

with portions of 5, 7, 12 and 60 proposed for inclusion)

Objective:

This option is intended to address old roads that were constructed using past practices or 

methods. Existing roads are to be systematically evaluated and mitigated where appropriate for 

negative impacts or risks to:

1. Waters of the state (turbidity/sedimentation)

2. Passage of juvenile/adult fish

3. Downstream passage of habitat elements (wood and gravel)

This broadened option number 6 also includes the portions of these following options:

#5 - encourage the use of bridges (in the fish passage paper)

#12 - stream crossings to pass large wood

#60 - upstream/downstream program

#7 - cross drain spacing

Description:

Currently, there exists a large network of active roads across forested lands that were not built to 

current FPA design standards. This situation has been recognized by a number of landowners that 

have implemented a voluntary program under the Oregon Plan to inventory roads and mitigate 

problems. Protocol for this process has been developed and priorities have been established. 

There appears to be consensus that action should be taken to reduce this risk and remedy those 

roads that are likely to deliver sediment to streams and result in adverse effects. These actions 

might include, but are not limited to, comprehensive road maintenance plans, improved road 

maintenance guidelines, and the prioritization of current and future road maintenance and repair 

activities. This proposal would include a suite of improved practices that would be applied to 

roads needing improvement. 

“Legacy “ roads includes those built prior to 1972 and not used since then (and therefore not 

subject to current FPA regulations). “Old” roads are those built prior to the 1983 rule changes 

(i.e., roads built before end-hauling of material excavated from the road prism on steep slopes). 

Since legacy roads have not been used for at least 25 years, they often support stands of trees. In 

many cases, it will be necessary to reconstruct the road in order to provide equipment access to 

repair the segment in question. 

While old roads may be functioning adequately, it is believed that a significant portion of these 

roads pose an increased risk of fill failure and/or washouts that can adversely effect water quality 

and the maintenance and recovery of salmonids. Where necessary, ODF and others would 

develop, and make available, guidance to landowners/operators and regulators on methods to 

achieve the improved practices. The technology would need to be developed for several of these 

improved practices; most could be implemented with current knowledge.
B-18

Past Practice Improved Practices

1. Sidecast construction on steep slopes. 1. Full-bench design, end-haul construction on 

steep slopes.

2. “High” fills. 2. “Low” fills.

3. Stream crossing culverts sized to pass Q25 or 

whatever fit.

3. Steam-crossing culverts sized to pass Q50.

4. Downstream side of stream crossing fills not 

armored with riprap.

4. Downstream side of stream crossing fills 

armored with riprap.

5. Fills not designed to allow for overtopping by 

high stream flow.

5. Stream crossing fills designed to allow 

overtopping by stream flow.

6. Passage of large wood hindered by stream 

crossings.

6. Facilitate passage of large wood over/through 

stream crossings.

7. Passage of gravels hindered by stream 

crossings.

7. Facilitate passage of gravel over/through 

stream crossings.

8. Fish passage through culverts may be 

problematic for adults and juveniles.

8. Adult and juvenile fish passage through 

culverts and maintenance of passage required.

9. Road cross drain spacing may not meet 

standard spacing criterion:

a. ditch erosion

b. discharge onto steep slopes

c. ditch water drains directly into streams

9. Cross drain spacing is such that ditch 

erosion is minimized, drain water not 

directed onto steep slopes, ditch water not 

directed into streams.

10. Unneeded roads abandoned “as is.” 10. Unneeded roads stabilized and vacated.

Current FPA Administration:

This option includes a number of practices that fall under the current FP rules. It also includes 

some options which should be considered new and require further development before 

implementation in the field can occur. There are a number of practices operators are required to 

comply with in the Road Maintenance rules (629-625-600). In the field administration of these 

rules, the forest practices forester is sometimes required to determine if maintenance or repair is 

required to reduce risk to waters of the state. Administration of the maintenance rules is often 

reactive; in some cases the problem may not be identified until resource impacts occur. In 

addition, legacy roads do not fall under the regulatory umbrella of the FPA, at least as currently 

understood.

Methods/Approaches:

There are many different ways in which this option can be implemented. Listed below are 

specific methods that have been deliberated by the committee: 

Method 1

Immediately after the time of harvest, road segments within or bordering the harvest unit should 

be inspected and remedied for fill failure and washout risks. ODF and the operator would review 

roads (old and legacy) within the harvest unit. This option could be implemented on either a 

mandatory or voluntary basis (possibly as a stewardship plan provision).
B-19

Benefits:

Commercial harvest often creates positive cash flow (note: some harvests may not result in 

positive cash flow, e.g., hardwood conversions, salvage operations, etc). This may be viewed as 

an opportunity to use a portion of those funds to improve existing roads. Thus the link to 

harvesting. 

Costs:

Timing of mitigation activities may interfere with harvesting or be limited to in-stream work 

period. Practical access to legacy road segments may not exist, as these roads may have been 

abandoned by previous landowners several decades ago.

Method 2

The same as above, except also include those roads used as part of the hauling route. 

Benefits:

Same as above.

Costs:

Same as above. In addition, timber owner may not own haul route.

Method 3

Landowner to develop and implement a road maintenance plan by ownership or operating areas 

that includes a systematic road survey to identify and prioritize road maintenance needs. This 

option could be implemented on either a mandatory or voluntary basis. There may be an 

opportunity for a landowner to include a road maintenance plan as a component of a stewardship 

plan.

Method 4

Create financial incentives (probably a tax credit) to encourage vacating roads in sensitive areas 

and relocating these roads to lower-risk areas.

Method 5

Create specific road maintenance guidelines for high hazard locations by developing and making 

improved guidance available to operators and regulators.
B-20

Method 6

In the prioritization of road maintenance and repair, those roads that pose the greatest risk to 

waters of the state should be given a high priority.

Method 7

Give ODF general authority to require additional cross drainage installation as a maintenance 

requirement prior to an operation when current road condition and a proposed use will impair 

water quality.

Benefits:

This option could bring existing roads up to improved standards. Road maintenance plans will 

result in a systematic means for remedying road problems. Creating financial incentives will 

encourage operators to be proactive. A prioritization scheme will help to ensure that those areas 

that are most in need of repair get tended to first. This option has the potential to reduce 

sedimentation to streams, allow for a higher level of road maintenance, decrease the number of 

citations for FPA violations, and reduce long-term road management costs through the more 

efficient allocation of limited resources for road repairs and maintenance. 

Costs:

This option could potentially increase short-term operating costs associated with a harvesting 

operation. Additional resources will be needed to build and maintain a road survey program and 

the personnel necessary to manage such a program. Linking “problem” roads to harvest 

operations may not address those road segments that most need attention, and will not address 

those road systems where harvest entry is not planned for some time. The party that controls the 

haul route may not be the same party that owns the timber, creating potential operational 

problems. Additional ODF resources will be needed to implement some of these methods. 

Option #7 – Cross Drainage Structures on New Roads

Objective:

To minimize the risk of sediment delivery by ensuring that adequate cross drainage design and 

construction occurs on new roads. Existing roads are included under Option 6. Cross drains 

should not be confused with stream crossing culverts. Cross drains take water from the inboard 

side of the road and route it under/across the road and discharge the water downslope from the 

road.

Description: 

The objectives of cross drains are:

1. To protect the road surface from erosion and retaining water.

2. To reduce erosion of the roadside ditch. Soil eroded from a ditch may be delivered to waters 

of the state.
B-21

3. To prevent ditch water from discharging onto unstable slopes.

4. To reduce the amount of ditch water (and associated ditch water sediment) discharging 

directly into a stream.

Recent monitoring studies have found that many existing roads have drainage systems that are 

not designed to filter sediment. A secondary finding (less commonly associated with sediment 

delivery to streams, was that steep roads (>12 percent grade) often have inadequate spacing of 

cross drainage structures (excessive distance between cross drains) (ODF, 1996). These 

conditions existed on both older and more recently constructed roads. There are two spacing 

issues: cross drain spacing based on road slope and soil type, which could be an erosion problem; 

and cross drain spacing based on the delivery of ditch water to a stream where the ditch 

discharges directly into a stream, which could be a sediment delivery problem. 

Among other things, an insufficient drainage design can result in unfiltered surface runoff entering 

streams and have adverse effects on the maintenance and recovery of salmonids. This option 

would require specific criteria for the spacing of cross drains on steeper-gradient roads to provide 

for adequate drainage. Applying a strict spacing criterion on any given road may be problematic. 

Site-specific judgement is necessary in determining the best place to locate a cross drain. Applying 

cross drain spacing without regard to where the water will discharge may exacerbate slope 

instability. These criteria would be applied to new roads and during the maintenance and repair of 

existing roads. This option could be implemented on either a mandatory or voluntary basis.

Current FPA administration: OAR 629-625-330 (1) through (5) address road drainage practices. 

The rule states: 

(1) Operators shall provide a drainage system using grade reversals, surface sloping, ditches, 

culverts and/or waterbars as necessary to effectively control and disperse surface water to 

minimize erosion of the road.

(2) Operators shall not divert water from channels except as necessary to construct stream 

crossings.

(3) Operators shall locate dips, waterbars, or cross-drainage culverts above and away from

stream crossings so that road-drainage water may be filtered before entering waters of the 

state.

(4) Operators shall provide drainage when roads cross or expose springs, seeps, or wet areas.

(5) Operators shall not concentrate road drainage water into headwalls, slide areas, or high-risk 

sites.

The rule is not especially clear about the objectives for cross drainage, nor does it provide 

specific standards or examples of cross drainage spacing or the maximum length of ditch that 

should drain into a stream.

FPFs currently have the authority to require installation and maintenance of cross drains. 

Monitoring has shown that there is room for improvement. Training and improved guidance 

could be developed and implemented for operators/landowners and regulators that would 

emphasize the need for adequate spacing and installation of road cross drains. 
B-22

Methods/Approaches:

There are several different approaches which may be taken, as described below:

Method 1

Make changes to existing rules so that they include specific criteria for installation and spacing of 

cross drainage structures. This would include the maximum culvert spacing by road grade, and 

maximum distance to cross drains above stream crossings. Both cases would include exceptions 

for steep fills and high-risk sites.

Method 2

Provide better guidance and training for use of the existing rules. Current rules provide authority 

for installation and maintenance of road cross drains. Training and improved guidance could be 

developed and implemented for operators/landowners and regulators that would emphasize the 

need for adequate spacing and installation of road cross drains.

Method 3

Provide changes in existing rules to better clarify the objectives for cross drainage. For example, 

the rules might state that the objectives of cross drainage are to ensure that cross drainage in 

number and location so that:

Road surfaces are protected from erosion and retaining water.

Erosion of the roadside ditch is minimized.

Ditch water is not discharged onto unstable slopes.

The amount of ditch water (and associated sediment) discharging directly into a 

stream is minimized.

Benefits:

These methods will reduce the risk of fill failures, washouts, and direct delivery of road runoff to 

streams on existing roads where the cross drain spacing is currently inadequate, and on new roads 

where the current maintenance guidelines would not have resulted in adequate cross drainage 

spacing.

Costs:

There will be increased operating costs associated with harvesting in areas where additional cross 

drains are needed. It will be difficult to develop „universal‟ spacing criteria appropriate for the 

various soil and landform conditions across the state. If the spacing criteria are not developed 

and implemented correctly, there is a risk that water could be discharged onto unstable slopes, 

increasing the potential for sediment delivery to streams.
B-23

Option #8 – Wet Weather Hauling

Objective:

To address road surfaces that are at risk of delivering sediment to streams during hauling 

operations in wet weather.

Description:

Require durable rocking of roads during winter use in locations where there is a higher likelihood 

of sediment entering waters of the state. Prohibit hauling during periods of wet weather on road 

systems that have not been constructed with specific standards for surface materials, drainage 

systems, or other alternatives (paving, increased numbers of cross drains, sediment barriers, 

settling basins, etc.) that will minimize delivery of sediment to waters of the state. 

Methods/Approaches:

Specific criteria for determining if a road was at risk of sediment delivery, which might include 

precipitation amounts necessary to trigger hauling prohibition, would be developed. Develop 

specific construction and maintenance standards for wet weather hauling roads and require these 

standards for roads determined to be at risk for sediment delivery. 

There are two methods which are probably needed to implement this option, as described below:

Method 1

Develop criteria for winter-use roads, probably in rule form, to ensure that durable rock is used 

on road segments that can deliver sediment to streams.

Method 2

Develop a second criteria, probably also in rule form, that requires operators to cease heavy truck 

traffic on roads when the road surface is breaking down (only for segments that are delivering 

sediment to streams). Breaking down would be defined by both depth of ruts and by depth of 

surface “slop” on the road.

Benefits:

This will further minimize the risk of sediment entering waters of the state during the wet season 

from active hauling roads. 

Costs:

There may be increased operating costs associated with harvesting in areas where quality rocking 

of roads is needed. The availability of durable rock in parts of the central Coast Range is 

problematic. Additional rock pit development is a potential source of chronic point-source 

sediment. 
B-24

Option #10 – Locating New Roads and Road Reconstruction in Locations with High Potential 

Resource Impacts (Combination of Options 10, 49, 50, and 51)

Objective:

To reduce the potential of sediment delivery, or other undesirable effects, to streams from new 

roads located where there is a high risk of landslides, surface erosion, or of direct physical 

alteration to streams, riparian areas, lakes, or wetlands.

Description:

Roads that are built on some steep slopes above streams, or that directly fill or excavate in 

streams, floodplains, lakes, or wetlands can have much greater impacts on water quality and 

aquatic resources than roads elsewhere across the landscape. If these roads are constructed, 

action should be taken to minimize or eliminate the risks they pose to aquatic resources to the 

maximum extent practicable. There are also cases where roads should not be constructed. 

Current rules require that operators shall “avoid locating roads on steep slopes, slide areas, highrisk sites, and in wetlands, riparian management areas, channels, or floodplains where viable 

alternatives exist.” Prior approval of the State Forester is required before roads can be 

constructed or reconstructed in such locations.

This current rule language allows ODF to require written plans and to not approve construction 

or reconstruction when the risk of such action is too “great.” However, the application of this

rule requires a “conservative” interpretation to ensure that the desired level of resource protection 

is consistently achieved. It is not clear to some on the committee what the basis for decisionmaking is under this rule. However, the field site visited in eastern Oregon where ODF denied 

road reconstruction represents the type of decision-making supported by all the committee 

members present on the tour. 

Methods/Approaches Explored:

Several different specific sub-options to address concerns about locating roads in high-risk sites 

and other sensitive areas were deliberated by the committee including:

1. Ensure roads constructed across high-risk sites are constructed with no fill and also with „failsafe‟ drainage systems.

2. Require that written plans for road construction and timber harvesting operations on 

landslide-prone locations be prepared by a geoscience professional.

3. In areas where roads constructed using current BMPs are likely to degrade water quality, create 

additional restrictions on the locations of new roads in riparian management areas, high-risk 

sites, unstable slopes, flood plains, wetlands, and side channels.

4. Prohibit construction of roads on high-risk sites.

5. Develop clear and specific criteria for road location in these sensitive areas, which includes 

preferred locations, and criteria to “say no” when there are better alternatives, or when the 

road poses very high risk to fish, especially in “core” areas. Roads should be built in the 

location with the lowest overall impact to water quality and fish habitat while meeting land 

management objectives.

Agreement on methods 1-4 did not occur during the October 14-15, 1999, meetings. From one 

perspective there is a belief that the current rules are adequate (in part because ODF can apply 

any of the sub-options listed above under some conditions). Another perspective is the belief 
B-25

that the department does not or will not say “no” to some proposed roads (in part because it is not 

clear if, or when ODF may apply any of the sub-options). The committee agreed that rule or 

guidance clarification supportive of ODF‟s current “conservative” or “stringent” interpretation of 

the existing rules as demonstrated by the eastern Oregon example was an appropriate action. 

Therefore, option 5 above is proposed for committee recommendation. In this context it is 

expected that specific rule language may be adopted about when, if ever, reconstruction of creek 

bottom roads might be approved.

Benefits:

Method 5 will reduce the risk of major impacts to streams and water quality. This proposal is 

likely to result in the “removal” over time of high-impact (especially creek bottom) roads that are 

proposed for reconstruction.

Costs:

Costs to landowners will increase slightly as compared to current practices. Road construction 

and timber harvesting costs will be increased in some steep slope areas. Long-term costs may be 

reduced by vacating creek bottom roads that require “reconstruction” to maintain their use. 

Based on past experience, these situations will be relatively uncommon. Costs could be reduced 

and progress enhanced by providing some grants to assist in vacating some roads. Costs could be 

reduced by developing equitable procedures for the use of roads on other ownership, particularly 

federal lands.

Resources needed:

The resources needed depend upon how the criteria will be applied in approving or disapproving 

roads. The focus of the rules will be to require that “roads are located or reconstructed in the 

location with the lowest overall impact to water quality and fish habitat while meeting land 

management objectives.” These criteria will most likely require additional oversight and review 

by ODF, and/or professional design by the landowner. While these situations are relatively 

uncommon, they can require substantial ODF and landowner resources on a case-by-case basis.

Option #11 - More Specific Rule Objectives

Objective:

Provide more specifics in regard to the rule objectives through more specific rule language, 

guidance, and/or training.

Description:

Objective-based rules, such as “minimizing sediment delivery,” allow flexibility but sometimes 

lack the specificity needed to insure that objectives are met. For example, in regards to meeting 

the objectives of the Forest Practice Rules, there may be room for improvement in the areas of 

wet weather hauling, constructing and maintaining effective cross drainage structures, and 

“public” roads. This option proposes to use more specific language within the rules to help 

ensure that the objectives are being met.
B-26

Methods/Approaches:

Rewrite those road construction and maintenance rules where the flexibility of generalized, 

objective-based language is precluding an effective evaluation of whether or not specific 

objectives are being met. The revised rules would spell out specific objectives that operators 

must meet in order to be in compliance. Note that Options 7, 8, 10, and 57 deal with most of 

these issues. Adopting specific practices under these options, and adding additional information 

in the “purpose” rules will provide a great deal more specificity in rules and rule objectives. 

Benefits:

There will be a higher likelihood of success at achieving the objectives if they are more clearly 

defined.

Costs:

This will reduce the flexibility of the rules and could result in the requirement of forest practices 

that do not provide optimal resource protection for a given operation. 

Option #12 – Stream Crossings that Pass Large Wood and Gravel

Objective:

To construct stream crossings that will pass large wood and gravel downstream, and to provide 

other means for passage of large wood and sediment at those crossings which restrict this 

passage. The transport mechanisms for large wood and gravel may be either stream storm flows 

or channelized debris flows. 

Description:

Most stream crossing culverts restrict or prevent the passage of large wood. New culverts in 

Type F streams, and designed with streambed simulation, will pass gravel, but their ability to 

pass large wood is also limited. Stream crossing structures have been designed primarily to pass 

water. In the last few years, there has been an increased effort to design stream crossings so that 

they effectively pass fish as well. There is an increasing body of scientific evidence that supports 

the idea that the movement of large wood downstream is an important function that provides for, 

and maintains, fish habitat. This option proposes to provide a broader range of engineering 

options for stream crossing designs that will pass large wood and sediment, both during high 

flows, and for steep channels, when debris flows occur. 

Methods/Approaches:

ODF would research and compile descriptions of the most current engineering options for 

designing stream crossings to pass large wood. These designs could be included as part of the 

rule guidance and recommended to operators to use where appropriate. These designs would not 

be appropriate in areas where large wood is not mobilized by the stream (i.e., where average 

annual flow is too low or debris flows are not likely to occur). 

Strategies for passage of large wood and gravel may depend upon the crossing type, e.g., a ford 

may easily pass large wood and gravel, while a traditional fill with culvert installation may 

require machine activity to remove material from the upstream side and deposit on the 
B-27

downstream side. Financial incentives could be provided to encourage the use of more effective 

options that may have a higher cost. Additional designs might include approaches that are better 

at preventing stream flow diversions down roads, be able to withstand debris torrents by passing 

such events, and be able to allow for the downstream delivery of large wood to fish bearing 

streams.

For existing culverts, this should include methods to allow movement of sediment and large 

wood that have been trapped above culverts. These provisions would probably be in rule form. 

Material would not be removed from, or placed in, water (where the risk of increased turbidity is 

high). Sediment and wood would be replaced outside of the active channel (normal bed and 

streambanks), and where it does not restrict the culvert outlet. Since most activity occurs during 

routine road maintenance, prior approval would not be required for these operations.

Benefits:

These practices would reduce the influence of roads and road-fill on the delivery of sediment and 

large wood to fish bearing streams, helping to restore the natural disturbance regime that has 

maintained salmonid habitat in the past.

Costs:

These practices are largely undeveloped and untested. They would have to be monitored over 

time to ensure they are performing as expected. These types of stream crossings may also be 

more expensive to construct as compared to traditional methods, resulting in a potential increase 

in short-term costs. The use of fords as a stream crossing structure may conflict with ODFW 

and/or DEQ policy related to their use.

Option #13 - Watershed-Scale Effects

Objective:

To address the potential compounding effects of road-related sediment inputs from a watershed 

perspective.

Description:

Current BMPs aim to reduce the risk of sediment delivery from roads by addressing road issues 

on a site-specific scale. The assumption is that if the risk of sediment delivery is being 

minimized on a site-specific scale, then it is being minimized on the watershed-scale as well. 

However, BMPs do not eliminate all potential sediment sources, and even if every „site‟ 

(i.e., road segment) within a given watershed that has the potential to deliver sediment to the 

stream has a low risk for delivery, additional road building in certain areas could still increase 

risk. The higher the number of sites that exist, even if the risk is minimized at each site, the 

higher the cumulative risk that increased sedimentation will occur. To address this potential 

problem, this option proposes that a watershed-scale analysis be conducted of combined 

watershed effects of both existing roads and new road construction in moderate- to high-risk 

areas. This option will allow for potential watershed-scale effects to be evaluated before 

additional road building occurs in certain portions of the landscape. 
B-28

Methods/Approaches:

For new roads proposed in moderate- to high-risk areas, landowners would provide a written plan 

that examines the current status of roads within the watershed in terms of the cumulative risk of 

sediment delivery. The current status of existing roads would be determined using the Oregon 

Plan Road Hazard and Risk Reduction procedure. Depending on the findings from this 

examination, the written plan may also discuss alternatives to new road construction, examine 

the decommissioned roads that are at high risk of delivering sediment to waters of the state, 

and/or discuss why new road construction is the most practicable option. This might also be 

accomplished through voluntary stewardship agreements. Specific implementation criteria 

would need to be developed. “Watersheds of concern” could probably be identified. If field 

work verified these concerns, ODF could work with landowners to: 

1. Focus on road repairs.

2. Encourage vacating of unneeded or unrepairable roads.

3. Prevent construction of new roads where viable alternatives exist.

4. Prevent new construction where risk to resources is high and cannot be effectively mitigated.

Benefits:

This has the potential to minimize the construction of unnecessary new roads that may increase 

the risk of sediment entering waters of the state. It would also be a vehicle towards addressing 

older roads on the landscape that may be high risk. By targeting only those roads that have the 

potential to deliver sediment or water to the stream, this option could be an efficient means to 

reduce adverse watershed-scale effects.

Costs:

This will increase short-term costs to the landowner. If mandatory, it would also increase FPF 

workloads by adding another step in the notification processes. Evaluation of risk to the 

watershed could be very time-consuming.

Option #15 – Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Database

Objective:

Build and maintain a GIS database of all roads in forestlands for the state of Oregon. 

Description:

The ODF has maps for most of the major roads that exist in forestlands in Oregon. The 

department does not, however, maintain digital maps (i.e., GIS) that identify every single road 

segment that exists in forestlands, nor does it have data on the condition of those roads (year 

built, maintenance history, risk assessment results, etc.). The acquisition of this data could be 

used to help the ODF assess road systems and prioritize restoration efforts. (Note: the 

SEDMODL described above utilizes this type of data for estimating sediment yield to streams). 

This option proposes to build such a database to enable the ODF to effectively keep an inventory 

of forest roads and potentially aid in the management of those roads. 
B-29

Methods/Approaches:

The database could be compiled and maintained either in a central location like Salem, or at the 

field offices where each district would be responsible for maintaining the database for their area. 

An adequate full-time staff would be needed to conduct annual updates and maintain the 

database.

Benefits:

The database would provide the ODF with up-to-date reliable road data to be used as needed. 

Costs:

Substantial resources would be needed to provide the personnel and equipment necessary to 

create and maintain such a database for the state of Oregon. Where private landowners are not 

willing to provide the ODF with their current road maps, aerial photographs would need to be 

taken on a regular basis to acquire the information needed to keep the database current. It may 

not be possible to obtain useful ground-based information without landowner cooperation.

Option #16 - Cooperative Road Use and Planning (Combination of Options 16 and 53)

Objective:

To encourage cooperative road system planning, design and use between different landowners in 

order to minimize the duplication and construction of unnecessary forest roads.

Description:

Forestland in Oregon is often in a checkerboard pattern of mixed ownership. There are situations 

where a landowner may have the opportunity to access their property using another landowner‟s 

road system and thereby reduce the length of new road that must be built for an operation. 

Current rule (OAR629-625-200(5)) states:

“[t]o reduce the duplication of road systems and associated ground disturbance, operators shall 

make use of existing roads where practical. Where roads traverse land in another ownership and 

will adequately serve the operation, investigate options for using those roads before constructing 

new roads.”

Historically, this rule has been applied as an advisory rule. Guidance does not establish a 

specific threshold for “investigate options” or “where practical” to apply this rule.

Currently, a number of disincentives exist, especially for federal lands, which prevent private 

landowners from using road systems on another ownership. Sometimes this results in the 

duplication of road systems and parallel roads being built on opposite sides of property lines. 

When these duplicate roads are built in high risk or sensitive areas, it can increase the risk of 

sediment delivery and other adverse effects to streams. This option proposes taking action to 

minimize the construction of unnecessary forest roads that are built due to existing disincentives 

for cooperative road system planning, design, and use.

Methods/Approaches: 
B-30

Develop incentives for cooperative road system planning, design, and use between different 

landowners. Landowners could also be asked to make existing roads available to other 

landowners as needed.

To be effective, there would probably need to be strong incentives for landowners to share road 

use. Many landowners have already established such agreements. However, development of 

new agreements with the federal agencies appears to be problematic. It appears that the current 

system rewards federal agencies for not cooperating with private landowners. 

In other cases, neighboring private landowners (sometimes, but not always, those who are using 

their lands for other purposes) may set unreasonable conditions on road use (typically costs that 

are so inflated that it is cheaper for the affected landowner to construct a new road). This occurs 

even when new road construction is expensive (over $100,000 per mile of road). Conflicts 

related to rural residential uses versus forest management cause road-use problems in more 

developed areas.

Benefits: 

There is the potential to reduce the length of new roads built and decrease the risk of sediment 

delivery to streams where this option prevents unnecessary roads from being built in high-risk or 

sensitive areas. Landowners will also reduce operational costs if they do not have to build and 

maintain additional unnecessary roads as a result of this option.

Costs: 

Private property rights are likely to be a barrier to compelling some landowners to make their 

roads available to others. State government may have [has] limited influence on federal policies 

that act as a disincentive to cooperative road system planning, design, and use between federal 

and private land managers. 

Option #18 – Roads Monitoring Program

Objective:

Evaluate the need for further road compliance and effectiveness monitoring.

Description:

Road BMP compliance and effectiveness monitoring is currently being conducted as part of the 

Oregon Forest Practices‟ BMP compliance monitoring project. The BMP pilot study has already 

identified a need to more specifically monitor BMP effectiveness during rainy-season hauling. 

The pilot study results and recommendations will be considered within the context of the 

strategic monitoring plan and prioritized in context with available monitoring resources and other 

monitoring needs.

Methods/Approaches:

Roads are generally considered the single greatest chronic source of fine sediment associated 

with forest practices. However, currently available information also confirms that when properly 
B-31

implemented, BMPs are effective at reducing delivery of sediment from roads. Instream 

measures of water quality are an integration of everything upslope. Consequently, instream 

measurements can be a diluted or exaggerated version of what is occurring higher up in the 

channel network or on adjacent slopes. It is usually easier to accurately identify a road drainagerelated sediment source and to quantify the volume of sediment it produced than it is to measure 

sediment in the stream and work backwards to the source. 

Currently, as part of the BMP Compliance Audit Project, ODF is monitoring compliance with the 

road construction and maintenance rules along with a large number of other harvesting and water 

protection rules. This project is a two-year effort to provide a systematic, random “audit” of 

forest practice rule compliance. ODF will assess the need to continue and expand on this 

project based on the study results and through a review process that involves key stakeholders. 

ODF is not currently monitoring road sediment associated with winter road use, nor is it 

gathering information on road repairs completed under road hazard and risk reduction projects.

Benefits:

Monitoring can provide the most current information on compliance and effectiveness of the 

construction and maintenance rules over time.

Costs:

Additional resources would be needed to prioritize and maintain a long-term monitoring effort 

devoted specifically to road issues. However, should the monitoring effort be considered within 

the current monitoring strategy and prioritized accordingly, no additional resources would be 

needed.

Option #19 - Continuing Education

Objective: 

Provide continuing education for landowners and operators specific to the road construction and 

maintenance rules.

Description:

Use outreach efforts to achieve this objective.

Methods/Approaches:

Workshops and other types of outreach efforts could be organized by the ODF and coordinated 

with organizations like the OFIC to provide continuing education for landowners. ODF and 

OSU held a “Road Stewardship Workshop” in March 2000.

Benefits:

Those landowners and operators that currently do not have a thorough understanding of the rules 

and their objectives will potentially be better informed. 

Costs:

Additional resources will be needed to implement such a program. Depending on the mechanism 

used to provide continuing education, there is a risk that this type of program will be “preaching 
B-32

to the choir.” Those landowners and operators that may need information the most (i.e., those 

who have not been proactive in the past about gaining a complete understanding of rules and 

their objectives) may not take advantage of continuing education unless concerted efforts are 

made to reach them.

Option #57 – Ground-Based Harvesting on Steep Slopes

Objective:

To reduce the potential of sediment delivery or other undesirable effects to streams from skid 

roads constructed on steep slopes.

Description:

Ground-based harvesting on steep slopes has a higher risk of sediment delivery to streams, and 

has direct impacts to aquatic habitat compared to ground skidding on less-steep slopes, or cable 

yarding. The current rule is neither clear nor specific. 

Methods/Approaches:

Add a prior approval requirement for ground skidding in high-erosion hazard locations. This 

could be based on slope steepness, or combination slope steepness and soil criteria. This 

approach could be used everywhere, or only for “core” areas. For example, prior approval could 

be required for ground skidding on slopes over 45 percent (i.e., if over 200 feet or if a skid trail 

is located on these slopes). Prior approval could also be required for slopes over 50 percent 

(average soils) and 40 percent (high-erosion hazard soils).

Benefits:

This will reduce the risk of sediment delivery to waters of the state. It will also help operators to 

better plan operations in these locations, and to modify operations where risk of sediment 

delivery is greatest. In some cases, planning activity may reduce operational costs.

Costs:

For those cases where prior approval would be required (a minority of current operations), there

would be a moderate increase in operational costs. In some cases, operating costs would be 

reduced. In other cases (where the operator must switch to cable yarding and wood volume is 

low), costs could increase significantly.

Option #58 – License Plate Funding to the “Forest Incentive Fund”

Objective:

To create a special license plate that would contribute to a fund that specifically supports stream 

restoration, fish passage, or road improvement projects on forestland.

Description:
B-33

First, a fund would be established. This proposed fund would be called the “Forest Incentive 

Fund” (referred to in Options #59 and #60). Second, proceeds from the sale of Oregon license 

plates that have a forestry theme would be used to help support the fund. 

Methods/Approaches:

Idaho has implemented such a license plate program. Idaho has several special designs dedicated 

to specific natural resource categories including big game, nongame, parks, and forestry. The 

forestry plate appears to attract mainly forestland owners. Many industrial and small landowner 

vehicles have the plate. One advantage of this program is that each time the license is renewed 

some revenue is generated.

Landowners with limited financial resources to implement the Oregon Plan‟s voluntary measures 

could apply for cost-sharing grants from the fund. Project examples include the cost of fixing, or 

removing, legacy roads or culverts, or using heavy machinery to place large wood in streams. 

Alternately, the funds might be used to buy portable bridges for use by landowners.

Grants would be administered at the local ODF offices, requiring the coordinated input from 

ODF service foresters or forest practice foresters, and ODFW biologists. Watershed council 

involvement would be encouraged.

The design phase of the plate could be used to attract attention to the forestland restoration 

efforts.

One alternative to a new plate would be to allow purchasers of the “salmon” plate to specify 

whether the additional funding should go to the “Forest Incentive Fund” or to the general 

(Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board) OWEB fund.

Benefits:

Financial incentives will encourage more landowners to implement the voluntary measures that 

are key to the success of the Oregon Plan. It would create an identity for, and ownership of, the 

effort to restore salmon on forestlands.

Costs:

There would be a cost of establishing the license plate design and sales with Department of 

Motor Vehicles (DMV), creating the fund through legislation, and operating the program. This 

plate might compete with other plates currently available. 

Option #59 – Road Closure Program

Objective:

To create a [voluntary] road closure program that forest landowners, the Department of Forestry, 

and local law enforcement would use to limit [public] vehicle access onto sensitive road systems 

that have a high risk of delivering sediment to streams or that can directly impact aquatic habitat.

Description:
B-34

Legacy roads, roads built on steep slopes and unstable soils, or unsurfaced roads that have the 

potential to deliver sediment to streams should be closed to public vehicle traffic during the rainy 

months. Road closure signs would indicate what type of public access in allowed (e.g., foot 

traffic but no motorized vehicles). It would be a misdemeanor offense subject to uniform citation 

and civil penalty to violate a road closure, enforceable by local sheriffs or the state police (or 

possibly by ODF).

Methods/Approaches:

Currently ORS 164.270 allows a landowner to close roads to motor-propelled vehicles. This 

statute is under the criminal trespass laws and it is not clear what the attached penalty is, but 

enforcement requires a complaint by the landowner through the local district attorney. 

Enforcement is difficult under the trespass laws.

Under the proposed approach, landowners would close roads to vehicle access [to the public 

when not in use during rainy months] for the purposes of protecting water quality. Identifying 

candidate roads could be done with ODF and ODFW input. User groups, such as motorcycle, or 

off-road clubs, would be informed. [Agreements for enforcement with local sheriffs or state 

police would be needed.] [Trespass citations and procedures would need to be clarified.] 

Violation of a closed road would be subject to citation that could be issued by a law officer and 

would receive a set civil penalty amount. Assessed [fines] civil penalties would be deposited to 

the “Forest Incentive Fund”.

The “Forest Incentive Fund” (see Option #58) would provide money for gates and posters, plus 

repairs caused by persons [trespassing on] using closed roads.

Benefits:

Reduce the impact of unauthorized vehicle damage done to roads that results in sediment 

delivery to streams. The “Forest Incentive Fund” provides a financial incentive to landowners.

Costs:

There would be a cost of establishing the road closure program and allocating the incentive funds 

to repair damage.

Resources Needed:

Enforcement actions require resources. Moving this out from “trespass law” to a uniform 

citation with civil penalty would make enforcement much easier. If ODF was to enforce this, 

additional resources might be needed, particularly in the civil penalty section.

Option #60 – Upstream-Downstream Program

Objective:

To promote the placement of large wood that is removed from the up-stream side of a bridge or 

culvert (i.e., large wood that has backed up behind a stream crossing structure) to an appropriate 

location below that bridge or culvert.
B-35

Description:

Forest landowners are asked in the Oregon Plan‟s voluntary measures to place large wood as a 

part of stream habitat improvement. Large wood, whether placed by humans or transported by 

the stream, has the potential to threaten the integrity of culverts, bridges, and the road prism 

during high stream-flow events. If a forest landowner removes this large wood to address this 

potential threat, this option would have the landowner place that large wood in a suitable downstream location rather than end-hauling it and removing the wood from the stream system 

entirely. This option could be implemented on a voluntary, or regulatory, basis.

Methods/Approaches:

Landowners could be encouraged (voluntary, incentive-based) or required (regulatory) to remove 

large wood from upstream locations and put this material in an appropriate downstream location. 

Projects would be coordinated with ODF and ODFW. Watershed council involvement would be 

encouraged. The “Forest Incentive Fund” (see Option #58) could be used to provide money to the 

landowner.

Benefits:

The removed large wood would be used in a nearby downstream project, possibly on the same 

stream system. The program would address the concern that large wood can damage human-built

structures. The program would provide a financial incentive to the participating forest 

landowner.

Costs:

Existing agency administration would be used to implement the program. Funds would be 

needed from the “Forest Incentive Fund.”
B-36

REFERENCES

Adams, P. W., and J. O. Ringer. April 1994. The Effects of Timber Harvesting and Forest 

Roads on Water Quantity and Quality in the Pacific Northwest: Summary and Annotated 

Bibliography. Forest Engineering Department, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon. 

pp. 9.

Bilby, R. E., K. Sullivan, and S. H. Duncan. 1989. The Generation and Fate of Road-Surface 

Sediment in Forested Watersheds in Southwestern Washington. Forest Science. Vol. 35, 

No.2: 453-468.

Botkin, D., K. Cummins, T. Dunne, H. Reiger, M. Sobel, and L. Talbot. 1995. Status and Future

of Salmon of Western Oregon and Northern California: Findings and Options. The Center 

for the Study of the Environment, Santa Barbara, California.

Coats, R. L., L. Collins, J. Forsheim, and D. Kaufman. 1985. Channel Changes, Sediment 

Transport, and Fish Habitat in a Coastal Stream. Environmental Management 9(1):35-48.

Everest, F. H., R. L. Beschta, J. C. Scrivener, K. V. Koski, J. R. Sedell, and C. J. Cederholm. 

1987. Fine Sediment and Salmonid Production: A Paradox. In: Salo, E. O., editor, 

Streamside Management, Forestry and Fishery Interactions. College of Forest Resources, 

Univ. of Washington. pp 98-142.

Harr, R. D., 1976. Forest Practices and Streamflow in Western Oregon. USDA Forest Service 

General Technical Report PNW-49. PNW Research Station, Portland, Oregon.

Hicks, B. J., J. D. Hall, P. A. Bisson, and J. R. Sedell. 1991. Response of Salmonids to Habitat 

Changes. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 10:483-518.

Jackson, W. L., and B. P. Haveran. 1984. Rainfall-Runoff Prediction and the Effects of 

Logging: The Oregon Coast Range. USDI Bureau of Land Management Denver Service 

Center, Denver, Colorado.

Krygier, J. T., and R. D. Harr. 1972. Changes in Storm Hydrographs Due to Roadbuilding and 

Clearcut Logging on Coastal Watersheds in Oregon. Oregon State University School of 

Forestry Project Termination Report, Corvallis, Oregon.

Luce, C., and T. Black. 1999. Sediment Production from Forest Roads in Western Oregon. 

Water Resources Research 35(8): 2561-2570.

Megahan, W. F. 1974. Erosion Over Time on Severely Disturbed Granitic Soils; A Model. 

USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Research Paper 

INT-156.
B-37

Megahan, W. F., and G. L. Ketcheson. 1996. Predicting Downslope Travel of Granitic 

Sediments from Forest Roads in Idaho. Water Resources Bulletin. Vol. 32, No. 2. 

pp. 371-381.

Megahan, W. F., and J. W. Kidd. 1972. Effect of Logging Roads on Sediment Production Rates 

in the Idaho Batholith. USDA Forest Service Research Paper. INT-123, Intermountain 

Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, Utah. 14 pp.

Megahan, W. F., W. S. Platts, and B. Kulesza. 1980. Riverbed Improves Over Time: South 

Fork Salmon. In: Symposium on Watershed Management, New York, NY; American 

Society of Civil Engineers; 1980: 380-395.

Montgomery, D. R. 1994. Road Surface Drainage, Channel Initiation, and Slope Instability. 

Water Resources Research, Vol. 30, No. 6. pp 1925-1932.

Newcombe, C. P., and D. D. McDonald. 1991. Effects of Suspended Sediments on Aquatic 

Systems. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 11:72-82.

ODF Forest Practices Monitoring Program. 1996. Road Sediment Monitoring Project Report: 

Survey of Road Drainage in Western Oregon. ODF Technical Report, pp. 11.

ODF Forest Practices Program. 1997. Forest Road Hazard Inventory Protocol. 13 pp.

Office of the Governor, Executive Order No. EO 99-01, January 8, 1999. The Oregon Plan for 

Salmon and Watersheds. pp. 9.

Piehl, B. T., R. L. Beschta, and M. R. Pyles. 1988. Ditch Relief Culverts and Low-Volume 

Forest Roads in the Oregon Coast Range. Northwest Science: 62(3) 91-98.

Platt, W. S., and W. F. Megahan. 1975. Time Trends in Channel Sediment Size Composition in 

Salmon and Steelhead Spawning Areas: South Fork Salmon River, Idaho. USDA Forest 

Service GTR, Inter. For. and Range Exp. Sta. pp. 21.

Reid, L. M., 1993. Research and Cumulative Watershed Effects. General Technical Report 

PSW-GTR-141. Albany, California. PSW Research Station, USDA Forest Service. 

118 pp.

Reid, L. M., and T. Dunne. 1984. Sediment Production from Forest Road Surfaces. Water 

Resources Research. Vol. 20, No. 11: 1753-1761.

Robison, E. G., K. Mills, J. T. Paul, L. Dent , and A. Skaugset. 1999. Oregon Department of 

Forestry 1996 Storm Impacts Monitoring Project: Final Report. Forest Practices Technical 

Report #4. Oregon Department of Forestry, Salem, Oregon. 145 pp.
B-38

Sessions, J., Balcom, J. C., and Boston, K. 1987. Road Location and Construction Practices: 

Effects on Landslide Frequency and Size in the Oregon Coast Range. Western Journal of 

Applied Forestry, Vol. 2, No. 4. pp. 119-124.

Sidle, R. C., A. J. Pearce, and C. L. O‟Loughlin. 1985. Hillslope Stability and Land Use. 

American Geophysical Union Water Resources Monograph 11.

Springer, E. P., and G. B. Coltharp. 1980. Effects of Logging Roads on Storm Hydrographs. In: 

Symposium on Water Management, New York; American Society of Civil Engineers; 

1980: 228-239.

Storck, P., L. Bowling, P. Wetherbee, and D. Lettenmaier. 1998. Application of a GIS-based 

Distributed Hydrology Model for Prediction of Forest Harvest Effects on Peak Stream Flow 

in the Pacific Northwest. Hydrological Processes. Vol. 12, 889-904.

Thomas, R. B., and W. F. Megahan. 1998. Peak Flow Responses to Clear-cutting and Roads in 

Small and Large Basins, Western Cascades, Oregon: A Second Opinion. Water Resources 

Research, V.34, No. 12, 3393-3403. December.

Toth, S. 1991. A Road Damage Inventory for the Upper Deschutes River Basin. Timber Fish 

and Wildlife Report. TFW-SH14-91-007.

Tysdal, L., B. Elliot, C. Luce, and T. Black. Modeling Insloping Road Erosion Processes with 

the WEPP Watershed Model. Paper presented at the 1997 American Society of 

Agricultural Engineers Annual International Meeting, Minneapolis, Minnesota,

August 10-14, 1997.

Weaver, W. E., and D. K. Hagens. 1994. Handbook for Forest and Ranch Roads. Mendocino 

County Resource Conservation District in Cooperation with the California Department of 

Forestry and the U.S. NRCS.
B-39

ATTACHMENT A

Road Construction and Maintenance Rules

629-625-000 - Purpose

(1) Forest roads are essential to forest management and contribute to providing jobs, products, 

tax base and other social and economic benefits.

(2) OAR 629-625-000 through 629-625-650 shall be known as the road construction and 

maintenance rules.

(3) The purpose of the road construction and maintenance rules is to establish standards for 

locating, designing, constructing, and maintaining efficient and beneficial forest roads; locating 

and operating rock pits and quarries; and vacating roads, rock pits, and quarries that are no longer 

needed in manners that provide the maximum practical protection to maintain forest productivity, 

water quality, and fish and wildlife habitat.

(4) The road construction and maintenance rules shall apply to all forest practices regions unless 

otherwise indicated.

629-625-100 - Prior Approval

(1) A properly located, designed, and constructed road greatly reduces potential impacts to water 

quality, forest productivity, fish, and wildlife habitat. To prevent improperly located, designed, 

or constructed roads, prior approval of the State Forester is required in the sections listed below.

(2) In addition to the requirements of the water protection rules, operators shall obtain prior 

approval from the State Forester before:

(a) Constructing a road where there is an apparent risk of road-generated materials entering 

waters of the state from direct placement, rolling, falling, blasting, landslide, or debris flow.

(b) Conducting machine activity in Type F or Type D streams, lakes, or significant wetlands.

(c) Constructing roads in riparian management areas.

(3) In the Northwest Oregon and Southwest Oregon Regions, operators shall obtain prior 

approval from the State Forester before constructing roads on high-risk sites.

(4) Operators shall obtain written prior approval from the State Forester of a written plan, as 

described in OAR 629-625-320(1)(b)(B), before constructing any stream-crossing fill over 15 

feet deep.

(5) In addition to the requirements of the water protection rules, operators shall obtain prior 

approval from the State Forester before placing woody debris or boulders in stream channels for 

stream enhancement.

629-625-200 - Road Location

(1) The purpose of this rule is to ensure roads are located where potential impacts to waters of the 

state are minimized.

(2) When locating roads, operators shall designate road locations which minimize the risk of 

materials entering waters of the state and minimize disturbance to channels, lakes, wetlands, and 

floodplains.

(3) Operators shall avoid locating roads on steep slopes, slide areas, high-risk sites, and in 

wetlands, riparian management areas, channels, or floodplains where viable alternatives exist.

(4) Operators shall minimize the number of stream crossings.
B-40

(5) To reduce the duplication of road systems and associated ground disturbance, operators shall 

make use of existing roads where practical. Where roads traverse land in another ownership and 

will adequately serve the operation, investigate options for using those roads before constructing 

new roads.

629-625-300 - Road Design

(1) The purpose of OARs 629-625-300 through 629-625-340 is to provide design specifications 

for forest roads that protect water quality.

(2) Operators shall design and construct roads to limit the alteration of natural slopes and 

drainage patterns to that which will safely accommodate the anticipated use of the road and will 

also protect waters of the state.

629-625-310 - Road Prism

(1) Operators shall use variable grades and alignments to avoid less-suitable terrain so that the 

road prism is the least disturbing to protected resources, avoids steep sidehill areas, wet areas, 

and potentially unstable areas as safe, effective vehicle use requirements allow.

(2) Operators shall end-haul excess material from steep slopes or high-risk sites where needed to 

prevent landslides.

(3) Operators shall design roads no wider than necessary to accommodate the anticipated use.

(4) Operators shall design cut- and fillslopes to minimize the risk of landslides.

(5) Operators shall stabilize road fills as needed to prevent fill failure and subsequent damage to 

waters of the state using compaction, buttressing, subsurface drainage, rock facing, or other 

effective means.

629-625-320 - Stream-Crossing Structures

(1) Operators shall design and construct stream-crossing structures (culverts, bridges and fords) 

to:

(a) Minimize excavation of side slopes near the channel.

(b) Minimize the volume of material in the fill.

(A) Minimizing fill material is accomplished by restricting the width and height of the fill to the 

amount needed for safe use of the road by vehicles, and by providing adequate cover over the 

culvert or other drainage structure.

(B) Fills over 15 feet deep contain a large volume of material that can be a considerable risk to 

downstream beneficial uses if the material moves downstream by water. Consequently, for any 

fill over 15 feet deep, operators shall obtain approval of the State Forester of a written plan that

describes the fill and drainage structure design. Approval of such written plans shall require that 

the design be adequate for minimizing the likelihood of surface erosion, embankment failure, and 

other downstream movement of fill material.

(c) Prevent erosion of the fill and channel.

(2) Operators shall design and construct stream crossings (culverts, bridges, and fords) to:

(a) Pass a peak flow that at least corresponds to the 50-year return interval. When determining 

the size of culvert needed to pass a peak flow corresponding to the 50-year return interval, 

operators shall select a size that is adequate to preclude ponding of water higher than the top of 

the culvert; and
B-41

(b) Allow migration of adult and juvenile fish upstream and downstream during conditions when 

fish movement in that stream normally occurs. 

(3) An exception to the requirements in subsection (2)(a) of this rule is allowed to reduce the 

height of fills where roads cross wide flood plains. Such an exception shall be allowed if:

(a) The stream-crossing site includes a wide flood plain; and

(b) The stream-crossing structure matches the size of the active channel and is covered by the 

minimum fill necessary to protect the structure; 

(c) Except for culvert cover, soil fill is not placed in the flood plain, and

(d) The downstream edge of all fill is armored with rock of sufficient size and depth to protect 

the fill from eroding when a flood flow occurs.

629-625-330 - Drainage

(1) Operators shall provide a drainage system using grade reversals, surface sloping, ditches, 

culverts, and/or waterbars as necessary to effectively control and disperse surface water to 

minimize erosion of the road.

(2) Operators shall not divert water from channels except as necessary to construct stream 

crossings.

(3) Operators shall locate dips, water bars, or cross-drainage culverts above and away from 

stream crossings so that road-drainage water may be filtered before entering waters of the state.

(4) Operators shall provide drainage when roads cross or expose springs, seeps, or wet areas.

(5) Operators shall not concentrate road-drainage water into headwalls, slide areas, or high-risk 

sites.

629-625-340 - Waste Disposal Areas

Operators shall select stable areas for the disposal of end-haul materials, and shall prevent 

overloading areas which may become unstable from additional material loading.

629-625-400 - Road Construction

OARs 629-625-400 through 629-625-440 provide standards for disposal of waste materials, 

drainage, stream protection, and stabilization to protect water quality during and after road 

construction.

629-625-410 - Disposal of Waste Materials

Operators shall not place debris, sidecast, waste, and other excess materials associated with road 

construction in locations where these materials may enter waters of the state during or after 

construction.

629-625-420 - Drainage

(1) Operators shall clear channels and ditches of slash and other road construction debris which 

interferes with effective roadway drainage.

(2) Operators shall provide effective cross drainage on all roads, including temporary roads.

(3) Operators shall install drainage structures on flowing streams as soon as feasible.

(4) Operators shall effectively drain uncompleted roads which are subject to erosion.

(5) Operators shall remove berms on the edges of roads, or provide effective drainage through 

these berms, except for those berms intentionally designed to protect road fills.
B-42

629-625-430 - Stream Protection

(1) When constructing stream crossings, operators shall minimize disturbance to banks, existing 

channels, and riparian management areas.

(2) In addition to the requirements of the water protection rules, operators shall keep machine 

activity in beds of streams to an absolute minimum. Acceptable activities where machines are 

allowed in streambeds, such as installing culverts, shall be restricted to periods of low water 

levels. Prior approval of the State Forester for machine activity in Type F or Type D streams, 

lakes, and significant wetlands is required by 629-625-100(2)(c).

(3) For all roads constructed, or reconstructed, operators shall install water crossing structures 

where needed to maintain the flow of water and passage of adult and juvenile fish between side 

channels or wetlands and main channels.

(4) Operators shall leave or reestablish areas of vegetation between roads and waters of the state 

to protect water quality.

(5) Operators shall remove temporary stream-crossing structures promptly after use, and shall 

construct effective sediment barriers at approaches to channels.

629-625-440 - Stabilization

(1) Operators shall stabilize exposed material which is potentially unstable or erodible by use of 

seeding, mulching, riprapping, leaving light slashing, pull-back, or other effective means.

(2) During wet periods, operators shall construct roads in a manner which prevents sediment 

from entering waters of the state.

(3) Operators shall not incorporate slash, logs, or other large quantities of organic material into 

road fills.

629-625-500 - Rock Pits and Quarries

(1) The development, use, and abandonment of rock pits or quarries which are located on 

forestland and used for forest management shall be conducted using practices which maintain 

stable slopes and protect water quality.

(2) Operators shall not locate quarry sites in channels.

(3) When using rock pits or quarries, operators shall prevent overburden, solid wastes, or 

petroleum products from entering waters of the state.

(4) Operators shall stabilize banks, headwalls, and other surfaces of quarries and rock pits to 

prevent surface erosion or landslides.

(5) When a quarry or rock pit is inactive or vacated, operators shall leave it in the conditions 

described in section (4) of this rule, shall remove from the forest all petroleum-related waste 

material associated with the operation, and shall dispose of all other debris so that such materials 

do not enter waters of the state.

629-625-600 - Road Maintenance

(1) The purpose of this rule is to protect water quality by timely maintenance of all active and 

inactive roads.

(2) Operators shall maintain active and inactive roads in a manner sufficient both to provide a 

stable surface and to keep the drainage system operating as necessary to protect water quality.
B-43

(3) Operators shall inspect and maintain culvert inlets and outlets, drainage structures, and 

ditches before and during the rainy season as necessary to diminish the likelihood of clogging 

and the possibility of washouts.

(4) Operators shall provide effective road surface drainage, such as water-barring, surface 

crowning, constructing sediment barriers, or outsloping, prior to the rainy and runoff seasons.

(5) When applying road oil, or other surface stabilizing materials, operators shall plan and 

conduct the operation in a manner as to prevent entry of these materials into waters of the state.

(6) In the Northwest and Southwest Oregon Regions, operators shall maintain and repair active 

and inactive roads as needed to minimize damage to waters of the state. This may include 

maintenance and repair of all portions of the road prism during and after intense winter storms, as

safety, weather, soil moisture, and other considerations permit.

(7) Operators shall place material removed from ditches in a stable location.

(8) In order to maintain fish passage through water-crossing structures, operators shall:

(a) Maintain conditions at the structures so that passage of adult and juvenile fish is not impaired 

during periods when fish movement normally occurs. This standard is required only for roads 

constructed or reconstructed after September 1994, but is encouraged for all other roads; and

(b) As reasonably practicable, keep structures cleared of woody debris and deposits of sediment 

that would impair fish passage.

(c) Other fish passage requirements under the authority of ORS 498.268 and 509.605 that are 

administered by other state agencies may be applicable to water-crossing structures, including 

those constructed before September 1, 1994.

629-625-650 - Vacating Forest Roads

(1) The purpose of this rule is to ensure that when landowners choose to vacate roads under their 

control, the roads are left in a condition where road related damage to waters of the state is 

unlikely.

(2) To vacate a forest road, landowners shall effectively block the road to prevent continued use 

by vehicular traffic, and shall take all reasonable actions to leave the road in a condition where 

road-related damage to waters of the state is unlikely.

(3) Reasonable actions to vacate a forest road may include: removal of stream-crossing fills; 

pullback of fills on steep slopes, frequent cross ditching, and/or vegetative stabilization.

(4) Damage which may occur from a vacated road, consistent with Sections (2) and (3) of the 

rule, will not be subject to remedy under the provisions of the Oregon Forest Practices Act.
B-44
C-i

Section C

Landslides

Issue: How Well Do Current Forest Practices Maintain the Aquatic 

Habitat Functions Provided by the Natural Landslide Regime?

Forest Practices Advisory Committee on Salmon and Watersheds
C-ii
C-iii

Table of Contents

I. CURRENT SCIENTIFIC FINDINGS.............................................................................................................. C-1

II. WATERSHED-SCALE EFFECTS............................................................................................................... C-10

FOREST MANAGEMENT........................................................................................................... C-10

OTHER LAND USES ................................................................................................................. C-10

III. OBJECTIVES OF THE CURRENT MEASURES AND RULES ............................................................ C-10

OREGON PLAN OBJECTIVES .................................................................................................... C-10

FOREST PRACTICES ACT OBJECTIVES ..................................................................................... C-10

IV. DESCRIPTION OF MEASURES AND RULES........................................................................................ C-11

OREGON PLAN MEASURES...................................................................................................... C-11

FOREST PRACTICES ACT STANDARDS AND RULES .................................................................. C-11

V. EVALUATION OF THE MEASURES AND RULES................................................................................. C-13

VOLUNTARY MEASURES......................................................................................................... C-13

CURRENT RULES..................................................................................................................... C-14

INDEPENDENT MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCE TEAM RECOMMENDATIONS .............................. C-15

VI. POSSIBLE ADDITIONAL MEASURES AND/OR RULES..................................................................... C-16

OPTION #45: IDENTIFYING HIGH-RISK SITES .......................................................................... C-16

OPTION #46: IDENTIFY DEBRIS TORRENT RISK FOR STREAMS ............................................... C-19

OPTION #47: MANAGEMENT OF HIGH-RISK SITES ................................................................... C-20

OPTION #61: LARGE WOOD SOURCES FROM HILLSLOPE AREAS AND SEASONAL TYPE N STREAMS

......................................................................................................................... C-23

REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................................................... C-26

ATTACHMENT................................................................................................................................................... C-33
C-iv
C-1

I. Current Scientific Findings

Landslides are the dominant erosional processes on steep forested slopes in western Oregon and 

throughout the Pacific Northwest (Swanson et al., 1987). A landslide is the movement of a mass 

of soil, rock or debris down slope. The typical landslide on steep forestlands begins as a 

relatively small and shallow feature, with typical dimensions of 3 feet in depth, 30 feet in width, 

and 40 feet in length, and a relatively planar failure surface (same shape as the ground surface). 

These small landslides can initiate debris flows (a semi-fluid mass scouring or partially scouring 

soils on the slope along its path). Upon entering stream channels, debris flows often carry large 

amounts of wood and are referred to as debris torrents. These features are described in more 

detail in the “Landslides and Stream-Channel Modifications” section.

Ancient, or relict, deep-seated landslides are perhaps more prevalent in the mountainous areas of 

western Oregon than previously thought. Many of these relict slide landforms cover tens to 

hundreds of acres. Relict landslides are often believed to have developed under different 

geomorphic or climatic conditions (Cruden and Varnes, 1996). A few of these deep-seated 

landslides have occurred over the past decade. Whether they were seismically induced as a result 

of high magnitude subduction zone earthquakes, wetter climatic periods (there is geomorphic 

evidence that the Pleistocene-Holocene epoch transition was a period of high rates of landsliding, 

possibly due to a wetter climate (Personius et. al., 1993)), or simply occur over long periods of 

time is unknown. 

The vast majority of landslide studies have focused on the relationship of tree removal and road 

construction to debris slides (also referred to as shallow-rapid landslides) and not deep-seated 

landslides. Koler (1992) notes a handful of studies on deep-seated landslides, only one of which 

was designed to examine the effects of timber harvesting on an active earthflow in southwest 

Oregon. Swanston et al. (1988) found that in the years immediately after logging, the 

displacement rate of an active earthflow increased to 20mm/year. After three years the 

displacement rate returned to the pre-logging rate of 3mm/year. Because of the limited 

information and lack of applicable knowledge available on deep-seated landslides, this 

discussion will focus on shallow-rapid landslides.

Subsurface water and associated pore-water pressure is the most important factor associated with 

the occurrence of most landslides. Pore-water pressure affects the inter-grain forces within the soil. 

The higher the pore-water pressure, the lower the effective strength. Landslides may occur if there 

is either an increase in shear stress and/or a reduction in shear strength along the failure surface, or 

they may fail as a result of soil liquefaction (where the slope, or a portion of the soils on the slope 

behave more like a liquid, usually due to a sudden rise in pore pressure, or a rapid loss of cohesion 

or cementation (Terzaghi and Peck, 1967; Andersen and Sitar, 1995)).

Forest practices may alter both physical and biological (vegetative) slope properties that 

influence slope stability and the occurrence of shallow-rapid landslides. Physical alterations can 

include slope steepening, slope-water effects, and changes in soil strength. Most physical 

alterations are the result of roads and skid roads. On a unit-area basis, roads have the greatest 

effect on slope stability of all activities on forestlands (Sidle et al., 1985). Changes in vegetation 
C-2

can also have both hydrological and mechanical effects on the stability of slopes (Greenway, 

1987). 

Hydrological effects of vegetation on the hillslope include interception, evapotranspiration, and 

water routing. Interception is the storage of rain and/or snow on the leaves and branches of 

vegetation. Evapotranspiration is the removal of water from the soil or vegetation by plant 

growth or climate. Water routing is influenced by macropores and stemflow. Macropores can be 

relatively large (diameter measured in inches) pipe-like structures in the soil that can influence 

subsurface flow patterns during a rainfall event (Figure 1). Stemflow is the interception and 

routing of rainfall or snowmelt by the branches and stems and can create concentrated areas of 

flow.

Figure 1: Illustration of various types of macropores in forest soils (from Sidle, 1980).

Mechanical effects of vegetation on slope stability are varying and sometimes contradictory. 

They include the following:

root reinforcement: the penetration of roots into a potential landslide failure surface 

resulting in increased slope stability; 

buttressing and arching: trees at the base of a potential landslide act like piles and help 

stabilize the slope;

surcharge loading by trees, logs and/or debris: the weight of these materials may add to 

the gravity force on the slope;

wedging and loosening of soil by roots, thereby lowering the strength of the slope; and

windthrow: soils are displaced and oversteepened, and also subject to vibration, as a 

result of the blow-down of trees. 
C-3

Tree removal can also have varying effects on slope stability. They include the following:

a reduction in interception or evapotranspiration.

alteration of the forest canopy, thus changing water routing. 

the alteration and accumulation of snow and snowmelt patterns. 

a reduction in root reinforcement. 

a loss of buttressing and arching.

a reduction in “surcharge loading.”

The tree falling and log yarding process might effect soil by:

alteration of macropores, thus changing water routing. 

a reduction in the soil infiltration rate due to compaction.

Most of the research on the effects of vegetation on forest slope stability in northwest forests has 

concentrated on the potential reduction in root reinforcement, or „root strength.‟ The root 

strength concept is somewhat analogous to the effect of steel in reinforcing concrete. Most root 

strength models are two-dimensional and assume that roots penetrate the failure surface; that 

roots are anchored and do not move downslope with the landslide; and that the tensile strength of 

roots is fully mobilized during a mass wasting event (Greenway, 1987). Roots are fully 

mobilized if all of their potential strength is used by the weight of the material that is pulling in 

the downslope direction. 

“The importance of roots to the stability of shallow soils on steep lands under intact coniferous 

forests and after the removal of forests in western North America has been elucidated by 

Swanston (1970, 1974); O‟Loughlin (1974); Ziemer and Swanston (1977); Burroughs and 

Thomas (1977); Wu et al., (1979); Ziemer (1981); and Gray and Megahan (1981). These studies 

generally indicate that the continued stability of soils on many steep, forested slopes depend 

partly on reinforcement from tree roots, especially when soils are partly or completely saturated. 

After forest removal, the gradual decay of tree roots often predisposes forest soils to failure. 

Similar conclusions have been reached in Japan (Kitamura and Namba 1976; Endo and Tsuruta, 

1969; Nakano 1971); and in New Zealand (O‟Loughlin and Pearce 1976; Selby 1981; 

O‟Loughlin et al.,1982).” (Sidle et al.,1985)

The magnitude of the effects of root strength on slope stability as the primary mechanism 

affecting slope stability on Pacific Northwest forestlands is not universally accepted. From a 

geomechanics perspective there are a number of reasons why some relatively simple models of 

root reinforcement to soil shear strength may not be valid. Soil strength values cited in the 

technical literature that are attributed to root reinforcement would lead to the conclusion that 

forested sites cannot fail and all high-risk sites that are harvested must fail (Skaugset, 1997). It is 

well documented from extensive ground-based landslide surveys that this is not the case (Hughes 

and Edwards, 1978; Ketcheson and Froehlich, 1978; Robison et al., 1999). Problematic 

assumptions in landslide analyses, inconsistencies in obtaining representative forest soil samples, 

difficult testing procedures, the importance of vegetation other than trees, and soil mechanics 
C-4

incompatibilities are just some of the factors that are causing some slope stability experts to 

reexamine the current root strength/slope stability paradigm.

Landslides and Stream Channel Modifications

The principal landslide-related effects of major storms, such as those which occurred in Oregon 

in February and November 1996, are both off-site and in-channel. Scour and deposition from 

landslides, debris flows, and torrents significantly modified stream channels (Robison et al., 

1999). A potential concern with landslides is their effect on forest productivity. However, past 

studies in the Pacific Northwest have shown that even in areas with high landslide densities, 

generally less than two percent of the land area is directly impacted by landslides (Ketcheson and 

Froehlich, 1978; Ice, 1985).

In steep terrain, small shallow landslides can quickly transform into debris flows. A debris flow 

occurs if the landslide moves down slope as a semi-fluid mass, scouring or partially scouring 

soils on the slope along its path. A debris flow is any movement below the initial landslide and 

upslope of a stream channel. Upon entering and continuing down a stream channel, debris flows 

are sometimes called debris torrents (Van Dine, 1985; Robison et al., 1999). In western Oregon, 

landslides initiate most debris flows and torrents (Swanson and Lienkaemper, 1978). Debris 

torrents in the Pacific Northwest typically contain significant amounts of large wood. Debris 

flows and debris torrents travel varying distances and result in variable degrees of impact 

depending on channel slope, confinement, layout of the channel network, and other 

characteristics (Fannin and Rollerson, 1993).

While landslide features may constitute a very small percentage of the total land area, they can 

have varying degrees of impacts on a significant portion of the channel network (Swanson et al., 

1987). Robison et al. (1999) found that anywhere from 40 to 80 percent of the entire channel 

network experienced severe impacts (defined in this study as major scour or deposition from 

debris torrents or dam break floods) in areas that experienced the most severe storm impacts (the 

five “red zone” areas that are areas with high levels of observed slides). However, in nonred 

zone areas very little, if any, of the stream channel network had noticeable impacts.

Small streams in steep terrain supply wood, sediment, and relatively cool water to larger fish 

bearing streams. In addition, small streams often provide habitat for critical life stages of fish 

and other aquatic organisms. Landslides and debris flows provide most of the sediment input 

into small streams in steep forested watersheds (Benda and Dunne, 1987). Past studies have 

documented channel changes for small and large streams resulting from high water and landslide 

activity including channel scour and fill, channel widening, changes in channel longitudinal 

profile, and decreases in ecological stability (Lyons and Beschta, 1983; Kaufmann, 1987; 

Lamberti et al., 1991; Reeves et al., 1995). Reeves et al. (1995) suggests that the input of 

spawning gravel, large wood, and floodplain sediment from naturally occurring landslides is an 

important factor for maintaining productive fish habitat. It is hypothesized by Reeves and others 

that in many cases, the short-term disturbance caused by a landslide may be necessary to improve 

long-term aquatic habitat conditions.
C-5

Debris flows and torrents commonly transport many times more sediment through scour of 

hillslopes and channels than the initiating landslide. In some cases, an initiating landslide of 

10 cubic yards or less may become a debris torrent moving thousands of yards of material into 

and through portions of the channel network. Debris flows and torrents tend to deposit sediment 

when channel gradients drop to less than six percent (Benda and Cundy, 1990). They also tend 

to stop in the form of a debris jam at tributary junctions where the junction angle is greater than 

70 degrees (Benda and Cundy, 1990). 

While woody debris carried in debris flows and torrents may have long-term benefits for aquatic 

habitat, it may also create a public safety hazard in some cases. Harvey and Squier (1998) found 

that “slash piles in the channel, or abundant slash, which can form temporary debris jams in the 

channel, can increase the severity of debris flows.” Wood is also associated with “migrating 

organic dams” that can move long distances down relatively gentle stream channels (Coho and 

Burges, 1994).

Landslide Studies

Numerous studies have examined the differences in landslide rates between forested and recently 

harvested sites (Table 1, page C-33). Table 1 lists studies throughout the Pacific Northwest in 

which landslide rates (number of slides for a given time period) and/or densities (number of 

slides per unit area) under different stand treatments were compared directly. In all, there were 

35 forest treatment comparisons found from 24 published or semi-published studies. Several 

compilations of past studies have been used to draw conclusions about the effects of forest 

harvesting on landslide rates (Ice, 1985; Sidle et al., 1985; and Meehan et al., 1991). As Table 1 

indicates, most studies (28 of the 35 comparisons on Table 1) are based partially or completely 

on aerial photo interpretation. In the past, there has been debate on whether it is appropriate to 

use aerial photos to compare recently harvested area landslide densities and erosion rates with 

those areas that contain mature forests. For instance, a classic exchange occurred in a discussion 

on a research paper by Pyles and Froehlich (1987), followed with a reply by Wolfe and Willams 

(1987). In the discussion Pyles and Froehlich laid out, on theoretical grounds, several reasons 

why landslides cannot be reliably detected on aerial photos due to photo angles and the obscuring 

effect of tall trees. In reply, Wolfe and Williams pointed out that Pyles and Froehlich had no 

empirical data to verify their findings. In particular they stated:

“Unfortunately Pyles and Froehlich have failed to provide documentation of these 

statements. It certainly would be of value to know how dramatic the differences 

are between these two types [ground vs. air based] of inventories.” 

