Your Federal Quarterly Tax Payments are due April 15th Get Help Now >>

Coos Bay Program Summary Bureau of Land Management by alicejenny

VIEWS: 1 PAGES: 127

									                                                    BLM
                         Coos Bay District Office
Coos Bay
Annual Program Summary
and
Monitoring Report
Fiscal Year 2006




                         April 2007
        As the Nation’s principal
conservation agency, the Department
 of the Interior has responsibility for
 most of our nationally owned public
  lands and natural resources. This
   includes fostering the wisest use
   of our land and water resources,
     protecting our fish and wildlife,
  preserving the environmental and
     cultural values of our national
    parks and historical places, and
  providing for the enjoyment of life
    through outdoor recreation. The
   Department assesses our energy
 and mineral resources and works to
  assure that their development is in
  the best interest of all our people.
   The Department also has a major
  responsibility for American Indian
   reservation communities and for
 people who live in Island Territories
       under U.S. administration.
                                          Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006

A Message from the District Manager
Ths s the eleventh Annual Program Summary prepared by the Coos Bay Dstrct. Ths year marks the
second year of the second decade of management under the Coos Bay Dstrct Resource Management
Plan Record of Decson. As n past years, the report contans accomplshments made durng Fscal Year
2006 (October 2005 through September 2006), and n some cases, ths report also ncludes summares of
accomplshments durng the second decade of mplementaton (Fscal Years 2005 through 2014). Table S-1
summarzes many of the resource management accomplshments.

I am proud of the Dstrct accomplshments, and want to acknowledge the efforts by Dstrct personnel
to mplement the Resource Management Plan n a professonal manner. Key areas of accomplshments
contnue to be tmber sales, restoraton, endangered speces management, and recreaton. The Dstrct sold
21.3 MMBF of allowable harvest n FY 2006, mostly through commercal thnnng wth some hardwood
converson and regeneraton harvest. An addtonal 19 MMBF of densty management sales were sold from
Reserve land allocatons. These sales are desgned to mprove habtat condtons for late-successonal and
old-growth dependant speces wthn Late-Successonal Reserves. The volume offered as a byproduct of
habtat mprovement wll also assst n provdng employment opportuntes n local communtes.

Over 1.4 mllon dollars n restoraton projects were authorzed under the Secure Rural Schools and
Communty Self Determnaton Act of 2000. Many of the projects mplemented under ths Act have been
designed for the long-term improvement of watershed conditions and fish habitat, as well as providing
economc assstance to local communtes. An estmated 700,000 vstor days were spent by the publc
enjoyng the numerous recreatonal opportuntes on publc lands managed by the Coos Bay Dstrct.
Congratulatons to the staff on a job contnung to be well done.

We hope that you find the information contained in this report informative, and welcome suggestions
for mprovement.




Mark E Johnson
Dstrct Manager




                                                                                                                          
Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006

 Table S-1. Coos Bay RMP Planning Area, Summary of Resource Management Actions,
 Directions, and Accomplishments – FY 2006
                                                                                                           Projected
                                                                      Fiscal Year 2006                      Decadal
       RMP Resource Allocation,                                      Accomplishments        Totals          Practice
  Management Practice, or Activity               Activity Units      or Program Status   FY 2005-2006     (2005-2014)
 Forest and Timber Resources
 Regeneraton harvest from the Harvest              Acres sold                  105               195          7,600
 Land Base (HLB)
 Commercal thnnng/Densty                        Acres sold                  818              1,444         1,100
 management/Uneven-age harvests (HLB)
 Commercal thnnng/                               Acres sold                1,059              2,887     No Target
 Densty management/(Reserves)
 Tmber Volume Sold (HLB)                            MMBF                    21.328              32.69           270
 Tmber Volume Sold (Reserves)                       MMBF                    19.004              44.73     No Target
 Precommercal thnnng                              Acres                    2,418              4,296         3,500
 Brush field/Hardwood conversion                     Acres                       32                 32           100
 Site preparation, prescribed fire                   Acres                        9                173         7,500
 Ste preparaton, other                             Acres                        3                 19     No Target
 Fuels Treatment, prescribed fire                    Acres                       92                300     No Target
 Fuels Treatment,                                    Acres                      344                976     No Target
 mechancal and other methods
 Plantng, regular stock                              Acres                     125               125          3,100
 Plantng, genetcally selected                       Acres                     202               339          6,100
 Stand Mantenance/Protecton                       Total acres                                               18,300
      Vegetaton control                              Acres                     942              1,564        10,700
       Anmal damage control                          Acres                     335                461         7,600
 Fertlzaton                                        Acres                       0                  0         2,800
 Prunng                                              Acres                   1,554              2,494           900
 Noxious Weeds
 Noxous weeds, chemcal control                      Acres                   1,061              1,701     No Target
 Noxous weeds, other control methods                 Acres                     561                871     No Target
 Rangeland Resources
 Lvestock grazng permts or leases           Total/                               4                4     No Target
                                           Renewed unts
 Anmal Unt Months (actual)                   AUMs                                 23              23     No Target
 Lvestock fences constructed                  Mles                                 0               0             0
 Realty Actions, Rights-of-Ways, Transportation Systems
 Realty, land sales                        Actons/acres                            0                0     No Target
 Realty, land purchases                    Actons/acres                            0                0     No Target
 Realty, land exchanges                    Actons/Acres                            0                0     No Target
                                         acqured/dsposed
 Realty, jursdctonal transfer              Actons/                              0                0     No Target
 (Umpqua Jetty)                            Acres dsposed
 Realty, CBWR Title Clarification             Actons/                              0                0     No Target
                                           Acres dsposed
 Realty, R&PP leases/patents               Actons/Acres                            0                0     No Target
 Realty, road rghts-of-way acqured       Actons/Mles                            0     1/(160 acres)    No Target
 for publc/agency use



                                                     Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006

Table S-1. Coos Bay RMP Planning Area, Summary of Resource Management Actions,
Directions, and Accomplishments – FY 2006
                                                                                                                       Projected
                                                                     Fiscal Year 2006                                   Decadal
      RMP Resource Allocation,                                      Accomplishments                Totals               Practice
  Management Practice, or Activity               Activity Units     or Program Status           FY 2005-2006          (2005-2014)
Realty, other rghts-of-way, permts or           Actons/Mles               0                  1/.750 mles          No Target
leases granted
Realty, utlty rghts-of-way granted (lnear/   Actons/Mles/      2/.16 mles/.48 acres    2/.16 mles/.48 acres    No Target
aeral)                                               Acres
Realty, wthdrawals completed                    Actons/Acres                   0                              0      No Target
Realty, wthdrawals revoked                      Actons/Acres                   0                              0      No Target
(COE on the North Spt)
Realty, wthdrawals completed                    Actons/Acres                   0                              0      No Target




                                                                                                                                   
Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006




v
                                                                                                    Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006

Table of Contents
A Message from the District Manager  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . i
Annual Program Summary  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 1
   Introducton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
   Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
        Ppelne Restoraton Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
        Tmber Sale Ppelne Restoraton Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
        Recreaton Ppelne Restoraton Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
        Recreaton Fee Demonstraton Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   Partnershps, Collaboratve Projects, Volunteers, and Challenge Cost Share Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
        Partnershps/Collaboratve Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
        Volunteers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
        Challenge Cost Share Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
        Cooperatve Conservaton Intatve Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Resource Management Plan Implementation  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .7
   Land Use Allocatons - Changes and Adjustments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
        Land Acqustons and Dsposals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
        Unmapped LSRs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   Aquatc Conservaton Strategy Objectves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
        Watershed Analyss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
        Watershed Councls and Assocatons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
        Watershed Restoraton and Jobs-n-the-Woods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
        County Payments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
   Late-Successonal Reserve Assessments and Restoraton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   Matrx . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
        15 Percent Analyss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Resource Program Accomplishments .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 12
   Ar Qualty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
        Plannng . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
        Water Montorng Actvtes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
        Project Montorng Actvtes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
        Publc Water Systems Usng Surface Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
        Water Qualty Plan Actvtes - State-lsted Clean Water Act 303(d) Streams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   Sols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   Wldlfe Habtat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
        Green Tree and Coarse Woody Debrs Retenton. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
        Snag Creaton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
        Nest Stes, Actvty Centers, Specal Habtats, and Rookeres. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   Fsh Habtat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
        Fsheres Inventory and Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
        Aquatc Habtat Restoraton. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
        Project Montorng . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
        Rparan Improvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
        Techncal Expertse and Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
   Specal Status and SEIS Specal Attenton Speces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
        Specal Status Speces Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
        ESA Secton 7 Consultaton. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
        Survey and Manage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
   Specal Status Speces Program - Wldlfe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
        Federal Threatened and Endangered Speces - Wldlfe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
        Specal Status Speces Program (SSSP) - Wldlfe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
   Specal Status Speces Program - Aquatc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
   Specal Status Speces Program - Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
        Federal Threatened and Endangered Speces - Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      v
Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006
       Specal Status Speces Program (SSSP) - Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
  Specal Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
       New Rver ACEC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
       North Spt ACEC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
       North Fork Hunter Creek ACEC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
  Envronmental Educaton and Interpretaton Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
       Tsalla - the Umpqua Rver Festval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
       Cape Blanco Lghthouse. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
       New Rver ACEC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
       North Spt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
       Loon Lake Recreaton Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
       Dean Creek Elk Vewng Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
       Other Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
  Cultural Resources Includng Amercan Indan Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
  Vsual Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
  Rural Interface Areas/Wldland Urban Interface Areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
  Socoeconomc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
       Monetary Payments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
  Envronmental Justce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
  Recreaton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
       Recreaton Stes Managed and Vstor Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
       Recreaton Trals Managed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
       Specal Recreaton Permts (SRP) Issued. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
       Off-Hghway Vehcle Desgnatons Managed (acres) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
       Major Recreaton Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
       Status of Recreaton Area Management Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
  Forest Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
  Slvcultural Practces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
       Young Stand Slvculture n Late-Successonal Reserves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
  Specal Forest Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
  Energy and Mnerals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
       Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
       Mnerals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
       Geology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
  Range Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
  Access and Rght-of-Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
  Land Tenure Adjustments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
  Transportaton/Roads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
  Noxous Weeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
  Hazardous Materals Management and Resource Restoraton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
  Fre/Fuels Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
  Cadastral Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
  Law Enforcement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
  Geographc Informaton Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
  Natonal Envronmental Polcy Act Analyss and Documentaton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
       Protest and Appeals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
  Coordnaton and Consultaton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
  Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
RMP Maintenance and Amendments .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 54
  Plan Mantenance for FY 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
  Plan Mantenance for FY 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
  Plan Mantenance for FY 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
  Plan Mantenance for FY 1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
  Plan Mantenance for FY 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
  Plan Mantenance for FY 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
  Plan Mantenance for FY 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
  Plan Mantenance for FY 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

v
                                                                                                               Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006
    RMP Amendments for FY 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
    Plan Mantenance for FY 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
    Plan Mantenance for FY 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
    Plan Mantenance for FY 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
    RMP Amendments for FY 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
    Plan Mantenance for FY 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
    Plan Mantenance for FY 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Resource Management Plan Evaluations  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 65
    Thrd Year Evaluaton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
    Eghth Year Evaluaton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
    Evaluaton of Coos Bay RMP Relatve to Four Northern Spotted Owl Reports. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
    Western Oregon Resource Management Plan Revsons (WOPR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Resource Management Plan Monitoring  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 69
    Provnce Level Implementaton Montorng . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
         Effectveness Montorng . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Coos Bay District Resource Management Plan FY 2006 Monitoring Report .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 71
    Introducton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
    Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
         Summary of Fndngs and Recommendatons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
    Coos Bay District Specific Monitoring Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
         All Land Use Allocatons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
         Rparan Reserves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
         Late-Successonal Reserves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
         Matrx . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
         Ar Qualty. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
         Water and Sols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
         Wldlfe Habtat. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
         Fsh Habtat. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
         Specal Status and SEIS Specal Attenton Speces Habtat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
         Specal Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
         Cultural Resources Includng Amercan Indan Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
         Vsual Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
         Wld and Scenc Rvers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
         Rural Interface Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
         Socoeconomc Condtons. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
         Recreaton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
         Tmber Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
         Specal Forest Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
         Noxous Weeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
         Fre/Fuels Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Glossary  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 99
Acronyms/Abbreviations .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 104
Appendix A .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 107
    Coos Bay Dstrct Watershed Analyss Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
Appendix B  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 111
    Comparsons Between ROD Projectons and Actual Harvest. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                v
Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006

List of Tables and Figures
Table S-1. Coos Bay RMP Plannng Area, Summary of Resource Management Actons, Drectons, and Accomplshments –
  FY 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
Table 1. Summary of Fee Recreaton Stes for Fscal Year 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Table 2. FY 2006 Challenge Cost Share Contrbutons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Table 3. Watershed Analyss Documents Coverng Coos Bay Dstrct Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Table 4. Ttle II Projects Approved for Fundng n FY 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Table 5. Ffth Feld Watersheds Wth Deferred Regeneraton Harvest. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Table 6. Coos Bay Dstrct Water Qualty Management Plans Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Table 7. Freshwater and Marne Survval for West Fork Smth Rver Salmond Lfe-Cycle Montorng. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Table 8. Summary of Acreage Desgnated as Marbled Murrelet Habtat, Surveyed to Protocol and Delneated as Occuped LSR
  n 2006 on the Coos Bay Dstrct, BLM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Table 9. Coos Bay RMP, Summary of Socoeconomc Actvtes and Allocatons. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Table 10. FY 2006 Secure Rural Schools Payments to Countes Under P.L. 106-393 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Table 11. Ttle II Payments Coos, Curry, and Douglas Countes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Table 12. Extensve and Specal Recreaton Management Areas (ERMA/SRMA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Table 13. Tmber Volumes Offered n Fscal Years 2005-2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Table 14. Fscal Year 2006 Advertsed Tmber Sales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Table 15. Actual Acres and ASQ Volume Sold from the Matrx n FY 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Table 16. Summary of Volume Sold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Table 17. Summary of Volume Sold but Unawarded. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Table 18. Matrx ASQ Volume and Acres Sold by Allocatons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Table 19. Matrx ASQ Volume and Acres Sold by Harvest Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Table 20. Acres of Harvest wthn the Reserve Sold by Harvest Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Table 21. ASQ Sale Acres Sold by Age Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Fgure 1.Comparson of Regeneraton Harvest Acres by Fscal Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Fgure 2.Comparson of Commercal Thnnng Acres by Fscal Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Table 22. Annual ROD Projectons and Accomplshments for Slvcultural Practces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Table 23. Slvcultural Practces n Late-Successonal Reserves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Table 24. Summary of Specal Forest/Natural Product Sales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Table 25. No Net Loss Report for FY 98 to 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Table 26. Annual Fuels Management Accomplshments for Hazardous Fuels Reducton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Table 27. Coos Bay Dstrct Cadastral Survey Actvty. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Table 28. Redefine Categories Based on Species Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Table 29. (Revsed) BLM-Admnstered Land n the Plannng Area by County (acres) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Table 30. FY 2006 Project Numbers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Table 31. FY 2006 Projects Avalable and Selected for Montorng by Selecton Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Table A-1. Watershed Analyss Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
Table B-1. ROD Harvest Projectons and Annual Accomplshments (Acres and MMBF by Age Class) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
Table B-2. Allowable Sale Quantty (ASQ) Reconclaton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114




v
                                    Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006

Annual Program Summary
  Introduction
          Ths Annual Program Summary (APS) s a requrement of the Coos Bay District Resource Management
          Plan and Record of Decision (RMP/ROD). It s a progress report on the varous programs and actvtes
          that have occurred on the Dstrct durng Fscal Year (FY) 2006, and provdes an ndcaton of
          some upcomng actvtes for FY 2007. It also reports on the results of the Dstrct mplementaton
          montorng n accordance the RMP/ROD. Cumulatve nformaton coverng the second decade
          (FY 2005-2014) of mplementaton s sometmes lsted for several programs.

          In Aprl 1994 the Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning
          Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl was sgned by the Secretary of Agrculture and the
          Secretary of the Interor. (In ths document ths plan wll be referred to as the Northwest Forest Plan
          [NFP]). The RMP/ROD was approved n May 1995 and adopted and ncorporated the Standards and
          Gudelnes from the NFP n the form of Management Actons/Drecton.

          Both the NFP and RMP/ROD embrace the concepts of ecosystem management at a much broader
          perspectve than had been tradtonal n the past. Land Use Allocatons were establshed n the NFP
          coverng all federal lands wthn the range of the spotted owl. Analyss such as watershed analyss
          and Late-Successonal Reserve Assessments are conducted at a broader scale and nvolve other land
          owners n addton to BLM. These analyses look at resource values from a landscape level, wth an
          ecosystem perspectve.

          The RMP was modified in 2004 by two Supplemental Environmental Impact Statements (SEIS). They
          are Management of Port-Orford-Cedar in Southwest Oregon and the Clarification of Language in the 1994 Record
          of Decision for the Northwest Forest Plan, both of whch are currently n ltgaton. A thrd SEIS was sgned
          n March 2004, the Record of Decision to Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards
          and Guidelines, but a recent rulng by a U.S. Dstrct Court ruled portons of the SEIS nadequate.

          The Dstrct has been nvolved wth the Southwestern Oregon Provncal Advsory Commttee
          nvolvng federal agences, local governmental bodes, Natve Amercan trbes, and nterest groups, as
          well as watershed councls whch have been formed to address concerns at the local watershed level.
          The Commttee has addressed ssues spannng all resources and ownershps wthn the southwestern
          Oregon provnce.

          The Coos Bay Dstrct admnsters approxmately 324,800 acres located n Coos, Curry, Douglas, and
          Lane countes. Under the NFP and the RMP/ROD, these lands are ncluded n three prmary Land
          Use Allocatons: Matrx, where the majorty of commodty producton wll occur; Late-Successonal
          Reserves, where provdng habtat for late-successonal and old-growth forest related speces s
          emphaszed; and Rparan Reserves, where mantanng water qualty and the aquatc ecosystem s
          emphaszed. The RMP establshed objectves for management of 17 resource programs occurrng on
          the Dstrct. Not all land use allocatons and resource programs are dscussed ndvdually n a detaled
          manner n ths APS because of the overlap of programs and projects. Lkewse, a detaled background
          of the varous land use allocatons or resource programs s not ncluded n the APS to keep ths
          document reasonably concse. Complete nformaton can be found n the RMP/ROD and supportng
          Environmental Impact Statement, both of which are available at the District office.

          The manner of reportng the actvtes dffers between the varous programs. Some actvtes and
          programs lend themselves to statstcal summares whle others are best summarzed n short narratves.
          Further details concerning individual programs may be obtained by contacting the District office.




                                                                                                                      1
Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006

         Budget
                             The Dstrct budget for FY 2006 was approxmately $14,591,000. Ths ncluded approxmately
                             $12,721,000 n the Oregon and Calforna Ralroad Lands (O&C) accounts, $384,000 n the
                             Management of Lands and Resources (MLR) accounts, $521,000 in the fire account, $844,000 in the
                             Tmber and Recreaton Ppelne Restoraton accounts, and $121,000 n “other” accounts.

                             Durng FY 2006, the Dstrct employed 130 full-tme personnel, and a total of 23 part-tme,
                             temporary, term, and Student Career Educaton Program employees. The number of temporary, term,
                             and cooperatve student employees vared throughout the year.

                             Total appropratons for the Coos Bay Dstrct have been steadly declnng durng the perod between
                             1998 and 2006, wth a total decrease of $803,100 and an approxmate average appropraton of
                             $14,636,000. In addton to the approprated funds n the Dstrct budget descrbed above, $1,450,357
                             n Ttle II project contracts were awarded, as descrbed n the County Payments secton. Note: the
                             Jobs-n-the-Woods fundng has been drected towards densty management treatment wthn Late-
                             Successonal Reserves.


                   Pipeline Restoration Funds
                             The Ppelne Restoraton Fund was establshed under Secton 327 of the Omnbus Consoldated
                             Rescssons and Appropratons Act of 1996 (Publc Law (PL) 104-134). The Act establshed separate
                             funds for the Forest Servce and BLM, usng revenues generated by tmber sales released under
                             secton 2001(k) of the FY 95 Supplemental Appropratons for Dsaster Assstance and Rescssons
                             Act. PL 104-134 directs that 75 percent of the Fund be used to prepare sales sufficient to achieve
                             the total Allowable Sale Quantty (ASQ) and that 25 percent of the Fund be used on the backlog
                             of recreaton projects. BLM’s goal s to use the Fund to regan one year’s lead tme n ASQ tmber
                             sale preparation work over a five to seven year time frame, to reduce the backlog of maintenance at
                             recreaton stes, and address crucal unresolved vstor servces or recreaton management needs.