The study by Swanson et al. (1977) utilized an aerial photo inventory to determine landslide 

frequency in clearcut areas, and a ground survey of 1,300 acres to find landslides in older forests. 

The study was conducted in the Mapleton Ranger District of the Siuslaw National Forest and 

overlapped one of the study sites used in Robison et al. (1999). Swanson found that erosion rates 

were higher in clearcuts than unmanaged stands. The clearcut erosion rates ranged from 1.2 to 

1.3 times higher than unmanaged stands for most land types. For the land types most prone to 

landslides (i.e., steep slopes), clearcut erosion rates were 4.0 times higher than in unmanaged 
C-6

stands. Since not all landslides can be detected on aerial photos even in clearcuts, and the study 

compares an air-based clearcut sample to a ground-based in forest sample, these erosion rate 

ratios may be artificially low.

Ketcheson and Froehlich (1978) field-investigated small watersheds (100 acres or less) that were 

unaffected by forest roads in an area near Mapleton, Oregon. The watersheds were inspected by 

walking on one side of the drainage and examining headwalls. They found 104 landslides in a 

1,076 acre study area. Landslide data were collected on failures as old as 15 years with 

unspecified dating techniques. This study found that the erosion rate in clearcuts was 

approximately 3.7 times higher than that of undisturbed forests.

There are also landslide studies that have attempted to understand the behavior of landslides 

rather than simply comparing rates between forests of different ages. A study site located 

northeast of Coos Bay in Oregon has been the location of several of these types of studies 

(Montgomery et al., 1997). Detailed field measurements of a specific landslide-prone site have 

been made for over a decade. The study site is covered with an array of instruments to determine 

soil pore-water pressure, interactions between rock and soil water, long-term weathering rates, 

and many other physical processes. The role of vegetation in the stability of this site is also being 

examined. A debris slide/flow occurred at this site in the November 1996 storm and is providing 

a unique opportunity for the study of specific factors associated with landslide initiation.

Information from this site was also used to help develop a topographic model for the assessment 

of landslide hazard areas (Montgomery and Dietrich, 1994). This particular model uses a 

geographic information system (GIS) to calculate areas of high landslide potential based on slope 

steepness, slope convergence (watershed area), and steady-state rainfall. Other slope stability 

factors such as soil depth and potential root reinforcement can also be added to the model when 

site-specific data is available. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and at least one 

industrial private forestland company have utilized this model to help identify and manage 

landslide hazard areas. 

The OSU headwall leave area study (Martin, 1997) also was conducted in the Mapleton area. 

The headwall leave area technique has been used to try and reduce landslides associated with 

timber harvesting. Headwalls (very steep concave slopes that contain no channels) are first 

identified. Once identified, trees on these headwalls are protected from harvest activities. Martin

(1997) identified landslides in forested headwalls, clearcut headwalls, and headwalls protected 

with leave areas. They found no statistical difference in landslide occurrence between mature 

forests, leave areas, and clearcuts. However, the period of time such sites were subject to 

landslide producing storms was longer for the forested headwalls, a factor which may have 

overestimated the comparative failure rate of the forested headwalls. 

The headwall leave area technique is recommended by Forest Ecosystem Management 

Assessment Team (FEMAT) (1993) for federal forestlands based on a study by Swanson and 

Roach (1987). Specifically, FEMAT recommended that minimum leave areas of three to ten 

acres in steep headwall areas be protected from timber harvesting. Due to the small amount of 

harvesting on federal lands, and the fact that many headwall leave areas overlap with areas 
C-7

receiving riparian protection near seasonal streams, there is little information available to 

evaluate the effectiveness of the headwall leave area technique. Anecdotal evidence from 

Swanson and Roach (1987) and Martin (1997) also indicate that headwall leave areas may 

increase the risk of windthrow, and therefore probably landslide occurrence as well.

Landslide inventories based totally on aerial photographs have limited use for identifying those 

landslides most common in steep forested terrain, especially in areas with dense forest cover. In 

Robison et al. (1999), aerial photographs of a number of different scales were obtained for the 

eight study areas that were inventoried (1:6000, 1:12000, and 1:24000). Although aerial 

photographs have utility for many purposes, their use for identification of shallow-rapid 

landslides results in biased and incomplete landslide inventories. This bias significantly 

underestimates the landslide frequency and erosion volume across all forest stand age classes. 

For example, in the Mapleton and Vida study areas of Robison et al. (1999), 72 percent of all 

landslides identified from the ground-based survey were not detected using 1:6000 aerial 

photographs. The majority (72-98 percent) of shallow-rapid landslides were not visible on aerial 

photographs of any scale. In terms of erosion volume, the landslides that were not identified 

from aerial photographs accounted for 53 percent and 41 percent of the total landslide related 

sediment volume delivered to stream channels in the Vida and Mapleton study areas, respectively 

(1:6000 scale). Landslide identification is most problematic in areas with mature or semi-mature 

timber. For instance, roughly 50 percent of the landslides were detected in recently harvested 

areas (0-9 years old) but less than 5 percent of the landslides were detected in mature stands 

(older than 100 years) (Robison et al., 1999). Aerial photo analysis will significantly magnify 

landslide density and erosion volume per unit area for recently harvested areas relative to older 

forested areas. 

As a result of this bias in aerial photo inventories, comparisons that use this method result in 

greater apparent increases in landslide density and erosion volume associated with stands 

recently clearcut than do ground–based inventories. Table 2 shows the average and range of 

landslide densities for the various studies given in Table 1. The average ratio between clearcut 

and mature landslide densities for aerial photo inventories is about five times the average for the 

ground-based inventories (15-fold increase versus 3-fold increase). 

Table 2. Increase in landslide occurrence after clearcutting as reported by studies (from Table 1) using different 

methods for landslide identification. (See note with Table 1 for the method definitions.)

Method Number of 

Comparisons Average Ratio Maximum Ratio

Minimum 

Ratio

Air 6 15.8 30 6.1

Ground 6 3.3 8.0 0.8

Mixed 7 5.4 17.0 1.2

Air/Field Visits 12 9.7 23.5 0.0

Air/Size 4 7.7 13.5 2.6

All Studies 35 8.6 30.0 0.0

In light of the limitations of aerial photographs, the few ground-based studies that have been 

completed offer the most reliable conclusions in terms of landslide-rate comparisons between 
C-8

clearcuts and mature forest conditions. Of the studies listed in Table 1, only six are completely 

ground based (four different study areas within Robison et al. (1999) are each considered as a 

separate „study‟). The rate of landslides in recently harvested areas ranged from 0.8 to 8.0 times 

that observed in mature forests for these six studies. Thus, while it is possible during the period 

immediately following harvesting that landslide rates will remain unchanged (Elk Creek study 

area in Robison et al. 1999), it is much more likely that the landslide rate will increase. These 

studies, however, only address landslide rates during the first few years after harvest. Landslide 

rates in areas with established second-growth forests have received very little attention in past 

landslide studies. Robison et al. (1999) is the only ground-based study listed here that examines 

landslide rates in forests between 10 and 100 years old. These forests were generally found to 

have landslide densities and erosion volumes lower than that of mature forests. 

The conclusions from Robison et al. (1999) only apply to single, extreme storm events, however, 

and cannot address the issue of long-term effects of harvesting on the landslide regime. Sidle et 

al. (1985) provided a summary of the then current state of knowledge about long-term landslide 

rates as influenced by forest harvesting:

“The long-term effect of timber harvesting on erosion caused by debris avalanches cannot readily 

be ascertained from landslide inventories (except by repetition throughout one or more harvesting

rotations). . . . Clearcutting may actually only change the timing of natural landsliding, and over 

long periods the total erosion from shallow-rapid failures may be independent of timber removal 

(Froehlich 1978, Swanson et al. 1981, Swanson and Frederiksen 1982). After harvesting, an 

acceleration in soil mass movement is frequently observed for 10 to 15 years, but subsequent 

erosion (before the next cutting) may actually decline below “natural” levels. This hypothesis 

has not been substantiated by field data.”

For a single extreme storm event, Robison et al. (1999) observed a reduction in landslides in 

most study areas for second growth forests (i.e., 10-100 year age class). While this does not 

specifically address the question of how long-term rates of landslides are influenced by 

harvesting, it does give more credibility to the hypotheses stated above that erosion rates for 

second-growth forests may decline below “natural” levels. It should be noted, however, that 

even though the ODF study looked only at a single storm rather than at landslides occurring over 

a longer time period, it is believed that the largest storms result in the occurrence of most 

shallow-rapid landslides (Ice et al., 1988).

There are others that argue for an alternative hypothesis, namely, that harvesting can dramatically 

increase the rate of landsliding relative to “natural” levels and that over the long-term, timber 

harvesting causes an increase in erosion to a degree that landscapes are denuded of soil (David 

Montgomery, MOA Landslide Workshop). Reneau and Dietrich (1991) analyzed the colluvial 

deposits in nine hollows in the Oregon Coast Range located in roadcut exposures. These hollows 

had maximum depths between 4.3 to 13.6 feet, slope steepness between 53 and 75 percent, and 

drainage areas between 0.02 to 1.01 acres. Using radiocarbon dating from charcoal deposits 

throughout a cross section of the colluvial deposits, they concluded that the average residence 

time of the sediment in these hollows was 5,000-6,000 years. This corresponds to a weathering 

rate of 0.062 to 0.130 mm per year, which is consistent with estimates of weathering rates for the 
C-9

Oregon Coastal Range (Reneau, 1988). If shallow-rapid landslides “naturally” recur on a given 

site every 5,000-6,000 years, and current harvest rotations are significantly shortening this 

recurrence interval, it is possible that these portions of the landscape (i.e. areas where landslides 

are the dominant erosional process) are being denuded of soil over the long-term. 

When a landslide-prone site excavates (i.e., soil moves off the site exposing bedrock or a 

partially-filled void on the hillslope or hollow), it takes a certain amount of time to recharge 

(i.e., refill with soil, either through bedrock weathering or adjacent soil creep into the excavated 

area). There are a number of scientific opinions on this “time to recharge”, but there is very 

limited data available to resolve the debate. Results from Robison et al. (1999) suggest that the 

time to recharge (or time to fail) is variable, depending on slope steepness and site-specific 

geomorphological processes. For example, modeling results from Montgomery and Dietrich 

(1994) has shown that steeper slopes with greater drainage areas have a greater risk of failure 

(and thus may be expected to fail more frequently) than less-steep slopes with smaller drainage 

areas. The data provided by Reneau and Dietrich (1991) are from nine sites that could be 

considered to have less steep slopes and smaller drainage areas. Of the nearly 500 landslides 

identified in Robison et al. (1999) that were not associated with roads, less than 10 percent had 

maximum depth, slope, and drainage area characteristics similar to these nine sites. The 5,000 to 

6,000-year “time to recharge” from Reneau and Dietrich (1991), if correct, may only apply to a 

small proportion (less than ten percent) of the total landslide population. Since this sub-set of 

landslides has less steep slopes and smaller drainage areas, it makes sense that they would occur 

less frequently than the majority of shallow-rapid landslides. 

 

That the sites most susceptible to landslides may fail more frequently than every 5,000 to 6,000 

years is not incompatible with the estimate of the weathering rate (0.062 to 0.130 mm per year) 

calculated by Reneau (1988). Comparing this weathering rate to the total erosion calculated in 

Robison et al. (1999) would mean that about 20 years of weathering was delivered to stream 

channels in a single storm event, at least for the coastal red-zone study areas. The largest storm 

event previous to 1996 was in 1964 (32 years earlier), which translates roughly to 63 percent of 

the total weathering since 1964 (20/32 years) occurred in 1996. These calculations are consistent 

with the belief that the largest storms result in the occurrence of most shallow-rapid landslides 

(Ice et al., 1988).

While there may be merit to both the “timing” and “denuding” hypotheses, there are currently no 

studies that have been effective in confirming or disproving either one. It will likely take 

continued research over long periods of time to resolve this scientific debate. 

The Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team (IMST) report includes the following summary 

information about managing slope failures and the movement of material into streams: 

“Slope failure is a natural process and it can have both positive and negative effects on fish 

habitat. The technical basis for managing roads to reduce or minimize slope failure is well 

developed. The technical basis for managing nonroad-related slope failure is much less well 

developed, except under extremes of site conditions. Although speculative, we believe 
C-10

maintenance of functional riparian zones along channels where debris torrents may occur can 

mitigate their destructive force, and increase the positive effects they may have."

II. Watershed-scale Effects

Forest Management

Potential watershed-scale effects of forest management may influence both the quantity and 

quality of landslides. Regardless of which hypothesis is applied (timing versus denuding), if a 

relatively high percentage of the high-risk areas in a given watershed is in a very young age class, 

the risk of landslide occurrence is increased. The quality of landslides can also be influenced at 

a watershed-scale if a relatively large portion of the land area in the upper reaches of a watershed 

is in a young age class. Younger forests will not provide as many of the larger key pieces of 

wood to areas where landslides and debris flows occur as compared to what an older forest 

would provide. Leaving trees and/or large down wood (in key areas) from the previous stand at 

the time of harvest may mitigate these effects.

Other Land Uses

Any land use that alters either the physical or biological (vegetative) slope properties can 

influence slope stability. Urban and rural development that creates or increases a road network 

and the percent of impervious surface in a given watershed can have a significant effect on the 

slope properties in terms of water routing. Macropore alterations and the routing of sub-surface 

flow into areas where water does not normally flow are examples of how development can 

influence landslide occurrence. The conversion of forests to some other land use will also 

influence the hydrological properties of the watershed by reducing the interception and 

evapotranspiration capacity of the soil (other effects of vegetation removal listed on page C-2). 

On a site-specific basis, rural and urban developments have the potential to result in much greater 

slope and drainage alterations than do forest practices. Development often results in extensive 

excavation into hillslopes and the creation of impervious surfaces that significantly influences 

water routing and other hillslope properties. 

III. Objectives of the Current Measures and Rules

Oregon Plan Objectives

The Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds (OPSW) does not include any specific objectives 

for the management of landslides and/or debris flows. Riparian functions that are associated 

with this issue include sediment and large wood, which are discussed in other issue papers.

Forest Practices Act Objectives

OAR 629-630-000 – Purpose (Harvesting Rules)
C-11

(1) Harvesting of forest tree species is an integral part of forest management by which wood for 

human use is obtained and by which forests are established and tended.

(2) Harvesting operations result in a temporary disturbance to the forest environment.

(3) The purpose of the harvesting rules is to establish standards for forest practices that will 

maintain the productivity of forestland, minimize soil and debris entering waters of the state, and 

protect wildlife and fish habitat.

IV. Description of Measures and Rules

Oregon Plan Measures

The Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds (OPSW) does not include any specific measures 

for the management of landslide and/or debris flow occurrence. ODF 61S (Analysis of "Rack" 

Concept for Debris Flows) is a voluntary measure that addresses the issue of landslide and debris 

flow quality. Under this measure:

“Oregon Forest Industries Council (OFIC) members will conduct surveys to determine the 

feasibility and value of retaining trees along small Type N streams with a high probability of 

debris flow in a "rack" just above the confluence with a Type F stream. The rack would extend 

from the Riparian Management Areas (RMA) along the Type F stream up the Type N stream 

some distance for the purpose of retaining trees that have a high likelihood of delivery to the 

Type F stream.” 

The primary goal of this measure is to influence the type of debris that is transported by the 

landslide, and not necessarily to influence the movement of individual landslides. ODF 20s is 

another measure that addresses the quality of landslides and debris flows. This measure involves 

the placing of large wood in stream channels that are potential debris flow paths (discussed in the 

Riparian Function issue paper). 

Forest Practices Act Standards and Rules

OAR 629-600-100 - Definitions

(27) "High-risk areas" are lands determined by the State Forester to have a significant potential 

for destructive mass soil movement or stream damage because of topography, geology, biology, 

soils, or intensive rainfall periods. 

(28) "High-risk sites" are specific locations determined by the State Forester within high-risk 

areas. A high-risk site may include, but is not limited to: slopes greater than 65 percent, steep 

headwalls, highly dissected land formations, areas exhibiting frequent high intensity rainfall 

periods, faulting, slumps, slides, or debris avalanches.
C-12

OAR 629-630-100 Skidding and Yarding Practices

(3) Operators shall locate skid trails where sidecasting is kept to a minimum.

(4) Operators shall locate skid trails on stable areas so as to minimize the risk of material 

entering waters of the state.

(5) Operators shall avoid excavating skid trails on slumps or slides.

(6) Operators shall limit cable logging to uphill yarding whenever practical. When yarding across 

high-risk sites in the Northwest Oregon Region or Southwest Oregon Region, or when downhill 

cable yarding in any region is necessary, operators shall use a layout and system which minimizes

soil displacement.

OAR 629-630-500 Harvesting on High-risk sites in Western Oregon

(1) In the Northwest Oregon and Southwest Oregon regions, operators shall obtain prior approval 

from the State Forester before conducting harvesting operations on high-risk sites.

(2) Written plans, where required for harvesting on high-risk sites, will describe how harvesting 

operations will be conducted to minimize impact upon soil and water resources.

OAR 629-630-600 Felling; Removal of Slash

(2)(b) On steep slopes, use felling practices such as jacking, line pulling, high stumps, whole tree 

yarding, or stage-cutting as necessary and feasible to prevent damage to vegetation retained in 

riparian management areas, soils, streams, lakes and significant wetlands.

(3) Operators shall minimize the effects of slash that may enter waters of the state during felling, 

bucking, limbing or yarding by:

(b) Not allowing slash to accumulate in Type N streams, lakes or wetlands in quantities that 

threaten water quality or increase the potential for mass debris movement.

High-risk sites are designations used by ODF for locations that are vulnerable to landslides 

capable of causing damage to natural resources (specifically water quality and fish habitat). 

Evaluating the accuracy of these high-risk site determinations is critical, since there are specific 

rules and administrative procedures that apply only after high-risk sites are identified. High-risk 

sites have been designated as having the following landform characteristics: 

Actively moving landslides;

Any slope steeper than 80 percent;

Concave slopes steeper than 70 percent;

Slope breaks where the lower slope exceeds 70 percent;

Inner gorges with slopes steeper than 60 percent; and

Other sites determined to be of marginal stability by ODF personnel.
C-13

The Oregon Board of Forestry adopted most of the current landslide prevention rules in 

June 1983. Rules for harvesting on high-risk sites were adopted in 1985. The forest practice 

rules for harvest operations are intended to minimize both surface and mass (landslide) erosion. 

Harvest practices are subject to added regulation if they affect high-risk sites.

Standard practices for the protection of high-risk sites during forest harvesting and stand 

management activities on private lands in Oregon include: 

Felling timber to minimize ground disturbance and slash accumulations on high-risk 

sites;

Not building skid trails on high-risk sites;

When yarding across high-risk sites, providing at least one end suspension and 

ensuring that logs do not gouge soils; 

Not building landings on high-risk sites, and avoiding placement of landing debris or 

landing drainage on high-risk sites; and

Replanting as soon as possible after logging.

The following additional practices have at times been used to protect high-risk sites but are not 

considered standard practices or requirements in most cases:

Leaving nonmerchantable trees and understory vegetation relatively undisturbed; 

Avoiding prescribed burning; 

Avoiding use of herbicides;

Leaving a buffer area around headwalls (headwall-leave areas);

Thinning the stand instead of clearcut harvesting to retain some root strength; and

Not harvesting the area.

V. Evaluation of the Measures and Rules

Voluntary Measures

The Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds (OPSW) does not include any specific measures 

for the management of landslide and/or debris flow occurrence. ODF 61S (Analysis of "Rack" 

Concept for Debris Flows) is a voluntary measure that addresses the issue of landslide and debris 

flow quality; however, there is no information on the use or effectiveness of this measure. 

Riparian functions that are associated with this issue include sediment and large wood, which are 

discussed in previous issue papers. The evaluation of measure ODF 20S is considered in 

previous issue papers (specifically, large wood and stream temperature).
C-14

Current Rules

The following are conclusions from Robison et al. (1999). These findings include the most 

current information addressing the adequacy of the forest practice rules related to landslides and 

debris flows.

Identification of Landslides and Landslide Hazards:

Landslide inventories using only aerial photographs without significant on-the-ground 

surveying do not identify the majority (over 75 percent) of shallow-rapid type landslides, and 

on average, detect about 50 percent of the erosion volume associated with landslides. The 

fact that the forest canopy can significantly obscure the ground surface makes it difficult to 

identify or accurately measure landslides in forested terrain. Therefore, landslide inventories 

based solely on aerial photographs have limited use for identifying those landslides most 

common in steep forested terrain, especially in areas with dense forest cover. 

Air photo landslide inventories, on average, overestimate the ratio of landslide occurrence in 

clearcuts versus mature forests by a factor of five. Robison et al. (1999) shows as much as a 

ten-fold overestimation of this ratio.

Coarse-scale digital elevation models (30-meter) underestimate slope steepness, especially in 

areas with irregular, steep slopes.

In the forests of western Oregon, ground-based investigation provides the most reliable 

information on landslide occurrence and their characteristics.

Slope steepness, landform shape, and drainage area above the landslide are important factors 

for determination of those sites most susceptible to landslides. 

The factors currently used in the determination of high-risk sites could be modified to 

improve accuracy in identifying those sites prone to debris slides and flows, and may need to 

include differences by geologic unit. 

The highest hazard for shallow-rapid landslides in western Oregon occurs on slopes of over 

70 percent to 80 percent steepness (depending on landform and geology). There is a 

moderate risk of these landslides on slopes of between 50 percent and 70 percent.

Subsequent scour by debris flows and torrents, and not the initial landslide volume, represent 

most (90 percent) of the landslide-related sediment that is carried into and through stream 

channels.

Landslides and Forest Stand Condition:

Timber harvesting can affect landslide occurrence in areas with a moderate to high landslide 

risk. Higher landslide densities and erosion volumes were found in stands that had been 

harvested in the previous nine years, as compared to forests older than one hundred years, in 

three out of four ODF storm monitoring study areas. Forested areas between the ages of 

10 and 100 years typically had lower landslide densities and erosion volumes than found in 

the mature forest stands (Robison et al., 1999).

There is significant background landslide risk on very steep slopes, especially in certain 

geologic formations, where major storms and landslide processes are the dominant means by 

which the landscape is shaped.
C-15

Landslides from recently harvested and older forests can have similar dimensions, including 

depth, initial volume and debris flow volume (Robison et al., 1999).

Variability in both storm and site characteristics can be a dominant influence on landslide 

occurrence. 

Landslides and Timber Harvesting Practices:

In the locations adjacent to landslides surveyed in the ODF storm monitoring study (“the 

ODF study”), landowners and loggers complied with the forest practice harvesting rules (as 

changed in 1983) to minimize ground disturbance and slash accumulations on landslide prone

sites.

Any disturbance that removes vegetation on steep, landslide-prone locations results in 

increased landslide occurrence. Both the length of time these locations experience periods of 

reduced forest cover and the extent of lands with reduced vegetative cover can affect 

landslide density and erosion rate.

Landscape level disturbances can result in large, contiguous areas in a condition susceptible 

to landslides.

Alternative management strategies for high-risk sites should be carefully monitored. This 

will take considerable time, since landslides are a geologic process (variable in both time and 

space). The effectiveness of any specific practices, therefore, will be difficult to evaluate 

until the landscape has experienced major storms and/or prolonged exposure to geologic 

processes. 

Stream Channel Impacts:

In the ODF study, stream channel impacts varied greatly by study area and were not directly 

related to the number of landslides. Large, up-slope landslides originating above small 

channel junction angles (<70o) and steep channel gradient slopes resulted in the greatest 

stream channel impacts. 

Debris torrents reduce stream shading, especially when they travel through younger stands. 

Debris torrents have only a minor effect on active channel width.

The Benda-Cundy model provides a reliable tool for determining maximum potential travel 

distances of “typical” debris flows and torrents from forested slopes. Less than 10 percent of 

the total landslides in the ODF study traveled further than predicted by the Benda-Cundy 

model (Benda and Cundy, 1990). The debris torrents that traveled further than predicted 

were on average larger and had younger riparian vegetation near their terminus. Thus, in 

terms of determining landslide run-out distance, channel junction angles and channel gradient 

are the primary factors, while landslide volume and composition of the riparian area along 

debris torrent-prone channels may be important secondary factors.

In the ODF study, slash in the channel was different by stand age class for the Elk Creek and 

Scottsburg areas. However, whether these differences in slash resulted in increased travel 

distances by debris torrents could not be determined.

Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team (IMST) Recommendations
C-16

The IMST made a total of 19 recommendations in its forestry project report of September 14, 

1999. Three of their recommendations are directly or indirectly related to the effects of 

landslides on the sediment regime or on aquatic habitat. These three recommendations are listed 

below, followed by the applicable issue paper options.

Recommendation 2. ODF should develop a policy framework to encompass landscape (large 

watershed) level planning and operations on forests within the range of wild salmonids in 

Oregon.

Landslides Issue Paper Option(s):

Option # 46, method 3 (geoscientist evaluation of debris flow hazard) 

Option # 47, method 4 (limiting young age class over watershed) 

Recommendation 13. Retain trees on “high-risk slopes” and in likely debris torrents tracks to 

increase the likelihood that large wood will be transported to streams when landslides and debris 

torrents occur.

Landslides Issue Paper Option(s):

Option # 45, all methods (to identify sites prone to landslides)

Option # 46, all methods (to identify debris flow-prone channels)

Option # 47, method 2 (practices based on geoscientist hazard and risk evaluation)

Option # 47, method 3 (leaving some trees)

Option # 47, method 5 (prohibition of harvesting)

Option # 61, leaving trees in or near debris flow-prone channels 

Recommendation 14. Continue to apply the current best management practices (BMP) approach 

to the management of forest lands with significant landslide potential, and develop a better case 

history approach for evaluating the effectiveness of BMP in this area. 

Landslides Issue Paper Option(s):

Option # 45, all methods (to find high-risk sites)

Option # 47, method 1 (current practices with possible minor modification)

Option # 47, method 3 (leaving some trees, [and monitoring for case studies])

VI. Possible Additional Measures and/or Rules

Option #45: Identifying High-Risk Sites

Objective:

Ensure that all landslide-prone locations (now called “high-risk sites”) are identified prior to 

operations.
C-17

Description:

The current rules require that where high-risk sites are identified by the forest practices forester 

(FPF), specific harvesting practices must be utilized. Each FPF is responsible for identifying 

high-risk sites either before or during harvest operations. The FPFs currently do not have the 

tools or time to systematically inventory the landscape to be sure that all high-risk sites are 

identified. This option proposes creating additional tools to ensure that all high-risk sites are 

identified prior to operations.

Methods/Approaches:

Current guidance could be modified to better identify those sites with the highest hazard for 

shallow landslides. Note that these sites are most appropriately called “high hazard.” Hazard is 

the presence of a conditions that might lead to some potentially damaging or dangerous outcome 

(i.e., steep slopes that could produce a landslide. Risk is a measure of the likelihood that this 

undesired outcome will both occur and will also have consequences (i.e., the landslide occurs 

and becomes a debris flow that scours stream channels). Hazards exist that have very low risk to 

resources (steep slopes above a large bench, where there is no potential for a debris flow or other 

sediment will enter stream channels). 

Three specific methods are proposed for consideration as follow:

1. As per current practice, ODF notifies operator that high-risk (hazard) sites meeting set criteria 

are in the proposed operation area and provides operator with information on high-risk 

(hazard) site characteristics. ODF bases this notification on an office screening using 

available maps, or with a field pre-operation inspection as time permits. The office screen is 

intended to be a coarse screen only. As per current practice, it is the operator‟s responsibility 

to more specifically locate sites within the operation area.

2. Operator identifies presence of high-risk (hazard) sites using criteria in rule form. The 

difference between method 1 (above) and this method is that the operator would notify ODF

of the presence of sites during the notification process.

3. High-risk (hazard) sites are identified by geoscientist working for the operator. High-risk 

(hazard) site determinations would be based on ODF criteria and professional judgement.

ODF would refine the current high-risk (hazard) site criteria based on results from the “storm 

impacts” study. High-risk (hazard) sites for methods would be slightly modified from current 

guidance as follow:

1. actively moving landslides;

2. concave slopes steeper that 70 percent for most areas, except 65 percent for Tertiary 

sedimentary rocks in western Douglas, western Lane and Coos counties. Western means 

west of I-5;

3. any slope steeper than 80 percent (except 75 percent for Tertiary sedimentary rocks) 

excluding competent rock outcrops; and

4. other sites determined to be of marginal stability by ODF (applies only to method 1).

Note that there are certain landforms with high landslide hazard that would not be identified 

using the criteria listed above. Nor does this criteria address “risk” or the potential consequences 

of these landslides. Most foresters do not have the geologic interpretative skills to make these 

more complicated judgements. 
C-18

Method 1 

Benefits:

This method provides a simple, fairly conservative screen for high-risk (hazard) sites. 

Costs:

This method results in a fairly low cost to operators. It also may provide the least certainty and 

consistency in high-risk (hazard) site identification. Many sites identified as high hazard will in 

fact be relatively stable, and there will be some sites that are not identified that will fail. Operators 

will still be required to more specifically locate high-risk (hazard) sites on the ground. Requiring 

the operator to identify these sites is problematic, since most lack the skills needed for this work, 

nor does ODF have the resources to consistently identify sites.

Method 2 

Benefits:

This method also provides a fairly simple means for identification of high-risk (hazard) sites. It 

is likely that with either methods, 1 or 2, operators would have the final responsibility to show 

location of high-risk (hazard) sites in the written plan. This method could provide more 

consistency in high-risk (hazard) site identification.

Costs:

This method results in the lowest cost to ODF and an intermediate cost to landowners. 

Landowners that fail to identify high-risk (hazard) sites may incur added liability for forest 

practices violations associated with not identifying high-risk (hazard) sites. Again, many sites 

identified as high hazard will in fact be relatively stable, and there will be some sites that are not 

identified that will fail. Some sites may be missed, since other marginally stable sites (as per 

criteria 4 above) would not be identified. Requiring the operator to identify these sites is 

problematic, since most lack the skills needed for this work.

Method 3 

Benefits:

This might result in the most complete identification of high hazard locations. It will also allow 

characterization of risk level, so that practices could be based on the level of risk to resources. If 

the geoscientist also develops management measures under Option 47, this method should result 

in more appropriate harvesting practices being applied to existing high-risk (hazard) sites. 

Further characterization of the hazard may help define the appropriate regulations for these 

locations, and result in a more targeted application of appropriate harvesting practices.

Costs:

On the ground geoscientist investigations place an additional expense on the operator. Because 

of incomplete scientific understanding about mechanisms that cause landslides to occur, it is not 

possible to identify all the locations where landslides will occur.
C-19

Option #46: Identify Debris Torrent Risk for Streams

Objective:

Identify stream channels prone to debris flows and torrents.

Description:

To move large wood from headwall or zero-order channels into larger streams requires a debris 

flow or torrent. Only certain stream channels are at risk for debris flows. Finding those channels 

that are capable of moving large wood to Type F streams could make it possible to focus riparian 

prescriptions on those streams where greater benefits to aquatic habitats and salmonids are more 

likely. The appropriate management of riparian areas in these areas may be different from other 

areas since wood on steep slopes can move long distances down these slopes (possible channel 

entry from greater distances). If these streams are to be managed in an optimal manner for the 

maintenance and recovery of salmonids, they must first be identified. Current technology will 

allow reasonably accurate identification of these streams and facilitate the application of 

appropriate riparian management measures.

Methods/Approaches:

ODF is currently completing a debris flow mapping project that includes different hazard 

categories (low, moderate, high and extreme). This could be combined with ground verification 

that there is an actual risk of debris flows entering stream channels.

As with Option 45, three specific methods are proposed for consideration as follow:

1. ODF notification to operator that debris flow-prone channels are in the proposed operation 

area based on current debris flow hazard maps. This is intended to be a coarse screen only, it 

would be the operators responsibility to field verify these conditions.

2. Operator identifies presence of debris flow-prone channels using criteria in rule form.

3. Debris flow-prone channels are identified by geoscientist working for the operator using 

professional judgement. Relative risk of delivery to fish bearing stream channels is also 

identified.

Method 1 

Benefits:

This method could provide a simple screen for debris flow-prone channels, based on debris flow 

hazard maps.

Costs:

This method results in the lowest initial cost to operators. It also may provide the least certainty 

and consistency in identification of debris flow-prone channels. Determination of actual debris 

flow hazard on the ground would be problematic. 
C-20

Method 2 

Benefits:

This method also provides a fairly simple means for identification of debris flow-prone channels. 

Costs:

This method results in the lowest cost to ODF and an intermediate cost to landowners. 

Developing a simple criteria for field determination of debris flow-prone channels could be based 

upon the Benda-Cundy (1990) model. With this method, operators that fail to identify debris 

flow-prone channels may incur added liability for forest practices violations associated with not 

identifying high-risk (hazard) sites. 

Method 3 

Benefits:

This might result in the most complete identification and characterization of debris flow-prone 

channels. It will also allow characterization of risk level, so that practices could be based on the 

level of risk to resources. If the geoscientist also develops management measures, this method 

should result in more appropriate practices being applied debris flow-prone channels. 

Costs:

On-the-ground geoscientist investigations place an additional expense on the landowner or 

operator. Because of incomplete scientific understanding about mechanisms that affect debris 

flow movement, it is not possible to identify all the locations where debris flows will occur, or 

how often they occur. If management prescriptions include conifer retention on high-risk 

(hazard) sites or along debris flow-prone streams, additional landowner costs will be incurred.

Option #47: Management of High-Risk Sites 

Objective:

Moderate or limit management activities believed to increase the occurrence of slope failure.

Description:

This objective is a direct quote from the IMST report (page 27). Current rules require specific 

harvesting practices be employed on high-risk sites. These practices are designed primarily to 

limit ground disturbance so that the landslide risk will not be increased. The rules and/or 

guidance do not require practices that require merchantable trees to be left on the site to possibly 

play a role in stabilizing the slope either through a mechanical (root reinforcement) or 

hydrological (water routing) mechanisms. Additional silvicultural approaches that utilize the 

functions of vegetation could be made available for the management of high-risk sites, depending 

on risk to resources. The goal of these approaches is two-fold. Management prescriptions might 

be used to minimize the risk of landslide occurrence, and also to influence the quality of the 

landslide if/when it does occur (i.e., ensuring that large wood and sediment will deliver to the 

stream, as opposed to sediment without the large wood).
C-21

Since hazards and risks are variable, it is logical to develop practices consistent with the potential 

for landslide delivery to streams. The hazard is also related to the percent of the watershed that is 

subject to debris flows and in a condition with reduced forest cover. Managing the quality of 

high-risk sites (i.e., the amount of large wood left on the site) will potentially increase the amount 

of large wood delivered to streams. 

Methods/Approaches:

Listed below are different methods that might be used to protect high-risk (hazard) sites during 

harvesting operations and subsequent stand management:

1) Standard practices defined in rule to include clearcut harvest with no hillslope alterations 

(skid roads, gouging) followed by rapid reforestation (the most common current practices). 

This may or may not require a written plan.

2) Written plans for harvesting operations on high-risk (hazard) sites prepared by a geoscience 

professional, with practices consistent with the level of risk to resources.

3) Leave trees that are likely to influence slope stability on high-risk (hazard) sites. (This is 

related to Method 1 under Option 61.)

4) Within a given watershed or ownership, limit the percent-area of high-risk (hazard) sites in a 

young age class.

5) A harvesting prohibition on some or all high-risk (hazard) sites (leave areas).

6) Continue to apply the current best management practices (BMP) approach to the management 

of forest lands with significant landslide potential and develop a better case history basis for 

evaluating the effectiveness of BMP in this area. (IMST Recommendation #14.)

Method 1 

Benefits:

Based on results from Robison and others (1999), operators comply with current practices and 

minimize ground disturbance. It may also be possible to develop reforestation practices that 

further reduce the “window of increased landslide vulnerability” that occurs after timber 

harvesting on steep slopes. This would probably entail avoiding intense slash burns and applying 

herbicides so that nonconifer vegetation is not completely eliminated.

Costs:

Little or no additional costs to landowners. Landslide occurrence would occur at an increased 

rate for some period after harvesting, at least in most cases. This is likely to be followed by 

longer period of reduced landslide occurrence. Effects to fisheries would be watershed specific, 

depending on the components of the debris flow and its travel distance. It would be difficult to 

make practices contingent on risk to resources. Achieving “free-to-grow” reforested seedlings 

may be more difficult. 
C-22

Method 2 

Benefits:

Since hazards and risks are variable, it is logical to develop practices consistent with the potential 

for landslide delivery to streams. Geoscientist evaluation provides the best assessment of 

potential debris flow initiation and characteristics, and on relative risk to resources. If protection 

methods were contingent on risk, a geoscientist evaluation would be essential. 

Costs:

Additional cost to landowner for the geoscientist evaluation. The required prescription may also 

have additional costs in terms of trees left or alternative yarding systems. In some cases, this 

option would include leaving merchantable trees. Most geoscientists have very limited 

understanding of forest harvesting systems or other forest practices, so development of specific 

prescriptions would be difficult.

Method 3 

Benefits:

Since hazards and risks are variable, it is logical to develop practices consistent with the potential 

for landslide delivery to streams. Managing the quality of high-risk sites (i.e., the amount of large 

wood left on the site) will potentially increase the amount of large wood delivered to streams. 

Costs:

There is no scientific information upon which to base the choice of different silvicultural options 

(the optimum mix of trees per acre, canopy closure, or other measure of retained trees). 

Management prescriptions will need to be tested over time to see if they are in fact achieving the 

desired objective. The cost to landowners is potentially high, as this could entail alternative 

management over large areas of forestland. Areas mapped as high debris flow hazards 

encompass hundreds of thousands of acres.

Method 4 

Benefits:

The risk to resources (i.e., number of debris flows per unit area) is probably related to the percent 

of the watershed that is subject to debris flows and in a condition of reduced forest cover. This 

method will allow evaluation of risk at a watershed level.

Costs:

The cost to landowners is potentially high, as this could entail alternative management over large 

areas of forestland. Unless carefully crafted (for example, to consider each ownership 

separately), such a method could be seen as inconsistent with federal antitrust laws.
C-23

Method 5 

Benefits:

Use of this method might prevent some or most of the temporary increase in landslide occurrence 

observed in Robison and others (1999) and in other landslide surveys. According to the “timing” 

theory, harvesting may increase short-term landslide occurrence, but may not affect long-term 

erosion.

Costs:

The cost to landowners is potentially very high, as this could preclude timber harvesting over 

large areas of forestland. Areas mapped as high debris flow hazards encompass hundreds of 

thousands of acres. Also, unless provided with a wind firm buffer, practices such as headwallleave areas may increase the incidence of landslides. The prevalent notion that leaving a small 

number of trees on a high hazard site ignores the high probability of those trees blowing over and 

at the least negating any potential for reducing landslide occurrence on those sites.

Method 6

Benefits:

This is the IMST recommendation No. 14 and is similar to method No. 1 above. 

Costs:

Little or no additional costs to landowners. Landslide occurrence would occur at an increased 

rate for some period after harvesting at least in most cases. This is likely to be followed by 

longer period of reduced landslide occurrence. Effects to fisheries would be watershed specific, 

depending on the components of the debris flow and its travel distance. It is not clear how a 

“case history basis for evaluating BMP effectiveness” could be developed, since it is unlikely that

options different from standard practices will be commonly used.

Option #61: Large Wood Sources from Hillslope Areas and Seasonal Type N Streams 

Objective:

To supply large wood inputs from seasonal Type N streams and hillslope areas that have the 

potential to deliver large wood to fish bearing streams of a quality and quantity sufficient to 

provide important habitat functions in those streams.

Description:

There is increasing scientific evidence that wood contained in debris flows is an important source 

of large wood for downstream fish habitat. These areas include likely debris flow paths, which 

are typically steep hillslopes below high-risk (hazard) sites, and above steep stream channels (a 

portion of small Type N streams). While these areas are providing some level of functional LW 

inputs under the current rules, the rules were not specifically designed to provide sources of LW 

from these areas. Action should be taken to increase the LW input potential from these areas. 
C-24

There are two general strategies: Leave trees on the slope at potential initiation sites, or leave 

trees that are likely to enter fish bearing streams at some point below potential initiation sites.

Methods/Approaches:

Listed below are possible methods for the committee to consider:

1. Leave trees on high-risk (hazard) sites that are likely to deliver to Type F streams. Trees 

would be of a minimum age or diameter. (This is related to Method 3 under Option 47.)

2. Locate the in-unit leave trees currently required (two per acre) in hillslope and headwall areas 

below potential high-risk (hazard) sites that are likely to deliver to Type F streams.

3. Require additional leave trees to be located in hillslope and headwall areas below potential 

high-risk (hazard) sites that are likely to deliver to Type F streams. Trees would be of a 

minimum age or diameter.

4. Utilize a riparian management area (RMA) for small seasonal Type N channels that are prone 

to debris flows. (This method is currently proposed under the revised version of Option 38.)

5. Utilize a number of the options above, depending on the likelihood of wood delivery and on 

operational efficiency concerns.

Method 1

Benefits:

Trees in these locations have some potential to be carried by debris flows into stream channels. 

This is especially true for certain actively moving landslides.

Costs:

Except for actively moving landslides, these locations probably have a fairly low likelihood of 

delivering wood to stream channels, since individual sites fail very infrequently. Therefore, 

much of the value in trees retained on site may never provide a large wood function in streams.

Method 2

Benefits:

This method results in little or no increased cost to the landowner. Trees in these locations are 

likely to enter debris flow-prone channels.

Costs:

There is little or no current information on how many trees need to be left. This option may not 

provide what is considered an optimum wood volume. There may be other consequences for 

wildlife from moving in-unit trees to steep stream channels.

Method 3

Benefits:

Trees in these locations have some potential to be carried by debris flows into stream channels.
C-25

Costs:

These locations probably have a lower likelihood of delivering wood to stream channels.

Method 4

Benefits:

The RMA could supply a fairly continuous source of wood for debris flows that might occur. 

Trees in these locations have a high potential to enter debris flow-prone channels. These should 

also have a higher likelihood of being moved by a debris flow into larger Type F channels, where 

this wood may help the formation of both pools and gravel deposits.

Costs:

There are many very small channels subject to debris flows. Some of these channels have a low 

likelihood of delivering material to Type F streams. There is little or no current information on 

how many trees would need to be left.

Method 5

Benefits:

Wood delivery by debris flow depends on a number of factors. Using this method might allow 

the wood to be placed in the locations where it has the greatest potential to by moved be a debris 

flow to a place where it provides quality habitat.

Costs:

If additional leave trees were required, this would be an increased cost for landowners. There is 

currently no well-established methodology for deciding how many trees to leave or precisely 

where to leave them. A significant amount of analysis will be necessary if different scenarios are 

to be evaluated. There is currently no analysis for determining how much wood is sufficient, nor 

is there a mechanism (voluntary or regulatory, or some combination) to ensure sufficient wood 

will be left.
C-26

References

Amaranthus, M. P., R. M. Rice, N. R. Barr, and R. R. Ziemer. 1985. Logging and Forest Roads 

Related to Increased Debris Slides in Southwestern Oregon. Journal of Forestry 83. 

pp. 229-233.

Andersen, S. A., and N. Sitar. 1995. Analysis of Rainfall-Induced Debris Flows. Journal of 

Geotechnical Engineering, July. pp. 544-552.

Benda, L., and T. Cundy. 1990. Predicting Deposition of Debris Flows in Mountain Channels. 

Canadian Geotechnical Journal. Volume 27, Number 4. pp. 409-417.

Benda, L., and T. Dunne. 1987. Sediment Routing by Debris Flow. p. 213-222 In: Erosion and 

Sedimentation in the Pacific Rim (Proceedings of the Corvallis Symposium, August, 1987). 

IAHS Publication No. 165.

Bishop, D. M., and M. E. Stevens. 1964. Landslides on Logged Areas in Southeast 

Alaska.U.S.F.S. Northern Forest Experiment Sta. Research Paper. NOR-1.Juneau, Alaska. 

18 pp.

Burroughs, E. R., and B. R. Thomas. 1977. Declining Root Strength in Douglas-fir After 

Felling as a Factor in Slope Stability, USDA Forest Service Research Paper INT-190. 

27 pp.

Bush, G., C. McConnell, C. Cloyd, K. Musser, B. Metzger, and H. Plumley. 1997. Assessment 

of the Effects of the 1996 Flood on the Siuslaw National Forest. USDA, Siuslaw National 

Forest, Corvallis, Oregon. 47 pp.

Coffin, B. A., and R. D. Harr. 1992. Effects of Forest Cover on Volume of Water 

Delivery to Soil During Rain-on-Snow. Washington DNR-CMER Report TFW-SH1-

92-001. 118 pp.

Chesney, C. J. 1982. Mass Erosion Occurrence and Debris Torrent Impacts on Some Streams in 

the Willamette National Forest. M.S. Thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon. 

116 pp.

Coho, Carol, and S. J. Burges. 1994. Dam-break Floods in Low Order Mountain Channels of 

the Pacific Northwest. Water Resources Series Technical Report No. 138. Department of 

Civil Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, June 1994.

Cruden, D. M., and D. J. Varnes. 1996. Landslide Types and Processes. P. 46. In: 

Landslides: Investigation and Mitigation. Transportation Research Board Special 

Report. p. 247. 
C-27

Dyrness, C. T. 1967. Mass Soil Movements in the H. J. Andrews Experimental Forest. USDA 

Forest Service, Res. Pap. PNW-42. 12 pp.

Endo, T., and T. Tsuruta. 1969. The Effect of the Tree‟s Roots on the Shear Strength of Soil. 

1968 Annual Report Hokkaido Branch Forest Experiment Station, Sapporo, Japan. 

pp. 167-182.

Fannin, R. J., and T. P. Rollerson. 1993. Debris Flows: Some Physical Characteristics and 

Behavior. Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 30. pp. 71-81.

FEMAT (Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team). 1993. Forest Ecosystem 

Management: an Ecological, Economic, and Social Assessment. Report of the Forest 

Ecosystem Management Assessment Team. U.S. Government Printing Office 1993-793-

071.

Fiksdal, A. J. 1974. A Landslide Survey of the Stequaleho Creek Watershed. Final Report #1 -

FR1-UW-7404. 8 pp.

Froehlich, H. A. 1978. The Influence of Clearcutting and Road Building Activities on 

Landscape Stability in Western United States in Proceedings of the 5th North American 

Forest Soils Conference, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. pp. 165-173.

Gray, D. H., and W. F. Megahan. 1981. Forest Vegetation Removal and Slope Stability in the 

Idaho Batholith. USDA Forest Service Research Paper INT-271. USDA Forest Service, 

Ogden, Utah. 23 pp.

Greenway, D. 1987. Vegetation and Slope Stability, In: Anderson, M. G. and K. S. Richards, 

ed. Slope Stability, Geotechnical Engineering and Geomorphology. Wiley and Sons, 

Chinchester.

Gresswell, S., D. Heller, D. N. Swanston. 1979. Mass Movement Response to Forest 

Management in the Central Oregon Coast Ranges. U.S.F.S. Pacific Northwest Experiment 

Station. Resource Bulletin PNW-84. 26 pp.

Harvey. A. F., and L. R. Squier. 1998. Report on the Rock Creek and Highway 38 (M.P. 13) 

Debris Flows November 1996. Squier Associates, Inc. 78 pp. 

Hicks, B. A. 1982. Geology, Geomorphology, and Dynamics of Mass Movement in Parts of the 

Middle Santiam River Drainage, Western Cascades, Oregon Master's Thesis, Oregon State 

University, Corvallis Oregon. 169 pp.

Hughes, D. R., and R. V. Edwards. Granite Creek landslip survey. Unpublished Document, 

USFS Umpqua National Forest, Roseburg, Oregon. 22 pp.
C-28

Ice, G. 1985. Catalog of Landslide Inventories for the Northwest. Technical bulletin 456. 

National Council of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream Improvement, New York.

Ice, G. G., D. J. McGreer, and K. Sullivan. 1988. The Influence of Extreme Climatic and 

Disturbance Events on Landslides in Forests of the Northwest U.S. Presented in Special 

Session on Extreme Rainfall and Geomorphic Effectiveness at 1988 American Geophysical 

Union Spring Meeting, Baltimore, Maryland. 6 pp.

Johnson, A. C. 1991. Effects of Landslide-Dambreak Floods on Channel Morphology. 

Department of Natural Resources, State of Washington, Timber, Fish and Wildlife. Report 

No: TFW-SH17-91-001. 90 pp.

Kaufmann, P. 1987. Channel Morphology and Hydraulic Characteristics of Torrent-Impacted 

Forest Streams in the Oregon Coast Range, U.S.A. Ph.D. Dissertation, Oregon State 

University, Corvallis, Oregon. 235 pp.

Ketcheson, G., and H. A. Froehlich. 1978. Hydrologic Factors and Environmental Impacts of 

Mass Soil Movements in the Oregon Coast Range. Water Resources Research Institute 

Bulletin 56, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon.

Kitamura, Y., and S. Namba. 1976. A Field Experiment on the Uprooting Resistance of Tree 

Roots. in Proceedings of the 77th Meeting of the Japanese Forest Society, Translated from 

Japanese by J. M. Arata and R. R. Ziemer. USDA Forest Service, Arcata, California. 

pp. 568-570.

Koler, T. E. 1992. Literature Search of Effects of Timber Harvest to Deep-Seated Landslides. 

Timber Fish and Wildlife Report. TFW-SH5-91-001. 

Lamberti, G. A., S. V. Gregory, L. R. Ashkenas, R. C. Wildman, and K. M. S. Moore. 1991. 

Stream Ecosystem Recovery Following a Catastrophic Debris Flow. Can. J. Fish. Aq. 

Sci. 48. pp. 196-208.

Lyons, J. K. 1982. Influence of Landslides, Floods, Landuse on Channel Changes of the Upper 

Middle Fork Willamette River, Oregon 1936-1980. M.S. Thesis, Oregon State University.

Lyons, J. K., and R. L. Beschta. 1983. Land Use, Floods, and Channel Changes: Upper Middle 

Fork Willamette River, Oregon (1936-1980). Water Resources Research 19(2). pp. 463-

471.

Marion, D. A. 1981. Landslide Occurrence in the Blue River Drainage, Oregon. M.S. Thesis, 

Oregon State University, Corvallis.

Martin, K. 1997. Forest Management on Landslide Prone Sites: The Effectiveness of Headwall 

Leave Areas and Evaluation of Two Headwall Risk Rating Methods. M.S. Engineering 

Report. Oregon State University, Corvallis.
C-29

McHugh, M. H. 1987. Landslide Occurrence in the Elk and Sixes River Basins, Southwest 

Oregon. M.S. Thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis. 106 pp.

Meehan, W. R. 1991. Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management on Salmonid Fishes and 

Their Habitats. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 19. 751 pp.

Montgomery, D. R., W. E. Dietrich, R. Torres, S. P. Anderson, J. T. Keffner, and K. Loague. 

1997. Hydrologic Response of a Steep Unchanneled Valley to Natural and Applied 

Rainfall. Water Resour. Res. 33(1). pp. 91-109.

Morrison, P. H. 1975. Ecological and Geomorphological Conseqences of Mass Movements in 

the Alder Creek Watershed and Implications for Forest Land Management. Unpublished 

Bachelor's Thesis, University of Oregon. 102 pp.

Nakano, T. 1971. Soil and Water Conservation Functions of Forest on Mountainous Land. 

Government Forest Experiment Station, Forest Influences Division, Japan. 66 pp.

O‟Loughlin, C. L. 1974. A Study of Tree Root Strength Deterioration Following Clearfelling. 

Canadian Journal of Forest Resources. 4(1). pp. 107-113.

O‟Loughlin, C. L., and A. J. Pearce. 1976. Influence of Cenozoic Geology on Mass Movement 

and Sediment Yield Response to Forest Removal, North Westland, New Zealand. Bulletin 

of International Association of Engineering Geology 14. pp. 41-46.

O‟Loughlin, C. L., L. K. Rowe, and A. J. Pearce. 1982. Exceptional Storm Influences on Slope 

Erosion and Sediment Yields in Small Forest Catchments, North Westland, New Zealand. 

National Conference Publication 82/6, Institute of Engineering, Barton, ACT, Australia. 

pp. 84-91.

Personius, S. F., H. M. Kelsey, and P. C. Grabau. 1993. Evidence for Regional Stream 

Aggradation in the Central Oregon Coast Range During the Pleistocene-Holocene 

Transition. Quaternary Research 40. pp. 297-308.

Piehl, B. T., R. L. Beschta, and M. R. Pyles. 1988. Ditch Relief Culverts and Low-Volume 

Forest Roads in the Oregon Coast Range. Northwest Science. pp. 62(3) 91-98.

Pyles, M. R., and H. A. Froehlich. 1987. Discussion of “Rates of Landsliding as Impacted by 

Timber Management Activities in Northwestern California” by M. Wolfe and J. Williams. 

Bulletin of the Association of Engineering Geologists. Vol XXIV, No. 3. pp 425-431.

Reeves, G. H., L. E. Benda, K. M. Burnett, P. A. Bisson, and J. R. Sedell. 1995. A Disturbance 

Based Ecosystem Approach to Maintaining and Restoring Freshwater Habitats of 

Evolutionary Significant Units of Anadromous Salmonids in the Pacific Northwest. Amer. 

Fish. Soc. Suppl. pp.17, 334-349.
C-30

Reneau, S. L. 1988. Depositional and Erosional History of Hollows: Application to Landslide 

Location and Frequency, Long-Term Erosion Rates, and the Effects of Climatic Change. 

Ph.D. Thesis, University of California, Berkeley. 328 pp.

Reneau, S. L. and W. E. Dietrich. 1991. Erosion Rates in the Southern Oregon Coast Range: 

Evidence for an Equilibrium Between Hillslope Erosion and Sediment Yield. Earth 

Surfaces Processes and Landforms, vol. 16. pp. 307-322.

Robison, E. G., K. Mills, J. T. Paul, L. Dent, and A. Skaugset. 1999. Oregon Department of 

Forestry 1996 Storm Impacts Monitoring Project: Final Report. Forest Practices Technical 

Report #4. Oregon Department of Forestry, Salem, Oregon. 141 pp.

Rood, K. M. 1984. An Aerial Photograph Inventory of the Frequency and Yield of Mass 

Wasting on the Queen Charlotte Islands, British Columbia. Land Management Report 

#34. Information Services Branch, Ministry of Forests, Victoria B.C. Canada. 55 pp.

Schroeder, W. L., and G. W. Brown. 1984. Debris Torrents, Precipation and Roads in Two 

Coastal Oregon Watersheds, pp. 117-122. In: Symposium on Effects of Forest Land Use 

on Erosion and Slope Stability.

Schwab, J. W. 1983. Mass Wasting: October-November 1978, Rennell Sound, Queen Charlotte 

Islands, British Columbia, Province of British Columbia, Ministry of Forests, Research 

Note No. 91. 23 pp.

Selby, M. J. 1981. Landslides and Deforestation. Paper Presented in the 1981 Conference of 

the New Zealand Geographical Society, Victoria University, Wellington, New Zealand.

Sessions J., J. C. Balcom, and K. Boston. 1987. Road Location and Construction Practices: 

Effects on Landslide Frequency and Size in the Oregon Coast Range. Western Journal of 

Applied Forestry 2(4). pp. 119-124.

Skaugset, A. E. 1997. Modeling Root Reinforcement in Shallow Forest Soils. Ph.D. 

Dissertation. Department of Forest Engineering, Oregon State University.

Sidle, R. C. 1980. Impacts of Forest Practices on Surface Erosion. Pacific Northwest Extension 

Publication PNW 195. Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon. 15 pp.

Smith, D. A. 1996. Landslide Frequency in the Fish Creek and Roaring River Watersheds, 

Clackamas River Subasin: A Validation of Watershed Analysis, pp. 95-106. In: 

Proceedings of the Pacific Northwest Floods of Febuary 1996 Water Issues Conf. Oct. 7-8, 

1996. American Insitute of Hydrology. 

Swanson, F. J., and C. T. Dyrness. 1975. Impact of Clearcutting and Road Construction on Soil 

Erosion by Landslides in the Western Cascade Range, Oregon. Geology 3(7). pp. 393-396.
C-31

Swanson, F. J., M. M. Swanson, and C. Woods. 1977. Inventory of Mass Erosion in The 

Mapleton Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest. 

Swanson, F. J., and G. W. Lienkaemper. 1978. Physical Consequences of Large Organic Debris 

in Pacific Northwest Streams. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-69. 

12 pp.

Swanson, F. J., M. M. Swanson, and C. Woods. 1981. Analysis of Debris-Avalanche Erosion in 

Steep Forested Lands: An Example from Mapleton, Oregon, USA. IAHS AISH 

Publication 132. pp. 67-75.

Swanson, F. J., and R. L. Fredriksen. 1982. Sediment Routing and Budgets: Implications for 

Judging Impacts of Forest Practices. in Sediment Budgets and Routing in Forested 

Drainage Basins, USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-141. USDA 

Forest Service, Portland, Oregon. pp. 129-137.

Swanson, F. J., and G. Grant. 1982. Rates of Erosion by Surface and Mass Erosion Processes in 

the Willamette National Forest. U.S.D.A. Forest Service Pacific Northwest Range and 

Forest Experiment Station, Unpublished Document, November 22, 1982.

Swanson, F. J., and C. T. Roach. 1987. Administrative Report of the Mapleton Leave Area 

Study. USDA Forest Service, PNW Research Station. Corvallis, Oregon. 141 pp.

Swanson, F. J., L. E. Benda, S. H. Duncan, G. E. Grant, W. F. Megahan, L. M. Reid, and 

R. R. Ziemer. 1987. Mass Failures and Other Processes of Sediment Production in Pacific 

Northwest Forest Landscapes, pp. 9-38. In: Streamside Management: Forestry and 

Fishery Interactions. University of Washington, Institute of Forest Resources, Contribution 

No. 57. 471 pp.

Swanston, D. N. 1970. Mechanics of Debris Avalanching in Shallow Till Soils of Southeast 

Alaska. USDA Forest Service Research Paper, PNW-13. USDA Forest Service, Portland, 

Oregon. 17 pp.

Swanston, D. N. 1974. The Forest Ecosystem of Southeast Alaska. 5. Soil Mass Movement, 

USDA Forest Service General Technical Report. USDA Forest Service, Portland, Oregon. 

22 pp.

Swanston, D. N., G. W. Lienkaemper, R. C. Mersereau, and A. B. Levno. 1988. Timber Harvest 

and Progressive Deformation of Slopes in Southwestern Oregon. Bulleting of the 

Association of Engineering Geologists, Vol. XXV, No. 3, 1988. pp. 371-381.

Swanston D. N., and F. J. Swanson. 1976. Timber Harvesting, Mass Erosion, and Steepland Forest 

Geomorphology in the Pacific Northwest. Geomorphology and Engineering, D. R. Coates (ed.), 

Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, Stroudsburg, PA, USA. pp. 199-219.
C-32

Terzaghi, K., and R. G. Peck. 1967. Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice. Wiley and Sons, 

New York.

VanDine, D. F. 1985. Debris Flow and Debris Torrents in the Southern Canadian Cordillera. 

Canadian Geotechnical Journal. Volume 22, Number 1. pp. 44-68. 

Weaver, W. E., and D. K. Hagans. 1994. Handbook for Forest and Ranch Roads. Mendocino 

County Resource Conservation District in Cooperation with the California Department of 

Forestry and the U.S. NRCS.

Wolfe, M. D., and J. W. Williams. 1987. Rates of Landsliding as Impacted by Timber 

Management Activities in Northwestern California: Discussion Bull. of Assoc. Eng. Geol. 

24(3). pp. 429-431.

Wu, T. H., W. P. McKinnel, and D. N. Swanston. 1979. Strength of Tree Roots and Landslides 

on Prince Wales Island, Alaska. Canadian Geotechnical Journal. 16(1). pp. 19-33.

Ziemer, R. R. 1981. Roots and Stability of Forested Slopes. IAHS AISH Publication. pp. 132, 

343-357.

Ziemer, R. R., and D. N. Swanston. Root Strength Changes After Logging in Southeast Alaska. 

USDA Forest Service Research Note, PNW-306. USDA Forest Service, Portland, Oregon. 

10 pp.
C-33

Attachment

Table 1. Studies of comparative landslide (“L.S.”) densities and erosion rates in recently harvested forests versus unharvested mature forests.

Measure- Recently Harvested Road Right of Way

ment Ratio L.S. Ratio L.S. Ratio L.S. Ratio L.S.

Reference Site Type* Density Erosion Density Erosion

Amaranthus et al., 1985 Siskiyou Mtn., Oregon Air 19.0 6.8 138.0 111.0 

Bishop and Stevens, 1964 S.E. Alaska, Maybeso Cr. Air 19.5 NA NA NA

Bush et al., 1997 Oregon Coast Range Air/Size 2.6 NA 31.6 NA

Chesney, 1982 Oregon Cascades, 1949 Air/Field Visit 0.0 NA 11.1 NA

" " Oregon Cascades, 1959 Air/Field Visit 3.7 NA 33.3 NA

" " Oregon Cascades, 1967 Air/Field Visit 12.9 NA 208.0 NA

" " Oregon Cascades, 1972 Air/Field Visit 21.8 NA 705.0 NA

" " Oregon Cascades, 1979 Air/Field Visit 4.7 NA 254.0 NA

Dyrness, 1967 Oregon Cascades, H.J. Andrews Air/Size 9.8 5.0 309.0 60.1 

Fiksdal, 1974 Olympic Pen. Washington, Sequaleho Cr. Air/Field Visit 0.0 0.0 1600.0 224.0 

Gresswell et al. 1979 Oregon Coast Range, Mapleton Area Air/Field Visit 23.5 NA 72.2 NA

Hicks, 1982 Oregon Cascades, Middle Santiam Air/Field Visit 3.6 3.4 73.7 95.3 

Hughes and Edwards, 1978 Oregon Cascades, Umpqua basin Ground 8.0 10.0 NA NA

Johnson, 1991 Washington Cascades; S Fk. Canyon Cr. Mixed 5.3 NA 97.0 NA

Ketcheson and Froehlich, 1978 Oregon Coast Range, Mapleton Area Ground 2.2 3.4 NA NA

Lyons, 1982 Oregon Cascades, 1959-67 Air/Field Visit 22.8 29.5 NA NA

" " Oregon Cascades, 1967-72 Air/Field Visit 6.8 10.0 NA NA

Marion, 1981 Oregon Cascades, Blue River Air/Field Visit 10.0 9.0 106.0 44.0 

McHugh, 1987 S.W. Oregon Air/Field Visit 7.0 NA 48.0 NA

Morrison, 1975 Oregon Cascades, Alder Creek Air/Size 13.5 2.6 415.0 343.0 

NA = Not available
C-34

Table 1 (Continued). Studies of comparative landslide (“L.S.”) densities and erosion rates in recently harvested forests versus unharvested mature forests.

Measure- Recently Harvested Road Right of Way

ment Ratio L.S. Ratio L.S. Ratio L.S. Ratio L.S.

Reference Site Type* Density Erosion Density Erosion

Robison et al., 1999 (This study) Oregon Cascades, near Vida Ground 1.4 3.2 2.7 40.9 

" " Oregon Coast Range, Elk Creek Ground 0.8 0.3 1.0 0.8 

" " Oregon Coast Range, Mapleton Ground 1.9 1.5 5.0 13.6 

" " Oregon Coast Range, Scottsburg Ground 5.2 2.6 NA NA

Rood, 1984 British Columbia; Graham and Moresby Island Air 30.0 31.2 76.7 89.7 

Schroeder and Brown, 1984 Oregon Coast Range, Palouse Cr. Air 9.6 NA NA NA

" " Oregon Coast Range; Larson Cr. Air 6.1 NA NA NA

Schwab, 1983 British Columbia, Queen Charlotte Islands Mixed 17.0 5.0 41.0 46.0 

Smith, 1996 Oregon Cascades; Weak Rock, Steep Slopes Air 10.7 NA NA NA

Swanson and Dyrness, 1975 Oregon Cascades, H.J. Andrews Unstable Mixed 3.2 2.8 33.0 30.0 

Swanson and Grant, 1982 Oregon Cascades, WNF Mod. Stable Mixed 3.0 2.5 47.0 37.0 

" " Oregon Cascades, WNF Unstable Mixed 7.0 5.0 336.0 250.0 

Swanson et al., 1977 Oregon Coast Range, Cedar Cr. Mixed 1.2 NA 15.0 NA

" " Oregon Coast Range, Soil Type 47 Mixed 1.3 4.0 15.5 30.8 

Swanston and Swanson, 1976 S.W. British Columbia Coast Range Air/Size 5.0 2.2 20.0 25.2 

*Measurement types: 1. “Air” - Studies based on air photos with or without ground verification regarding the size of 

landslides and whether or not the feature was actually a landslide. 2. “Air/Size” – Studies based on air photos with a 

minimum landslide size used to decrease the chance of bias between old and young stands. 3. “Mixed” – Studies combine 

more that one method of detection. For instance, one study used air photos to detect landslides in clearcuts and a groundbased sample in older forests. 4. “Air/Field visit” – Studies using air-based sampling with informal field visits used to get some 

inclinations that most landslides are being found. 5. “Ground” – Studies that detect landslides based on a systematic sampling 

of all landslides using the channel network and/or an orderly walking of slope contours to search for landslides. 
D-i

Section D

Riparian Functions

Issue: How well do current riparian protection practices on 

forestland provide for and maintain large wood inputs and stream 

temperatures necessary to maintain and recover salmonids?

Forest Practices Advisory Committee on Salmon and Watersheds
D-ii

Table of Contents

I. CURRENT SCIENTIFIC FINDINGS............................................................................................................... D-1

RIPARIAN FUNCTIONS............................................................................................................................................ D-1

Large Wood ...................................................................................................................................................... D-1

Stream Temperature ......................................................................................................................................... D-7

II. WATERSHED-SCALE EFFECTS................................................................................................................ D-12

NATURAL VARIABILITY ....................................................................................................................................... D-12

FOREST MANAGEMENT ........................................................................................................................................ D-13

Large Wood .................................................................................................................................................... D-13

Stream Temperature ....................................................................................................................................... D-14

OTHER LAND USES............................................................................................................................................... D-15

III. OBJECTIVES OF THE CURRENT MEASURES AND RULES ............................................................. D-16

OREGON PLAN OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................................................. D-16

FPA OBJECTIVES................................................................................................................................................. D-16

Statutes ........................................................................................................................................................... D-16

Administrative Rules....................................................................................................................................... D-17

IV. DESCRIPTION OF THE MEASURES AND RULES................................................................................ D-20

OREGON PLAN MEASURES .................................................................................................................................. D-20

FPA STANDARDS AND RULES............................................................................................................................... D-23

V. EVALUATION OF THE MEASURES AND RULES.................................................................................. D-25

VOLUNTARY MEASURES ..................................................................................................................................... D-25

CURRENT RULES ................................................................................................................................................. D-27

Large Wood .................................................................................................................................................... D-27

Stream Temperature ....................................................................................................................................... D-32

Other Riparian Functions............................................................................................................................... D-35

INDEPENDENT MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCE TEAM (IMST) RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................. D-35

VI. POSSIBLE ADDITIONAL MEASURES AND/OR RULES...................................................................... D-37

OPTION #20: ACTIVE PLACEMENT OF LARGE WOOD............................................................................................. D-37

OPTION #22: MANAGE RMAS FOR SHADE........................................................................................................... D-37

OPTION #26: RMA BASAL AREA TARGETS AND MANAGEMENT PRESCRIPTIONS ................................................... D-39

OPTION #30: RIPARIAN MONITORING PROGRAM................................................................................................... D-42

OPTION #38: LW INPUTS AND SHADE FUNCTIONS FOR SMALL PERENNIAL TYPE N STREAMS ............................... D-43

OPTION #41: STATEWIDE RIPARIAN MANAGEMENT POLICY.................................................................................. D-44

OPTION #62: RMA WIDTHS ................................................................................................................................. D-45

OPTION #63: FLOODPLAIN PROTECTION............................................................................................................... D-46

REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................................................... D-47

APPENDIX A: MOA RIPARIAN WORKSHOP SUMMARY POINTS........................................................ D-54

APPENDIX B: OREGON PLAN OBJECTIVES .............................................................................................. D-55

APPENDIX C: FIGURES FROM THOM ET AL. (1999)................................................................................ D-58

APPENDIX D: ADDITIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE RULES......................................................................... D-62

APPENDIX E: STATE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS AND RULES..................................................... D-65

APPENDIX F: EASTERN OREGON RIPARIAN AREAS AND SITE PRODUCTIVITY.......................... D-68
D-iii
D-1

I. Current Scientific Findings

Riparian Functions

Large wood, shade (stream temperature), microclimate, streambank stability, litterfall, sediment 

filtration, and floodplain processes are all riparian functions that are provided for by riparian 

forests (Naiman et al., 1998; Spence et al., 1996; FEMAT, 1993; Chamberlin et al., 1991; 

Sullivan et al., 1987; CH2MHill et al., 1999). While some or all of these functions may be 

provided for either directly or indirectly by the current forest practice rules and Oregon Plan 

voluntary measures, large wood and stream temperature are the primary functions that the rules 

and measures are designed to address. For this reason, this paper focuses almost exclusively on 

these two issues. This section of the paper provides an overview of the current scientific findings 

and what is generally understood in terms of forest management effects upon large wood inputs 

and stream temperature. A later section in this report will examine the adequacy of current 

efforts in providing for these two functions. For additional information on other riparian 

functions, see the references cited above.

Large Wood

Large wood (a.k.a. large woody debris; coarse woody debris; large organic debris) is an 

important component of salmonid habitat (Bisson et al., 1987; Bilby and Bisson, 1998). Large 

wood (LW) is a key factor in the development of channel form, including off-channel rearing 

backwaters, side channels, and pools and riffles, that are important for salmon. The National 

Research Council (1996) states that "[p]erhaps no other structural component of the environment 

is as important to salmon habitat as large woody debris, particularly in coastal watersheds."(p. 

194) 

Physical processes associated with [large woody] debris in streams include the 

formation of pools and other important rearing areas, control of sediment and 

organic matter storage, and modification of water quality. Biological properties of 

[woody] debris-created structures can include blockages to fish migration, 

provision of cover from predators and from high streamflow, and maintenance of 

organic matter . . . The locations and principle roles of woody debris change 

throughout the river system. In steep headwater streams where logs span the 

channel, debris creates a stepped longitudinal profile that governs the storage and 

release of sediment and detritus, a function that facilitates the biological 

processing of organic inputs from the surrounding forest. When the stream 

channel becomes too wide for spanning by large logs, debris is deposited along 

the channel margins, where it often forms the most productive fish habitat in 

main-stem rivers. (Bisson et al., 1987)

Large wood loading of streams has been correlated to winter survival of juvenile salmonids 

(Bisson et al., 1987; Murphy et al., 1986) and can increase fish numbers within a given 

watershed. Reeves et al. (1997) found that adding LW to Fish Creek resulted in a 27 percent 

increase in the mean number of fish in during the period following wood placement compared to 
D-2

the prior five-year period1. Steelhead age 1+ and smolts were also significantly larger (P<0.05), 

12.5 percent and 4.1 percent, respectively, following wood placement compared to the period 

before. 

Reductions in large wood will often result in habitat simplification which has been shown to 

reduce the diversity of fish species (Reeves et al., 1993). Habitat simplification, however, does 

not necessarily result in a decline in total fish populations. Certain species and age classes may 

increase in numbers to occupy space vacated by other species or age classes that found the habitat

simplification undesirable (Schwartz, 1990). It is also possible for habitat simplification to favor 

no species or age classes and all groups experience a decline in productivity (House and Boehne, 

1987). 

Currently there is no accepted minimum criteria for what LW levels (i.e., pieces per 1000 feet) 

are necessary for maintaining and recovering salmonids. Despite this lack of prescriptive 

information, a better understanding of possible historic stream conditions relative to current 

conditions can be useful. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) Aquatic 

Inventory project has attempted to describe both the possible historic conditions (which would 

include the entire range of successional and disturbance conditions), and desired future 

conditions for streams in western Oregon, in terms of various aquatic habitat characteristics 

(Thom et al., 1998). Information about the reference sites surveyed for this project were not 

intended to portray what stream conditions should be like for all western Oregon watersheds, but 

rather give a range of values from which to compare current habitat conditions in a general way. 

Fifty-seven reference reaches were inventoried covering 93 km of streams, most of which 

occurred in the Oregon Cascade Range with a few in the Coastal Range. The reference sites 

were described as follows:

4.5 percent average stream gradient

11 meter (36 feet) average active channel width 

Located in unmanaged watersheds and wilderness areas

Primarily in upper portions of watersheds and federally owned

Fire suppression may have reduced the influence of disturbance relative to historic 

conditions

Stream cleaning projects may have occurred in the past along some reaches

In the summer of 1998, the ODFW selected stream reaches across western Oregon using a 

random and unbiased methodology and the habitat conditions of those reaches were summarized 

(Thom et al., 1999)2. Each area of the state had 50 sample sites, with the exception of the 

―Southwest Washington‖ area that had only 35 sites. Large wood (number of pieces, number of 

key pieces, and volume) was one of the habitat variables inventoried and randomly selected 

reaches were compared to the reference sites. The ODFW inventory defines large wood as any 

 

1 This difference was not statistically significant, P>0.05. Due to the many different factors that influence fish 

populations and the variability from one year to the next, a 27% increase over five years was not statistically 

significant in this study. 

2

See Appendix C for the figures and tables referenced below.
D-3

piece greater than six inches in diameter and 10 feet in length (15 cm x 3 m). Key pieces are 

defined as greater than two feet in diameter and 33 feet in length (60 cm x 10 m):

The reference values observed for the distribution of the number of pieces of wood in 

the stream channel falls within the range observed in the streams used for current 

conditions analysis [i.e. reference sites] (Figure 9). . . . The number of key pieces of 

wood differs more markedly than the number of wood pieces. These large pieces 

were low in all of the areas with 50 percent of the stream length surveyed in each 

basin having less than 1.0 piece per 100 m of stream channel (Table 8). The 

median value for the reference reaches is 1.8 key pieces per 100 m of stream channel 

(Table 8). Again, the North Coast and Willamette areas had higher levels of key 

pieces of woody debris than any other area (Figure 10). The Mid-Coast, South Coast, 

and Lower Columbia areas had the lowest number of key wood pieces with over 

75 percent of the stream length in those areas having less than 1.0 key piece per 

100 m of stream channel. . . . Wood volume density showed a wide range of 

distributions between the different areas surveyed. The general pattern was similar to 

the density of wood pieces, but the distributions had a much wider range (Figure 13). 

(Thom et al., 1999, see Appendix C for figures and tables referenced here)

The density of large riparian conifers was also examined to understand current conditions in 

terms of future LW recruitment. The number of conifers greater than 20 inches in diameter and 

within 100 feet of the stream on the random sites was compared to the reference sites.

The number of conifers observed differs markedly from the reference reaches. All of 

the [randomly selected] areas show low conifer numbers with over 30 percent of the 

stream lengths surveyed having no large conifers in the riparian zone (Figure 8). The 

75th percentile occurs at less than 120 conifers per 305 m of stream length for all of 

the areas, while the reference reaches had a 75th quartile of 240 conifers (Table 7). 

(Thom et al., 1999) 

While the frequency and distribution of total pieces of LW across western Oregon appears 

similar to that of the reference sites, there is a marked difference when it comes to total key 

pieces and large riparian conifers. For the largest LW there appears to be a shortage of potential 

key pieces of LW currently in riparian areas. Long-term supplies may or may not be at risk, 

depending on whether or not adequate numbers of current small conifers are retained and grow 

into potential key pieces of LW in the future. 

A number of different factors are responsible for the lower levels of key pieces of LW and large 

riparian conifers in the sampled streams. In the 1800s and up through the turn of the century, 

splash damming was an accepted practice that resulted in extensive scouring of long stretches of 

some steam channels. It‘s estimated that close to 25 percent of the streams in Oregon were 

impacted by splash damming (Dave Hibbs, personal communication, 1999). Extensive dam 

building and an acceleration of road building into forestland during most of this century have 

also reduced levels of LW in the system. As LW moved into reservoirs or backed up behind 

stream crossing structures, it would be removed either for safety reasons or to utilize the wood, 
D-4

thereby preventing that LW from continuing downstream and being utilized by the stream 

system. Stream cleaning also occurred in the 1970s and early 1980s because it was believed LW 

was a barrier to fish passage. During this period there was an effort to remove large 

accumulations of LW from selected streams. A significant amount of this stream cleaning 

occurred immediately after large storm events such as the 1964 and 1977-78 floods. Previous to 

any forest practice rules that require the retention of trees along streams, harvesting operations 

were also removing the large trees that were potential future sources of key pieces of LW. 

Historical harvesting practices that did not retain riparian buffers have also resulted in fewer 

large conifers being grown in riparian forests and upslope areas (forestlands susceptible to 

landslides that result in LW being transported to fish bearing streams), reducing the future supply 

of key pieces of LW. 

There are essentially three ways in which LW can end up in streams. It can fall directly in from 

the riparian area, it can be delivered via a landslide or debris flow from upslope areas, or it can be 

manually placed in the stream. Considering riparian areas first, potential LW inputs can be 

expressed as a function of distance from the stream. A review of the literature shows that 

anywhere from 70 percent to 99 percent of the LW input potential from adjacent riparian stands

originates from within the first 30 meters, or about 100 feet, of the riparian forest (Murphy and 

Koski, 1989; Van Sickle and Gregory, 1990; McDade et al., 1990; Bilby and Bisson, 1998). It is 

also possible, however, for 70-99 percent of the LW input potential from riparian stands to 

originate from within the first 50 feet of the riparian forest (Murphy and Koski, 1989). It should 

be emphasized that these studies did not intend to examine upslope source areas. They analyze 

potential LW inputs in terms of the total LW potential from riparian areas only. Large wood is 

defined in most of these studies as pieces with a minimum diameter of 10 centimeters (4 inches) 

and a minimum length of 1-1.5 meters (3.25-5 feet). The majority of larger pieces of LW, such 

as key pieces, originate from within a distance less than 100 feet (Robison and Beschta, 1990). 

The bulk of the potential riparian area inputs of LW comes from vegetation in close proximity 

to the channel, with diminishing amounts coming from distances farther from the stream 

(Figure 1). 

The incidence of windthrow affects the frequency and distribution of LW inputs from riparian 

areas. An increase in windthrow can occur where riparian buffers are retained. It is generally 

believed that the potential for windthrow is higher for narrow buffers and decreases for wider 

buffers, however there is a wide range of scientific opinion on how wide a buffer needs to be 

before the risk of windthrow is significantly reduced. Windthrow associated with riparian 

buffers is also highly variable depending on vegetation, local topographic relief, and an area‘s 

susceptibility to windstorms. It could be argued that an increase in the incidence of windthrow 

due to narrow buffers could have a positive short-term effect on salmonid habitat by delivering 

LW to the stream (Spence et al., 1996). Potential negative effects of windthrow include an 

increase in stream temperatures due to additional solar radiation reaching the stream, increased 

bank erosion due to the displacement of soil by root wads, upslope erosion of fine sediments 

where oversteepened slopes are exposed by displaced trees, and reduced LW input potential until 

a future stand of large trees becomes established. 
D-5

LW Input Potential vs. Riparian Buffer Width

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 25 50 75 100 125 150

Slope Distance from Streambank (feet) Cumulative Percent of LW Pieces

Murphy & Koski 1989 (Old Growth): 4" x 10' 

Van Sickle & Gregory 1990 (Mixed Old Growth): 4" x 5'

McDade et al. 1990 (Mature Conifer): 4" x 3.25'

McDade et al. 1990 (Old Growth): 4" x 3.25'

Van Sickle & Gregory 1990 (Uniform Old Growth): 4" x 5'

There are many factors that must be considered in determining what types of buffers are effective 

or ideal in maintaining or enhancing salmonid production. Botkin et al. (1995) points out that 

mature forests (forests older than 100 years of age) covered 50-70 percent of the Coast Range 

between 1850 and 1940. It is estimated that historically 15-25 percent of the forest in the Central 

Oregon Coast Range was in early successional stages because of disturbance by wildfire (Benda, 

1994; Reeves et al., 1995). Wildfire, floods and windstorms were all important disturbance 

events that had a significant effect on forest characteristics. These types of disturbance also tend 

to leave behind significant amounts of structure in the form of snags and large wood on the 

ground, as compared to timber harvesting where this is not always the case. Data presented by 

Dave Hibbs (MOA Riparian Habitat Workshop) illustrated how the percentage of forestland in 

conifer versus hardwoods changed dramatically over 1000-year time periods, sometimes by a 

factor of fifty percent. At least for coastal forests, it appears that hardwood tree species may have 

been much more pervasive at certain times than was previously assumed to be the case. While 

the notion of mature forest conditions everywhere on the Coast Range (and the Cascades) is not 

consistent with what is known about historic disturbance patterns, the current disturbance pattern 

due to fire suppression and forest management is not consistent with historic disturbance patterns 

either.

Figure 1: Compilation of current studies relating buffer width to large wood input potential. Murphy and Koski 

(1989) conducted their study in Alaska, the McDade et al. (1990) data is from the Oregon Cascades, Van Sickle and 

Gregory ―mixed old growth ― data is from the Oregon Cascades, and the Van Sickle and Gregory ―uniform old 

growth‖ is modeled data from a hypothetical (modeled) stand. 
D-6

Historically, most streams, wetlands, and lakes had some riparian overstory vegetation composed 

of conifer and/or hardwood trees. The processes for plant succession in riparian areas are 

debated and it is likely that succession follows a number of potential paths. Beavers and elk may 

have maintained some riparian areas, particularly along lower gradient reaches, in early (more 

open) seral stages. Large conifer, now often absent in some riparian areas, may have played an 

important role in conifer regeneration on some sites through nurse trees (Hibbs and Giordano, 

1996). This role may have been relatively more important on wet coastal sites. Vegetation 

succession paths are likely to vary for different streams. More frequent disturbance events, 

including beaver activity and floods, may create more diverse conditions and a greater hardwood 

component on larger and lower gradient streams. Small streams in steeper terrain, however, are 

more likely to be more dominated by conifer due to different types of disturbance (more frequent 

fire) and site conditions. Since large wood originates from many different sources on the 

landscape, these patterns also likely influenced large wood inputs and habitat conditions.

In terms of source areas for LW, potential inputs are not limited to stream-adjacent locations. 

Upstream or upslope areas can also be a source of LW for fish bearing streams (Keller and 

Swanson, 1979; McGarry, 1994; Benda and Sias, 1998). In steep landscapes, where the 

occurrence of debris flows is a normal part of the disturbance regime, relatively large pieces of 

LW in small streams can play an important role in maintaining salmonid habitat (Swanson et al., 

1987). High stream flows and debris flows are both mechanisms by which LW can be 

transported from relatively small stream channels downstream to larger channels.

Debris flows can periodically move very large pieces of wood from a hillslope or hollow 

downslope to fish bearing streams where the LW can interact with the channel and form fish 

habitat. In these cases, small stream channels can play a significant role in contributing key 

pieces of LW to downstream riparian functions. These sources of LW have been referred to as 

both ―upslope‖ and ―upstream‖ sources. For the sake of clarity, the following terminology will 

be used to define LW sources for this discussion.

Near-stream riparian: 

Areas directly adjacent to the stream. LW is delivered simply by the tree falling directly into 

the stream from the adjacent streambank or hillslope.

Upstream riparian:

Near-stream riparian sources that are upstream of the reach of concern. High water and/or a 

debris flow transport the LW to its current location after initially falling into the stream from 

the riparian area.

Upslope:

Zero-order channels (zero-order channels are small unbranched draws), hollows, or 

hillslopes. Areas outside of the riparian area. LW is delivered by a landslide or landslidedebris flow combination that moves the wood into the stream channel from these areas. 

Currently there is limited scientific information on the relative inputs from these three sources. 

McGarry (1994) is one of the few studies that have attempted to quantify the relative contribution 
D-7

from each LW source. He found that the LW inputs in Cummins Creek, Oregon were split about 

50/50 between near-stream riparian and other source areas, or what was termed ―transported‖ and 

―nontransported‖. McGarry (1994) did not attempt to quantify what percent of the transported 

LW originated from upstream versus upslope areas. McDade et al. (1990) also identified about 

50 percent of the LW as originating from near-stream areas, but did not attempt to classify the 

origin of the other 50 percent either. Unless the debris flow and/or landslide delivering the 

material is inventoried before high stream flows are able to transform the deposits and relocate 

the LW downstream, it is difficult to determine what pieces of transported LW originated from 

upslope versus upstream areas. Both of these studies (MacGarry, 1994; McDade, 1990) utilized a 

single-season data collection method, representative of conditions for a snap-shot in time.

Despite the limitations of the data, some qualitative statements can be made in regards to LW 

sources. In terms of upslope sources, the relative importance of potential LW from zero-order 

channels and hillslopes to a given stream reach becomes less and less the larger the channel 

network is above that reach. The larger the channel is along a given reach, the greater the 

percentage of potential LW originates from near-stream and upstream riparian sources. This will 

vary, however, depending on the topographic characteristics and landslide/debris flow potential. 

An area where debris flows rarely occur and where the slopes are relatively mild will have 

virtually all of the LW originating from near-stream and upstream riparian sources. An area that 

has frequent landslide/debris flow activity and relatively steep slopes, on the other hand, may 

have a significant portion of the LW potential in upslope sources originating from the zero-order 

channels and hillslopes. Benda and Sias (1998) conducted a modeling exercise where they

estimated that the overall contribution of LW by debris flows is limited to about 10-15 percent of 

the overall wood budget. While this may imply that mass wasting plays a relatively minor role in 

the long-term wood budget of a given watershed, ―wood from debris flows can overwhelm all 

other sources to a channel or valley floor locally in time and space, and therefore dominate in the 

shorter-term (decadal – human lifespan).‖(Benda and Sias, 1998) 

Where shallow rapid landslides are rare or do not occur, the dominant available mechanism for 

transporting LW downstream is stream flow. For this population of streams, the hydrologic 

regime will determine what sizes of LW will be stable and hydrologically functional in the 

channel. Bilby (1985) found that length and diameter of stable large wood in a stream is in part a 

function of channel width, where smaller pieces of LW can be stable in smaller streams. Other 

research has found that the amount and distribution of LW will vary with channel size. Smaller 

channels contain more abundant amounts of randomly distributed LW, while larger streams more 

easily transport LW, resulting in fewer pieces and reduced aggregation of LW (Bilby and Bisson, 

1998). On very large, main-stem channels, LW tends to form accumulations at the head of gravel

bars and along the edge of the channels. These accumulations are important for maintaining 

spawning areas and creating off-channel habitats (Sedell et al., 1982). 

Stream Temperature

Stream temperature is an important component of fish habitat and has a direct effect on the 

growth and survival of salmonids. The effect of changes in stream temperature on fish varies 

between species and within the life cycle of a given species (DEQ, 1995). Critical life stages that 
D-8

occur during the warmest months in the summer are of particular concern. For the chinook 

salmon, juvenile rearing, adult holding and adult migrations all occur during the summer months. 

Juvenile rearing also occurs in the summer for the coho salmon, and migration occurs in the late 

summer and early fall. Spawning and within-stream migration occurs in the summer and fall for 

the bull trout. Preferred temperature ranges for these species and particular life stages are shown 

in Table 1. 

Table 1. Optimum and lethal limit temperature ranges for coho, chinook and bull trout (from DEQ 1995).

Fish Species Coho Chinook Bull Trout3

Preferred juvenile temperature range 54-57 F 50-60 F 39-50 F

Adult migration, holding, or spawning 45-60 F 46-55 F 39-54 F

Lethal limit 77 F 77 F NA

State water quality standard4

64 F 64 F 50 F

The various physiological and ecological processes of salmonids that are affected by temperature 

are well documented. Listed below are some of the more important processes (from Spence et al. 

1996).

Decomposition rate of organic materials

Metabolism of aquatic organisms, including fishes

Food requirements, appetite, and digestion rates of fish

Growth rates of fish

Developmental rates of embryos and alevins

Timing of life-history events including migrations, fry emergence, and smoltification

Competitor and predator-prey interactions

Disease-host and parasite-host relationships

Development rate and life history of aquatic invertebrates

Exposure to temperatures above optimum levels has the potential to negatively affect salmonid 

survival and recovery. As stream temperature increases, the ability of water to hold dissolved 

oxygen decreases (MacDonald et al., 1991). Increases in stream temperature also raise the 

metabolic rate of salmonids, which can enlarge demands on the available food supply. Primary 

productivity can be augmented as a result of increases in light reaching the stream where 

nutrients are limiting, which can add to the available food supply for salmonids (MacDonald et 

al., 1991; Murphy and Meehan, 1991). However, decreased levels of dissolved oxygen may also 

lead to appetite suppression in salmonids (Jobling, 1993; in Spence et al., 1993). 

 

3 The optimal temperature for rearing and the lethal limit may actually be different from the values listed in Table 1. 

Preliminary results of on-going research by Dr. Bob Danehy concludes that the optimal rearing and lethal limit are 

closer to 54-58 F and 69 F, respectively (Bob Danehy, personal communication.)

4

See Appendix E for more information on state water quality standards and rules.
D-9

The presence of cool-water refugia can help salmonids avoid areas with adverse stream 

temperatures and help sustain a population of sensitive species (Bilby, 1984; Sedell et al., 1990). 

When ambient stream temperatures are too warm, sensitive aquatic species can inhabit these 

patches of cool water habitat. Deep pools, cool springs, hyporheic flow, and the junction of 

cooler tributary streams are all examples of cool-water refugia. Matthews et al. (1994) and 

Nielsen et al. (1994) found that stream temperatures are stratified in deep pools (3 to 9 feet), in 

pools with large gravel bars at the upstream end, and in shallow pools (1.5 feet) with subsurface 

seepage. Differences in temperature ranged from 7.0 to 8.0 F between the stream surface and 

stream bottom in these areas. 

There are several factors that make up the heat balance of water, which determine how the 

temperature of a stream will change as it flows downstream. Net radiation, evaporation, 

convection, conduction, and advection all contribute to the net rate of gain or loss in stream 

temperature as it moves through a forest (Brown 1983). Stream temperatures also can fluctuate 

significantly over both space and time. Seasonal and daily cycles produce a high degree of 

variability in stream temperatures. Spatial variables such as latitude, proximity to the ocean, 

stream order, and distance from watershed divide can all affect differences in stream 

temperatures as well (Beschta et al., 1987; Sullivan et al., 1990). Heat inputs result from solar 

radiation, conserved solar radiation in the form of channel substrate heat loading (conduction), 

and air temperature that is greater than the water temperature (convection). Heat losses occur 

from evaporation, air temperature that is less than the water temperature (convection), channel 

bed conduction if the bed is cooler than the water column, and surface water/ground water 

interactions. Over any stream length heat will be retained as it flows downstream in the water 

column only if the heat inputs are greater than the heat losses.

During the summer months, when stream temperatures are at their highest, the combination of 

direct solar radiation, a decrease in discharge, and the relative number of tributaries have the 

greatest effect on stream temperatures changes in the downstream direction (Beschta et al., 

1987). Of these three factors, forest management can have the greatest effect on direct solar 

radiation. Solar energy is also the largest component of energy available to warm stream water 

(Chamberlin et al., 1991). The more forest canopy that is removed that reduces shade, the more 

energy reaches the stream translating into a potential increase in stream temperature. While 

shade cannot physically cool the stream down, it can prevent further heating of the stream. In the 

case where significant groundwater inputs or tributaries are contributing relatively cool water, 

shading can have the appearance of cooling. In fact what is occurring is that shade is preventing 

further heating so that other processes (e.g., evaporation; groundwater mixing; convection) have 

a chance to cool the stream. 

Many studies have documented increases in stream temperature due to timber harvesting. The 

degree of impact varies with particular practices and stream characteristics. Harvesting to the 

edge of the stream without leave trees or riparian buffer strips is consistently shown to increase 

mean, maximum, and diurnal fluctuation of stream temperature (Levno and Rothacher, 1967; 

Meehan, 1970; Feller, 1981; Hewlett and Fortson, 1982; Holtby, 1988). Maintaining riparian 

vegetation has been shown to be successful in minimizing or eliminating increases in stream 

temperature associated with harvesting (Brazier and Brown, 1973; Kappel and DeWalle, 1975; 

Lynch et al., 1985; Amaranthus et al., 1989). When examining the potential influence of 
D-10

harvesting near streams on stream temperatures, it is important to account for  ̳natural‘ heating in 

the downstream direction that is commonly observed (Sullivan et al., 1990; Zwieniecki and 

Newton, 1999). Increases in stream temperatures that might occur in the downstream direction 

whether or not vegetation is removed can be difficult to separate out from potential harvesting 

effects on stream temperatures (Dent and Walsh, 1997). 

The width of the riparian vegetation alone, however, does not dictate the amount of shade 

provided to a given stream reach. Canopy density, canopy height, stream width, and stream 

discharge are all interrelated and determine the effectiveness of the riparian buffer width (Brazier 

and Brown, 1973). For example, a stand of dense vine maple and salmonberry over a small 

stream might provide close to 100 percent shading for that stream in the middle of summer. It 

would not matter how much riparian vegetation was retained beyond the width occupied by these 

two species in terms of increased shade. For a medium or large stream in eastern Oregon, on the 

other hand, that has a widely-spaced stand of Ponderosa Pine it may not be possible to obtain 

100 percent shade no matter how wide of a buffer is retained. Because of the complex 

interactions between all of the factors that determine effective shade about a stream, buffer width 

alone is not always a reliable determinant of effective shade.

Angular canopy density (ACD) is an effective means of providing a direct estimate of the 

shading effects of riparian vegetation (NCASI, 1999). ACD is a measurement of the canopy 

density at an angle coincident with the sun when the most significant solar heating occurs. ACD 

is expressed as a percentage, where 100 percent represents no sunlight reaching the stream or 

forest floor. Considering small streams only, Figure 2 demonstrates the relatively high variability 

of buffer width as a determinant of effective shade. For example, 75-90 percent shading can be 

achieved with a buffer width of anywhere from 30 to 145 feet. Looking at it a different way, a 

50-foot buffer width might provide anywhere from 18-80 percent shading. 

Natural disturbance regimes historically played a significant role in the temporal and spatial 

distribution of forest-types across the landscape (Swanston, 1991). The historic distribution of 

forest-types is important in understanding the temporal and spatial distribution of effective shade 

along riparian areas across the landscape. While significant areas of  ̳old growth‘ are likely to 

have occurred along riparian areas historically, variability in the intensity, timing, and location of 

disturbance events created a diverse mosaic of riparian vegetation characteristics. Wildfire, 

windthrow, debris torrents, and major floods periodically reset riparian forests and changed the 

characteristics of riparian vegetation. The result of the natural disturbance events in terms of 

effective shade is that while relatively high levels of shade may have been present in some areas 

or at one moment in time, lower shade levels are likely to have occurred in other areas or at 

another moment in time. Understanding the natural or climactic variability in stream 

temperatures brought about by natural disturbance regimes is an important first step in 

understanding how forest management may be altering stream temperatures and thus influencing 

salmonid populations. If harvesting near a stream results in temperature changes that are 

consistent with the range of natural variability, both spatially and temporally, of the temperature 

regime, then such effects may be unimportant (Beschta et al., 1987). However where the 

opposite is true, harvesting effects on the maintenance and recovery salmonids may be 

significant.
D-11

Figure 2: Relation between angular canopy density (ACD) and buffer-strip width for small streams in western 

Oregon (from Beschta et al., 1987).

Since riparian shade reduces or eliminates solar radiation inputs to the stream, retaining riparian 

buffers is a widely accepted method of minimizing or eliminating harvesting effects on stream 

temperature. Some studies, however, have demonstrated that increased sunlight in clearcut areas 

can increase salmonid production and/or growth in unbuffered streams in the short-term (Holtby, 

1988; Tschaplinski, 1999). This is related to increases in primary production, and ultimately 

salmonid food sources, that can occur when a stream is exposed to increased levels of sunlight. 

This response can only occur, however, where food production is a limiting factor in salmonid 

growth and survival. Increased stream temperature also increases the metabolic demands of 

salmonids. When this occurs, an increased food supply is needed to support the increased 

metabolic demands or else increases in growth and survival may not be realized. There must also 

be adequate physical habitat available to support the increased salmonid production and/or 

growth that may be stimulated by an increased food supply.

The complex interactions between primary production, salmonid metabolic demands, and stream 

temperature results in a highly variable response to increased levels of sunlight to the stream. 

Research has shown, however, that in some locations a closed dense conifer stand typical of 

second-growth is not very productive for fish due to a substantial reduction in sunlight reaching 

channels as compared to either old-growth or clearcut streams (Sedell and Swanson, 1984). The 

various results have led some to argue that buffers designed to maintain physical habitat over the 

long-term, but that also increases the level of sunlight above that provided by closed-canopy 

forests, may be more productive overall than either mature forest or clearcut reaches (Koski et 

al., 1984; Murphy et al., 1986; Murphy and Meehan, 1991; Sedell and Swanson, 1984). 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Buffer-Strip Width (feet)

Angular Canopy Density (percent)

From Steinblum et al. 1984 (A)

From Brazier and Brown 1973 (B)

B

A
D-12

II. Watershed-Scale Effects

Natural Variability

The historic condition of riparian forests in which salmonids evolved and thrived was 

significantly influenced by natural disturbance (fire, insects, disease, windthrow, landslides, and 

floods). A high degree of spatial and temporal variability was present at both small and large 

scales. Fire disturbance has received increased attention in recent years, perhaps because it is 

arguably the disturbance-type that has been most influenced by human activities across the 

landscape (Agee, 1998). More recently, increased attention has been given to the effects of 

landslides and flooding in how they influence the physical and biological characteristics of 

riparian areas and associated aquatic species.

The spruce and Douglas fir forests of the Oregon Coastal Range and Cascade Range were 

historically subjected to infrequent (every 175-250 years), high-intensity fires, while the pine 

forests of eastern Oregon experience frequent (every 10-30 years) low-intensity fires. Portions of 

both eastern and western Oregon also experience a moderate-intensity fire regime, where semifrequent (every 30-175 years) fires would result in a patchwork of stands of various ages (Agee 

1998). High intensity fires tend to ―reset‖ the landscape by killing all live vegetation resulting in 

even-aged forests. Low intensity fires tend to burn mostly understory vegetation leaving the 

larger trees unimpacted, resulting in a forest of widely spaced larger trees with a relatively open 

understory (Agee, 1998). 

Decades of fire suppression has increased the frequency and intensity of insect and disease 

disturbance in eastern Oregon, where relatively dense stands of pine and mixed conifer forests 

have become stressed due to increased competition for limited resources. As a result, these 

forests can be more susceptible to high-severity fire and insect and disease outbreaks than was 

historically the case. For low-severity fire regimes, Agee (1998) suggests that a combination of 

underburning and thinning to modify the fuel loads in the system can result in a forest that more 

closely resembles a natural pattern. In areas where moderate-severity fire regimes were 

historically present, harvesting techniques that utilize partial cuts, small patch cuts with snag 

retention, and a system of reserves will result in a forest structure that more closely resembles the 

historic pattern than either even-aged management or a no-harvest reserve system that does not 

recognize natural disturbance processes (Agee, 1998). Management options that influence fire 

behavior in forests adapted to high-severity fire regimes are relatively limited. Severe weather 

appears to be the controlling factor in these forest-types, thus large stand-replacement fires are 

probably going to occur regardless of the fire suppression activities or harvesting methods that 

are employed (Agee, 1998). 

An investigation of forest succession following a high intensity fire is presented by Tappeiner et 

al. (1997). In this study, the diameters and diameter growth rates for the first 100 years of oldgrowth stands on the Oregon Coast were compared to 50-70 year-old second-growth stands. It 

was observed that the regeneration of old-growth forests do not necessarily follow the scenario of 

a stand replacement disturbance followed by an even-aged forest. The ten old-growth study sites 
D-13

that were examined showed that the development of these forests occurred over a prolonged 

period where the trees grew at a low density with little self-thinning. It is suggested that where 

the management objective is to speed development of old-growth characteristics, thinning may 

be needed in dense young stands. As few as 40-49 trees per acre were observed in the early 

stages of some old-growth stands that were examined:

Density of young-growth stands in this study was greater than that of old stands 

[when the stand was younger than 100 years], and diameter growth rates of 

individual trees were much less, even in the thinned stands. Our stand simulations

also indicated that young stands with even as few as 250 trees/ha [about 100 

trees/ac] will develop along a different pathway than the old stands. (Tappeiner et 

al., 1997)

Riparian functions and the maintenance of riparian forests have important implications in terms 

of disturbance regimes and watershed-scale effects. Riparian forests can provide important 

functions that include the delivery of large wood to streams, corridors for wildlife, and stream 

temperature protection for threatened and endangered fish. There is evidence, however, that 

riparian areas maintained as reserves where management is excluded can become corridors for 

severe wildfire (Segura and Snook, 1992, in Agee, 1998). However, there is limited data 

available to evaluate the susceptibility of different riparian community types to severe fire (Agee, 

1998). Disturbance plays an important role in the ecology of both upland and riparian forests. 

Management prescriptions that do not consider the role of disturbance and historical patterns of 

forest succession may result in riparian forests that differ significantly from what occurred in the 

past. 

Forest Management

Large Wood

Watershed-scale effects can be an issue for small Type N streams and on steep hillslopes with the 

potential to deliver LW via debris flows and landslides. Currently, the rules do not address the 

issue of potential LW inputs from upslope sources (i.e. source areas that do not require riparian 

buffers). In watersheds where periodic debris flows and landslides are an important part of the 

natural disturbance regime, the possibility exists for a significant percentage of these source areas 

to be harvested and potential LW inputs removed. Therefore, different harvesting patterns will 

result in different watershed-scale effects in terms of potential upslope sources of LW. For those 

forestlands that are not characterized by steep slopes, where small Type N streams do not have 

the potential to deliver LW to Type F streams, watershed-scale effects due to habitat foregone by 

the lack of recruitment of LW are unlikely to occur.

The hardwood conversion option also presents an opportunity for watershed-scale effects to be 

an issue. If within a certain watershed there are a significant number of operations that take 

advantage of this option, while in another watershed this option is generally not being used, a 

watershed-scale effect could be observed as a result of the hardwood conversions. The effect 

would likely be a short-term loss in potential LW and possible temperature effects, in return for 
D-14

an anticipated long-term gain once conifers can be re-established. It should be noted that the 

potential LW lost is of nondurable hardwoods that persist for a significantly shorter period of 

time in the channel as compared to the conifers. Currently, however, landowners are rarely 

exercising this option. 

Stream Temperature

Under  ̳natural‘ conditions, summertime stream temperatures generally tend to increase in a 

downstream direction and approach the mean basin air temperature at some distance from the 

watershed divide.

Because stream discharge (and water depth) increases in a downstream direction, 

the capability of incoming solar radiation to increase summertime stream 

temperatures also tends to diminish downstream. Further, as small shaded 

streams combine to form larger streams with intermediate levels of shading, and 

these in turn combine to form relatively wide and mostly unshaded rivers, the 

relative importance of stream-adjacent vegetation for providing shade becomes a 

less significant component of a stream‘s energy balance. . . . [T]he harvesting of 

streamside vegetation and its ability to increase summertime stream temperatures 

is generally most critical for small- to intermediate-sized (perhaps 3rd to 4th-order) 

streams (Sullivan and Adams, 1990; in Beschta et al., 1995).

The potential for watershed-scale effects to occur depends on the combination of the degree of 

impacts from harvesting and the size of the stream that is impacted. Caldwell et al. (1991) 

concluded that there is a 150-meter ―zone of concern‖ (about 500 feet) downstream of the 

smallest perennial streams where there is a potential for a cumulative effect to occur. As long as 

there is at least a 150-meter shaded reach between these streams where the canopy has been 

removed, there is a minimal risk of a cumulative downstream temperature impact (Caldwell et 

al., 1991). Temperature increases that result from harvesting near larger streams generally 

require a longer distance under canopy to return the ―equilibrium temperature‖, but this will 

depend on the magnitude of the increase and the thermal dynamics of the downstream reach (e.g., 

existing shade, channel morphology, groundwater inflows, hyporheic zones). 

Beschta et al. (1995) offers another perspective on the relevance of the tendency for temperatures 

to increase in the downstream direction and potential harvesting effects.

The tendency for water temperatures to increase in a downstream direction may 

seemingly imply that the effects of timber harvest are not of significance in 

relation to the naturally occurring downstream increases, or that temperature 

increases can be tolerated in smaller tributaries because they are less likely to 

contain fish. However, if the temperatures in headwater streams were to be 

elevated by reductions in riparian shading, warmer waters may occur along 

intermediate sized reaches of a stream network and perhaps shift the preferred 

habitat of thermally sensitive fish and other aquatic species towards the steeper 

tributaries.
D-15

While there is merit to this hypothesis, there are currently no studies that have been effective in 

either confirming or disproving it. The ODF monitoring program has been collecting stream 

temperature data at both the reach and basin scale over the past few years that may help evaluate 

this hypothesis. Final results from data collected for a number of stream temperature-related 

projects that will help address the adequacy of the rules in terms of meeting water quality 

standards will be available by 2001.

Other Land Uses

Figure 3 is a flow chart illustrating the many pathways by which all land uses can influence 

stream temperature changes and what processes need to be considered. Urban and agricultural 

lands generally do not require riparian buffers of the type that are prescribed for forestlands under 

the current water protection rules. Riparian prescriptions on urban lands vary throughout the 

state, depending on city and county development practices. Under SB1010 that was passed in 

1993, the Oregon Department of Agriculture requires that landowners‘ activities be conducted in 

a manner that will adequately address water quality limiting factors. However, no guidance or 

BMPs are prescribed by the ODA that instructs the landowner on how to comply. 

Figure 3: Pathways and processes by which different land uses influence stream water temperatures (adapted from 

Ziemer 1998).

Removal of LW from the stream is sometimes required for public safety and infrastructure 

considerations. Large wood originating from upland forests can work its way downstream, 

collecting against bridges and other stream crossing structures. When LW becomes backed up 

Erosion change Flow changes

Altered riparian 

vegetation

Aggradation 

and scour

Urbanization Agriculture Roads Grazing Timber 

Harvest

Vegetation 

change

Dams

Water width/ 

Water depth change

temperature 

change
D-16

behind these structures, it can cause damage associated with lowland flooding in urban, 

agricultural, and residential areas. The structural integrity of the crossing can also be at risk 

when LW is held back during high water. There is a potential issue here about how upstream 

activities in forestlands may affect downstream landowners. Where LW and migrating organic 

dams move downstream into agricultural and urban environments, there can be a conflict 

between what might be good for fish versus what might have negative impacts upon landowners 

and the general public.

Where the effective shade is reduced for streams adjacent to other land uses, the potential 

watershed-scale effects are essentially the same as what would occur on forestlands. Where there 

are combined land uses, such as grazing and timber harvesting in areas of eastern Oregon, it can 

be difficult to sort out the relative contributions to stream temperature effects. 

III. Objectives of the Current Measures and Rules

Oregon Plan Objectives

Appendix B contains the interim objectives under the Oregon Plan for ―instream roughness‖ 

(large wood) and temperature (―temperature biological objectives‖). There are no explicit 

interim objectives for streambank stability (root strength), litterfall, microclimate, sediment 

filtration, and floodplain processes. 

FPA Objectives

Statutes

ORS 527.710 

(8) If based upon the analysis required in section 15 (2)(f), chapter 919, Oregon Laws 1991, and 

as the results become available, the board determines that additional rules are necessary to 

protect forest resources pursuant to ORS 527.630, the board shall adopt forest practice rules 

that reduce to the degree practicable the adverse impacts of cumulative effects of forest 

practices on air and water quality, soil productivity, fish and wildlife resources and 

watersheds. Such rules shall include a process for determining areas where adverse impacts 

from cumulative effects have occurred or are likely to occur, and may require that a written 

plan be submitted for harvests in such areas.

ORS 527.765 Best management practices to maintain water quality. 

(1) The State Board of Forestry shall establish best management practices and other rules 

applying to forest practices as necessary to insure that to the maximum extent practicable 

nonpoint source discharges of pollutants resulting from forest operations on forestlands do 

not impair the achievement and maintenance of water quality standards established by the 

Environmental Quality Commission for the waters of the state. Such best management 

practices shall consist of forest practices rules adopted to prevent or reduce pollution of 
D-17

waters of the state. Factors to be considered by the board in establishing best management 

practices shall include, where applicable, but not be limited to:

(a) Beneficial uses of waters potentially impacted;

(b) The effects of past forest practices on beneficial uses of water;

(c) Appropriate practices employed by other forest managers;

(d) Technical, economic and institutional feasibility; and

(e) Natural variations in geomorphology and hydrology.

(2) The board shall consult with the Environmental Quality Commission in adoption and review 

of best management practices and other rules to address nonpoint source discharges of 

pollutants resulting from forest operations on forestlands.

ORS 527.770 Good faith compliance with best management practices not violation of water 

quality standards; subsequent enforcement of standards.

A forest operator conducting, or in good faith proposing to conduct, operations in accordance 

with best management practices currently in effect shall not be considered in violation of any 

water quality standards. When the State Board of Forestry adopts new best management 

practices and other rules applying to forest operations, such rules shall apply to all current or 

proposed forest operations upon their effective dates. 

Administrative Rules

OAR 629-635-100 - Water Protection Rules; Purpose and Goals

(3) The purpose of the water protection rules is to protect, maintain and, where appropriate, 

improve the functions and values of streams, lakes, wetlands, and riparian management areas. 

These functions and values include water quality, hydrologic functions, the growing and 

harvesting of trees, and fish and wildlife resources.

(4) The water protection rules include general vegetation retention prescriptions for streams, 

lakes and wetlands that apply where current vegetation conditions within the riparian 

management area have or are likely to develop characteristics of mature forest stands in a 

"timely manner." Landowners are encouraged to manage stands within riparian management 

areas in order to grow trees in excess of what must be retained so that the excess may be 

harvested.

(5) The water protection rules also include alternative vegetation retention prescriptions for 

streams to allow incentives for operators to actively manage vegetation where existing 

vegetation conditions are not likely to develop characteristics of mature conifer forest stands 

in a "timely manner."

(6) OARs 629-640-400 and 629-645-020 allow an operator to propose site-specific prescriptions 

for sites where specific evaluation of vegetation within a riparian management area and/or the 

condition of the water of the state is used to identify the appropriate practices for achieving 

the vegetation and protection goals.

(7) The overall goal of the water protection rules is to provide resource protection during 

operations adjacent to and within streams, lakes, wetlands and riparian management areas so 

that, while continuing to grow and harvest trees, the protection goals for fish, wildlife, and 

water quality are met.
D-18

(a) The protection goal for water quality (as prescribed in ORS 527.765) is to ensure through 

the described forest practices that, to the maximum extent practicable, non-point source 

discharges of pollutants resulting from forest operations do not impair the achievement 

and maintenance of the water quality standards.

(b) The protection goal for fish is to establish and retain vegetation consistent with the 

vegetation retention objectives described in OAR 629-640-000 (streams), OAR 629-645-

000 (significant wetlands), and OAR 629-650-000 (lakes) that will maintain water quality 

and provide aquatic habitat components and functions such as shade, large woody debris, 

and nutrients.

OAR 629-640-000 - Vegetation Retention Goals for Streams; Desired Future Conditions

(1) The purpose of this rule is to describe how the vegetation retention measures for streams were 

determined, their purpose and how the measures are implemented. The vegetation retention 

requirements for streams described in OAR 629-640-100 through OAR 629-640-400 are 

designed to produced desired future conditions for the wide range of stand types, channel 

conditions, and disturbance regimes that exist throughout forestlands in Oregon.

(2) The desired future condition for streamside areas along fish use streams is to grow and retain 

vegetation so that, over time, average conditions across the landscape become similar to those

of mature streamside stands. Oregon has a tremendous diversity of forest tree species 

growing along waters of the state and the age of mature streamside stands varies by species. 

Mature streamside stands are often dominated by conifer trees. For many conifer stands, 

mature stands occur between 80 and 200 years of stand age. Hardwood stands and some 

conifer stands may become mature at an earlier age. Mature stands provide ample shade over 

the channel, an abundance of large woody debris in the channel, channel-influencing root 

masses along the edge of the high water level, snags, and regular inputs of nutrients through

litter fall.

(3) The rule standards for desired future conditions for fish use streams were developed by 

estimating the conifer basal area for average unmanaged mature streamside stands (at age 

120) for each geographic region. This was done by using normal conifer yield tables for the 

average upland stand in the geographic region, and then adjusting the basal area for the 

effects of riparian influences on stocking, growth and mortality or by using available 

streamside stand data for mature stands.

(4) The desired future condition for streamside areas that do not have fish use is to have 

sufficient streamside vegetation to support the functions and processes that are important to 

downstream fish use waters and domestic water use and to supplement wildlife habitat across 

the landscape. Such functions and processes include: maintenance of cool water temperature 

and other water quality parameters; influences on sediment production and bank stability; 

additions of nutrients and large conifer organic debris; and provision of snags, cover, and 

trees for wildlife.

(5) The rule standards for desired future conditions for streams that do not have fish use were 

developed in a manner similar to fish use streams. In calculating the rule standards, other 
D-19

factors used in developing the desired future condition for large streams without fish use and 

all medium and small streams included the effects of trees regenerated in the riparian 

management area during the next rotation and desired levels of instream large woody debris.

(6) For streamside areas where the native tree community would be conifer-dominated stands, 

mature streamside conditions are achieved by retaining a sufficient amount of conifers next to 

large- and medium-sized fish-use streams at the time of harvest, so that halfway through the 

next rotation or period between harvest entries, the conifer basal area and density is similar to 

mature unmanaged conifer stands. In calculating the rule standards, a rotation age of 50 years 

was assumed for even-aged management and a period between entries of 25 years was 

assumed for uneven-aged management. The long-term maintenance of streamside conifer 

stands is likely to require incentives to landowners to manage streamside areas so that conifer 

reforestation occurs to replace older conifers over time.

(7) Conifer basal area and density targets to produce mature stand conditions over time are 

outlined in the general vegetation retention prescriptions. In order to ensure compliance with 

state water quality standards, these rules include requirements to retain all trees within 20 feet 

and understory vegetation within 10 feet of the high water level of specified channels to 

provide shade.

(8) For streamside areas where the native tree community would be hardwood dominated stands, 

mature streamside conditions are achieved by retaining sufficient hardwood trees. As early 

successional species, the long-term maintenance of hardwood streamside stands will, in some 

cases, require managed harvest using site specific vegetation retention prescriptions so that 

reforestation occurs to replace older trees. In order to ensure compliance with state water 

quality standards, these rules include requirements in the general vegetation retention 

prescription to retain all trees within 20 feet and understory vegetation within 10 feet of the 

high water level of specified channels to provide shade.

(9) In many cases, the desired future condition for streams can be achieved by applying the 

general vegetation retention prescriptions, as described in OAR 629-640-100 and OAR 629-

640-200. In other cases, the existing streamside vegetation may be incapable of developing 

into the future desired conditions in a "timely manner." In this case, the operator can apply an 

alternative vegetation retention prescription described in OAR 629-640-300 or develop a site 

specific vegetation retention prescription described in OAR 629-640-400. For the purposes of 

the water protection rules, "in a timely manner" means that the trees within the riparian 

management area will meet or exceed the applicable basal area target or vegetation retention 

goal during the period of the next harvest entry that would be normal for the site. This will be 

50 years for many sites.

(10) Where the native tree community would be conifer dominant stands, but due to historical 

events the stand has become dominated by hardwoods, in particular, red alder, disturbance 

is allowed to produce conditions suitable for the re-establishment of conifer. In this and 

other situations where the existing streamside vegetation is incapable of developing 

characteristics of a mature streamside stand in a "timely manner," the desired action is to 
D-20

manipulate the streamside area and woody debris levels at the time of harvest (through an 

alternative vegetation retention prescription or site specific vegetation retention 

prescription) to attain such characteristics more quickly.

Additional administrative rules are listed in Appendix D. 

IV. Description of the Measures and Rules

Oregon Plan Measures

The Oregon Plan contains several voluntary measures to supplement the conifer stocking within 

riparian areas and the recovery rate for LW to streams. This is accomplished during harvest 

operations by (1) placing appropriate-sized LW within streams that meet parameters of gradient, 

width, and existing wood in the channel; and (2) relocating in-unit leave trees in priority areas5to 

maximize their benefit to salmonids while recognizing operational constraints, other wildlife 

needs, and specific landowner concerns.

The measures include the following:

ODF 8S: Riparian Conifer Restoration

Forest practice rules have been developed to allow and provide incentives for the 

restoration of conifer forests along hardwood-dominated RMAs where conifers 

historically were present. This process enables sites capable of growing conifers to 

contribute conifer Large Wood Debris (LWD) in a timelier manner. This process will be 

modified to require an additional review process before the implementation of conifer 

restoration within core areas.

ODF 19S: Additional Conifer Retention along Fish Bearing Streams in Core Areas

This measure retains more conifers in RMAs by limiting harvest activities to 25 percent 

of the conifer basal area above the standard target. This measure is only applied to RMAs 

containing a conifer basal area that is greater than the standard target.

ODF 20S: Limited RMA for Small Type N Streams in Core Areas

This measure provides limited 20-foot RMAs along all perennial or intermittent small 

Type N streams for the purpose of retaining snags and downed wood.

ODF 21S: Active Placement of LW during Forest Operations

This measure provides a more aggressive and comprehensive program for placing LW in 

streams currently deficient of LW. Placement of LW is accomplished following existing 

ODF/ODFW placement guidelines and determining the need for LW placement is based 

upon a site-specific stream survey.

 

5 The Executive Order replaced the concept of ―core areas‖ with ―priority areas‖. See (1)(f) of the Executive Order 

(p.5).
D-21

ODF 22S: 25 Percent In-unit Leave Tree Placement and Additional Voluntary Retention

This measure has one nonvoluntary component and two voluntary components:

1) The State Forester, under statutory authority, will direct operators to place 25 percent 

of in-unit leave trees in or adjacent to riparian management areas on Type F and D 

streams.

2) The operator voluntarily locates the additional 75 percent in-unit leave trees along 

Type N, D or F streams, and

3) The State Forester requests the conifer component be increased from 50 percent to 

75 percent.

ODF 61S: Analysis of "Rack" Concept for Debris Flows

OFIC members will conduct surveys to determine the feasibility and value of retaining 

trees along small type N streams with a high probability of debris flow in a "rack" just 

above the confluence with a Type F stream. The rack would extend from the RMA along 

the Type F stream up the Type N stream some distance for the purpose of retaining trees 

that have a high likelihood of delivery to the Type F stream. 

ODF 62S: Voluntary No-Harvest Riparian Management Areas

Establishes a system to report and track, on a site-specific basis, when landowners 

voluntarily take the opportunity to retain no-harvest RMAs.

DEQ measures include the following:

DEQ2S - Development of 303(D) List and Identification of Priorities for Total Maximum Daily 

Loads (TMDL) Development

Summary of Measure: Under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, Department of 

Environmental Quality (DEQ) recently revised its list of water quality limited 

waterbodies and has developed a priority list for TMDL development over the next 

two years. DEQ prioritized its 1994/96 list of water quality limited waters to address 

limiting factors for salmonid recovery. The presence of threatened or endangered 

species within a given watershed is a criterion for Priority 1 ranking of waterbodies 

for TMDL action. DEQ will update the 303(d) list and TMDL priority list again in 

April 1998 and every two years thereafter (or at an alternative frequency identified by 

EPA). The updates to the list include an analysis of all water quality data available to 

the Department, and over time should provide a comprehensive list of all watersheds 

in Oregon where water quality standards are not being met.

Goal: To have all waters of the state achieve water quality standards within a 

reasonable time frame.

Objective: Identify waters that do not meet water quality standards, prioritize and 

target waterbodies and address water quality concerns through the development and 

implementation of Total Maximum Daily Loads and Management Plans.
D-22

DEQ6S - Implement Antidegradation Water Quality Standard

Summary of Measure: DEQ will implement its antidegradation water quality standard 

in steelhead ESUs to address degradation of water quality that is currently cleaner 

than parameter specific water quality standards would allow. DEQ will ensure that 

point source discharges are subjected to antidegradation review as permits are issued 

for new or increased discharges, and will work with ODF, ODA and other state and 

federal natural resource agencies to ensure the antidegradation standard is 

implemented for nonpoint sources.

Goal: Ensure that water quality and beneficial uses are protected on agricultural lands 

and forestlands, and that high-quality waters are protected from degradation.

Objective: The development of water quality management plans for the steelhead 

ESUs that meet the requirements of the Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program 

and the State‘s water quality antidegradation policy. DEQ‘s objective is to provide 

ODA, ODF, USFS, BLM and local management agencies the technical assistance 

they need to successfully complete water quality management plans and to ensure that 

these plans contain the appropriate water quality objectives and are likely to achieve 

those objectives.

The ODF voluntary management measures are implemented within priority areas. Several of the 

measures utilize in-unit leave trees and are applied in a ―menu‖ approach to the extent that inunit leave trees are available to maximize their value to the restoration of salmonid habitat. The 

choice of menu measures is at the discretion of the landowner, but one or more of the measures is 

selected.

The measures can be described as either active restoration measures, or passive restoration 

measures that provide long-term LW recruitment. Voluntary measures ODF 8S and 21S are 

active restoration activities. ODF 8S restores hardwood-dominated riparian areas back to a 

conifer-dominated condition, where appropriate, using a site-specific plan. Site-specific plans 

require additional consultation with the ODFW to minimize potential damage to the resource. 

They often result in conditions that are more protective of the resources than would occur 

without the site-specific plan. ODF 21S addresses LW placement if stream surveys determine 

there is a need. Measures ODF 19S, 20S, 22S, and 62S provide future LW recruitment through 

additional riparian protection. This additional protection is accomplished by retaining in-unit 

leave trees, snags, and downed wood within and along RMAs, and by changing the ratio of inunit leave trees to 75 percent conifer.

The following application priority has been developed for harvest units containing more than one 

stream type. The list establishes the general priority for placement of in-unit leave trees.

1) Small and medium Type F streams.

2) Nonfish bearing streams (Type D or Type N), especially small low-order headwater 

stream channels, that may affect downstream water temperatures and the supply of large 

wood in priority area streams.
D-23

3) Streams identified as having a water temperature problem in the DEQ 303(d) list of water 

quality limited waterbodies, or as evidenced by other available water temperature data; 

especially reaches where the additional trees would increase the level of aquatic shade.

4) Potentially unstable slopes where slope failure could deliver large wood.

5) Large Type F streams, especially where low gradient, wide floodplains exist with 

multiple, braided, meandering channels.

6) Significant wetlands and stream-associated wetlands, especially estuaries and beaver 

pond complexes, associated with a salmon core area stream.

FPA Standards and Rules

The Water Protection Rules identify seven geographic regions and distinguishes among streams, 

lakes, and wetlands. The rules further distinguish each by size and type. Stream size is 

distinguished as small, medium, or large, based on average annual flow. Stream type is 

distinguished as fish use, domestic use, or neither. Table 2 lists the required RMA widths based 

on stream size and type. 

Table 2. Riparian Management Area widths for streams of various sizes and beneficial uses (OAR 629-635-310).

Type F Type D Type N

LARGE 100 feet 70 feet 70 feet

MEDIUM 70 feet 50 feet 50 feet

SMALL 50 feet 20 feet Apply specified water quality protection 

measures, and see OAR 629-640-200

Generally, no tree harvesting is allowed within 20 feet of all fish bearing, all domestic-use, and 

all other medium and large streams unless stand restoration is needed. In addition, all snags and 

downed wood must be retained in every riparian management area. Provisions governing 

vegetation retention are designed to encourage conifer restoration on riparian forestland that is 

not currently in the desired conifer condition. Future supplies of conifer on these sites are 

deemed desirable to support stream functions and to provide fish and wildlife habitat. The rules 

provide incentives for landowners to place large wood in streams to immediately enhance fish 

habitat. Other alternatives are provided to address site-specific conditions and large-scale 

catastrophic events. 

The goal for managing riparian forests along fish-use streams is to grow and retain vegetation so 

that, over time, average conditions across the riparian landscape become similar to those of 

mature, unmanaged riparian stands. This goal is based on the following considerations 

(Lorensen et al., 1994):

(1) Mature riparian stands can supply large, persistent woody debris necessary to maintain 

adequate fish habitat. A shortage of LW currently exists in streams on nonfederal 

forestlands due to historic practices and a wide distribution of young, second-growth 

forests. For most streams, mature riparian stands are able to provide more of the 

functions and inputs of LW than are provided by young second-growth trees. 
D-24

(2) Historically, riparian forests were periodically disturbed by wildfire, windstorms, 

floods, and disease. These forests were also impacted by wildlife such as beaver, deer, 

and elk. These disturbances maintained a forest landscape comprised of riparian stands 

of all ages ranging from early successional to old-growth. At any given time, however, it 

is likely that a significant proportion of the riparian areas supported forests of mature age 

classes. This distribution of mature riparian forests supported a supply of large, persistent 

woody debris that was important in maintaining quality fish habitat.

The overall goals of the riparian vegetation retention rules along Type N and Type D streams are 

the following: 

Grow and retain vegetation sufficient to support the functions and processes that are 

important to downstream waters that have fish; 

Maintain the quality of domestic water; and 

Supplement wildlife habitat across the landscape.

These streams have reduced buffer widths and reduced basal area retention requirements as 

compared to similar sized Type F streams. In the design of the rules, this was judged appropriate 

based on a few assumptions. First, it was assumed that the amount of large wood entering Type 

N and D channels over time was not as important for maintaining fish populations in downstream 

reaches. And second, it was assumed that the future stand could provide some level of 

―functional‖ wood input over time to support nutrient and sediment storage processes. The 

validity of these assumptions needs to be evaluated over time through monitoring.

With the exception of small Type D and N streams, basal area targets are established and used for

any type of management within the RMA6. These targets were determined based on the data that 

was available at the time, with the expectation that these targets could be achieved on the ground. 

There is also a minimum tree number requirement of 40 trees per 1000 feet along large Type F 

streams, and 30 trees per 1000 feet along medium Type F streams7. The specific levels of LW 

inputs that the rules are designed to achieve vary by stream size and type. Given the potential 

LW that is functional for a given stream, a combination of basal area targets, minimum tree 

retention, buffer widths, and future regenerated stands and ingrowth are used to achieve the 

appropriate LW inputs for a given stream. 

The expectation is that the 20-foot no-harvest area on all but small Type N streams, combined 

with the shade provided by trees left outside of the first 20 feet for basal area requirements when 

an RMA is managed to the standard target, will be sufficient towards maintaining stream 

temperatures consistent with  ̳natural‘ conditions. In the design of the Water Protection Rules, 

shade data was gathered for 40 small nonfish bearing streams to determine the shade recovery 

rates after harvesting. One to two years after harvest, 55 percent of these streams were at or 

above pre-harvest shade levels due to understory vegetation regrowth. Most of these streams had 

 

6

Small Type D streams require a 20-foot no-harvest RMA. Type N streams do not require an RMA.

7 The leave tree requirements for Type D and N streams are 30 live conifers per 1000 feet for large streams and 10 

for medium streams.
D-25

a bankfull width averaging less than six feet, and most shade was provided by shrubs and grasses 

within 10 feet of the bank. Since 1991, there has also been a 120-acre limit on a single clearcut 

size, which is assumed to result in a scattering of harvested area across a watershed over time. In 

the development of the rules, it was assumed that this, combined with the relative rapid shade 

recovery along smaller nonfish bearing streams, would be adequate in protecting stream 

temperatures and reduce possible cumulative effects. The monitoring program is collecting data 

to test these assumptions, evaluate the effectiveness of the rules, and evaluate whether or not 

water quality standards for temperature are being achieved. 

The ODF is also the designated management agency (DMA) for water quality management on 

nonfederal forestlands. To improve the coordination between the ODF and the DEQ, the two 

agencies signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) in June of 1998. The purpose of the 

MOU is to guide coordination between the ODF and DEQ regarding water quality limited 

streams on the 303d list. An evaluation of rule adequacy will be conducted (also referred to as a 

―sufficiency analysis‖) through a water quality parameter-by-parameter analysis. This statewide 

demonstration of forest practices rule effectiveness in the protection of water quality will address 

the following specific parameters and will be conducted in the following order:

1) Temperature 

2) Sediment and turbidity 

3) Aquatic habitat modification 

4) Bio-criteria 

5) Other parameters

By statute, forest operators conducting operations in accordance with the ODF best management 

practices (BMPs) are considered to be in compliance with Oregon‘s water quality standards 

Also, the 1994 Water Protection Rules were adopted with the approval of the Environmental 

Quality Commission as meeting water quality standards. However, there are several provisions 

within the Forest Practices Act and rules that call for rule re-evaluation as needed at the state, 

regional, and watershed scale. The statewide sufficiency analysis initiated by the MOU is such a 

re-evaluation process. 

Currently, the two agencies are working cooperatively in the continued development and 

refinement of the stream temperature simulation model developed by the DEQ. This model will 

eventually be used to calculate TMDL values for all 303d listed streams. In addition, these 

analyses will address attainment of the state anti-degradation policy. These sufficiency analyses 

will be reviewed by peers and other interested parties prior to the final release. They will also be 

designed to provide background information and techniques for watershed-based assessments of 

BMP effectiveness and water quality assessments for watershed with forest and mixed land uses. 

V. Evaluation of the Measures and Rules

Voluntary Measures
D-26

Evaluation of the Oregon Plan voluntary measures is limited since the Plan has only been in 

effect for a short while. It is very difficult to assess the effectiveness of measures that have not 

yet been given a chance to work. An evaluation at this point would be little more than 

speculation and opinion. Therefore, the Oregon Plan measures must be examined in light of 

what they attempt to achieve, and some assessment of risk must be determined it terms of how 

likely the current measures are to achieve the stated goals. It is likely that the Oregon Plan 

measures will result in additional LW primarily in priority areas, and also to some degree in other 

areas. It is uncertain as to exactly how much LW will be added under these measures. This must 

be evaluated through implementation and effectiveness monitoring over time. 

The Oregon Plan Watershed Restoration Inventory (1998) does provide some statistics on LW 

placement activities that occurred in 1996-97. Of the total instream restoration activities 

reported, 45 percent (n=206) of them were LW placement activities. Forty-four percent of these 

LW placement activities included placing logs into structures with boulders and rootwads, while 

the other 56 percent were the placement of LW alone. 

The bulk of the voluntary measures that directly address stream temperature issues are 

implemented by the DEQ. However, the ODF does have measures ODF 8S, ODF 19S, and 20S 

that are indirectly related to the stream temperature issue. The Oregon Plan Watershed 

Restoration Inventory (1998) reports that there were 204 riparian restoration projects completed 

under measures ODF 19S, 20S, and 22S that treated in excess of 73 miles of stream channel. It 

was noted that this is an underestimation of total stream miles treated because, depending on the 

activity, seven percent to 20 percent of the projects did not report the extent of the riparian 

corridor treated.

The following tasks have been completed under DEQ2S (Development of 303(D) List and 

Identification of Priorities for TMDL Development):

Task 1: Maintain and update the 303(d) list of waters that do not meet state water 

quality standards by April 1, 1998, and every two years thereafter.

Deliverables: Updated list for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency approval with a 

focus on priority coastal basins. The 1998 303(d) list resulted in a 13 percent increase 

of listed temperature water quality limited stream miles (entire State) (1533 miles 

added for a total of 12,102 miles). This results in a 26 percent increase of listed 

stream segments (entire state) between data evaluated in 1994/1996 compared to data 

evaluated in 1998 (253 stream segments added for a total of 940 segments). More 

than one quarter of those stream miles listed for temperature occurred on private 

forestlands.

Task 2: Develop process for prioritizing and targeting waterbodies on the 303(d) list.

Deliverables: Document describing a process to prioritize and target waterbodies on 

the 303(d) list for TMDL development.

Task 3: Prioritize the list and target water bodies for development of TMDLs.

Deliverables: Prioritized waterbodies with a list of targeted waters for which TMDLs 

will be developed prior to the next listing cycle (April 2000). The following tasks 
D-27

under DEQ6S (Implement Antidegradation Water Quality Standard) are ongoing and 

progress is being made in each area. ODF and DEQ are fully engaged in this process.

Task 4: Provide technical assistance to ODF in monitoring, evaluation and 

development of forest practices rules to protect water quality and beneficial uses and 

to implement antidegradation policies.

Deliverables: Technical assistance provided to ODF.

Task 5: Provide financial assistance to ODF for monitoring and evaluation of forest 

practices effectiveness to protect water quality.

Deliverables: Final reports for two Section 319 funded projects: 1) the evaluation of 

riparian buffer effectiveness for stream temperature protection; and 2) forest road best 

management plans for erosion control.

Task 6: Provide technical assistance to ODF in the development of water quality 

management plans.

Deliverables: Technical assistance provided to ODF.

Current Rules

Large Wood

Since the Water Protection Rules were enacted in 1994, there has not been enough time to 

observe significant changes in riparian characteristics on the ground. Given this fact, how can 

we determine if under these rules LW levels are in fact increasing towards what would exist 

under mature conifer forests? Initial monitoring results can help evaluate the validity of some of 

the assumptions built into the rules, and in turn allow us to evaluate the potential effectiveness of 

the current rules given the adequacy of these assumptions.

Under the current water protection rules, are the RMAs ―likely to develop characteristics of 

mature forest stands in a timely manner?" Two issues must be addressed in answering this 

question. The first has to do with the adequacy of the RMA widths, and the second with the 

adequacy of the RMA management prescriptions. 

Historically, periodic disturbance occurred across the forested landscape. While it is likely that 

many riparian areas had mature or old-growth conifer stands, there were other recently disturbed 

areas with very young stands, grass, or brush. A 100-foot (30-meter) buffer width will generally 

capture 70-90 percent of the LW input potential from riparian forests (this does not consider 

upslope sources) (Bilby and Bisson, 1998). While this represents an average value at a landscape 

level, it should be noted that different size streams provide different degrees of riparian 

functions. While the largest streams, on the one hand, have the capacity to move very large 

pieces of large wood, the smallest streams do not normally move the larger wood during high 

flows. They may be dominantly used by resident fish species, in which relatively small wood 

normally functions in step-pool formation. In considering on-site effects of LW, smaller trees 

can provide both stable and functional-size wood for small streams. For example, a small stream 

with an active channel width of 2 or 3 feet will interact well with a 20- or 30-foot long piece of 

wood that is 6 to 10 inches in diameter. 
D-28

Historically, however, large diameter trees were present along all sizes of streams to a greater or 

lesser degree. Large diameter trees, therefore, have been a component of the wood supply and 

aquatic structure in small streams. These larger pieces of wood, while being relatively immobile 

as compared to smaller LW, provide for some functions that may not be supported by small 

diameter wood. These functions include storing large volumes of sediment and mitigating steep 

channel gradients by creating large steps in the channel profile (Montgomery et al., 1996). 

During high flow events the larger pieces are also more stable than the smaller pieces. If the 

stream is in an area where debris flows occur, there is the potential for larger pieces to be 

transported some distance downstream from where the wood was first deposited (Robison et al. 

1999). 