                   Timber Sale Pipeline Restoration Program
                             The followng tmber management actons were completed n FY 2006 wth Tmber Sale
                             Restoraton Funds:
                             - The Coal Mnor DM FY 2005 tmber sale was re-offered and sold wth a volume of 1,532 MBF
                               (thousand board feet) of densty management wthn the Late-Successonal Reserve.
                             - The Brown Elk FY 2005 tmber sale was re-offered and sold wth a volume of 2,095 MBF of
                               regeneraton harvest and commercal thnnng wthn the Matrx and the Rparan Reserve.
                             - The Marten Track DM tmber sale was offered and sold wth a volume of 3,879 MBF of densty
                               management wthn the Late-Successonal Reserve.
                             - The South Powerstrp CT tmber sale was offered and sold wth a volume of 6,385 MBF of
                               commercal thnnng and hardwood converson wthn the Matrx and Rparan Reserve.
                             - The North Powerstrp CT tmber sale was offered and sold wth a volume of 4,792 MBF of
                               commercal thnnng and hardwood converson wthn the Matrx and Rparan Reserve.
                             - The Seed Orchard CT tmber sale was offered and sold wth a volume of 12,178 MBF of
                               commercal thnnng wthn the Matrx and Rparan Reserve.
                             - The McKnley Garage CT tmber sale was offered and sold wth a volume of 3,774 MBF of
                               commercal thnnng and hardwood converson wthn the Matrx and Rparan Reserve.
                             - The Green Peak tmber sale was offered wth a volume of 936 MBF of regeneraton harvest wthn
                               the Matrx.




2
                              Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006
Recreation Pipeline Restoration Program
     Twenty-five percent of these funds are dedicated to recreation backlog projects on O&C Districts of
     western Oregon. The funds are ntended to reduce nfrastructure replacement or faclty mantenance
     needs and resolve critical visitor safety or recreation management needs or issues identified in land use
     plans. Recreaton ste resource protecton needs can also be met. In FY 2006, the Coos Bay Dstrct
     oblgated $222,024 of recreaton ppelne funds to the followng projects:

     Umpqua Field Office ($175,970)
     - Loon Lake SRMA: development of new self regstraton staton and repar of amphtheater
       electrcal system ($24,453).
     - Dean Creek Elk Vewng Area SRMA: new restroom, access enhancements, and parkng lot turn
       radus mprovements ($126,862).
     - North Spt: parkng lot sealng and pantng and new host ste development ($24,655).

     Myrtlewood Field Office ($31,297)
     - New Rver ACEC/SRMA: roof replacement on the Ellen Warrng Educaton Center and addtonal
       enhancements to the nteror and nterpretve exhbts n the educaton center ($29,687).
     - Sxes SRMA: low water crossng repars n the Edson Creek Campground ($1,610).

     District Trails ($3,783)
     - Fundng for supples and materals to assst the Northwest Youth Corps n completng tral
       mantenance projects at Hunter Creek, New Rver, Euphora Rdge and Blue Rdge.

     District Recreation Sites ($10,974)
     - Used to support the replacement of falng vault tolets wthn several recreaton stes.


Recreation Fee Demonstration Program
     In March 1998, the Coos Bay Dstrct receved approval for establshng ts Recreaton Plot Fee
     Demonstraton Project under authorty of Secton 315 of Publc Law 104-134. In December 2004,
     the Federal Lands Recreaton Enhancement Act was passed and t extended the BLM’s authorty to
     allow for the retenton and expendture of recreaton fees for the operatons and mantenance of
     recreaton stes where the fees were collected. A specal fee account was establshed for each ste n
     the Dstrct where fees are collected for campng and other recreaton uses. These fee stes are located
     at Loon Lake (whch ncludes East Shore Campground), Sxes Rver, Edson Creek Campgrounds,
     and the Cape Blanco Lghthouse. Fees collected for Golden Passports and recreaton permts are also
     deposted nto ths account.

     The amount of revenue collected and the number of vstors for each fee demonstraton ste s shown
     n Table 1.



      Table 1. Summary of Fee Recreation Sites for Fiscal Year 2006
                    Fee Sites                     Number of Recreation Visits             Fee Revenues
      Umpqua Field Office,                               59,029 Vsts                       $117,134
      Loon Lake - OR11
      Myrtlewood Field Office,                                9,743 Vsts                     $15,629
      Sxes/Edson - OR12
      Myrtlewood Field Office,                               23,000 Vsts                     $17,922
      Cape Blanco Lghthouse - OR32
      Total for the Coos Bay District                        91,772 Visits                     $150,685



                                                                                                             3
Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006
                             Recreaton fee revenues n Coos Bay Dstrct decreased by 2 percent over FY 2005 collectons,
                             although the number of vsts ncreased by 4 percent. Ths may be due n part to new fee collectng
                             standards under the Federal Lands Recreaton Enhancement Act.


         Partnerships, Collaborative Projects, Volunteers, and
         Challenge Cost Share Projects
                  Partnerships/Collaborative Projects
                            - Coos Regional Bikeway and Trails Partnership (CRTP): The purpose of ths partnershp s to
                              provde tral managers wth nput from dverse tral enthusast groups nvolved n hkng, equestran,
                              OHV, mountan bke and water based recreaton and to provde assstance n the mantenance
                              and development of tral opportuntes n the Coos Regon. Partners nclude local, state and
                              federal agences and prvate busnesses and nterest groups. Accomplshments n 2006 ncluded
                              holdng work partes to mantan the Wnchester Creek multple use tral and assstng the Bay Area
                              Hosptal’s Healthy Hkng program by completng 7 communty hkes wth over 200 partcpants.
                            - Cape Blanco Lighthouse Cooperative Management Partnership: The Cape Blanco Lghthouse
                              Natonal Hstorc Ste (NHS) s managed by BLM under agreement wth the U.S. Coast Guard. A
                              Managng Partnershp MOU was completed that ncluded the Frends of Cape Blanco and Curry
                              County as official partners, adding local representation to the partnership. This diverse partnership
                              also ncludes the Confederated Trbe of Sletz Indans of Oregon, the Coqulle Indan Trbe, and
                              Oregon Parks and Recreaton Department. Durng the 7-month long tour season (Aprl through
                              October), Oregon Parks and Recreaton Department volunteers operate tours and provde logstcal
                              support, whle the Frends of Cape Blanco collect fees and voluntary donatons, and manage
                              greetng center book sales.
                            - Oregon Coastal Environments Awareness Network (OCEAN): BLM s an actve member
                              of OCEAN whch provdes a forum to plan, facltate and promote nformaton and programs
                              related to natural and cultural resources for resdents and vstors to the regon. Partners nclude a
                              varety of agences, organzatons, educators and ctzens. OCEAN s one of the major sponsors for
                              Tsalla: the Umpqua Rver Festval, and asssts wth grant money coordnaton and bllng.
                              The focus of 2006 was (1) conductng teacher workshops n MARE (Marne Actvtes, Resources
                              and Educaton), a water-based currcula to local educators, usng grant mones to have Oregon
                              Insttute of Marne Bology graduate students assst wth classroom teachng, (2) producng
                              a calendar of educatonal events, (3) workng on a plan update for the organzaton, and (4)
                              developng educatonal dsplays.
                            - Tsalila - Participating Agreement: The purpose of Tsalla s to provde a year-round natural
                              resource educaton program, complete watershed restoraton and habtat enhancement projects,
                              and create a destnaton tourst event to bolster local economes (Umpqua Rver Festval). BLM
                              partcpated n steerng commttee meetngs, ncludng the educaton commttee, provded
                              assistance with field trips and education programs for local schools as well as participated in the
                              annual festval. The partners nclude: Cty of Reedsport, Umpqua Dscovery Center, Reedsport/
                              Wnchester Bay Chamber of Commerce, Suslaw Natonal Forest, Reedsport schools, and
                              Confederated Trbes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Suslaw.
                              The Tsalla Partnershp celebrated ts 10th annversary ths year. Over 60,000 people have
                              partcpated n free programs offered by the partnershp snce 1996.
                            - New River Breaching Project: Developed a workng partnershp wth four adjacent ranchers, the
                              Sol and Water Conservaton Dstrct, and Oregon Department of Parks and Recreaton n dealng
                              with flood alleviation and aquatic habitats issues at the New River ACEC.
                            - Umpqua Discovery Center: Informaton and educaton center n Reedsport. Partners n addton
                              to Coos Bay BLM nclude U.S. Forest Servce, Cty of Reedsport, et al.
                            - Oregon/Washington Western Snowy Plover Working Team: The Team s made up of staff
                              from several agences nvolved n plover management along the coast. Coordnated projects

4
                              Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006
       ncluded: publc outreach, habtat restoraton, predator control, research, montorng, and recreaton
       management. In FY 2006, the Oregon/ Washngton Team hosted the annual range-wde meetng
       for the six working teams along the Pacific coast to share information and network.
     - Oregon Bat Working Group: Actng as the local component of the North Amercan Bat
       Conservaton Partnershp, the group provdes a forum for nformaton exchange, project
       coordination, grant coordination, conservation strategy development and identification of research
       needs. The goal of these groups s to conserve varous bat resources through nteragency and group
       coordnaton. Coos Bay bat survey data s shared wth the group’s statewde database.
     - “Seeds of Success” Program: Begnnng n 2002, the Dstrct has partcpated n the “Seeds of
       Success” program, an nternatonal natve seed collecton program n cooperaton wth the Royal
       Botanc Gardens, Kew. The goal of the Seeds of Success program s to collect between 10,000 and
       20,000 seeds per speces by 2010 from over 4,000 natve speces for use n restoraton of dsturbed
       land. More nformaton on the project can be found onlne at <http:www.nps.gov/plants/sos/>.
       Durng 2006, Dstrct staff collected seeds and pressed and dred voucher specmens of two
       species: Douglas-fir and honeysuckle. Since 2002, the District has collected seeds of 29 species.
       One addtonal speces wll be collected next year.


Volunteers
     Over 304 ndvduals donated 11,518 hours of volunteer servce to the Coos Bay Dstrct to help
     admnster the naton’s publc lands n FY 2006. The Dstrct had 24 ndvdual agreements donatng
     9,958 hours and 6 group agreements coverng 280 people and 1,560 hours.

     The vast majorty of the hours donated were from recreaton ste volunteer hosts. They provde
     an on-ste presence for BLM, gve vstors pertnent nformaton, and perform lght mantenance
     dutes. Volunteers also asssted the Dstrct wth bologcal and watershed montorng, admnstratve
     assstance n creatng a data base for a botany project and envronmental educaton at the Dean Creek
     wldlfe vewng area.

     In addton to ndvduals, some of the volunteer organzaton nclude: the Amercan Rhododendron
     Socety, Lower Umpqua Senor Center, Coos County Rders Assocaton, Oregon Equestran Trals,
     and the Grl Scouts of Amerca.

     Special Events
     The Dstrct once agan held two Natonal Publc Lands Day events; one on the North Spt and
     another at New Rver. On the North Spt, fences were removed wth recyclable materals separated;
     three WWII concrete bunkers were cleaned up; and trash and nvasve weeds were removed from four
     mles of a sand road. Over 100 volunteers donated 400-plus hours, ncluded n the calculatons above,
     for ths event.

     The focus at New Rver was to restore coastal meadows, whch ncluded the removal of encroachng
     shore pne trees. Forty volunteers donated over 160 hours at the New Rver NPLD celebraton. A
     specal partnershp wth local schools made ths NPLD event qute successful.




                                                                                                             5
Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006
                   Challenge Cost Share Projects
                             Challenge Cost Share Contrbutons utlzed by the Dstrct n FY 2006 are shown n Table 2.


                         Table 2. FY 2006 Challenge Cost Share Contributions
                                        Project                                BLM Contribution
                         Ongong Snowy Plover Recovery                                $3,000
                         Ongong Watershed Educaton                                 $10,000
                         Commercal Thnnng and Spotted Owls                        $12,000
                         Ongong Western Lly                                         $3,000
                         Dean Creek Elk Vewng Area                                  $5,000
                                                          Total                      $33,000



                   Cooperative Conservation Initiative Projects
                             No Cooperatve Conservaton Intatve projects were funded on the Coos Bay Dstrct n FY 2006.




6
                                    Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006

Resource Management Plan Implementation
  Land Use Allocations - Changes and Adjustments
      Land Acquisitions and Disposals
           The Dstrct dd not acqure or dspose of any lands n FY 2006; therefore, there was no net change n
           the Dstrct Land Use Allocatons.


      Unmapped LSRs
           The RMP requres that two years of marbled murrelet surveys be conducted to protocol to detect
           occuped habtat, pror to human dsturbance of sutable habtat (stands 80-years of age and older).
           When the surveys ndcate occupaton (e.g., actve nest, fecal rng or eggshell fragments, and brds
           flying below, through, into, or out of the forest canopy within or adjacent to a stand), the District will
           protect contguous exstng and recrutment habtat for marbled murrelets (.e., stands that are capable
           of becomng marbled murrelet habtat wthn 25 years) wthn a 0.5 mle radus of any ste where the
           brds’ behavor ndcates occupaton.

           As a result of the marbled murrelet surveys, 21,222 acres of occupied habitat have been identified within
           the Matrx snce the RMP was approved. These lands are now beng managed as unmapped LSRs.


  Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives
      Watershed Analysis
           The watershed analyss process was ntended to provde managers and nterdscplnary teams
           nformaton about the natural resources and human uses at the watershed or subwatershed scale.
           This information is used in National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation for specific
           projects, and to facltate complance wth the Endangered Speces Act and Clean Water Act by
           provdng nformaton for consultaton wth other agences.

           As of the end of FY 1999, 22 first iteration watershed analysis documents, covering 299,533 acres (93
           percent) of the BLM lands on Coos Bay Dstrct, had been prepared (Table 3). The remanng Dstrct
           lands, not covered by a watershed analyss, are n watersheds where BLM manages less than 6 percent
           of the land base.

           Snce 1999, the Dstrct has concentrated on completng second or even thrd teratons of watershed
           analyss. Many of the earler watershed analyses were not detaled enough to address questons
           currently beng demanded by regulatory agences and ltgaton judgments.

           In FY 2006, a second teraton analyss was ntated for the Umpqua Rver-Sawyer Rapds Watershed
           and s scheduled for completon n FY 2007. In addton, a mnor revson was conducted to the 2000
           East Fork Coqulle analyss descrbng addtonal management objectves wthn the Rparan Reserves.




                                                                                                                    7
Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006

 Table 3. Watershed Analysis Documents Covering Coos Bay District Lands
                                       Document Name                                          Lead
       Year        (Hydrologic unit name if different from document name)             Administrative Unit   Iteration
       1994           Lower Umpqua Frontal (Mddle Umpqua Frontal)                  Coos Bay BLM                1st
                      Mddle Fork Coqulle                                          Coos Bay-BLM               1st
       1995           Smth Rver (Lower Upper Smth Rver)                         Roseburg-BLM               1st
                      Mddle Umpqua Frontal (Waggoner Creek)                        Roseburg-BLM               1st
                      Paradse Creek                                                Coos Bay-BLM               1st
                      Mddle Creek                                                  Coos Bay-BLM               1st
                      North Coqulle                                                Coos Bay-BLM               1st
                      Farvew                                                      Coos Bay-BLM               1st
                      Sandy Creek                                                   Coos Bay-BLM               2nd
       1996           Mddle Smth Rver                                            Coos Bay-BLM               1st
                      Mll Creek                                                    Coos Bay-BLM               1st
                      Oxbow                                                         Coos Bay-BLM               1st
                      Lower South Fork Coqulle                                     Coos Bay-BLM               1st
                      West Fork Smth                                               Coos Bay-BLM               1st
                      Toga Creek                                                   Coos Bay-BLM               1st
                      Sandy Remote                                                  Coos Bay-BLM             2nd/3rd
       1997           Smth Rver (North Fork Smth Rver)                          Suslaw NF               1st/2nd
                      Upper Mddle Umpqua                                           Coos Bay-BLM                1st
                      Mddle Man/North Fork/Catchng Creek                         Coos Bay-BLM               1st
                      North Chetco                                                  Coos Bay-BLM               1st
                      Sxes Rver Watershed Analyss                                Powers Ranger Dst.        1st
                      Bg Creek                                                     Coos Bay-BLM               2nd
       1998           Lower Umpqua (Lower Umpqua Frontal)                           Suslaw NF                 1st
                      Hunter Creek                                                  Suslaw NF                 1st
                      Pstol Rver Watershed Analyss                               Sskyou NF                1st
                      Elk Rver Watershed Analyss                                  Sskyou NF                2nd
       1999           South Fork Coos Rver                                         Coos Bay-BLM             1st/2nd
                      East Fork Coqulle                                            Coos Bay-BLM                1st
                      Lobster Creek                                                 Sskyou NF                1st
                      Rogue Rver Watershed Analyss                                Sskyou NF                1st
       2000           South Fork Coos Rver                                         Coos Bay-BLM               3rd
       2001           North Fork Coqulle                                           Coos Bay-BLM               2nd
                      South Fork Coos Rver                                         Coos Bay-BLM               4th
       2002           Oxbow                                                         Coos Bay-BLM               2nd
                      Upper Umpqua                                                  Roseburg-BLM               2nd
       2003           Mddle Umpqua Rver                                           Coos Bay-BLM               2nd
                      Pstol Rver Watershed Analyss                               Sskyou NF                2nd
        2004          added chapters to the 2003 Mddle Umpqua Rver                Coos Bay-BLM               2nd
        2005          Mll Creek-Lower Umpqua Rver                                 Coos Bay-BLM               2nd
        2006          none
    Planned 2007      Lower Smth Rver-Lower Umpqua Rver                          Coos Bay-BLM               2nd



8
                            Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006
Watershed Councils and Associations
    The Dstrct coordnates wth and offers assstance to two watershed assocatons and three watershed
    councls, as shown below. Ths provdes an excellent forum for exchange of deas, partnerng,
    educaton and promotng watershed-wde restoraton. Bologsts, sols scentsts, hydrologsts, noxous
    weed specalsts, and other resource professonals attended monthly commttee meetngs and asssted
    wth on the ground project revews n cooperaton wth watershed assocaton coordnators and other
    agency personnel.

        Watershed Group                           Field Office
        Coos Watershed Assocaton                Umpqua
        Coqulle Watershed Assocaton            Umpqua/Myrtlewood
        Smth Rver Watershed Councl             Umpqua
        South Coast Watershed Councl             Myrtlewood
        Partnershp for the Umpqua Rvers         Umpqua

    As an example, n 2006 the Dstrct partnered wth the Partnershp for the Umpqua Rvers to
    mplement a $400,000 n-stream restoraton project on Paradse Creek, a trbutary to the Umpqua
    Rver. Ths project mproved 11 mles of coho salmon spawnng and rearng habtat. Project
    mplementaton occurred on both BLM-managed lands and prvately-owned land. Project partners
    ncluded the Partnershp for the Umpqua Rvers, BLM, Oregon Department of Fsh and Wldlfe,
    Roseburg Resources, Inc., and a local landowner.


Watershed Restoration and Jobs-in-the-Woods
    The Jobs-n-the-Wood program ended n 2006. The program, ntally envsoned to help tran and
    transition displaced timber workers and fishers to new areas of work, met with mixed success in terms
    of generatng new avenues of employment. However, durng ts 10 year hstory, the program funded
    several mllon dollars n watershed restoraton and nfrastructure mantenance projects on Federally-
    managed and prvate lands across the Dstrct.

    Watershed restoraton efforts contnued wth the use of BLM program funds and Ttle II fundng
    assocated wth the Secure Rural Schools and Communty Self Determnaton Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-
    393). Table 4, below, dsplays how Ttle II funds were allocated n 2006. Restoraton undertaken wth
    program specific dollars are identified elsewhere in this report.


County Payments
    The Coos Bay District is one of five Western Oregon BLM Districts working with local counties
    and communtes to mplement the Secure Rural Schools and Communty Self-Determnaton Act
    of 2000. Under Ttle II of the Act, countes can elect to desgnate a porton of the funds they
    receve under the Secure Rural Schools and Communtes Self-Determnaton Act to be used for
    specal projects on Federal Lands. These project funds may be used by the Secretary of the Interor
    for the purpose of enterng nto and mplementng cooperatve agreements wth wllng Federal
    Agencies, State and local governments, private and non-profit entities, and landowners for protection,
    restoration and enhancement of fish and wildlife habitat, and other resource objectives consistent
    with the purpose of this title on Federal lands and on non-Federal lands where projects would benefit
    these resources on Federal lands.

    Funds made avalable n FY 2006 under Ttle II by the three countes (ncludng carryover from
    prevous years) wthn the BLM Coos Bay Dstrct were as follows: Coos County - $639,194; Curry
    County - $208,175; and Douglas County - $710,587.