During a recent riparian aquatic habitat workshop, a number of studies were referenced that 

examined buffer width versus potential LW inputs. In general, the findings show that nearly all 

of the potential LW from stream-adjacent sources originates from within 60 to 130 feet of the 

stream (see Appendix A). The law of diminishing returns dictates that the majority of potential 

LW comes from relatively close to the stream, and the potential inputs rapidly diminish at 

distances beyond 60 to 130 feet. Close to 100 percent of the potential LW originates from within 

this distance from the stream. To achieve the entire 100 percent of potential LW, the buffer 

would need to extend an additional 100-150 feet, or to about one site-potential tree height.

The Water Protection Rules require an RMA between 50 to 100 feet on all streams except small, 

Type D and N. Small Type D streams require a 20-foot RMA. Small Type N streams do not 

have an RMA (they do require the protection of the bed and banks and water quality). The inner 

20-foot RMA is a no-harvest zone. Harvesting may be allowed within that portion of the RMA 

outside of the no-harvest zone depending on the existing basal area. 

For riparian areas managed to achieve mature forest conditions (Type F streams), a 50- to 

100-foot RMA is applied. Within the RMA, trees must be maintained with conifer basal area 

adequate to achieve mature forest conditions mid-way through the next rotation (in 25 years). 

This range of RMA widths is believed to supply between approximately 65 percent and 

95 percent of the potential conifer LW of a mature forest, assuming that these zones will contain 

conifer stocking of a mature forest (McDade et al., 1990). There is a reasonable probability that 

for those streams where 50- to 100-foot RMAs of mature conifer forests are maintained, the 

potential LW supply from adjacent riparian stands will be close to what would exist under mature

forest conditions. This is not the case for LW delivery from small Type D and N streams where 

RMAs are 20 feet or less. 

Murphy (1995) presents an analysis of the effectiveness of current forest practice rules in a 

number of western states in protecting and restoring riparian aquatic habitat. Murphy performs 

two analyses to quantitatively evaluate and rank LW input protection among different states. 

Based on the RMA width alone (and assuming an unharvested, fully stocked mature conifer 

forest within the buffer), Murphy assigns Oregon an initial 92 percent potential LW delivery 

score for large Type F streams in the Oregon Coast Range. Though not stated by Murphy, the 

same analysis for other size streams would result in estimates of potential LW delivery of 
D-29

approximately 80 percent for medium and 70 percent for small fish bearing streams. These 

estimates were based on the Oregon RMA widths and the McDade et al. (1990) study of LW 

delivery. In addressing the adequacy of the Oregon stream rules, Murphy states the following:

―Oregon's rules are based on the expectation that basal area will increase by 

59 percent within 25 years, thereby achieving the level of LW sources in a mature 

Douglas-fir streamside forest [at mid-rotation of the second rotation over the 

entire watershed/landscape]. Assuming a similar growth rate (59 percent per 0.5 

rotation period) in the other states, the resulting LW sources at mid-rotation [from 

adjacent riparian stands only along large Type F streams] would exceed 

90 percent of the level in mature forests in Alaska and Oregon, but would still be 

far below that level in California and Washington.‖

Murphy (1995) further estimated potential LW sources (conifer volume) present immediately 

after timber harvest, assuming the retention of the minimum basal area only, pursuant to the 

forest practices requirements of the different western states. Based upon his analysis, Murphy 

estimated that approximately 58 percent of potential conifer LW sources of mature forest stands 

would be present on large Type F streams in the Oregon Coast Range following timber harvest. 

Though not completed by Murphy, expanding the analysis procedure to Medium and Small 

Type F streams in this region results in estimates of approximately 38 percent and 15 percent 

potential conifer LW sources after harvest in medium and small stream RMAs, respectively 

(Table 3). Where stream enhancement activities and harvest to the ―active management target‖ 

occurs, the potential conifer LW retained in these RMAs immediately following harvest is less. 

Since the publishing of Murphy (1995), Murphy has corrected calculations of the percent of LW 

sources at mid-rotation in mature forests for Type F streams in Oregon. Instead of the 92 percent 

quoted above, Murphy estimates that the percent of LW sources present along a large Type F 

stream in the Coast Range at mid-rotation to be only 73 percent of the adjusted normal yield of 

mature forest, as assumed under the Water Protection Rules (Mike Murphy, personal 

communication, 1998). 

The second issue that must be addressed is the adequacy of the RMA management prescriptions 

in achieving mature forest conditions. During the development of the 1994 Water Protection 

Rules, it was necessary make a number of assumptions where data was lacking. Through 

effectiveness and implementation monitoring, these assumptions will be tested and revised as 

warranted. Basal area targets were developed for the seven different georegions, and it was 

believed that these targets would be reasonably accurate in describing the potential of a given 

riparian stand in a given georegion. Another assumption was made regarding conifer stocking on 

small, medium, and large streams. This assumption held that hardwood species would dominate 

the first 20 feet of the RMA across the landscape. A third assumption was made regarding 

incentives for landowners to manage within the RMA. This assumption held that the hardwood 

conversion option would provide an adequate incentive for landowners to convert riparian stands 

currently dominated by hardwoods back to conifer where it is highly likely that conifer existed 

historically. It was also believed that the standard and active management basal area targets 

would provide an incentive for landowners to grow trees in excess of what must be retained so 
D-30

that the excess may be harvested. A final assumption was that 25 percent and 75 percent of the 

LW recruitment needs on Medium and Small Type F streams, respectively, would originate from 

ingrowth and newly established stands following harvest. This assumption has not been validated 

by monitoring.

Table 3. Percentage conifer large wood sources8following clearcut harvest to current FPA basal area retention 

standards on Type F streams.

Potential Large Wood Sources After Clearcut Harvest9

(% of mature forest potential)

Georegion Target Large Medium Small

0 yrs +25 

yrs

+50 

yrs

0 yrs +25 

yrs

+50 

yrs

0 yrs +25 

yrs

+50 

yrs

Coast Standard 58 92 126 38 60 82 15 24 33

Active Mgmt. 43 68 93 28 44 60 8 13 18

South Coast Standard 57 91 124 37 59 81 15 24 33

Active Mgmt. 42 67 92 28 45 61 8 13 17

West Cascades Standard 59 94 129 38 60 83 13 21 28

Active Mgmt. 43 68 94 30 48 65 6 10 13

Interior Standard 58 92 126 37 59 81 13 21 28

Active Mgmt. 42 67 92 29 46 63 6 10 13

Siskiyou Standard 58 92 126 37 59 81 16 25 35

Active Mgmt. 45 72 98 30 48 65 8 13 17

8

Potential conifer large wood source estimates follow the analysis procedure described by Murphy (1995).

9 For example, for a clearcut harvest along a large Type F stream in the Coast georegion 58 percent of the total 

potential LW will be left after the RMA is managed to the standard target. At mid rotation (25 years in the future), 

92 percent of the total potential LW will be present (assuming a 59 percent increase in basal area every 25 years). 

At the end of the next rotation (in 50 years), 124 percent of the total potential LW will be present. Medium and 

small streams have lower levels of potential LW due in part to narrower RMAs. This is also due in-part to the fact 

that additional LW from in-growth and adjacent second-growth assumed to contribute 25 percent and 75 percent 

of the total potential along medium and small streams, respectively, is not accounted for here. 

Monitoring data collected by the ODF over the last four years has provided preliminary results 

pertaining to the validity of some of these assumptions. As for the first assumption about basal 

area targets, there are initial indications that the high degree of variability in site potential within 

a given georegion makes the use of an average basal area target problematic. In theory, if 

unrealistic basal area targets are used, a very low productivity site will not allow for active 

management and will thus take longer to realize a  ̳mature stand‘ condition. A high productivity 

site, on the other hand, may never reach its potential (in terms of basal area and growth) because 

using a basal area target that is too low will result in harvesting that reduces the potential below 

what can actually be achieved. 
D-31

It also appears the second assumption regarding hardwood species dominating the first 20 feet of 

the RMA may not be valid, particularly for small, confined channels. A preliminary look at the 

monitoring data indicates that variability is prevalent across all sizes of streams, and that this 

assumption appears to hold true for the large streams. For many of the medium and small 

streams, however, there are indications that a higher percent of conifer trees exists in the first 

20 feet of the RMA than was assumed to be the case. This has resulted in the potential for the 

total basal area requirement to be met in the first 20 feet of the RMA. Where this is, in fact, the 

case, the actual retention will be significantly less than assumed and it may not support the 

expected range of functions (including shade and LW) at the level that was assumed.

Finally, there is a possibility that incentives for landowners to actively manage RMAs to 

―develop characteristics of mature forest stands in a timely manner‖ may by inadequate. About 

60 percent of the 52 RMA sites surveyed by ODF monitoring crews were not harvested down to 

the basal area target (Liz Dent, personal communication, 1999). These findings also show that 

the estimates made by Murphy (1995) discussed above are not valid for 60 percent of the RMAs 

sampled since more basal area was retained than the minimum. It should be noted that data was 

not collected to understand why the landowner stayed out of the entire RMA on these sites. 

Possible reasons include that the stocking levels were too low for harvesting within the RMA to 

be an option, or that the landowner chose not to manage for their own reasons. More specific 

information is needed in order to determine why 60 percent of the sites were not harvested down 

to the minimum basal area target. 

Hairston-Strang and Adams (1997) found similar results in their survey of private landowners 

managing within the RMAs, where only 21 percent actively managed within the RMA to the 

basal area standard targets. The hardwood conversion option also does not appear to be used 

very often by the landowner (Liz Dent, personal communication, 1999). This may be because 

some hardwood-dominated riparian areas do not have enough merchantable timber to make the 

operation profitable (i.e., unfavorable market conditions). Also, landowners might be wary to 

exercise this option out of fear that they may inadvertently commit a violation in trying to 

implement this option. If the lack of management within the majority of RMAs is the result of 

inadequate incentives for landowners, the rules may not be adequate in achieving the goal of 

developing characteristics of mature forest stands in a timely manner. Additional information is 

needed, however, before the reasons for the lack of active management can be determined.

For small Type N streams, vegetation retention is required on a portion of the perennial streams 

in all georegions except the Coast Range and the Cascades. In eastern Oregon, some vegetation 

retention is required on all perennial streams. Where required, vegetation retention on these 

streams consists of a 10-foot understory vegetation and nonmerchantable conifer buffer 

requirement. All other small Type N streams do not require an RMA or vegetation retention 

(outside of what is necessary to protect the bed and banks) under the current rules. In terms of 

structural LW, small Type N streams can only provide for inputs to salmonid habitat if they are 

of the type where debris flows occur that move larger material downslope to Type F streams. 

Under the current rules that do not require an RMA, these streams are not contributing LW inputs

in this manner. The current rules assume that the newly regenerated stand will likely provide 

some level of smaller LW inputs over time, but this assumption has not been validated. The 
D-32

significance of a lack of larger LW in these streams is uncertain, but nonetheless a reduction 

from this potential source does exist. 

Another concern is in regards to the opportunity for LW originating from the RMA to fall into 

the stream. Currently, outside of the first 20 feet of the RMA, a landowner is able to harvest the 

largest trees within an RMA where management is an option, and harvest rotations can be as 

short as 50 years8. This creates the possibility that the LW with the highest potential and value in 

terms of fish habitat might be harvested before enough time has elapsed for it to fall into the 

stream. The current rules provide no assurances that trees retained beyond the first 20 feet of the 

RMA will have the opportunity to fall into the stream, or that a certain minimum number of the 

trees will fall into the stream. It is likely, however, that some level of LW inputs will occur even 

if it cannot be quantified.

There is also the issue of potential LW inputs from sources other than near-stream areas. By its 

very definition, upstream riparian sources are maintained where RMAs are established above a 

given stream reach. Upslope sources of LW are currently not maintained where a harvest 

operation occurs in the potential source area. The potential for delivery of upslope LW only 

exists, however, in areas with steep slopes that are prone to landslides and/or debris flows that 

enter the channel. Exactly what proportion of LW originates from each of the three source areas 

for a given stream reach depends on the make-up of the channel network and the extent of the 

RMAs. Because of the scientific uncertainty, determining the adequacy of the current rules in 

terms of LW supply from these three sources must be determined qualitatively using professional 

judgement. 

Finally, information received on the eastern Oregon field tour (FPAC tour, August 1999) 

indicates that a single basal area target for all of eastern Oregon may be inappropriate. Stocking 

level recommendations provided by Fred C. Hall (Senior Plant Ecologist, USDA Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Region) show that eastern Oregon forestlands have a very wide range of 

different site productivity classes. The lowest site class is for a typical juniper site (<20 cubic 

feet/acre/year) and the highest is for a relatively high productivity, mixed-conifer site comparable 

to westside forests (120-164 cubic feet/acre/year). Using a single basal area target will result in 

the more productive sites being understocked and the less productive sites being overstocked, 

potentially contributing to forest health problems prior to the next harvest entry. Having basal 

area targets for eastern Oregon that are tied to narrower site class ranges may be a more 

appropriate approach for managing the RMAs towards a mature forest condition. (see 

Appendix F for a more detailed discussion)

Stream Temperature

The ODF has an ongoing stream temperature monitoring program. The focus is on monitoring 

the effectiveness of RMA prescriptions and riparian conifer restoration (RCR) in maintaining 

stream temperatures. A report on the results from 1995 monitoring data has provided some new 

information on how the rules are performing in terms of impacts to stream temperatures (Dent 

 

10 So long as the basal area and minimum tree number requirements are met.
D-33

and Walsh, 1997). The monitoring sites included in this study are mostly medium and large 

streams (under ODF stream classification). 

Results from this monitoring project are limited by a lack of pre-harvest data and 

by variability among the sample sites. Differences in elevation, harvest 

methodology, and georegion as well as data collection problems, especially with 

canopy cover, contributed to a highly variable sample population. However, 

consistent, if not significant, increases in stream temperature below harvested 

reaches indicate that the forest protection rules may not always provide adequate 

protection to meet water quality standards. (Dent and Walsh, 1997)

Temperatures were recorded continuously over the summer of 1995 on thirteen stream reaches 

and at a number of points throughout the Brush Creek watershed. Five of the reaches were 

managed RMAs and eight of the reaches were RCR sites (a.k.a., hardwood conversions). For 

each reach, temperature probes were placed in the stream above the harvest unit, immediately 

below the harvest unit, and downstream of the harvest unit under an unmanaged canopy. 

The water quality standard for seven-day moving average of maximum (64 F) was

exceeded more often downstream of harvested units than upstream. On all 

streams, the standard was exceeded only 9.4 percent of the time. However, only 

three of the thirteen streams never exceeded the water quality standard. (Dent and 

Walsh, 1997)

Two types of statistical analyses were conducted on the 1995 data set with contradictory results. 

One test was a repeated-measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) of the residuals that showed 

no statistical effect of the harvest units on stream temperature. Residuals were used to remove 

the influence of the  ̳natural‘ tendency for stream temperatures to increase in the downstream 

direction in relation to the distance from divide. A repeated-measures ANOVA was also carried 

out on the raw data (instead of using residuals). This method is a statistical test of the raw data 

that also has the ability to remove the influence of the  ̳natural‘ tendency for stream temperatures 

to increase in the downstream direction. This second test did show a statistically significant 

effect from harvesting. Those reaches sampled higher in the basin did show a corresponding 

decrease in temperature 500 feet downstream, while those reaches sampled lower in the basin did 

not show a decrease in stream temperature 500 feet downstream of the treatment reach.

All but one of the stream reaches Dent and Walsh (1997) examined were medium and large 

streams (by ODF classification) where either an RMA or RCR prescription was applied. What 

about small Type N streams that receive little or no canopy cover retention under the current 

rules following an adjacent harvest operation? Caldwell et al. (1991) and Robison et al. (1995) 

provide some information as to the performance of the current rules in terms of temperature 

effects from harvesting to the edge of small Type N streams. Caldwell et al. (1991) examined the 
D-34

extent of temperature increases on ―Type 4‖ streams (comparable to the category of small 

streams in Oregon) on downstream waters9. 

In cases where a single stream channel changed from a Type 4 to a Type 3 water 

type, short response distances were seen, in response to changes in the riparian 

shading levels. Maximum equilibrium temperatures were quickly established 

dependent on the downstream conditions once the water entered the Type 3 

(shaded) reach. The response distance was typically 150 meters or less with no 

effect on temperature from the harvested Type 4 stream downstream of the 

response distance. . . . The response of the Type 3 [the downstream receiving 

stream] never exceeded 0.5 C [1 F] change in temperature attributable to the 

incoming Type 4 stream. Reasons include the typical small size of the Type 4 

tributaries in relation to the Type 3 receiving streams, and the relatively cool 

temperatures seen in some Type 4 reaches despite total removal of overstory 

canopy. (Caldwell et al., 1991)

This study also observed that several of the Type 4 stream reaches monitored for temperature 

exceeded the Washington water quality standards, and harvested streams were as much as 2-8 C 

higher than for streams at similar elevations with mature forest canopies. Despite these 

increases, the elevated temperatures in many of these streams still remained well below the water

quality standards. However, there were examples in both harvested and forested Type 4 streams 

where the temperature standard was exceeded. 

Robison et al. (1995) conducted a similar study on stream temperature response on small 

Type N streams in the Oregon Coast Range and Interior georegions. As with Caldwell et 

al. (1991), Robison et al. also observed stream temperatures that exceeded the water 

quality standard in forested stream reaches. There were a total of eight monitoring sites 

that evaluated stream temperature flowing through clearcut sites. 

In general, maximum water temperatures for streams flowing out of clearcut units 

were below 60 F. Two clearcut unit streams had maximum water temperatures 

greater than 60 F [one of which exceeded 64 F]. For most of the clearcut units, 

there was significant cooling below the unit as the streams re-entered the forest 

canopy. This finding is consistent with previous temperature monitoring on small 

headwater streams. (Robison et al., 1995)

Based on current ODF monitoring results and other studies, the following general conclusions 

can be made regarding forest harvesting and stream temperature as it pertains to the water 

protection rules. For small, headwater streams, while stream temperatures increase after harvest, 

there is the potential for temperature increases due to canopy removal to diminish within 500 feet 

downstream of the harvest activity (Caldwell et al., 1991). For stream reaches through managed 

RMAs and RCRs on medium and large streams, Dent and Walsh (1997) found that 90 percent of 

 

9

Since this study was published, surveys of Type 4 streams in Washington are showing that a substantial number of 

them are actually fish bearing streams. Thus, they may in fact be more comparable to small Type F streams in 

Oregon.
D-35

the time those streams that were monitored had temperatures at or below the 64 F temperature 

standard. Dent and Walsh (1997) do not separate out the proportion of the temperature increase 

that is attributable to a partial decrease in shade versus the proportion that is attributable to 

inherent downstream increases in stream temperatures. Additional analysis is needed to 

determine how these increases compare to the  ̳natural‘ rate of temperature increase in the 

downstream direction. Further study of the effects of RMA prescriptions and RCRs on stream 

temperatures with pre-harvest data and a basin-wide perspective is needed to more adequately 

evaluate the effectiveness of the rules. The analysis of additional temperature monitoring data 

will be available in the spring and summer of 2000, that may help address some of the 

unresolved issues.

Other Riparian Functions

Other riparian functions besides large wood and stream temperature (shade) include 

microclimate, streambank stability, litterfall, sediment filtration, and floodplain processes. It is 

generally assumed that these other functions will be provided for, to some extent, by the Water 

Protection Rules. It should be noted that this assumption is based on qualitative information and 

has not been evaluated through monitoring. 

For streams that require an RMA, the understory and overstory vegetation within the 20-foot noharvest zone, plus any additional overstory trees beyond the first 20 feet left for basal area 

requirements, will provide some protection for microclimate, litterfall, streambank stability, and 

sediment filtration. Floodplain processes will also be provided for where the effective width of 

the RMA is equal to, or greater than, the floodplain. Rules that are currently designed to protect 

wetlands can also provide protection of floodplain functions when these wetlands are adjacent to 

streams. When braided channels and islands occur within the annual high water mark or within 

the effective RMA, the current rules will provide some level of protection as well. 

In some cases, other riparian functions may receive less than optimal protections under the 

current rules. For example, on small Type N streams that generally do not require any retention 

of overstory vegetation, there is a relatively higher level of risk that other riparian functions will 

not be provided for immediately following harvesting, where those functions depend on the 

presence of overstory vegetation. Also, where the floodplain extends well beyond the effective 

RMA width only a portion of those floodplain functions that depend on overstory vegetation will 

be provided for. Evaluating the performance of the rules in terms of providing these other 

riparian functions will take continued effectiveness monitoring. 

Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team (IMST) Recommendations

The IMST made a total of 19 recommendations in its forestry project report of September 14, 

1999. Six of their recommendations are directly, or indirectly, related to riparian functions. 

These recommendations are listed below, followed by the issue paper options that address the 

recommendations.

Recommendation 2:
D-36

ODF should develop a policy framework to encompass landscape (large watershed) level 

planning and operations on forests within the range of wild salmonids in Oregon.

Riparian Issue Paper Option(s)

Option #41, all (partially addresses this recommendation)

Recommendation 3: 

Treat nonfish bearing streams the same as small, medium, and large fish bearing streams 

when determining buffer-width protection.

Riparian Issue Paper Option(s)

Option #26, method 8

Option #62, method 5

Recommendation 4:

Provide increased riparian protection for the 100-year floodplains and islands.

Riparian Issue Paper Option(s)

Option #63, method 3 

Recommendation 5:

Increase the conifer basal-area requirement and the number-of-trees requirement for 

RMAs, with increases in these requirements for medium and small streams regardless of 

fish presence.

Riparian Issue Paper Option(s)

Option #26—methods 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 

Recommendation 6:

Complete the study of the effectiveness of the OFPA rules in providing large wood for 

the short- and long-term.

Riparian Issue Paper Option(s)

Option #30—method 2

Recommendation 13:

Retain trees on "high risk slopes" and in likely debris torrent tracks to increase the 

likelihood that large wood will be transported to streams when landslides and debris 

torrents occur.

Riparian Issue Paper Option(s)

Option #38, all methods 
D-37

VI. Possible Additional Measures and/or Rules

Option #20: Active Placement of Large Wood 

Objective:

Provide additional large wood (LW) to streams by actively placing the wood in areas where it 

will provide the greatest benefits to salmonids.

Description:

It is widely believed that current levels of LW in many streams are significantly lower than what 

occurred historically. Where riparian areas are generally lacking in large diameter trees the 

active placement of key pieces from off-site sources can be critical to the creation of habitat 

functions in the short-term. In order to accelerate the rate of large wood inputs that is occurring 

under the current rules and measures, additional large wood should be actively placed in the 

appropriate streams.

Methods/Approaches:

1) Place LW along fish bearing streams during an adjacent harvest entry. (This is currently part 

of an Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds (OPSW) voluntary measure, ODF 21S.) 

2) Place LW along Type N and D streams prone to debris flows that are likely to deliver the 

wood to fish bearing streams downstream.

3) Place LW upslope of Type N and D streams prone to debris flows that are likely to deliver 

the wood to fish bearing streams downstream (i.e. in small draws and hollows)

Benefits:

This would provide more LW input in the short term and accelerate the creation of new salmonid 

habitat in streams where there is currently a LW deficit.

Costs:

If the additional LW is taken from the RMA, it may affect the long-term LW input potential of 

the RMA. If the additional LW is taken from the adjacent harvest unit outside the RMA, there 

will be a financial cost to the landowner. (The 1999 OPSW restoration guide recommends that 

the LW come from outside the RMA.) For LW that is not placed directly in Type F streams there 

will be a time lag between when it is placed and when it is utilized for fish habitat. If this time 

lag is too long, the LW may be at a stage of decomposition where it can no longer provide the 

same level of function as a ―fresh‖ piece of LW.

Option #22: Manage RMAs for Shade 

Objective:

Establish management prescriptions for RMAs that will provide sufficient shade to achieve and 

maintain state water quality standards for stream temperature.

Description:
D-38

Shade is an important riparian function that regulates the amount of solar energy reaching the 

stream surface. The more forest canopy that reduces shade that is removed, the more energy 

reaches the stream translating into a potential increase in stream temperature. While shade 

cannot physically cool the stream down, it can prevent further heating of the stream. To protect 

streams from adverse temperature increases that may violate water quality standards, the current 

rules use a combination of a 20-foot, no-harvest area and basal area retention targets adjacent to 

streams. It is assumed that the shade produced by the Water Protection Rules will maintain 

stream temperatures within water quality standards. Current monitoring data has shown that 

there is the potential for short-term stream temperature increases after harvesting under the 

current rules, particularly with riparian conifer restoration blocks (RCRs). This option proposes 

using a more prescriptive and direct approach to achieve shade levels necessary to maintain water 

quality standards.

Methods/Approaches:

Shade management prescriptions could be employed on a small sub-set of streams (e.g. reaches 

where RCR is conducted), a combination of specific stream types, or on all streams. Listed 

below are some specific approaches that have been deliberated by the Committee.

1) Establish basal area and tree retention prescriptions that provide adequate shade sufficient to 

meet temperature standards for all streams. A method of relating shade to basal area and tree 

retention would need to be developed that can accurately determine the RMA characteristics 

necessary to achieve adequate shade. (The Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) is 

currently developing such a method, referred to as a ―shade calculator.‖)

2) Use a shade standard to manage RMAs as was done previous to the 1994 rule changes. A 

shade standard based on an ―effective shade‖ target, the percent of pre-operation shade, or no 

shade reductions below a predetermined threshold could be used.

3) RCR prescriptions become conditional to a site-specific plan.

4) Retain shade-producing vegetation on the south side of streams in RCRs.

Benefits:

The current RMA prescriptions are based primarily on a combination of basal area and tree 

retention requirements. Developing and utilizing a predictable relationship between these criteria 

and effective shade would be a relatively efficient method of managing for shade. A prescriptive 

approach will also provide a direct means of managing for shade, as opposed to managing 

primarily for mature stand conditions under the assumption that adequate shade will be provided. 

Site-specific plans for RCRs would avoid a one-size-fits-all approach. Where temperatures are 

known to be a significant problem, the RCR blocks could be custom designed to minimize 

temperature effects on the stream.
D-39

Costs:

Using a combination of basal area and tree retention requirements to manage for shade is 

dependent on an effective model, or shade calculator, that can translate RMA conditions into 

effective shade for all parts of the state. Although there is one in development, it would be the 

first of its kind and would need to be adequately tested. Trade-offs must be considered when 

considering the management of RMAs primarily for shade. A management option that may be 

ideal for creating shade may not be ideal for providing adequate riparian function in terms of 

large wood. In terms of using a shade standard, site-specific shade measurements are extremely 

variable and are problematic in the winter months when hardwoods are defoliated. Monitoring 

has shown that the use of a shade standard tends to be subjective and lacks consistency. The use 

of a shade standard was abandoned in 1994 for these reasons. Even with a site-specific plan for 

RCR prescriptions, there may still be a reasonable potential for temperature increases to occur in 

the short term. There may still be cases where a decision must be made between short-term and 

long-term effects. The additional effort required for a site-specific plan can also be a disincentive

for active management, reducing the potential for achieving mature stands conditions in a timely 

manner.

Option #26: RMA Basal Area Targets and Management Prescriptions

Objective:

Ensure that basal area retention within RMAs is consistent with achieving characteristics of 

mature forest conditions and desirable levels of LW inputs and shade functions over time.

Description:

The Water Protection Rules were designed to provide a level of LW inputs based on some 

assumptions about the capabilities of riparian areas to grow wood. Preliminary monitoring data 

indicates that the assumptions for determining basal area targets for small and medium streams 

may not be consistent with what the RMAs are capable of growing along these streams. Also, 

preliminary monitoring data shows that 60 percent of harvest operations are not managing within 

the RMAs. Monitoring has also shown that some of the current RMA prescriptions may result in 

short-term temperature increases, however the significance of the potential temperature increases 

is uncertain. Action should be taken to ensure that the level of LW inputs being provided by the 

RMAs is consistent with the goals of the rules, which includes the goal of achieving the desired 

future condition in a timely manner. This option aims to increase the level of LW inputs over the 

short and long term to achieve this end, and to ensure that adequate shade is maintained to 

protect water quality by adjusting RMA basal area targets and/or RMA management 

prescriptions.

Methods/Approaches:

1) When managing the RMA for the basal area target, require that the entire basal area target be 

achieved within the portion of the RMA outside of the 20-foot, no-harvest buffer (i.e., the 

basal area in the first 20 feet could not be counted).
D-40

2) To address areas where the current basal area targets may not be optimizing the shade and 

large wood potential for a given site, re-examine the basal area targets, and the assumptions 

therein, and adjust them appropriately.

3) Develop site-specific prescriptions for the retention of trees in the RMA based upon actual 

conifer basal area within the RMA. Basal area targets will be set based upon a target of 

retaining at least 75 percent of the pre-harvest basal area within the RMA, but at a minimum, 

retaining at least the current standard target. The objective for the site-specific prescription is 

to manage the tree selection to meet the desired future condition in a timely manner. 

Continue to provide active management basal area credits, allowing harvesting to less than 

75 percent of pre-harvest basal area if combined with stream enhancement measures (the 

standard target would remain the minimum). Also, change the language of the rules to 

require that the basal area that is removed from the RMA be distributed in such a way as to

optimize the opportunity for the remaining trees to increase in basal area in a timely manner. 

4) Use conifer regeneration corridors (CRCs) instead of the current method for actively 

managing the RMAs. Retain the current RMA width classifications and replace the current 

thinning option and basal area targets with the CRC prescription. Under this prescription, the 

landowner would be allowed to harvest a corridor into the RMA perpendicular to the stream 

up to the no-harvest buffer. The larger trees very close to the 20-foot buffer might be felled 

toward/into the stream to provide immediate and short-term LW inputs. The corridors would 

be designed such that re-entry into the same corridor would only occur after multiple 

rotations for the adjacent stand outside the RMA (every 200-300 years). The corridor widths 

would also need to be designed such that successful Douglas-fir regeneration (where 

appropriate) would occur. Some degree of thinning might occur into the RMA adjacent to 

the CRC to ensure successful regeneration. The Water Protection Rules would remain in 

place as the default option for those operations where the CRC is not feasible.

5) Create a voluntary conservation reserve program (CRP) similar to the program under the 

same name currently administered by the Natural Resource Conservation Service. This 

program leases agricultural land adjacent to streams, lakes, and wetlands and manages these 

lands for water quality and wildlife habitat functions. Under this program, the State would 

lease land within the RMA for a period of time and the State Forester would prescribe sitespecific management plans. The lease period would need to be long enough to ensure that 

the intended habitat functions are achieved. The landowner would retain full ownership 

rights to the property, whereby the State would only lease the rights to manage the property 

over the duration of the lease. Priority would be given to lands that have high value in terms 

of riparian function, or that have a high potential to develop quality riparian conditions in a 

timely manner. The Water Protection Rules would remain in place as the default option for 

those landowners choosing not to use the CRP option.

6) Increase the minimum number criteria for trees retained in the RMA (IMST 

recommendation #5).

7) Increase the minimum size criteria for trees size retained in the RMA. (The objective of this 

approach would be to increase the potential for key pieces of LW to be grown in the RMA 

and delivered to the stream.) 

8) Treat nonfish bearing streams the same as small, medium, and large fish bearing streams 

when determining basal area requirements (IMST recommendation #3).
D-41

9) Use a range of site classes to determine basal area targets for RMAs in eastern Oregon 

instead of the uniform basal area targets that are currently used.

Benefits:

Additional salmonid habitat will be created in streams over time that currently lack the complex 

structure large wood provides.

Methods:

1) Disregarding the 20-foot no-touch zone in meeting the basal area target will prevent the 

basal area targets from being satisfied completely within the 20-foot no-touch zone. 

This will result in greater effective buffer widths that provide increased LW inputs and 

effective shade. This will provide more assurance that key pieces of LW, beyond what 

exists in the first 20 feet, will be retained in the RMA and provide inputs at some time 

in the future.

2 and 3) A site-specific basal area target will be more effective at maximizing the growth 

potential of a given stand, allowing for more LW to be grown more quickly. Basal area 

targets that better reflect the growth potential will be more effective at maximizing the 

LW input potential of a given stand. 

4) This will allow for conifer regeneration to occur in the RMAs. This will also preserve 

the integrity of the buffer widths over most of the RMA as currently prescribed under 

the rules. There would be no removal of trees in the majority of the length of RMA, 

which will eliminate the possibility of an effective buffer width that is something less 

than what is prescribed under the rules. The risk of windthrow may be reduced. LW 

will be put into the stream in the short term from dispersed locations that correspond to 

the spacing of the CRCs. The relative ease of harvesting a CRC as compared to a 

thinning will be more of an incentive for active management.

5) This would allow the state direct control over managing the RMAs in the most optimal 

manner for LW and other riparian functions. Once a lease is signed, there would no 

longer be a need for measures encouraging active management by the landowner, as the 

state would take over this role.

Costs:

Substantial cost to the landowner could be expected, due to increases in conifer retention along 

all stream classes.

Methods:

2 and 3) The 75 percent of existing basal area approach leaves the basic structure of the current 

rules intact and simply changes the method of calculating the basal area available for 

harvest. This does not change the situation for the 60 percent of the RMAs that are not 

being actively managed. Language requiring an even thinning of the RMA (where 

applicable) may be even more of a disincentive for active management, since this will 

require more sophisticated harvesting techniques. Readjusting the basal area targets in 

and of itself does not create any more of an incentive for active management within the 

RMA. It also may, or may not, create additional costs for the landowner, depending on 

how the basal area targets are changed. 
D-42

4) There is the risk that CRCs might cause stream temperature increases depending on the 

design. To minimize this risk and achieve LW objectives, the CRCs will need long 

rotation periods where a majority of the RMA is left intact and mature forest 

conditions are allowed to develop over a majority of the RMA. There may be cases 

where this is very difficult to achieve given the size and location of a harvest 

operation. Multiple ownership along a stream could be problematic for this option. 

This option would need to be studied carefully from both an ecological and operational 

perspective to determine if it is desirable.

5) This will require additional resources from the state, both for the additional staff 

necessary to manage the RMA leases, as well as for the cost of the leases. There may 

be logistical problems as well. The most cost-effective way for the state to manage the 

RMAs would be to do so at the same time the landowner is harvesting adjacent areas. 

This could mean multiple operations distributed across the state at any given time. 

ODF field offices will need the additional resources necessary to handle the increased 

workload and the flexibility needed for this type of program.

6 and 7) There will be a financial cost to the landowner if the largest trees that must be retained 

have a higher value than a number of smaller trees with equivalent basal area. 

Depending on where these trees are that must be retained, there may be additional 

operational costs to the landowner.

Option #30: Riparian Monitoring Program

Objective:

Maintain a riparian monitoring program

Description:

Continued monitoring of the rules protecting riparian functions must occur in order to understand 

how the rules are being implemented and to evaluate whether or not they are achieving their 

objectives. Currently, as part of the BMP Compliance Audit Project, the ODF is monitoring 

compliance with the water protection rules. This project is a three-year effort to monitor 

compliance with the Forest Practice Rules in general. The ODF also has an on-going stream 

temperature monitoring project. Resources should be provided to enable the ODF to do 

effectiveness monitoring related to the large wood objectives of the OPSW and water quality 

standards, as well as continued compliance monitoring. 

Methods/Approaches:

1) Increase the resources available to fund additional monitoring of rules and measures affecting 

riparian functions above and beyond what is currently being done.

2) Ensure that adequate resources are available to continue the riparian monitoring work that is 

currently being done. 

Benefits:

1) This will allow for a more thorough analysis of OPSW measures that goes beyond the 

straightforward list of what measures were implemented. Additional resources will allow for 

an examination of the actual effect of the rules related to LW and stream temperature on fish 

populations. This will also allow for a continuation of ODF compliance monitoring over 
D-43

time and potentially increase the quantity of useful information available to evaluate forest 

practice rule implementation. 

Costs:

1) This will require a significant increase in monitoring staff and a long-term commitment of 

resources, as these types of monitoring efforts can take years to implement successfully. 

These additional resources are necessary if the ODF is to continue its monitoring efforts 

related to issues other than the OPSW and rule compliance. 

Option #38: LW Inputs and Shade Functions for Small Perennial Type N Streams

(Option #61 in the Landslide issue paper addresses LW inputs from seasonal Type N streams 

prone to debris flows)

Objective:

To ensure that adequate LW inputs and shade are maintained for riparian areas along small 

perennial Type N streams. 

Description:

There is increasing scientific evidence that small nonfish bearing streams prone to debris flows 

provide an important source of large wood for downstream fish habitat. It is also known that the 

removal of shade-producing vegetation along small perennial Type N streams temporarily 

increases stream temperatures, until regeneration occurs. While these streams are providing 

some level of functional LW inputs and shade production under the current rules, the rules were 

not specifically designed to provide significant sources of LW and shade in these areas. Action 

should be taken to increase LW inputs along small perennial Type N streams prone to landslides 

and debris flows, and to ensure that adequate shade is maintained along small perennial Type N 

stream segments that may influence Type F streams downstream.

Methods/Approaches:

Listed below are specific methods that apply to small perennial Type N streams (areas upslope of 

small perennial Type N streams are addressed in the Landslides issue paper):

1) Create no-harvest buffers on small perennial Type N streams.

2) Create RMAs on small perennial Type N streams (i.e., allow for active management).

3) Create RMAs only on small perennial Type N streams that are prone to landslides and debris 

flows and have the potential to influence downstream water temperatures. 

4) Create RMAs only on small perennial Type-N streams that are prone to landslides and debris 

flows and have the potential to influence downstream water temperatures, upstream a 

specified distance (e.g., 100, 300, or 500 feet) from the junction with a fish bearing stream. 

The distance could be scaled to the basin size, debris flow delivery probability, and/or 

georegion. 

Benefits:

This option will create additional LW inputs to small Type N streams. Some increase in the 

delivery of  ̳key pieces‘ of large wood to downstream fish bearing streams will also occur in 
D-44

areas with steep slopes where the occurrence of landslides and debris flows are a part of the 

natural disturbance regime. It is also likely to increase the amount of effective shade along small 

Type N streams. The relative benefit of a wider or longer RMA will depend on what and where 

trees are retained. Leave-trees would serve a dual purpose. They would provide both the 

conventional leave-tree functions the current rules aim to achieve, as well as potential LW in the 

future for fish bearing streams downslope. Where the current number of leave-trees required 

under the rules are simply located in a different area, there will be no extra financial cost to the 

landowner.

Costs:

The cost of retaining some type of riparian buffer on small Type N streams (whether it is a noharvest, actively managed, or a combination of the two) will be proportional to the number and 

size of trees that are retained. The potential cost to the landowner in creating RMAs along these 

streams, however, is high. There may be some ecological costs associated with clustering leavetrees in areas prone to landslides and debris flows as opposed to leaving them in other areas 

across the harvest unit. If additional leave-trees are required, there will be a financial cost 

associated with this option.

Option #41: Statewide Riparian Management Policy

Objective:

Develop a statewide riparian management policy.

Description:

Currently, there are conflicting policies across the state that deal with the management of riparian 

areas and LW in streams. Riparian vegetation and instream wood protection policies and 

regulations vary substantially across the state, and between different land use sectors. As an 

example, a number of cities and counties are actively removing LW to reduce the risks of 

flooding and property damage. At the same time, forestland owners upstream are being asked to 

put more LW into streams. This option would work towards a statewide policy on the 

management of riparian areas in streams across all land uses. 

Methods/Approaches:

Have similar riparian protection zones on all other land uses that are designed to achieve 

temperature standards and retain large wood. Work towards a statewide policy on the 

management of riparian areas across all land uses.

Benefits:

This will spread the burden of managing riparian areas and providing LW to streams equally 

among all landowners. There is the potential to increase the total stream miles that provide fish 

habitat by maintaining vegetation and LW on streams in land uses that currently do not provide 

fish habitat. Since the majority of LW originates from areas closest to the stream, this option will

provide significantly more LW inputs as compared to an equivalent widening of RMAs on 

forestlands only. For example, creating 100-foot buffers on large fish bearing streams regardless 
D-45

of land ownership would provide significantly more LW as compared to doubling the 100-foot 

RMA on large fish bearing streams on forestlands only. 

Costs:

This will create additional costs to agricultural and urban landowners that will have limitations 

placed on the use of their land. The addition of LW to some streams in agricultural and urban 

areas could increase physical hazard risks. Where additional LW creates debris dams and diverts 

stream flows in lowland areas during periods of high runoff, there will be an increase in the 

potential for flood damage. 

Option #62: RMA Widths

Objective:

Ensure that the width of RMAs are consistent with achieving mature forest conditions and 

desirable levels of LW inputs and shade functions.

Description:

The Water Protection Rules were designed to provide a level of LW inputs based, in-part, on the 

relationship between the proximity of woody vegetation to the stream and the potential for that 

vegetation to deliver wood to the stream. Action should be taken to ensure that the level of LW 

inputs and shade being provided is consistent with the goals of the rules. This option aims to 

increase the level of LW inputs and to ensure that adequate shade is maintained to protect water 

quality by increasing the width of RMAs.

Methods/Approaches:

1) Increase the width of the RMA on small streams.

2) Increase the width of the RMA on medium streams.

3) Increase the width of the RMA on large streams.

4) Increase the width of the 20-foot no-harvest buffer.

5) Treat nonfish bearing streams the same as small, medium, and large fish bearing streams 

when determining buffer widths (IMST recommendation #3).

Benefits:

This will increase the LW input potential of the RMA. The relative benefit of a wider RMA will 

depend on what and where trees are retained, however, beyond about 100 feet this relative benefit

will be small. For RMAs where the basal area (BA) target is significantly less than the growth 

potential, increasing the width of the RMA will have little effect on LW inputs. (For example, if 

the BA target is satisfied in the first 20 to 30 feet, increasing the buffer width will not 

significantly change the volume of LW retained after the RMA is managed to the target.)

Costs:

Where the BA target is equal to the growth potential, there will be a financial cost to the 

landowner. Where the BA target is significantly greater than the growth potential, this option 

will result in an even greater cost to the landowner. Methods 1-5 would have major financial 
D-46

impacts to landowners due to increased numbers of trees and acres taken out of timber 

production and set aside for improving stream habitat.

Option #63: Floodplain protection

Objective:

To ensure adequate protection of floodplain functions necessary to maintain and recover 

salmonids and meet state water quality standards.

Methods/Approaches:

1) Monitor the effectiveness of the rules and measures to evaluate the current level of floodplain 

protection provided for by the rules and voluntary measures. Provide additional protection 

where current floodplain protection is inadequate. 

2) Provide for additional floodplain protection outside of what is provided for under the current 

rules and voluntary measures.

3) Provide increased riparian protection for the 100-year floodplains and islands. (IMST 

recommendation #4).

Costs and benefits have not been developed for this option.
D-47

References

Agee, J. K. 1998. The Landscape Ecology of Western Forest Fire Regimes. Northwest Science. 

Vol. 72, Special Issue. pp. 24-34.

Amaranthus, M., H. Jubas, and D. Arthur. 1989. Stream Shading, Summer Streamflow and 

Maximum Water Temperature Following Intense Wildfire in Headwater Streams. USDA 

Forest Service General Technical Report. pp. 75-79.

Benda, L. E. 1994. Stochastic Geomorphology in a Humid Mountain Landscape. PhD. 

Dissertation. University of Washington, Seattle, WA.

Benda, L. E., and J. C. Sias. 1998. Landscape Controls on Wood Abundance in Streams. Earth 

Systems Institute, Seattle, Washington. (http://www. earthsi@aol.com.)

Beschta, R. L. et al. 1995. Cumulative Effects of Forest Practices in Oregon. Prepared for the 

Oregon Department of Forestry. Oregon State University. Corvallis, Oregon.

Beschta, R. L., R. E. Bilby, G. W. Brown, L. B. Holtby, and T. D. Hoffstra. 1987. Stream 

Temperature and Aquatic Habitat: Fisheries and Forestry Interactions. In: E. O. Salo and 

T. W. Cundy, editors, Streamside Management: Forestry and Fishery Interactions. Institute 

of Forest Resources. University of Washington, Seattle. pp. 191-232.

Beschta, R. L., and R. L. Taylor. 1988. Stream Temperature Increases and Land Use in A 

Forested Oregon Watershed. Water Resources Bulletin. Vol. 24, No. 1.

Bilby, R. E. 1984. Characteristics and Frequency of Cool-Water Areas in Western Washington 

Streams. Journal of Freshwater Ecology. Vol. 2:593-602.

Bilby, R. E. 1985. Influence of Stream Size on The Function and Characteristics of Large 

Organic Debris. In: Proceedings of fhe West Coast Meeting of The National Council and 

Paper Industry for Air and Stream Improvement, Portland, Oregon.

Bilby, R. E., and P. A. Bisson. 1998. Function and Distribution of Large Woody Debris. In: 

River Ecology and Management: Lessons from The Pacific Coastal Ecosystem. Springer. 

pp. 324-346.

Bisson, P. A., R. E. Bilby, M. D. Bryant, C. A. Dolloff, G. B. Grette, R. A. House, 

M. L. Murphy, K. V. Koski, J. R. Sedell. 1987. Large Woody Debris in Forested Streams 

in the Pacific Northwest: Past, Present, and Future. In: E. O. Salo and T. W. Cundy, 

Editors, Streamside Management: Forestry and Fishery Interactions. Institute of Forest 

Resources. University of Washington, Seattle. pp. 143-190.

Botkin, D., and Others. 1995. Status and Future of Salmon of Western Oregon and Northern 

California. Center for the Study of the Environment. Santa Barbara, CA.
D-48

Brazier, J. R., and G. W. Brown. 1973. Buffer Strips for Stream Temperature Control. Research 

Paper 15. Forest Research Laboratory. Oregon State University. Corvallis, Oregon.

Brosofske, K. D., J. Chen, R. J. Naiman, and J. F. Franklin. 1997. Harvesting Effects on 

Microclimate Gradients from Small Streams to Uplands in Western Washington. 

Ecological Applications, 7(4). pp. 1188-1200.

Brown, G. W. 1983. Forestry and Water Quality. Oregon State University Bookstore. 

Corvallis, Oregon. 

Caldwell, J. E., K. Doughty, and K. Sullivan. 1991. Evaluation of Downstream Temperature 

Effects of Type 4/5 Waters. TFW Report No. WQ5-91-004. Washington DNR. Olympia, 

Washington.

CH2MHill and Western Watershed Analysts. 1999. FEMAT Riparian Process Effectiveness 

Curves: What is Science-Based and What is Subjective Judgement? Prepared for: Oregon 

Forest Industries Council, Salem, Oregon. August 1999.

Chamberlin, T. W., R. D. Harr, and F. H. Everest. 1991. Timber Harvesting, Silviculture, and 

Watershed Processes. In: Meehan, W. R., Editor, Influences of Forest and Rangeland 

Management on Salmonid Fishes and fheir Habitats. American Fisheries Society Special 

Publication 19:181-204.

Chen, J. T. 1991. Edge Effects: Microclimate Pattern and Biological Responses in Old-Growth 

Douglas-fir Forests. Phd. Dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.

Dent, L. F., and J. B. S. Walsh. 1997. Effectiveness of Riparian Management Areas and 

Hardwood Conversions in Maintaining Stream Temperature. Oregon Department of 

Forestry, Forest Practices Technical Report Number 3. Salem, Oregon.

Department of Environmental Quality. 1995. Water Quality Standards Review 1992-1994. 

Final Issue Papers. Standards and Assessment Section. Portland, Oregon.

Feller, M. C. 1981. Effects of Clearcutting and Slash Burning on Stream Temperature in 

Southwestern British Columbia. Water Resources Bulletin. 17(5):863-867.

FEMAT (Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team). 1993. Forest Ecosystem 

Management: An Ecological, Economic, and Social Assessment. Report of the Forest 

Ecosystem Management Assessment Team. U.S. Government Printing Office 1993-793-

071.

Hairston-Strang, A. B., and P. W. Adams. 1997. Oregon‘s Streamside Rules: Achieving Public 

Goals on Private Land. Journal of Forestry. Vol. 95, No. 7.
D-49

Hibbs, D. E., and P. A. Giordano. 1996. Vegetation Characteristics of Alder-Dominated 

Riparian Buffer Strips in The Oregon Coast Range. Northwest Science, Vol 70, No. 3. 

Hewlett, J. D., and J. C. Fortson. 1982. Stream Temperature Under An Inadequate Bufferstrip in 

Southeast Piedmont. Water Resources Bulletin. 18(6):983-988.

Holaday, S. 1993. Summertime Water Temperature Trends in Steamboat Creek Basin, Umpqua 

National Forest. MS. Thesis. Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon. 128pp.

Holtby, L. B. 1988. Effects of Logging on Stream Temperatures in Carnation Creek, British 

Columbia, and Associated Impacts on The Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus Kisutch). 

Canadian Journal of Aquatic Science. Vol. 45: 502-515.

House, R. A., and P. L. Boehne. 1987. The Effect of Stream Cleaning on Salmonid Habitat and 

Populations in a Coastal Oregon Drainage. Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 2:84-87.

Jobling, M. 1993. Bioenergetics: Feed Intake and Energy Partitioning. In: J. C. Rankin and 

F. B. Jensen, Editors. Fish Ecophysiology. Chapman and Hall, London, England. pp. 1-44.

Kappel, W. A., and D. R. Dewalle. 1975. Calculating Stream Temperature Response To 

Vegetative Shade Removal on Selected Small Pennsylvania Streams. Research Brief 9. 

School of Forest Resources, Pennsylvania State University. pp. 1-3.

Keller E. A., and F. J. Swanson. 1979. Effects of Large Organic Material on Channel Form and 

Fluvial Process. Earth Surface Processes 4:361-380.

Koski K. V., J. Heifetz, S. Johnson, M. Murphy, and J. Thedinga. 1984. Evaluation of Buffer 

Strips for Protection of Salmonid Rearing Habitat and Implications for Enhancement. In: 

T. J. Hassler, Editor, Proceedings, Pacific Northwest Stream Habitat Management 

Workshop. California Cooperative Fishery Research Unit. Humboldt State University, 

Arcata. pp. 138-155.

Ledwith, T. 1996. The Effects of Buffer Strip Width on Air Temperature and Relative Humidity 

in a Stream Riparian Zone. WMC Networker, Summer 1996.

Levno, A., and J. Rothacher. 1967. Increases in Maximum Stream Temperatures After Logging 

in Old-Growth Douglas-Fir Watersheds. USDA Research Note PNW-65. Pacific 

Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. Portland, Oregon.

Lorensen, T., C. Andrus, and J. Runyon. 1994. The Oregon Forest Practices Act: Scientific and 

Policy Considerations. Oregon Department of Forestry Technical Report. Salem, Oregon.

Lynch, J. A., E. S. Corbett, and K. Mussallem. 1985. Best Management Practices for 

Controlling Nonpoint Source Pollution on Forested Watersheds. Journal of Soil and Water 

Conservation. pp. 167.
D-50

Macdonald, L. H., A. W. Smart, R. C. Wissmar. 1991. Monitoring Guidelines to Evaluate 

Effects of Forestry Activities on Streams in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska. USEPA, 

Region 10, Water Division. EPA/910/0-91-01/ Center for Streamside Studies. University 

of Washington, Seattle, Washington.

McDade, M. H., F. J. Swanson, W. A. Mckee, J. F. Franklin, and J. Van Sickle. 1990. Source 

Distances for Coarse Woody Debris Entering Small Streams in Western Oregon and 

Washington. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 20:326-330. 

McDarry, E. V. 1994. A Quantitative Analysis and Description of the Delivery and Distribution 

of Large Woody Debris in Cummins Creek, Oregon. M.S. Research Paper. Geosciences 

Department, Oregon State University. Corvallis, Oregon. 

Matthews, K. R., N. H. Berg, and D. L. Azuma. 1994. Cool Water Formation and Trout Habitat 

Use in a Deep Pool in the Sierra Nevada, California. Transactions of the American 

Fisheries Society 123:549-564.

Meehan, W. R. 1970. Some Effects of Shade Cover on Stream Temperature in Southeast 

Alaska. USDA Research Note PNW-113. Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment 

Station. Portland, Oregon.

Montgomery, D. R., T. B. Abbe, J. M. Buffington, N. P. Peterson, K. M. Schmidt, and 

J. D. Stock. 1996. Distribution of Bedrock and Alluvial Channels in Forested Mountain 

Drainage Basins. Nature, 381:587-589.

Murphy, M. L. 1995. Forestry Impacts on Freshwater Habitat of Anadromous Salmonids in the 

Pacific Northwest and Alaska – Requirements for Protection and Restoration. NOAA 

Coastal Ocean Program Decision Analysis Series No. 7 NOAA Coastal Ocean Office, 

Silver Spring, Maryland.

Murphy, M. L., J. Heifetz, S. W. Johnson, K. V. Kiski, and J. F. Thedinga. 1986. Effects of 

Clear-Cut Logging With and Without Buffer Strips on Juvenile Salmonids in Alaska 

Streams. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 43:1521-1533.

Murphy, M. L., and K. V. Koski. 1989. Input and Depletion of Woody Debris in Alaska 

Streams and Implications for Streamside Management. North American Journal of 

Fisheries Management 9:427-436. 

Murphy, M. L., and W. R. Meehan. 1991. Stream Ecosystems. In: Meehan, W. R., Editor, 

Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management on Salmonid Fishes and Their Habitats. 

American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19:17-46.

Naiman, R. J., K. L. Fetherston, S. J. Mckay, and J. Chen. 1988. In: River Ecology and 

Management: Lessons from the Pacific Coastal Ecosystem. Springer. pp. 289-323.
D-51

National Council of The Paper Industry for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. (NCASI). 1999. 

Assessing Effects of Timber Harvest on Riparian Zone Features and Functions for Aquatic 

and Wildlife Habitat. Technical Bulletin No. 775. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.

National Research Council. 1996. Upstream, Salmon and Society in the Pacific Northwest. 

National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

Nielsen, J. L., T. E. Lisle, and V. Ozaki. 1994. Thermally Stratified Pools and Their Use By 

Steelhead in Northern California Streams. Transactions of The American Fisheries Society 

123:613-625.

Reeves, G. H., L. E. Benda, K. M. Burnett, P. A. Bisson, and J. R. Sedell. 1995. A DisturbanceBased Ecosystem Approach to Maintaining and Restoring Freshwater Habitats of 

Evolutionary Significant Units of Anadromous Salmonids in the Pacific Northwest. 

American Fisheries Society Symposium. 17:334-349. 

Reeves G. H., D. B. Hohler, B. E. Hansen, F. H. Everest, J. R. Sedell, T. L. Hickman, and 

D. Shively. 1997. Fish Habitat Restoration in The Pacific Northwest: Fish Creek of 

Oregon. In: Williams, J. E., C. A. Wood, and M. P. Dombeck, Editors. Watershed 

Restoration: Principles and Practices. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

Robison, E. G., and R. L. Beschta. 1990. Identifying Trees in Riparian Areas that can Provide 

Coarse Woody Debris to Streams. Forest Science 36:790-801.

Robison, E. G., J. Runyon, and C. Andrus. 1995. Cooperative Stream Temperature Monitoring: 

Project Completion Report for 1994-1995. Prepared for The Oregon Department of 

Environmental Quality. Oregon Department of Forestry. Salem, Oregon.

Robison, E. G., K. Mills, J. T. Paul, L. Dent, and A. Skaugset. 1999. Oregon Department of 

Forestry 1996 Storm Impacts Monitoring Project: Final Report. Forest Practices Technical 

Report #4. Oregon Department of Forestry, Salem, Oregon. 141 pp.

Schwartz, J. S. 1990. Influence of Geomorphology and Land Use on Distribution and 

Abundance of Salmonids in a Coastal Oregon Basin. MS Thesis, Oregon State University, 

Corvallis, Oregon.

Sedell, J. R., P. A. Bisson, J. A. June, and R. W. Speaker. 1982. Ecology and Habitat 

Requirements of Fish Populations in South Fork Hoh River, Olympic National Park. In: 

Starkey, E. E., J. F. Franklin, and J. W. Matthews, Tech. Coords., Ecological Research in 

National Parks of the Pacific Northwest: Proceedings, 2nd Conference November 1979. 

Oregon State University, Forest Research Laboratory, 1982.

Sedell, J. R., and F. J. Swanson. 1984. Ecological Characteristics of Streams in Old-Growth of 

the Pacific Northwest. In: T. J. Hassler, Editor, Proceedings, Pacific Northwest Stream 

Habitat Management Workshop. California Cooperative Fishery Research Unit. Humboldt 

State University, Arcata. pp. 222-245.
D-52

Sedell, J. R., G. H. Reeves, F. R. Hauer, J. A. Stanford, and C. P. Hawkins. 1990. Role of 

Refugia in Recovery from Disturbances: Modern Fragmented and Disconnected River 

Systems. Environmental Management. 14(5):711-724.

Segura, G., and L. C. Snook. 1992. Stand Dynamics and Regeneration Patterns of A Pinyon 

Pine Forest in East-Central Mexico. Forest Ecology and Management. 47:175-194.

Spence, B. C., G. A. Lomnicky, R. M. Huges, and R. P. Novitzki. 1996. An Ecosystem 

Approach to Salmonid Conservation. TR-4501-96-6057. Mantech Environmental 

Research Services Corp., Corvallis, Oregon. (Available from the National Marine Fisheries 

Service, Portland, Oregon.)

Steinblums, I. J., H. A. Froehlich, and J. K. Lyons. 1984. Journal of Forestry. Vol. 82, No. 1.

Sullivan, K. J., T. E. Lisle, C. A. Dolloff, G. E. Grant, and L. M. Reid. 1987. In: E. O. Salo and 

T. W. Cundy, Eds. Streamside Management: Forestry and Fishery Interactions. 

Contribution #57. Institute of Forest Resources, University of Washington, Seattle, 

Washington. 

Sullivan, K. J., and T. A. Adams. 1990. An Analysis of Temperature Patterns in Stream 

Environments Based on Physical Principles and Field Data. Weyerhaeuser Tech. Report.

Sullivan, K. J., J. T. Tooley, K. Doughty, J. E. Caldwell, P. Knudsen. 1990. Evaluation of 

Prediction Models and Characterization of Stream Temperature Regimes in Washington. 

Timber/Fish/Wildlife Project #TFW-WQ3-90-006. Washington Department of Natural 

Resources, Forest Regulation and Assistance. Olympia, Washington.

Swanson, F. J., L. E. Benda, S. H. Duncan, G. E. Grant, W. F. Megahan, L. M. Reid, and 

R. R. Ziemer. 1987. In: E. O. Salo and T. W. Cundy, Eds. Streamside Management: 

Forestry and Fishery Interactions. Contribution #57. Institute of Forest Resources, 

University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. 

Swanston, D. N. 1991. Natural Processes. In: Meehan, W. R., Editor, Influences of Forest and 

Rangeland Management on Salmonid Fishes and Their Habitats. American Fisheries 

Society Special Publication 19:139-179.

Thom, B. A., K. K. Jones, and C. S. Stein. 1998. An Analysis of Historic, Current, and Desired 

Conditions for Streams in Western Oregon. Section IV-ODFW, pp. 33-56. In: The 

Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds 1998 Annual Report. (Http://www.oregonplan.org)

Thom, B. A., K. K. Jones, and R. L. Flitcroft. 1999. Stream Habitat Conditions in Western 

Oregon. Monitoring Program Report 1999-1 to the Oregon Plan for Salmon and 

Watersheds, Governor‘s Natural Resource Office, Salem, Oregon. 
D-53

Tschaplinski, P. J. 1999. The Effects of Forest Harvesting, Fishing, Climate Variation, and 

Ocean Conditions on Salmonid Populations of Carnation Creek, Vancouver Island, British 

Columbia. In: Knudsen E. E. et al. (Eds) Sustainable Fisheries Management: Pacific 

Salmon. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton.

Van Sickle, J., and S. V. Gregory. 1990. Modeling Inputs of Large Woody Debris to Streams 

from Falling Trees. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 20:1593-1601.

Zeimer, R. R. 1998. Monitoring Watersheds and Streams. In: Proceedings of the Conference 

on Coastal Watersheds: The Caspar Creek Story. USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest 

Research Station. General Technical Report PSW-GTR-168.

Zwieniecki , M. A., and M. Newton. 1999. Influence of Streamside Cover and Stream Features 

on Temperature Trends in Forested Streams of Western Oregon. Western Journal of 

Applied Forestry. Vol. 14, No. 2.
D-54

Appendix A: MOA Riparian Workshop Summary Points

MOA Committee Riparian Aquatic Habitat Workshop: Summary Points

1) Riparian systems are complex systems and not well understood. Given the current state 

of knowledge, LWD, shade, litterfall, and fluvial geomorphology factors are the most 

 ̳important.‘

2) LWD levels are low in western Oregon streams. Beschta figure generally depicts a model 

of LWD temporal dynamics as influenced by forest practices on private lands.

3) High variability in space and time as to how riparian characteristics influence habitat. 

One size does not fit all.

4) There is a difference between ―optimal‖ and ―healthy viable population‖ in terms of goals 

of riparian needs.

5) Hardwoods can provide for important functions other than LWD and shade.

6) Some form of active management in riparian areas can accelerate the development of a 

desired condition.

7) We do not have a clear demonstration that adding LWD and artificial structures has a 

meaningful effect on overall fish populations, due to the long time and basin-wide scale 

needed to measure a statistically meaningful response. 

We have demonstrated that for a given stream-reach, fish populations will increase 

with additional LWD and structure. We just don‘t know if this is a reshuffling of the 

existing population, or a true increase in total population.

8) ―Upslope areas‖ contribute some additional LWD above and beyond what adjacent 

riparian stands contribute.

9) ―The curve can be shifted.‖ (re: Beschta figure)

10) LWD in the stream is good, but the devil is in the details.

11) Regeneration of conifer in riparian areas is very difficult with rules that only allow for 

thinning of the existing stand. 

With current conifer retention standards, replacement of those conifers is likely 

precluded due to low light conditions. Increased growth will occur with thinning, but 

regeneration will be difficult. (See Dave Hibbs‘ data on understory shade vs. what is 

needed for regeneration.)

12) Small streams make an ecological contribution, but the contribution varies by stream. 

(The implication is that management prescriptions around small streams should be done 

on a site-specific basis.)

13) In terms of the distance from stream edge, the data that define how the various riparian 

functions are provided by riparian vegetation are generally limited and variable. 

Nonetheless, most functions are provided by vegetation within a distance somewhere 

between 60 to 130 feet (60 feet to 40 meters) of the stream. The law of diminishing 

returns exists for all the functions as distance increases.

14) Disturbance regimes are variable across western Oregon, but fire, wind and floods "reset" 

the landscape with different return intervals and intensities of disturbance.
D-55

Appendix B: Oregon Plan Objectives

Instream Roughness

i.) In cooperation with local groups and federal agencies, refine by reach or stream 

type, the amount of instream roughness necessary to support healthy salmonid 

stocks in all coastal streams by 2002.

ii.) The interim habitat objectives for instream roughness for streams west of the 

Oregon cascade crest are 50 percent of the stream length (orders 2-5) will have 

more than three functional large wood key pieces/100 meters of stream length. A 

functional key piece is woody debris that has adequate length and diameter to be 

"stable" and create habitat within a channel. This is a piece that is greater than 

1.5 times as long as the channel is wide with a rootwad attached and 2 times as 

long as the channel is wide with no rootwad. Functional diameter is 18 inches or 

greater on the small end of the piece10. 

iii.) In cooperation with watershed councils, private landowners, and local, state and 

federal agencies, create watershed assessments and action plans in every basin in 

all steelhead ESUs that gives the status of current channel large roughness 

conditions and prioritizes options for further study, restoration, and protection by 

200211.

iv.) Ensure that existing programs prevent, minimize or mitigate the effects of human 

activities on present (1997) instream roughness elements important to salmonids.

v.) Ensure that instream roughness elements important to salmonids deposited and 

transported during floods and other natural events remain in place to the extent 

consistent with public health and safety.

vi.) In steelhead streams deficient in instream roughness elements important to 

salmonids, actively restore those elements and/or the upstream and upland 

processes that will restore them naturally, in 5 percent of the deficient stream 

miles per biennium.

Temperature Biological Objectives

1. In ESU watersheds that support or have historically supported steelhead, where water 

quality currently is equal to, or better than, the Department of Environmental Quality 

(DEQ) water quality standard for temperature, manage activities such that water quality is 

not degraded.

 

10 For streams with a bankfull width less than 10 feet, the functional diameter is 10 inches; 10 to 20 feet = 16 inches; 

20 to 30 feet = 18 inches; greater than 30 feet = 24 inches.

11 This time frame was drafted when the Oregon Plan applied only to the coastal ESU watersheds. Now that the 

implementation of the plan is statewide, the time frame may need to be extended.
D-56

2. To meet the DEQ water quality standard for temperature in ESU watersheds that support 

steelhead, or have historically supported steelhead, according to the following milestones 

(% of watersheds meeting numeric criteria for temperature):

Year Coast ESUs

Lower 

Columbia 

ESUs

Upper 

Willamette 

ESU

Snake Basin 

ESU

All 

Steelhead 

ESUs

1997 18% 39% 11% 7% 18%

2007 35% 45% 20% 20% 35%

2012 45% 60% 40% 40% 45%

2017 65% 80% 60% 60% 65%

2027 90% 90% 90% 90% 90%

3. To identify watersheds in the steelhead ESUs not meeting the water quality standard for 

temperature through biennial updates to the 303(d) list according to the following 

milestones (% of watersheds measured):

2002 - 50%

2007 - 95%

4. To identify temperature conditions within unimpaired or least-impaired reference sites in 

the steelhead ESUs according to the following milestones (% of reference sites monitored 

per ESU):

Proposed Number of Reference Sites per ESU

Klamath Mountains

and Oregon Coast

SW Washington and 

Lower Columbia

Upper Willamette 

River

Snake River Basin

75 50 50 50

Year Sites Sampled Total Sites Sampled

1998 First 20% 20%

1999 Second 20% 40%

2000 Third 20% 60%

2001 Fourth 20% 80%

2002 Last 20% 100%

2003+ Repeat cycle by re-sampling beginning with first 20%
D-57

5. To determine the status and trend of temperature conditions within the steelhead ESUs 

through randomly selected monitoring sites according to the following milestones (% of 

random sites monitored per ESU):

Proposed Number of Random Sites per ESU

Klamath Mountains

and Oregon Coast

SW Washington and 

Lower Columbia

Upper Willamette 

River

Snake River Basin

150 100 100 100

Year Sites Sampled Total Sites Sampled

1998 First 20% 20%

1999 Second 20% 40%

2000 Third 20% 60%

2001 Fourth 20% 80%

2002 Last 20% 100%

2003+ Repeat cycle by re-sampling beginning with first 20%

6. To evaluate the effectiveness of restoration projects and Agricultural Water Quality 

Management Plans (AWQMP) by developing and implementing monitoring strategies for 

assessing temperature conditions following the implementation of such activities within 

steelhead ESUs. DEQ will rely heavily on watershed councils or other agencies for these 

data. DEQ will provide technical assistance as needed.

7. Review the numeric criteria in the temperature standard during each Triennial Review 

Period to determine if the standard needs to be scheduled for revision to ensure it remains 

protective of beneficial uses based upon the most current scientific information.
D-58

Appendix C: Figures from Thom et al. (1999)

The figures and tables on the following pages are taken directly from Thom et al. (1999).
D-59
D-60
D-61
D-62

Appendix D: Additional Administrative Rules

OAR 340-041-0120

Implementation Program Applicable to All Basins

(11) EQC policy on surface water temperature (as regulated in the basin standards found in OAR 340-041-

0205, OAR-340-041-0245, OAR-340-041-0285, OAR-340-041-0325, OAR-340-041-0365, OAR-340-041-

0445, OAR-340-041-0485, OAR-340-041-0525, OAR-340-041-0565, OAR-340-041-0605, OAR-340-041-

0645, OAR-340-041-0685, OAR-340-041-0725, OAR-340-041-0765, OAR-340-041-0805, OAR-340-041-

0845, OAR-340-041-0885, OAR-340-041-0925, OAR-340-041-0965:

(a) It is the policy of the Environmental Quality Commission (EQC) to protect aquatic ecosystems from 

adverse surface water warming caused by anthropogenic activities. The intent of the EQC is to minimize the 

risk to cold-water aquatic ecosystems from anthropogenic warming of surface waters, to encourage the 

restoration of critical aquatic habitat, to reverse surface water warming trends, to cool the waters of the 

State, and to control extremes in temperature fluctuations due to anthropogenic activities:

(A) The first element of this policy is to encourage the proactive development and implementation of best 

management practices or other measures and available temperature control technologies for nonpoint and 

point source activities to prevent thermal pollution of surface waters;

(B) The second element of this policy is to require the development and implementation of surface water 

temperature management plans for those basins exceeding the numeric temperature criteria identified in the 

basin standards. The surface water temperature management plans will identify the best management 

practices (BMPs) or measures and approaches to be taken by nonpoint sources, and technologies to be 

implemented by point sources to limit or eliminate adverse anthropogenic warming of surface waters.

(e) Surface water temperature management plans will be required according to OAR 340-041-

0026(3)(a)(D) when the relevant numeric temperature criteria are exceeded and the waterbody is designated 

as water-quality limited under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. The plans will identify those steps, 

measures, technologies, and/or practices to be implemented by those sources determined by the Department 

to be contributing to the problem. The plan may be for an entire basin, a single watershed, a segment of a 

stream, single or multiple nonpoint source categories, single or multiple point sources or any combination 

of these, as deemed appropriate by the Department, to address the identified temperature problem:

(A) In the case of state and private forestlands, the practices identified in rules adopted pursuant to the 

State Forest Practices Act (FPA) will constitute the surface water temperature management plan for the 

activities covered by the act. Consequently, in those basins, watersheds or stream segments exceeding the 

relevant temperature criterion, and for those activities covered by the Forest Practices Act, the forestry 

component of the temperature management plan will be the practices required under the FPA. If the 

mandated practices need to be improved in specific basins, watersheds or stream segments to fully protect 

identified beneficial uses, the Departments of Forestry and Environmental Quality will follow the process 

described in ORS 527.765 to establish, implement, and improve practices in order to reduce thermal loads 

to achieve and maintain the surface water temperature criteria. Federal forest management agencies are 

required by the federal Clean Water Act to meet or exceed the substantive requirements of the state forestry 

nonpoint source program. The Department currently has Memoranda of Understanding with the U.S. Forest 

Service and Bureau of Land Management to implement this aspect of the Clean Water Act. These 

memoranda will be used to identify the temperature management plan requirements for federal forestlands;

(g) Maintaining low stream temperatures to the maximum extent practicable in basins where surface water 

temperatures are below the specific criteria identified in this rule shall be accomplished by implementing 

technology based permits, best management practices or other measures. Any measurable increase in 

surface water temperature resulting from anthropogenic activities in these basins shall be in accordance with 

the antidegradation policy contained in OAR 340-041-0026.
D-63

OAR 340-04l-0026 

Policy and Guidelines Generally Applicable to All Basins

(1) In order to maintain the quality of waters in the State of Oregon, the following is the general policy of 

the EQC: 

(a) Antidegradation Policy for Surface Waters. The purpose of the Antidegradation Policy is to guide 

decisions that affect water quality such that unnecessary degradation from point and nonpoint sources of 

pollution is prevented, and to protect, maintain, and enhance existing surface water quality to protect all 

existing beneficial uses. The standards and policies set forth in OAR 340-041-0120 through 340-041-0962 

are intended to implement the Antidegradation Policy;

(A) High Quality Waters Policy: Where existing water quality meets or exceeds those levels necessary to 

support propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and recreation in and on the water, and other designated 

beneficial uses, that level of water quality shall be maintained and protected. The Environmental Quality 

Commission, after full satisfaction of the intergovernmental coordination and public participation 

provisions of the continuing planning process, and with full consideration of sections (2), (3) and (5) of this 

rule, however, may allow a lowering of water quality in these high quality waters if they find: 

(i) No other reasonable alternatives exist except to lower water quality; and

(ii) The action is necessary and justifiable for economic or social development benefits and outweighs the 

environmental costs of lowered water quality; and

(iii) All water quality standards will be met and beneficial uses protected.

(3)(a)(D) Effective July 1, 1996, in any waterbody identified by the Department as exceeding the relevant 

numeric temperature criteria specified for each individual water quality management basin identified in 

OAR 340-041-0205, OAR-340-041-0245, OAR-340-041-0285, OAR-340-041-0325, OAR-340-041-0365, 

OAR-340-041-0445, OAR-340-041-0485, OAR-340-041-0525, OAR-340-041-0565, OAR-340-041-0605, 

OAR-340-041-0645, OAR-340-041-0685, OAR-340-041-0725, OAR-340-041-0765, OAR-340-041-0805, 

OAR-340-041-0845, OAR-340-041-0885, OAR-340-041-0925, OAR-340-041-0965, and designated as 

water quality limited under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, the following requirements shall apply 

to appropriate watersheds or stream segments in accordance with priorities established by the Department. 

The Department may determine that a plan is not necessary for a particular stream segment or segments 

within a water-quality limited basin based on the contribution of the segment(s) to the temperature problem:

(i) Anthropogenic sources are required to develop and implement a surface water temperature management 

plan which describes the best management practices, measures, and/or control technologies which will be 

used to reverse the warming trend of the basin, watershed, or stream segment identified as water quality 

limited for temperature;

(ii) Sources shall continue to maintain and improve, if necessary, the surface water temperature 

management plan in order to maintain the cooling trend until the numeric criterion is achieved or until the 

Department, in consultation with the Designated Management Agencies (DMAs), has determined that all 

feasible steps have been taken to meet the criterion and that the designated beneficial uses are not being 

adversely impacted. In this latter situation, the temperature achieved after all feasible steps have been taken 

will be the temperature criterion for the surface waters covered by the applicable management plan. The 

determination that all feasible steps have been taken will be based on, but not limited to, a site-specific 

balance of the following criteria: protection of beneficial uses; appropriateness to local conditions; use of 

best treatment technologies or management practices or measures; and cost of compliance;

(iii) Once the numeric criterion is achieved or the Department has determined that all feasible steps have 

been taken, sources shall continue to implement the practices or measures described in the surface water 

temperature management plan in order to continually achieve the temperature criterion;

(iv) For point sources, the surface water temperature management plan will be part of their National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit (NPDES);

(v) For nonpoint sources, the surface water temperature management plan will be developed by designated 

management agencies (DMAs) which will identify the appropriate BMPs or measures;

(vi) A source (including but not limited to permitted point sources, individual landowners and land 

managers) in compliance with the Department or DMA (as appropriate) approved surface water temperature 

management plan shall not be deemed to be causing or contributing to a violation of the numeric criterion if 

the surface water temperature exceeds the criterion;
D-64

OAR 340-041-0205 

Water Quality Standards Not to be Exceeded [For N.Coast-Lower Columbia Basin, but generally

applicable to all basins.]

(1) Notwithstanding the water quality standards contained below, the highest and best practicable treatment 

and/or control of wastes, activities, and flows shall in every case be provided so as to maintain dissolved 

oxygen and overall water quality at the highest possible levels and water temperatures, coliform bacteria 

concentrations, dissolved chemical substances, toxic materials, radioactivity, turbidities, color, odor, and 

other deleterious factors at the lowest possible levels.

(2)(b) Temperature: The changes adopted by the Commission on January 11, 1996, become effective July 

1, 1996. Until that time, the requirements of this rule that were in effect on January 10, 1996, apply. The 

method for measuring the numeric temperature criteria specified in this rule is defined in OAR 340-041-

0006(54):

(A) To accomplish the goals identified in OAR 340-041-0120(11), unless specifically allowed under a 

Department-approved surface water temperature management plan as required under OAR 340-041-

0026(3)(a)(D), no measurable surface water temperature increase resulting from anthropogenic activities is 

allowed:

(i) In a basin for which salmonid fish rearing is a designated beneficial use, and in which surface water 

temperatures exceed 64.0°F (17.8°C); 

(ii) In the Columbia River or its associated sloughs and channels from the mouth to river mile 309 when 

surface water temperatures exceed 68.0°F (20.0°C);

(iii) In waters and periods of the year determined by the Department to support native salmonid spawning, 

egg incubation, and fry emergence from the egg and from the gravels in a basin which exceeds 55.0°F 

(12.8°C); 

(iv) In waters determined by the Department to support or to be necessary to maintain the viability of native

Oregon bull trout, when surface water temperatures exceed 50.0°F (10.0°C);

(v) In waters determined by the Department to be ecologically significant cold-water refugia;

(vi) In stream segments containing federally listed Threatened and Endangered species if the increase 

would impair the biological integrity of the Threatened and Endangered population;

(vii) In Oregon waters when the dissolved oxygen (DO) levels are within 0.5 mg/l or 10 percent saturation 

of the water column or intergravel DO criterion for a given stream reach or subbasin;

(viii) In natural lakes.

(B) An exceedance of the numeric criteria identified in subparagraphs (A)(i) through (iv) of this subsection 

will not be deemed a temperature standard violation if it occurs when the air temperature during the 

warmest seven-day period of the year exceeds the 90th percentile of the seven-day average daily maximum 

air temperature calculated in a yearly series over the historic record. However, during such periods, the 

anthropogenic sources must still continue to comply with their surface water temperature management plans 

developed under OAR 340-041-0026(3)(a)(D);

(C) Any source may petition the Commission for an exception to subparagraphs (A)(i) through (viii) of this 

subsection for discharge above the identified criteria if:

(i) The source provides the necessary scientific information to describe how the designated beneficial uses 

would not be adversely impacted; or

(ii) A source is implementing all reasonable management practices or measures; its activity will not 

significantly affect the beneficial uses; and the environmental cost of treating the parameter to the level 

necessary to assure full protection would outweigh the risk to the resource.
D-65

Appendix E: State Water Quality Standards and Rules

LISTING CRITERIA for OREGON’S 1998 303(d) LIST of WATER QUALITY LIMITED 

WATER BODIES [Oregon Department of Environmental Quality October 1998]:

BACKGROUND:

The 1972 Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) in Section 303(d) requires each state to identify those 

waters for which existing required pollution controls are not stringent enough to achieve that 

state‘s water quality standards. For these waters, states are required to establish total maximum 

daily loads (TMDLs) in accordance with a priority ranking. The requirements for listing water 

quality limited streams still in need of a TMDL are contained in several parts of the Code of 

Federal Regulations 40 CFR. The most recent updates were published July 24, 1992 and became 

effective August 24, 1992. In addition, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 

10 has established guidance entitled, "Guidance Document for listing water bodies in the Region 

10 Section 303(d) Program," (November 1995, available upon request).

The clarification of the intent of Section 303(d) in 1992 required the State to "demonstrate good 

cause" for not listing a water body and puts the burden of proof on the State to justify exclusion 

of any water body (Federal Register, Volume 57, No. 143, Friday July 24, 1992, pg 33047, 

preamble to Section 130.7 TMDLs). The State must use all existing and readily available water 

quality data to prepare the Section 303(d) list. At a minimum, the following sources of data 

should be considered: waters identified as partially or not meeting water quality standards in the 

305(b) report; waters for which dilution calculations or predictive models indicate nonattainment 

of standards; waters for which problems have been reported by other agencies, institutions and 

the public; and waters identified as impaired or threatened in the State‘s nonpoint assessments 

submitted to EPA under Section 319 of the CWA.

Standards are typically designed to protect the most sensitive beneficial use within a water body. 

Listings can be based on: evidence of a numeric standard exceedence; evidence of a narrative 

standard exceedence; evidence of a beneficial use impairment; or antidegradation (i.e. a declining 

trend in water quality such that it would exceed a standard prior to the next listing period).

When a state submits its Section 303(d) list and supporting documentation to EPA for review and

approval, the submission will constitute the bulk of the administrative record supporting EPA‘s 

approval of the list. The submission should include: the Section 303(d) list including pollutants 

impairing water quality and the priorities and waters targeted for TMDL development during the 

next listing cycle; a description of the process the state used in developing the list; any criteria 

and guidelines used by the state in developing the list; the basis for listing decisions made; and a 

summary of the response to public comments.

This is a summary of the listing process and criteria used by the Oregon Department of 

Environmental Quality (DEQ) to develop its 1998 303(d). The 303(d) list decision matrix for 

developing the 303(d) list is contained in separate documentation. This guidance was based on 

the following documents: Oregon Water Quality Standards (OAR 340-41) and "Guidance 

Document for listing water bodies in the Region 10 Section 303(d) Program." 
D-66

PARAMETER: Temperature

BENEFICIAL USES AFFECTED: Resident Fish and Aquatic Life, Salmonid Fish Spawning 

and Rearing

STANDARDS or CRITERIA: OAR 340-41-(basin)(2)(b)

Standards applicable to all basins (adopted 1/11/96, effective 7/1/96):

Seven (7) day moving average of the daily maximum shall not exceed the following values 

unless specifically allowed under a Department-approved basin surface water temperature 

management plan:

64 F (17.8 C);

55 F (12.8 C) during times and in waters that support salmon spawning, egg incubation and fry 

emergence from the egg and from the gravels;

50 F (10 C) in waters that support Oregon Bull Trout;

68 F (20 C) in the Columbia River (mouth to river mile 309);

64 F (20 C) in the Willamette River (mouth to river mile 50);

[except when the air temperature during the warmest seven-day period of the year exceeds the 

90th percentile of the 7-day average daily maximum air temperature calculated in a yearly series 

over the historic record]

WATER QUALITY LIMITED CRITERIA: Rolling seven (7) day average of the daily 

maximum exceeds the appropriate standard listed above. In the cases where data was not 

collected in a manner to calculate the rolling seven (7) day average of the daily maximum, 

greater than 25 percent (and a minimum of at least two exceedences) of the samples exceed the 

appropriate standard based on multi-year monitoring programs that collect representative samples 

on separate days for the season of concern (typically summer) and time of day of concern 

(typically mid to late afternoon). 

TIME PERIOD:

Rearing: June 1 through September 30;

Spawning through fry emergence: October 1 to May 31 or water body specific as identified by 

ODFW Biologists;

DATA REQUIREMENTS:

Data collected since Water Year 87 (10/86). Earlier data will be considered on a case by case

basis. Given the statistical basis of the proposed standard, continuous monitoring data was 

preferred and should reflect conditions during the warmest months (typically July and August) or 

period of interest. Multi-year monitoring programs with monthly data collection or single year 

monitoring programs with weekly data collections (not continuous monitoring data) were utilized 

to fill in data gaps where there was no continuous monitoring data available and if they had 

quality assurance available and collected representative samples on separate days for the season 

of concern (typically summer) and time of day of concern (typically mid to late afternoon). 

EXAMPLES OF DATA USED FOR 1998 LISTING:

Continuous temperature monitoring data collected by the Departmental of Environmental 

Quality, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, 

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indians, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the 

Cooperative Extension Service.
D-67

Department of Environmental Quality, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and 

Unified Sewage Agency of Washington County routine or intensive monitoring data.

PARAMETER: Sedimentation

BENEFICIAL USES AFFECTED: Resident Fish and Aquatic Life, Salmonid Fish Spawning 

and Rearing

STANDARDS or CRITERIA: OAR 340-41-(basin)(2)(j)

Standards applicable to all basins:

The formation of appreciable bottom or sludge deposits or the formation of any organic or 

inorganic deposits deleterious to fish or other aquatic life or injurious to public health, recreation, 

or industry shall not be allowed.

WATER QUALITY LIMITED CRITERIA: Documented that sedimentation is a significant 

limitation to fish or other aquatic life as indicated by the following information:

Beneficial uses are impaired. This documentation can consist of data on aquatic community 

status that shows aquatic communities (primarily macroinvertebrates) which are 60 percent or 

less of the expected reference community for both multimetric scores and multivariate model 

scores are considered impaired. Streams with either multimetric scores or multivariate scores 

between 61 percent and 75 percent of expected reference communities are considered as streams 

of concern. Streams greater than 75 percent of expected reference communities using either 

multimetric or multivariate models are considered unimpaired. 

-orWhere monitoring methods determined a Biotic Condition Index, Index of Biotic Integrity, or 

similar metric rating of poor or a significant departure from reference conditions utilizing a 

suggested EPA biomonitoring protocol or other technique acceptable to DEQ.

-orFishery data on escapement, redd counts, population survey, etc. that show fish species have 

declined due to water quality conditions; and

documentation through a watershed analysis or other published report which summarizes the data 

and utilizes standard protocols, criteria and benchmarks (e.g. those currently used and accepted 

by Oregon Fish and Wildlife or Federal agencies (PACFISH)). Measurements of cobble 

embeddedness or percent fines are considered under sedimentation. Documentation should 

indicate that there are conditions that are deleterious to fish or other aquatic life.

TIME PERIOD:

Annual

DATA REQUIREMENTS:

Data collected since Water Year 87 (10/86) and included in the most recent watershed analysis or 

published report. Earlier data will be considered on a case by case basis.

EXAMPLES OF DATA USED FOR 1998 LISTING:

U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Watershed Analyses or Wild and Scenic 

River Environmental Impact Statements or other published reports.
D-68

Appendix F: Eastern Oregon Riparian Areas and Site Productivity

The following is a comparison of the eastern Oregon riparian area stocking level 

recommendations provided by Fred C. Hall (Senior Plant Ecologist, USDA Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Region) with the standard basal area targets for the two eastside georegions in 

the current forest practice rules.

Fred‘s recommendations should be interpreted as stocking maximums. To maintain viable 

stands, stocking reductions (such as through commercial harvest) should occur when these 

stocking levels are reached to reduce the susceptibility of the trees to insect damage. Stocking 

reduction needs to be enough that regrowth before the next planned entry does not increase 

stocking above these thresholds.

Site Productivity Background:

Site Class 1 > 225 cubic feet/acre/year at culmination of mean annual increment (best 

westside ground)

Site Class 2 165-224

Site Class 3 120-164 (very high site on the eastside)

Site Class 4 85-119 (eastside mixed conifer)

Site Class 5 50-84 (eastside mixed conifer)

Site Class 6 20-49 (typical ponderosa pine site)

Site Class 7 < 20 (typical juniper site, reforestation not required under current rules)

Fred Hall‘s Recommendations for Eastern Oregon Riparian Areas:

Site Class 4 (95 cubic feet/acre/year-grand fir/white fir, subalpine fir, larch white pine sites)

160 square feet of basal area per acre (BA/Ac)

Site Class 5 (60 cubic feet/acre/year-ponderosa pine, grand fir/white fir, Douglas-fir, incense 

cedar)

120 square feet BA/Ac

Site Class 6 (30 cubic feet/acre/year-pure ponderosa pine, some incense cedar)

80 square feet BA/Ac

Site Class 7 (12 cubic feet/acre/year-western juniper with some ponderosa pine)

40 square feet BA/Ac
D-69

Current standard targets in rules converted to basal area/acre 

Harvest FPA-Large Type F FPA-Med. Type F FPA--Small Type F

Method (100’ RMA) (70’ RMA) (50’ RMA)

Harvest Type 2 or 3

(including clearcutting, 74 56 44

seed tree methods, overstory

removals, etc.)

Thinnings and 

other partial cutting 96 75 44

Important note: The rule targets are not directly comparable to Fred Hall‘s recommendations 

because they are stocking standards to be met immediately after harvest, and do not include 

regrowth that will occur prior to the next harvest entry. The rules assume a 50-year return 

interval for Harvest Type 2 and 3 units and a 25-year return interval for thinnings and other 

partial cutting. Based on data for mature eastern Oregon stands, a future stocking level target of 

116 square feet/per acre across all eastside sites was assumed during development of the 1994 

rules. This value is more directly comparable to Fred‘s recommendations.

Discussion: The rule targets apply to all eastern Oregon operations regardless of site 

productivity. A large amount of the ―forestland‖ in eastern Oregon produces less than 20 cubic 

feet per acre per year (Site Class 7). These lands are generally considered to be ―noncommercial‖

and typically support only western juniper. Occasionally, a commercial forest operation will take 

place on these low productivity sites and such operations are subject to the Forest Practices Act 

and the water protection rules. Through a study mandated by 1999 Senate Bill 1151, ODF in 

cooperation with DEQ, ODA, ODFW, and others will evaluate whether the forest practice rules 

should be modified with respect to commercial juniper harvests or whether such harvest should 

be considered agricultural activities associated with rangeland restoration and placed solely under 

ODA jurisdiction. 

A majority of the eastern Oregon sites capable of growing 20 cubic feet per acre per year or more 

are in the Site Class 6 range. Based on Fred‘s recommendations, it appears the current eastern 

Oregon standard targets and future basal area targets may be requiring stocking levels that could 

leave residual stands, along at least large and medium Type F streams, susceptible to insect 

problems (primarily bark beetles) on these Site 6 areas. On Site 5 and better sites, the rule targets 

appear to result in stocking levels that are lower that the potential of the growing sites, according 

to Fred‘s information. Overall, the current rules may oversimplify the variable site conditions 

that exist in this part of the state and further analysis of the stocking targets may be needed.

(see figure on next page)
D-70
Appendix 1

Page 1-i

Appendix 1

Executive Order 99-01 And

Committee Charter
Appendix 1

Page 1-ii
Office of the Governor

State of Oregon

Appendix 1

Page 1-1

EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. EO 99-01

THE OREGON PLAN FOR SALMON AND WATERSHEDS

The purpose of the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds (the "Oregon Plan") as stated in the 

Plan and reaffirmed in this Executive Order is to restore Oregon's wild salmon and trout 

populations and fisheries to sustainable and productive levels that will provide substantial 

environmental, cultural, and economic benefits and to improve water quality. The Oregon Plan 

is a long-term, ongoing effort that began as a focused set of actions by state, local, tribal and 

private organizations and individuals in October of 1995. The Oregon Plan first addressed coho 

salmon on the Oregon Coast, was then broadened to include steelhead trout on the coast and in 

the Lower Columbia River, and is now expanding to all at-risk wild salmonids throughout the 

state. The Oregon Plan addresses all factors for decline of these species, including watershed 

conditions and fisheries, to the extent those factors can be affected by the state. The Oregon Plan 

was endorsed and funded by the Oregon Legislature in 1997 through Oregon Senate Bill 924 

(1997 Or. Laws, ch. 7) and House Bill 3700 (1997 Or. Laws, ch. 8). The Oregon Plan is 

described in two principal documents: "The Oregon Plan," dated March 1997, and "The Oregon 

Plan for Salmon and Watersheds, Supplement I -- Steelhead," dated January 1998. As used in 

this Executive Order, the Oregon Plan also incorporates the Healthy Streams Partnership (Oregon 

Senate Bill 1010, 1993 Or. Laws, ch. 263).

The Oregon Plan is a cooperative effort of state, local, federal, tribal and private organizations and 

individuals. Although the Oregon Plan contains a strong foundation of protective regulations --

continuing existing regulatory programs and speeding the implementation of others -- an essential 

principle of the Plan is the need to move beyond prohibitions and to encourage efforts to improve 

conditions for salmon through non-regulatory means. Many of the most significant contributions 

to the Oregon Plan are private and quasi-governmental efforts to protect and restore salmon on 

working landscapes, including efforts by watershed councils.

Salmon and trout restoration requires action and sacrifice across the entire economic and 

geographic spectrum of Oregon. The commercial and sport fishing industries in Oregon have 

been heavily affected by complete or partial closures of fisheries. The forest industry operates 

under the Oregon Forest Practices Act, and has contributed substantially to salmon recovery 

through habitat restoration projects on private lands and by funding a large part of the state 

recovery efforts. The agriculture and mining industries are also taking actions that will protect 

and restore salmon and trout habitat and improve water quality (including financial support of 

restoration efforts by the mining industry). Urban areas are developing water conservation 

programs, spending funds for wastewater treatment improvements to reduce point source 

pollution, reducing non-point source pollution and reducing activities that degrade riparian areas. 

All citizens of Oregon share responsibility for declining populations of wild salmon and trout, 
Office of the Governor

State of Oregon

Appendix 1

Page 1-2

and it is important that there be both a broad commitment to reversing these historic trends and a 

sense that the burdens of restoration are being shared by all of society.

It is also important that there be independent scientific oversight of the Oregon Plan. This 

oversight is being provided by the Independent Mutidisciplinary Science Team (IMST), 

established under Oregon Senate Bill 924 (1997 Or. Laws, ch. 7). Additional legislative 

oversight for the Oregon Plan is being provided by the Joint Legislative Committee on Salmon 

and Stream Enhancement (the "Joint Committee").

Under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (F&WS) and 

the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) are responsible for identifying species that are 

threatened or endangered, and for developing programs to conserve and recover those species. 

F&WS and NMFS have now listed salmonids under the ESA on the entire Oregon Coast, the 

lower Columbia River (including most of the Portland metropolitan area), the Klamath River 

basin, and in the upper Columbia and Snake River basins. More listings are expected within the 

next year.

To date, the F&WS and NMFS generally have not had the resources to develop and implement 

effective recovery plans for fisheries. In addition, in many areas a large proportion of the habitat 

that listed salmonids depend on is located on private lands, where the regulatory tools under the 

ESA are relatively ill-defined and indirect. Finally, federal agencies alone, even if they take an 

active regulatory approach to recovery, will not restore listed salmonids. The federal ESA may 

work to prohibit certain actions, but there is simply too much habitat on private lands for 

restoration to succeed without pro-active involvement and incentives for individuals, groups, and 

local governments to take affirmative actions to restore habitat on working landscapes.

In April, 1997 the State of Oregon and NMFS entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) 

under which the State agreed to continue existing measures under the March 1997 Oregon Plan 

and to take certain additional actions to protect and restore coho salmon on the Oregon Coast. 

On May 6, 1997, NMFS determined that the Oregon Coast Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) 

of coho salmon did not warrant listing as a threatened or endangered species under the ESA. 

On June 2, 1998, the U.S. District Court for Oregon ordered NMFS to reconsider itsdecision 

without taking into account any parts of the Oregon Plan or MOA that are not "current 

enforceable measures." The U.S. District Court for Oregon also held that the MOA was 

speculative, due to the fact that it provided for termination by either party on thirty days notice, 

and that therefore the MOA could not be considered by NMFS in its listing decision.

Under court order, NMFS reconsidered its decision without taking into account the application in 

the future of the harvest and hatchery measures contained in the Oregon Plan, or the habitat 

improvement programs being undertaken under the Oregon Plan, or the commitments made by
Office of the Governor

State of Oregon

Appendix 1

Page 1-3

the State of Oregon in the MOA for improvement of applicable habitat measures. Accordingly, 

NMFS listed Oregon Coast coho as threatened under the ESA on or about October 2, 1998.

The MOA provided for the State of Oregon to take actions necessary to ensure that Oregon Coast 

coho did not warrant listing as a threatened or endangered species under the federal ESA. Now 

that Oregon Coast coho are listed as a threatened species as a result of the U.S. District Court's 

order, the central purpose of the MOA has been eliminated. Due to the uncertainties created by 

the District Court's decision and the increasing extent of salmonids listed or proposed for listing 

under the federal ESA, it is important that the status of the State of Oregon's substantive 

commitments under the MOA and the purpose of the Oregon Plan be clarified.

Through this Executive Order, the State of Oregon reaffirms its intent to play the leading role in 

protecting and restoring Oregon Coast coho and other salmonids through the implementation of 

the Oregon Plan. This Executive Order provides the framework and direction for state agencies 

to implement (to the extent of their authorities) the Oregon Plan in a timely and effective manner. 

This Executive Order also provides a framework for extending the state's efforts beyond a focus 

on Oregon Coast coho, to watersheds and fisheries statewide. Consistent with the principle of 

adaptive management, this Order applies the experience gained to date in implementing the 

Oregon Plan to provide additional detailed direction to state agencies. Finally, this Executive 

Order establishes a public involvement process to prioritize continuing efforts under the Oregon 

Plan.

NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED:

(1) Overall Direction

(a) Agencies of the State of Oregon will, consistent with their authorities, fully implement 

the state agency efforts described in the Oregon Plan and in this Executive Order.

(b) The overall objective for state agencies under the Oregon Plan and this Executive 

Order is to protect and restore salmonids and to improve water quality.

(c) The Governor will, in cooperation with the Joint Committee, IMST, affected state 

agencies, watershed councils, and other affected local entities and persons develop and 

implement a process to set biological and habitat goals and objectives to protect and restore 

salmonids on a basin or regional basis as soon as practicable. Once these goals and objectives 

are established, they will be used by state agencies to evaluate their regulatory and non-regulatory 

programs and measures relating to the protection and restoration of salmonids. Through this ongoing evaluation, state agencies will determine any changes to their programs or measures that 

may be necessary to meet the biological and habitat goals and objectives. In the interim, the 
Office of the Governor

State of Oregon

Appendix 1

Page 1-4

following objectives in subsections (d) and (e) shall apply to agencies' implementation of the 

Oregon Plan and this Executive Order.

(d) Actions that state agencies take, fund and/or authorize that are primarily for a purpose 

other than restoration of salmonids or the habitat they depend upon will, considering the 

anticipated duration and geographic scope of the actions:

(A) to the maximum extent practicable minimize and mitigate adverse effects of 

the actions on salmonids or the habitat they depend on; and

(B) not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of 

salmonids in the wild.

(e) State agencies will take, fund and/or authorize actions that are primarily for the 

purpose of restoring salmonids or the habitat they depend upon, including actions implementing 

the Oregon Plan, with the goal of producing a conservation benefit that (if taken together with 

comparable and related actions by all persons and entities within the range of the species) is 

likely to result in sustainable population levels of salmonids in the foreseeable future, and in 

population levels of salmonids that provide substantial environmental, cultural and economic 

benefits to Oregonians in the long term. 

(f) With the broadening of the Oregon Plan, prioritizing all agency actions according to 

coho core areas is no longer appropriate. Each state agency participating in the Oregon Plan, in 

consultation with ODFW and other partners involved in the implementation of the Plan and 

through a public involvement process, will modify their existing work programs in the Oregon 

Plan to prioritize agency measures to protect and restore salmonids in a timely and effective 

manner. The work programs will continue to identify key specific outcomes, refine and improve 

designations of priority areas, and establish completion dates. These modifications will be 

submitted to the Governor, the Joint Committee, and to the appropriate boards and commissions 

as soon as possible, but in no event later than June 1, 1999. Progress reports on action plans will 

be submitted to the Governor, the Joint Committee, and to the appropriate boards and 

commissions on an annual basis. In prioritizing their efforts, state agencies shall consider how to 

maximize conservation benefits for salmonids and the habitat they depend on within limited 

resources and whether their actions are likely to increase populations of salmonids in the 

foreseeable future. 

(g) State agencies will work cooperatively with landowners, local entities and other 

persons taking actions to protect or restore salmonids. 

(h) As the Oregon Plan grows in geographic scope and in intensity of activity, there is a 

growing need to streamline and prioritize state agency activity at the regional level. One 
Office of the Governor

State of Oregon

Appendix 1

Page 1-5

proposal has been to organize state natural resource agency field operations along hydrologic 

units. Therefore, state agencies will consider this proposal and, through the collective efforts of 

state agency directors, develop an organization plan that focuses state agency field effort on the 

activities and areas of highest priority under the Oregon Plan. 

(i) State agencies will continue to encourage and work with agencies of the U.S. 

government to implement the federal measures described in the Oregon Plan. In addition, the 

state agencies will work with the federal government to develop additional means of protecting 

and restoring salmonids. Where appropriate, state agencies will request that federal agencies 

obtain incidental take permits under Section 7 of the federal ESA for state actions that are funded 

or authorized by a federal agency. 

(j) State agencies will help support efforts to evaluate watershed conditions, and to 

develop specific strategic plans to provide for flood management, water quality improvement, 

and salmonid restoration in basins around the state, including the Willamette basin through the 

Willamette Restoration Initiative. 

(k) The IMST will continue to provide oversight to ensure the use of the best scientific 

information available as the basis for implementation of and for adaptive changes to the Oregon 

Plan. State agencies will ensure that the IMST receives data and other information reasonably 

required for its functions in a timely manner. The Governor's Natural Resources Office (GNRO) 

has requested that the IMST's initial priority be review of the freshwater habitat needs of coho 

and the relationship between population levels, escapement levels, and habitat characteristics. 

The GNRO also will continue to request that the IMST annually review monitoring results and 

identify where the Oregon Plan warrants change for scientific or technical reasons and make 

recommendations to the appropriate agency on those adjustments that appear necessary. 

Agencies will report their responses to any recommendations by the IMST to the Governor and to 

the Joint Committee. Any other changes identified by the IMST as necessary to achieve properly 

functioning riparian and aquatic habitat conditions required to protect and restore salmonids will 

be forwarded to the appropriate governmental entity for its consideration of the adoption of new, 

changed, or supplemental measures as rapidly as possible while providing for public 

involvement. Each state agency, by June 1, 1999, will ratify a monitoring team charter through 

an interagency memorandum. A draft of the charter is contained in the 1998 Oregon Plan 

Annual Report. 

(l) Monitoring is a key element of the Oregon Plan. Each state agency will actively 

support the monitoring strategy described in the Oregon Plan. Each affected agency will 

participate on the monitoring team to coordinate activities and integrate analyses. Each agency 

will implement an appropriate monitoring program to assess the effectiveness of their programs 

and measures in meeting the objectives set forth in the Oregon Plan on an annual basis. In 

addition, agencies with regulatory programs that are included in the Oregon Plan will determine 
Office of the Governor

State of Oregon

Appendix 1

Page 1-6

levels of compliance with regulatory standards and identify and act on opportunities to improve 

compliance levels. 

(m) If information gathered regarding the effectiveness of measures in the Oregon Plan 

shows that existing strategies within state control are not achieving expected improvements and 

objectives, the agency(ies) responsible for those measures will seek appropriate changes in their 

regulations, policies, programs, measures and other areas of the Oregon Plan, as required to 

protect and restore coho and other salmonids. Such modification or supplementation will be 

done as rapidly as possible, consistent with public involvement. 

(n) Agencies are using geographically-referenced data in their efforts under the Oregon 

Plan, and will be using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) in the analysis of these data. In 

doing so, the State GIS Plan, developed by the Oregon Geographic Information Council (OGIC) 

(see Executive Order 96-40) will be followed, with specific adherence to the Plan guidance on 

data documentation, coordination and data sharing. The agency with primary responsibility for 

gathering and updating the specific data will be responsible for meeting the requirements of the 

Plan, and to ensure coordination with OGIC, the State Service Center for GIS and other 

cooperating agencies. In addition, state agencies will cooperate with the Governor's Watershed 

Enhancement Board (GWEB), Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCDs), local watershed 

councils, landowners and others in making these essential data available. 

(o) Geographically-based strategies to assess and achieve habitat needs and adequate 

escapement levels will be used, and the state agencies will continue with the development of 

standardized watershed assessment protocols, including a cumulative effects assessment. State 

agencies will also continue with the development of habitat restoration guides to evaluate and 

direct habitat restoration efforts. 

(2) Continuation and Expansion of Existing Efforts. Without limiting the generality of 

section (1)(a) of this Executive Order, the following subsections of this Executive Order describe 

some of the many efforts in the Oregon Plan where the initial phase of work has been completed, 

and where efforts will be continued. 

(a) The Oregon Fish & Wildlife Commission (OFWC), the Oregon Department of Fish & 

Wildlife (ODFW), and the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) are managing ocean 

and terminal fisheries according to the measures set forth in the Oregon Plan (ODFW I-A.1 and 

III-A.1). These measures set a maximum mortality rate (resulting from other fisheries) for any of 

four disaggregated stocks of coho of fifteen percent (15%) under poor ocean conditions. In 1997, 

the mortality rate from harvest is estimated to have been between nine and eleven percent (9-

11%). ODFW and OFWC will continue these measures in state waters, and will actively support 

continued implementation of the ocean harvest measures by the PFMC (Amendment 13 to the 
Office of the Governor

State of Oregon

Appendix 1

Page 1-7

Council's salmon management plan) until and unless a different management regime agreeable to 

NMFS is adopted. 

(b) The OFWC and ODFW will ensure that the fish hatchery measures set forth in the 

Oregon Plan are continued by the OFWC and ODFW. ODFW is marking all hatchery coho on 

the Oregon Coast. This marking will allow increased certainty in estimating hatchery stray rates 

beginning in 1999. Available data on hatchery stray rates for coho and steelhead are being 

provided to NMFS on an annual basis. The number of hatchery coho released is estimated to 

have been 1.7 million in 1998 -- substantially below the level called for in the Oregon Plan. This 

number will be reduced to 1.2 million in 1999. In addition, ODFW has, and will continue to 

provide annual reports regarding: (i) the number of juvenile hatchery coho that are released by 

brood year, locations and dates of release, life stage, and broodstock origin; (ii) the number of 

adult coho taken for broodstock for each hatchery, the location and date of collection, and the 

origin (hatchery or natural); (iii) the number of hatchery coho estimated to have spawned in 

natural habitat by basin; (iv) the estimated percentage of hatchery coho in the total natural 

spawning population; and (v) the mortality of naturally-spawning coho resulting from each 

fishery. NMFS may provide comments about hatchery programs affecting coho to ODFW, with 

any concerns to be resolved between NMFS and ODFW. 

(c) In addition to recent modifications to hatchery practices and programs, a new vision is 

needed for how Oregon will utilize hatcheries in the best and most effective manner. Therefore, 

the ODFW and the OFWC shall engage in a process to create a strategic plan for fish hatcheries 

in Oregon over the next decade (including state and federally-funded hatcheries, private 

hatcheries, and the STEP program). The essential elements of this process are as follows: 

(i) Impartial analysis -- conduct an impartial analysis of the scientific bases, and the social and 

economic effects of Oregon hatchery programs utilizing existing analyses and review where 

feasible, but conducting new analyses if necessary; (ii) Review the Wild Fish Management Policy

(WFMP) -- because the future plan for hatcheries in Oregon is dependent on implementation of 

the WFMP, ODFW shall conduct a science and stakeholder review to determine if this 

significant policy should be revised and shall make any revision by July 2000; (iii) Frame 

alternative strategies -- convene a group of stockholders to frame alternative strategies, including 

outcomes and descriptions, of how hatcheries will be used in Oregon over the next decade (these 

strategies will address the use of hatcheries for wild fish population recovery including 

supplementation, research and monitoring, public education, and sport and commercial fishing 

opportunities); (iv) Public review and selection of a strategy -- the OFWC shall, after public 

review and comment, adopt a strategic plan to guide development of future hatchery programs, 

incorporating the strategy developed and adopted in accordance with subpart (iii) of this 

paragraph. 

(d) Criteria and guidelines directing the design of projects that may affect fish passage 

have been established in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Oregon 
Office of the Governor

State of Oregon

Appendix 1

Page 1-8

Department of Transportation (ODOT), ODFW, the Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF), the 

Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA), the Division of State Lands (DSL) and the Federal 

Highway Administration. These guidelines apply to the design, construction and consultations of 

projects affecting fish passage. Under the MOU, projects requiring regulatory approvals that 

follow these criteria and guidelines are expedited. Oregon agencies will continue to provide 

technical assistance to ensure that the criteria and guidelines are applied appropriately in 

restoration projects, as well as any other projects that may affect fish passage through road 

crossings and similar structures. ODFW will work with state agencies, local governments, and 

watershed councils to ensure that Oregon's standards for fish passage set forth in Exhibit A to the 

MOU are understood and are implemented. 

(e) Fish presence, stream habitat, road and culvert surveys have been conducted for roads 

within ODOT jurisdiction and county roads in coastal basins, the Lower Columbia basin, the 

Willamette basin, and the Grande Ronde/Imnaha basins. Among the results of these surveys is 

the finding that culvert barriers to fish passage affect a substantial quantity of salmonid habitat. 

For example, surveys of county and state highways in western Oregon found over 1,200 culverts 

that are barriers to passage. As a result, ODOT is placing additional priority on restoring fish 

access. For 1998, ODOT repaired or replaced 35 culverts restoring access to 101 miles of 

salmonid habitat. For 1999, the Oregon Transportation Commission will be asked to fund 

approximately $4.0 million for culvert modification. ODOT and the Commission will continue 

to examine means to speed restoration of fish passage and to coordinate priorities with ODFW. 

(f) Draft watershed assessment protocols have been developed and are being field tested. 

Beginning in 1999, SWCDs, watershed councils and others will be able to use the protocols as 

the basis for action plans to identify and prioritize opportunities to protect and restore salmonids. 

Watershed action plans have already been completed in a number of basins including the Rogue, 

Coos, Coquille and Grande Ronde. State agencies will work to support these watershed 

assessments and plans to the maximum extent practicable. Where watershed action plans have 

been developed under the protocols, GWEB will ensure that projects funded through the 

Watershed Improvement Grant Fund are consistent with watershed action plans, and other state 

agencies will work with SWCDs and watershed councils to ensure that activities they authorize, 

fund or undertake are consistent with watershed action plans to the maximum extent practicable. 

(g) The State of Oregon has developed interim aquatic habitat restoration and 

enhancement guidelines for 1998. State agencies involved with restoration activities (ODFW, 

ODF, DSL, ODA, DEQ, and GWEB) will continue to develop and refine the interim guidelines 

for final publication in April 1999. The guidelines will be applied in restoration activities funded 

or authorized by state agencies. The purpose of the guidelines will be to define aquatic 

restoration and to identify and encourage aquatic habitat restoration techniques to restore 

salmonids. 
Office of the Governor

State of Oregon

Appendix 1

Page 1-9

(h) ODA and ODF have each entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality relating to the development of Total Maximum 

Daily Loads (TMDLs) and Water Quality Management Area Plans (WQMAPs). ODA will adopt 

and implement WQMAPs (through the Healthy Streams Partnership) and ODF will review the 

adequacy of forest practices rules to meet water quality standards. ODF and ODA will evaluate 

the effectiveness of these measures in achieving water quality standards on a regular basis and 

implement any changes required to meet the standards. 

(i) Agencies are implementing a coordinated monitoring program, as described in the 

Oregon Plan. This program includes technical support and standardized protocols for watershed 

councils, stream habitat surveys, forest practice effectiveness monitoring, water withdrawal 

monitoring, ambient water quality monitoring, and biotic index studies, as well as fish presence 

surveys and salmonid abundance and survival monitoring in selected subbasins. State agencies 

are also working to coordinate monitoring efforts by state, federal, and local entities, including 

watershed councils. State agencies will work actively to ensure that the monitoring measures in 

the Oregon Plan are continued. 

(j) GWEB has put into place new processes for identifying and coordinating the delivery 

of financial and technical assistance to individuals, agencies, watershed councils and soil and 

water conservation districts as they implement watershed restoration projects to improve water 

quality and restore aquatic resources. Over $25 million has been distributed for watershed 

restoration projects in the last ten years. During the present (1997-99 biennium) GWEB has 

awarded over $12 million dollars in state and federal funds for technical assistance and 

watershed restoration activities to implement the Oregon Plan. GWEB and state agencies will 

continue to seek financial resources to be allocated by GWEB for watershed restoration activities 

at the local and statewide levels. 

(k) State agencies will continue to encourage, support and work to provide incentives for 

local, tribal, and private efforts to implement the Oregon Plan. In addition, state agencies will 

continue to provide financial assistance to local entities for projects to protect and restore 

salmonids to the extent consistent with their budgetary and legal authorities, and consistent with 

their work programs in the Oregon Plan. To the maximum extent practicable, state agencies will 

also provide technical assistance and planning tools to provide local conservation groups to assist 

in and target watershed restoration efforts. These efforts (during 1996 and 1997) are reported in 

"The Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds: Watershed Restoration Inventory, 1998." Just a 

few of the important efforts that have been completed include:

(A) Eighty-two watershed councils have joined with forty-five Soil and Water 

Conservation Districts as well as private and public landowners to implement on-the-ground 

projects to protect and restore salmonids. During 1996 and 1997, a reported $27.4 million was 

spent on 1,234 watershed restoration projects on non-federal lands. Both the amount spent and 
Office of the Governor

State of Oregon

Appendix 1

Page 1-10

the number of projects represent significant increases (of over 300 percent) over prior years. In 

1996-97, watershed councils, SWCDs and other organizations and individuals completed: (i) 138 

stream fencing projects, involving at least 301 miles of streambank; (ii) 196 riparian area 

planting projects, involving at least 111 miles of streams; and (iii) 458 instream habitat 

improvement projects. 

(B) Private and state forest landowners are implementing key efforts under the 

Oregon Plan, including the road risk and remediation program (ODF-1 and 2). Under this effort 

in 1996 and 1997, close to 4,000 miles of roads have been surveyed to identify risks that the 

roads may pose to salmonid habitat. As the risks are identified, they are then prioritized for 

remediation following an established protocol. Already, 52 miles of forest roads have been 

closed, 843 miles of road repair and reconstruction projects to protect salmonid habitat have been 

completed, and an additional 14 miles of roads have been decommissioned or relocated. In 

addition, 530 culverts have been replaced, upgraded or installed for fish passage purposes, 

improving access to a reported 146 stream miles. 

(C) Organizations working in Tillamook County have developed the Tillamook 

County Performance Partnership. The Partnership is implementing the Tillamook Bay National 

Estuary Program by addressing water quality, fisheries, floodplain management and economic 

development in the county. Among the actions that the Partnership has already accomplished 

are: (i) the closure of seven miles of degraded forest roads and the rehabilitation of 469 miles of 

roads to meet current standards, at a cost of $18 million; (ii) the fencing of 53 miles of 

streambank, and the construction of three cattle bridges and 100 alternative cattle watering sites, 

at a cost of $214,000; and (iii) the completion of 24 instream restoration projects and 34 barbs 

protecting 4,200 feet of streambank, at a cost of $1.3 million dollars. 

(D) The Confederated Tribes of the Grande Ronde Community of Oregon have 

completed a forest management plan that establishes standards for the protection of aquatic 

resources that are comparable to those found in the Aquatic Conservation Strategy of the 

Northwest Forest Plan. 

(E) A combination of funding from the Oregon Wildlife Heritage Foundation and 

the National Fish and Wildlife Heritage Foundation (private, non-profit organizations) is 

providing support for seven biologists to design restoration projects. These projects are 

prioritized based on stream surveys, and are carried out with the voluntary participation and 

support of landowners. A ten-year monitoring plan has been funded and implemented to 

determine project effectiveness. 

(F) The Oregon Cattlemen's Association has implemented its WESt Program that 

is designed to help landowners better understand their watersheds and stream functions through 

assessments and monitoring. The WESt Program brings landowners together along stream 
Office of the Governor

State of Oregon

Appendix 1

Page 1-11

reaches, and offers a series of workshops, conducted on a site specific basis, free of charge. The 

workshops include riparian ecology, setting goals and objectives, Proper Functioning Condition 

(PFC), data collection and monitoring. Over 25 workshops have been held, with attendance 

ranging from 5 to 30 landowners per workshop. The WESt Program is sponsored by the Oregon 

Cattlemen's Association, DEQ, Oregon State University, and GWEB. 

(G) Within the Tillamook State Forest road network 1,902 culverts have been 

replaced or added to improve road drainage and to disconnect storm water runoff from roads 

reducing stream sediment impacts. Additionally, some of these culverts also improved fish 

passage at stream crossings. In this process, ODF has also replaced six culverts with bridges 

improving fish passage to approximately four miles of stream. The Tillamook State Forest in 

conjunction with many partners, such as the Association of Northwest Steelheaders, GWEB, 

Simpson Timber Company, Tillamook County, the FishAmerica Foundation, Hardrock 

Construction Company, the Oregon Wildlife Heritage Foundation, the F&WS, the Oregon Youth 

Conservation Corps, Columbia Helicopters and Terra Helicopters, has also recently completed 

instream placement of over 400 rootwads, trees and boulders at a cost of $300,000 for habitat 

enhancement.

(3) Key Agency Efforts. Continuation and completion of the following state agency efforts is 

critical to the success of the Oregon Plan. State agencies will make continuation or completion 

(as appropriate) of the following efforts a high priority.

(a) The State of Oregon and the U.S. Department of Agriculture have entered into a 

Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP). This cost-share program, one of the first 

of its kind, will be used to reduce the impacts of agricultural practices through water quality and 

habitat improvement. The objectives of the CREP are to: (i) provide incentives for farmers and 

ranchers to establish riparian buffers; (ii) protect and restore at least 4,000 miles of stream habitat 

by providing up to 95,000 acres of riparian buffers; (iii) restore up to 5,000 acres of wetlands that 

will benefit salmonids; and (iv) provide a mechanism for farmers and ranchers to comply with 

Oregon's Senate Bill 1010 (1993 Or. Laws, ch. 263). 

(b) ODF will work with non-industrial forest landowners to administer the Stewardship 

Incentive Program and the Forest Resources Trust programs to protect and restore riparian and 

wetland areas that benefit salmonids. 

(c) The Oregon Board of Forestry will determine, with the assistance of an advisory 

committee, to what extent changes to forest practices are needed to meet state water quality 

standards and to protect and restore salmonids. A substantial body of information regarding the 

effectiveness of current practices is being developed. This information includes: (i) the IMST 

report regarding the role of forest practices and forest habitat in protecting and restoring 

salmonids; and (ii) a series of monitoring projects that include the Storms of 1996 study, a 
Office of the Governor

State of Oregon

Appendix 1

Page 1-12

riparian areas study, a stream temperature study, and a road drainage study. Using this 

information, as well as other available scientific information including scientific information 

from NMFS, the advisory committee will make recommendations to the Board at both site and 

watershed scales on threats to salmonid habitat relating to sediment, water temperature, 

freshwater habitat needs, roads and fish passage. Based on the advisory committee's 

recommendations and other scientific information, the Board will make every effort to make its 

determinations by June 1999. The Board may determine that the most effective means of 

achieving any necessary changes to forest practices is through regulatory changes, statutory 

changes or through other programs including programs to create incentives for forest landowners. 

In the event that the Board determines that legislative changes are necessary to carry out its 

determinations, the Board will transmit any recommendations for such changes to the Governor 

and to the Joint Committee at the earliest possible date. 

(d) Consistent with administrative rule, and statutory and constitutional mandates for the 

management of state forests, ODF State Forest management plans will include an aquatic 

conservation strategy that has a high likelihood of protecting and restoring properly functioning 

aquatic habitat for salmonids on state forest lands. 

(e) ODF will present to NMFS a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) under Section 10 of 

the federal ESA that includes the Clatsop and Tillamook State Forests. ODF has already 

completed scientific review and has public review underway for this draft HCP. The scientific 

and public review comments will be considered by ODF in completing the draft HCP. The draft 

HCP will be presented to NMFS by June 1999. An HCP for the Elliott State Forest was 

approved by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service in 1995. In October of 1997, ODF and DSL 

forwarded the Elliott State Forest HCP to NMFS with the request that it be reviewed to 

determine whether it has a high likelihood of protecting and restoring properly functioning 

aquatic habitat conditions on state forest lands necessary to protect and restore salmonids. Based 

on discussions surrounding the NMFS review, ODF and DSL will determine what revisions, if 

any, are required to the Elliott HCP and/or Forest Management Plan to ensure a high likelihood 

of protecting and restoring properly functioning aquatic habitat for salmonids. 

(f) Before the OFWC adopts and implements fishery regulations that may result in taking 

of coho, ODFW will provide NMFS with all available scientific information and analyses 

pertinent to the proposed regulation where the harvest measures are not under the jurisdiction of 

the PFMC, including results of the Oregon Plan monitoring and evaluation program. This 

information, together with the proposed regulation and supporting analysis, will be provided at 

least two weeks prior to the OFWC's action, to give NMFS time to review and comment on the 

proposed regulations. 
Office of the Governor

State of Oregon

Appendix 1

Page 1-13

(g) ODFW will evaluate the effects of predation on salmonids, and will work with 

affected federal agencies to determine whether changes to programs and law relating to 

predation are warranted in order to protect and restore salmonids. 

(h) Under Oregon Senate Bill 1010 (1993 Or. Laws, ch. 263), ODA will adopt 

Agricultural Water Quality Management Area Plans (AWQMAPs) for Tier I and Tier II 

watersheds by the end of 2002. The AWQMAPs will be designed and implemented to meet load 

allocations for agriculture needed to achieve state water quality standards. In addition, ODA will 

work with ODFW, DEQ, GWEB, SWCDs, federal agencies and watershed councils to determine 

to what extent additional measures related to achieving properly functioning riparian and aquatic 

habitat on agricultural lands are needed to protect and restore salmonids, giving attention first to 

priority areas identified in the Oregon Plan. In the event ODA is unable to reach a consensus 

regarding such measures, ODA will ask the IMST to review areas of substantive scientific 

disagreement and to make recommendations to ODA regarding how they should be resolved. In 

the event that legislative changes are needed to implement such measures, ODA will transmit any 

recommendations for such changes to the Governor and to the Joint Committee at the earliest 

possible date. In addition, any measures identified as needed by ODA will be implemented at the 

earliest practicable time.

(i) ODFW will expedite its applications for instream water rights and OWRD will process 

such applications promptly where flow deficits are identified as adversely affecting salmonids, 

and where such rights are not already in place. The Oregon Water Resources Department 

(OWRD) and the Oregon Water Resources Commission (OWRC) will also seek to facilitate flow 

restoration targeted to streams identified by OWRD and ODFW as posing the most critical lowflow barriers to salmonids. In addition, where necessary, OWRD will continue to work with the 

Oregon State Police to provide enforcement of water use. Where illegal water uses are 

identified, OWRD will ensure outcomes consistent with maintenance and restoration of flows. 

(j) The Oregon Environmental Quality Commission (EQC) and DEQ will evaluate and 

will make every effort to utilize their authorities to continue to provide additional protection to 

priority areas (as determined under section 1(f) of this Executive Order), including in-stream 

flow protection under state law, and antidegradation policy under the federal Clean Water Act 

(including Outstanding Resource Waters designations and high quality waters designations). 

(k) DSL has proposed to adopt changes to its Essential Salmonid Habitat rules that will 

provide additional protection for spawning and rearing areas of anadromous salmonids. In 

addition, ODFW and DSL will consult with the OWRC to determine where it is necessary to 

administratively close priority areas (including work under General Authorizations) to fill and 

removal activities in order to protect salmonids. DSL, ODFW, ODF and ODA also will work 

together to identify means of regulating the removal of organic material (such as large woody 
Office of the Governor

State of Oregon

Appendix 1

Page 1-14

debris) from streams where such removal would adversely affect salmonids and would not be 

contrary to other agency mandates.

(l) DSL will seek the advice of the IMST regarding whether gravel removal affects gravel 

and/or sediment budgets in a manner that adversely affects salmonids.

(m) The Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD), and the Land 

Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) will evaluate and, to the extent feasible, 

speed implementation of existing Goal 5 requirements for riparian corridors. 

(n) DLCD, DEQ, ODF, ODA, ODFW, and DSL and their respective boards and 

commissions will evaluate and implement programs to protect and restore riparian vegetation for 

the purposes of achieving statewide water quality standards and protecting and restoring aquatic 

habitat for salmonids.

(o) DLCD, with the assistance of DSL and ODFW, and in consultation with coastal cities 

and counties, shall review the requirements of Statewide Planning Goal 16 as they pertain to 

estuarine resources important to the restoration of salmonids, and shall, report its findings to 

LCDC for its consideration. 

(p) The Oregon State Police will work to facilitate the existing cooperative relationship 

with the NMFS Office of Law Enforcement, as well as to maintain cooperation with other 

enforcement entities, in order to enhance law enforcement, public awareness and voluntary 

compliance related to harvest, habitat and other issues addressed in the Oregon Plan.

(q) The Oregon Parks and Recreation Department will continue to work to provide 

information and education to the public on salmon and steelhead needs through park programs 

and interpretive aids. 

(r) The Oregon Marine Board will work to ensure fish friendly boating and to develop 

boating facilities that protect salmonids.

(s) State natural resource agencies will continue, to the extent feasible, to support 

watershed councils by providing technical assistance to develop watershed assessments, 

restoration plans and to develop watershed priorities to benefit salmonids. In addition, state 

natural resource agencies will work on a larger watershed scale to develop basin-wide restoration 

priorities.

(4) Future Modifications; Public Involvement for the Oregon Plan Generally. The GNRO 

will solicit public comments and input from participants in the Oregon Plan regarding whether 

there are refinements or changes to the Plan and/or the organizational framework for 
Office of the Governor

State of Oregon

Appendix 1

Page 1-15

implementing the Plan that are necessary or desirable based on the experience gained over the 

past three years, or resulting from the widespread listings and proposed listings of salmon and 

trout under the federal ESA. Based on this public involvement, the GNRO will provide a report 

and recommendations to the Governor and the Joint Committee regarding whether modifications 

are necessary to the Oregon Plan in order to protect and restore coho and other salmonids.

(5) Definitions. For purposes of this Executive Order:

(a) The "Oregon Plan" means the Oregon Coastal Salmon Recovery Initiative, dated 

March 1997, and the Steelhead Supplement, dated January 1998. "Oregon Plan," as used in this 

Order, is intended to be consistent with the definition of the Oregon Coastal Salmon Recovery 

Initiative in Oregon Senate Bill 924 (1997 Or. Laws, ch. 7), and to include the Healthy Streams 

Partnership (1993 Or. Laws, ch. 263). 

(b) "Protect" has the meaning given in section (1)(d) of this Executive Order.

(c) "Restore" has the meaning given in section (1)(e) of this Executive Order. Restore 

necessarily includes actions to manage salmonids to provide for adequate escapement levels, and 

actions to increase the quantity and improve the quality of properly functioning habitat upon 

which salmonids depend.

(d) "Coho" means native wild coho salmon found in rivers and lakes along the

Oregon Coast.

(e) "Salmonids" means native wild salmon, char and trout in the State of Oregon.

(6) Effective Date; Relation to Federal ESA. This Executive Order will take effect on the date 

that it is filed with the Secretary of State. The State of Oregon will continue to work with NMFS 

to determine the appropriate relationship between the Oregon Plan and NMFS's efforts under the 

federal ESA.

Done at Salem, Oregon, this 8th day of January, 1999.

/S/______________________________

John A. Kitzhaber, M.D.

GOVERNOR

ATTEST:
Office of the Governor

State of Oregon

Appendix 1

Page 1-16

/S/___________________________

Suzanne Townsend

DEPUTY SECRETARY OF STATE
Appendix 1

Page 1-17

CHARTER OF THE

FOREST PRACTICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE 

ON SALMON AND WATERSHEDS 

Background and Purpose

Executive Order 99-01 signed by Oregon Governor Kitzhaber directs the Board of Forestry with 

the assistance of an advisory committee to determine what, if any, changes to forest practices are 

necessary to meet water quality standards and to protect and restore salmonids. 

The Forest Practices Advisory Committee on Salmon and Watersheds is the advisory committee 

described in the Executive Order that is charged with making recommendations to the Board. To 

the extent possible, the Committee should make specific recommendations to the Board of 

Forestry by June 1999. 

The Committee includes representatives from environmental, forest industry, commercial 

fishing, sports fishing, logging, local government, labor, and small woodland owner interests. 

Department of Forestry staff, in collaboration with staff from the Oregon Departments of Fish 

and Wildlife and Environmental Quality, provides technical and policy assistance.

Parameters and Assumptions:

The Board recognizes that forest practice rules are important for protecting, and over time 

restoring fish populations, while voluntary measures and incentives are also important to help 

protect and restore fish populations. Consistent with ORS 527.765, to the maximum extent 

practicable, forest practice rules are to be designed to meet state water quality standards.

Recommendations may include regulatory or statutory changes, incentives and/or voluntary 

measures. To the extent possible, any recommendations for rule additions or revisions must 

consider and reflect the standards contained in of ORS 527.714 (attached).

The Committee will seek consensus about recommendations when possible and clearly articulate 

the range of views when consensus is not possible. Significant differences of opinion, if any, 

will be highlighted in the Committee’s report to the Board.

The Board shall approve significant revisions to this Charter and the focus of the Committee’s 

work.

Charge From Board:

Consistent with the Executive Order, and the mission and objectives of the Oregon Plan for 

Salmon and Watersheds, determine: (1) what, if any, changes to forest practices, both regulatory 

and voluntary, are necessary to meet water quality standards and to protect and restore salmonids 

and (2) make specific recommendations to the Board of Forestry. 
Appendix 1

Page 1-18

The Committee will:

1. Determine the Committee’s decision-making process, work plan, and meeting mechanics.

2. Develop a common understanding of issues and the relative importance of limiting factors, 

science, policy, and consideration for forestry operations and riparian conditions on nonfederal lands.

3. Consider the best available information including relevant monitoring data; field evaluations, 

the IMST report, and scientific information, including information from state and federal 

government agencies, universities and private entities, to determine how well the forest 

practice rules meet water quality standards and protect and restore fish.

4. Building on the findings from the third charge, evaluate whether the relative combined 

contributions of the current forest practice rules and voluntary measures (and in consideration 

of the contributions provided by other land uses) will achieve the Oregon Salmon Plan 

recovery objectives. Where possible, evaluate the likelihood that the rules and measures will 

achieve the objectives.

5. Identify, if any, additional practices or programs that might be necessary to meet 

commitments to the Oregon Salmon Plan and the Executive Order

6. Evaluate the relative costs and benefits of additional practices that might further support the 

Oregon Salmon Plan recovery objectives. This evaluation would include an analysis of the 

relative impacts on landowners, the relative contributions of other land uses, consideration of 

alternatives including non-regulatory approaches and alternatives, which achieve the desired 

level of protection and are least burdensome to landowners.

7. Building on the work of the prior objectives, recommend a package that is necessary to meet 

commitments in the Oregon Salmon Plan and Executive Order. If rule changes are 

recommended, develop findings consistent with ORS 527.714. Identify limitations in data 

and recommend appropriate monitoring or research.

8. Complete evaluations and recommendations to the extent possible by June 1999 to present to 

the Board of Forestry.

Membership

Ron Cease, Chair (Public)

Geoff Pampush, (Oregon Trout)

Dan Newton, (Oregon Forest Industries Council)

Paul Ketcham (Portland Audubon)

Gary Springer (Oregon Small Woodlands Association)

Bill Arsenault (Oregon Small Woodlands Association)

Paul Heikkila (Commercial Fishing/OSU Sea Grant Extension)

Bill Street (Labor/ Machinist Union)

Liz Hamilton (Northwest Sportsfishing Industry Association)

Blake Rowe (Oregon Forest Industries Council)

Sue Cameron (Oregon Counties)

Tom Hirons (Associated Oregon Loggers)

Mary Scurlock (Pacific Rivers Council)
Appendix 1

Page 1-19

Roles and Responsibilities

Chair

Direct the development of agendas, run the meetings, ensures that the minutes are correct and 

approved by the Committee.

Facilitators

Conceptualize, design and implement a facilitated group process that will enable the Committee 

to complete effectively and efficiently its work as charged by the Board.

Committee Members

Determine committee workplan, analyze issues, network with others, provide input and guidance 

to staff, and make recommendations to the Board of Forestry.

Staff

Provide technical and policy information and advice, answer questions on technical, policy and 

legal issues, and offer issue presentations to aid committee deliberation. Identify scientists and 

others that have information of value to the Committee and invite these parties to present 

information to the Committee. Provide logistical support.

The following staff will sit at the table to provide support:

Policy Lead and Secretary to the Committee – Ann Hanus, Department of Forestry

Forest Practices Policy – Ted Lorensen and David Morman, Department of Forestry

Forest Practices Technical Issues – Jim Paul, Department of Forestry

Fish and Wildlife Issues – Jeff Boechler, Department of Fish and Wildlife

Water Quality Issues – Department of Environmental Quality

Administrative Support – Cassandra Webber, Department of Forestry

Other staff leads are:

Incentives Policy Lead – Dave Stere, Department of Forestry

Field Coordination – John Seward, Department of Forestry

State Forest Lands Program Liaison – Ross Holloway, Department of Forestry

Other State and Federal Agency Participants

Provide technical and policy information and advice upon request of the Committee and answer 

committee questions. 

Citizen and Scientist Participants

Provide information and input to the Committee at specified times to be determined by the 

Committee. 
Appendix 1

Page 1-20

Attachment 1 – ORS 527.714

Attachment 2 – Draft Statement of Individual Commitment and Accountability;

Working Guidelines

Working guidelines are statements of behavior, which, if mutually understood, accepted, and 

supported by members of a group, or team, improve the flow of useful information and create a 

climate for increased effectiveness and enjoyment of work. 

Members commit to participate actively and will strive to attend all meetings and field trips.

Members will foster collaborative discussion by:

Listening actively and demonstrating that you understand.

Making clear whether you are speaking for yourself or the group. 

Respecting the difference between fact and opinion. 

Avoiding jargon and “loaded” words.

Remaining focused on the objectives of FORPAC and refraining from pursuing 

additional issues or objectives.

Members will be respectful of a diversity of opinion and allow for an open, constructive 

dialogue.

Members will be sensitive to time constraints and keep remarks concise and to the point. 

Members will focus on interests/ideas not on positions and persons.

Members will strive for seeking a range of information sources, recognizing that good 

information makes for good decisions.

Members recognize that appropriate humor is important to enjoying the process and building a 

team and that inappropriate humor may have the opposite result.
Appendix 2

Page 2-i

Appendix 2

Key Committee Correspondence
Appendix 2

Page 2-ii
Appendix 2

Page 2-1

Appendix 2 only includes key correspondence about the committee’s 

purpose and process.

The committee received many comments during the course of its work. 

These were from a range of interests including state and federal 

agencies, scientists, and interested public. Due to the amount of 

materials, such correspondence is not included but is available upon 

request to the Department of Forestry.
Appendix 2

Page 2-2
Appendix 2

Page 2-3
Appendix 2

Page 2-4
Appendix 2

Page 2-5
Appendix 2

Page 2-6
Appendix 2

Page 2-7
Appendix 2

Page 2-8
Appendix 2

Page 2-9
Appendix 2

Page 2-10
Appendix 2

Page 2-11
Appendix 2

Page 2-12
Appendix 2

Page 2-13
Appendix 2

Page 2-14
Appendix 2

Page 2-15
Appendix 2

Page 2-16
Appendix 2

Page 2-17
Appendix 2

Page 2-18
Appendix 3

Page 3-i

Appendix 3

Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team Report
Appendix 3

Page 3-ii
Appendix 3

September 14, 1999

The Honorable John A. Kitzhaber

Governor of Oregon

State Capitol

Salem OR 97310

The Honorable Brady Adams

Oregon Senate President

State Capitol

Salem OR 97310

The Honorable Lynn Snodgrass

Oregon House Speaker

State Capitol

Salem OR 97310

Enclosed is Technical Report 1999-1 from the Independent Multidisciplinary 

Science Team on the forestry project that we just completed. The report contains 

19 specific recommendations. Most are directed to the Oregon Department of 

Forestry (ODF), but there are also recommendations for Oregon Department of 

Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) and the Forest Research Laboratory (FRL).

This report focuses on topics involving the management of (a) riparian areas, (b) 

large wood (sometimes referred to as large woody debris), (c) sedimentation 

from roads and landslides and (d) fish passage at road-stream crossings. While 

there are other forestry issues that could impact the recovery of wild salmonids, 

we felt these were most important, and were within the scope of what the IMST 

could do given the rest of our responsibilities.

The geographic scope of our report is forested lands west of the Cascades and in 

the Siskiyous. We excluded forest lands on the east side in part because grazing 

and forestry are so strongly intermingled on these lands and in many instances it 

will be difficult to segregate the effects on aquatic habitat of one land use from 

the other. I anticipate that IMST will address this intermixed land use on the 

eastside and their different policies in a separate project. For now we note that 

the concepts articulated for the westside forestlands can likely be extended by 

ODF, ODFW and the FRL to the eastside forests.

Concerning this report, the IMST finds that some specific aspects the Oregon 

Forest Practices Rules and the Measures of the Oregon Plan need improvement 

in dealing with riparian buffers, large wood management,
Appendix 3
Appendix 3

sedimentation and fish passage at road-stream crossings. We believe these changes can all be 

accommodated within the existing policy framework. However, even with these changes, the current 

site-specific approach of regulation and voluntary actions is not sufficient to accomplish the recovery 

of wild salmonids. A landscape scale approach with flexible or adaptive management will be needed. 