    Projects elgble for Ttle II fundng were revewed and recommended for fundng by the BLM Coos
    Bay District Resource Advisory Council (RAC). The RAC reviewed a total of thirty-five projects
    submtted by the BLM, Coos County, Curry County, the Coqulle Indan Trbe, local watershed
    groups, and others. Table 4 dsplays the types of projects recommended and subsequently approved
    for fundng and the money dstrbuton n each of the project categores.

                                                                                                            9
Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006

 Table 4. Title II Projects Approved for Funding in FY 2006
                             Number of Coos Number of Curry Number of Douglas                               Total Funding for
       Type of Project       County Projects County Projects County Projects                               Projects in FY 2006
 In-stream Large Wood               0               0               1                                              $43,520
 Placement
 In-stream Culvert                  0               0               0                                                       $0
 Replacement
 Rparan/Channel                   0               2               0                                                $ 73,250
 Restoraton
 Road Related Restoraton           0               1               0                                                 $23,934
 Noxous Weed Control               4               1               2                                                $159,562
 Montorng                         0               0               2                                                 $87,300
 Tral Mantenance                  0               0               1                                                $123,544
 Other                              5               1               4                                                $939,247
                       Total        9               5              10                                              $1,450,357


         Late-Successional Reserve Assessments
         and Restoration
                             The RMP requres the completon of Late-Successonal Reserve Assessments (LSRA) pror to habtat
                             manpulaton wthn the LSR desgnaton. The Oregon Coast Province – Southern Portion LSRA (1997) and
                             the South Coast – Northern Klamath LSRA (1998) completes the assessments for LSRs wthn the Coos
                             Bay Dstrct.

                             In FY 2006, Coal Mnor DM, Marten Track DM, and Homolac DM tmber sales were offered and
                             sold. Each of these sales was developed n accord wth the management recommendatons contaned
                             n the South Coast – Northern Klamath LSR Assessment. In addton to actvty n these commercal szed
                             stands, pre-commercal densty management projects have also been conducted n younger stands to
                             facltate the development of late-successonal stand characterstcs n these stands.


         Matrix
                   15 Percent Analysis
                             The Coos Bay Dstrct RMP ROD (page 53) requres that the BLM provde for the retenton of late-
                             successonal/old-growth fragments n the Matrx where lttle remans. The standards and gudelnes
                             are to be applied to any fifth field watershed in which federal forest lands are currently comprised of
                             15 percent or less late-successonal forest, consderng all land allocatons. A 15 percent analyss was
                             completed n 1999 n accordance wth a jont BLM/FS Instructon Memorandum that was ssued
                             on September 14, 1998. All Coos Bay Dstrct sales sold under the RMP have compled wth the 15
                             percent rule usng the ntal analyss.

                             Watersheds wth less than 15 percent less late-successonal forest or deferred harvest are shown n
                             Table 5.




10
                           Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006

        Table 5. Fifth Field Watersheds With Deferred
        Regeneration Harvest
                                       Percentage of Federal Forest Harvestable Acres
                Watershed                      80+ Years Old            Deferred
        Lower Coqulle Rver                         4.4                   160
        Mddle Man Coqulle Rver                   0.0                   767
        Lower Coos Rver/Coos Rver                 17.7                   935
        Whaleshead Creek                            27.1                    66
                             Total Deferred Regeneration Harvest Acres   1,928

The total 1,928 deferred acres represents about 4 percent of the Dstrct’s Matrx acres. Deferrng these acres
from harvesting has no significant impact on the District’s sustainable ASQ.

Only the Lower Coquille River and the Middle Main Coquille River fifth field watersheds have less
than 15 percent late-successonal forest; regeneraton harvest n these two watersheds wll be deferred
untl the 15 percent standard s met. Regeneraton harvest wll also be deferred at least one decade
n the Whaleshead Creek and Lower Coos Rver/Coos Rver watersheds n order to be sure that
harvestng wll not reduce the late-successonal forest component below 15 percent.




                                                                                                                  11
Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006

Resource Program Accomplishments
                             The remander of the APS wll report progress n mplementng the RMP by program area.


         Air Quality
                             All prescribed fire activities conformed to the Oregon Smoke Management and Visibility Protection
                             Plans. No ntrusons occurred nto desgnated areas as a result of prescrbed burnng and fuels
                             treatment actvtes on the Dstrct. There are no Class I arsheds wthn the Dstrct.

                             Air quality standards for the District’s prescribed fire and fuels program are monitored and controlled
                             by the Oregon Department of Forestry through ther “Operaton Gudance for the Oregon Smoke
                             Management Program.”


         Water
                             Program specalsts supported both regonal and Dstrct plannng efforts and contnued to focus on
                             water qualty and quantty montorng and project effectveness montorng.


                   Planning
                             Hydrology staff contrbuted to the ongong Western Oregon Plan Revsons project as members of
                             the Interdscplnary Team and the Dstrct Support Team.

                             Hydrologsts were nvolved wth the desgn, envronmental clearance, and mplementaton of several
                             habtat enhancement and commercal actvtes across the Dstrct. Tmber projects ncluded the
                             Mddle Creek CTs II and Umpqua Rver – Sawyer Rapds thnnng projects (10,900 acres total) and
                             the Remote Control and Green Peak regeneraton sales (210 acres total). Habtat projects ncluded the
                             Edson Creek, New Rver, and Paradse Creek large wood placements, the Dean Creek Elk Vewng
                             Area culvert and tde gate nstallatons, and plover habtat restoraton at New Rver. Clearances for
                             two proposed land sales on the North Spt were also a prorty.

                             Work began on the second teraton of the Lower Smth Rver – Lower Umpqua Rver Watershed
                             Analyss (36,981 acres).


                   Water Monitoring Activities
                             Stream flow and water temperature were collected at the BLM-funded West Fork Smith River and
                             Vncent Creek gagng statons n the Lower Smth Rver – Lower Umpqua Rver 5th field watershed.
                             Both statons have been n operaton snce 1980 and are mantaned under a cooperatve agreement wth
                             the Oregon Water Resources Department. The Envronmental Protecton Agency s usng data from the
                             West Fork staton n an ongong basn-wde study of juvenle coho movement and habtat utlzaton.

                             Real-tme data was collected at four Remote Automated Weather Statons (RAWS) owned by the
                             Dstrct and mantaned by the Predctve Servces program at the Natonal Interagency Fre Center.
                             These statons, part of an ntegrated network of over 1,500 RAWS located throughout the naton,
                             support our ongong need for accurate and geographcally representatve weather nformaton.
                             Addtonal precptaton data was gathered wth automated tppng-bucket ran gages at the Dean
                             Creek Elk Vewng Area, Spencer Slde, and the West Fork Smth Rver mantenance shop.

                             Daly, monthly, quarterly and annual water testng was completed as scheduled at the Dean Creek Elk
                             Vewng Area and at four recreaton stes: Loon Lake, New Rver, Edson Creek, and Sxes Rver.



12
                             Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006
     Pursuant to a Water Polluton Control Facltes permt, quarterly ground water samplng was
     completed at the Loon Lake Recreation Area drainfield. The Oregon Department of Environmental
     Qualty has approved BLM’s request to move from quarterly to sem-annual montorng.

     Dstrct staff asssted the Umpqua Sol and Water Conservaton Dstrct wth a Secure Rural Schools-
     funded water qualty montorng project. Thrty-one contnuous temperature loggers were deployed n
     eleven streams on BLM and Roseburg Resources lands to valdate 303(d) lstngs, change the length of
     water qualty lmted stream reaches or provde nformaton necessary to de-lst streams.


Project Monitoring Activities
     Surface and ground water montorng wth automated loggers contnued at the Dean Creek Elk
     Vewng Area to evaluate water levels, water temperature, and salnty relatve to tde gate operaton.

     Montorng to evaluate the effects on the channel geometry and sedment regme from foredune
     breachng and vegetaton removal for plover habtat contnued at New Rver usng longtudnal
     elevation surveys, cross-sectional profiles, and photography.

     Field reviews, channel geometry surveys, and photo monitoring at five Edson Creek campground
     locatons were used to assess the ablty of boengneered structures to mantan bank stablty.

     Post-project montorng of large wood structures placed to enhance habtat and culverts nstalled to
     restore fish passage and prevent sediment delivery was completed at Edson Creek, Yankee Run Creek,
     Elk Creek, and Koepke Creek.


Public Water Systems Using Surface Water
     The Dstrct has approxmately 138,100 acres of land wthn sx regstered Publc Water Systems
     servng a populaton of 8,260 people. Ths ncludes the ctes of Myrtle Pont, Coqulle, and Elkton.
     No reports of contamnaton or water qualty volatons from BLM lands have been receved.


Water Quality Plan Activities - State-listed Clean Water Act
303(d) Streams
     Accordng to the Oregon State Department of Envronmental Qualty 2002 303(d) lst there are 42
     water qualty lmted stream reaches that orgnate on, cross, or border Dstrct lands (Table 6). Nneteen
     reaches have been addressed n Water Qualty Management Plans and eleven reaches are ncluded n
     Plans under development. The purpose of the Plans s to restore water qualty on Dstrct lands to meet
     standards for designated beneficial uses. Development of a Plan for stream reaches in the Umpqua
     Basn wll proceed, f necessary, at the concluson of the Western Oregon Plan Revsons project.

     The South Fork Coos Rver Water Qualty Restoraton Plan was submtted to the Oregon Department
     of Envronmental Qualty and work began on a Plan for Hunter Creek, Pstol Rver, Sxes Rver, and
     Belieu Creek in the Myrtlewood Field Office. The purpose of the Plans is to restore water quality
     limited streams on District lands to meet standards for designated beneficial uses. The South Fork
     Plan addressed 17 mles of streams lsted for summer temperature and dssolved oxygen.

     Table 6 dsplays the current stream lstngs and the status of ther management plans and
     lstng parameters.




                                                                                                               13
Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006

 Table 6. Coos Bay District Water Quality Management Plans Status
     Waterbody and Description                     Parameter                        Season          Field Office/Status
 Basin - Umpqua
  Bum Creek                                Temperature                   Summer                  Umpqua/Due Aprl 2008
  Rver mle 0.0 to 2.3
  Cedar Creek (Umpqua Rver)               Temperature                   Summer                  Umpqua/Due Aprl 2008
  Rver mle 0.0 to 3.0                    Temperature                   September 15 – May 31
  Halfway Creek                            Temperature                   September 15 – May 31   Umpqua/Due Aprl 2008
  Rver mle 0.0 to 6.3
  Herb Creek                               Temperature                   Summer                  Umpqua/Due Aprl 2008
  Rver mle 0.0 to 2.7
  Russel Creek (Smth Rver)               Temperature                   Summer                  Umpqua/Due Aprl 2008
  Rver mle 0.0 to 2.2
  Smth Rver                              Temperature                   Summer                  Umpqua/Due Aprl 2008
  Rver mle 15.7 to 83.7
  Smth Rver, North Fork                  Temperature                   Summer                  Umpqua/Due Aprl 2008
  Rver mle 0.0 to 31.8
  Smth Rver, North Fork                  Bologcal Crtera                                   Umpqua/Due Aprl 2008
  Rver mle 19.1 to 31.8
  Smth Rver, West Fork                   Temperature                   Summer                  Umpqua/Due Aprl 2008
  Rver mle 0.0 to 15.9
  South Ssters Creek (Smth Rver)        Temperature                   Summer                  Umpqua/Due Aprl 2008
  Rver mle 0.0 to 8.6
  Umpqua Rver                             Temperature                   Summer                  Umpqua/Due Aprl 2008
  Rver mle 11.8 to 25.9
  Umpqua Rver                             Temperature                   Summer                  Umpqua/Due Aprl 2008
  Rver mle 25.9 to 109.3                 Fecal Colform                Wnter/Sprng/Fall
 Basin - Coos
  Burnt Creek                              Temperature                   Summer                  Umpqua/Completed
  Rver mle 0.0 to 2.6
  Cedar Creek (Wllams Rver)             Temperature                   Summer                  Umpqua/Completed
  Rver mle 0.0 to 11.6
  Coos Rver, South Fork                   Dssolved Oxygen              Year Round              Umpqua/Completed
  Rver mle 0.0 to 31.1
  Toga Creek                              Temperature                   Summer                  Umpqua/Completed
  Rver mle 0.0 to 17.5
  Wllams Rver                           Temperature                   Summer                  Umpqua/Completed
  Rver mle 0.0 to 20.9
 Basin - Coquille
   Alder Creek                             Temperature                   Summer                  Umpqua/Completed
   Rver mle 0.0 to 3.1
   Baker Creek                             Temperature                   Summer                  Myrtlewood/Completed
   Rver mle 0.0 to 2.9
   Beleu Creek                            Temperature                   Summer                  Myrtlewood/In Progress
   Rver mle 0.0 to 3.1
   Cherry Creek                            Temperature                   Summer                  Umpqua/Completed
   Rver mle 0.0 to 3.8
   Coqulle Rver, East Fork               Temperature                   Summer                  Myrtlewood/Completed
   Rver mle 0.0 to 26.2




14
                                         Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006

Table 6. Coos Bay District Water Quality Management Plans Status
  Waterbody and Description             Parameter                  Season                   Field Office/Status
  Coqulle Rver, Mddle Fork    Temperature                Summer                       Myrtlewood/In Progress
  Rver mle 0.0 to 39.6         Temperature                October 1 – May 31
                                 Fecal Colform             Wnter/Sprng
                                 Dssolved Oxygen           Wnter/Sprng
  Coqulle Rver, North Fork     Temperature                Summer                       Umpqua/Completed
  Rver mle 0.0 to 19.0         Fecal Colform             Wnter/Sprng
  Coqulle Rver, North Fork     Temperature                Summer                       Umpqua/Completed
  Rver mle 19.0 to 44.2
  Cunnngham Creek               Fecal Colform             Summer                       Umpqua/Completed
  Rver mle 0.0 to 7.4          Dssolved Oxygen           Year Around
                                 Fecal Colform             Wnter/Sprng
 Dement Creek                    Temperature                Summer                       Myrtlewood/Completed
 Rver mle 0.0 to 6.0
 Elk Creek                       Temperature                Summer                       Myrtlewood/Completed
 Rver mle 0.0 to 5.7
 Mddle Creek                    Temperature                Summer                       Umpqua/Completed
 Rver mle 0.0 to 24.2
 Rowland Creek                   Temperature                Summer                       Myrtlewood/Completed
 Rver mle 0.0 to 4.6
 Salmon Creek                    Temperature                Summer                       Myrtlewood/Completed
 Rver mle 0.0 to 9.2
 Unnamed Trbutary               Temperature                Summer                       Myrtlewood/In Progress
 to Mddle Fork Coqulle Rver
 Rver mle 0.0 to 3.6
 Woodward Creek                  Temperature                Summer                       Umpqua/Completed
 Rver mle 0.0 to 7.6
Basin - Sixes
 Crystal Creek                   Temperature                Summer                       Myrtlewood/In Progress
 Rver mle 0.0 to 7.3
 Edson Creek                     Temperature                Summer                       Myrtlewood/In Progress
 Rver mle 0.0 to 5.8
 Floras Creek, East Fork         Temperature                Summer                       Myrtlewood/In Progress
 Rver mle 0.0 to 7.5
 Floras Creek, North Fork        Temperature                Summer                       Myrtlewood/In Progress
 Rver mle 0.0 to 10.9
 Floras Lake/Boulder Creek       Aquatc Weeds                                           Myrtlewood/In Progress
 Rver mle 0.8 to 2.1           Dssolved Oxygen           October 1 – May 31
 Sxes Rver                     Temperature                Summer                       Myrtlewood/In Progress
 Rver mle 0.0 to 30.1          Dssolved Oxygen           October 1 – May 31
Basin - Chetco
 Chetco Rver, North Fork        Temperature                Summer                       Myrtlewood/Completed
 Rver mle 0.0 to 5.1
 Hunter Creek                    Temperature                Summer                       Myrtlewood/In Progress
 Rver mle 0.0 to 16.6
 Hunter Creek, North Fork        Temperature                Summer                       Myrtlewood/In Progress
 Rver mle 0.0 to 4.8




                                                                                                                       15
Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006

         Soils
                             Protectng the sol resources and reducng sedmentaton s the major focus of the Sols program
                             on the Dstrct. Program specalsts have prmarly been nvolved n NEPA plannng and montorng
                             actvtes that have provded ID Teams wth the necessary sol related nformaton for a varety of
                             restoraton and commercal actvtes across the Dstrct. Development of envronmental assessments
                             for commercal thnnng/densty management, road decommssonng/mprovement, a ralroad Rght-
                             of-Way, n-stream restoraton projects, and a post-burn restoraton plan comprsed the majorty of the
                             workload ths year.

                             Montorng s mportant to gan knowledge of the desgn features ncorporated nto varous projects
                             on the Dstrct. The South Fork Elk Creek road mprovement, Whte Mountan and Rocky Peak
                             storm proofing projects, Brummit and Fall Creek area culvert replacements, Dean Creek habitat and
                             tidegate modifications, North Fork Hunter meadow restoration, and Edson Butte communication
                             ste access projects were the major focus for revew ths year. Results from ths montorng have
                             shown the need to develop dfferent standards for water-bars and water-dps when closng roads on
                             the Dstrct. These structures need to be larger n the southern porton of the Dstrct due to the
                             ncreased amount of ran and dfferent sol and road condtons. In addton, runoff from roads may
                             mpact water qualty to a greater degree n ths part of the Dstrct.

                             Montorng of sand dune movement wthn the New Rver system after treatment for Western Snowy
                             Plover habtat contnued ths year. Prelmnary results may alter some of the desgn features for future
                             beach grass removal projects.

                             In comparison to previous years, only two road decommissioning / storm-proofing projects were
                             developed or mplemented ths year. The North Fork Chetco and Brummt Area projects wll treat over
                             14 miles of road with upgrades (brush, grade, culvert cleaning, etc.) and close 7.0 miles to vehicle traffic.

                             The sol staff contnued ther nvolvement wth the South Coast Watershed Councl. Among the tems
                             accomplshed was provdng NEPA analyss of a restoraton project to reconnect Bethel Creek to
                             New Rver. Assstance contnued wth the Storm Chaser project, whch s ntended to help determne
                             sedment loads through out Curry County durng extreme precptaton events. Ths wde-area
                             assessment wll gude and focus future restoraton efforts by the varous councls.


         Wildlife Habitat
                             The focus of the wldlfe program under the Coos Bay Dstrct RMP s on management of
                             Threatened and Endangered Species, specifically; western snowy plover, northern spotted owl,
                             marbled murrelet, and bald eagle surveys, and to provde support to other Dstrct programs. Wldlfe
                             program work ncludes wldlfe / habtat surveys and montorng, data base management, effects
                             analyss, habtat restoraton and project consultaton wth the U.S. Fsh and Wldlfe Servce (USFWS).
                             In FY 2006, wldlfe bologsts provded nput nto plannng and analyss of several tmber sales and
                             the snowy plover habtat restoraton program at New Rver ACEC. Bologsts also mplemented an
                             oak/meadow restoraton project, a Dean Creek elk habtat mprovement project, and a bald eagle
                             habtat mprovement project.


                   Green Tree and Coarse Woody Debris Retention
                             Direction in the Coos Bay District RMP is to retain a specified number of conifer trees in
                             regeneraton harvest unts wthn the Matrx land use allocaton. The concept s to provde for legacy
                             forest components that would carry over nto the next rotaton. A percentage of harvest unts are
                             monitored for compliance with this requirement. Neither Field Office conducted surveys this year as
                             there were no regeneraton sales to montor.




16
                              Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006
Snag Creation
     Dstrct bologsts have been mplementng snag creaton projects n LSRs over the past sx years.
     Snags provde crtcal habtat to a varety of speces ncludng cavty nestng brds and forest
     carnivores. Projects are prepared for stands that are determined to be deficient in this habitat
     component. In FY 2006, a contract usng specal project funds was awarded to create 1,200 snags on
     nearly 600 acres n the Brummt Creek area usng noculants and toppng methods.


Nest Sites, Activity Centers, Special Habitats, and Rookeries
     Great Blue Heron
     A great blue heron and great egret rookery was hstorcally located on a 3-acre area of the Coos
     Bay North Spt. The rookery was beleved to be the northern most breedng ste for Great Egrets
     on the Pacific Coast. In cooperation with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (ODFW)
     heron survey program, the rookery has been montored annually each summer snce 1993. Surveys
     conducted in FY 2006 confirmed that the rookery has been abandoned since 2000. In 2004, several
     nestng great blue herons were dscovered on another BLM parcel; these nests were montored n
     2006 and were determned to be unoccuped. Also n 2004, a new mxed rookery of great egrets and
     great blue herons was located on the Spt adjacent to BLM land, t was not montored. The Spruce
     Reach Island rookery was not montored n FY 2006.


     Waterfowl
     Forty-three wood duck boxes were montored and mantaned at the Dean Creek Elk Vewng Area
     and other Umpqua Field Office sites.


     Purple Martins
     Purple martns are a Bureau Assessment speces for BLM and are on the crtcal lst of state senstve
     speces n Oregon. Coos Bay BLM has worked n partnershp wth the Cape Arago Audubon snce
     1998, to place and montor a total of 42 specal nest boxes at three locatons throughout Coos Bay.
     The objectve of the project s to reestablsh a permanent breedng populaton of purple martns n
     the Coos Bay area.

     Pror to the project, the purple martn populaton was essentally absent n the Coos Bay area due
     mainly to the removal of snags by logging and fire prevention programs, along with competition from
     non-natve European starlngs. Currently there are boxes located n the bay near the Coos Bay North
     Spt, near downtown Coos Bay, near Mllcoma Marsh and at the South Slough Estuarne Reserve.
     The number of purple martn nests has ncreased each year snce the boxes were nstalled. BLM helps
     montor nestng actvtes and performs mantenance at these boxes each year. There are 13 boxes on
     plngs near the Coos Bay North Spt. Purple martns were noted nestng ths year.


     Migrant Song Birds
     Ths year marked the twelfth year of montorng 300 acres at New Rver Area of Crtcal
     Envronmental Concern (ACEC) for mgrant brds. Nestng song brds were chosen as a wldlfe
     resource ndcator n an effort to montor lmts of acceptable change at the ACEC. To date, no
     significant differences have been noted. The project will continue as part of an overall adaptive
     management program for the ACEC to assess vstor use trends and ther potental mpacts on area
     resources. Currently the point counts have identified 85 birds as possible breeding species in the area.

     The surveys are also provdng nformaton on both mgratory and resdent brd use n the New Rver
     Area. The nformaton s useful for ncreasng our understandng of several Bureau Senstve speces.
     Noted speces nclude vesper sparrows, black swfts, and purple martns.




                                                                                                            17
Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006
                             Elk Habitat
                             The Dean Creek Elk Vewng Area s a 1,095-acre Watchable Wldlfe ste jontly managed by BLM
                             and ODFW. Ths year approxmately 300 acres of pasture were mowed to mprove elk forage and
                             noxous weeds were removed from 400 acres. Major target speces nclude broom and thstle speces,
                             purple loosestrife and black berry. Personnel also maintained five tidegates under an agreement with
                             Oregon Department of Transportaton. Water levels are managed to ensure desred dranage of
                             pastures. In addton, about 135 acres were burned n order to rejuvenate forage grasses and set back
                             the nvasve Reed canary grass.


                             Bats
                             A total of 61 bat boxes have been placed throughout the Dstrct. These boxes provde nterm habtat
                             n areas where natural roost stes are lackng for some speces of bats. No new bat houses were placed
                             this fiscal year. All 21 bat houses in the Myrtlewood Field Office were monitored and maintained twice
                             this year, and 12 boxes in the Umpqua Field Office were monitored and maintained once this year.

                             A known Townsend’s bg-eared roost was montored for the thrd year at Baker Quarry. One staff
                             bologst contnued an actve bat educaton program n the local area. Several hundred students,
                             vstors and others are reached through ths program. Volunteers have become an mportant
                             component of the Dstrct bat montorng program.

                             Bat montorng ncluded a thrd year of Oregon Grd Project data collecton. Bats were captured for
                             species identification, recording of body measurements, collection of genetic material and recording
                             the echolocaton sgnals. All of ths nformaton s used to establsh relatve denstes of captures of
                             species, identify new distributions of species and to refine the identification of species as a result of
                             genetc materal collecton and echolocaton recordngs.


                             Oregon Oak/Jeffrey Pine Restoration
                             Myrtlewood Field Office staff has been working to restore oak/Jeffrey pine savannah communities.
                             Several areas were identified at North Fork Hunter Creek ACEC for treatment. Treatment includes
                             cuttng of encroachng confers, plng, and burnng. The ntal process s planned over a several
                             year perod. Ths year approxmately 35 acres were treated usng the Northwest Youth Corps and a
                             local contractor.


         Fish Habitat
                             The Coos Bay Dstrct Fshery Program durng FY 2006 contnued the on-gong work of
                             mplementng the Aquatc porton of the Resource Management Plan. Major dutes are dvded among
                             the followng workloads: watershed restoraton, watershed analyss, NEPA documentaton, tmber
                             and salvage sales and other project revews, nventory and data collecton, bologcal assessment
                             preparaton as part of Secton 7 consultaton wth NMFS Fsheres along wth Essental Fsh Habtat
                             Assessments under the Magnuson-Stevens Act.


                   Fisheries Inventory and Assessment
                             Research Coordination
                             West Fork Smith River Salmonid Life-Cycle Monitoring (Oregon Department of Fish
                             and Wildlife): The Umpqua Field Office, in coordination with the ODFW Salmonid Life-Cycle
                             Montorng Project, supported the operaton of smolt and adult salmond traps on the West Fork of
                             the Smth Rver. Ths montorng wll be helpful n assessng the populaton of adult coho and chnook
                             salmon and steelhead trout n a non-key watershed (17,100 acres) wth mxed federal and prvate
                             ownershp, as well as requred montorng of the State of Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds.



18
                                            Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006
                  Objectves of ths montorng are to estmate freshwater and marne survval rates of coho salmon.
                  Enough brood years have been montored to calculate freshwater and marne survval rates as
                  dsplayed n the table below.

                  The End of Year report for the 2006 operatng season show the followng: 23,242 coho smolts;
                  36,621 coho fry; 102,262 chinook fry; 3,840 steelhead smolts and 678 steelhead fingerlings, and 3,899
                  trout fry (actual captured number) were the estmated number of out-mgrants for each speces. Adult
                  trappng showed that 20 adult chnook, 51 adult coho, and 99 adult steelhead were caught. Based on
                  mark and recapture spawnng survey numbers, returnng adult spawner estmates were 1,842 coho and
                  405 steelhead.


Table 7. Freshwater and Marine Survival for West Fork Smith River Salmonid
Life-Cycle Monitoring
            Eggs                    Fresh-Water          Return         Adult Returns            Marine Survival (%)
   FY    Deposited    Smolts        Survival (%)          Year          Male       Female           Total        Female
  1996        -        22,412                             1999           160         104             1.2           0.9
  1997        -        10,866                             2000           295         243             5.0           4.5
  1998        -        14,851                             2001           787         715             10.2          9.8
  1999     291,955     20,091             6.9             2002          2,036       1,423            17.2          14.2
  2000     642,747     17,358             2.7             2003          1,941       1,790           21.49         20.62
  2001    2,099,982    16,019             0.8             2004           561         417             6.2           5.3
  2002    4,542,580    23,054             0.47            2005          1,111        734             3.2           8.0
  2003    5,130,275    39,576             0.8
  2004    1,169,503    25,242             2.0
  2005    1,841,711

                  Ths salmond lfe-cycle montorng has drawn other aquatc vertebrate/habtat research work to the
                  West Fork Smith River watershed. A BLM fisheries biologist coordinated with research leads as well as
                  three ODFW offices, Roseburg Forest Products, NMFS Fisheries, and watershed councils.


                  Spawning Surveys
                  Umpqua Field Office personnel conducted surveys to document adult salmonid passage through
                  culverts replaced n prevous years (4 mles) and on habtat restoraton projects (pre- and post-
                  completon for 5.0 mles).


           Aquatic Habitat Restoration
                  Fish Passage Restoration
                  West Fork Smith River – Upper Unnamed Tributary Culvert Replacement: A 5-foot round
                  culvert on a trbutary stream to the West Fork Smth Rver was replaced wth a 9-foot ppe-arch n the
                  summer of 2006. Ths culvert was a barrer to upstream mgratng salmonds as t generated too hgh
                  of a water velocity. This was the last barrier culvert under BLM control to be replaced for fish passage
                  purposes n the West Fork Smth Rver watershed. Ths culvert opened 1.2 mles of aquatc habtat to
                  adult and juvenle resdent and anadromous salmonds. Ths culvert was replaced at a cost of $69,000.


                  In-stream Habitat Restoration
                  Paradise Creek: In 2006, the Coos Bay Dstrct BLM, n cooperaton wth several partners,
                  mplemented a large watershed scale n-stream restoraton project n the Paradse Creek watershed,
                  trbutary to the Umpqua Rver near the town of Elkton, Oregon. The partnershp ncluded the
                  Oregon Department of Fsh and Wldlfe, the Partnershp for Umpqua Rvers (a local watershed
                  councl), Roseburg Resources Inc., and a prvate landowner.

                                                                                                                          19
Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006
                             Durng the summer, helcopters and excavators placed over 600 confer logs and hundreds of
                             boulders n the Paradse Creek basn to provde qualty spawnng and rearng habtat for coho salmon,
                             chnook salmon, cutthroat trout and steelhead trout encompassng approxmately 11 mles of stream
                             habtat. Addtonal restoraton work s planned for 2007.

                            Fundng for the project was obtaned from the Coos Bay BLM Resource Advsory Commttee,
                            the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board, and substantal n-knd contrbutons from Roseburg
                            Resources Inc. The total project cost s approxmately $550,000, ncludng labor and n-knd servces/
                            donations. To date, contracts have been awarded to five separate contractors involved in various
                            elements of the project, and local businesses have and will continue to benefit economically.

                            Halfway Creek Reroute: The lower 650 feet of Halfway Creek was returned to ts hstorcal channel
                            and confluence with the Smith River in 2006. When the Halfway Creek road was constructed in 1959,
                            the stream channel was straghtened and dverted through a constructed channel to the Smth Rver.
                            This channel diversion resulted in a series of bedrock step-falls at the diverted confluence. Adult
                            anadromous fish had difficulty entering Halfway Creek and could do so only during a narrow range of
                            stream flow. Juvenile and small resident salmonids could not migrate over the series of steps at any flow.

                            A low water ford across the historical channel was constructed, replacing the existing over flow
                            culvert, and the current channel plugged. Access to Halfway Creek for adult salmonds s no longer a
                            challenge and juvenle and small resdent salmonds now have access to 8 mles of Halfway Creek.

                            Fundng for the project was obtaned from the Coos Bay BLM Resource Advsory Commttee and the
                            total cost of the project was $64,000.

                            South Sisters Creek and Bum Creek: A log and boulder placement project was completed n 2006
                            n partnershp wth the Smth Rver Watershed Councl, the Oregon Department of Fsh and Wldlfe,
                            and Roseburg Resources Inc. Approxmately 60 logs and 500 large boulders were placed on 1.5 mles
                            of South Ssters Creek and 1.0 mles of Bum Creek a trbutary stream. BLM admnsters 1.2 mles of
                            stream and Roseburg Resources owns the remanng 1.3 mles. These streams are wthn the area of
                            the 1966 Oxbow Fire and were “cleaned” of logs and logging debris in the years after the fire. The
                            surrounding forest is still too young to supply large woody material for fish habitat so the placement
                            of logs and boulders s expected to provde habtat for resdent and sea-run cutthroat trout, Oregon
                            Coast steelhead trout, and Oregon Coast coho salmon. Ths project wll complement prevous n-
                            stream restoraton projects n the watershed.

                            Fundng for the project was obtaned from the Coos Bay BLM Resource Advsory Commttee,
                            the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board, and substantal n-knd contrbutons from Roseburg
                            Resources Inc. Total project cost was $70,000.

                            Dement Creek: Ths project placed 20 log structures n stream mprovng 2.0 mles of habtat for
                            anadromous and resident fish species on private lands on Dement Creek. The project was completed
                            n partnershp wth the Coqulle Watershed Assocaton. The BLM donated desgnng expertse and
                            logs for the project and workers for the Assocaton placed the logs. Ths project was funded through
                            the Ttle II legslaton.

                            Bethel Creek: Ths project nvolved usng an excavator to shape, create and enlarge a new Bethel
                            Creek channel. Part of ths work nvolved constructng the new channel to the approprate sze (to
                            handle flood events) and creating “refugia alcoves”—small off-channel rearing areas that are crucial
                            to juvenle coho. In addton to the excavator work, an extensve plantng and fencng component
                            provded for the addton of natve confers (shore pne; Stka spruce) and hardwoods (wllow, Oregon
                            ash, black cottonwood).

                            A seres of large wood structures was also added for habtat complexty, and wll serve to trap
                            spawnng gravels and capture organc materal for the salmon food web. The landowner (Rck
                            McKenze) was enthusastcally n favor of ths project and had already provded a large porton of
                            the matchng funds.

20
                                   Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006
         Ths project was partnered wth the South Coast Watershed Councl and receved partal fundng from
         the Ttle II legslaton.


         Sediment Abatement
         Ths project nvolved the nstallaton of 130 feet of 18 nch dameter dtch relef culverts and the
         pavng of 900 feet of road mmedately adjacent to Yankee Run Creek. The purpose of ths project
         was to facltate the haulng of prvate and federal tmber to market n the wnter months whle
         helpng to mantan the water qualty of Yankee Run Creek. Ths road for 0.4 mles s mmedately
         adjacent to Yankee Run Creek. Ths project was funded through the Ttle II legslaton.


    Project Monitoring
         Umpqua Field Office monitored 5 culvert replacements: Alder Creek, Lost Creek, Honcho Creek,
         Beaver Slde Creek, and Hogranch Creek. Spawnng surveys were conducted on Koepke Creek for the
         culvert replacement.


    Riparian Improvement
         The Dstrct mplemented another porton of the Oxbow Rparan Slvculture Project. The Bg Grunt
         tmber sale nvolved hardwood converson and rparan thnnng on 47 acres along Grunt Creek and
         Big Creek, which are important salmon spawning streams within the Umpqua Field Office.


    Technical Expertise and Support
         In support of the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds, fisheries biologists have provided
         technical guidance and support for five local watershed associations. This is an ongoing effort that
         occurs throughout the year and one that can have a large influence on the quality and effectiveness
         of aquatc restoraton projects beng desgned and mplemented on prvate lands n our area. Ths
         contnues to be a prorty for the Dstrct n support of the State’s Plan for Salmon and Watersheds.


Special Status and SEIS Special Attention Species
    Special Status Species Program
         The Dstrct contnues to mplement BLM Polcy 6840 on specal status speces (SSS) management.
         The goal of the SSSP s to conserve lsted speces and the ecosystems on whch they depend and to
         ensure that BLM actons do not contrbute to the need to lst any SSS. The three categores of SSS are
         Bureau senstve, assessment, and trackng. Bureau trackng speces are not consdered as specal status
         speces for management purposes.


    ESA Section 7 Consultation
         Bologcal Assessments are conducted on all actvtes proposed wthn the habtat of lsted speces.
         Consultaton under Secton 7 of the Endangered Speces Act (ESA) occurs on “may effect” actvtes.
         Dependng upon the speces nvolved, an nteragency Level 1 Revew Team of bologsts from
         the BLM, US Forest Servce, USFWS, NMFS Fsheres, and the Bureau of Indan Affars (BIA) s
         involved early to assist in the analysis and, if needed, modification of project plans and Biological
         Assessments. A new Level 1 Team was formed ths year to revew projects wthn the range of
         western snowy plovers along the Oregon Coast. Member agences nclude Coos Bay BLM, Suslaw
         National Forest, Newport Fish and Wildlife Field Office and possibly Army Corps of Engineers.

         One nformal consultaton wth US Fsh and Wldlfe Servce (USFWS) on a salvage loggng project
         was completed n FY 2006. Coos Bay BLM provded nput and revew for two formal consultatons;
         Suslaw Forest Plover Management Actvtes and a Trbal tmber sale. Bologsts also revewed

                                                                                                                 21
Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006
                             a number of road use, guylne or talhold or other rghts-of-way permts along wth other BLM
                             management actons to evaluate f consultaton was necessary.

                           There are seven Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs) for anadromous salmonid fish on the Coos
                           Bay Dstrct. The Southern Oregon/Northern Calforna coho salmon reman lsted as ‘threatened.’
                           All “may affect” tmber sale projects were consulted on and other major actvtes such as restoraton
                           actvtes, recreaton actvtes and routne program support actons are covered by a Programmatc
                           Biological Opinion. During FY 2006, fishery biologists in the Myrtlewood Field Office completed
                           one Bologcal Assessment for several tmber sales wthn the East Fork Coqulle watershed and
                           consultaton under the Magnuson-Stevens Act for Remote Control and Camas Fre Salvage tmber
                           sales. Staff also completed programmatic reporting and represented the District fishery biologist at a
                           Level 1 team meetng.


                  Survey and Manage
                           In March 2004, the Record of Decision to Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure
                           Standards and Guidelines (2004 ROD) was sgned. Ths document revsed and replaced the management
                           drecton for the survey and manage and protecton buffer speces that was contaned n the NFP
                           and RMP. Prevous Survey and Manage speces that met the crtera as Bureau senstve, assessment,
                           or trackng were added to the specal status speces (SSS) program. Management of these speces
                           now follows the Bureau Manual Secton 6840 and Oregon/Washngton SSS Polcy. Snce that tme a
                           lawsut has resulted n several court orders.

                           On August 1, 2005, a U.S. Dstrct Court found portons of the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact
                           Statement to Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines (January,
                           2004) nadequate. A subsequent court order on January 9, 2006 set asde the 2004 ROD and renstated
                           the 2001 Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection
                           Buffer, and other Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines, including any amendments or modifications
                           n effect as of March 21, 2004.

                           The Survey and Manage program is currently being implemented according to direction specified in
                           Instructon Memorandum OR-2006-029.


         Special Status Species Program - Wildlife
                  Federal Threatened and Endangered Species - Wildlife
                           Northern Spotted Owl
                           Most of the Dstrct was surveyed for spotted owls durng the 1990-1994 demographc study. There
                           are approxmately 97 known stes on the Dstrct, 75 percent of whch are protected n mapped LSRs.
                           A majorty of the remanng stes have 100-acre cores (unmapped LSRs) establshed around them.
                           Most of the best habtat occurs n the LSRs, as do the best owl stes (.e. the ones wth the most
                           avalable habtat, stable occupancy, and successful reproducton).

                           No project level owl surveys were conducted on the Coos Bay Dstrct n FY 2006. Owl surveys
                           were completed on District lands through cooperation with the Pacific Northwest Forest and Range
                           Experment Staton (PNW), Roseburg BLM, Oregon State Unversty (OSU), Weyerhaeuser Co., and
                           Plum Creek Tmber Company as part of the Northwest Forest Plan Demographc Study. In addton,
                           n FY 2006, the Natonal Counsel for Ar and Stream Improvement (NCASI) began the fourth year
                           of a demography and movement study to assess use of thnned and unthnned forest stands. Data
                           contnues to be shared and used to update owl records for Coos Bay Dstrct lands.




22
                         Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006
Bald Eagle
There are 8 bald eagle terrtores on Dstrct land and an addtonal 19 terrtores on adjacent
ownershps wthn the Dstrct boundary. At present, there are no known bald eagle roost stes on
BLM land n the Coos Bay Dstrct.

In FY 2006, bologsts montored nestng at eght stes wthn the boundary of the Umpqua Feld
Office and three sites within the Myrtlewood Field Office lands. Also, a mid-winter driving survey
(approximately 45 miles) in the Myrtlewood Field Office was conducted again this year. Data is shared
with an Oregon-wide monitoring program. Umpqua Field Office biologists awarded a contract using
specal project fundng for a bald eagle habtat enhancement project along the Umpqua Rver.

Western Snowy Plover
The Coos Bay North Spt and New Rver ACEC provde both breedng and wnterng habtat for
western snowy plovers. Plovers are also known to occur on five other locations (non-BLM lands)
wthn the Coos Bay Dstrct. BLM Dstrct lands currently provde 274 acres of sutable habtat for
the snowy plover and BLM staffs assst wth management on another 118 acres of plover habtat on
US Corps of Engneer lands. The North Spt contnues to be the most productve nestng habtat on
the Oregon Coast.