Our report recommends this for forestlands (see recommendations I and 2), but we believe this will 

require a change in the forest policy framework of the State before it will be feasible, equitable and 

attractive. Given that salmonids extend across most of the lands of the State, I anticipate that in the 

future the IMST will conclude the landscape approach will need to extend across this larger 

landscape as well.

To conclude, as you study our report keep in mind there are two levels of resolution and two general 

time scales involved. One level of resolution is at the operational level involving changes to existing 

Rules and Measures and their implementation. This level of resolution can be accomplished in the 

near-term future. The second level of resolution is at the policy level, as reflected in 

recommendations I and 2. This issues involved at this level will require a longer period of time.

The IMST will discuss this report with the ODF Advisory Committee on Forest Practices on 

September 23. 1 will discuss this report with the Board of forestry on October 22.

The IMST remains committed to the mission of the Oregon Plan and hope our work is helpful. We 

would be pleased to discuss this report or any of our other work with you at your convenience.

Sincerely Yours,

Logan A. Norris, Chair

Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team

LAN:grs

cc: IMST

JLCSRSR
Appendix 3
Appendix 3

Recovery of Wild Salmonids in Western Oregon Forests:

Oregon Forest Practices Act Rules 

and the Measures in the

Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds 

Technical Report 1999-1

Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team 

September 8, 1999 

Members of IMST

Logan Norris, Team Chair, Department of Forest Science, Oregon State University

John Buckhouse, Department of Rangeland Resources, Oregon State University

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

Stanley Gregory, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Oregon State University

Kathleen Kavanagh, Extension Service and Forest Resources, Oregon State University

James Lichatowich, Alder Fork Consulting

William Pearcy, College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University

Citation: Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team. 1999. Recovery of Wild Salmonids in 

Western Oregon Forests: Oregon Forest Practices Act Rules and the Measures in the 

Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds. Technical Report 1999-1 to the Oregon Plan 

for Salmon and Watersheds, Governor's Natural Resources Office, Salem, Oregon.
Appendix 3
ii Appendix 3

Table of Contents

Preface iv

Executive Summary

Section I - Introduction 

History and Scope of the Project 6

Organization of this Report 7

Science Questions 10

Resource Materials 10

Section II – Concepts for the Recovery of Stocks of Wild Salmonids in Oregon that Involve 

Forests and Forestry

Changing Views of Salmonids and Habitat 11

Landscape Ecology: Basic Concepts 13

Structure, function and change 14

Landscape patterns 14

Disturbance 15

Wild salmonids in relation to landscape ecology 15

A Landscape Approach 16

Section III - Science Questions and Answers

Question 1. What is the scientific basis for maintaining fish habitat/water quality in forested 

ecosystems with respect to riparian buffers, large wood, sedimentation, and fish passages at roadstream crossings? 18

Riparian Buffers 18

Riparian buffers as a strategy 18

Riparian buffer management based on stream size 20

Riparian buffer management based on fish presence 21

Large Wood 21

Functions of large wood 21

The status of large wood in streams and the landscape 22

Managing for recruitment of large wood 23

Sedimentation 23

Managing chronic sedimentation from roads at the site level 24

Managing chronic sedimentation from roads at the landscape level 25

Managing episodic road failure 25

Managing slope failure and the movement of material to the stream system 27

Fish Passage at road-stream crossings 30

Question 2. Are current forest practices Rules and Measures with regard to riparian buffers, large 

wood, sedimentation, and fish passage adequate to achieve the mission of the Oregon Plan? 31
iii Appendix 3

Question 3. What strategies are needed in the management of forest resources to achieve the 

mission of the Oregon Plan? 34

Prescriptive Approaches 34

Oregon Forest Practices Act and Administrative Rules 34

The (federal) Northwest Forest Plan 35

Washington Forest Practices Act and Rules 35

Conceptual Approaches 36

A Blended Approach 37

Emulating Historic Patterns — A Challenge 37

Conclusion 38

Section IV – Conclusions and Implications for Policy

Conclusions 39

Riparian protection 39

Large wood management 39

Sedimentation 39

Fish passage at stream crossings 40

Implications for Policy 40

Evaluating Policy 40

Section V. Recommendations 

Section VI. References

Appendix. Summary of the State of Knowledge 

Attributes of Salmonid Habitat 65

Salmonid Life Histories 65

Migration 65

Spawning 65

Incubation 65

Rearing 66

Riparian Forests as a Key Factor Influencing Salmonid Habitat 66

Role of Riparian Forests in Regulating (Influencing) Stream Temperature 66

Role of Forests in Influencing Nutrient Inputs and Flux 67

Deposition of organic material 68

Decomposition of organic material 68

Forest practices 69

Large Wood as Structural and Functional Elements of Aquatic Habitat 69

Functions of Large Wood in Streams 69

Sources of Large Wood 70

Impact of Forest Practices on Large Wood 71

Sedimentation 74

Roads as a Source of Sediment 76

Road Drainage 80

Road Maintenance and Abandonment 82

Non-road-related Landslides 83
iv Appendix 3

PREFACE

The recovery of wild salmonids in Oregon depends on many factors, including quality freshwater 

and estuarine habitats. Freshwater habitat extends across all the lands of the State, and includes 

lands in urban areas and lands devoted to agriculture, forestry, and other uses. Estuaries provide a 

transition between fresh water and the ocean, and are a critical part of the habitat of anadromous 

wild salmonids. The Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team (IMST) is evaluating the 

science behind the management practices and policies that affect all of these freshwater and 

estuarine habitats. 

We have subdivided the work to focus on major types of land use (forestry, agriculture, and 

urban land uses). The subdivisions correspond to the different policy frameworks within which 

these lands are managed. Although the policies differ, these land uses interface and intermingle, 

and the aquatic environments on which the fish depend traverse and link them all. We emphasize 

that the boundaries we make between these areas in our reports are entirely artificial. 

IMST is conducting its analysis of land-use practices within a framework made up of three

fundamental concepts. Although not testable in a practical sense, we believe each concept is 

consistent with generally accepted scientific theory. The concepts are as follows:

1. Wild salmonids are a natural part of the ecosystem of the Pacific Northwest, and they 

have co-evolved with it. The contemporary geological landscape of the Pacific Northwest 

was established with the formation of the major river/stream basins of the region, 

approximately two to five million years ago. The modern salmonids of the region largely 

developed from that time (Lichatowich 1999). The abundance of these species at the time 

of Euro-American migration to Oregon is a reflection of more than 10,000 years of 

adaptation to the post-glacial environment and 4,000 to 5,000 years of adaptation to 

contemporary climatic and forest patterns. There is some indirect evidence from 

anthropological studies that salmon in Oregon's coastal streams may not have reached the 

high levels of abundance that the first Euro-Americans saw until about 1,000 to 2,000 

years ago. The point is that the salmonid stocks of today evolved with the environment 

(co-evolved) over a relatively long period compared with the length of time since EuroAmericans entered this landscape.

2. High quality habitat for wild salmonids was the result of naturally occurring processes 

that operated across the landscape and over time. These same processes occur today, but 

humans have altered their extent, frequency, and to some degree, their nature. Humans 

will continue to exert a dominant force on the landscape of the Pacific Northwest, but 

current ecosystems need to better reflect the range of historic conditions.

3. The environment and habitat of these species is dynamic, not static. At any given 

location, there were periods of time when habitat conditions were better and times when 

habitat conditions were worse. At any given time, there were locations where habitat was 

better and locations where it was worse. Over time the location of better habitat shifted. 

Salmonid habitat in the Pacific Northwest has been a continuously shifting mosaic of 
v Appendix 3

disturbed and undisturbed habitats. One of the legacies of salmonid evolution in a highly 

fluctuating environment is the ability to colonize new or recovered habitat.

These concepts apply regardless of the land use, and are the basis for the evaluations in this 

report that focus on forestry, as they will be in subsequent reports on other patterns of land use as 

well.

Wild salmonid stocks historically accommodated changes in their environment through a 

combination of three strategies. Long-term adaptation produced the highly varied life-history 

forms of these species, providing the genetic diversity needed to accommodate a wide range of 

changing conditions. High fish abundance distributed in multiple locations (stocks) increased 

the likelihood that metapopulations and their gene pools would survive. Occupation of refugia

(higher quality habitat) allowed for recolonization of poor habitat as its condition improved over 

time. 

Since the mid 1850s, the rate and extent to which habitat conditions changed has sometimes 

exceeded the ability of these species to adapt; therefore, stock abundance currently is greatly 

reduced. Although refugia exist (at a reduced level) today, population levels of wild salmonid

stocks are seriously depressed because of other factors (ocean conditions, fisheries and hatchery 

management, land-use patterns and practices), that limit the rate and extent to which 

recolonization can occur. In addition, some harvest and hatchery practices have diminished the 

genetic diversity of salmonids, limiting their ability to cope with climate fluctuations. It is the 

combination of these factors and their cumulative effects since 1850 that have produced the 

depressed stocks of today.

The historic range of ecological conditions in the Pacific Northwest, both of habitat and of 

salmonid stocks, is important because it provides a framework for developing policy and 

management plans for the future. The performance of salmonids under historic ecological

conditions is evidence that these habitats were compatible with salmon reproduction and 

survival. Land uses resulting in non-historical ecological conditions may support productive 

salmonid populations, but the evidence for recovery of salmonids under these circumstances is 

neither extensive nor compelling. 

Therefore, we conclude that the goal of management and policy should be to emulate (not 

duplicate) natural processes within their historic range. The recovery of wild salmonid stocks is 

an iterative process. Just as policy and management have changed in the past they will continue 

to change in the future, guided by what we learn from science and from experience.
1 Appendix 3

Executive Summary 

The forests of Oregon are an important part of the landscape used by wild salmonids. How these 

forests are managed is important in attaining the goals of the Oregon Plan for Salmon and 

Watersheds (Oregon Plan) and Oregon Executive Order 99-01. Agricultural, urban, and other 

environments are addressed in other projects of the Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team 

(IMST). 

Forested landscapes include both aquatic and terrestrial components. The linkage between 

aquatic and terrestrial components has been recognized for a long time and has been prominent in 

the Oregon Forest Practices Act (OFPA) since its creation in 1972. The OFPA and its 

Administrative Rules were developed primarily to protect resource values, including water 

quality and, indirectly, habitat for salmonids. They were not specifically directed towards the

recovery of wild salmonids, which is the mission of the Oregon Plan. However, it is through the 

Administrative Rules of OFPA and the Measures in the Oregon Plan that the mission of the 

Oregon Plan and Executive Order 99-01 are to be accomplished. The goals of the IMST forestry 

project are to

(a) articulate the scientific basis for the recovery of wild salmonids as it relates to the forests of 

Oregon, and 

(b) recommend actions concerning the Rules and the Measures as they contribute to 

accomplishing the mission of the Oregon Plan. 

The geographic scope of this Technical Report is the portion of Oregon forests that provide 

habitat for wild salmonids west of the crest of the Cascade Range and in the Siskiyou Mountains. 

However, it also provides the fundamental concepts and relevant science questions and findings 

for a much broader area. Topically, it covers riparian buffers, large wood, sedimentation, and fish 

passage at road-stream crossings because IMST believes these are the most important aspects for 

the recovery of wild salmonids. The Report focuses on broad scientific issues and concepts. It is 

not a review of each OFPA Administrative Rule or Measure of the Oregon Plan, although some 

are addressed primarily as examples. The scientific direction provided by this Report can guide 

ODF staff (working with other panels of experts as needed) in formulating rules for OFPA and 

measures for the Oregon Plan that are needed as part of accomplishing the recovery of depressed 

stocks of wild salmonids. 

This is a long and complex report addressing some issues with broad policy implications that will 

take time to resolve, and some other issues that are more operational and can probably be dealt 

with more rapidly. The Report includes a preface in which the fundamental approach to recovery 

of wild salmonids is outlined. Briefly, the approach is emulation (not duplication) of the historic 

range of conditions across the landscape. This approach is appropriate for all lands, although the 

extent to which it is applied is a matter of policy, to be determined in part by the extent to which 

wild salmonid recovery is to be achieved. The report is divided into six sections with an 

appendix. The details of the organization of the report are in Section 1, The Introduction. 

The report addresses three science questions:
2 Appendix 3

Question 1. What is the scientific basis for maintaining fish habitat/water quality in 

forested ecosystems with respect to riparian buffers, large wood, sedimentation, and fish 

passage at road-stream crossings? 

This question is applied to four broad subject areas: 

Riparian Protection

Managing riparian areas differently than upslope areas as a strategy for protecting fish habitat is 

scientifically valid only if it is done with the goal of maintaining the dynamics of landscape 

structure and function. Sharp demarcations between riparian forest and upslope forest, and 

between fish-bearing and nonfish-bearing streams are not consistent with the historic pattern.

Large Wood Management

Large wood is a key structural and functional component of aquatic systems. Most models of 

large wood recruitment focus on riparian areas as the source, ignoring the important 

contributions made by upslope sources, especially from landslides. There is a critical need to 

restore the ecological processes that produce and deliver large wood to the streams from riparian 

as well as upslope areas. 

Sedimentation

Sediment is a natural part of forest stream systems, as are the more coarse elements of stream 

structure, such as large wood, boulders, and gravel. Roads and landslides increase the amount of 

fine sediment in streams, but do not always add the more coarse elements. In addition, fine 

sediment production from roads is chronic rather than episodic. Management of sedimentation 

from roads and landslides at the watershed level is more difficult, and the scientific basis for it is 

less well developed, although the concepts are known and provide a basis for reasonable 

conjecture on how to proceed. In essence, the concept is to vary the extent and intensity of 

disturbance in a watershed over space and time, emulating the historical pattern of disturbance.

Fish Passage at Stream Crossings

The road-stream crossing guidelines developed by ODFW (ODFW 1996) are based on science, 

although often not the result of explicit experimentation. They provide a scientifically sound 

basis for management of such crossings, although better information should result from 

monitoring.

Question 2. Are current forest practice Rules and Measures with regard to riparian 

buffers, large wood, sedimentation, and fish passage at road-stream crossings adequate to 

achieve the mission of the Oregon Plan? 

IMST concludes that current rules for riparian protection, large wood management, 

sedimentation, and fish passage are not adequate to reserve depressed stocks of wild salmonids. 

They are not adequate because they are dominated by site- and action-specific strategies. While 

these are important as an initial step in accomplishing the mission of the Oregon Plan, they are 

not sufficient for the recovery of critical habitat for wild salmonids.
3 Appendix 3

Question 3. What strategies are needed in the management of forest resources to achieve 

the mission of the Oregon Plan?

Recovery of wild salmonids requires, among other things, habitat that is functional across the 

landscape. This means that policy, management, regulation, and voluntary actions must also 

work across the landscape. Current State forest policy focuses on specific actions occurring 

within defined periods of time at specific sites. As an example, the rules provide for riparian 

protection on a site-by-site basis, rather than at the landscape level. Sharp distinctions in the 

management of riparian zones (as compared to upslope forests), based on the size of the stream 

and the presence or absence of fish, will result in a failure to maintain the dynamics of structure 

and function of riparian zones across the landscape. In other cases, hazardous sites on forest 

roads and railroad grades are exempt from current OFPA Rules because the actions occurred 

before the Rules were in effect. Mechanisms are needed to solve these problems on critical sites 

that are exempted from current rules. Similar examples can be drawn from conclusions about the 

recruitment of large wood and the management of sediment and fish passage. A policy 

framework that incorporates landscape perspectives and makes regulation, management, and 

voluntary actions possible at this scale is needed. 

There are three major areas in which shifts in policy are needed:

1. Incorporate the objectives of the Oregon Plan and Executive Order 99-01 into the OFPA. 

This will place an emphasis of regulation on the protection and enhancement of habitat 

needed for the recovery of wild salmonids.

2. Develop policy that extends the management of forest resources to the landscape level. This 

does not delete the site-specific aspects of current rules, but applies them in a different 

context. It will entail a shift from prescriptive rules applied uniformly across the landscape to 

site-by-site regulations that take into account cumulative disturbance in the watershed, 

landscape features, and climatic variation.

3. Develop policy that brings roads not constructed to current standards and other hazardous 

settings in critical locations into compliance with current standards. This means having the 

current OFPA Rules applied to actions taken before the current Rules were in force. In many 

cases, the operator acted in good faith and within the rules of the day, but the outcome is not 

scientifically consistent with the mission of the Oregon Plan; thus, a provision by which 

remediation is accomplished is needed.

Evaluating policy options within the complexity of contemporary forestry is a challenge. 

Extending these options to the landscape level and over time makes the job enormously more 

difficult. Fortunately, there are analytical approaches and models that can help. Examples of 

these are in the CLAMS research project, the Umpqua Land Exchange Project, and others. 

The following are the specific recommendations of IMST. The first two recommendations will 

be difficult or impossible to implement within the existing policy framework. These we identify 

as Recommendations that May Require a Modified Policy Framework. Although these 

recommendations will take a longer period of time to implement, work on the revised policy 

framework should begin immediately. The other 17 recommendations can be accommodated 
4 Appendix 3

within the existing policy framework of the Oregon Forest Practices Act or the Oregon Plan. 

These we identify as Recommendations Consistent with the Existing Policy Framework, and we 

believe they can be addressed in the near future. In aggregate, our recommendations are intended 

to both reinforce and enhance the site-specific Rules of the OFPA and Measures of the Oregon 

Plan and provide a bridge to management that incorporates a landscape perspective.

Recommendations for ODF

Recommendations that May Require a Modified Policy Framework

Recommendation 1. Explicitly incorporate the policy objective of the Oregon Plan and 

Executive Order 99-01 into OFPA.

Recommendation 2. ODF should develop a policy framework to encompass landscape (large 

watershed) level planning and operations on forests within the range of wild salmonids in 

Oregon.

IMST recommends that the following elements be included in this modified forest policy 

framework:

Long-term landscape level assessment of the upslope and riparian forest and associated 

aquatic systems to ensure that the desired condition is maintained across the landscape and 

through time. 

Identified goals for the characteristics of aquatic systems and riparian and upslope forests 

across the landscape to ensure the integrity of salmonid habitat. 

Monitoring that will provide the information needed to evaluate the aggregated outcomes of 

management at the landscape level.

Coordination among agencies and watershed councils to facilitate landscape level planning 

and management at scales that extend beyond the forest.

Recommendations Consistent with the Existing Forest Policy Framework

Recommendation 3. Treat non-fish-bearing streams the same as small, medium, and large fishbearing streams when determining buffer-width protection.

Recommendation 4. Provide increased riparian protection for the 100-year floodplains and 

islands.

Recommendation 5. Increase the conifer basal-area requirement and the number-of-trees 

requirement for RMAs, with increases in these requirements for medium and small streams 

regardless of fish presence.
5 Appendix 3

Recommendation 6. Complete the study of the effectiveness of the OFPA rules in providing 

large wood for the short- and long-term.

Recommendation 7. Provide enhanced certainty of protection for ―core areas‖.

Recommendation 8. Develop and implement standards or guidelines that reduce the length of 

roadside drainage ditches that discharge into channels.

Recommendation 9. Implement the standards and guidelines for the length of roadside drainage 

ditch between cross-drainage structures, especially on steep-gradient roads.

Recommendation 10. Require the flow capacity of cross-drainage structures and stream-crossing 

structures and culverts to meet current design standards.

Recommendation 11. Provide for the stabilization of roads not constructed to current standards 

(including "old roads and railroad grades") in critical locations. Stabilization means reduction or 

elimination of the potential for failure. It includes a variety of strategies ranging from removal to 

abandonment, entirely or of sections, by which specific roads and railroad grades become a much 

less important source of sediment.

Recommendation 12. Require durable surfacing on wet-season haul roads and require that 

hauling cease before surfaces become soft or "pump" sediment to the surface. 

Recommendation 13. Retain trees on "high risk slopes" and in likely debris torrent tracks to 

increase the likelihood that large wood will be transported to streams when landslides and debris 

torrents occur.

Recommendation 14. Continue to apply the current best management practices (BMP) approach 

to the management of forest lands with significant landslide potential, and develop a better case 

history basis for evaluating the effectiveness of BMP in this area.

Recommendation 15. Modify culverts and other structures to permit the passage of juvenile and 

adult salmonids upstream and downstream at forest road-stream crossings.

Recommendations for or with other agencies

Recommendation 16. ODFW and ODF should develop a collaborative program of monitoring to 

quantify the linkages between parameters of ecosystem condition and wild salmonid recovery.

Recommendation 17. ODFW should complete "core area" designation for all wild salmonids in 

Oregon and identify high priority protection/restoration areas that are not covered by current 

"core area" designations. ODFW should work with the Oregon Plan Implementation Team in 

prioritizing habitat for enhanced levels of protection and/or restoration.
6 Appendix 3

Recommendation 18. ODFW should include consideration of practices (forestry, agriculture, 

urban, other land uses) above and below core areas, as these may affect the conditions and 

processes critical to maintenance of core area function in forestry areas.

Recommendation 19. The Oregon Forest Research Laboratory (FRL), in collaboration with 

ODFW, should develop forest road-stream crossing strategies that facilitate the passage of large 

wood at road-stream crossings. 

SECTION 1

INTRODUCTION

The forest lands in Oregon are an important part of the landscape used by wild salmonids. How 

these lands are managed is important in accomplishing the mission of the Oregon Plan for 

Salmon and Watersheds (Oregon Plan) and the goals of Oregon Executive Order 99-01. This 

Technical Report of the Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team (IMST) focuses on western 

Oregon forests and their management while noting, however, that all of the habitats used by wild 

salmonids are important. Non-forested environments are addressed in other projects of IMST. 

Forested landscapes include both aquatic and terrestrial components. The aquatic components are 

critical to the survival of salmonids in Oregon, and they are strongly linked to the terrestrial 

components of these landscapes. This linkage has been recognized for a long time and has been 

prominent in the Oregon Forest Practices Act since its creation in 1972. The Oregon Forest

Practices Act and its Administrative Rules were developed primarily to protect resource values, 

including water quality and, indirectly, habitat for salmonids. They were not specifically directed 

towards the recovery of wild salmonids, which is the mission of the Oregon Plan and the goal of 

Executive Order 99-01. 

The Oregon Plan includes two approaches in forestry that together are intended to contribute to 

the mission of the Plan. These are the application of the Administrative Rules of the Oregon 

Forest Practices Act and the Measures related to forestry in the Oregon Plan. The focus of IMST 

on the forestry project is two-fold: 

1. The scientific basis for the recovery of wild salmonids as it relates to the forests of 

Oregon, and

2. The Administrative Rules and the Measures in the Oregon Plan as they contribute to 

accomplishing the mission of the Oregon Plan. 

History and Scope of the Project 

The 1997 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS) and the State of Oregon contemplated that Oregon forest practices would be adjusted to 

provide a high probability that aquatic habitat on Oregon forest lands would be protected and 

restored. Such adjustments were to be considered through a cooperative process with the Oregon 

Board of Forestry. Towards this end, the Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) formed the 

MOA Committee to develop recommendations to the Board of Forestry by late fall of 1998. As 
7 Appendix 3

part of this process, NMFS produced a draft proposal on February 17, 1998, concerning Oregon 

forest practices (NMFS 1998).

The IMST initiated the design of a review of forest practices (the forestry report) in the spring of 

1998, with the intention of completing the project about the time the MOA Committee completed

their work. Because of the legal challenges to the NMFS decision not to list the north coast coho, 

the work of the MOA committee was suspended. IMST also suspended work on the forestry 

report in order to complete work on the IMST predation and hatcheries projects.

Executive Order 99-01 redirected work to be done on Oregon's Forest Practices Act Rules, with 

recommendations for changes to be made to the Board of Forestry. IMST reestablished its 

forestry project in January 1999, adjusting it to the State's new relationship to NMFS and the 

expanded scope of the Oregon Plan.

The geographic scope of this Technical Report is the portion of Oregon forests that provide 

habitat for wild salmonids west of the crest of the Cascade Range and in the Siskiyou Mountains. 

Yet it also provides the fundamental concepts and relevant science questions and findings for a 

much broader area. Topically, the scope of the Report deals with riparian buffers, large wood, 

sedimentation from roads and landslides (but not harvesting or reforestation), and fish passage at 

road-stream crossings. Although other topics could be included, IMST considered these the most 

important to the recovery of wild salmonids.

This Report addresses some issues that are quite broad and involve substantial changes in policy. 

We expect these will take longer to resolve and the recommendations associated with them will 

take longer to implement. Some other issues are quite operational in scale and can be dealt with 

within current policy. The recommendations related to these issues may be more rapidly 

addressed.

This Report focuses on broad scientific issues and concepts. It is not a review of each of the 

individual administrative rules that are part of the Oregon Forest Practices Act (OFPA), or the 

measures that are part of the Oregon Plan. In some cases it does focus on specific rules or 

measures, but these are used primarily to illustrate examples. Lack of inclusion of a specific rule 

or measure does not imply either approval or rejection of it by IMST. The scientific direction 

provided by this Report can guide ODF staff (working with other panels of experts as needed) in 

formulating administrative rules for OFPA and measures for the Oregon Plan that are needed as 

part of accomplishing the recovery of depressed stocks of wild salmonids. 

Organization of This Report

This is a long and complex report, reflecting the breadth and complexity of the issues involved. It 

is divided into six sections with an appendix. The following explanation of its organization is to 

help readers direct their attention to the elements that are of greatest interest. Figure 1 is a 

schematic representation of the report's organization. 
8 Appendix 3

Figure 1. Report Organization Flow Chart

Preface

Introduction

Concepts for the Recovery of Stocks of Wild Salmonids in Oregon that 

Involve Forests and Forestry

Changing Views of Salmonids and Habitat

Landscape Ecology

Science Questions and Answers

1. What is the scientific basis for maintaining fish habitat/water quality in forested 

ecosystems with respect to riparian buffers, large wood, sedimentation, and fish passage 

at road-stream crossings?

2. Are current forest practices Rules and Measures with regard to riparian buffers, 

large wood, sedimentation, and fish passage adequate to achieve the mission of the 

Oregon Plan?

3. What strategies are needed in the management of forest resources to achieve the mission 

of the Oregon Plan?

Conclusions and Implications for Policy

Recommendations

Recommendations for ODF

Recommendations for other Agencies
9 Appendix 3

Section I. Introduction 

The introduction provides the history and context for the report, and identifies the major 

science questions addressed by the report. 

Section II. Concepts for the Recovery of Stocks of Wild Salmonids in Oregon that involve 

Forests and Forestry

The recovery of wild salmonids in Oregon depends on more than the forested portion of 

the landscape of the state. The purpose of this section, however, is to address the specifics 

of recovery that are particularly relevant to forests and how they are managed. 

Landscape ecology — basic concepts. This is a review of fundamental concepts of 

ecology as they operate at the large landscape level. These concepts are central to the 

recovery of depressed stocks of salmonids in Oregon, regardless of the type of landscape. 

In this section, we focus on concepts in forest settings.

Section III. Science Questions and Answers

This section includes the specific questions IMST addresses, and our answers to them.

Section IV. Conclusions and Implications for Policy

This section draws the major conclusions from the answers to the science questions and 

addresses them in the context of their implications for policy. This section is at the 

interface between science and policy. It is meant to help those addressing policy to do so 

in ways that are as consistent as possible with what is known from science. 

Section V. Recommendations

These are the specific recommendations of the IMST.

Section VI. References

Appendix. Summary of the State of Knowledge

Interactions between forests and forest practices as they affect water quality and aquatic 

habitat. This is a review of much (but not all) of the knowledge from the literature as it 

relates to the topic. This section is organized around four topics: salmonid habitat, 

riparian management, large wood, and sedimentation. It provides the technical 

background and many of the references for the answers to the science questions.
10 Appendix 3

Science Questions

There are a great many science questions that could be part of this project. From these, we 

selected three broad questions, which IMST considers to be most important in accomplishing the 

mission of the Oregon Plan. These questions contain sub-elements in which more specific issues 

are addressed. We include the three broad questions here to provide direction in reading the 

balance of this report:

1. What is the scientific basis for maintaining fish habitat/water quality in forested ecosystems 

with respect to riparian buffers, large wood, sedimentation, and fish passage at road-stream 

crossings?

2. Are current forest practices Rules and Measures with regard to riparian buffers, large wood, 

sedimentation, and fish passage adequate to achieve the mission of the Oregon Plan?

3. What strategies are needed in the management of forest resources to achieve the mission of 

the Oregon Plan?

Resource Materials

The forestry area is challenging because of the large number of summary and analytical 

documents relevant to Oregon forests and forestry. These are the result of the regulatory 

framework and history of the State of Oregon, the development of the Northwest Forest Plan for 

federal forest properties (FEMAT 1993), and the proposal developed by NMFS (NMFS 1998) 

concerning modifications of the Oregon Forest Practices Act Administrative Rules. 

Both Washington and California have been reviewing their forest practices in attempts to 

accomplish the recovery of salmonid stocks. These efforts produced two major reports in 1999 

(California [SRP 1999] and Washington [DNR 1999]). While differing in terminology and 

specifics, both reports cover many of the same issues addressed in this report of the IMST.

In aggregate, the documents from these various efforts are voluminous. IMST was not able to 

review and comment on these documents in detail. In some cases, we comment on their 

particular findings, but note that our doing so is not the result of a thorough evaluation. Although 

these documents have both strengths and weaknesses, they generally provide a reasonable basis 

for considering the technical issues involved. 

We have included additional documents in the reference section of this report (identified with an 

asterisk) which were not cited in the report. These documents, along with the cited material, 

provide the technical basis for guidance in matters relating to changes in forest practices as they 

affect salmonid habitat.
11 Appendix 3

SECTION II

CONCEPTS FOR THE RECOVERY OF STOCKS OF WILD SALMONIDS IN 

OREGON THAT INVOLVE FORESTS AND FORESTRY

CHANGING VIEWS OF SALMONIDS AND HABITAT

Our understanding of what constitutes aquatic habitat for salmonids has changed considerably 

with time, as have the conditions of streams in the Pacific Northwest over the past 150 years. 

From early descriptions found in Army journals, diaries, and some technical reports, we can 

reconstruct a description of salmon habitat in streams before the mid-1850s. It is to these 

conditions that salmonids are adapted and to which their spatial-temporal patterns of habitat use 

have evolved (Sedell and Luchessa 1981). A review of the sources of historical information 

clearly demonstrates that most stream channels and salmon habitat were more complex than they 

are today (Sedell and Luchessa 1981; Sedell et al. 1988; Brenner 1991). Salmonid habitat is 

associated with structural elements such as large wood, which create complex channels with a 

diversity of micro and macro habitats from headwaters to the ocean (Swanson et al. 1976; Sedell 

et al. 1988). Large wood is an important part of the structure of the stream channel. It creates 

pools, regulates sediment storage and distribution, provides nutrients and substrate for aquatic 

insects, and creates pockets of cooler water (thermal refugia) in warm streams (Gregory et al. 

1991; Sedell and Swanson 1984; Sedell et al. 1988; Bilby and Bisson 1998). But healthy salmon 

habitat is more than the physical presence of those structural elements at a given spot. Salmon 

habitat is also the processes that create, alter, and maintain those elements across whole 

watersheds (Naiman 1992).

Major changes in salmonid habitat began with the arrival of large numbers of Euro-American 

settlers to the Pacific Northwest during the mid-nineteenth century. To accommodate the 

economic growth of their communities through trade and other means, settlers began to 

significantly alter streams. Obstructions were removed from channels to facilitate the passage of 

boats (Sedell and Luchessa 1981). Large logs and root wads were also removed from rivers to 

accommodate the gillnet fishery for salmon. 

Timber harvest intensified the impacts of development on stream channels. By the end of the 

1880s, every river that could float a log during high flows was being used to transport them 

downstream to the mills (Cox 1974). In 1884, the first splash dams were built to augment the 

natural flow of rivers and permit log transport through most of the year (Beckman 1970). Before 

logs could be moved downstream from a dam, however, the main channel had to be cleared of all 

obstructions, including large wood and boulders, and all side channels and backwaters had to be 

blocked to keep the logs in the main stem. After the rivers were cleared of debris, continued 

logging from riparian zones removed trees that might eventually have replaced the large 

structural elements lost from streams. 

By the turn of the century, many river channels had already been converted from their natural 

state of complex tangles of logs, side channels, and surrounding wetlands to unobstructed 

highways for boats, gillnets, and logs. Thus, when biologists began making the first habitat 

surveys in the 1920s and 1930s, they believed that channel complexity, including large pieces of 
12 Appendix 3

wood or any kind of roughness in the stream channel, was not part of salmon habitat. This belief 

stemmed partly from the highly altered state of rivers that existed at that time. When biologists 

began to focus their attention on stream habitat, this altered condition was viewed as the norm. In 

fact, some biologists equated streams to highways: ―Just as automobiles need smooth roads to 

operate on, fish need clean unobstructed rivers and streams if they are to live, move and 

propagate‖ (Schoettler 1953). Although the removal of large logjams that completely blocked the 

migration of fishes was justified, the vision of a clean unobstructed stream led biologists to 

support the aggressive removal of large wood from the stream channel and the destruction of 

important structural elements of habitat.

The vision of clean, unobstructed river channels and simplified habitat that prevailed before 1970 

was matched by an equally simplified view of how salmon used that habitat. This view was 

based on an overly simplified perception of the life history of salmonids—generic patterns of 

migration, spawning, and rearing that were assigned to salmon species and races. The main stem 

and lower reaches of watersheds, which had already been cleared for splash damming and 

transportation, were viewed as merely conduits to carry salmon smolts to the sea. In their 

degraded state that was probably the only function these streams were capable of carrying out. 

Our understanding of what constitutes aquatic habitat for salmonids has changed considerably in 

the past 25 years. We now recognize that stream habitat for salmonids resemble those pre-1800 

stream conditions and not the unobstructed ―highways". Just as our concept of what constitutes 

healthy aquatic habitat has changed, so has our understanding of how the salmonids used that 

habitat. W. F. Thompson (1959) visualized salmon habitat as ―a chain of favorable environments 

connected within a definite season and place, in such a way as to provide maximum survival.‖ 

He went on to state that a given watershed and population of salmon would be composed of 

bundles of several of these chains of favorable places. 

Thompson’s model introduced three new ideas that have subsequently been elaborated on by 

others: First, healthy stream habitat is complex and diverse. Salmon, due to their extensive 

migration throughout the various stages of their life histories, utilize multiple segments of the 

stream, selecting differing habitat types during each life history stage. Therefore, there are several 

possible chains of favorable places or life history pathways (habitat types/location combinations 

for any particular species/stock) from headwaters to the ocean. A healthy population is capable of 

using multiple pathways through the freshwater habitat when available. Salmon have evolved 

diverse life histories in response to habitat diversity and complexity. Life history diversity has 

been identified in chinook salmon (Reimers 1973; Schluchter and Lichatowich 1977; Carl and 

Healey 1984), in pink salmon (Gharrett and Smoker 1993), and in coho salmon (Lestelle et al. 

1993). 

Second, the interaction between salmonids and their habitat has a space and time dimension. The 

same habitat may be used by successive waves of salmonids at different times or seasons or for 

different purposes (Mobrand et al. 1997). Third, salmonids and their habitat comprise a single 

coevolved unit that cannot be separated for management purposes. We cannot meaningfully think 

of salmonid life histories without considering the habitats those life histories require. Conversely, 

we cannot think of salmonid habitat without considering the life histories that make use of it. The 
13 Appendix 3

fundamental management unit is the fish and its habitat (Healey and Prince 1995). Each species 

and its resulting populations have evolved additional diversity in response to the diversity and 

complexity in the local habitat they encounter (Healey and Prince 1995).

The recovery of life history diversity is important to long-term productivity and persistence of a 

species. The salmonids’ environment is continually fluctuating: droughts, floods, fires, and 

changing ocean conditions are continually testing the resiliency of each species. Life history 

diversity is the strategy salmonids have evolved for survival in a fluctuating environment 

(Thorpe 1994). This strategy is successful because it spreads the risk of mortality in a changing 

environment (Den Boer 1968). Wild salmonid restoration requires the restoration of habitat 

complexity to allow the expression of life history diversity (Healey and Prince 1995). This 

approach requires at a minimum a watershed scale mapping of life history on habitat and 

reconnection of the ―chains‖ of habitats and life histories from headwaters to the ocean.

Our understanding of what constitutes salmonid habitat is still evolving. It is currently shifting 

from site-specific structures and ecological functions to landscape-scale processes that shape and 

maintain salmonid habitat. These changes in what we consider stream habitat and how salmonid 

use that habitat have important and sometimes overlooked implications. Restoration of habitat 

must consider the whole watershed and its ecological processes and it must consider the entire 

chain of habitats required for salmonid to complete their life histories. For example, habitat 

restoration that focuses on public land in the upper watersheds will only permit the restoration of 

a limited range of life histories. Habitats through the entire watershed must be addressed if 

salmonid are to recover their full range of life history diversity. To accommodate our increased 

understanding of salmon habitat, land-use practices including forestry, agriculture, and urban and 

industrial development must all be evaluated and examined from the perspective of the entire 

landscape.

LANDSCAPE ECOLOGY: BASIC CONCEPTS

Salmonids have evolved to depend on many interrelated components of the terrestrial landscape 

during several phases in their life histories. Since streams are tightly linked to the terrestrial 

landscape they flow through, when reviewing land-use practices and their effects on salmonid 

habitat, it is necessary to analyze impacts on both adjacent and distant components of the 

landscape. Analysis and adjustment of management practices in riparian forests has received a lot 

of attention. However, considering the interrelated components of the entire landscape, a similar 

analysis and adjustment in management practices must occur in upslope forests throughout the 

watershed. As outlined by Schlosser (1991), the science of landscape ecology (Forman and 

Godron 1986) offers an opportunity for this type of analysis by using landscape dynamics to 

analyze impacts of land-use and strengthen land-use decisions. 

The study of landscapes as a system expands the focus from predictions about exact future 

states to predictions about the relationships between large-scale properties of landscapes 

(i.e., climat,e topography, and channel networks) and the long-term behavior of aquatic 

systems. Benda et al.1998, p. 261.
14 Appendix 3

Taking only a site-specific approach to regulate landscape-level processes can be counterproductive and in some cases catastrophic. For example, fire suppression has been very 

successful in reducing the number of wildfires per year, but the subsequent accumulation of fuels 

and changing forest structure have increased the risk of severe or catastrophic fires and/or insect 

and pathogen outbreaks. From a landscape perspective, periodic fires that burn the forest 

understory (underburns) are critical to reducing fuel loads and stand density. Without these more 

frequent—but less intense—burns, the fire regime has switched to less frequent but more intense 

fires. This example is echoed in many land-use decisions. Failure to account for unintended 

consequences at specific sites often leads to unintended and therefore unplanned for results at the 

landscape level.

Structure, function, and change

The structure and functional interactions of the components in a landscape, along with their 

dynamic nature, form the conceptual basis for landscape ecology. Structural components include 

the physical habitat occupied by salmonids along with the materials that maintain the integrity of 

that habitat. Functional interactions include the flows of energy (food) and materials within the 

ecosystem. As with any living organism, landscapes are dynamic: both structure and function 

change across time and space. Even with change, stability is ensured as long as ecosystem 

structure and function are maintained within certain bounds and all required components remain 

within the landscape. By examining the landscape components and how they interact to provide 

good salmonid habitat, we can make better land-use decisions.

Landscape patterns

Landscapes form distinctive patterns influenced by geological, climatic, and hydrological 

processes, vegetative responses, and land-use history. Understanding landscape patterns and how 

they influence function (physical, chemical, and biological interactions of ecosystems) is 

important when evaluating impacts of management on aquatic habitat. As summarized in 

Naiman and Bilby (1998), the width of a forested riparian zone and the extent of the forest 

influence are related to stream size and morphology. Small upslope streams—the primary 

downstream conduit for water, sediment, organic material, and nutrients—are heavily influenced 

by upland forests with very limited riparian vegetation. The channels are generally steep and 

filled with unsorted sediments, boulders, and wood that exceed the streams' transport capabilities. 

In contrast, midslope streams typically have a distinctive band of riparian vegetation whose width 

is determined by geomorphology, long-term hydraulic forces, terrestrial disturbance, and 

successional patterns. The stream channels are characterized by moderate to steep gradients, 

substrates of boulders, gravel, and sands, and frequent large wood jams. Their connection with 

the upslope forests is buffered by the presence of riparian vegetation and more frequent, less 

intense, hydrological disturbance. 

Landscape patterns result from the dynamic interaction between structure and function, and 

provide the heterogeneous habitats required by the numerous life-stages and species of 

salmonids. Establishing a quantitative link between fish habitat requirements and landscape 
15 Appendix 3

patterns and processes is key to designing land-use practices that work within the range of forest 

conditions that encourage the recovery of salmonids. However, it should be recognized that

providing habitat similar to historical levels must be coupled with the spatial arrangement and 

landscape dynamics allowing for function (Wimberly et al., in press). 

Disturbance

Periodic disturbance plays an important role in maintaining the integrity and variability of 

salmonid habitat, since the extent, magnitude, and frequency of disturbance are key components 

in shaping landscape structure and functions. For example, within the Oregon Coast Range, 

historic patterns of disturbance are dominated by climatic events that result in heavy 

precipitation, windstorms, and lightening-caused fire (Benda et al. 1998; Agee 1993). The 

frequency, intensity, and magnitude of the response to these disturbances vary widely, depending 

on the structural components of the landscape (i.e., topography, channel networks). These 

structural components ultimately determine the impact of disturbances and their effect on habitat 

integrity. For example, input of large wood into streams involves an interaction between 

disturbances that kill trees (e.g., fire) and floods that are of sufficient magnitude to transport 

them. Variation in the frequency of fires affects the rate of wood input to streams, as well as its 

potential size. Along the northern Coast Range, for instance, the fire frequency exceeds 400 years 

(Agee 1993), allowing time for forests to produce very large trees. 

Although fire is not the only cause of tree mortality, the synergy created when a catastrophic fire 

is followed by intense storms leads to massive inputs of sediment, rock, and wood into aquatic 

systems (Benda et al. 1998). The variability in the amount of wood and sediment added to 

streams over time and space is just one part of landscape dynamics that should be considered 

when developing management strategies to protect salmonid habitat. Although we may never be 

able to recreate the historic patterns of landscape disturbance, they can be used as a guide to 

choosing management options which may ultimately maintain habitat integrity and function 

across the current landscape.

Wild salmonids in relation to landscape ecology

The National Research Council’s (1996) recommendation is to view salmon from the broader, 

metapopulation perspective, as well as by local populations. Metapopulations are groups of local 

populations that are distributed across a heterogeneous landscape and genetically linked by 

dispersal of individuals (Hanski 1991; Hanski and Gilpin 1991). Metapopulation theory has only 

recently been used to interpret salmonid population structure and ecology and to formulate 

management strategies (Reiman and McIntyre 1993, 1995; Gresswell et al. 1994; Li et al. 1995; 

Mundy et al. 1995; Schlosser and Angemeier 1995; National Research Council 1996; 

Independent Scientific Group 1996). Since it is relatively new, its application to salmonid 

populations should be viewed as a hypothesis that must be tested through effective monitoring 

and evaluation (Independent Scientific Group 1996). 

Metapopulation theory directly links populations to the natural disturbance regimes that shape 

landscape structure and function. The linkage is the balance between the extinction of local 
16 Appendix 3

populations after severe habitat disturbance and the subsequent recolonization of previously 

disturbed habitats as they recover. This extinction-colonization balance depends on the dispersal 

of individuals and the connectivity between habitats occupied by populations making up the 

metapopulation. If the frequency of disturbance—whether human caused or natural—that 

degrades a species' habitat exceeds its ability to maintain a balance between extinction and 

recolonization, the individual populations and eventually the entire metapopulation will go 

extinct.

Several models of metapopulation structure have been presented (e.g., Schlosser and Angermeier 

1995), but the core-satellite model appears to describe the structure of Pacific salmon 

metapopulations (Li et al. 1995; Schlosser and Angermeier 1995; Independent Science Group 

1996). Core populations are large, usually occupying extensive and productive habitats; under 

natural conditions, the core population is expected to persist indefinitely. Satellite populations 

often occupy marginal habitat. Their abundance may fluctuate widely in response to changes in 

climate, and they may go extinct after severe disturbance events. Dispersal of salmon from a 

large core population will colonize vacant habitat, reestablishing satellite populations and 

generally minimizing the possibility of total extinction of the metapopulation (Harrison 1994). If 

core areas identified in the Oregon Plan were associated with core populations, then it would be 

critical to protect those habitats to prevent the extinction of the metapopulation and ensure the 

possibility of recovery.

A LANDSCAPE APPROACH

IMST believes the principles of landscape ecology should be used in managing salmonid habitat 

at both the site-specific and landscape level. When concepts of landscape ecology are applied to 

forest land-management decisions (throughout the forested watershed), the focus shifts from 

individual stream reaches or habitat components to the dynamics of landscape patterns and 

processes. Using historic patterns as a guide, a link between fish habitat requirements and 

landscape patterns and processes can be established. Currently, OFPA riparian buffer strategies 

are applied uniformly across the landscape. But a landscape strategy emulates disturbance 

patterns in both the upslope and riparian areas. 

The Augustus Creek Study (Willamette National Forest) provides a useful example to illustrate 

what we mean by managing to better emulate natural disturbance patterns (Cissel et al. 1998). 

This study produced a landscape plan based on historical fire regimes. Figure 2 contrasts the land 

use allocations based on historic disturbance (A) and the Interim (Federal) Northwest Forest Plan 

(B). In (A), aquatic habitats include areas of both late-successional forest and younger forests, 

creating more diversity, resulting in higher productivity. In (B), use of a riparian reserve network 

provides for some functions, but it lacks the connection to the upslope forests, is homogenous, 

and does not emulate historic conditions. 

At the larger landscape scale, there would be an aggregation of basins like the Augustus Creek 

study area. In the absence of a major natural disturbance, management would proceed as 

"planned" in all the basins. When a major disturbance (i.e., debris flow, fire) occurs in one of the 

basins and salmon habitat is negatively impacted, then management practices in an adjacent, less 

impacted basin may need to change.
17 Appendix 3

Figure 2. Contrasting land use allocations for the Augusta Creek Basin. A. represents landscape 

areas based on historic disturbances. B. represents management areas based on the interim 

(Federal) Northwest Forest Plan.
18 Appendix 3

The landscape approach will be quite difficult to implement because it will require that we think 

and act in some different ways. It will require a level of collaboration that will be challenging

Philosophically – Some of the ―decision space‖ and accountability we have historically held 

closely will need to be shared more widely.

Legally – Some existing laws and policies make collaboration at this level impossible, 

difficult or at least unattractive.

Practically – How can it be done at the practical operational level?

The landscape approach is not something that can begin immediately, or be implemented 

uniformly, or that will yield results immediately.

It will take time to (a) develop the policy framework that makes it possible and attractive, (b) 

improve the scientific base of understanding on which it rests, (c) refine the tools and 

techniques that are needed for assessment, planning, monitoring, and analysis, and (d) 

educate the various publics to the role this approach can play in natural resources 

management.

Implementation will not be possible everywhere. For instance, there may be insurmountable 

policy barriers between actions at the private/state and federal levels, or there may be no 

feasible way to include many of the small woodland owners.

It will take time for this approach to yield clearly discernable results in salmonid recovery 

because of the many factors (beyond the forest) that are involved, and the period of time it 

will take the landscape to respond and reflect these different approaches to practice. 

Monitoring of ecosystem and fish responses are essential.

Despite these challenges, IMST believes it is important to start, and do what can be done where it 

is possible. Smaller scale efforts (for instance in the ODF Northwest Forest Plan Area) may be a 

useful initial scale. This could be treated as a trial effort, in which techniques are developed and 

refined. While not a replicated experiment in the traditional sense, it is a life-scale case history 

experiment from which a great deal can be learned.

SECTION III

SCIENCE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Question 1. What is the scientific basis for maintaining fish habitat/water quality in 

forested ecosystems with respect to riparian buffers, large wood, sedimentation, and fish 

passages at road-stream crossings?

A. Riparian Buffers

(1.) Riparian buffers as a strategy. 

Limiting forest management practices adjacent to aquatic areas is the most common site-specific 

strategy applied on forested lands. There is a large body of scientific literature on the riparian 

buffer widths required to retain various aquatic functions. However, there is little discussion 
19 Appendix 3

about the scientific basis for riparian buffers as a landscape structure, particularly, their resiliency 

and role in maintaining landscape-level processes. Riparian vegetation often differs from upslope 

vegetation because its environmental conditions, disturbance histories, and successional patterns 

are distinctive, especially on low-gradient higher-order streams (Pabst and Spies 1998). When 

riparian protection strategies have been designed on the basis of buffer width, there has been 

little consideration of the interaction between riparian and upslope forests or the historic patterns 

created by riparian forests and their role in maintaining ecosystem heterogeneity. Although 

riparian buffer strips have been found to be sufficient for maintaining many physical structures 

and processes, this is not sufficient. Aquatic systems include a unique blend of both physical and 

biological components that interact with historic and current disturbance (Beschta 1997).

Recommended riparian buffer width should vary according to the ecosystem function under 

consideration, as well as the attributes of the ecosystem. For example, a relatively narrow strip of 

vegetation may provide shade, but maintaining relative humidity in the riparian area may require 

a buffer in excess of 100 m (Dong et al. 1998). Currently, most measurements of changing 

riparian and aquatic function, as influenced by buffer width, are made on forested buffers 

adjacent to cutover forests or young regenerating stands (Hibbs and Giordano 1996; Brosofske et 

al. 1997; Dong et al. 1998). This is quite different than comparing a riparian forest with an 

adjacent upslope forest of similar age or older. 

Since the current riparian strategies on forested lands have not been in place long enough for 

long-term monitoring, a look at historic conditions is the best indication of future success in 

restoring stocks of wild salmonids. Historically, the Coast Range disturbance regime was 

dominated by frequent storms and infrequent but intense fires (Benda et al. 1998). From this we 

would expect to find a heterogeneous mix of riparian and upslope forests across a watershed. In a 

given basin, the riparian forests contrasted with upslope forests could be younger, older, or the 

same age, and could vary in their density. 

The current regulatory framework has an implicit goal of maintaining older conifer forests with 

varying tree densities along the stream, surrounded by younger conifer forests in the upslope. In 

addition, current rules are based on the attainment of old forest structure, as represented by 120-

year-old forests. The frequency of disturbance in riparian forests is highly variable. Fire return 

intervals of 300 years and/or 50-year flood events created a dynamic heterogenous mixture of 

young and very old forests. The remnants of these old conifer forests are represented by the large 

stumps found adjacent to many streams. The current strategy, although functional in the shortterm, will not create a landscape pattern based on historic disturbance. Therefore, it would not be 

based on our best understanding of ecosystem structure and function. The riparian buffer 

approach creates a sinuous, sharply demarcated landscape pattern that has a limited historical 

basis. 

Riparian management zones are thus being defined by management needs, and not in accordance 

with natural processes and the maintenance of riparian biological and physical functions. We 

conclude that in the long term, riparian buffer strategies, as a single landscape feature with sharp 

upslope demarcations, will not provide sufficient protection for the recovery of salmonids. 
20 Appendix 3

(2.) Riparian buffer management based on stream size.

As outlined in the appendix of this report, stream size impacts aquatic structure and function. 

Smaller streams in upper reaches transport material such as large wood down into lower, more 

productive reaches. Depending on the morphological conditions of the stream, transport is either 

in small steady flows or in large pulses associated with floods. Larger streams in lower gradient 

portions of the watershed are areas of deposition and organic material processing, making them 

some of the most productive reaches for some salmonids. 

Floodplain development is also influenced by stream size. Floodplains are geomorphic surfaces 

created and shaped by alluvial processes during floods. These depositional surfaces are created 

by the stream and are part of the stream channel. These riverine surfaces then form the templates 

for floodplain forest development. Vegetated floodplains are stabilized by rooting and are lateral 

refuges of lower velocity and structural complexity for fish. When vegetated floodplain refuges 

are available, flood disturbances potentially provide many benefits, such as pool formation, riffle 

deposition, complex wood accumulation, sediment flushing from gravels, and exchange of food 

between terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Riparian protection for the floodplain is needed for it 

to perform these functions.

Given the distinctive differences between stream function based on size, we conclude it is 

scientifically sound to vary riparian widths with stream size. On a landscape basis, care should 

be taken to maintain a variety of forest types and ages on all stream reaches, including small and 

intermittent streams, and in the floodplain.

Riparian buffers as a strategy.

On the basis of scientific evidence, we conclude that managing riparian areas differently 

than upslope areas as a strategy for protecting fish habitat is scientifically valid only if 

done with the goal of maintaining the dynamics of landscape structure and function. 

Riparian buffer strategies, as a single landscape feature with sharp upslope demarcations 

are not consistent with historic pattern.

Riparian buffer management based on stream size.

Because stream size affects aquatic structure and function, it is scientifically sound to vary 

riparian widths with stream size. On a landscape basis, care should be taken to maintain a 

variety of forest types and ages on all stream reaches, including small and intermittent 

streams, and in the floodplain.
21 Appendix 3

(3.) Riparian buffer management based on fish presence.

Non-game fish and other aquatic organisms play a role in the functioning of stream systems 

locally, and contribute to downstream processes. In addition, distribution of salmonids will 

change as populations adjust to dynamic landscape and ocean conditions. Therefore, unlike 

stream size, the presence or absence of game fish is not a scientifically sound basis for managing 

riparian buffers.

Conclusion

Overall, the current strategy of riparian buffers does not emulate historic conditions at the 

landscape level. Although some strategy of buffering is likely to be necessary, even with 

landscape level management, we believe it should be much different than the highly prescriptive 

approach reflected in current OFPA Rules. 

B. Large Wood

The scientific literature on the importance of large wood to aquatic habitat is considerable and 

continues to expand (Spence et al. 1996; Bilby and Bisson 1998). It provides a clear scientific 

basis for the need to manage forest practices to ensure a continuous supply of large wood to the 

aquatic habitat. The specific level of large wood needed to bring about recovery of listed 

salmonids is still uncertain, however. 

The scientific basis for the need to manage large wood and the current management strategies 

come from three sources. Research into recruitment and function of large wood in aquatic 

habitats has contributed to the development of management strategies. Stream surveys give the 

status of large wood in Oregon’s streams relative to current benchmarks. Finally, historical 

reconstruction of aquatic habitats provides important information on the volume of wood in 

stream channels at the time of Euro-American settlement.

(1). Functions of large wood.

The literature on the importance of large wood on the structure of stream habitat was recently 

reviewed in Spence et al. (1996) and Bilby and Bisson (1998). Large wood accounts for much of 

the pool formation in streams draining forestland, and pools are the preferred rearing habitat for 

coho and other salmonids in Oregon’s coastal streams (Nickelson et al. 1992). Other functions of 

large wood include (a) trapping and regulating the flow of sediment, (b) providing substrate and 

nutrients to the aquatic food web, (c) creating complex patterns of hydrologic flow, (d) keeping 

salmon carcasses in the stream (their nutrients can be an important part of the food web), and (e) 

providing thermal refugia. 

Riparian buffer management based on fish presence.

There is not a scientifically sound basis for managing riparian buffers based on the presence 

or absence of game fish.
22 Appendix 3

(2.) The status of large wood in streams and the landscape.

Historical reconstruction of aquatic habitats clearly shows that large wood in the stream channel 

was a major feature of Oregon’s watersheds. Prior to the early 1800s, Oregon’s coastal rivers 

contained a large volume of wood that created complex habitat structure, including large pools, 

backwaters, and associated wetlands (Swanson et al. 1976, Sedell and Luchessa 1981, Sedell et 

al. 1988, Brenner 1991, Brenner and Sedell (1994). It was this condition—habitat and channel 

complexity imparted by significant volumes of large wood—to which salmonids adapted and to 

which their spatial and temporal patterns of habitat use evolved (Sedell and Luchessa 1981). In 

addition, portions of the forested landscape were dominated by extensive older forests, large 

snags, and the associated accumulation of large downed wood (Teensma et al. 1991).

Shortly after the arrival of the first Euro-American settlers to the Pacific Northwest, stream 

channels were radically altered. Not only was large wood removed from the channel to facilitate 

the use of rivers for transportation, potential wood replacements were harvested from riparian 

and upslope forests. This altered state of inner channels was maintained by continued logging in 

the riparian zone and the problem was compounded by removal of wood from streams into the 

1970s.

As part of the Oregon Plan and other efforts, extensive surveys of large wood in forest streams 

are being conducted in Oregon’s coastal rivers. Surveys of about 2,000 stream- miles on nonFederal lands show there are fewer pieces of large wood in the stream channels than specified in 

the current Oregon benchmarks. About 40 percent of the stream-miles surveyed are considered 

adequate or good with regard to the presence of large wood, but 60 percent are considered poor. 

Probably more important to the long-term recovery of wild salmonids is the finding that 94 

percent of the riparian areas (a potential source of future large wood in streams) are themselves 

ranked as poor with regard to the presence of large conifers (ODF 1999). 

We conclude that Oregon streams and adjacent forests currently contain much lower levels of 

larger wood than they did historically, and under the current management practices, the potential 

for recruitment will not result in its replenishment.

Functions of large wood.

Large wood is critical to the proper functioning and condition of aquatic systems, and it 

is essential in the recovery of wild salmonids in areas where it existed historically. 

The status of large wood in streams and the landscape.

Oregon streams currently contain much lower levels of larger wood than they did 

historically.
23 Appendix 3

(3.) Managing for recruitment of large wood.

The riparian zone is an important source for large wood. The trees that fall into the stream from 

the riparian zone come predominantly from within 98 feet of the channel edge. However, large 

wood can also be recruited from as far as 165 feet from the stream bank. A riparian buffer 

consisting of taller older trees contributes large wood from greater distances than do younger 

forests with shorter trees (McDade et al. 1990; Van Sickle and Gregory 1990; Fetherston et al. 

1995). In unconstrained stream reaches, large wood from the floodplain also can eventually reach 

the stream because of floods or lateral migration of the stream channel (Bilby and Bisson 1998).

Upslope areas adjacent to headwater streams are also an important source of large wood. In 

intermediate-sized stream channels, large wood may originate on the slope above a headwater 

tributary and be delivered to the lower stream reaches through a debris torrent. First- and secondorder headwater streams provide a large amount of the wood that forms habitat in larger channels 

downstream (Prichard et al. 1998).

We conclude that both riparian management areas and unstable upslope areas are important for 

the recruitment of large wood to streams in the future. While harvesting has reduced the amount 

of large wood available for recruitment, it must also be recognized that the level of mortality in 

forested systems has also been reduced. Fire suppression, limitations on pathogens, and thinning 

have reduced the production of snags on the landscape. Therefore, even if old forests are allowed 

to develop, management will have to also facilitate the recruitment of snags.

Conclusion

The current status of large wood in Oregon streams is far outside the historic range and we 

believe this is seriously hindering the recovery of wild salmonids. Management strategies that 

more nearly emulate the historic range of condition are possible and can contribute to the 

attainment of the mission of the Oregon Plan. 

C. Sedimentation

Sediment occurs naturally in forested stream systems. Although this is part of the natural 

disturbance regime for this region, the processes of erosion have accelerated with the increase in 

forest management activities. 

Fine sediment is a natural part of stream systems, as are the coarser elements of stream structure, 

such as large wood, boulders, and gravel. The trick in achieving quality habitat for salmonids is 

to keep these various elements in balance with one another. There is no definitive scientifically 

Managing for recruitment of large wood.

Both riparian management areas and unstable upslope areas are important for the 

recruitment of large wood to streams.
24 Appendix 3

based ―tolerance‖ for fine sediments, but in the absence of introductions of boulders, large wood, 

and gravel, it is prudent to minimize the introduction of fine sediment.

(1.) Managing chronic sedimentation from roads at the site level.

Scientific investigation and analysis have produced a sound scientific basis for site-level 

management of the production of road-related sediment and its movement to streams. The 

volume of literature is such that a point-by-point analysis of it by IMST is impractical, and can be 

done by ODF staff. Briefly: 

Fine sediment production increases with road construction, use, and maintenance. The scientific 

principles that govern sedimentation are well documented in the literature:

Actions that decrease the size of soil particles increase the amount of fine material available 

for water transport. An example is the production of fine particles from the mechanical action 

of vehicular traffic on forest roads. 

Actions that expose the soil surface or disturb road or ditch surfaces increase erosion 

potential. Some examples include excavating road cuts, clearing vegetation from roadsides 

and ditches, and scraping road surfaces with road graders or other bladed vehicles.

Once fine particles have been produced, they are available for transport to streams where they 

can impact the quality of salmonid habitat. The key issues concern the effectiveness of roaddrainage systems and the dispersal of ditch-drain water. 

We accept that drainage from road ditches into streams cannot be completely eliminated, but we 

believe that it can be greatly reduced. Dispersing road drainage water onto stable slopes rather 

than into channels will minimize the movement of sediment from roads to streams. Science has 

shown that undisturbed forest floor has a high infiltration capacity. Although it has not been 

explicitly tested, logic indicates that sediment transported to such areas will be trapped in the soil 

profile and will be less likely to enter the stream.

The volume and velocity of the water determine its erosive and sediment transport power. 

Crossroad drainage culverts are used to limit the distance over which the volume of roaddrainage water can accumulate. On steeper roads, the distance between crossroad drainage 

culverts is decreased to prevent the accumulation of large volumes of rapidly flowing water. 

Empirically derived guidelines for crossroad drainage systems have been part of the literature for 

many years, but often have not been rigorously followed. Systematic validation of these 

guidelines should be incorporated into the monitoring program to determine their adequacy. In 

the meantime, however, implementation of the guidelines should reduce the introduction of 

chronic sediment from roads. 

Managing chronic sedimentation from roads at the site level.

Fine sediment production increases with road construction, use and maintenance. There is 

a strong, scientifically sound basis for site-level management of sediment production and 

movement to streams.
25 Appendix 3

Some reports argue that chronic sediment particles from roads are too small to be entrained in 

gravel, and therefore have little impact on salmonid production. Although this is likely true in the 

sense of salmonid egg survival and emergence of fry, we find this view too narrow. More 

suspended sediment will deposited in areas where water velocity is slower, and chronic sediment 

production and transport will occur even during periods of lower stream flow. The result will be 

increased sediment deposition in pools, backwaters, and other areas critical for rearing. In 

addition, suspended sediment reduces the transmission of light, which reduces the primary 

productivity of the stream. Suspended sediment also decreases visibility, which may alter 

foraging and territoriality behaviors and perhaps the ability to evade predation. 

We conclude that chronic sediment production can be managed and mitigated and that there is a 

scientifically valid basis for doing so. The technical literature (some of which is reviewed in the 

appendix) provides the scientific basis for this. Examples include the use of rock to armor a road 

surface, reduced tire pressure, revegetation of exposed soil surfaces, and retention of vegetation 

on roadsides. Technical specialists can use the literature to develop specific practices for 

reducing chronic sediment production from roads. Minimizing the amount of road drainage 

water that flows directly into streams and channels can reduce the movement of fine sediment 

from roads to streams. This can be accomplished by decreasing the distance between crossroad 

drainage structure and by diverting more road drainage water onto stable slopes. 

(2.) Managing chronic sedimentation from roads at the landscape level. 

There is a sound scientific basis for the management of chronic sediment production and 

transport to streams at the site level, but there has been less analysis at the landscape level. There 

are relationships in the literature showing the quantity of sediment production as a function of the 

number of roads in a watershed. In general these relationships suggest that sedimentation 

increases with road density, but as a practical matter these are empirical or intuitive relationships 

and are not the result of critical experimentation. There are many site-specific factors that 

influence these relationships and their empirical nature makes it difficult to apply them 

(quantitatively) to other areas. 

We conclude the reported relationships between road density and sedimentation provide only 

qualitative guidance for landscape-level planning and management. Monitoring and more case 

history analyses will provide a stronger basis for policy.

(3.) Managing episodic road failure.

The literature on sedimentation from roads is dominated by the impact of catastrophic road 

failures. The topic is complicated by the episodic nature of storms and changing road 

Managing chronic sedimentation from roads at the landscape level.

The reported relationships between road density and sedimentation provide only 

qualitative guidance for landscape-level planning and management. Monitoring and 

more case history analyses will provide a stronger basis for policy.
26 Appendix 3

construction and maintenance standards. Among the various operations that occur on forest 

lands, the scientific base of knowledge and experience over the past two decades have increased 

the most with respect to road construction and maintenance. This increase in knowledge provides 

a sound basis for the development of guidelines and standards that will greatly reduce 

sedimentation from road failures. The base of information has been summarized effectively in 

presentations to ODF and in the issue-analysis documents prepared by the Department. Technical 

staff (in the Department and elsewhere) can use this information and these documents in refining 

rules and measures to help accomplish the mission of the Oregon Plan. 

Road-failure related sedimentation is best addressed in three parts: 1) location, 2) design and 

construction, and 3) maintenance and abandonment.

Road Location

Our knowledge of the relationships between geology, soils, topography, and climate is well 

developed and scientifically sound. Much of the improvement in road location standards over the 

past few decades have come from this knowledge. Continued adherence to these best 

management practices (BMP) will result in a markedly fewer failures of new roads than of socalled ―legacy‖ or ―old‖ roads (meaning roads not covered by OFPA, often those constructed 

before current rules were in force). The literature and experience support the value of using BMP 

to locate roads such that they

minimize stream and channel crossings

do not cross wetlands or areas with a high likelihood of slope failure

Road design and construction methods

Current road design and construction methods are well documented in the literature and are well 

reflected in ODF documents. The scientific and engineering principles on which they rest are 

sound.

Road Maintenance and Retirement

Road location, design, and construction establish the limits of the potential impact of a road on 

salmonid habitat. Maintenance (short- and long-term) often determines the degree to which the 

potential impact (for protection or damage) is achieved. Scientific and technical analyses show 

that roads not constructed to current standards are involved in a disproportionately large number 

of road-related slope failures. We believe that a systematic program of road retirement and 

stabilization of hazardous sites can minimize both the catastrophic and chronic sources of 

sediment from roads no longer in active use.

The strategies for road retirement and stabilization have evolved from experience and from 

adaptation of the principles associated with road maintenance. Specifically:

remove culverts and stream crossings that are more susceptible to catastrophic failure during 

heavy storms

prevent channelization on road surfaces

stabilize fills
27 Appendix 3

limit access

encourage revegetation

These strategies have not been scientifically tested for effectiveness, but they have a sound 

theoretical basis. A more systematic basis for judging the effectiveness of various road retirement 

strategies can be developed through case history analysis and monitoring. 

We conclude that the scientific and technical basis for what is needed in road maintenance and 

retirement is well developed and known. Refinements in this knowledge can occur through the 

monitoring and event analysis programs that are already part of ODF programs. 

(4.) Managing slope failure and the movement of material to the stream system.

Landslides occur in both disturbed and relatively undisturbed forests. Available evidence from 

central and northwestern Oregon indicates that forest management activities increase the 

frequency of landslides within a period of one to two decades after disturbance. Results from the 

ODF study (ODF 1998b) are consistent with the suggestion that harvesting may shift the timing 

of occurrence of slope failure and concentrate it within the two decades after harvest. Although a 

provocative idea, we do not consider this a rigorous test, and caution against adoption of this as a 

paradigm without further testing. We do not consider it an adequate technical basis for policy 

formulation.

Slope stability problems need to be considered at the site and the landscape level. The logic for 

managing slope failure is (a) to identify sites where significantly elevated risks of slope failure 

exist, and (b) to moderate or limit management activities believed to increase the occurrence of 

slope failure. The ability to characterize (or predict) the risk of slope failure is not uniform 

across the scale of risk. At the extremes of the risk of slope failure, the ability to predict 

accurately is greater, e.g., for a given set of geological soil and climatic conditions, shallow 

slopes are unlikely to fail but very steep slopes are more likely to fail. Prediction of slope failure 

must be done in the face of uncertainty about weather patterns over the first two decades after 

disturbance. 

The ability to predict slope failure is limited by

the difficulty of accurately predicting inherent slope stability, except at the extremes of 

condition (including steepness)

limited knowledge of how a given management tactic might interact to increase or decrease 

inherent slope stability, and 

inability to predict pattern of extreme weather events over a subsequent period of one or two 

decades.

Managing episodic road failure.