Dstrct staffs completed the followng Snowy Plover Management Actons n FY 2006:
- Mantaned about 150 acres of breedng and wnterng habtat on the Coos Bay North Spt by
  plowng encroachng beach grass. A major mprovement project was also undertaken on a porton
  of ths area, usng an excavator to remove hummocks and berms along an old road. The result
  was more contguous habtat that wll be easer to mantan. Shell hash was placed on the newly
  improved area to entice nesting plovers. Plovers nested in the newly maintained area for the first
  tme n many years. Pnk sand verbena, a Bureau Senstve Speces, was noted to have expanded nto
  the newly reworked area.
- Montored plover nestng success at two BLM nestng stes through a cooperatve effort wth
  Oregon Natural Hertage Informaton Center, USFS, USFWS, ODFW, and OPRD. Data contnues
  to provde managers wth nformaton to assess management effectveness n relaton to plover
  reproductve success.
- Completed a plover wnter count on approxmately 17.5 mles of beach. Revewed past data n
  order to summarze results nto a comprehensve revew of both wnter and breedng data over the
  last 12 years of ntensve montorng.
- Placed sgns and ropes along approxmately sx mles of beach and rver habtat boundares to drect
  users away from plover nestng stes. Also mantaned fencng and placed sgns around nland habtat.
- Two seasonal nterpretatve specalsts were hred to montor complance and educate vstors at
  New Rver ACEC and on the Coos Bay North Spt. The specalsts descrbed closure restrctons
  and explained reasons to visitors, gave campfire and school presentations and developed outreach
  materials. Permanent staffs in both field offices also assist with monitoring and outreach activities.
  Encounters contnue to be mostly postve.
- Contracted wth Anmal and Plant Health Inspecton Servces – Wldlfe Servces to conduct a
  predator control program at the two BLM managed plover nestng stes durng the 2006
  nestng season.

Marbled Murrelet
Surveys for marbled murrelets have been conducted on the Coos Bay Dstrct snce 1989 and
ntensve habtat survey efforts began n 1993. There are currently 97,591 acres of sutable marbled
murrelet habtat wthn the Dstrct, 99 percent of whch s n Zone 1 (wthn 35 mles of the coast).
To date, 20.7 percent (20,233 acres) of sutable murrelet habtat on Dstrct has been surveyed to
Pacific Seabird Group protocol for marbled murrelets. Three locations (North Spit, Green Peak,
and Sandy Creek) were surveyed for a second year n accordance wth survey protocol. Durng those
surveys, 518 acres of sutable habtat were determned to be occuped. Table 8 summarzes murrelet
survey efforts and habtat data through FY 2006.

                                                                                                       23
Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006

 Table 8. Summary of Acreage Designated as Marbled Murrelet Habitat, Surveyed to
 Protocol and Delineated as Occupied LSR in 2006 on the Coos Bay District, BLM
                                                                    Acres as of 2005            Acres Added in 2006                Acres to Date
 Total Marbled Murrelet Habtat, Coos Bay Dstrct                          97,591                       0                               97,5911
 (Note: Acreage does not nclude Coqulle Trbal lands)
 Marbled murrelet habtat surveyed:
 (Note: Survey areas must have completed the 2 year protocol to be counted.)
     Myrtlewood Field Office                                            Not Avalable                        578                    Not Avalable
     Umpqua Field Office                                                Not Avalable                         90                    Not Avalable
                                                          Total              19,5652                         668                          20,233
 % of total murrelet habtat surveyed to protocol                             20.0%                                                       20.7%
 Marbled murrelet occuped LSR:
 (Note: Represents only LSR acreage delneated as marbled murrelet occuped.)
     Myrtlewood Field Office                                                    10,205                       518                            10,723
     Umpqua Field Office                                                        10,514                         0                           10,5140
                                                          Total                 20,704                                                     21,2223
 1
  Habitat acreage is calculated from Coos Bay District GIS marbled murrelet habitat layer and has not been field verified.
 2
  From the 2002 Forest Removal and Management Actvtes Bologcal Assessment (C02-02) dated 21 Oct. 2002, p. 34, plus adjustments made for FY 2002-
  2005. Habtat may not be ncluded n the GIS habtat acres above.
 3
  Total acreage s computed from GIS coverage cbmmocc05, so they do not total across.



                     Special Status Species Program (SSSP) - Wildlife
                                The Coos Bay District wildlife, fisheries, and botany staff continued to develop a more
                                comprehensve Specal Status Speces program for the Dstrct n FY 2006. Specal fundng from
                                the State Office was used for this work. Funds were also used to support surveys for bald eagles,
                                peregrne falcons, bats and forest carnvores. A student was hred to work on establshment of an n-
                                house lbrary, enterng research papers nto a database and gatherng nformaton to further augment
                                speces nformaton sheets. Contnung work wll focus on addtonal nformaton gatherng, decson
                                analyses, coordination between Field Offices and other Districts and development of survey strategies
                                and montorng programs.


                                Peregrine Falcon
                                Wthn the Coos Bay Dstrct, there are two peregrne falcon nest stes on BLM land n the
                                Myrtlewood Field Office, one site on State land and another two on adjacent private lands. There
                                are no known peregrine sites on Umpqua Field Office lands. Surveys conducted this year confirmed
                                fledged young at three of the locations. Surveys also found nesting activity at a fourth location and
                                only one adult present at the remanng locaton. Survey results are compled n a comprehensve BLM
                                database and provded to a State-wde montorng program.


                                Townsend’s Big-eared Bat
                                A Townsend’s bg-eared bat hbernaculum at Baker Quarry was montored agan ths year as was a
                                maternty roost at another locaton. Surveys n 2006 found ths speces present at Baker Quarry but
                                absent from the maternty roost. A quarry operaton plan needs to be developed that wll nclude
                                contnued montorng as a component to ensure protecton of the hbernaculum by measurng
                                pertnent envronmental factors.




24
                                  Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006
         Special Status Bat Surveys
         Surveys for varous bat speces contnued on Dstrct lands. These surveys help provde BLM bologsts
         wth data on speces presence. Ths data also supports the Oregon Grd bat montorng project. Two
         bureau assessment speces; palld bats and frnged myots, and one senstve bat; Townsend’s bg-eared
         bat, are among the bat speces potentally montored at the survey locatons. Bat surveys were also
         conducted at the Vncent Creek guard staton. Ths locaton has been montored for several years to
         provde baselne nformaton for future decsons concernng optons for the house.


         Fisher
         Coos Bay District continued with a survey strategy to assess fisher habitat on the District. Contract
         surveys performed n FY 2006 covered 34,560 acres, establshng 33 statons wth nfrared cameras
         and taking over 2000 photos. No fishers were photographed. An additional contract for winter
         surveys n the southern porton of the Dstrct was awarded n FY 2006. A few observatons have
         been reported over the years, but their presence on District has been unconfirmed. Densities of this
         elusve speces, f present, are lkely at low levels due to loss of habtat throughout the coast range.


Special Status Species Program - Aquatic
         The District has 10 special status fish species and 3 aquatic snails that are either documented or
         suspected to occur. The Dstrct has completed nformaton gatherng and updated nformaton
         for each speces. For each Dstrct project, assessments were completed for each speces based on
         occurrence and habtat requrements.


Special Status Species Program - Plants
    Federal Threatened and Endangered Species - Plants
         Western lly s the only federally lsted plant on the Dstrct. A Challenge Cost Share partnershp
         between the BLM and the Berry Botanc Garden s workng to recover ths endangered speces.
         2006 was the twelfth year of montorng and habtat enhancement of an expermental, rentroduced
         populaton located at New Rver Area of Crtcal Envronmental Concern (ACEC). In 1996, 120
         bulbs and 640 seeds were planted n 20 plots. Over the years emergence has ranged between 39
         percent in 2002 to 61 percent in 1998. No plants have produced flowers to date. The District assisted
         wth plant montorng and wth trmmng and removal of assocated competng vegetaton at the
         ste to promote better growng condtons. A tral whch once bsected the populaton was rerouted
         n 2005 to preclude nadvertent tramplng. It may take many years to evaluate the success of the
         expermental rentroducton, but results to date are promsng.

         In 2002, a naturally occurrng western lly ste was dscovered wthn the New Rver ACEC boundary.
         At that tme, the populaton had 16 plants, 6 whch were reproductve. In 2005, the populaton had
         nine plants, all of which had flower buds, blooms, or fruits. In 2006, the population had four plants,
         all of which had flower buds, blooms, or fruits. Plants do not always emerge from the underground
         corm each year; and herbvory by slugs, snals, small rodents, and deer can remove evdence of plants,
         especally sngle leaved seedlngs or juvenles, the “loss” of sx plants does not necessarly suggest
         populaton declne.

         The Dstrct partcpated n a Challenge Cost Share project to montor two ntroduced populatons
         of the pnk sand verbena at New Rver and North Spt ACECs. Over 50 pounds of seed (more than
         0.5 mllon seeds) from the North Spt’s pnk sand verbena populaton was collected for March 2007
         dstrbuton at other coastal dune restoraton stes along the Oregon coast.




                                                                                                                25
Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006
                   Special Status Species Program (SSSP) - Plants
                             The Dstrct has 286 botancal SSS (107 vascular and 179 nonvascular [fung, lchens, mosses, hornworts,
                             and lverworts]) that are ether documented or suspected to occur. The majorty of these speces are
                             known from unque habtats such as coastal dunes, serpentne fens, bogs, rocky clffs, and meadows.

                             Durng 2006, surveys were conducted for the followng Bureau senstve and assessment speces:
                             Wolf ’s evenng prmrose, Calforna globe-mallow, western lly, and pnk sand verbena. A 2005 status
                             and trends report for 17 of the District’s special status vascular species was updated with current field
                             data and literature information. A conservation strategy for the pink sand verbena was finalized along
                             with a conservation agreement for five fen species and serpentine Darlingtonia wetlands (Mendocino
                             gentian, Oregon willow-herb, large flowered-rushlily, purple-flowered rushlily, and western bog violet)
                             from Southwestern Oregon and Northwestern Calforna
                             (BLM# CA OR120-CA-2006-04/1786/6840).


         Special Areas
                             The Dstrct has 11 desgnated Specal Areas that total 10,452 acres. Ten are Areas of Crtcal
                             Envronmental Concern (ACEC): Cherry Creek (also a Research Natural Area), Chna Wall, Hunter
                             Creek Bog, New Rver, North Fork Chetco, North Fork Coqulle, North Fork Hunter Creek, North
                             Spt, Toga Creek, and Wassen Creek. One area s an Envronmental Educaton Area: Powers.


                   New River ACEC
                             - Two Challenge Cost Share projects montored specal status plant speces: western lly and pnk
                               sand verbena.
                             - Northwest Youth Corps mantaned four mles of trals whch are outlned n an nterpretve brochure.
                             - 25 acres of coastal meadows were restored through the removal of encroachng shore pne trees.
                               Ths work was completed usng 3, 10-person crews from the Northwest Youth Corps, volunteers
                               on Natonal Publc Lands Day, and BLM staff. 100 burn ples were bult as a result of the effort.
                             - The New Rver Foredune Management Envronmental Assessment was ntated and wll be
                               completed n 2007 to mprove restoraton efforts of the dunes for specal status speces n
                               accordance wth other ACEC values and resources.
                             - As part of a New Rver Health project, New Rver was temporarly breached to mprove
                               connectvty wth the ocean n order to enhance estuarne characterstcs of the rver and to provde
                               relief from flooding on neighboring land owners.


                   North Spit ACEC
                             - The Western Snowy Plover was montored for dstrbuton, abundance, and reproductve success.
                               The North Spt remans the most productve area for the threatened subpopulaton of plovers n
                               Oregon, producing 30 fledglings in 2006.
                             - New plover nterpretve sgns were placed at several locatons.
                             - Habtat mantenance usng heavy equpment to remove European beach grass was conducted on
                               76 acres of plover Habtat Restoraton Areas (HRAs). Over 360 cubc yards of oyster shell were
                               spread on one of the HRAs to mprove nestng substrate.
                             - Montorng was conducted durng the 6-month Western Snowy Plover nestng season to assess
                               public compliance with the seasonal closures to vehicular and foot traffic. The monitor also
                               dstrbuted nterpretve nformaton ncludng a brochure and map descrbng seasonal closures,
                               recreatonal opportuntes, and North Spt natural resources.
                             - Predator control to facltate plover nestng efforts was conducted by USDA Wldlfe Servces.
                               Ravens and crows are the prmary predator of nestng plovers on the North Spt ACEC, followed
                               by strped skunks and feral cats.

26
                            Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006
    - Rope fencng was placed on the beach to prevent dsturbance to nestng plovers, and sgns were
      nstalled around the nestng area to nform the publc about seasonal closures and regulatons.
    - The Great Blue Heron rookery was montored and no brds were present n 2006. The rookery has
      been abandoned snce 2000.
    - Surveys were conducted for two rare, Bureau sensitive coastal butterflies, the Seaside Hoary Elfin
      and the Insular Blue Butterfly. Neither species was located.
    - Scotch broom was removed from several roadsde areas by the Northwest Youth Corps.
    - An exstng horse tral system was mproved by clearly desgnatng routes.
    - A Challenge Cost Share project montored dstrbuton and abundance of the pnk sand verbena, a
      specal status plant speces. Over 50 pounds of seed was collected for other rentroducton projects
      along the Oregon Coast on BLM and Forest Servce lands.
    - The Pont Reyes brd’s-beak populaton, a Bureau senstve annual herb, was montored. A total of
      13,439 plants were found n an area of over 2,800 square meters, the largest area to date. The road,
      rerouted around the dredge lobe, and the log barrers on the northern and southern boundares of
      the dredge lobe successfully control off-hghway-vehcle trespass. Vstors are able to access the area
      on foot. The western marsh rosemary, a Bureau tracking perennial herb, has also benefited from the
      lack of vehcle dsturbance.
    - The North Spit Plan (an update to the Coos Bay Shorelands Plan of 1995) was finalized in
      December 2005. Concerned ctzens provded comments on the plan and a workshop was
      conducted October 20, 2005.


North Fork Hunter Creek ACEC
    - For the fourth year, BLM addressed the long-standng lvestock trespass problem occurrng
      throughout the remote meadows of the ACEC. To date, over 155 head of feral cattle have been
      removed. As a result, overgrazng and eroson have been greatly reduced. It s stll estmated that
      approximately five cattle are thought to remain in the ACEC and adjacent U.S. Forest Service lands.
      BLM contnues to work wth the Forest Servce and adjacent ranchers to resolve ths problem.
    - Jeffrey pne/oak savannah habtat was partally restored by removng encroachng confer by usng
      40 students from the Northwest Youth Corps for 4 weeks. Approxmately 35 acres were treated and
      600 burn ples were created. Ple burnng s scheduled for the wnter of 2006.




                                                                                                           27
Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006

         Environmental Education and Interpretation Programs
                             More than 28,000 vstors partcpated n nterpretve and envronmental educaton programs provded
                             by Coos Bay Dstrct staff and volunteers. Some hghlghts from ths year nclude:


                   Tsalila - the Umpqua River Festival
                             - Over 2,400 students and their teachers participated in the Education Days. Second through fifth
                               graders learned a varety of thngs at Watershed Experence and the Trbal Vllage. BLM staff
                               taught learning stations about snowy plovers, elk, fish printing, watersheds and the Antiquities Act.
                             - Students came from Bandon, Coos Bay, North Bend, Reedsport, Myrtle Pont, Coqulle, Roseburg,
                               Florence, and Sutherln n busses that were pad for by the Tsalla Partnershp.
                             - Over 8,000 people partcpated n the weekend Festval, whch had not only educatonal statons but
                               musc and a salmon dnner as well.


                   Cape Blanco Lighthouse
                             - Ths tour season (Aprl - October,) over 22,500 vstors enjoyed vstng one of Oregon’s oldest
                               remanng lghthouses. Over 15,000 of these people pad to take the guded tour offered by volunteers.
                             - Tour fees and donations together generated $19,595 this season Profit from sales by the Friends of
                               Cape Blanco gft shop was up slghtly from last year.
                             - Interpretve dsplays were fabrcated and nstalled n the lghthouse and Greetng Center, supportng
                               the nterpretve theme for the lghthouse.


                   New River ACEC
                             - Over 350 people partcpated n nature walks, educatonal specal events, envronmental educaton
                               field trips, and hikes throughout the summer. Another 350 people were contacted through roving
                               nterpretaton. Vstors learned about brds, lchens and mosses, trbal hstory, local hstory,
                               hydrology, and flora and fauna.
                             - The Natonal Publc Lands Day ncluded not only meadow restoraton work but creaton of a new
                               nterpretve sgn about a bog and how t was used to grow cranberres.
                             - The Ellen Warrng Learnng Center was opened to the publc on the weekends and 10 to 20 vstors
                               enjoyed the dsplays each weekend. Temporary and portable dsplays were created for use n the
                               Learnng Center.


                   North Spit
                             - Over 700 people were contacted by BLM staff dong rovng nterpretaton on the North Spt,
                               nformng them about recreatonal opportuntes and seasonal closures.


                   Loon Lake Recreation Area
                             - The seasonal nterpreter and guest speakers, many of them BLM staff, presented 37 programs to
                               over 1,000 vstors. Programs were held on weekends for the entre famly and just for kds.
                             - A new Junor Ranger actvty packet was developed for chldren 6-12 years old. The packet wll be
                               gven out at the entrance staton.


                   Dean Creek Elk Viewing Area
                             - Rovng volunteer nterpreters at the Dean Creek Elk Vewng Area contacted several hundred
                               vstors durng the summer of 2006. Formal nterpretve programs at Dean Creek were also
                               presented to groups from Elderhostel and schools.

28
                                  Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006
    Other Projects
         - Dstrct staff conducted a varety of envronmental educaton programs reachng more than 2,000
           people from schools, garden clubs, Northwest Youth Corps, scouts, and other nterested groups on
           topcs such as elk, habtat restoraton, tsunams, cultural hstory, snowy plovers, wldlfe adaptaton,
           bats, and geology. ‘Leave No Trace’ contnues to be a very popular program wth all age groups.
         - A new Forestry Education program was developed this year for 200 fifth and sixth graders and 35
           teachers. Partners for ths program ncluded South Slough Natonal Estuarne Research Reserve,
           Socety of Amercan Foresters, Oregon State Unversty Extenson Servce, Eastern Oregon
           Unversty, and Oregon Department of Forestry.
         - A DVD on Oregon ecoregons was completed and maled out to hundreds of schools, agences,
           and organzatons throughout Oregon. Funded by a grant from the Natonal Fsh and Wldlfe
           Foundaton and produced by the Dstrct botanst, the DVD ncludes ‘The Coast Range: Survvors
           n the Sand’ whch focuses on how nvasve European beach grass has affected the dune ecology,
           ncludng natve plants and the Western snowy plover.



Cultural Resources Including American Indian Values
         Durng FY 2006, the Dstrct contnued nvolvement wth our Partners n facltatng publc access
         to Cape Blanco lghthouse. Ths tour season (Aprl - October) over 22,500 vstors enjoyed ther
         experence of Oregon’s oldest remanng lghthouse. Over 15,000 of these people also toured
         the lghthouse lens room (a 5 percent ncrease over 2005). Tour vst fees and donatons together
         generated nearly $20,000 ths season. Bookstore sales shared revenue added over $10,000, brngng
         our total ncome to $30,886 for the 2006 man tour season.

         Work contnued on determnng future drecton for the two Cvlan Conservaton Corps-bult forest
         guard statons managed by the Dstrct: Vncent Creek and Wells Creek guard statons. Both facltes
         were under long-term lease to the Oregon Department of Forestry (snce the 1960s). Vncent Creek
         guard staton was returned to BLM control n 2001, and Wells Creek guard staton was returned
         n 2005. Ths work wll chart future drectons for these facltes, both of whch have been found
         potentally elgble for the Natonal Regster of Hstorc Places. Grant fundng receved from the
         BLM Washington Office (through historic preservation deferred maintenance funds), has been used
         to replace the electrcal system n the Wells Creek faclty. Analyss of ts potental for reuse has been
         completed and a decson wll be made durng 2007. Addtonal fundng has been secured for FY 2007
         that wll be used to complete repars to the faclty n order to upgrade t for potental reuse or sale.

         The Amercan Rhododendron Socety (ARS) contacted the Coos Bay Dstrct concernng the
         O.H. Hnsdale gardens whch surround the resdence on Spruce Reach Island. These gardens were
         establshed by Mr. Hnsdale, startng after WWII, and nclude many speces of trees and shrubs
         as well as unque rhododendron “crosses” - plants developed by Mr. Hnsdale. After vstng the
         property, a past presdent and the alternate “drector at large” of ths nternatonal organzaton
         provded a draft of an artcle they are currently preparng whch favorably compares mportance of
         the Hnsdale gardens to the two best-known gardens n Oregon. Further research nto the garden
         plantings revealed a card file, which showed that some rhododendrons were grown in 19th Century
         England, makng them over 115 years old. Wth ths new nformaton, we now beleve ths garden s
         a unque cultural landscape, and should be treated as f t were on the Natonal Regster of Hstorc
         Places. Wth the assstance of ARS members, we have begun the process of restorng the garden,
         whch has been neglected for many years. We expect to contnue work wth the ARS on restoraton of
         the garden.

         The Dstrct contnued to partcpate n a regon-wde group composed of federal cultural resource
         managers (representng the BLM, USFS, FWS, and COE) – known as WOIHG (Western Oregon
         Interagency Hertage Group). Membershp n ths organzaton has ncreased coordnaton wth other
         federal agences n management of cultural resources.


                                                                                                                 29
Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006
                             Native American consultation focused on the two federally-recognized tribes with offices in the area –
                             the Confederated Trbes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Suslaw Indans (CTCLUSI) and the Coqulle
                             Indan Trbe (CIT). Consultaton meetngs were held wth the CTCLUSI concernng the transfer of
                             Umpqua-Eden, a BLM-managed parcel contanng an mportant hstorc (and prehstorc) vllage.
                             Consultaton wth the CIT conssted of partcpaton n the yearly “cultural conference” sponsored by
                             the trbe.

                            In addton to these proactve actvtes, the cultural program partcpated n clearance of ground-
                            dsturbng projects and evaluaton of cultural resource potental for Dstrct projects. Cultural resources
                            were addressed n the envronmental analyss for 37 proposed projects ncludng realty actons, tral
                            and road constructon/renovaton, culvert replacement;,hazard tree removal n recreaton stes, snag
                            creation, fire line construction, riparian and stream enhancement, and timber management projects.


         Visual Resources
                            There was no change in the Classification of the visual resources this past fiscal year. Classification of
                            lands n the Coos Bay Dstrct s as follows:

                             Visual Resource
                             Management Class          Acres     Objective
                             VRM Class I                  570    Preserve the exstng character of the landscape.
                             VRM Class II               6,600    Retan the exstng character of the landscape.
                             VRM Class III             14,700    Partally retan the exstng character of the landscape.
                             VRM Class IV             303,930    Allow major modifications of existing character of the landscape.



         Rural Interface Areas/Wildland Urban Interface Areas
                            The definition of wildland urban interface (WUI) in the National Fire Plan is much broader than
                            that of the Dstrct’s RMP (page 44 and Map 6, ROD/RMP). In FY 2006, 416 acres of varous fuels
                            treatments that met definition and the intent of Rural Interface Area protection in the RMP (Table
                            26) were funded by the Natonal Fre Plan. The prmary treatment methods were manual and machne
                            plng on 324 acres wth 92 acres beng broadcast burned.


         Socioeconomic
                            The Coos Bay Dstrct has been successful n contrbutng to local, state, natonal and nternatonal
                            economes through monetary payments, sustanable use of BLM-managed lands and resources, and
                            use of nnovatve contractng and other mplementaton strateges as well.

                            In 2006, the Coos Bay Dstrct contrbuted to the local economy by sellng 11 tmber sales allowng
                            the harvest of 40 MMBF of tmber. Over 5,500 acres of young stands were treated through contracts
                            valued at $842,000. In addton, the Dstrct ssued almost $450,000 worth of projects to contractors
                            n the area for projects such as stand exams, tmber markng, brushng for tmber sales, and road
                            mantenance. These funds came from reforestaton and tmber accounts. Over $1,400,000 was
                            approved by the Coos Bay RAC under Ttle II of the Secure Rural Schools and Communty Self-
                            Determnaton Act for projects. Table 9 dsplays the summary of Socoeconomc actvtes for the
                            Coos Bay Dstrct.

                            The BLM has contnued to provde amentes such as developed and dspersed recreatonal
                            opportuntes. Coos Bay Dstrct s dstnctve n that t offers a mxture of forest, lakes, rvers,
                            beaches, and ocean wthn ts boundary. One can walk through an old-growth stand n the mornng
                            and tour a lighthouse or whale watch in the afternoon. In fiscal year 2006, nearly 800,000 people
                            recreated on lands managed by the Coos Bay Dstrct. These vstors add to the toursm ndustry n
                            the area.
30
                                                         Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006
                                 The Coos Bay District Office employs about 130 full-time and a total of 23 part-time employees.
                                 Most of the personnel lve n the communtes of Coos Bay and North Bend wth about 10 percent
                                 living in surrounding communities. This professional workforce has a significant impact on the
                                 communty through payroll mpacts and communty partcpaton. Only the healthcare ndustry,
                                 county government, publc educaton, the Coqulle Indan Trbe, the U.S. Coast Guard, and a handful
                                 of prvate companes employ more people n the area.


Table 9. Coos Bay RMP, Summary of Socioeconomic Activities and Allocations
           Program Element                             FY 2002               FY 2003                FY 2004              FY 2005              FY 2006
Dstrct Budget                                       $14,415,000            $14,220,000           $13,945,000          $13,346,000          $14,591,000
Tmber Sale Collectons     1

  O&C lands                                             $1,305,530              $859,342            $1,419,646            $2,402,893          $4,542,265
  CBWR lands                                              $197,270              $249,894              $474,514            $1,503,958            $742,550
  PD lands                                                $410,650                    $0              $142,145                    $0          $1,421,112
Payments to Countes
  Coos County                                          $6,466,506             $6,544,104            $7,459,102           $6,537,509           $6,284,384
  Coos CBWR                                              $809,560               $819,274                                   $818,449             $786,759
  Curry County                                         $4,000,466             $4,048,471            $4,101,101           $3,874,477           $3,887,797
                                          Total 2
                                                      $11,276,532            $11,411,849           $11,560,203          $11,230,435          $10,958,940
Payments n Leu of Taxes2
  Coos County                                             $10,900                $12,295               $12,815               $13,371             $13,670
  Curry County                                            $95,219               $107,412              $112,030              $117,051           $119,684
                                   Total                 $106,119               $119,707              $124,845              $130,422           $133,354
Value of Forest Development Contracts                    $906,000               $725,000              $707,000              $780,000            $842,000
Value of Tmber Sales                                    $985,504             $2,283,767            $1,748,867            $5,717,321          $7,911,093
  Number of oral auctons                               2 auctons             7 auctons            7 auctons            9 auctons        12 auctons
Negotated Sales                                         $173,941               $173,941                $56,343             $197,753             $88,737
  Number of negotated sales                                    10                     10                    10                     9                 23
Jobs-n-the-Woods contracts                              $737,900               $902,038              $700,367              $255,391                  $0
Tmber Sale/                                             $889,000               $856,000              $314,000              $277,000            $846,024
Recreaton Ppelne Restoraton Funds
Recreaton Fee Demonstraton                              $126,560              $141,448              $174,272              $156,230            $150,685
Project Recepts
Challenge Cost Share                                      $155,115               $51,000              $322,000              $135,000             $33,000
Value-n-knd or Volunteer Efforts                        $372,400              $297,567              $173,808              $192,224            $205,020
Value of land sales                                              0                     0                     0                     0                   0
Funds collected as tmber s harvested.
1

To smplfy reportng nformaton and to avod duplcatng reportng, all payments to Coos and Curry countes have been reported by the Coos Bay Dstrct.
2

Payments to Douglas and Lane countes have been reported by the Roseburg and Eugene Dstrcts respectvely.




                    Monetary Payments
                                 The Bureau of Land Management contributes financially to the local economy in a variety of ways. One
                                 of these ways is through financial payments. They include Payments in Lieu of Taxes, O&C Payments,
                                 and Coos Bay Wagon Road (CBWR) Payments. Payments of each type were made n FY 2006 as
                                 drected n current legslaton. A descrpton of each type of payment program s descrbed below.


                                 Payments in Lieu of Taxes
                                “Payments n Leu of Taxes” (PILT) are Federal payments made annually to local governments that
                                 help offset losses n property taxes due to nontaxable Federal lands wthn ther boundares. The

                                                                                                                                                             31
Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006
                             key law that mplements the payments s Publc Law 94-565, dated October 20, 1976. Ths law was
                             rewritten and amended by Public Law 97-258 on September 13, 1982 and codified at Chapter 69, Title
                             31 of the Unted States Code. The Law recognzes that the nablty of local governments to collect
                             property taxes on Federally-owned land can create a financial impact.

                           PILT payments help local governments carry out such vital services as firefighting and police
                           protecton, constructon of publc schools and roads, and search-and-rescue operatons. These
                           payments are one of the ways that the Federal government can fulfill its role of being a good
                           neghbor to local communtes. Ths s an especally mportant role for the BLM, whch manages more
                           publc land than any other Federal agency.

                           PILT Payments to local countes n 2006 were as follows:
                                Coos County              $13,670
                                Curry County            $119,684
                                Douglas County          $192,091
                                State-wde Total       $6,595,478


                           Payments to Counties
                           Payments are currently made to countes under “The Secure Rural Schools and Communty Self-
                           Determnaton Act of 2000.” The purpose of the act s “To restore stablty and predctablty to the
                           annual payments made to States and countes contanng Natonal Forest System lands and publc
                           domain lands managed by the BLM for use by the counties for the benefit of public schools, roads
                           and other purposes.” The “publc doman lands managed by the BLM” refer only to Revested Oregon
                           and Calforna Grantlands (O&C) and Reconveyed Coos Bay Wagon Road Lands (CBWR), not publc
                           doman (PD) lands. The O&C lands consst of approxmately 2.5 mllon acres of federally-owned
                           forest lands n 18 western Oregon countes ncludng approxmately 74,500 acres of Coos Bay Wagon
                           Road Lands n the Coos Bay and Roseburg BLM Dstrcts.

                           Fscal Year 2006 was the sxth year payments were made to western Oregon countes under the
                           Secure Rural Schools and Communty Self-Determnaton Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-393). Countes made
                           electons to receve the standard O&C and CBWR payment as calculated under the Act of August
                           28, 1937 or the Act of May 24, 1939, or the calculated full payment amount as determned under P.L.
                           106-393. All countes n the Coos Bay Dstrct elected to receve payments under the new legslaton.
                           Begnnng n Fscal Year 2001 and contnung through 2006 payments are to be made based on
                           hstorc O&C and CBWR payments to the countes. The legslaton expred n 2006 and has not been
                           reauthorzed by Congress; although new legslaton has been ntroduced to extend the Act. Table
                           10 dsplays the statewde payments made under each Ttle of P.L. 106-393 as well as the grand total.
                           Table 11 dsplays the Ttle II and III payments for ths Dstrct.




32
                                              Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006

Table 10. FY 2006 Secure Rural Schools Payments to Counties Under P.L. 106-393
                                                                                   Title II retained
      County         Title I Paid        Title III Paid         Total Paid             by BLM               Grand Total
Benton               $2,772,872.51          $440,397.40          $3,213,269.91           $48,933.04          $3,262,202.95
Clackamas            $5,476,669.89          $715,188.66          $6,191,858.55          $251,282.50          $6,443,141.05
Columba             $2,032,781.97          $240,346.58          $2,273,128.55          $118,379.66          $2,391,508.21
Coos                 $5,822,045.47          $462,338.91          $6,284,384.38          $565,080.88          $6,849,465.26
Coos (CBWR)            $728,877.97           $57,881.49            $786,759.46           $70,744.04            $857,503.50
Curry                $3,601,773.89          $286,023.22          $3,887,797.11          $349,583.94          $4,237,381.05
Douglas             $24,719,023.57        $1,090,545.16         $25,809,568.73        $3,271,635.47         $29,081,204.20
Douglas (CBWR)         $131,764.34            $5,813.13            $137,577.47           $17,439.40            $155,016.87
Jackson             $15,462,958.06        $1,364,378.65         $16,827,336.71        $1,364,378.65         $18,191,715.36
Josephne           $11,920,391.41        $2,103,598.48         $14,023,989.89                 $0.00        $14,023,989.89
Klamath              $2,309,082.44           $81,497.03          $2,390,579.47          $325,988.11          $2,716,567.58
Lane                $15,068,243.11        $1,356,141.88         $16,424,384.99        $1,302,959.85         $17,727,344.84
Lncoln                $355,243.45           $37,614.01            $392,857.46           $25,076.01            $417,933.47
Lnn                 $2,605,118.65          $229,863.41          $2,834,982.06          $229,863.41          $3,064,845.47
Maron               $1,440,709.55          $190,682.15          $1,631,391.70           $63,560.72          $1,694,952.42
Multnomah            $1,075,598.23          $172,811.45          $1,248,409.68           $17,000.00          $1,265,409.68
Polk                 $2,131,460.71          $319,719.11          $2,451,179.82           $56,421.02          $2,507,600.84
Tllamook              $552,600.93           $32,668.47            $585,269.40           $64,849.34            $650,118.74
Washngton             $621,676.04                 $0.00           $621,676.04          $109,707.54            $731,383.58
Yamhll                $710,486.91          $125,380.04            $835,866.95                 $0.00           $835,866.95
            Total   $99,539,379 .10       $9,312,889 .23       $108,852,268 .33      $8,252,883 .58         $117,105,151 .91

                                                                                                CBWR           $1,012,520.37
                                                                                                 O&C         $116,092,631.54
                                                                                                 Total        $117,105,151 .91



                         Table 11. Title II Payments Coos, Curry, and Douglas Counties
                                      (Payments were made October 25, 2005)
                                          County                                     Title II Payment
                         Coos                                                             $565,080.88
                         Coos (CBWR)                                                       $70,744.04
                         Curry                                                            $174,791.97
                         Douglas                                                          $654,327.09
                         Douglas (CBWR)                                                     $3,487.88
                                                                Total                   $1,468,431 .86


                      Ttle I payments are made to the elgble countes based on the three hghest payments to each county
                      between the years 1986 and 1999. These payments may be used by the countes n the manner as
                      prevous 50-percent and “safety net” payments.

                      Ttle II payments are reserved by the countes n specal account n the Treasury of the Unted States
                      for funding projects providing protection, restoration and enhancement of fish and wildlife habitat,
                      and other natural resource objectves as outlned n P.L. 106-393. BLM s drected to oblgate these
                      funds for projects selected by local Resource Advsory Commttees and approved by the Secretary of
                      Interor or the desgnee.
                                                                                                                            33
Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006
                             Ttle III payments are made to the countes for uses authorzed n P.L. 106-393. These nclude
                             1) search, rescue, and emergency servces on Federal land, 2) communty servce work camps,
                             3) easement purchases, 4) forest-related educational opportunities, 5) fire prevention and county
                             plannng, and 6) communty forestry.


         Environmental Justice
                            Executve Order 12898 of February 11, 1994, “Federal Actons to Address Envronmental Justce n
                            Mnorty Populatons and Low-Income Populatons” drects all federal agences to
                            “. . . make achevng envronmental justce part of ts msson by dentfyng and addressng . . .
                            dsproportonately hgh and adverse human health or envronmental effects of ts programs, polces
                            and actvtes.”

                            Environmental justice analyses associated with FY 2006 projects did not find any project which
                            identified “disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects,” as specified
                            under ths Order.


         Recreation
                  Recreation Sites Managed and Visitor Use
                            Table 12 outlnes vstaton at each of the Dstrct’s developed recreaton stes, Specal Recreaton
                            Management Areas (SRMA), and Extensve Recreaton Management Areas (ERMA) n 2006. The
                            ERMA ncludes all of the recreaton stes and BLM admnstered lands outsde of SRMAs.

                            The followng recreaton use statstcs have been tracked and documented n the BLM’s FY 2006
                            Recreaton Management Informaton System (RMIS) report.

                            Recreation use permits for camping and day-use issued at campgrounds and fees collected
                            in 2006:

                                                                 Number of Recreation
                             Fee Recreation Site                 Use Permits Issued   Fees Collected
                             Loon Lake/East Shore                       10,434           $117,134
                             Sxes and Edson Campgrounds                 1,344             $15,629
                             Cape Blanco Lghthouse                      8,961             $17,922
                             Total                                      20,739           $150,685

                            Recreaton fee revenues n Coos Bay Dstrct decreased by 4 percent over 2005 collectons, although
                            the number of use permts ncreased by 38 percent.




34
                               Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006

Table 12. Extensive and Special Recreation Management Areas
(ERMA/SRMA)
                                                                         Acres                  FY 2006 Visits
Umpqua Field Office SRMAs
 Loon Lake SRMA1
   Loon Lake Campground                                                         79                       56,348
   East Shore Campground                                                        52                        2,681
 Dean Creek Elk Vewng Area SRMA                                            1,095                      427,111
 Coos Bay Shorelands SRMA2                                                   1,726                       40,350
 Umpqua SRMA Total                                                           2,952                      526,490
Umpqua Field Office ERMA and Recreation Sites
 Smth Rver Falls Campground                                                  81                         8,625
 Vncent Creek Campground                                                       3                         5,535
 Fawn Creek Campground                                                          5                           367
 Park Creek Campground                                                         60                         3,993
 Bg Tree Recreaton Ste                                                      20                           152
 Subtotal Developed Stes                                                     170                        18,672
 Dspersed Use for Umpqua ERMA                                            193,420                        49,318
 Umpqua ERMA Total                                                        193,759                        67,990
Umpqua Field Office Total                                                 196,711                       594,480

Myrtlewood Field Office SRMAs
 New Rver ACEC/SRMA                                1,168                                                15,969
 Sxes Rver SRMA 3

   Sxes Rver Campground                             120                                                 1,116
   Edson Creek Campground                              45                                                 8,627
 Myrtlewood SRMA Total                              1,333                                                25,712
Myrtlewood Field Office ERMA and Recreation Sites
 Cape Blanco Lghthouse (NHS)                          32                                                23,000
 Burnt Mountan Campground                             38                                                 1,000
 Bear Creek                                            80                                                 4,175
 Palmer Butte Scenc Overlook                          40                                                   500
 Subtotal Developed Stes                             190                                                28,675
 Dspersed Use for Myrtlewood ERMA                126,320                                                25,804
 Myrtlewood ERMA Total                            126,700                                                83,154
Myrtlewood Field Office Total                     128,033                                               108,866

Total Coos Bay District                                                   324,744                       702,806
1
 Loon Lake SRMA ncludes Loon Lake and East Shore Campgrounds.
2
 Coos Bay Shorelands ncludes the North Spt ACEC and North Spt Boat Ramp.
3
  Sxes Rver SRMA ncludes Sxes Rver and Edson Creek Campgrounds.

Note: A visit is defined as a visit to BLM-administered land and/or waters by a person for the purpose of engaging in
any recreatonal actvty (except those whch are part of, or ncdental to the pursut of a ganful occupaton) whether
for a few mnutes, a full day, or more.




                                                                                                                           35
Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006
                   Recreation Trails Managed
                             There was no change n the length or types of trals managed from FY 2005.

                              Umpqua Field Office                   Miles      Use Type
                               Loon Lake Waterfall Tral             1.0       Hke
                               Blue Rdge Tral                     12.0       Hke/bke/horse/OHV
                               Bg Tree                              0.5       Hke/nterpretve
                                                      Total         13.5

                              Myrtlewood Field Office               Miles      Use Type
                               Doerner Fr Tral #T801               0.8       Hke/nterpretve
                               New Rver (14 Trals) #T802           3.5       Hke/nterpretve
                               Hunter Creek Trals #T803             2.5       Hke
                               Euphora Rdge Tral #T804           10.0       Mountan Bke
                                                      Total         16.8
                              Coos Bay District Totals              30 .3


                   Special Recreation Permits (SRP) Issued
                             Three Special Recreation Permits were issued in the Umpqua Field Office in 2006: one for a
                             commercial outfitter and guide service and the other two for bicycle tours. One permit is active in the
                             Myrtlewood Field Office for guided tours of the Cape Blanco Lighthouse.


                   Off-Highway Vehicle Designations Managed (acres)
                                                                   Open             Lmted    Closed
                              Umpqua Field Office                   0               195,515    1,805
                              Myrtlewood Field Office               0               126,532    1,898
                              Coos Bay District Totals              0               322,167    3,583

                             The 80 acres that were prevously desgnated as “open” were legslatvely transferred to Douglas
                             County n 2004.


                   Major Recreation Projects
                             - Mantaned the Blue Rdge, Euphora Rdge, New Rver, and Loon Lake tral systems through an
                               assstance agreement wth the Northwest Youth Corps.


                   Status of Recreation Area Management Plans
                             Busness plans were produced for the Loon Lake Recreaton Area and the Cape Blanco Lghthouse
                             n 2005. These plans examned revenue and operatng expenses at these recreaton stes and
                             recommended strateges to lower costs for operatons and mantenance.

                             Plans completed n the past 5 years are lsted below.

                             Umpqua Field Office
                             • Coos Bay Shorelands SRMA – completed 1995, updated n 2006.
                             • Loon Lake Busness Plan – completed 2005.
                             • Loon Lake SRMA Management Plan – completed 2002.
                             • Vncent Creek House hstorcal assessment completed FY 2001.

36
                             Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006
       Myrtlewood Field Office
       • Cape Blanco Busness Plan – completed 2005.
       • New Rver ACEC/SRMA Management Plan – completed 1995. Plan Update completed n 2004.
         Vstor use montorng plan ntated n FY 2001.
       • Sxes Rver SRMA Recreaton Area Management Plan – completed FY 2000.