The scientific and technical basis for what is needed in road maintenance and retirement 

is well developed and known. Refinements can occur through the monitoring and event 

analysis programs that are already part of ODF programs.
28 Appendix 3

These points apply at both the site and the landscape level, but some degree of averaging occurs 

at larger scales, with an increase in the accuracy with which slope failure can be predicted (at the 

landscape level). The consequence is a greater ability to "manage" in the face of slope failure at 

the landscape level. The concepts for this are illustrated in Figures 3 and 4 (Benda et al. 1998). 

Figure 3. A sequence of rainstorms (a) and fires (b) generates a sequence of landscapes within a 

basin (c) which results in an intermittent sequence of sediment delivery to the channel system. 

The time sequence of sediment supply is represented as a distribution (d) indicating how likely 

various magnitudes of sedimentation occur. Channel response depends on the size distribution 

and durability of the sediment delivered. (From Benda et al. 1998, p. 275.)
29 Appendix 3

Figure 4. A 1000-year simulation of landslides in a 200-km2 basin in the Oregon Coast Range 

indicates that the likelihood of landslides and associated sediment and wood delivery to the 

channel system increases with increasing basin area. (a) a 3-km2 headwater basin experiences 

infrequent landslides. (b) a 25-km2tributary subbasin contains a greater total number of potential 

landslide sites and is more likely to include a fire: hence, landslides occur more frequently and in 

greater numbers within this larger area. (c) Numerous subbasins and a vary large number of 

potential landslide sites are contained within the entire 200 km2 basin. Landslides occur 

somewhere within the basin a third of all years. On rare occasions, when large fires are followed 

by intense storms, well over 100 landslides can occur within the basin in a single year. (From 

Benda et al. 1998, p. 278.)

Although the ideas in these figures are conceptually strong, they must be validated through 

monitoring and analysis based on the continued use of BMP. There is some risk in continuing the 

present approach (because in some cases slope failures will be underestimated), but the long-term 

gain in benefit for management across large areas may be worth the risk. This is a policy 

question. 

Not all landslides result in transport of material (debris torrents) to streams. When they do, the 

consequences vary. In some cases, stream channels and riparian zones have been completely 

scoured, leaving the system in a highly unproductive state, at least over the near future. In other 

cases, landslides have significantly enhanced fish habitat by adding structural complexity and 
30 Appendix 3

spawning materials or creating off-channel refugia. As with most other elements of resource 

management, there is no single simple solution.

Although specific evidence is limited, we believe that functional riparian zones may be an 

important factor in diminishing the adverse effects of debris torrents. Riparian zones can 

contribute large wood and other debris to the torrent, maintaining some balance between the 

amounts of sediment, gravel, boulders, and large wood. This idea requires validation through 

monitoring and analysis of BMP. It may be premature as a basis for policy formulation, but we

believe it is conceptually correct.

We conclude that the geology, engineering, and geotechnical concepts for addressing slope 

failure are reasonably well developed and are described in Benda et al. (1998), Swanson et al. 

(1987), and in ODF (1998b). We conclude, however, that except where inherent slope stability is 

at its extremes (either very great or very low), regulatory or voluntary measures have little 

certainty of reducing sedimentation from non-road-related slope failure at the site level.

D. Fish Passage at Road-Stream Crossings

Road/stream crossings impact salmonids through blockage of access to upstream habitat, as 

sources of chronic sediment input, and as sites of catastrophic failure and subsequent debris 

torrents. Fish passage at forest road crossings is reported to be a major factor in loss of habitat 

suitable for fish (ODF 1998a). Studies in Washington documented loss of coho summer rearing 

habitat from culverts at 13 percent of the total decrease in habitat. This decrease was considered

to be greater than the combined effect of all other forest management activity related causes 

(ODF 1998a). Conroy (1997), noted that as many as 75 percent of culverts in given forested 

drainages in Washington were either outright blockages or impediments to fish passage. The 

technical basis for solution of this aspect of the habitat problem is well established. Strategies 

include minimizing the numbers of such crossings, reducing the erodability of exposed soil 

surfaces, making them stable during periods of high water, and providing for upstream and 

downstream fish passage. 

Specific best management practices must be adopted on a site-by-site basis. A set of road-stream 

crossing guidelines have been developed by ODFW (ODFW 1996). The guidelines were adopted 

in 1996–1997 by memorandum of agreement among several state agencies, including ODF and 

Managing slope failures and the movement of material to streams.

Slope failure is a natural process and it can have both positive and negative effects on 

fish habitat. The technical basis for managing roads to reduce or minimize slope failure 

is well developed. The technical basis for managing non-road-related slope failure is 

much less well developed, except under extremes of site conditions. Although 

speculative, we believe maintenance of functional riparian zones along channels where 

debris torrents may occur can mitigate their destructive force, and increase the positive 

effects they may have. 
31 Appendix 3

ODFW. These are based on science, although specific design elements are the result of 

extrapolation from scientific principles and often are not the result of explicit experimentation. 

 

Question 2. Are current forest practices Rules and Measures with regard to riparian 

buffers, large wood, sedimentation, and fish passage adequate to achieve the mission of the 

Oregon Plan?

The current OFPA Rules and Measures in the Oregon Plan are predominantly prescriptive and 

site specific, and deal with specific actions. Our analysis of the scientific basis for management 

(see question 1) provides the basis for an analysis of the adequacy of the Rules and Measures. 

While this report is not a review of the Rules and Measures, we provide the following evaluation 

of adequacy to highlight some examples.

Riparian Buffers as a Strategy

The current Rules will result in buffers with characteristics that are quite different from adjacent 

upslope forests, resulting in sharp demarcations and a landscape condition that does not emulate 

the historic range of conditions.

Riparian buffer management based on stream size

Current OFPA rules correctly allow for varying buffer width and stand density based on stream 

size, with smaller streams receiving less protection compared to larger streams. 

Riparian buffer management based on fish presence

The OFPA Rules and the Measures outlined in the Oregon Plan are not scientifically sound for 

the recovery of wild salmonids because they only consider game fish and do not adequately 

address the contribution of non-fish bearing streams to many downstream processes. 

Riparian buffers on floodplains

OFPA rules for riparian management provide no protection for floodplains outside the RMA. 

This means that floods in floodplain reaches may extend beyond the RMA and increase the risk 

of erosion and channel change on the outer margins of floodplains. These areas will not provide 

the ecological functions associated with stream riparian systems.

Fish Passage at Road-Stream Crossings

The ODFW guidelines are believed to be scientifically sound (although not thoroughly 

tested) and provide an adequate basis for managing fish passage at road-stream crossings. 
32 Appendix 3

Functions of large wood

OFPA Rules and the Measures of the Oregon Plan acknowledge the importance of large wood in 

aquatic systems. 

Managing for the recruitment of large wood

Within existing RMAs, the width is adequate for recruitment of large wood but the density of 

large conifers is not, especially on small streams. RMA protection must be extended to stream 

reaches not currently included and trees must be retained on unstable upslope to increase the 

potential for large wood recruitment. 

Managing chronic sedimentation from roads

OFPA Rules provide an adequate basis for addressing several of the chronic sources of sediment 

from roads at the site level. Specific attention in implementation needs to be given to 

enforcement with respect to road drainage directly into channels, cross-road drainage frequency, 

road surfacing, tire pressure, wet season operations, revegetation of exposed surfaces, and 

vegetation retention on roadsides. The Rules do little to address roads at the landscape level 

except to encourage strategies that reduce the construction of new roads.

Managing episodic road failure

Current road design and construction methods are scientifically sound and well documented in 

the technical and operational literature, providing a sound basis for OFPA Rules and Measures in 

the Oregon Plan. The Rules and Measures are adequate in this regard, with attention to 

implementation.

Managing road maintenance and abandonment

OFPA Rules provide an adequate basis for regulation of road maintenance. In the 

implementation of the Rules, it is important to retain culvert design discharge capacity.

OFPA Rules require that culvert replacements conform to current standards, including providing 

for passage of 50-year flow events. However, this requires complex judgements on the part of 

operators and landowners, often under emergency conditions. The challenge is to ensure the 

information necessary for making the right decision is readily available, and that appropriate 

regulatory oversight is provided. 

Managing slope failure and the movement of material to the stream system

Continued use of BMP as permitted under the Rules is appropriate, but it needs to be combined 

with monitoring and case history analysis to provide a better basis for management of slope 

failure in the future.
33 Appendix 3

Fish passage at road-stream crossings

Pending better information and the results of monitoring, the ODFW guidelines provide a sound 

basis for managing fish passages at road-stream crossings. 

The changes noted above, combined with their effective implementation, will improve the 

effectiveness of site-specific Rules and Measures. We conclude, however, that site specific rules 

alone, even with these changes, will not result in the emulation of the range of historic condition 

at the landscape level needed for salmonid recovery. The problems with site specific rules 

include the following:

A. Each site or action is treated as if it is independent of any other. This ignores cumulative 

effects and it ignores other related processes occurring in other parts of the landscape. 

Cumulative effects are often difficult to explicitly measure at the landscape level, but they are 

consistent with logic. For example, roads produce fine sediment and culverts and stream 

crossings modify the movement of water, sediment, and large wood. Although difficult to 

demonstrate at the watershed level, logically, the production of fine sediment increases with the 

length of a road system and number of stream crossings, and the movement of water, sediment, 

and large wood is increasingly influenced as the number of culverts and stream crossings 

increase.

The relationships between riparian and upslope areas provide examples where current rules

ignore related processes occurring in other portions of the landscape. As an example, current 

OFPA riparian rules relating to large wood recruitment are based on achieving 58 to 92 percent 

of the large wood that results from a mature forest riparian zone. Relying primarily on 

recruitment from riparian buffers, watersheds that historically had significant contributions of 

large wood from upslope positions have much lower levels of large wood recruitment than the 

historic range of condition. ODF acknowledges that currently the rules do not address the issue 

of potential large wood inputs from upslope sources. 

As a second example, the riparian forest is treated as distinct from the upslope forest. The 

result of current riparian protection is a strip of mature forest between the upslope forest and 

the stream. Since the upslope forest is managed primarily for harvest of trees, and the riparian 

forest is managed to develop into mature forest for stream protection, larger demarcations 

between the two forest types could/will develop. This will almost certainly result in a riparian 

forest structure and function (perhaps an upslope as well) that is different from historic 

conditions (Murphy 1995). Landscape level goals for riparian and upslope conditions must be 

developed and implemented to allow for the full complement of physical and biological 

structures and functions, while minimizing risk to the aquatic system. We believe the key is 

emulation of the historic range of condition. 

B. Application of uniform riparian rules results in a relatively uniform outcome throughout a 

landscape. A principle outlined in the Preface is that heterogeneity of ecosystem conditions 
34 Appendix 3

across time and space is the pattern to which wild salmonids adapted. The application of 

uniform rules tends to reduce the heterogeneity. 

As an example, the current riparian management rules require specific widths and basal area 

retention for streams of specific sizes. Over time the result will be an increasingly uniform 

condition in the riparian zones of a landscape. There will be little variation in the entry of 

sunlight, organic material, nutrients, insects, large wood, and other materials to the aquatic 

system. This will poorly emulate the historic range of condition. 

We conclude that the current site-specific Rules and Measures contribute to achieving the 

mission of the Oregon Plan, but they are insufficient. In the short run, they must be incorporated 

into a landscape approach. Over the long run, the site-specific Rules and Measures may be able 

to be simplified and become less prescriptive as management, policy, regulation, and voluntary 

measures are developed at the landscape level. 

Question 3. What strategies are needed in the management of forest resources to achieve 

the mission of the Oregon Plan? 

Based on our understanding of the science, we believe a landscape approach to policy, resource 

management, regulation, and voluntary actions is needed to accomplish the mission of the 

Oregon Plan. The current approach is primarily a site- and action-specific prescriptive approach. 

Other approaches are at the conceptual or landscape level only. It is likely that a blend of these 

approaches is best. 

A. Prescriptive Approaches

Prescriptive approaches are the dominant strategy for the regulation of practices on forestlands. 

They typically specify the actions that should (or should not) occur at any given site. An example 

is to leave a buffer strip of some specific width (or widths) along streams. The Oregon Forest 

Practices Act, the federal Northwest Forest Plan, and the Forest Practices Rules in Washington 

and other states are all prescriptive in their approach. 

As outlined in the Preface to this report, we believe emulation of the historic range and 

distribution of conditions at the landscape level is essential to accomplishing the mission of the 

Oregon Plan. This is the criterion we apply in our analysis of the capacity of several prescriptive 

approaches to this goal.

Adequacy of site-specific strategies for achieving the mission of the Oregon Plan.

The current site-specific Rules and Measures contribute to achieving the mission of 

the Oregon Plan, but they are insufficient. They must be incorporated into a landscape 

approach. 
35 Appendix 3

(1.) Oregon Forest Practices Act and Administrative Rules

The contemporary version of the Oregon Forest Practices Act was enacted in 1972, with 

substantive revisions in 1987 and 1994, and the latest modifications in 1998. The OFPA Rules 

regulate forestry activities, and were developed to protect forest-related resource values, 

including waters of the state. They provide benefit to salmonids through protection of water 

quality and habitat, but they do not include the recovery of wild salmonids.

The OFPA rules focus on specific activities as they occur on specific sites. Examples include 

timber harvest, use of pesticides and other chemicals, reforestation, and the design, construction, 

and maintenance of roads. They incorporate a landscape perspective with respect to some aspects 

of timber harvest (for instance by limiting the size and adjacency of clearcut harvest units) and 

some aspects of roads (encouraging the use of existing roads rather than building new roads 

where practical).

The OFPA rules include Water Protection Rules, which include specifics for Riparian 

Management Areas (RMAs). Vegetation retention along streams follows a protocol that is 

designed to meet criteria for "desired future conditions". The purpose of these requirements is to 

provide for the establishment or re-establishment of functioning riparian habitat along streams, 

which will benefit water quality of fish habitat. These rules are designed to minimize or avoid 

adverse effects to the waters of the state, but are action and site specific. They do not include a 

landscape perspective. 

(2.) The (federal) Northwest Forest Plan

The Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (FEMAT) developed the Northwest 

Forest Plan (ROD). It is based on the analysis of 10 options for management of federal forests 

within the range of the northern spotted owl, and it focuses on wildlife species that are associated 

with late-successional and old-growth forests. Allocation of land to a system of ―reserves‖ 

interspersed with lands where timber harvest can occur and Adaptive Management Areas (where 

new approaches to management can be tried) is central to the Northwest Forest Plan. Specific 

Standards and Guidelines for Management provide prescriptive elements.

Key watersheds were also identified and prioritized within each land allocation. The Aquatic 

Conservation Strategy, under the Northwest Forest Plan, was designed to protect and restore 

salmon and steelhead habitat by maintaining and restoring ecosystem health at the watershed 

scale. This includes watershed analysis. The current measures are conservative, and may be 

changed as additional information providing a better basis for management options becomes 

available.

The Northwest Forest Plan includes both a site-specific and a landscape perspective, although it 

does little to include lands outside of federal ownership, even when they are key parts of the 

landscape to be managed. A variety of policies and laws (some of which are conflicting) have 

made it difficult to achieve the full array of federal management objectives or the elements of 

adaptive management that are a critical part of the Northwest Forest Plan.
36 Appendix 3

(3.) Washington Forest Practices Act and Rules

The State of Washington has regulated forestry activities on state and private lands since 1974 

through the Washington Forest Practices Act. Under the Act, the Washington Forest Practices 

Board (WFPB) issues Rules (WFPB 1995) and a Board Manual as guidance for regulation of 

forestry activities. The rules have gone through many changes, with the most current legislation 

directing futures rules to be based on the April 1999 ―Forest and Fish Report‖ (DNR, 1999).

The Forest Fish Report articulates four goals:

Provide compliance with the Endangered Species Act for aquatic and riparian-dependent 

species on non-federal forest lands.

Restore and maintain riparian habitat on non-federal forest lands to support a harvestable 

supply of fish.

Meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act for water quality on non-federal forest 

lands.

Keep the timber industry economically viable in the State of Washington.

Priorities include riparian protection (buffer zones with regional variations) for fish and non-fish 

habitat, road maintenance and construction and protection for unstable slopes, adaptive 

management, watershed analysis, and other issues. The approach includes prescriptions designed 

to achieve desired future conditions, based on scientific criteria that are believed will provide 

appropriate ecological functions required for water quality and stream habitat. 

The Washington State approach is similar in many respects to the OFPA approach, although it 

incorporates more contemporary, strategies including watershed analysis and a landscape based 

approach. However, as with OFPA, the Washington State strategies do not adequately 

incorporate the landscape perspective needed to accomplish the mission of the Oregon Plan.

We find that regulatory frameworks for managing natural resources are often focused on single 

factors and present a simplified view of complex ecosystem interactions. The goal of regulation 

may be multifaceted (i.e., water quality), but the rule designed to obtain the goal is often singular 

(i.e., a 100-ft riparian management zone). A "one-size-fits-all" approach, while an attractive 

regulatory framework, is not capable of reflecting the dynamic nature of landscape structure and 

function. In addition, by limiting the application of scientific concepts, managers are often 

discouraged from adapting the regulatory framework to coincide with changing ecological 

conditions. 

We do not consider the prescriptive approaches included in the Oregon and Washington forest 

practices rules to be consistent with the direction provided by science for the recovery of 

Oregon’s wild salmonids. To meet the objective of long-term ecosystem function, a conceptualbased management approach may be more successful.

B. Conceptual Approaches

The science of landscape ecology forms a good conceptual basis for meeting the goal of 

enhancing and maintaining salmonid habitat (Schlosser 1991). By developing a policy 
37 Appendix 3

framework that encourages landscape patterns that reflect the historic conditions under which 

salmonids evolved, the entire landscape can play a role in achieving properly functioning aquatic 

conditions. A mosaic of conditions across the landscape was once achieved through natural 

disturbances. Although we can never recreate the same dynamic system on our current landscape, 

we can use our current understanding and monitoring of results to better tailor our management 

activities towards the same end.

There are difficulties inherent in applying a landscape-based management strategy. The lack of 

large-scale quantitative relationships makes it hard to predict the impact of management 

decisions on desired outcomes. There are models available that simulate disturbance history 

(Benda et al. 1998), sediment transport (Benda and Dunne 1997a, b), and large wood recruitment 

(Meleason and Gregory 1999); however, these models remain to be validated across larger 

landscape scales. In addition, the regulatory framework of such a complex approach would be 

difficult to monitor, although satellite imagery and projects such as the Coastal Landscape 

Analysis and Modeling Study (CLAMS) indicate that the required technology is rapidly 

becoming available.

We conclude that the science of landscape ecology provides the appropriate concepts for 

landscape level management, but it is not sufficiently well developed and tested to permit its 

widespread use now. In addition, the policy framework (a combination of regulation, voluntary 

action, incentives and other approaches) required to make it workable has not been developed.

C. A Blended Approach

The Oregon Department of Forestry is preparing a management plan for over 600,000 acres in 

northwestern Oregon. The plan is a blend of the prescriptive approach (because it does not 

violate the OFPA rules) and a conceptual approach (because it uses principles of landscape 

management). 

This plan has the goal of maintaining properly functioning conditions in both terrestrial and 

aquatic systems, including a variety of habitats and forest conditions across the landscape and 

over time. Aquatic systems are further considered with a goal to provide stands that are diverse 

in size, type, and arrangement, both adjacent to riparian areas and across the landscape. In 

addition to these landscape-based goals, the plan will be implemented under the current 

regulatory framework established by the Oregon Forest Practices Rules. The aquatic strategies 

outlined in the plan attempt to take a blended approach by including both an overall landscape 

management element, as well as more specific prescriptive elements, to be applied when 

different forest activities are conducted.

In a review by several scientists (Hayes 1998), the plan was recognized for having a strong 

conceptual basis rooted in science. However, the scientists agreed that individual management 

approaches (such as riparian buffer widths) were not well supported with scientific data.

D. Emulating Historic Patterns — A Challenge

Designing a management strategy that emulates historic patterns of disturbance at the landscape 

level is a useful framework, but we need to recognize that we are managing from current 

conditions, and these do not fully reflect historic landscape patterns. Historically, the major 
38 Appendix 3

disturbances in the forests of western Oregon included fires and hydrological (i.e., landslides, 

debris flows, floods), climatic (i.e., drought, wind), and pathogenic (i.e., insects and disease) 

events. Although they are often discussed as separate incidents, it should be recognized that 

these disturbances are interrelated and often have synergistic effects on terrestrial and aquatic 

systems. 

These disturbances and their interactions change aquatic systems and add to their spatial and 

temporal heterogeneity. The degree of change depends on the frequency extensiveness, and 

intensity of the disturbance and the condition of the ecosystem. For example, a severe fire, 

followed by a 50-year storm will provide the aquatic system with sediment, rock, and large wood 

at a time when the hydrologic forces are present to transport and deposit it (Benda et al. 1998). 

The effects of fire also interact with the age class of the forest. For example, in younger stands, 

fire may kill many trees because their bark is relatively thin; smaller material is also more likely 

to burn completely, leaving less wood to be transported into streams. The frequency or return 

interval of a disturbance can have major impacts on forest composition and density. For example, 

frequent disturbances that provide light and an adequate seedbed would favor short-lived species 

such as red alder, whereas less frequent gap-formation events (such as root rot or patchy blowdown) would favor shade-tolerant conifers. Maintaining the riparian forest heterogeneity based 

on historic patterns should be considered when designing riparian protection strategies.

Conclusion

We conclude that the current OFPA Administrative Rules and the Measures of the Oregon Plan 

are designed to meet our forest management goals, but are not adequate for accomplishing the 

mission of the Oregon Plan. To better meet the goal of properly functioning aquatic systems, we 

believe an approach that retains prescriptive elements but incorporates landscape level 

perspectives is needed. The blended approach taken by Oregon Department of Forestry in their 

Northwest Management Plan with a few modifications is an example. The modifications include 

1) the immediate protection of all existing core habitat while implementation occurs; 2) taking a 

broader perspective to include adjacent private lands; and 3) the implementation of a 

scientifically valid monitoring program.

Strategies needed in the management of forest resources to achieve the mission of 

The Oregon Plan.

The current OFPA Administrative Rules and the Measures of the Oregon Plan are 

designed to meet our forest management goals, but are not adequate for accomplishing the 

mission of the Oregon Plan.

To better meet the goal of properly functioning aquatic systems, a blended approach that 

retains prescriptive elements but incorporates landscape-level perspectives is needed. The 

blended approach taken by Oregon Department of Forestry in their Northwest 

Management Plan with a few modifications is an example. The modifications include the 

immediate protection of all existing core habitat while implementation occurs, and taking 

a broader perspective to include adjacent private lands, and the implementation of a 

scientifically valid monitoring program.
39 Appendix 3

SECTION IV

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY

The science-based conclusions and implications for policy are drawn from our answers to the 

science questions and are grouped in four areas: riparian protection, large wood management, 

sedimentation, and fish passage at stream crossings.

Conclusions

 

Riparian Protection

Managing riparian areas as a strategy for protecting fish habitat is scientifically valid only if it is 

done with the goal of maintaining the dynamics structure and function across the landscape. 

Sharp demarcations between riparian forest and upslope forest, and between game-fish-bearing 

and non-bearing streams, are not consistent with the historic pattern.

Large Wood Management

The current status of large wood in western Oregon streams and the future recruitment potential 

for large wood are not adequate to ensure recovery of depressed stocks of wild salmonids. Most 

models of large wood recruitment focus on riparian areas as the source, ignoring the important 

contributions made by upslope sources, especially from landslides. There is a critical need to 

restore the ecological processes that produce and deliver large wood to the streams (riparian as 

well as upslope). Correcting this problem will take a long time, several decades. We do not 

believe the current OFPA rules will achieve the desired levels of large wood in the stream 

channels and in the forested riparian zones. A rigorous coast-wide monitoring and evaluation 

program and an adaptive management process is needed to detect and solve problems.

Sedimentation

Forestry operations increase the amount of chronic and episodic production of fine sediments. 

Disproportionately high amounts of fine sediment, compared with the coarser elements of stream 

structure (large wood, boulders, gravel, and cobble), diminish the quality of habitat for wild 

salmonids. In many instances, excess fire sediment can be reduced or the balance between finer 

and coarser material improved through actions at the site, using existing knowledge. Examples 

include designing, locating, constructing, and maintaining roads to minimize failure and to 

prevent road drainage from entering streams; maintaining trees on areas with a high risk of slope 

failure; and maintaining fully functional riparian zones to reduce the extent of disturbance of 

debris torrents.

Management of sedimentation at the watershed level is more difficult, and the scientific basis for 

it is less well developed, although the concepts are known and provide a basis for reasonable 

conjecture on how to proceed. In essence, the approach is to vary the extent and intensity of 

disturbance in a watershed over space and time, emulating the historical pattern of disturbance.
40 Appendix 3

Fish passage at stream crossings

The stream-road crossing guidelines developed by ODFW (ODFW 1996) are based on science, 

although often not the result of explicit experimentation. They provide a scientifically sound 

basis for management of such crossings, although better information should result from 

monitoring. 

Implications for Policy

Current forest policy for the state of Oregon focuses on forest management and environmental 

protection, but not the recovery of wild salmonids. The Rules and Measures by which current 

policy objectives are sought focus on specific actions occurring within defined periods of time at 

specific sites. It is precriptive: the rules provide for protection on a site-by-site basis, rather than 

at the landscape level. The rules make sharp distinctions in how riparian zones are managed, 

which may result in a failure to maintain the dynamics of structure and function of riparian and 

aquatic zones across the landscape. In other cases, hazardous sites on forest roads and railroad 

grades are exempt from current rules because the actions occurred before the rules were in effect. 

Mechanisms are needed to solve these problems on critical sites that are exempted from current 

rules. Similar examples can be drawn from conclusions about the recruitment of large wood and 

the management of sediment and fish passage.

There are three major areas in which shifts in policy are needed to achieve scientific consistency 

with the mission of The Oregon Plan.

Incorporate the objectives of the Oregon Plan and Executive order 99-01 into the OFPA. 

This will place an emphasis of regulation on the protection and enhancement of habitat 

needed for the recovery of wild salmonids.

Develop policy that extends the management of forest resources to the landscape level. 

This does not delete the site-specific aspects of current rules, but applies them in a 

different context. It will allow a shift from the current more prescriptive rules applied 

uniformly across the landscape to site-by-site regulations that take into account 

cumulative disturbance in the watershed, landscape features, and climatic variation.

Develop policy that identifies, prioritizes and brings roads not built to current standards 

and other hazardous settings in critical locations into compliance with current standards. 

This means having the current rules applied to actions taken before the current rules were 

in force. It is remediation of particularly hazardous situations. In many cases the operator 

acted in good faith and within the rules of the day, but the outcome is not scientifically 

consistent with the mission of the Oregon plan; thus, a provision by which remediation is 

accomplished is needed.

Evaluating Policy

Evaluating policy options within the complexity that characterizes contemporary forestry is a 

challenge. Extending these options to the landscape level and over time makes the job 
41 Appendix 3

enormously more difficult. Fortunately, there are analytical approaches and models that can be 

useful. Although it is not as simple as just ―getting and running the model‖, these approaches 

from research can help. Examples of these are currently in use in the CLAMS research project 

and the Umpqua Land Exchange Project, both in western Oregon. Another example is illustrated 

by the work of Bettinger et al. (1998), who analyzed policy options involving aquatic habitat and 

timber production over time in a 15,000-acre watershed in eastern Oregon. 

During the policy transition, regulatory actions will have to be treated as hypotheses that must be 

tested through adequate monitoring and evaluation. ODF will need to respond rapidly to new 

information obtained through the monitoring and evaluation program.

SECTION V.

RECOMMENDATIONS

This Report focuses on broad scientific issues and concepts. It is not a review of each of the 

individual Administrative Rules that are part of the Oregon Forest Practices Act or the Measures 

that are part of the Oregon Plan. In some cases it does focus on specific Rules or Measures, but 

these are used primarily to illustrate examples. Lack of inclusion of a specific Rule or Measure 

does not imply either approval or rejection of it by IMST. The scientific direction provided by 

this Report can guide ODF staff (working with other panels of experts as needed) in formulating 

Administrative Rules for OFPA and Measures for the Oregon Plan that are needed as part of 

accomplishing the recovery of depressed stocks of wild salmonids.

The following are the specific recommendations of the IMST. Some of our recommendations can 

be accommodated within the existing policy framework of the Oregon Forest Practices Act or the 

Oregon Plan. These are identified as Recommendations Consistent with the Existing Policy 

Framework, and we believe they can be addressed in the near future. Some other 

recommendations will be difficult or impossible to implement within the existing policy 

framework. These we identify as Recommendations that May Require a Modified Policy 

Framework. Although these recommendations will take a longer period of time to implement, 

work on the revised policy framework should begin now. In aggregate, our recommendations are 

intended to both reinforce and enhance the site-specific Rules of OFPA and Measures of the 

Oregon Plan and provide a bridge to management that incorporates a landscape perspective.

Recommendations for ODF

Recommendations that May Require a Modified Policy Framework

Recommendation 1. Explicitly incorporate the policy objective of the Oregon Plan and 

Executive Order 99-01 into OFPA.

The policy objective of OFPA includes (among other things), the protection of water quality and 

aquatic habitat. Site-specific rules that protect aquatic habitat and water quality are necessary to 

achieve the policy objectives of the Oregon Plan. However, they are not sufficient because they 
42 Appendix 3

do not specifically address the recovery of the depressed stocks of wild salmonids covered by the 

Oregon Plan and Executive Order 99-01. The objectives of the Oregon Plan and Executive Order 

99-01 should be a specific objective of the OFPA if OFPA is to be scientifically consistent with 

them.

Recommendation 2. ODF should develop a policy framework to encompass landscape (large 

watershed) level planning and operations on forests within the range of wild salmonids in 

Oregon.

The current forest policy framework focuses on individual actions at specific sites. Although this 

is critical to accomplishing the mission of the Oregon Plan, IMST does not find that it is 

sufficient. There is a strong scientific basis for believing that achieving the mission of the Oregon 

Plan requires management of habitat for wild salmonids at the landscape (large watershed) level. 

Large watersheds (such as the Willamette River, Alsea River, and others), include both forested 

and non-forested lands. Given that forests tend to predominate in the upper reaches of watershed 

areas, it is logical to provide for landscape (watershed level) management of forestlands within

the framework of OFPA. Other policy frameworks will need adjustment to accomplish this same 

recommendation on other lands. The landscape level approach that is recommended for forestry 

will be prominent in IMST reports on other land uses as well.

IMST recommends that the following elements be included in this modified forest policy 

framework:

Long-term landscape (watershed) level assessment. Watershed level assessments of the 

conditions of upslope and riparian forest and associated aquatic systems are needed to determine 

the changes necessary to achieve the desired future conditions. This is believed to be an 

important mechanism for decisions and planning for management on the landscape scale. Remote

sensing, digital elevation models, and a variety of modeling and analytical tools are available for 

this purpose. (Examples particularly relevant to forestry are found in the CLAMS project and the 

Umpqua Land Exchange Project.) 

Identified goals. Goals that ensure the integrity of salmonid habitat should be identified for the 

characteristics of aquatic systems and riparian and upslope forests across the landscape. An 

important part of this is establishing quantitative links between fish habitat requirements and 

landscape patterns/processes. The ODF Northwest Forest plan is an example of one approach to 

this, although the goals of this plan are more explicit to forest stand structure than they are to 

aquatic and riparian system characteristics.

Monitoring. Monitoring is necessary to provide the information needed to evaluate the 

aggregated outcomes of management at the landscape level. Accomplishing monitoring from the 

landscape perspective will require additional monitoring, or perhaps can be accomplished with 

better coordination of monitoring and analysis of data across agencies to include the landscape 

perspective. There is a specific need for collaboration between ODFW and ODF to explicitly 
43 Appendix 3

examine and evaluate the links and relationships between fish and ecosystem conditions (see 

Recommendation 16). 

Coordination. Coordination among agencies and watershed councils is needed to facilitate the 

expansion of landscape level planning and management at scales that extend beyond the forest. 

The purpose of this element is to improve the coordination of forest lands with other lands.

We believe landscape analysis can be used in designing forestry practices that result in an 

emulation of the historic patterns of landscape disturbance on the current landscape. Among 

strategies that may be effective and advantageous from several perspectives are the following:

defining the number stream crossings in a given basin

defining the length of road system in a given basin

defining the amount and distribution of stand age-classes in a given basin.

Utilization of such strategies may, among other things,

permit a shift from the current, rigid buffer-width strategy to a more flexible one providing 

the historic array of condition at the landscape level

provide the ability to achieve water temperature goals through control of the proportion of the 

landscape in various forested conditions

provide greater flexibility in scheduling the extent and frequency of management related 

disturbance (i.e., concentrate clearcut timber harvest in a sub-basin and then provide longer 

periods for the watershed to stabilize and recover).

Recommendations Consistent with the Existing Forest Policy Framework

Recommendation 3. Treat non-fish-bearing streams the same as small, medium, and large fishbearing streams when determining buffer-width protection.

Current rules reduce buffer-width requirements if game fish are not present. It is recommended 

that all large, medium, and small streams, regardless of fish presence, receive a riparian 

management area (RMA) of 100, 70, and 50 feet, respectively. Currently, there is no lower size 

limit for what constitutes a small stream. Given the increased level of protection, a lower limit to 

define a small stream should be developed. The lower limit should allow for a sufficient level of 

aquatic protection, paying particular attention to the role small streams play in wood delivery and 

carbon inputs during storms. On a landscape basis, a portion of intermittent or ephemeral streams 

will require the 50- foot buffer in order to retain aquatic function. 

Table 1. Summary table based on ODF Rules regarding current requirements for minimum 

retention of streamside trees. Requirements are for numbers and basal area (BA) of conifer trees 

(exceptions are allowed under certain circumstances to substitute appropriate hardwoods for 

conifers) in riparian management areas (RMA) for clearcuts in Coast Range and South Coast 

geographic regions. Required minimum diameter at breast height of trees retained in the RMA 

for both Type F and Type N streams is 11 inches for large streams and 8 inches for medium 

streams.
44 Appendix 3

Stream 

type/size

RMA 

width

(ft)

Number of conifers Standard target Active management target

Trees/1000-ft 

stream length Trees/acre

BA/1000-ft 

stream 

length BA/acre

BA/1000-ft 

stream 

length BA/acre

Type F (fish)

 Large 100 40 17 230 100 170 74

 Medium 70 30 19 120 75 90 56

 Small 50 0 0 40 35 20 17

Type N (non-fish)

 Large 70 30 19 90 56

 Medium 50 10 9 50 44

 Small 0 0 0 0 0

Recommendation 4. Provide increased riparian protection for the 100-year floodplains and 

islands.

Floodplains are low-gradient, unconstrained stream reaches where a strong connectivity exists 

between the aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. To maintain this important landscape function, 

the 100-year floodplain should receive increased protection over that provided by current OFPA 

Rules or Measures in the Oregon Plan. The goal of this protection is to create the same type of 

mature forest condition that is the goal of current RMA management.

The entire 100-year floodplain should be included (including on islands). This would include the 

RMA and the areas beyond it to the edge of the floodplain. This may result in a larger zone of 

protection on one side of the stream. For example, if a stream is currently against the east side of 

a floodplain, the protection zone to the east may extend only as far as the upslope edge of the 

RMA, but on the west side, the protection may be 250 feet or more, depending on the floodplain 

width. The only time the floodplain protection zone should be equal on each side is if the stream 

is in the center of the floodplain.

Recommendation 5. Increase the conifer basal-area requirement and the number-of-trees 

requirement for RMAs, with increases in these requirements for medium and small streams 

regardless of fish presence.

This recommendation is based on the expected volume and number of trees in the riparian forest 

under current rules. In the Coast Range, current OFPA rules have active management basal area 
45 Appendix 3

targets in the RMA on ―Type 2 or 3‖ harvest units of 56 ft2/acre and 17 ft2/acre for medium and 

small streams, respectively. Standard targets are 75 ft2/acre and 34.7 ft2/acre for fish-bearing 

medium and small streams, respectively. These targets are too low and should be increased to at 

least the level required for large streams. In addition, these rules should be applied to all streams 

regardless of fish presence. The current required minimum trees-per-acre should also be 

increased on medium and small streams to meet the levels required on large fish-bearing streams. 

As in Recommendation 3, the lower limit defining small streams must be developed, with 

attention given to a similar level of protection for a portion of intermittent or ephemeral streams.

Recommendation 6. Complete the study of the effectiveness of the OFPA Rules in providing 

large wood for the short and long term.

One of the goals of riparian management is to generate a supply of large wood of diverse 

character and size to meet several different functions in the stream. Oregon Plan measure ODF 

11S is to determine the effectiveness of the 1994 forest practices rules in providing for short-term 

and long-term sources of large wood. According to Measure 11, "If this monitoring effort 

identifies that the Water Protection Rules are not achieving the protection or LWD recruitment 

goals, the department will recommend rule changes." The depleted status of large wood 

throughout Coast Range watersheds makes completion of measure ODF 11S critically important.

There are several important questions this ODF study will be able to address. For example, what 

role will thinning of conifers in the riparian zone contribute to achieving a mature riparian forest 

condition sooner? When, where, and how should active management of hardwood-dominated 

riparian zones be done? Are basal area credits (in RMAs) for large wood placement in streams a 

useful and appropriate strategy for achieving large wood goals? 

Recommendation 7. Provide enhanced levels of certainty of protection for ―core areas‖.

The term "core area" was used by ODFW in identifying specific areas critically important to the 

recovery of coho in the original Oregon Plan. This term may be replaced in the future. It is our 

intention that, regardless of the term used, this recommendation be applied to areas specifically 

designated by ODFW as critical to achieving the mission of the Oregon Plan and the intention of 

Executive Order 99-01.

The OFPA Rules should be changed to eliminate language that equivocates on resource

protection in favor of forest operations. This equivocation inappropriately puts the risk of 

operations in core salmonid areas on the habitat. Examples of such language are found in the 

Road Location rules, 629-625-200 (3) "where viable alternative exist", (5) "where practical", and 

"investigate options", in Road Maintenance rules 629-625-600 (8)(b) "As reasonably 

practicable". 

These equivocal statements and similar types of statements in other rules should be replaced with 

language that clearly gives priority to the protection of core areas. 
46 Appendix 3

Recommendation 8. Develop and implement standards or guidelines that reduce the length of 

roadside drainage ditches that discharge into channels.

Surveys of road systems find that 30 to 70 percent of road drainage points discharge water and 

entrained sediment into channels. Although it is impractical to eliminate such drainage points, 

the amount of sediment discharged can be reduced by reducing the length of the segments of 

roadside drainage ditches that feed into channel discharge points. The shorter the distance of such 

channels, the less sediment that will be come entrained in the flowing water. This 

recommendation should be implemented for all new road construction and any road 

reconstruction covered by the OFPA Rules. 

Recommendation 9. Implement the standards and guidelines for the length of roadside drainage 

ditch between cross-drainage structures, especially on steep gradient roads.

Surveys of road systems find that the distance between cross-drainage structures usually exceeds 

established guidelines. Decreasing the distance between such structures will reduce the volume 

of water discharged to the slope and will reduce the amount of sediment that becomes entrained 

in the discharge flow. The consequence of these changes will be a reduced likelihood of 

discharge-related slope or road failure and a reduced level of road-related sediment entering 

stream systems. 

Recommendation 10. Require the flow capacity of cross-drainage structures and stream-crossing

structures and culverts to meet current design standards.

This recommendation addresses two issues: maintaining the flow capacity of cross-drainage 

structures and culverts during maintenance, and emergency culvert replacement.

Maintaining flow capacity. ODF surveys show that a large percentage of ditch-relief culverts 

have reduced flow capacity because the ends of the culverts are damaged and/or the culverts are 

obstructed with debris. These culverts may cause water to be diverted, increasing the potential for 

catastrophic road failure. An effective program of drainage system maintenance will reduce the 

potential for road failure from this source. As part of this system of maintenance, equipment 

operators should be trained to prevent damage to the ends of culverts.

Emergency culvert replacement. OFPA rules require that culverts replaced during a road 

―reconstruction‖ meet current standards, i.e., the 50-year rule. Unfortunately, culverts that are 

undersized by current standards may fail and need to be replaced on an emergency basis during 

intense storms. Operators may not have the level of knowledge needed to determine the correct 

culvert size for this reconstruction. ODF needs to develop a program to predetermine appropriate 

culvert size for critical sites to ensure that this information is readily available to operators.

Recommendation 11. Provide for the stabilization of roads not constructed to current standards 

(including "old roads and railroad grades") in critical locations. Stabilization means reduction or 

elimination of the potential for failure. It includes a variety of strategies ranging from removal to 
47 Appendix 3

abandonment, entirely or of sections, by which specific roads and railroad grades become a much 

less important source of sediment. 

Analysis of road failures shows that roads not built to current standards dominate road-failure 

statistics in sensitive locations. IMST finds compelling evidence that road failures present 

sedimentation risks that are inconsistent with achieving the recovery of wild salmonids. OFPA 

rules can require that roads being used for forestry purposes be stabilized. We believe this rule 

should be vigorously enforced, with highest priority attention given to roads in core areas 

identified by ODFW, but with attention to forest roads at all locations over time.

"Old roads and railroad grades" on forestlands, sometimes called legacy roads, are not covered by 

the OFPA rules unless they are reactivated for a current forestry operation or purposes. IMST 

believes the lack of a mechanism to address the risks presented by such roads is a serious 

impediment to achieving the goals of the Oregon Plan. A process that will result in the 

stabilization of such roads is needed, with highest priority attention to roads in core areas, but 

with attention to such roads and railroad grades at all locations on forestlands over time.

As part of the Oregon Plan, voluntary efforts by forest industry are underway in northwestern 

Oregon to identify and stabilize or reduce the risk of failure on "old roads". ODF should 

document and report on the progress of this effort, and should extend it to other forest areas 

where wild salmonid habitat exists. Highest priority should be given to core areas identified by 

ODFW. 

Recommendation 12. Require durable surfacing on wet-season haul roads and require that 

hauling cease before surfaces become soft or "pump" sediment to the surface. 

Road surfaces are a source of fine sediment when they are used for hauling during the wet 

season. The surfacing characteristics of the road and the intensity of use influence the production 

of these sediments. Research has shown that a durable surface, such as rock of sufficient 

hardness and depth, will markedly reduce the production of sediment. In some cases the road 

surface or base may be soft, or traffic may cause a pumping action that causes sediment to move 

to the surface, where it can be transported to streams. A cessation of hauling will reduce 

sediment production from this source. 

Recommendation 13. Retain trees on "high risk slopes" and in likely debris torrent tracks to 

increase the likelihood that large wood will be transported to streams when landslides and debris 

torrents occur.

Landslides and debris torrents may be an important mechanism by which portions of the aquatic 

system are revitalized. Landslides and debris torrents that emulate the historical quality and 

quantity of debris delivered to the stream system are believed to be most effective. The key 

elements of landslides and debris torrents are their composition (wood, rock, and sediment) and 

the size of material (large wood, boulders, cobble, gravel). The composition and size of rock and 
48 Appendix 3

sediment is largely defined by the characteristics of the site, but the presence of trees to serve as a 

source of large wood is largely determined by management decisions. 

IMST concludes that retention of trees on high risk slopes and in likely debris torrent tracks will 

provide an important source of large wood for stream systems that drain these areas. Science 

does not provide guidance on the density of tree retention in such areas. The "Benda wood 

accumulation model" and the debris "run-out model" provide scientifically sound guidance. We 

suggest an adaptive management approach, using monitoring of landslides and debris torrents to 

identify the tree retention density that will be effective.

Recommendation 14. Continue to apply the current best management practices (BMP) approach 

to the management of forest lands with significant landslide potential, and develop a better case 

history basis for evaluating the effectiveness of BMP in these areas.

Recent research experience and ODF’s documentation and analysis of landslides provide an 

initial basis for management of areas with significant landslide potential. A continuation of these 

efforts and the periodic analysis of findings offer a scientifically sound approach to identifying 

management strategies that will be consistent with the mission of the Oregon Plan. 

Recommendation 15. Modify culverts and other structures to permit the passage of juvenile and 

adult salmonids upstream and downstream at forest road-stream crossings.

Surveys of forest road-stream crossings show that a significant number of sites have culverts or 

other structures that prevent the passage of adult and/or juvenile salmonids. This prevents the full 

use of potentially productive salmonid habitat. OFPA Rules (629-625-600 (8)(a) provide for fish 

passage for roads constructed after September 1994, however a significant number of fish 

passage barriers exist on roads not covered by this rule. Voluntary efforts to solve this problem 

are being conducted on other roads in northwestern Oregon by forest industries, as part of the 

Oregon Plan. ODF should document progress on the voluntary efforts to solve this problem, and 

implement voluntary or regulatory programs on other lands to achieve the goals of the Oregon 

Plan. If there are situations on forest lands where OFPA Rules or Oregon Plan measures do not 

address fish passage problems, ODF should notify the Manager, Oregon Plan, so that remediation 

may be implemented by the appropriate agency.

Recommendations for or with other Agencies

Recommendation 16. ODFW and ODF should develop a collaborative program of monitoring 

to quantify the linkages between parameters of ecosystem condition and wild salmonid recovery.

Validation of the effectiveness of various strategies of both site specific and landscape level 

management on the recovery of wild salmonids can only come through effective monitoring. 

Both ODF and ODFW conduct monitoring that are or can be useful for this purpose. In some 

cases, modification or expansion of programs may be needed. A collaborative effort between the 

Departments in the design, conduct, and analysis of monitoring programs is a critical step in 

quantifying the links between forest condition and the welfare of the fish. Historically these links 

have been very difficult to establish but are needed for future policy and planning activities. 

ISMT believes well designed, adequately funded, and carefully coordinated monitoring efforts 

involving both Departments are essential for this purpose.
49 Appendix 3

Recommendation 17. ODFW should complete "core area" designation for all wild salmonids in 

Oregon and identify high priority protection/restoration areas that are not covered by current 

"core area" designations. ODFW should work with the Oregon Plan Implementation Team in 

prioritizing habitat for enhanced levels of protection and/or restoration.

The term "core area" was used by ODFW to identify specific areas critically important to the 

recovery of coho in the original Oregon Plan. This term may be replaced in the future. It is our 

intention that, regardless of the term used, this recommendation be applied to areas specifically 

designated by ODFW as critical to achieving the mission of the Oregon Plan and the intention of 

Executive Order 99-01.

Core area designations are incomplete for winter steelhead and are completely lacking for sea-run 

cutthroat trout and other salmonids covered by the Oregon Plan and Executive order 99-01. Core 

areas for other species may need revision in light of new information obtained since completion 

of the first core area designations.

Recommendation 18. ODFW should include consideration of practices (forestry, agriculture, 

urban, other land uses) above and below core areas, as these may affect the conditions and 

processes critical to maintenance of core area function in forestry areas.

The concept of a core area needs to extend beyond the specific location of a core area. A core 

area cannot continue to function in the recovery of wild salmonids unless upstream and 

downstream portions of the system are also functioning effectively. For forested portions of the 

landscape, this means explicitly considering the effects of forest practices under OFPA, as they 

may influence the core area. The same concept must be applied to non-forested portions of the 

landscape for the same reason. For instance, the functionality of core areas in the forested portion 

of the landscape will be reduced if water quality and habitat conditions in downstream 

agricultural or urban areas are not conducive to salmonid recovery.

Recommendation 19. The Oregon Forest Research Laboratory (FRL), in collaboration with 

ODFW, should develop forest road-stream crossing strategies that facilitate the passage of large 

wood at road-stream crossings. 

Stream crossings, especially in upper reaches of stream systems, can provide significant 

impediments to the downstream passage of large wood and other elements of habitat structure. 

Alternatives to bridges or culverts may be more effective, and in some instances, perhaps less 

expensive. Forest managers currently have few options to consider in the design of stream 

crossings. The development and testing of additional alternatives may provide a better mixture 

of solutions to stream crossing problems. An initial step in this could be a jointly sponsored (FRL 

and ODFW) workshop to establish key design parameters and performance criteria. 
50 Appendix 3

SECTION VI

REFERENCES

Agee, J.K. 1993. Fire ecology of Pacific Northwest forests. Island Press, Washington, D.C. USA.

Arnold, J. 1957. Engineering aspects of forest soils. In An introduction to the forest soils of the 

douglas fir region of the Pacific Northwest. Edited by Forest Soils Committee of the 

Douglas-Fir Region. University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. Chapter 13 pp. 1-15.

Avina, K.A. 1999. Personal Communication. Department of Forest Science. Oregon State 

University, Corvallis.

Beckman, A. 1970. Swift flows the river. Arago Books, Coos Bay, Oregon.

* Bell, P., and many others. 1997. The Oregon Plan: implementation guidance for voluntary large 

woody debris measures (ODF 8, 19, 20, 21 & 22). Forest Practices Section, Oregon 

Department of Forestry, Salem, Oregon.

Benda, L.E., and Cundy, T.W. 1990. Predicting deposition of debris flows in mountain channels. 

Can. Geotech. J. 27: 409-417.

Benda, L., and Dunne, T. 1997a. Stochastic forcing of sediment supply to channel networks from 

landsliding and debris flow. Water Resour. Res. 33: 2849-2863.

Benda, L., and Dunne, T. 1997b. Stochastic forcing of sediment routing and storage in channel 

networks. Water Resour. Res. 33: 2865-2880.

Benda, L.E., Miller, D.J., Dunne, T. Reeves, G.H., and Agee, J.K. 1998. Dynamic landscape 

systems. In River ecology and management: lessons from the Pacific coastal ecoregion. 

Edited by R.J. Naiman and R.E. Bilby. Springer, New York. pp. 261-288.

Berman, C.H., and Quinn, T.P. 1991. Behavioural thermoregulation and homing by spring 

chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha (Walbaum), in the Yakima River. J. Fish. Biol. 

39: 301-312.

Beschta, R.L. 1978. Long-term patterns of sediment production following road construction and 

logging in the Oregon Coast Range. Water Resour. Res. 14: 1011-1016.

Beschta, R.L. 1997. Restoration of riparian and aquatic systems for improved aquatic habitats in 

the upper Columbia River basin. In Pacific salmon and their ecosystems: status and future 

options. Edited by D.J. Stronder, P.A. Bisson, and R.J. Naiman. Chapman and Hall, New 

York. pp. 475-491.

Beschta, R.L., Bilby, R.E., Brown, G.W., Holtby, L.B. and Hofstra, T.D. 1987. Stream 

temperature and aquatic habitat: fisheries and forestry interactions. In Streamside 
51 Appendix 3

management: forestry and fisheries interactions. Edited by E.O. Salo and T.W. Cundy. 

Contribution No. 57, University of Washington, Institute of Forest Resources, Seattle, 

Washington. pp. 98-141.

Bettinger, P., Johnson, K.N., and Sessions, J. 1998. Improving aquatic habitat conditions over 

time while producing wood products: an examination of options. J. Am. Water Resour. 

Assoc. 34: 891-907.

Bilby, R.E. 1985. Contributions of road surface sediment to a western Washington stream. For. 

Sci. 31: 827-838.

Bilby, R.E., and Bisson, P.A. 1998. Function and distribution of large woody debris. In River 

ecology and management: lessons from the Pacific coastal ecoregion. Edited by R.J. Naiman 

and R.E. Bilby. Springer, New York. pp. 324-346.

Bilby, R.E., and Ward, J.W. 1989. Changes in characteristics and functions of woody debris with 

increasing size of streams in western Washington. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 118: 368-378.

Bilby, R.E., Sullivan, K., and Duncan, S.H. 1989. The generation and fate of road-surface 

sediment in forested watersheds in southwestern Washington. For. Sci. 35: 453-468.

Bilby, R.E., Fransen, B.R., and Bisson, P.A. 1996. Incorporation of nitrogen and carbon from 

spawning coho salmon into the trophic system of small streams: evidence from stable 

isotopes. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 53: 164-173.

Bjornn, T.C., and Reiser, D.W. 1991. Habitat requirements of salmonids in streams. In

Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their habitats. Edited 

by W.R. Meehan. Special Publication 19. American Fisheries Soceity, Bethesda, Maryland. 

pp. 83-138.

Black, T.A., and Luce, C.H. 1999. Changes in erosion from gravel surfaced roads through time. 

In Proceedings of the International Mountain Logging and 10th Annual Pacific Northwest 

Skyline Symposium, Oregon State University and International Union of Forestry Research 

Organizations (IUFRO). Edited by J. Session and W. Chung. (Accepted for Publication).

*Botkin, D., Cummins, K., Dunne, T., Regier, H., Sobel, M., and Talbot, L. 1995. Status and 

future of salmon of western Oregon and northern California: findings and options. Report # 

8, The Center for the Study of the Environment, Santa Barbara, California.

Brenner, P. 1991. Historical reconstruction of the Coquille River and surrounding landscape. In

Near coastal action plan for Oregon coastal watersheds, estuary and ocean water, 1988-91. 

Prepared by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality for the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Salem, Oregon.
52 Appendix 3

Brenner, P.A., and Sedell, J.R. 1994. Upper Willamette River landscape: an historical 

perspective. Proceedings of river quality: dynamics and restoration, Poland-USA 

International Water Quality Symposium, Portland, OR, March 21-25, 1994.

Brosofske, K., Chen, J., Naiman, R.J., and Franklin, J.F. 1997. Harvesting effects on 

microclimatic gradients from small streams to uplands in western Washington. Ecol. Appl. 4: 

33-45.

Brown, G.W. 1970. Predicting the effect of clearcutting on stream temperature. Journal of Soil 

and Water Conservation 25:11-13.

Brown, G.W. 1980. Forestry and water quality. Oregon State University Book Stores, Inc. 

Corvallis.

Brown, G.W., and Krygier, J.T. 1970. Effects of clear-cutting on stream temperature. Water 

Resources Research 6:1133-1139.

Burroughs, E.R., Jr., and King, J.G. 1989. Reduction of soil erosion of forest roads. General 

Technical Report INT-264, USDA, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, 

Utah.

Caldwell, J., Doughty, E.K., and Sullivan, K. 1992. Evaluation of downstream temperature 

effects on type 4/5 waters. TFW-WQ5-91-004, prepared for TFW CMER Water Quality 

Steering Commitee and Washington Department of Natural Resources. Olympia, 

Washington.

Carl, L.M., and Healy, M.C. 1984. Differences in enzyme frequency and body morphology 

among three juvenile life history types of chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) in 

spawning streams. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 47: 1070-1077.

Cederholm, C., Houston, D., Cole, D., and Scarlett, W. 1989. Fate of coho salmon 

(Oncorhynchus kisutch) in spawning streams. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 46: 1347-1355.

Cissel, J.H, Swanson, F.J., Grant, G.E., Olson, D.H., Gregory, S.V., Garman, S.L., Ashkenas, 

L.R., Hunter, M.G., Kertis, J.A., Mayo, J.H., McSwain, M.D., Swetland, S.G., Swindle, 

K.A., Wallin, D.O. 1998. A landscape plan based on historical fire regimes for a managed 

forest ecosystem: the August Creek study. General Technical Report PNW-GTE-422. 

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

Station. 82 p.

Conroy, S.C. 1997. Habitat lost and found. Washington Trout Rep. 7: 1. As cited in ODF 1998a -

Oregon road/stream crossing restoration guide.

Cox, T. 1974. Mills and markets. University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington.
53 Appendix 3

Cummins, K.W. 1973. Trophic relations of aquatic insects. Ann. Rev. Entomol. 18: 183-206.

Cummins, K.W. 1974. Structure and function of stream ecosystems. BioScience, 24: 631-641.

Den Boer, P.J. 1968. Spreading the risk and stabilization of animal numbers. Acta Biotheoretical, 

18: 165-194.

* Dent, L. 1998. Oregon Department of Forestry's stream crossing monitoring protocol: fish 

passage and streamflow design: a supplement to the Oregon Department of Forestry's best 

management practices compliance audit project (Version 2.1 Review draft). Oregon 

Department of Forestry, Salem, Oregon.

* Dent, L. 1998. Oregon Department of Forestry's best management practices compliance audit 

project, version 3.0. Oregon Department of Forestry, Salem, Oregon.

* Dent, L. 1998. Forest practices monitoring program strategic plan. Forest Practices Program,

Oregon Department of Forestry, Salem, Oregon.

* Dent, L.F., and Walsh, J.B.S. 1997. Effectiveness of riparian management areas and hardwood 

conversions in maintaining stream temperature. Forest Practices Technical Report 3, Forest 

Practices Monitoring Program, Oregon Department of Forestry, Salem, Oregon.

Department of Natural Resources (DNR), State of Washington. 1999. Forests and Fish Report. 

Prepared for the Forest Practices Board and the Govorner's Salmon Recovery Team, April 29, 

1999. http://www.wa.gov/dnr/htdocs/fp/fpb/forests&fish.html. Olympia, Washington.

Dong, J., Chen J.J., Brosofske, K.D., and Naiman, R.J. 1998. Modelling air temperature 

gradients across managed small streams in western Washington. Journal of Environmental 

Management 53: 309-322.

Duncan, S.H., and Ward, J.W. 1985. The influence of watershed geology and forest roads on the 

composition of salmon spawning gravel. Northwest Sci. 59: 204-212.

Duncan, S.H., Bilby, R.E., Ward, J.W., and Heffner, J.T. 1987. Transport of road-surface 

sediment through ephemeral stream channels. Water Resour. Bull. 23: 113-119.

Dyson, E.L., Risher, J.R., Graham, H.E., Glazebrook, T.B., Murphy, L.W., and Rothacher, J.S. 

1966. Part II: A report of the Region 6 storm damage evaluation committee (Storms of 

December 1964 and January 1965). USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region, 

Portland, Oregon. As cited in Piehl et al. 1988.

Everest, F.H., Beschta, R.L., Scrivener, J.C., Koski, K.V., Sedell, J.R., and Cederholm, C.J. 

1987. Fine sediment and salmonid production: a paradox. In Streamside management: 

forestry and fisheries interactions. Edited by E.O. Salo and T.W. Cundy. Contribution No. 57, 

University of Washington, Institute of Forest Resources, Seattle, Washington. pp. 98-141.
54 Appendix 3

Fannin, R.J., and Rollerson, T.P. 1993. Debris flows: some physical characteristics and 

behaviour. Can. Geotech. J. 30: 71-81.

Fausch, K.D., and Northcote, T.G. 1992. Large woody debris and salmonid habitat in a small 

coastal British Columbia stream. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 49: 682-693.

Fetherston, K.L., Naiman, R.J., and Bilby, R.E. 1995. Large woody debris, physical process, and 

riparian forest development in montane river networks of the Pacific Northwest. 

Geomorphology, 13: 133-144.

Fisher, S.G., and Likens, G. E. 1973. Energy flow in Bear Brook, New Hampshire: an integrative 

approach to stream ecosystem metabolism. Ecol. Monogr. 43: 421-439.

Foltz, R.B. 1996. Traffic and no-traffic on an aggregate surfaced road: sediment production -

differences. Proceedings: Seminar on environmentally sound forest roads and wood 

transport, Sinaia, Romania. June 17-22, 1996. Edited by R. Heinrich and R.B. Foltz. Food 

and Agricultural Organization, Rome, Italy. As cited in Luce and Black 1999.

Foltz, R.B., and Elliot, W.J. 1997. The impact of lowered tire pressures on road erosion. 

Transportation Research Record, 1589: 19-25. As cited in Luce and Black 1999.

Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (FEMAT). 1993. Forest ecosystem 

management: an ecological, economic, and social assessment. Report of the Forest 

Ecosystem Management Assessment Team. U.S. Government Printing Office 1993-793-071. 

U.S. Government Printing Office for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, and 

National Park Service; U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration and National Marine Fisheries Service; and the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency.

* Forest Practices Staff. 1998. Forest practices field guide. Forest Practices Section, Oregon 

Department of Forestry, Salem, Oregon.

Forman, R.T.T., and Godron, M. 1986. Landscape ecology. John Wiley and Sons, New York.

Gharrett, A.J., and Smoker, W.W. 1993. Genetic components in life history traits contribute to 

population structure. In Genetic conservation of salmonid fishes. Edited by J.G. Cloud and 

G.H. Thorgaard. Plenum Press, New York. pp. 197-202.

Gholz, H. 1982. Environmental limits on above ground net primary production, leaf area and 

biomass in vegetation zones of the Pacific Northwest. Ecology, 63: 469-481.
55 Appendix 3

Gregory, S.V., Swanson, R.J., McKee, W.A., and Cummins, K.W. 1991. An ecosystem 

perspective of riparian zones: focus on links between land and water. Bioscience, 41: 540-

551.

Gresswell, R.E., Liss, W.J., and Larson, G.L. 1994. Life-history organization of Yellowstone 

cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki bouvieri) in Yellowstone Lake. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 

51(1): 298-309.

Gresswell, S., Heller, D., Swanston, D.N. 1979. Mass movement response to forest management 

in the central Oregon Coast Ranges. USDA For. Serv. Resour. Bull. PNW-84. Pacific 

Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, Oregon.

Hall, J.D., Brown, G.W., and Lantz, R.L. 1987. The Alsea watershed study: a retrospective. In 

Streamside management: forestry and fishery interactions. Edited by E.O. Salo and T.W. 

Cundy. Contribution No. 57. University of Washington, Institute of Forest Resources, Seattle, 

Washington. pp. 399-416.

Hall, J.D., and Lantz, R.L. 1969. Effects of logging on the habitat of coho salmon and cutthroat 

trout in coastal streams. In Symposium on salmon and trout in streams. Edited by T.G. 

Northcote. pp. 355-375.

Hanski, I. 1991. Single-species metapopulation dynamics: Concepts, models, and observations. 

Biol. J. Linnean Soc. 42: 17-38.

Hanski, I., and Gilpin, M. 1991. Metapopulation dynamics: brief history and conceptual domain. 

Biol. J. Linnean Soc. 42: 3-16.

Harr, R.D., and Nichols, R.A. 1993. Stabilizing forest roads to help restore fish habitats: a 

northwest Washington example. Fisheries, 18(4): 18-22.

Harrison, S. 1994. Metapopulations and conservation. In Large-scale ecology and conservation 

biology. Edited by P.J. Edwards, R.M. May, and N.R. Webb. Blackwell Scientific 

Publications, Oxford, England.

Hayes, J. 1998. An independent scientific review of Oregon Department of Forestry's proposed 

Western Oregon state forests habitat conservation plan. Presented to ODF 1998.

Hawkins, C.P., Murphy, M.L., and Anderson, N.H. 1982. Effects of canopy, substrate 

composition, and gradient on the structure of macroinvertebrate communities in the Cascade 

Range streams of Oregon. Ecology, 63: 1840-1856.

Healy, M.C., and Prince, A. 1995. Scales of variations of life history tactics of Pacific salmon 

and the conservation of phenotype and genotype. In Evolution and the aquatic ecosystem: 

defining unique units in population conservation. Edited by J.L. Nielsen and D.A. Powers. 

Am. Fish. Soc. Symp. 17:176-184.
56 Appendix 3

Hetrick, N.J., Brusven, M.A., Bjornn, T.C., Keith, R.M., and Meehan, W.R. 1998. Effects of 

canopy removal on invertebrates and diet of juvenile coho salmon in a small stream in 

southeast Alaska. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 127: 876-888. 

Hibbs, D.E., and Giordano, P.A. 1996. Vegetation characteristics of alder-dominated riparian 

bufferstrips in the Oregon Coast Range. Northwest Sci. 70: 213-222.

Hicks, B.J., Hall, J.D., Bisson, P.A., and Sedell, J.R. 1991. Responses of salmonids to habitat 

changes. In Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their 

habitats. Edited by W.R. Meehan. American Fisheries Society Special Publication Chapter 

14, pp. 483-518.

Independent Scientific Group (ISG). 1996. Return to the river: restoration of salmonid fishes in 

the Columbia River. Northwest Power Planning Council, Portland, Oregon.

Irvin and Sullivan (unpublished report). As cited in Duncan et al. 1987.

Ketcheson, G., and Froehlich, H.A. 1978. Hydrologic factors and environmental impacts of mass 

soil movements in the Oregon Coast Range. Water Resources Research Institute Bulletin 56, 

Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon. As cited in ODF 1998b - Storm Impacts and 

Landslides of 1996.

Krag, R.K., Sauder, E.A., and Wellburn, G.V. 1986. A forest engineering analysis of landslides 

on logged areas on the Queen Charlotte Islands, British Columbia. Land Management Report 

No. 43, Forest Engineering Institute of Canada, As cited in Piehl et al 1988.

Lestelle, L.C., Blair, G.R., and Chitwood, S.A. 1993. Approaches to supplementing coho salmon 

in the Queets River, Washington. In Proceedings of the Coho workshop. May 26-28, 1992. 

Edited by L. Berg and P. Delaney. Nanaimo, British Columbia. pp. 104-119.

Li, H.W., Currens, K., Bottom, D., Clarke, S., Dambacher, J., Frissell, C., Harris, P., Hughes, 

R.M., McCullough, D., McGie, A., Moore, K., Nawa, R., and Thiele, S. 1995. Safe havens: 

refuges and evolutionarily significant units. In Evolution and the aquatic ecosystem: defining 

unique units in population conservation. Edited by J.L. Nielsen, and D.A. Powers. Am. Fish. 

Soc. Symp. 17: 371-380.

Lichatowich, J. 1999. Salmon with rivers: a history of the Pacific salmon crisis. Island Press, 

Washington, DC.

* Lorensen, T., Andrus, C., and Runyon, J. 1994. The Oregon Forest Practices Act Water 

Protection Rules: scientific and policy considerations. December, 1994. Forest Practices 

Policy Unit, Oregon Department of Forestry, Salem, Oregon.
57 Appendix 3

* Luce, C.H. 1997. Effectiveness of road ripping in restoring infiltration capacity of forest roads. 

Restor. Ecol. 5(3): 265-270.

Luce, C.H., and Black, T.A. 1999. Sediment production from forest roads in western Oregon. 

Revised 2/22/99 and Submitted to Water Resources Research.

Martin, K.S. 1997. Forest management on landslide prone sites: the effectiveness of headwall 

leave areas and evaluation of two headwall risk rating methods. Engineering Report 

submitted to Department of Civil, Construction and Environmental Engineering as partial 

fulfillment of M.S. Degree, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon.

* Maser, C., and Sedell, J.R. 1994. From the forest to the sea: The ecology of wood in streams, 

rivers, estuaries, and oceans. St. Lucie Press, Delray Beach, Florida.

McDade, M.H., Swanson, F.J., McKee, W.A., Franklin, J.F., and Van Sickle, J. 1990. Source 

distances for large woody debris entering small streams in western Oregon and Washington. 

Can. J. For. Res. 20: 326-330.

* Meehan,W.R. 1991. Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and 

their habitat. Special Publication 19, American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

Meleason, M., and Gregory, S. 1999. Personal Communication. H.J. Andrews Long-Term 

Ecological Research Program, Oregon, USA.

Miller, R.J., and Brannon, E.L. 1982. The origin and development of life history patterns in 

Pacific salmonids. In Salmon and trout migratory behavior symposium. Edited by E.L. 

Brannon and E.O. Salo. School of Fisheries, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. 

pp. 296-309. 

Mills, K. 1991. Winter 1989-90 landslide investigations. Oregon Department of Forestry, Salem, 

Oregon. As cited in Paul 1998.

Mobrand, L., Lichatowich, J., Lestelle, L., and Vogel, T. 1997. An approach to describing 

ecosystem performance "through the eyes of the salmon". Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 54: 2964-

2973.

Mundy, P.R., Backman, T.W.H., and Berkson, J.M. 1995. Selection of conservation units for 

Pacific salmon: lessons from the Columbia River. In Evolution and the aquatic ecosystem: 

defining unique units in population conservation. Edited by J.L. Nielsen, and D.A. Powers. 

Am. Fish. Soc. Symp. 17: 28-40.

Murphy, M.L. 1995. Forestry impacts on freshwater habitat of anadromous salmonids in the 

Pacific Northwest and Alaska: requirements for protection and restoration. Decision 

Analysis Series Number 7, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries 

Service, Coastal Ocean Program, Juneau, Alaska.
58 Appendix 3

Naiman, R.J. 1992. Watershed management: balancing sustainability and environmental change. 