Forest Management
       [Refer to Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report – FY 2005 for values durng
       the perod of FY 1995-2004.]

       In FY 2006, the Dstrct offered and sold 11 tmber sales wth a total of approxmately 40 mllon
       board feet (MMBF). Two of these tmber sales (Brown Elk and Bum Ssters DM) were orgnally
       advertsed n FY 2005 and dd not sell. They were reoffered n FY 2006 and sold. One sale, Green
       Peak, was offered but not sold. In addton to the advertsed sales, approxmately 1.5 MMBF of
       tmber was sold as mscellaneous volume ncludng small negotated sales, rght-of-way tmber, and
       contract modifications. This volume is included in Table 15 but not in Table 16.

       The FY 2006 tmber sale offered represents a mxture of harvest types ncludng regeneraton harvest,
       commercal thnnng n the Matrx, hardwood converson, and densty management n the Rparan
       Reserve, and densty management wthn the Late-Successonal Reserve.

       Table 13 dsplays the volume of tmber offered by the Dstrct under the Resource Management
       Plan (RMP). The declared Allowable Sale Quantty (ASQ) for the Dstrct s 27 MMBF. Ths ASQ,
       once determned and declared, s an annual regulatory commtment n the O&C Act; however, full
       mplementaton may be restrcted by budget approprates or unusual market condtons.


          Table 13. Timber Volumes Offered in Fiscal Years 2005-2006
                                                             Offered FY 2006             Offered FY 05-06
                   Land Use Allocation                            (MMBF)1                      (MMBF)1
           Matrx
            General Forest Management Area                                       20.2                         33.8
            Connectvty/Dversty Block                                             0                         0.1
           Mscellaneous Volume 2                                                 1.5                          2.2
          Total Annual Sale Quantty Volume                                      21.7                         36.1
          Volumes from Reserves 3                                                 20                          46.6
          Total Volume Offered                                                   41 .7                        82 .7
          1
           Includes Green Peak sale whch was offered but not sold n FY06. Does not nclude Brown Elk and Bum
           Ssters Densty Management sales whch were offered n FY05 and sold n FY06.
          2
           Includes ASQ volume from modifications and negotiated sales.
          3
           Includes non-ASQ volume from advertised sales, modifications and negotiated sales, and non-ASQ hardwood
           volumes.


       Table 14 descrbes n detal the tmber sales offered for sale durng FY 2006.




                                                                                                                      37
Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006

 Table 14. Fiscal Year 2006 Advertised Timber Sales
                                       Land Use          Volume Type of
       Sale Name                      Allocation 1 Acres (MBF) 2 Harvest 3                     Comments
 Bum Ssters DM                       LSR, RR        37     540 RH, DM     23 acres - RH (hardwood converson) n LSR
                                                                           8 acres - RH (hardwood converson) n RR (GFMA)
                                                                           6 acres - DM thnnng n RR (C/DB)
 Note: Ths sale was offered but not sold n FY 2005 and was reoffered and sold n FY 2006. It s ncluded n the totals.
 Marten Track                         LSR                    246        3,879      DM, RH,          Wthn LSR,
                                                                                   R/W               104 acres - DM thnnng outsde RR
                                                                                                     118 acres - DM thnnng wthn RR
                                                                                                     23 acres - RH (hardwood converson)
                                                                                                     1 acre - R/W
 Homolac DM                           LSR                    186        4,205      DM               Wthn LSR,
                                                                                                     136 acres - DM thnnng outsde RR
                                                                                                     50 acres - DM thnnng wthn RR
 Coal Mnor                           LSR                    159        1,532      DM               Wthn LSR,
                                                                                                     93 acres - DM thnnng outsde RR
                                                                                                     66 acres - DM thnnng wthn RR
 Brown Elk                            GFMA,                   55        2,095      RH, DM           42 acres - RH n GFMA
                                      C/DB, RR                                                      3 acres - RH n C/DB
                                                                                                    10 acres - DM thnnng n RR (GFMA)
 Note: Brown Elk was offered but not sold n FY 2005 and was reoffered and sold n FY 2006. It s ncluded n the totals.
 Camas Creek Fre Salvage             GFMA                    22          670      RH      22 acres - RH n GFMA
 North Powerstrp CT                  GFMA, RR               229        4,792      RH, CT, Wthn GFMA,
                                                                                   DM, R/W 7 acres - RH (hardwood converson)
                                                                                            154 acres - CT
                                                                                            6 acres - R/W
                                                                                           62 acres - DM thnnng n RR (GFMA)
 South Powerstrp CT                  GFMA, RR               284        6,385      RH, CT, Wthn GFMA,
                                                                                   R/W      14 acres - RH (hardwood converson)
                                                                                            173 acres - CT
                                                                                            8 acres - R/W
                                                                                           Wthn RR (GFMA),
                                                                                            82 acres - DM thnnng
                                                                                            5 acres - RH (hardwood converson)
                                                                                            2 acres - R/W
 Lucshnger Fre Salvage              GFMA, RR                11           308     RH      6 acres - RH n GFMA
                                                                                           5 acres - RH n RR (GFMA)
 McKnley Garage CT                   GFMA, RR               243        3,748      RH, CT, Wthn GFMA,
                                                                                   DM, R/W 11 acres - RH (hardwood converson)
                                                                                            113 acres - CT
                                                                                           Wthn RR (GFMA),
                                                                                            3 acres - R/W
                                                                                            3 acres - RH (hardwood converson)
                                                                                            113 acres - DM thnnng
 Seed Orchard CT                      GFMA, RR               527       12,178      CT, DM  378 acres - CT n GFMA;
                                                                                           149 acres - DM thnnng n RR (GFMA).
 Green Peak                           GFMA                    16           936     RH      16 acres - RH n GFMA.
 Note: Green Peak was offered and not sold n FY 2006. It s not ncluded n the totals.
                                               Totals      1,999       40,332
 1
  GFMA s General Forest Management Area, C/DB s Connectvty/Dversty Blocks, LSR s Late-Successonal Reserve, RR s Rparan Reserve
 2
  Includes hardwood volumes.
 3
  RH s Regeneraton Harvest, CT s Commercal Thnnng, DM s Densty Management, R/W s Rght-of-Way.



38
                         Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006
Table 15 dsplays acres and volume from tmber sales sold n the Matrx for FY 2006.


             Table 15. Actual Acres and ASQ Volume Sold from the
             Matrix in FY 20061
                 Land Use           Regeneration Harvest                   Commercial Thinning
                 Allocation       Acres Volume (MMBF)2                    Acres         Volume (MMBF)
                   GFMA             102      3.177                         818               16.996
                    C/DB               3     0.073                           0                     0
                   Totals            105      3 .25                        818               16 .996
             Includes Camas Creek Fre Salvage and parts of Brown Elk, North Powerstrp CT, South
             1

             Powerstrp CT, McKnley Garage CT, Seed Orchard CT, and Luchsnger Fre Salvage tmber sales.
             All other sales sold (or parts of sold sales mentoned) were located n LSR or RR.
             Green Peak was offered but not sold and s located n GFMA.
             This table does not include miscellaneous volume sold as modifications, negotiated sales or R/W
             from advertsed sales.
             Includes a hardwood converson (Regeneraton Harvest) unt whch contaned only non-ASQ
             2

             hardwood volume. Therefore, acres reported but not volume.


Table 16 dsplays a summary of volume sold under the RMP from the Harvest Land Base (the Matrx
land use allocaton) and the Reserves.


         Table 16. Summary of Volume Sold1
          Sold ASQ/Non-ASQ Volume                                                           FY05-14
                   (MMBF)                               FY 2006          FY 05-06         Declared ASQ
         ASQ Volume – Harvest Land Base                  21.328            32.69              2703
         Non-ASQ Volume – Reserves2                      19.004            44.73               n/a
                                   Totals                40 .332           77 .42              n/a
         1
          Volume from advertsed sales only.
         2
          Includes hardwood volumes.
         3
          Declared Coos Bay FY05-14 ASQ (27 MMBF x 10) = 270 MMBF

Table 17 dsplays the summary of volume currently ‘sold-but-not-awarded’ by the Dstrct under
the RMP.

     Table 17. Summary of Volume Sold but Unawarded1
     Sold Unawarded (as of 9/30/06)                                                              Total
      ASQ/Non-ASQ Volume (MMBF)                           FY 19982          FY 20063         FY 1995 - 2006
     ASQ Volume – Harvest Land Base                         7.039             2.008               9.047
     Non-ASQ Volume – Reserves                              0.459             0.087               0.546
     (ncludng hardwoods)
                                Totals                        7 .498           2 .095                9 .593
     1
      Includes volume from advertsed sales only.
     2
      Includes the followng sales: FY98 Remote Control
     3
      Includes the followng sales: FY06 Brown Elk




                                                                                                               39
Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006
                             Table 18 dsplays the ASQ volume/acres harvested from the Matrx LUA and ASQ volume from Key
                             Watersheds under the RMP.

                                  Table 18. Matrix ASQ Volume and Acres Sold by Allocations
                                  (including negotiated sales, modifications, and right-of-ways)
                                                                                               Total               FY 05-14
                                     Harvest Land Base                      FY 2006           FY 05-06         Decadal Projection
                                  ASQ Volume (MMBF)
                                   Matrx                                      22.781            34.826                   321.02
                                   AMA                                              0                 0                        0
                                  ASQ Acres
                                      Matrx1                                    947              1,699                  8,7003
                                    AMA                                             0                   0                       0
                                  Key Watershed ASQ Volume                      2.115               4.464                     304
                                  (MMBF)
                                  1
                                   Includes hardwood converson (Regeneraton Harvest) unts whch contaned only non-ASQ hardwood
                                  volume. Therefore, acres reported but not volume.
                                  2
                                   Volumes calculated from Table BB-7, Coos Bay Dstrct Proposed Resource Management Plan EIS Vol. II (p.
                                  259).
                                  3
                                   Acres from Table AA-7, Coos Bay Dstrct Proposed Resource Management Plan EIS Volume II (p. 251).
                                  4
                                   From Coos Bay Dstrct Proposed Resource Management Plan EIS (p. 3).




                          Table 19 dsplays the ASQ volume ncluded n sales sold by harvest type under the RMP.


                              Table 19. Matrix ASQ Volume and Acres Sold by Harvest Type
                                                                                                              FY 05-14 Decadal
                               Harvest Land Base                    FY 2006         Total FY 05-06              Projection1,3
                              ASQ Volume (MMBF)
                               Regeneraton Harvest                    3.250               5.945                        310.0
                               Commercal Thnnng                    16.996              24.995                         11.0
                               Other2                                  2.535               3.886                            0
                               Totals                                 22.781              34.826                        321.0
                              ASQ Acres
                               Regeneraton Harvest4                     105                  195                       7,600
                               Commercal Thnnng                       818                1,444                       1,100
                               Other2                                     24                   60                           0
                               Totals                                    947                1,699                       8,700
                              1
                               Volumes calculated from Table BB-7, Coos Bay Dstrct Proposed Resource Management Plan EIS Vol. II (p.
                              259).
                              2
                               Includes negotiated sales, modifications, and right-of-ways.
                              3
                               Acres from Table AA-7, Coos Bay Dstrct Proposed Resource Management Plan EIS Volume II (p. 251).
                              4
                               Includes hardwood converson (Regeneraton Harvest) unts whch contaned only nonASQ hardwood volume.
                                Therefore, acres reported but not volume.




40
                         Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006
Table 20 dsplays the acres of Reserve ncluded n sales sold by harvest type under the RMP.


              Table 20. Acres of Harvest within the Reserve
              Sold by Harvest Types1
                    Reserve Acres2                      FY 2006            Total FY 05-06
              Late-Successonal Reserve                    614                   2,004
              Rparan Reserve                             445                     883
              Totals                                     1,059                   2,887
              1
               Includes advertsed sales only.
              2
               Includes Densty Management and Hardwood Converson acres n Reserves.


Table 21 dsplays the acres by age class and harvest type ncluded n sales sold under the RMP.


      Table 21. ASQ Sale Acres Sold by Age Class1
                                                                                    FY 05-14
                                       FY 2006           Total FY 05-06         Decadal Projection2
      Regeneration Harvest
       0-79                      94                                184                      3,200
       80-99                      0                                  0                        700
       100-199                   11                                 11                      3,100
       200+                       0                                  0                        600
       Totals                  105                                 195                      7,600
      Commercial Thinning and Other
       30-39                     17                                32                           0
       40-49                   466                                688                         600
       50-59                      8                               397                         500
       60-79                   327                                327                           0
       80-99                      0                                 0                           0
       100-199                    0                                 0                           0
       Totals                  818                              1,444                       1,100
      1
       Includes advertsed sales from Harvest Land Base only.
      2
       Acres from Table AA-7, Coos Bay Dstrct Proposed Resource Management Plan EIS Volume II (p. 251).



The Dstrct ASQ was reduced from 32 MMBF to 27 MMBF as a result of the Thrd Year Evaluaton.

See Appendx B-2 for the nformaton on Allowable Sale Quantty Reconclaton.




                                                                                                            41
Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006
                             Fgures 1 and 2 dsplay comparsons of the actual acres sold from the Matrx by Fscal Year (FY).
                             These values nclude hardwood converson acres but do not nclude tmber sale R/W acres.



               Figure 1.Comparison of Regeneration Harvest Acres by Fiscal Year




              Figure 2.Comparison of Commercial Thinning Acres by Fiscal Year




42
                                       Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006

Silvicultural Practices
         Implementaton of many slvcultural practces s proportonal to the Dstrct’s regeneraton harvest
         schedule wth a tme lag of a few years. Ltgaton and Endangered Speces Act provsons contnue
         to affect the amount of many reforestaton practces, such as ste preparaton, tree plantng, anmal
         control, and stand mantenance. Treatment of stands, such as precommercal thnnng/release, that
         were harvested pror to the current RMP has generally been accomplshed. Durng the second decade
         of ths plan, some work wll be drected towards practces such as prunng and conversons, to meet
         the first decadal projections.

         In FY 2006, the Dstrct awarded contracts totalng approxmately $842,000 to treat the acres shown
         n Table 22. An addtonal $219,000 n forest development money was spent on stand exam contracts,
         noxous weed control, densty management project layout, fence removal from tree mprovement
         stes, and roads mantenance for access to project areas.


           Table 22. Annual ROD Projections and Accomplishments for
           Silvicultural Practices
                                                                  2nd Decade - FY 2005 to 2014
                                                           Accomplishments (acres)         Decadal
                    Type of Practice                       FY 2006 Total FY 05-06 Projection1 (acres)
           Ste Preparaton
              Prescrbed Fre                                      9                 173                      7,500
              Other                                                3                  19                          -
              Total for Ste Preparaton                          12                 192                      7,500
           Plantng
            Normal Stock                                         125                 125                      3,100
            Genetc Stock                                        202                 339                      6,100
            Total for plantng                                   227                 364                      9,200
           Stand Mantenance/Protecton
              Vegetaton Control                                 942               1,564                    10,700
              Anmal Control                                     335                 461                     7,600
           Precommercal Thnnng/Release                      2,418               4,296                     3,500
           Brushfield/Hardwood Conversion                         32                  32                       100
           Fertlzaton                                           0                   0                     2,800
           Prunng                                             1,554               2,494                       900
            1
                Decadal projection figures from Coos Bay District Proposed RMP and Environmental Impact Statement - Volume II
                Appendx CC (p. 264).




    Young Stand Silviculture in Late-Successional Reserves
         Slvcultural practces n the Late-Successonal Reserves (LSR) have been proceedng n stands less
         than 20-years old snce FY 1995, as shown n Table 23. Ths demonstrates that the mplementaton
         targets of the South Coast-North Klamath Late-Successional Reserve Assessment (May 1998) are beng met on
         the Dstrct.

         Establshment and mantenance of these young tmber stands s vtal to meetng later stand
         development targets for old-growth. The key components beng grown are domnant, fast growng,
         overstory trees; a vared confer speces mx; and a few hardwood trees. As an alternatve pathway
         for developng late-successonal characterstcs, 558 acres of moderate densty (18 feet by 18 feet)
         precommercal thnnng were completed n FY 2006. As theprecommercal thnnng/release workload
         s completed n the next few years, the prmary slvcultural treatment n the LSRs wll turn to densty
         management n stands 25 to 80 years old.
                                                                                                                                43
Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006

                                     Table 23. Silvicultural Practices in Late-Successional Reserves
                                                                                              Accomplishments (acres)
                                                      Type of Practice                       FY 2006           FY 95 to 2006
                                     Ste Preparaton
                                        Prescrbed Fre                                             9                    146
                                        Other                                                       0                    147
                                        Total for Ste Preparaton                                  9                    293
                                     Plantng
                                        Normal Stock                                              100                     86
                                        Genetc Stock                                               0                    401
                                        Total for plantng                                        110                  1,267
                                     Stand Mantenance/Protecton
                                        Vegetaton Control                                         78                  7,468
                                        Anmal Control                                            100                    770
                                     Precommercal Thnnng/Release                               558                  8,958
                                     Brushfield/Hardwood Conversion                                 0                     85
                                     Fertlzaton                                                  0                    141
                                     Prunng                                                        0                     36




         Special Forest Products
                             In addton to the advertsed tmber sales descrbed n the Tmber Management secton above, the
                             Dstrct sold a varety of Specal Forest Products as shown n Table 24. The sale of Specal Forest
                             Products follows the gudelnes contaned n the Oregon/Washngton Specal Forest Products
                             Procedure Handbook.


         Energy and Minerals
                             Recent reorganzaton of the Mnerals program n Oregon/Washngton BLM has resulted n the
                             formaton of the Western Oregon Mnerals Zone, whch ncludes Coos Bay Dstrct.


                   Energy
                             The Dstrct contnues to analyze ts potental for Coal Bed Methane leases, ncludng evaluaton and
                             preparng for NEPA documentaton and s n consultaton wth the Calforna and Wyomng BLM
                             offices. The District maintains open communications with the active producers in the area.

                             All projects receve a revew to determne f a Statements of Adverse Energy Impact (SAEI) s
                             requred; no SAEI were requred ths year.




44
                                  Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006

         Table 24. Summary of Special Forest/Natural Product Sales
            RMP Authorized                       Unit of                                      Total 2nd Decade
             Product Sales                      Measure                FY 2006                 FY 2005-2014
         Boughs, conferous                    Pounds                    22,000                     72,900
                                               Contracts1                     6                         37
                                               Value ($)                   $440                     $1,426
         Burls and Mscellaneous               Pounds                         0                          0
                                               Contracts1                     0                          0
                                               Value ($)                     $0                         $0
         Chrstmas Trees                       Number                         0                          0
                                               Contracts1                     0                          0
                                               Value ($)                     $0                         $0
         Edbles and Medcnals                Pounds                     4,500                      4,500
                                               Contracts1                     1                          1
                                               Value ($)                    $85                        $85
         Feed and Forage                       Tons                           0                          0
         Floral and Greenery                   Pounds                    84,138                    160,153
                                               Contracts1                   296                        581
                                               Value ($)                 $4,155                     $7,776
         Moss/bryophytes                       Pounds                       900                        900
                                               Contracts1                     1                          1
                                               Value ($)                    $90                        $90
         Mushrooms/fung                       Pounds                   186,297                    332,803
                                               Contracts1                   658                      1,333
                                               Value                   $ 18,681                   $ 33,627
         Ornamentals                           Number                         0                          0
                                               Contracts1                     0                          0
                                               Value ($)                     $0                         $0
         Seed and Seed Cones                   Bushels                      150                        150
                                               Contracts1                     1                          1
                                               Value ($)                    $75                        $75
         Transplants                           Number                        80                        835
                                               Contracts1                     2                          5
                                               Value ($)                     $0                        $52
         Wood products/firewood 2              Cubc feet                25,067                     44,820
                                               Contracts1                    86                        147
                                               Value ($)                 $1,290                     $2,379
                                    Totals Contracts1                     1,051                        2,106
                                           Value ($)                    $24,836                      $45,510
         1
           Contract numbers represent ndvdual sale (or free use) actons. Value s n dollars per year receved.
         2
           To avod double countng, ths lne does not nclude products converted nto and sold as ether board or cubc
           feet and reported elsewhere.



Minerals
     There are 53 actve mnng clams on the Coos Bay Dstrct. In FY 2006, no Notce of Operatons
     or Plan of Operatons were submtted, no complance nspectons performed, and no notces
     of noncomplance ssued. Four mneral sales and Free Use Permts were ssued from varous
     stes throughout the Dstrct, ncludng Baker and Elk Wallow Quarres. Approprate complance
     nspectons were completed.
                                                                                                                            45
Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006
                             The Dstrct has receved numerous nqures on recreatonal mnng. Investgaton and pursut of
                             remedaton has been ntated n conjuncton wth the Dstrct Hazmat program concernng mercury
                             exposure at the Sxes Rver Recreaton ste.