Springer-Verlag, New York.

Naiman, R.J., and Bilby, R.E. 1998. River ecology and management: lessons from the Pacific 

coastal ecoregion. Springer, New York.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1998. A draft proposal concerning Oregon forest 

practices. Submitted to the Oregon Board of Forestry Memorandum of Agreement Advisory 

Committee and the Office of the Governor. NMFS - NWR Portland Office, Portland, Oregon.

National Research Council (NRC). 1996. Upstream: salmon and society in the Pacific northwest. 

Committee on Protection and Management of Pacific Northwest Anadromous Salmonids, 

National Academy of Science, Washington, D.C.

Newton, M., and Cole, E. 1998. Hardwood riparian forest rehabilitation and its impacts. Final 

report. Oregon State University. Corvallis, Oregon.

Nickelson, T.E., Rodgers, J.D., Johnson, S.L., and Solazzi, M.F. 1992. Seasonal changes in 

habitat use by juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) in Oregon coastal streams. Can. 

J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 49: 783-789.

* Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF). 1994. Water classification. Technical Note FP1, Forest 

Practices, Oregon Department of Forestry, Salem, Oregon.

* Oregon Department of Forestry/Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODF/ODFW) 1995. 

A guide to placing large wood in streams. May 1995. Available from Forest Practices 

Section, Oregon Department of Forestry, Salem, Oregon.

Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF), and Forest Practices Monitoring Program. 1996. Road 

sediment monitoring project report: survey of road drainage in western Oregon. Final FY95 

Report to the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, DEQ Contract #123-95. 14 p.

Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF). 1997. What are the risks to salmonids from landslides 

and debris flows, and are additional practices needed to further reduce these risks? Draft 

Issue Paper January 22, 1997, Forest Practices Section, Oregon Department of Forestry, 

Salem, Oregon.

* Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF). 1997. Are the sediment and other risks from roads being 

adequately addressed? Draft Issue Paper January 21, 1997. Forest Practices Section, Oregon 

Department of Forestry, Salem, Oregon.

* Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF). 1997. Is protection of small streams adequate? Draft 

Issue Paper January 21, 1997. Forest Practices Section, Oregon Department of Forestry, 

Salem, Oregon.
59 Appendix 3

* Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF). 1997. How should cumulative effects be addressed? 

Draft Issue Paper January 21, 1997. Forest Practices Section, Oregon Department of Forestry, 

Salem, Oregon.

* Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF). 1997. Is there a need to be concerned (and/or take 

additional actions) about potential hydrologic change from land use activities? Draft Issue 

Paper January 21, 1997. Forest Practices Section, Oregon Department of Forestry, Salem, 

Oregon.

* Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF). 1997. Will the various riparian protection strategies 

applied across the various ownerships and land uses provide adequate long-term recruitment 

of wood into streams (and adequately maintain other riparian functions and water quality)? 

Draft Issue Paper January 21, 1997. Forest Practices Section, Oregon Department of Forestry, 

Salem, Oregon.

* Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF). 1997. Are programs related to pesticides adequate? 

Draft Issue Paper January 22, 1997. Forest Practices Section, Oregon Department of Forestry, 

Salem, Oregon.

* Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF). 1997. Guidance manual for Oregon forest practice rules 

and statutes. Oregon Department of Forestry, Salem, Oregon.

Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF). 1998a. Oregon road/stream crossing restoration guide: 

summer 1998 draft. George Robison, Oregon Department of Forestry, Salem, Oregon.

Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF). 1998b. Storm impacts and landslides of 1996: 

preliminary report. Oregon Department of Forestry, Salem, Oregon.

Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF). 1998. Forest Practice Administrative Rules and Forest 

Practices Act. May 1998. Salem, Oregon.

* Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF). 1998. Oregon aquatic habitat restoration and 

enhancement interim guide: Under the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds. Governor’s 

Natural Resources Office, State of Oregon, Salem, Oregon.

* Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF). 1998. Forest roads issue: what are the effects of forest 

roads on the sediment regime? Are these effects preventing the recovery of salmon and what 

might be done to reduce possible adverse effects? Draft Issue Paper 12/8/98. Forest Practices 

Section, Oregon Department of Forestry, Salem, Oregon.

* Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF). 1999. Fish passage restoration & water classification 

issue: what are the adverse effects, if any, of forest practices on the distribution and 

movement of fish? How might these effects be further reduced? Draft Issue Paper 01/95/99, 

Forest Practices Section, Oregon Department of Forestry, Salem, Oregon.
60 Appendix 3

Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF). 1999. Riparian function: large wood issue: how well do 

current riparian protection practices on forestland provide for and maintain large wood inputs 

necessary to recover and maintain salmonids? Draft Issue Paper 03/12/99, Forest Practices 

Section, Oregon Department of Forestry, Salem, Oregon.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) 1996. Guidelines and criteria for stream-road 

crossings. Dated September 16, 1996. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Portland, 

Oregon. 

Oregon Executive Order No. EO 99-01. (1999). The Oregon plan for salmon and watersheds. 

Office of the Governor, State of Oregon, Salem, Oregon.

Oregon Plan. 1997. The Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds (consisting of the Oregon 

Coastal Salmon Restoration Initiative, March 10, 1997 and as amended with the Steelhead 

Supplement, December 1997). Governor's Natural Resources Office, State of Oregon, Salem, 

Oregon.

Pabst, R.J., and Spies, T.A. 1998. Distribution of herbs and shrubs in relation to landform and 

canopy cover in riparian forests of coastal Oregon. Can. J. Bot. 76: 298-315.

Paul, J. 1998. ODF background paper: roads workshop scientific overview, summary of the 

Forest Practice Road Rules, and the Oregon Plan and ODF Monitoring Program, May 4, 

1998. Forest Practices Program, Oregon Department of Forestry, Salem, Oregon.

* Paul, J. 1998. ODF background paper: riparian and aquatic habitat workshop: overview of water 

protection rules, scientific basis and monitoring results. Forest Practices Program, Oregon 

Department of Forestry, Salem, Oregon.

Piehl, B.T., Beschta, R.L., and Pyles, M.R. 1988. Ditch-relief culverts and low-volume forest 

roads in the Oregon Coast Range. Northwest Sci. 62: 91-98.

Poage, N.J. 1995. Comparison of stand development of a deciduous-dominated riparian forest 

and a coniferous-dominated riparian forest in the Oregon Coast Range. M.S. thesis. Oregon 

State Universty. Corvallis, Oregon.

Prichard, D., Anderson, J., Correll, C., Fogg, J., Geghardt, K., Krapf, R., Leonard, S., Mitchell, 

B., Staats, J. 1998. Riparian area management: a user guide to assessing proper functioning 

condition and the supporting science for lotic areas. Technical Reference 1737-15, USDI, 

Bureau of Land Management, National Applied Resource Sciences Center. Denver, CO.

Ralph, S.C., Poole, G.C., Conquest, L.L., and Naiman, R.J. 1994. Stream channel morphology 

and woody debris in logged and unlogged basins of western Washington. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. 

Sci. 51: 37-51.
61 Appendix 3

Record of Decision (ROD). 1994. Record of decision for amendments to Forest Service and 

Bureau of Land Management planning documents within the range of the northern spotted 

owl; Standards and guidelines for management of habitat for late-successional and oldgrowth forest related species within the range of the northern spotted owl. USDA, Forest 

Service and USDI, Bureau of Land Management. Portland, Oregon.

Reeves, G.H., Everest, F.H., and Sedell, J.R. 1993. Diversity of juvenile anadromous salmonid 

assemblages in coastal Oregon basins with different levels of timber harvest. Trans. Am. 

Fish. Soc. 122: 309-317.

Reeves, G.H., Benda, L.E., Burnett, K.M., Bisson, P.A., and Sedell, J.R. 1995. A disturbancebased ecosystem approach to maintaining and restoring freshwater habitats of evolutionarily 

significant units of anadromous salmonids in the Pacific Northwest. Am. Fish. Soc. Symp. 

17: 334-349.

Reid, L.M. 1981. Sediment production from gravel-surfaced forest roads, Clearwater Basin, 

Washington. M.S. thesis, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.

Reid, L.M., and Dunne, T. 1984. Sediment production from forest road surfaces. Water Resour. 

Res. 20: 1753-1761.

Rieman, B.E., and McIntyre, J.D. 1993. Demographic and habitat requirements for conservation 

of bull trout. General Technical Report. INT-302, USDA Forest Service, Intermountain 

Research Station, Odgen, Utah.

Rieman, B.E., and McIntyre, J.D. 1995. Occurrence of bull trout in naturally fragmented habitat 

patches of varied size. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 124: 285-296.

Reimers, P.E. 1973. The length of residence of juvenile fall chinook salmon in Sixes River, 

Oregon. Res. Rep. Fish Comm. Oregon, 4: 3-43.

* Robison, E.G., Runyon, J., and Andrus, C. 1995. Cooperative stream temperature monitoring: 

project completion report for 1994-1995. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, 

DEQ Contract 003-95, Oregon Department of Forestry, Salem, Oregon.

* Robison, E.G. 1997. Interim fish passage and culvert/bridge sizing guidance for road crossings: 

memorandum. Forest Practices section of Oregon Department of Forestry, Salem, Oregon.

* Runyon, J., and Andrus, C. Undated. Forest stream cooperative monitoring: water temperature 

monitoring protocol. Forest Practices Section, Oregon Department of Forestry, Salem, 

Oregon.

* Salo, E.O., and Cundy, T.W. 1987. Streamside management: forestry and fishery interactions. 

Contribution No. 57, University of Washington, Institute of Forest Resources, Seattle, 

Washington.
62 Appendix 3

Schlosser, I.J. 1991. Stream fish ecology: a landscape perspective. BioScience, 41: 704-712.

Schlosser, I.J., and Angermeier, P.L. 1995. Spatial variation in demographic processes of lotic 

fishes: conceptual models, empirical evidence, and implications for conservation. In

Evolution and the aquatic ecosystem: defining unique units in population conservation. 

Edited by J.L. Nielsen and D.A. Powers. Am. Fish. Soc. Symp. 17: 392-401.

Schlucther, M., and Lichatowich, J.A. 1977. Juvenile life history of Rogue River spring chinook 

salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha (Walbaum), as determined from scale analysis. 

Information Report Series No. 77-5, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Corvallis, 

Oregon.

Schoettler, R.J. 1953. Helping nature. 62nd Annual Report. Washington Department of Fisheries, 

Olympia, Washington.

Scientific Review Panel (SRP). 1999. Report of the Scientific Review Panel on California Forest 

Practice Rules and Salmonid Habitat. Prepared for the Resources Agency of California and 

the National Marine Fisheries Service. Sacramento, California.

Sedell, J.R., and Luchessa, K.J. 1981. Using the historical record as an aid to salmonid habitat 

enhancement. In Acquisition and utilization of aquatic habitat inventory information. 

Proceedings of Conference, October 28-30, 1981. Edited by N.B. Armantrout. American 

Fisheries Society, Portland, Oregon. pp. 210-223.

Sedell, J.R., and Swanson, F.J. 1984. Ecological characteristics of streams in old-growth forests 

of the Pacific northwest. In Fish and wildlife relationships in old-growth forests: proceedings 

of a symposium held April 1982, in Juneau, AK. Edited by W.R. Meehan, T. Merrell, and T. 

Hanley. American Institute of Fishery Research Biologists. pp. 9-16.

Sedell, J.R., Bisson, P.A., Swanson, F.J., and Gregory, S.V. 1988. What we know about large 

trees that fall into streams and rivers. In From the forest to the sea: a story of fallen trees. 

Edited by C. Maser and three others. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-229, USDA 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oregon. pp. 47-81.

Skaugset, A., Froehlich, H., and Lautz, K. 1993. Forest management on landslide prone sites: the 

effectiveness of headwall leave areas. COPE Report, 6 (1): 3-6.

Spence, B.C., Lomnicky, G.A., Hughes, R.M., and Novitzki, R.P. 1996. An ecosystem approach 

to salmonid conservation. TR-4501-96-6057, ManTech Environmental Research Services 

Corp., Corvallis, Oregon. (Available from the National Marine Fisheries Service, Portland, 

Oregon).

State of Oregon. 1998. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) Stream Surveys.
63 Appendix 3

Swanson, F.J., Lienkaemper, G.W., and Sedell, J.R. 1976. History, physical effects, and 

management implications of large organic debris in western Oregon streams. General 

Technical Report PNW-56, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range 

Experiment Station, Portland, Oregon.

Swanson, R.J., Swanson, M.M., and Woods, C. 1977. Inventory of mass erosion in the Mapleton 

Ranger District, Siuslaw National Forest, Corvallis, Oregon. As cited in ODF 1998b - Storm 

Impacts and Landslides of 1996.

Swanson, F.J., Benda, L.E., Duncan, S.H., Grant, G.E., Megahan, W.F., Reid, L.M., and Zeiver, 

R.R. 1987. Mass failure and other processes of sediment production in Pacific Northwest 

forest landscapes. In Streamside management: forestry and fisheries interactions. Edited by

E.O. Salo and T.W. Cundy. Contribution No. 57, University of Washington, Institute of 

Forest Resources, Seattle, Washington. pp. 9-38.

Teensma, P.D., Rienstra, J.T., and Yeiter, M.A. 1991. Preliminary reconstruction and analysis of 

change in forest stand age class of the Oregon Coast Range from 1850 to 1940. Technical 

note T/N OR-9. US Bureau of Land Management Portland, Oregon.

Thompson, W.F. 1959. An approach to population dynamics of the Pacific red salmon. Trans. 

Am. Fish. Soc. 88: 206-209.

Thorpe, J.E. 1994. Salmonid flexibility: responses to environmental extremes. Trans. Am. Fish. 

Soc., vol, 123, no. 4, pp. 606-612.

Triska, F.J., and Gregory, S.V. 1982. Coniferous forest streams. In Analysis of coniferous forest 

ecosystems in the western United States. Edited by R.L. Edmonds. Hutchinson Ross 

Publishing Co., Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania. pp. 292-332.

Toth, S. 1991. A road damage inventory for the upper Deschutes River Basin. Timber-FishWildlife Report TFW-SH14-91-007. As cited in Paul 1998.

* Undetermined. 1996. Yaquina watershed assessment progress report. Draft received from 

Forest Practices Section, Oregon Department of Forestry, Salem, Oregon.

Van Sickle, J., and Gregory, S.V. 1990. Modeling inputs of large woody debris to streams from 

falling trees. Can. J. For. Res. 20: 1593-1601.

* Walsh, J. 1997. Forest practices monitoring program: riparian inventory field guide. Oregon 

Department of Forestry, Salem, Oregon.

Washington Forest Practices Board (WFPB). 1995. Washington Forest Practices: Rules and 

Regulations, WAC 222.
64 Appendix 3

Waring, R.H., and Schlesinger, W.H. 1985. Forest ecosystems: concepts and management. 

Academic Press, New York.

Weaver, W. and Hagans, D. Undated. Techniques and costs for effective road closure. Pacific 

Watershed Associates, P.O. Box 4433, Arcata California (Included in material provided by 

C.L. Webber, Oregon Department of Forestry, for May 13, 1998 MOA Committee Workshop 

#4).

Wemple, B.C., Jones, J.A., and Grant, G.E. 1996. Channel network extension by logging roads in 

two basins, Western Cascades, Oregon. Water Resour. Bull. 32: 1-13.

Wimberly, M.C., Spies, T.A., Long, C.J., Whitlock, C. In press. Simulating historical variability 

in the amount of old forests in the Oregon Coast Range. Conservation Biology.
65 Appendix 3

APPENDIX. SUMMARY OF THE STATE OF KNOWLEDGE

The following section provides a summary of the state of knowledge and an entree to the 

literature dealing with key areas of this report: relationships between forests and aquatic habitat, 

forest practices, and water quality.

ATTRIBUTES OF SALMONID HABITAT

Ecological processes influencing the quality of habitat attributes and their relationship to forest 

practices are discussed in various sections of this report. This discussion of the attributes of 

salmonid habitat has been adapted from Bjornn and Reiser (1991) unless noted otherwise. 

Salmonid Life Histories

Pacific salmon need chains of favorable places connected at the appropriate season to complete 

their life histories. To be considered favorable, those places must include attributes that match 

the environmental requirements of the fish and the aquatic community at the appropriate time. 

The importance, quality, and location of critical attributes of salmonid habitat may vary through 

the life stages of migration, spawning, incubation, and rearing. 

Migration. For anadromous species such as salmonids, the stream channel must be free of 

barriers from the estuary up to the spawning areas (adult upstream migration) or from rearing 

areas down to the estuary (juvenile downstream migration). The most obvious necessity of the 

migration corridor is appropriate stream flow. Low flows can block or delay movement of fish, 

as can excessive flows or conditions that create high velocities. Other physical barriers such as 

excessive debris can also block migration. High turbidity may delay or block migration entirely. 

Physiological barriers can also impede migration. For example, excessive temperatures or low 

concentrations of dissolved oxygen can also effectively block migration.

Spawning. Each salmonid species requires gravel of the appropriate size for spawning 

(substrate), as well as stream flow at a depth and velocity that are within the preferred range. 

Temperatures at the time of spawning can be a key habitat attribute. In adapting to its local 

environment, each salmonid population has evolved a unique time and temperature for spawning 

that maximizes the survival of the offspring (Miller and Brannon 1982; Bjornn and Reiser 1991).

Incubation. Because the incubating eggs are immobile, they are particularly vulnerable to 

changes in habitat. For example, the eggs need continuous flows of well-oxygenated water to 

thrive. Although eggs may survive in water with oxygen concentrations that are below saturation, 

they may develop abnormally. Heavy siltation during incubation can smother the eggs. High 

levels of fine sediment can fill in the interstitial spaces in the gravel cutting off the supply of 

oxygenated water. As indicated for spawning, natural temperature regimens are important 

regulators of salmonid life histories. That is especially true for the incubating egg, because the 

length of incubation is directly related to water temperature.
66 Appendix 3

Rearing. Attributes associated with rearing habitat of salmonids are complex. In addition to 

flow, temperature, substrate, and dissolved oxygen, juveniles need to be able to move between 

habitat types. Cover that allows them to avoid predators is a critical habitat attribute from the 

time the juveniles emerge from the gravel until their migration to sea. Cover can take several 

forms including deep pools, undercut banks, boulders, large wood, and root wads. Productivity 

(food base for salmonids) is an important attribute of rearing habitat and is determined largely by 

nutrients and energy available to the stream community.

RIPARIAN FORESTS AS A KEY FACTOR INFLUENCING SALMONID HABITAT

Role of Riparian Forests in Regulating (Influencing) Stream Temperature

Where riparian vegetation intercepts solar radiation it serves a role in moderating the quantity 

and quality of light reaching the stream (Beschta et al. 1987). In well-stocked forests, depending 

on aspect and slope, the amount of solar radiation reaching a forested stream channel is 1 to 3 

percent of the total incoming radiation for small streams and 10 to 25 percent for mid-size 

streams (Naiman 1992). Removal of trees near a stream causes increases in water temperatures 

and daily temperature fluctuations (Hetrick et al. 1998; Beschta et al. 1987; Hall and Lantz 1969; 

Brown and Krygier, 1970; Brown, 1980; Hall et al. 1987). Newton and Cole (1998) report 

interesting research suggesting that retention of vegetation cover on the south side of streams was 

adequate to maintain temperature in the situation they studied. However, depending on ambient 

climatic and down-stream conditions, the increase may only be temporary (Hetrick et al. 1998; 

Caldwell et al. 1992). The work of Brown (1970) provides a scientific basis for predicting 

stream temperature based on an energy balance model.

On a landscape basis, the relationship between stream temperature and riparian vegetation is 

complex and highly variable. By understanding the processes influencing the amount of radiation 

intercepted by the riparian forest canopy along with the interaction with disturbance, stand 

development and geomorphology we can begin to answer the questions concerning the role of 

forest vegetation in influencing stream temperature. The amount of solar radiation intercepted by 

a forest canopy is a function of the cumulative leaf area and an extinction coefficient that is 

determined by the foliar arrangement and reflective properties (Beer-Lambert law as cited in 

Waring and Schlesinger 1985). Leaf area for deciduous species is often one third of the values 

for conifer stands (Waring and Schlesinger 1985). Therefore any natural and human-caused 

factor that reduces riparian leaf area and/or changes species composition can increase the amount 

of radiation reaching the stream surface and therefore increase stream temperatures. For example, 

in stands with few remaining evergreens and a high percentage of deciduous trees, more radiation 

will reach the stream surface when the deciduous trees lose their leaves. 

Along with obvious losses in leaf area after timber harvest, there are also changes in forest 

successional processes. These alter the quantity and arrangement of leaf area in riparian forests. 

As alder forests decline with age, shrub-dominated communities with lower leaf area develop. As 

long-lived conifer stands mature, leaf area rapidly increases to about age 40, levels off, and then 

declines at a rate dependent on self-thinning and disturbance-related mortality (Gholz 1982). 
67 Appendix 3

Therefore, as gaps in the forest form and stand densities are reduced, more radiation can be 

expected to reach the stream surface. Although dense conifer forests are often seen as a goal in 

managing forests to regulate stream temperature, historically, natural disturbance and 

successional processes resulted in a forest with a variety of tree and shrub species, ages, and 

densities (Pabst and Spies 1998; Poage 1995; Avina 1999). 

The impact of riparian vegetation on stream temperature depends on riparian landscape patterns, 

forest conditions, and stream channel characteristics as they influence interception of solar 

radiation. For example as stream width increases, the forest may no longer be capable of shading 

the entire stream or river corridor. Thus the potential role riparian vegetation plays in regulating 

temperatures declines. Aspect and slope may also influence the amount of radiation reaching the 

water surface. Radiation may increase or decrease depending on the geographic orientation of the 

stream and the angle of light reaching the basin.

Although forests play a key role in regulating stream temperature, the integration of stream 

temperature within a basin depends on vegetative and morphological factors that vary widely 

across the landscape and with time. To list and quantify all the factors involved in maintaining 

stream temperatures within the range of quality salmonid habitat would be an exceedingly 

complex undertaking. Because the required landscape variability and complexity are difficult to 

create through management, managers have defaulted to the use of riparian buffers to minimize 

impacts of forest management practices on stream temperature. One of the goals of the riparian 

buffer is to create conditions that will minimize the risk of increasing stream temperatures when 

the adjacent stand is harvested. There is general agreement that buffers of 100 to 150 feet are 

sufficient to protect water quality in most situations (Spence et al. 1996). Thus there are few 

studies that examine what percentage of the landscape must contain these intact riparian buffers 

and where they should be located to be most beneficial for maintaining quality salmonid habitat.

As an alternative to riparian buffers, maintaining a diverse set of forest conditions — by 

generating forest harvest patterns that "mimic" historic disturbance patterns (i.e., size, frequency, 

distribution) — within the landscape will allow natural processes to act in accordance with forest 

management to balance water temperature. When considering the impact of stand density, 

successional processes, species composition, and geomorphology on water temperature, the 

major emphasis shifts from buffer width requirements to the percentage of the landscape in 

various forested conditions required to maintain water quality. This means that instead of all 

buffers, there will be stands of different ages and harvest patterns along the stream.

Role of Forests in Influencing Nutrient Inputs and Flux

By understanding the fundamental processes involved in the deposition and processing of organic 

matter, we can examine how factors that vary across the landscape, such as forest stand age, 

stand density, tree species, stream size, percent slope, aspect, and stream morphology, influence 

the location and amount of habitat for salmonids. The deposition and processing of organic 

materials are major limiting factors in stream productivity. For salmonids, a productive stream 

has good physical habitat for spawning and the organic resources needed to produce the food 

required for fry to survive and grow. The stream obtains organic resources from two primary 
68 Appendix 3

sources: 1) organic matter produced within the stream from photosynthetic algae and other 

aquatic plants; and 2) organic matter deposited by the terrestrial system, such as leaves, bark, and 

wood. In forested ecosystems, terrestrial sources provide streams with most of their organic 

matter. In an eastern U.S. forest, 98 percent of the organic material in the stream came from 

terrestrial sources (Fisher and Likens 1973).

Deposition of organic materials. The size and morphology of the stream, as dictated by 

topography, greatly influence the deposition and processing of organic materials. Slope also 

influences the species composition of the forest, forest biomass production, and in some cases 

stream temperature. As a forest ages, litterfall increases with increasing biomass. Litter is 

deposited into small steep-gradient streams in densely forested areas high in a watershed. Steeper 

slopes with fast-moving streams are less likely to retain deposited organic material until it is 

decomposed. Thus these small (lower-order) streams are important to the productivity of larger 

(higher order) streams in lower reaches of the watershed because they are a major source of 

organic material. Leaves, bark, and wood deposited in these small streams can be rapidly 

transported downstream if there are no barriers, such as culverts, large wood, and boulders. 

Forest age, composition, and season affect the quality, as well as the quantity, of leaf material 

deposited in streams. For example, alder leaves are noted for their relatively high nitrogen are 

readily decomposed. But before a leaf or needle is abscised (released and falls), the tree 

recaptures many of the nutrients; thus leaves deposited in the fall are not as nutrient rich as those 

deposited from a mid-summer windstorm. With their high lignin content, conifer needles are 

more difficult to break down and therefore release their organic material more slowly compared 

with deciduous foliage.

Decomposition of organic materials. After it is deposited in streams, organic material must be 

processed before it is available as a food source for salmonids. Forest stand age, density, and 

species composition, along with stream characteristics, such as size, percent slope, aspect, and 

morphology, all influence the decomposition of organic material. 

In small (lower-order) streams on densely forested slopes, large wood can trap organic material, 

where it may be broken down before it is transported downstream with high flows. However, 

because many of the biological processes required to decompose organic material are 

temperature dependent, the process may be slower in cool streams within densely forested 

riparian zones (Beschta et al. 1987; Hawkins et al. 1982). 

Decomposition of organic material occurs in several ways. Some organic compounds are leached 

from material in the stream. Shredding insects that feed primarily on leaves also process organic 

materials. Microorganisms colonize material that becomes trapped in the stream, breaking it 

down into constituents available for microbes and insects. Fine particles are carried downstream 

and deposited within the channel, becoming available to benthic (bottom) feeding organisms and 

rooted aquatic plants. 

The morphology of the stream largely determines the decomposer species present. Functional 

groups of these animals correspond to orders of streams. These distinctive relationships are based 
69 Appendix 3

on the relative availability of different substrates and are used for classification (Cummins 1973, 

1974). Shredding insects rely on leaf material and are thus found primarily in small, lower-order 

(1st through 3rd) streams. Grazing insects rely on instream (primary production) algae attached 

to rocks and are therefore found primarily in larger, higher-order (5th and 6th) streams. Fineparticulate collectors, which feed primarily on fecal material, are distributed across a wider range 

(1st through 6th) of stream orders. The ratio of shredders to grazers was found to be more than 

100:1 in canopy-covered first-order streams with low incident light levels and was 1:14 in wide, 

eighth-order streams with high levels of sunlight (Triska et al. 1982). 

Forest practices. Where forest practices change tree density and species composition, they will 

affect the input and processing of organic material. The degree of impact depends on prior stand 

conditions and the composition of adjacent stands. For example, frequent intense harvest in the 

presence of an alder seed source will result in a shift toward alder-dominated riparian areas. Low 

intensity thinning in riparian conifer stands will increase stand stability and the productivity of 

the remaining trees, while not opening up the stand enough for alder regeneration. Across the 

landscape, shifts in stand age and species composition will benefit the higher-order streams by 

providing a variety of materials at varying rates, thereby adding to habitat heterogeneity. The 

processes controlling the input and processing of organic material are better served by a 

heterogeneous landscape with varying amounts of forest cover, species composition, and age 

classes than by the creation of a single forest type across the landscape.

LARGE WOOD AS STRUCTURAL AND FUNCTIONAL 

ELEMENTS OF AQUATIC HABITAT

The most productive habitats for salmonid fish are small streams associated with mature and 

old-growth coniferous forests where large organic debris and fallen trees greatly influence the 

physical and biological characteristics of such streams. Sedell et al. 1988. 

Functions of Large Wood in Streams

Large wood is often the primary structural element in the stream channel responsible for forming 

pools in smaller streams and side channels and backwaters in larger streams (Bilby and Bisson 

1998). Both are critical habitats for coho salmon in Oregon’s coastal streams (Nickelson et al. 

1992). Over 80 percent of the pools in small streams in southwestern Washington, in the Idaho 

panhandle, and in northern California were associated with the presence of large wood (Bilby and

Bisson 1998).

The function of large wood varies with the size of the stream. In smaller streams, large wood can 

generally span the channel. There it becomes an important structural element that increases the 

frequency and volume of pools, traps organic material and slowly releases nutrients to the stream, 

provides substrate and food for aquatic invertebrates, and traps fine sediments. The smaller 

stream channels are also the conduits that deliver much of the large wood to the channels lower 

in the watershed. Large wood increases channel complexity, obstructs and diversifies currents, 
70 Appendix 3

and creates essential features of salmonid habitat, such as plunge (created by water flowing over 

logs), lateral (along the bank), and backwater pools (Spence et al. 1996).

Larger streams contain less wood, but the average size (diameter, length, or volume) of the wood 

is greater because these streams can transport larger materials. The nature of the pools formed by 

large wood changes from plunge pools in the smaller headwater streams to scour pools in midsized streams (Bilby and Ward 1989). In larger channels, large wood tends to accumulate along 

the margins and on gravel bars or other obstructions. This creates variable depths and complex 

flow patterns, lateral migration of the channel, and backwaters along the stream margins (Spence 

et al. 1996).

In the larger low-gradient streams, large accumulations of wood can span the channel and create 

large pools, secondary channels, and backwaters (Bilby and Bisson 1998). Alcoves, side channels, 

and beaver ponds are important over-wintering habitat for coho salmon in Oregon’s coastal 

streams, and it is the availability of this kind of habitat that constrains coho survival in coastal rivers 

(Nickelson et al. 1992). Large wood also prevents salmon carcasses from washing out to sea after 

spawning, which allows nutrients from the carcasses to be released to the watershed (Cederholm et 

al. 1989). Nutrients derived from salmon carcasses can be an important source of nitrogen and 

carbon for juvenile salmon and can influence their growth (Bilby et al. 1996).

Local temperature regimes may exert more influence on the evolution of life history patterns than 

do other environmental attributes of stream habitat (Miller and Brannon 1982). Structural 

roughness imparted by large wood, especially the creation of pools, can retard mixing of warm 

water and cool water from either tributaries or ground water and create local pockets of cool 

water refugia (Sedell and Swanson 1984). Studies in the Yakima River, Washington, have shown 

that adult chinook salmon can locate and will make use of these small thermal refugia (Berman 

and Quinn 1991).

Sources of Large Wood

The sources of large wood and the mechanisms for their delivery to the stream channel vary with 

the size of the stream, its gradient, and the surrounding landscape. First- and second-order 

headwater streams provide much of the large wood that can form habitat in larger channels 

(Prichard et al. 1998). Over time, fire, blowdown, natural mortality, and bank undercutting 

deliver wood to first- and second-order streams, where it easily spans the smaller channels. There 

it traps sediment, sometimes for very long periods of time, even centuries or more. The buildup 

of wood and sediment continues until it is delivered downstream, along with green wood, 

through a mass movement of the material. This type of movement is called a debris torrent. The 

sediment and wood are eventually incorporated into the channel structure of the larger stream 

where they become part of normal stream function (Prichard et al. 1998). 

Trees that fall into streams usually come from within 30 m of the channel edge; 70 to 90 percent 

of the large wood in streams is derived from this distance. The riparian vegetation of an oldgrowth forest consists of taller trees, so the source of large wood is from greater distances than 

for younger forests with shorter trees, since more tall trees reach the stream when they fall 
71 Appendix 3

(McDade et al. 1990; Van Sickle and Gregory 1990; Fetherston et al. 1995). In unconstrained 

stream reaches, large wood from anywhere in the flood plain can eventually reach the channel 

after floods or lateral migration of the stream channel (Bilby and Bisson 1998).

Both episodic and chronic events deliver large wood to the stream channel. Chronic events 

include natural tree mortality and natural undercutting of the stream banks. However, these 

events add relatively small amounts of large wood to the stream. Fires, floods, windthrow, 

landslides, and debris torrents occur infrequently, but they are the source of large quantities of 

wood (Bilby and Bisson 1998; Benda et al. 1998).

Impact of Forest Practices on Large Wood

Recent surveys confirm that many of Oregon’s coastal streams in managed forests are deficient in

wood (State of Oregon 1998). The amount of wood in streams associated with managed forests 

has been evaluated by comparing it with two standards: 1) The average amount of wood in 

reference streams (streams with little or no forestry impacts); and 2) the target amount of wood 

identified in the Oregon habitat benchmarks (Oregon Plan 1997). Most of the reference streams 

were in the Cascade Range, with a few located in the Coast Range (State of Oregon 1998). In 

addition, the surveys reported the presence of wood in two ways: 1) pieces of wood greater than 

0.15 m in diameter and 3.0 m in length; and 2) key pieces of wood greater than 0.6 m in diameter 

and 10.0 m in length. To account for regional differences in salmonid habitat in coastal rivers, the

Oregon Coast was divided into five regions: north coast, mid-coast, mid-south coast, Umpqua, 

and south coast. The north coast and mid-coast stream reaches had slightly more pieces of wood 

than did the reference reaches. The mid-south coast, south coast, and Umpqua had lower levels 

of wood (number of pieces) than did the reference reaches. Over 75 percent of the stream length 

surveyed in the mid-south coast, south coast, Umpqua had fewer than 15 pieces of wood per 100 

m of channel. The Oregon benchmark is >20 pieces of wood per 100 m stream length. It should 

be kept in mind that the benchmark is probably lower than the historical, undisturbed state, 

especially in the lower elevation stream reaches.

The number of pieces of wood includes smaller sizes that may not have a strong influence on 

channel process and habitat formation. The status of key (larger) pieces of wood is a better 

measure of wood that can form habitat in the coastal stream channels. Half of the stream lengths 

surveyed in all the coastal subregions had less than one key piece of wood per 100 m of channel 

(State of Oregon 1998). The benchmark is three key pieces of wood per 100 m of channel. 

Current levels of large wood in coastal rivers are less than the benchmark and far below 

historical levels.

The amount of large wood currently in stream channels of Oregon’s coastal rivers has been 

depleted and in the near future, new recruitment is not likely to correct that condition. Over 30 

percent of the stream lengths surveyed have no large conifers in the riparian zone. Large conifers 

are defined as trees >50 cm dbh (diameter at breast height) within 30 m of the stream (State of 

Oregon 1998). Seventy-five percent have fewer than 60 large conifers per 333 m of stream 

channel. This is far less than in the reference riparian areas, which had 240 large conifers per 333 

m of stream channel.
72 Appendix 3

Timber harvest has reduced the amount of wood in streams, consequently degrading the quality 

of habitat. For example, in an extensive survey of streams draining unharvested old-growth 

forests and streams within intensively and moderately logged forests in western Washington 

State, intensive harvest was associated with increased riffle area, reduced pool area, and reduced 

pool depth. The total amount of wood in the streams did not change with timber harvest, but the 

size of wood was reduced (Ralph et al. 1994). Since the size of wood in the channel is directly 

related to pool size (Bilby and Bisson 1998), this represented a direct loss of critical salmon 

habitat. Similar results—reduced amounts of large wood— were obtained in surveys of Oregon 

Coastal streams.

The loss of habitat caused by the decrease in large wood can cause a significant reduction in 

salmonid standing stocks (numbers of adults returning to spawn each year). Standing stocks in 

three sections of stream that had been previously cleared of all large wood were compared to four 

sections of stream that had been undisturbed for 40 years. Pool volume, sinuosity, width, and 

depth had all decreased in the stream sections from which the wood had been removed. These 

changes in habitat caused a fivefold reduction in salmonid standing stocks (Fausch and Northcote 

1992).

Historically, the quantity and quality of large wood in stream channels reflected the age and 

species composition of the riparian forests and the occurrence of disturbance. Major disturbance 

events such as wildfire, catastrophic windthrow, and floods were natural features of watersheds 

that added massive amounts of large wood to the stream channels or redistributed it downstream 

within the watershed (Bilby and Bisson 1998). At any given time 15 to 25 percent of the central 

Oregon Coast Range may have been in early successional stages following disturbance (Reeves 

et al. 1995).

Even during those periods when the riparian forests were recovering, however, the amount of 

large wood in the stream would have remained high. That is not true of forests subjected to 

human-caused disturbance, such as logging, which reduces the quality and quantity of large wood 

delivered to the stream (Bilby and Bisson 1998). Reeves et al. (1995) identified four differences 

in natural and human-caused disturbance that affect the quality and quantity of large wood 

delivered to the stream channels:

1. Disturbance such as wildfire leaves a legacy of large wood that can eventually enter the 

stream, whereas timber harvest removes that source of wood.

2. The interval between major natural disturbances is usually longer than the harvest cycle—300 

years for wildfire and 40 to 80 years for timber harvest.

3. The area disturbed differs. Historically, 15 to 25 percent of the central Oregon Coast Range at 

any given time may have been in an early successional stage because of wildfires, whereas 

timber harvest generally affects a larger total area.

4. Disturbance from timber harvest is widely dispersed over the landscape, whereas natural 

disturbance events may cover a larger area in a single event.
73 Appendix 3

Hicks et al. (1991) reviewed studies that evaluated the effects of habitat change on salmonids and 

concluded that timber harvest has simplified salmonid habitats and the process of simplification 

was continuing. Although the loss of stream structure due to reduced levels of large wood has 

only recently been viewed as a problem, it has contributed to major habitat degradation (Hicks et 

al. 1991). Some changes in habitat, however, such as increased temperatures and increased fine 

sediment are more transient and less detrimental than originally believed. Based on their review, 

Hicks et al. (1991) formulated the following principles that should guide logging operations to 

protect aquatic habitat: 

Protection of streamside zones by leaving streamside vegetation intact will help maintain the 

integrity of channels and preserve important terrestrial-aquatic interactions.

Productivity of streams for salmonid populations tends to be enhanced under conditions of 

moderate temperatures, low to moderate sediment levels, high light levels, adequate 

nutrients, an abundance of cover, and a diversity of habitat and substrate types.

Productive floodplain and side-channel habitats should be protected.

Streams should be protected against frequent and extreme episodes of bed-load movement or 

sediment deposition through careful streamside management and through proper planning 

and engineering of roads and timber harvest systems.

Management of streamside zones should include provisions for long-term recruitment of 

large woody debris into stream channels and for protection of existing stable large woody 

debris.

The geology, geomorphology, and climate of a watershed mediate the response of fish 

populations to timber harvest. Site-specific management recommendations must consider 

regional landforms and climatic variation. (Hicks et al. 1991, p. 518.

It should be noted that the last principle is consistent with a landscape approach to the regulations 

of timber harvest.

Most studies of the effects logging on salmonids have looked at specific stream reaches and 

target species. However, when aquatic habitat loses diversity and complexity as a result of timber 

harvest, there is a corresponding loss of diversity in fish assemblages at the basin scale. For 

instance, instead of having coho, chinook, and chum salmon in a watershed, as a result of 

homogenization of the habitat, it now supports only coho. This represents an important loss in 

biodiversity. In a study of 14 small to intermediate coastal basins in Oregon, Reeves et al. (1993) 

found lower diversity in fish assemblages in streams with high harvest levels than in streams with

low harvest levels. Fish assemblage diversity in a watershed was most highly associated with the 

percent of the basin harvested. Reeves et al. (1993) attributed this in part to the more diverse 

habitats in the basin with low timber harvest levels. Streams in those basins had more pieces of 

wood and more pools than did streams from basins with high harvest levels. Reeves et al. (1993) 

concluded that basin-level evaluations are needed to fully assess the effects of timber harvest in a 

watershed. This conclusion is consistent with our recommendation that habitat management and 

protection should be approached from the landscape perspective.
74 Appendix 3

SEDIMENTATION

Sedimentation is a natural process, occurring in both ―unmanaged‖ and actively managed basins. 

Swanson et al. (1987) provide excellent overviews of sediment producing processes in forests of 

the Pacific Northwest. Their review emphasizes the high degree of variability that exists in 

sediment relationships, across landscapes and over time, and as these interact with natural and 

human-mediated events. Everest et al. (1987) provides a useful perspective about sedimentation. 

Their central theme is that sediment is a natural part of stream systems, and that there is an 

equilibrium between sediment input and sediment routing that needs to be maintained to have 

healthy stream systems. This means maintaining a balance between the amount of fine sediment, 

coarser bedload sediment and larger elements of in-stream structure (boulders, large wood). 

Both the production and routing of suspended sediment and bedload sediment are important. 

Reid (1981) reported sediment yields ranging from 13 to 133 tons per square kilometer of basin 

area per year in systems not under active management (Table 2). Landslides and bank erosion are 

the dominant sources of sediment in these ―unmanaged‖ systems.

Table 2. Source of sediment in undisturbed 6th order basin

Source of sediment

Sediment production

(m3/ km2/yr)

Bank erosion 29.0

Landslides 28.0

Debris flows 9.7

Tree throw 8.9

Animal burrows 4.0

Source: Reid, 1981.

The effect of active forest management on sedimentation is a central issue. Benda et al. (1998) 

summarize the interaction between land management, sedimentation and fish habitat. Numerous 

efforts have been made to study sedimentation in connection with forest management. As an 

example, Beschta (1978) reporting on the Alsea watershed studies in the Oregon Coast Range 

found increases in suspended sediment discharge from two small watersheds occurring over an 8-

year post disturbance period. The increase in discharge was episodic, and the author associates 

periods of elevated discharge with disturbance. In a 25-percent patch-cut watershed, sediment 

production was elevated for three years, with the elevations dominated by two road failure related 

events. In the other five years, the level of sediment discharge resembled the pre-treatment 

pattern. In the second watershed, 82 percent of the areas was clearcut, and slash burned with no 

stream protection. The highest sediment discharge occurred after burning, with annual 

reductions in discharge occurring over the next six years until pretreatment levels were attained. 

Beschta attributes the pattern of the response in this watershed to the degree of vegetative cover, 

but is not able to determine the influence of soil disturbance close to the stream on the effects 

measured.

It has been much more difficult to quantify the effects of management on in-stream sediment 

condition over landscapes larger than those included in the Alsea study. In an analysis of stream 
75 Appendix 3

gravel composition, Duncan and Ward (1985) surveyed 12 watersheds in SW Washington. They 

found no statistically significant relationship between the amount of fine sediment in stream 

gravel and any variable except bedrock geology. Streams draining watersheds dominated by 

sedimentary rock had a higher level (11.6%) of fine sediment (< 2 mm) than watersheds 

dominated by volcanic rock (10%). However, they note that when only two variables are 

considered (and sediment finer than 0.63 mm is addressed), the frequency of road drainage points 

into streams is a statistically significant factor. Everest et al. (1987) note that studies of the 

impacts of forest management on fish have generally failed to isolate the effects of fine 

sediments from the effects caused by other habitat changes, making it impossible to segregate the 

effects.

Reid (1981) calculated the sediment production from road-related and natural process in two 

hypothetical sub-basins of the Clearwater basin in northwestern Washington (Table 3). They 

found that roads accounted for about 75 percent of total sediments, and 82 percent of the 

sediment that was less than 0.2 mm in size.

Table 3. Calculated road-related and natural process sediment production (assumes no other 

management actions) in two hypothetical sub-basins of the Clearwater basin.

Source of Sediment

Sediment Production, tons/km2/year

NW Basin SW Basin

Total < 2 mm Total < 2 mm

Road-related, all sources 190 99 308 130

Natural processes, all 

sources

79 28 79 21

Total, both sources 269 127 387 151

Source: Reid, 1981.

Major storms increase the rate and intensity of landslides and road failures. Initiating landslides 

may turn into debris flows (movement of material beyond initiation area, on the slope but outside 

of a channel) or debris torrents (movement of material down a channel), depending on site 

characteristics and conditions at the time. Debris flows and debris torrents commonly transport 

much more sediment than the initiating event, due to the scouring action of the movement of the 

debris on the slope or in the channel. Debris flows stop moving when the slope gradient of the 

channel decreases. Debris torrents also tend to stop and become debris jams when channels 

merge, especially where the debris torrent is in a channel that enters another channel at a steep 

angle. Predictive models (Benda and Cundy, 1990) are useful in analysis and management of 

such events. 

Several investigations of storm-related landslides have been conducted. Following a major storm 

event in 1975, Gresswell et al. (1979) analyzed mass soil movements associated with roads and 

clearcuts on the Mapleton District of the Siuslaw National Forest in the central Oregon Coast 

Range. Their findings indicate slides in harvest units accounted for over three-quarters of the 

failures and about two-thirds of the landslide volume; however, the average volume associated 

with road failures was twice as large as in-unit failures. The study results provide guidance on 
76 Appendix 3

characteristics associated with the failures. Swanson et al. (1977) working in the same general 

area reported the frequency of landslides was 1.9 to 4.0 times greater in clearcuts than it was in 

similar areas of unharvested forest. In a study of small unroaded areas, Ketcheson and Froehlich 

(1978) found a frequency of land sliding that was 3.7 times greater in clearcuts than in 

undisturbed forest.

ODF conducted an extensive evaluation of storm-related landslides following the 1995-1996 

season. ODF concluded that the incidence of road-related failures was smaller and slide volumes 

were smaller than in past studies, suggesting that the changes in road practices since 1972 is 

reducing road-related slope failures. 

 

Swanson et al. (1987) summarized data on land sliding and sedimentation from the various 

watershed level studies of the region, but note serious limitations with them: 

The forest management and harvest strategies used in the study are not necessarily relevant 

today.

The results only reflect the complex of weather as it occurred at the time of the study.

The problem is that the interrelationships between treatments, site characteristics, and weather 

are unique, making each study a case history. There is limited ability to compare the results 

among such major efforts. This is not suggesting we can't learn from them but the uniqueness 

of what is learned from each study must be appreciated.

In summary, roads, landslides, and bank erosion are believed to be the dominant sources of 

sediment in managed systems, and there is a strong interaction with storms. Given riparian 

protection, landslides and roads become the dominant source likely to be influenced by 

management action. 

Roads as a Source of Sediment

According to Luce and Black (1999) road-related erosion is the result of the interaction between 

how much sediment is available for transport and the power of water to move it. They provide 

an analytical framework for dealing with both factors, providing a reasonable scientific basis for 

both evaluating the potential for movement of road-related sediments to the stream, and 

prioritizing the protective measures that might be taken to address them. Surface-related erosion 

from roads appears to be concentrated in the first few years after construction, landslide-related 

erosion and sediment production could occur many years later, and is highly episodic. 

Based on their findings, Luce and Black (1999) conclude that substantial amounts of sediment 

can come from relatively standard roads with little use, and that it is possible to substantially 

reduce road erosion by targeting those sections with the greatest sediment production. Their 

paper addresses the sources of variability, which may be able to be incorporated into 

management guidelines or standards. This study is significant because of its location in the 

Oregon Coast Range, and the fact it began in November 1995 and ran through the February 1996 

storm.
77 Appendix 3

Reid and Dunne (1984) conducted an important study in the Clearwater drainage of the Olympic 

Mountains in western Washington. Their study of 10 road segments provides helpful 

relationships between road surfacing materials, intensity of use, and rainfall and its related 

hydrograph. Their results quantify what logic suggests, i.e.,

Sediment concentration increases with culvert discharge for active roads, but showed no 

increase for an abandoned road.

Sediment concentration is higher during periods of heavy road use compared to periods of 

light use.

Sediment yield increased with the amount of rainfall in a storm, and was higher for roads 

with a higher intensity of use.

Using the relationships developed in their study, they calculated the average annual sediment 

yield from various types of roads in the study basin. They also estimated the proportion of road 

miles in various level-of-use categories for a 40 percent clearcut basin being managed on a 60-80 

year cutting cycle (Table 4). 

Table 4. Sediment yield per kilometer of road, and proportion of the length of unpaved roads in 

a given level of use category, Clearwater Basin, Olympic Mountains, Washington.

Road type Average sediment yield

(tons/km/yr)

Basin roads in a road type 

(% of km) 

Rock, heavy use 

(>4 loaded trucks/day)

500 6

Rock, temporary non-use 

(Heavy-use road not used 

for 2 days)

66 Not applicable

Rock, moderate use

(1-4 loaded trucks/day)

42 5

Rock, light use 

(no loaded trucks, but some 

light vehicles)

3.8 39

Paved 2.0 Not applicable

Abandoned 0.5 50

Source: Reid and Dunne, 1984.

The data in this table are the sediment yield at the culvert. How much of this enters the stream 

system varies with the proportion of road runoff that is diverted to streams. Estimates for this are 

highly variable, ranging from 75 percent (Reid and Dunne, 1984), to about 33-34 percent (Bilby 

et al. 1989) and (Wemple et al. 1996). 

Based on the data for paved roads, Reid and Dunne (1984) suggest 1.8 tons of sediment per km 

of road per year comes from cut slopes and ditches, considerably less than might have been 
78 Appendix 3

anticipated. They note that the armoring of the surfaces that occurs with time since disturbance 

is a key factor in this process. 

The key point from Table 4 is to show the difference in sediment production from roads that are 

in various levels of use, and paved or unpaved. We do not suggest these are the values to be 

extended to many other areas, but only show that there is a basis on which estimates can be 

constructed and decisions made which will influence the sediment production from road systems 

and road surfaces. 

Bilby et al. (1989) followed the generation and fate of sediments from gravel road surfaces in 

southwestern Washington. Their study shows smallest sizes of sediment (<0.004 mm) 

comprised about 80 percent of the sediment yield from both the two mainline road sites and the 

two spur road sites. A settling pond that received runoff from the mainline road was effective in 

reducing sediment load in the ditch flow during periods when the concentration of sediment was 

high, and the rate of water discharge was moderate to low. While trapping perhaps only 20 

percent of the sediment, the settling pond accumulated more than 1 ton of sediment over the 

course of the study period. Perhaps significantly in terms of potential impact on aquatic habitat, 

the settling pond trapped about 97 percent of the sand-sized sediment. This larger sized sediment 

is more likely to be deposited in streams as stream velocity decreases. The settling pond had no 

influence on the smallest sized sediment (<0.004 mm) or turbidity. They note this sized material 

is much less likely than sand-sized sediment to be deposited in spawning substrates in the stream 

system. Settling ponds may provide some short-term relief, but eventually they will fill, and 

either no longer be able to serve as a sediment trap, or may require maintenance and disposal of 

the sediment to a location where it will not erode to streams 

The Bilby et al. (1989) study sites differed in the nature of the road base and the rock used as a 

surface for it. Their article suggests that the depth of the ballast (and the nature of the surfacing 

materials) was different at the two sites, but they provide no quantitative data on this point. The 

mainline road was on relatively flat terrain (no cut slopes), while the spur road was much steeper 

and had cut slopes. 

They provide regression equations to illustrate the relationship between intensity of road use 

(axles per day) and sediment production over the course of a storm. Although this factor alone 

accounts for (explains) 60 to 70 percent of the variation in sediment production on the spur road, 

it accounts for very little (<3%) of the sediment production on the mainline road. When the same 

data set is analyzed on an hour-by-hour basis, however, intensity of use appears to be the 

dominant factor on the mainline road as well. The regression equation and relationships for only 

one site are provided in the paper (presumably the equations and relationships for the other sites 

can be obtained from the authors). For the site illustrated, the combination of axles per hour and 

accumulated number of axles explain nearly 60 percent of the response (concentration of 

sediment in runoff from the road system). 

Bilby (1985) studied the input of sediment from a mainline haul road in southwestern 

Washington for one year. He found that at a point 50 meters below the point of road runoff, 21 

percent of the total sediment load of the stream at that point was road-related. By weight, 80 
79 Appendix 3

percent of the sediment introduced from the road was <0.004 mm in size, and 79 percent was 

entering the study reach from upstream. In contrast, he reports, that more than 80 percent of the 

―fine sediments‖ in the stream bed gravel were from 0.25 to 2.0 mm in size. Analysis of 

sediment cores from above and below the study sites showed no difference in the proportion of 

fine sediments (<2 mm) by weight. Bilby concludes that in this case study that the road surface 

sediment did not make an appreciable contribution to sediment stored in the channel, although 

this is a reflection of the particular site under study (1% slope, vegetated ditches, deep road 

prism), and cannot be widely extrapolated. The transport of sediment is clearly influenced by 

the energy of the water flow, as illustrated by the increasing degree with which sand-sized 

sediment (0.63-2.0 mm) was transported with increasing steepness of the road gradient. Road 

gradient accounted for 97 percent of the variation in the data they collected at these five sites (2 

mainline, relatively flat road gradients of 2% and 2.5%; and 3 secondary roads with gradients 

between 3.1% and 14.4%).

Burroughs and King (1989) summarized extensive research on sediment production and control 

on forest roads in Idaho. They also summarize relevant research findings from other parts of the 

United States. While the weather patterns and soil properties are remarkably different in many 

cases from those of the Oregon coast range, the qualitative aspects of the relationships they report 

are useful. Examples of their findings include the following:

Heavy vehicle traffic on unsurfaced, rutted roads doubles sediment production.

6 inches of crushed rock reduces sediment production by 70 percent, and when combined 

with grass at the margins of the travel-way, 84 percent (2 inches of rock did not reduce 

sediment production).

Bituminous coverings (asphalt) and road oils reduced sediment production by 97 and 85 

percent respectively.

Sediment production from unconsolidated fill slopes is high, but decreases exponentially with 

time.

Several strategies have been evaluated to quantify their effectiveness in reducing sediment 

production from both cut and fill slopes. Interestingly logging debris placed parallel to the 

contour decreased sediment production by 75 percent, suggesting this may be a useful strategy 

around landings and perhaps skid roads. Seeding alone does little until vegetation is established, 

and prior to establishment seed is subject to loss from the site with soil from erosion. Although a 

study in the Oregon Cascades on a 100 percent slope cut-bank showed seeding reduced sediment 

production by 36 percent.

There are quantitative relationships for the transport of eroded sediment from fill slopes to 

streams. Although these would need to be evaluated for use in the Coast Range, such 

characterization would be helpful because it will show the distance over which protective 

strategies are needed near streams. The specific data reported for an erosive soil in northern 

Idaho suggests distances of 100 feet or less were relevant. This suggests there is a basis on 

which protective strategies can be developed for Oregon — and with monitoring, their 

effectiveness evaluated. 
80 Appendix 3

Burroughs and King (1989) show interesting relationships among the various sources of 

sediment from a road study site in Idaho, where artificial rain was used. Although the 

quantitative aspects of the relationships probably do not apply in the Oregon Coast Range, 

qualitatively the relationships may well be valid, and can provide a basis for providing for 

sediment production management. These relationships are shown in Figure 14 of Burroughs and 

King (1989). 

Many of the ideas developed in Burroughs and King (1989) are evaluated in Luce and Black 

(1999) in connection with their study of sediment production from forest roads in western 

Oregon. They established important relationships between sediment production and such 

parameters as distanced between culverts, road slope, soil texture, and cut slope height. The 

study appears scientifically sound. Their findings can be summarized as follows:

Sediment production was a function of road-segment length and slope.

Rocked roads on silty clay loam produced nine times the sediment as rocked road on a 

gravelly loam.

Sediment production was not correlated with the height of the cut-slope.

Road segments with vegetation cleared from cut-slope and ditch produced seven times the 

sediment as road segments where the vegetation was retained.

In summary, we conclude that there is significant scientific evidence to show that management 

actions can influence chronic sediment production from roads. This evidence is well 

documented and is known to ODF, based on its citation in their reports. 

 

Road Drainage

Road drainage is the process by which road-related sediment might be moved to stream systems. 

Road drainage issues include (a) spacing between cross road drainage culverts, (b) the 

effectiveness with which these culverts operate, and (c) the location at which discharge from 

drainage culverts occur.

 

ODF (1996) monitoring data show that about one-third of the road systems on State and private 

forest lands in western Oregon can deliver sediment to streams by ditch delivery. West of the 

crest of the Cascades in Oregon and Washington, other estimates of road drainage discharged to 

streams or gullies range from 33 percent (Wemple et al. 1996) to 34 percent (Bilby et al. 1989) to 

75 percent (Reid and Dunne, 1984). Paul (1998) reports that road drainage points are associated 

with about one-third of the road-related landslides, based on surveys in western Washington 

(Toth 1991) and western Oregon (Mills 1991). Irvin and Sullivan (cited as an unpublished report 

by Duncan et al. 1987) looking at three watersheds in western Washington and Oregon, note 20 

percent of road runoff points discharged onto the forest floor and 80 percent emptied directly into 

drainage systems (70% emptied into first- or second-order channels). The balance emptied into 

permanent watercourses. These data show the importance of road drainage systems, and the 

impact of their discharge of sediment entrained in water on water quality.
81 Appendix 3

We conclude that reducing the amount of road drainage water that flows into channels can reduce 

sediment delivery to streams. Although it may not be possible to reduce the number of points at 

which entry occurs, the volume of road drainage water at these points can be reduced by more 

frequent cross-road drainage. The key is to reduce the length of the road drainage ditch that leads 

directly to the point where it discharges to the channel. This can be accomplished by installation 

of a cross-road drainage structure a relatively short distance ―uproad‖ from the channel entry 

point. 

Piehl et al. (1988) studied ditch-relief culverts and low-volume roads in the Oregon Coast Range. 

As part of their paper they summarized relevant research from two other related efforts, as 

follows: after the major storms of December 1964 and January 1965, the Forest Service 

conducted an analysis of storm-related road failures in the Pacific Northwest. They concluded 

that the failure of road-drainage facilities caused nearly all road damage and those plugged ditchrelief culverts contributed significantly to the problem (Dyson et al. 1966). In the second effort 

by Krag et al. (1986), the authors reported on an analysis of 31 slope failures on the Queen 

Charlotte Islands in Canada. Most of the road-associated failures were traced to problems of 

road drainage (i.e., ditches - absence of ditches or ditches formed from road ballast; or culverts -

spaced too far apart, too small, or poorly located). 

In their Oregon Coast Range study, Piehl et al. (1988) found ditch-relief culverts spaced on 

average from 30 to 170 percent greater than the guidelines developed for such drainage by 

Arnold (1957). The average culvert spacing on Forest Service and BLM roads was closest to the 

guideline. The greatest average spacing was on private lands (although the sample of sites 

studied on state and private lands was quite small in comparison to the size of the sample on 

federal proprieties). Culvert inlet condition was also studied. On average, the cross-sectional 

opening of culverts averaged 81 percent of original, due to a combination of siltation, debris, 

denting and slumping of cut banks. This suggests that the ability of the culvert to pass water and 

material entrained in it was reduced by 19 percent over that envisioned in the design. 

Erosion at the outlets of culverts was measurable in 38 percent of the cases studied. Outlet 

discharge volume increased with increased spacing between ditch-relief culverts. When spacing 

between culverts exceeded the ―Arnold‖ standards by more than 100 percent, the erosion volume 

was 3 times as great as it was when the spacing standard was exceeded by less than 100 percent. 

The stability of fill slopes below ditch-relief culverts showed some relationship to the degree to 

which spacing exceeded the Arnold guidelines, but the variability was high, suggesting the 

importance of a site-specific evaluation. Although the predictive power of the relationship may 

be low, it shows the correctness of the logic that the specifics of the location of drainage 

discharge points, and the volume of water they handle, will influence fill-slope stability. 

The Arnold spacing guidelines have served as a guideline in this region for more than 30 years, 

but we caution that they should not be viewed as a standard. The guidelines appeared in a 1957 

summary publication on soils of the Douglas-fir region. As nearly as we can determine, the 

guidelines are based on an unpublished report by Arnold of ―studies‖ of culvert spacing. Piehl et

al. (1988) note that the guidelines have not been systematically evaluated. 
82 Appendix 3

In absence of better information, we suggest the ―Arnold guidelines‖ continue to be used because 

they provide a systematic basis for design of ditch-relief culvert drainage patterns. Monitoring 

culvert/drainage system function over time will provide the basis for refinement of these 

guidelines.

A difficult issue to manage is low-level sediment production over an extensive area, contrasted 

with high-level sediment production concentrated in a few areas. For instance, Piehl et al. (1988) 

in the central Oregon Coast Range evaluated 515 crossroad culverts. There were two such 

crossings where landslides occurred. These accounted for 72 percent of the sediment production 

from all 515 crossings. Although it is important to reduce or eliminate such large sources of 

sediment, the average sediment production at all of the other sites averaged 0.7 cubic meters of 

erosion per site, for 28 percent of the total. 

ODF surveys have found that many landslides are the result of the failure of roads not 

constructed to current standards. These are roads constructed befosre the current OFPA rules 

were in place. These so-called "legacy roads" continue to be sources of sediment long after they 

were constructed, due to their inherently higher rate of failure. 

Road Maintenance and Abandonment

Roads with any vehicular use since 1972 are required to meet OFPA maintenance requirements, 

regardless of when the road was constructed. Effective maintenance is required both for stability 

of the road, and for its efficient use, however. Maintenance as an activity both produces and 

influences sediment production. 

Luce and Black (1999) comment on the issue of cleaning road drainage ditches. They found that 

sediment yield on older roads with undisturbed ditch lines is small compared to newer roads, or 

roads with disturbed ditches (unless the cut-slope is producing a great deal of sediment. They 

suggest that road surfacing (use of aggregate) and control of the level of traffic could be equally 

as effective in influencing sediment production. In a further study by Black and Luce (1999), in 

the same location in the Oregon Coast Range, they monitored sediment production over two 

years, 1995-1997, following blading of a rocked road surface. They found a 76 percent reduction 

in sediment yield the second year, which they attribute to revegetation of the cut-slope and ditch, 

and the armoring of the road surface once the fines exposed due to the blading were removed. 

Revegetation was thought to play a significant part in the erosion reduction. 

Reduced tire pressure (reduced from 620 kPa to 340 kPa) on logging trucks has been shown to 

reduce sediment production from 45 to 80 percent operated over low quality aggregate (Foltz 

1996; Foltz and Elliot 1997), as reported in Luce and Black (1999).

We conclude that when roads are newly constructed or are in use, policies that address road 

surface composition, tire pressure, and frequency, distribution, and characteristics of cross-road 

drainage and the maintenance of these systems can influence sediment production and delivery to 

streams. Limiting maintenance of ditches and roadside vegetation during periods of low road use 
83 Appendix 3

will reduce chronic sediment production, allowing the system to ―armor up‖. However, this must 

be coupled with road design and construction strategies that produce an ―inherently stable‖ road. 

There are no formulas to completely ensure success in this. However, there is a strong 

engineering and science conceptual base for it. This makes best management practices (BMP), 

reinforced with experience, a sound approach. The Luce and Black (1999) and Black and Luce 

(1999) papers are rich in guidance for scientifically-based approaches to road sediment 

management in the Oregon Coast Range. 

Abandonment (including stabilization) of roads can help reduce road-related sedimentation 

problems, both chronic and episodic. Weaver and Hagans (undated) provide useful discussion 

and perspectives for road abandonment. Although much of their perspective is influenced by 

experience with the redwood region of northern coastal California, the concepts and practices 

they discuss are useful in Oregon. The many practices they discuss are likely to be helpful, but it 

is difficult to elect the more cost-effective strategies. The costs of various approaches are 

outlined in Table 1 of their report. Prioritization of road abandonment strategies at any given 

location, and the prioritization of general areas in which abandonment strategies should be 

exercised, is needed. 

Harr and Nichols (1993) evaluated decommissioning roads in one case study in Canyon Creek 

(tributary of the Nooksak River in northwestern Washington). They reported that 17 road-related 

landslides deposited 191,000 cubic meters of sediment into streams during four periods of rainon-snow events with recurrence intervals of 2 to 5 years. After decommissioning work, only a 

single road-related landslide occurred during a record rain-on-snow runoff event of 1989-90, and 

none of its sediment reached the stream. Decommissioning involved stabilization of fills, 

removal of stream crossings, recontouring slope, and reestablishing drainage patterns to reduce 

landslide hazards. Note this is an unreplicated case study, but it suggests decommissioning may 

be a useful strategy in some cases. Segment decommissioning costs ranged from $1615 per km to 

$6625 per km. Sixty-six percent of the length cost less than $1615 per km for decommissioning. 

The average cost for road abandonment was $3500 per km.

Non-road-related Landslides

Slope failure rates are highly variable across the landscape and over time. This is a fundamental 

problem in the analysis of these events. When superimposed on the question of human-related 

actions as changing the rate or magnitude of disturbance, relative to historic patterns, it is 

difficult to make this comparison. 

ODF began monitoring landslides in 1988 (ODF 1997). Their findings included the following:

Very few landslides occurred on areas the Department had determined to be high risk sites.

Landslides associated with roads (especially those constructed prior to 1983) dominate the 

statistics.

Approximately one-third of the landslides investigated were classified as in harvest units (as 

opposed to related to roads or landings). 
84 Appendix 3

Following the major storms of 1995-1996, ODF (1998b) conducted an extensive survey of 

landslides. ODF stratified the landslide data according to length of time between harvest and 

slope failure. Although there is variation, the general pattern is that the rate of land sliding was 

highest in stands 0-9 years post harvest, and lowest in stands 10 to 30 years, and then increased 

with stand age. Probably of greater importance is the landslide erosion rate (how much sediment 

is moved). When the same data set is analyzed with respect to soil moved (yd3/acre) the pattern is 

similar to that for rate of land sliding, but the variation is higher. As a generalization, the erosion 

rate is higher in areas shortly after harvest, and then it decreases with stand age. In three of four 

cases, the erosion rate is lowest in stands more than 100 years of age. 

The ODF study provides a clear picture concerning the association of land form and slope 

steepness with the rate of occurrence of landslides (Table 5). There were no landslides that 

entered channels where slopes were less than 40 percent.

Table 5. Slope steepness is critical.

Slope class, % Landslide frequency, 

% of total

Cumulative landslide 

frequency, % of total

0 – 60 8 8

60-70 15 23

70 – 90 49 72

90 + 28 100

Landform also appears to be a useful indicator of landslide erosion risk. In those study areas in 

which more than 20 landslides occurred, uniform slopes and, in all but one case, concave slopes 

had the greatest incidence of landslides. Convex slopes and irregular slopes were lower. 

Landslide inventories show that from one-third to one-half of all landslides in the Oregon Coast 

Range originate in headwall areas. This relationship suggests a higher level of predictability on a 

site-by-site basis than exists. 

The COPE analysis of headwall leave areas in the central Oregon Coast Range (Mapleton Ranger 

District) showed the Mapleton Risk Rating System is a useful guide in assessing the risk of slope 

failure in headwall areas (Martin 1997; Skaugset et al. 1993). This is a semi-quantitative 

checklist system in which field observers assign numerical values to various characteristics of 

headwall areas. These are based on the degree to which they are believed to contribute to 

headwall stability. Although this rating system loses predictive power at higher risk rating levels, 

it remains useful in instances where the goal is to reduce the risk of erosion from slope failure in 

headwalls. This risk assessment system has not been tested outside of the Central Oregon Coast 

Range (highly dissected marine sandstone and siltstone). Such testing is needed and can be 

incorporated into monitoring and adaptive management strategies. 

Re-analysis of headwall inventory data in the central Oregon Coast Range showed no statistically 

significant difference in slope failure rate in clearcut, forested and headwall leave areas. 

However, this is not a random test of the variables, and the sample size is quite small. We do not 
85 Appendix 3

consider it a critical test of the hypothesis, and caution against the use of the general findings as 

indicating that headwall leave areas are ineffective in preventing or reducing slope failures.

Important quantitative relationships between landslide initiation and subsequent behavior were 

reported by Fannin and Rollerson (1993) following their analysis of 449 debris flows in the 

Queen Charlotte Islands of British Columbia. 

In general, we conclude that, on average, the relationship between slope characteristics (and other 

factors) and slope failure are helpful for management of the risk of landslide-caused 

sedimentation on actively managed forest properties, but the variation exhibited on a site-by-site 

basis is very large. We should not be surprised by this site-to-site variation. If it were not the 

case, then all steep headwall sites would have failed long ago. Refinements in our understanding 

of the interaction among site factors and our technical ability to characterize them are needed to 

permit more accurate predictions of slope failure potential.