                           In accordance wth a Memorandum of Understandng between the Oregon/Washngton BLM and
                           Regon 6 Forest Servce , the Dstrct has completed a ‘Servce Frst’ project whch was a Forest
                           Servce/BLM-wde study culmnatng n a Forest Servce/BLM Mneral Materals Rate Sheet for
                           Oregon and Washngton.


                  Geology
                           Engneerng geology nvestgatons are conducted to support Dstrct Engneerng staff. In addton,
                           Dstrct representatves conducted numerous geologc nvestgatons n support of other programs,
                           wthn Dstrct and outsde of Dstrct and the Bureau, such as assstng the Medford Dstrct,
                           Roseburg Dstrct, and Salem Dstrct. The Dstrct contnues ts nvolvement wth the Federal Appled
                           Geomorphology Consortum.

                           Beach and geomorphologc process research s beng conducted at the New Rver ACEC. Ths project
                           has provded partnerng and consultaton opportuntes wth the Oregon Department of Geology and
                           Mneral Industres as well as researchers wth Oregon State Unversty and Portland State Unversty.
                           The ntent s to analyze remoblzaton of sand after stablzng vegetaton s removed. The results of
                           the research project wll be delvered to numerous government and academc enttes.

                           Other geologcal and geomorphologcal projects ncluded:
                           • quarry evaluatons of rock mechancs.
                           • engneerng geology nvestgatons and consultatons for engneerng purposes.
                           • ndepth research and montorng, resultng n projected mplcaton models of dune sand
                             movements.
                           • actve and mtgated slde evaluaton and montorng.
                           • hydrogeology groundwater montorng of recreatonal facltes.
                           • community presentations of natural hazards, specifically tsunami.
                           • assstance to other dstrcts ncludng geologcal nterpretatons and subsurface drllng/loggng.


         Range Resources
                           The District maintained 4 grazing leases in the Umpqua Field Office for a total of 23 AUMs. All
                           leases are n complance wth current BLM grazng standard gudelnes.


         Access and Right-of-Way
                           Due to the ntermngled nature of the publc and prvate lands wthn the Dstrct, each party must cross
                           the lands of the other to access ther lands and resources, such as tmber. On the majorty of the Dstrct
                           ths has been accomplshed through recprocal rght-of-way agreements wth adjacent land owners.

                           In FY 2006, the followng actons were accomplshed:
                           − 5 temporary permits were issued for timber hauling over existing roads.
                           − 1 existing right-of-way permit was amended to permit use of additional roads.
                           − 0 existing right-of-way permits were amended removing seasonal restrictions.
                           − 1 existing permit was amended to permit new construction across BLM land.
                           − 0 new reciprocal right-of-way agreements.

46
                                                      Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006
                                − 2 amendments to an existing reciprocal right-of-way agreements.
                                − 27 supplements to establish fees for use of existing roads were executed.
                                − 0 agreements were assigned in full to new landowners.
                                − 0 right-of-way permits were assigned in full to new landowners.
                                − 0 agreements were partially assigned to new landowners.
                                − 0 temporary permits were extended.

                                Requests for smlar type of actons are antcpated for FY 2007.


         Land Tenure Adjustments
                                The Dstrct dd not acqure or dspose of any lands n FY 2006.

                                The Oregon Publc Lands Transfer and Protecton Act of 1998, PL 105-321, establshed a polcy
                                of “No Net Loss” of O&C and Coos Bay Wagon Road (CBWR) lands n western Oregon. The
                                Act requres that, “. . . when sellng, purchasng, or exchangng land, BLM may nether 1) reduce the
                                total acres of O&C or CBWR lands nor 2) reduce the number of acres of O&C, CBWR, and Publc
                                Doman lands that are avalable for tmber harvest below what exsted on October 30, 1998 . . ..”
                                The redesgnaton of lands assocated wth establshment of the Coqulle Forest noted above s not
                                ncluded n the Act. Table 25 dsplays the results for the No Net Loss polcy on the Dstrct, whch s
                                the same as last year.


Table 25. No Net Loss Report for FY 98 to 2006
                                                     Acquired Acres                                           Disposed Acres
 Type of Action            Name/                               Available for                                            Available for
(sale, purchase,           Serial             Land Status     Timber Harvest                           Land Status     Timber Harvest
    exchange)             Number O&C CBWR PD                          O&C      CBWR          PD   O&C     CBWR    PD    O&C   CBWR   PD
Purchase                  OR-504041 -  -   71                           -         -          0     -        -      -     -     -     -
Sale                      OR-536202
                                    -  -   -                            -         -          -     -        -       2    -     -     0
Sale                      OR-538383 -  -   -                            -         -          -     -          1    -     -     0     -
Sale                      OR-538394 -  -   -                            -         -          -     -          2    -     -     0     -
Ttle Resoluton          OR-560845
                                    -  -   -                            -         -          -     9       183     -     0     0     -
Purchase                  OR-553096 -  -   44                           -         -          0     -        -      -     -     -     -
Purchase                  OR-557407 -  -     2                          -         -          0     -        -      -     -     -     -
Relnqushment            OR-192288 -  -  313                           -         -          0     -        -      -     -     -     -
Legslated Transfer       OR-609539 -  -   -                            -         -          -     -        -     67     -     -     0
1
 Russell Purchase of land adjacent to New Rver ACEC (Lost Lake), February 1998.
2
 Bally Bandon drect sale (T27S, R14W, Secton 29 Lot 3), Aprl 1999.
3
 Enos Ralph drect sale (T27S, R12W, Secton 13), November 1999.
4
 Lesle Crum drect sale (T27S, R11W, Secton 5), Aprl 2000.
5
 Coos County Ttle Resoluton (Coos Bay Wagon Road), September 2000.
6
 Russat Enterprses purchase of land n the Coos Bay Shorelands ACEC, May 2001.
7
 Wllam Warner purchase of land n the Dean Creek EVA, February 2002.
8
 COE relnqushment of lands on the North Spt of Coos Bay, June 2002.
9
 Legslated transfer to Douglas County of parcel of Umpqua Jetty/Lghthouse, October 2004.




                                                                                                                                         47
Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006

         Transportation/Roads
                             A summary of road constructon, repar and decommssonng for FY 2006 s as follows:
                             − 0.6 miles of new permanent road were constructed by federal action.
                             − 1.6 miles of existing road were decommissioned.
                             − 6.2 miles of temporary road were constructed and have either been decommissioned or are planned
                               to be decommssoned as the tmber sales they access are completed.
                             − 0.6 miles of road were built on public lands by private action.
                             − 0.0 miles of road were improved on public lands by private action.
                             − 0.1 miles of temporary road were built on public lands by private action.

                             Durng 2006, a 2-year edtng backlog of the Ground Transportaton Network and Road Informaton
                             Database (GTRN) was completed wth more than 95 percent of the database compled. Edts wll
                             contnue through 2007 as needed.


         Noxious Weeds
                             In FY 2006, Coos Bay Dstrct chemcally treated 1,013 acres of Scotch and French broom along
                             roads in the Umpqua Field Office and an additional 48 acres within the Myrtlewood Field Office.
                             The BLM, n cooperaton wth the Oregon Youth Conservaton Corps and the Northwest Youth
                             Corps, manually treated 556 acres of noxous weeds n varous locatons across the Dstrct ncludng
                             the Dean Creek Elk Vewng Area, the North Spt of Coos Bay, and the Blue Rdge Tral system.
                             Additionally, the District mechanically removed approximately five acres of aquatic weeds at the Loon
                             Lake Recreaton Ste.

                             The Coos Bay BLM Dstrct s concentratng ts noxous weed control efforts on the transportaton
                             system, the prncpal source of noxous weed spread on the Southern Oregon Coastal area. Ths s
                             occurrng n partnershp wth Coos County and Curry County Weed Advsory Boards. Part of ths
                             effort ncluded helpng the Curry Weed Advsory Board form the Sxes Rver Weed Management
                             Area. The BLMs contrbuton to ths effort has been techncal assstance and fundng ($10,000).


         Hazardous Materials Management and
         Resource Restoration
                             In FY 2006, the Coos Bay Dstrct Hazardous Materals program conssted of a number of
                             actons, ncludng nvestgatons, emergency responses, removals, clean-ups, and coordnaton, as
                             summarzed below:
                             − Six investigations of potential hazardous waste sites on public lands.
                             − Two time-critical response and removal actions involving illegal dumping on public lands.
                             − One time-critical response to a logging truck accident and diesel spill. Coordinated with state
                               and local emergency response authortes and the Responsble Party for response, removal and
                               correctve (cleanup) actons by the Responsble Party’s contractor.
                             − Continued monitoring on one previous hazardous waste removal site.
                             − Conducted removal and disposal actions on several RCRA hazardous waste streams generated by
                               BLM actvtes throughout the Dstrct.
                             − Continued to provide technical support for the Compliance Assessment - Safety, Health and the
                               Envronment (CASHE) program for BLM facltes. Evaluated and developed correctve actons for
                               applicable findings and follow-up.



48
                               Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006
       − Initiated and operated under Zone Agreement with Roseburg District for Hazardous Materials
         support. Served as member of desgn team for future OR/WA HazMat organzaton; proposal
         accepted by SLT and mplementaton begun.
       − Instructor at National Training Center (NTC) for Course No. 1703-00. Alternate coordinator also
         served as nstructor for NTC Course No. 1703-13.
       − Provided technical support as an evaluator/controller for the Department of Homeland Security
         (DHS) “Columba Challenge” ol spll exercse at the Port of Portland.
       − Provided technical support as interim Federal On-Scene-Coordinator (OSC) and representative
         for Department Regional Environmental Officer (REO) to two fuel tanker truck spills on major
         hghways (I-5, U.S. Hghway 42).


Fire/Fuels Management
       All fuels treatment actvtes were accomplshed meetng the Department of Interor 9214 Manual
       (Prescrbed Fre Management Polcy as revsed n September 2003) and n accordance wth the
       Oregon Smoke Management and Visibility Protection Plans. In FY 2006, prescribed fire and fuels
       management actvtes occurred on 18 acres. No ntrusons nto desgnated areas occurred as a result
       of fuels treatment projects on the Dstrct. Fuels consumpton vared due to factors such as tme of
       year, aspect, types and condton of fuels, gnton source and fuels treatment method. Prescrbed
       burnng prescrptons target sprng-lke burn condtons when large fuel, duff and ltter consumpton,
       and smolderng s reduced by wetter condtons and rapd mop-up. Fuels treatment actvtes are
       mplemented to mprove seedlng plantablty and survval, reduce brush competton, reduce actvty
       fuel loadng levels, protect resource values, re-establsh natve vegetaton and reduce natural fuels loads
       to lower the probability of catastrophic fire. Proposed management activities are analyzed during the
       nterdscplnary revew process and alternatve fuels treatment methods are utlzed where approprate.

       The Hazardous Fuels Reducton program was ntroduced n FY 2000 and has no ROD
       accomplshments assocated wth t. The (2823 and 2824) programs came about as a result of the
       catastrophic 2000 fire season and address fuel reduction activities in:
       − Areas where actions will mitigate threats to the safety of the public and our employees in both
         wldland urban nterface (2824) and nonnterface areas (2823).
       − Areas to protect, enhance, restore and/or maintain plant communities and habitats that are critical
         for endangered, threatened, or senstve plant and anmal speces.
       − Areas that will reduce risks and damage from wildfire.

       In 2006, the Dstrct accomplshed 20 acres of ste preparaton under the 2823 program, as detaled
       n Table 26. Some burnng was accomplshed under the Wldland Urban Interface program (2824) as
       dscussed n the Rural Interface Areas secton of ths Annual Program Summary.



         Table 26. Annual Fuels Management Accomplishments for
         Hazardous Fuels Reduction
                                                                          Acres Treated
                Practice             ROD Acres         FY 2000 to 2005        FY 2006       FY 2000 to 2006
         Site Preparation (2823)
           Prescribed Fire            N/A                        72                 0                 72
           Other                      N/A                     2,009                20              2,029
         Wildland Urban Interface (2824)
           Prescribed Fire            N/A                       316                92                408
           Other                      N/A                     1,954               324              2,278
         Total for Hazardous Fuels Reduction                  4,351               436              4,787

                                                                                                                49
Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006
                             In FY 2006, the District had six human caused fires totaling six acres. The District dispatched 64
                             District employees to wildfire assignments off-District and out of state for a total of 1,037 workdays.


         Cadastral Survey
                            Cadastral survey crews are responsble for the establshment and reestablshment of the boundares
                            of Publc Land.


 Table 27. Coos Bay District Cadastral Survey Activity
                                                                                  Fiscal Year
                                               2000         2001         2002          2003       2004         2005         2006
 Projects completed                              4            3            6             7          7            6            4
 Mles of survey lne run                       41           27           38            47         25           25           36
 Monuments set                                  31           56           32            25         10           33           35
 Survey notes and plats submtted to the         7            3            5             4          6            8            3
 Oregon State Office for final review

                            In addton to the accomplshments noted n Table 27, the survey crews completed the followng tasks:
                            − Reviewed and signed 5 sets of field notes for surveys completed in past years.
                            − Provided GPS support to District personnel.
                            − Answered numerous requests for information from members of the public.
                            − Provided technical guidance to private land surveyors.
                            − Completed site surveys of one communication site for Prineville District to facilitate
                              communcaton ste management plans.
                            − Provided technical review assistance for the Oregon State Office to assist in the timely approval of
                              completed surveys.


         Law Enforcement
                            In FY 2006, the Coos Bay Dstrct Law Enforcement Program contnued to functon wth two full-
                            tme BLM Rangers. Three BLM Rangers were detaled to the Loon Lake Recreaton Area durng the
                            summer months to assist with law enforcement as this was the first fiscal year in which the District
                            functoned wth only one Law Enforcement Assstance Agreement (Coos County).

                            Law enforcement actons on publc lands conducted by BLM Rangers and co-operatng County
                            Sherff Deputes nvolved conductng nvestgatons on 314 cases ncludng:
                            − 14 timber, fuelwood, and forest products thefts.
                            − 4 nonresource thefts.
                            − 29 cases of vandalism.
                            − 11 liquor law violations.
                            − 41 various supplemental rule violations.
                            − 1 drug/narcotics cases.
                            − 4 Haz-Mat cases.
                            − 58 littering/dumping cases.
                            − 2 search and rescues.
                            − 5 abandoned property cases (including vehicles).


50
                                 Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006
        − 2 accident investigations.
        − 6 camping violations.
        − 21 off-highway vehicle violations.
        − 24 assists to other enforcement agencies, including one homicide and one suicide.

        Law enforcement actons nclude 55 msdemeanor and one felony charges. Addtonally, n the wake
        of the September 11, 2001 ncdent, the law enforcement staff conducted 28 securty checks of
        crtcal nfrastructures.


Geographic Information Systems
        The Geographc Informaton System (GIS) exsts wthn the BLM to provde support to natural
        resource staff and managers. As such, GIS s not a program but rather a support organzaton
        consstng of people, computers and software used to create, store, retreve, analyze, report, and
        dsplay natural resource nformaton. The BLM utlzes GIS software programs from Envronmental
        Systems Research Insttute, Inc. (ESRI) called ArcGIS.

        Durng Fscal Year 2006, much of the Dstrct GIS staff actvty has been drected toward contnued
        support of the Western Oregon Plan Revson (WOPR), ncludng creaton of new data themes for
        VRM (Vsual Resource Management), ACEC (Areas or Crtcal Envronmental Concern), Recreaton
        Trals, Wld and Scenc Rvers, and off-hghway vehcle desgnatons, as well as contnued updates and
        revsons of exstng GIS data themes for the Plan Revson. GIS staff provded analyss of publc
        access on BLM admnstered lands, as well as analyss of rparan management areas for the varous
        WOPR alternatves.

        Other ssues at the Dstrct and State level ncluded the ongong transton from outdated data formats
        to a new data format called geodatabase. GIS staff accomplshed a comprehensve re-organzaton of
        corporate and local GIS data to a sngle coordnate projecton and datum, and adopted a consstent
        drectory structure for GIS data, makng data access, analyss and map dsplay much easer for end users.

        The Dstrct GIS organzaton provded spatal data, analyss and map dsplay assstance to outsde
        agences for the proposed Lqud Natural Gas ppelne, and the West-wde Energy Corrdor
        Envronmental Impact Statement. In-house GIS support was provded for envronmental assessments
        for tmber sale projects and envronmental restoraton projects, land acqustons and dsposals,
        tranng, contract maps, Bologcal Assessments, agency consultatons, and other needs.


National Environmental Policy Act Analysis
and Documentation
        Durng FY 2006, the Coos Bay Dstrct completed 13 envronmental assessments (EA), 28 categorcal
        exclusons (CX), and 4 admnstratve determnatons (DNA). These envronmental documents vary n
        complexty, detal, and length dependng on the project nvolved.

        A CX is used when a new proposal fits a category, listed in Department or BLM manuals, that has
        been determined to not individually or cumulatively cause significant environmental effects and is
        exempt from requrements to prepare an envronmental analyss. A DNA s often prepared when a
        prevously prepared EA fully covers a proposed acton and no addtonal analyss s needed.

        An EA is prepared to determine whether or not a new proposed action or alternative will significantly
        affect the quality of the human environment. If the action is determined to not have a significant
        affect, this conclusion is documented in a “Finding of No Significant Impact.”

        Major proposals that will significantly affect the environment, as defined by BLM Department Manual
        516 DM 11.4, and that have not been prevously analyzed; requre that an EIS be prepared.
                                                                                                               51
Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006
                   Protest and Appeals
                             Many Coos Bay Dstrct tmber sale envronmental assessment decson records have been protested
                             and appealed snce the expraton of the Rescsson Act n December of 1996. Protest and
                             appeal ssues have challenged complance wth the RMP ROD, complance wth NEPA, analyss,
                             assumptons, and conclusons. Three forest management actons were protested n FY 2006: Green
                             Peak, Brown Elk, and Pleasant Yankee tmber sales. Two of these actons have subsequently been
                             appealed to the Interor Board of Land Appeals.


         Coordination and Consultation
                             The Dstrct contnues to conduct a consderable amount of coordnaton and consultaton wth other
                             federal agences, state and local governments, and prvate organzatons. Lsted below are examples
                             of the coordnaton and consultaton that routnely occur. Addtonal nstances of cooperaton can be
                             found n the Partnershp secton of ths document.
                             − ESA coordination/consulting/conferencing with both USFWS and NMFS Fisheries.
                             − Coordination with Oregon State Department of Environmental Quality in the development of
                               Water Qualty Management Plans.
                             − Coordination with several Watershed Associations and Councils, from Coos, Curry, and Douglas
                               Countes to facltate habtat restoraton projects.
                             − Partcpaton and leadershp n the Snowy Plover Workng Group composed of federal and
                               state agences concerned wth the long-term vablty of the coastal populaton of the Western
                               Snowy Plover.
                             − Consulting with BIA and local Tribes on issues such as the Coquille Forest and other cultural issues.
                             − Coordination with a private company on the application to construct a natural gas pipeline across
                               publc lands.
                             − Participation in the Southwest Oregon Provincial Interagency Executive Committee and Southwest
                               Oregon Provncal Advsory Commttee.
                             − Management of the Cape Blanco Lighthouse in conjunction with the U.S. Coast Guard, Oregon
                               Parks and Recreaton Department, the Confederated Trbes of the Sletz Indans of Oregon, and
                               the Coqulle Indan Trbe.
                             − Participation in the Coos County Regional Trails Partnership.
                             − Participation in the Reedsport's Tsalila Festival and Bay Area Fun Festival Mountain Bike Race.
                             − The District maintained an active role with the Oregon Coastal Environments Awareness Network
                               (OCEAN) to develop the Coastal Envronments Learnng Network.


         Research
                             No new ntatves n research were started on the Dstrct n FY 2006. The Dstrct contnues to
                             engage n the ongong studes as lsted below.

                             The Cooperatve Forest Ecosystem Research (CFER) program s a cooperatve between BLM; the
                             Bologcal Resources Dvson, U.S. Geologc Servce; Oregon State Unversty; and the Oregon
                             Department of Forestry. CFER has recently developed a web ste (http://www.fsl.orst.edu/cfer)
                             whch provdes current nformaton on ongong research projects.

                             Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Scence Center (FRESC) s one of 16 scence and technology
                             centers n the U.S. Geologc Servce. FRESC provdes research servces for most Department of
                             Interor Bureaus n the western Unted States. Current nformaton on FRESC projects can be
                             obtaned from ther web ste at <http://fresc.fsl.orst.edu>.


52
                        Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006
A number of research studes nvolvng the management and development of young forest stands,
recruitment of large woody debris and fish habitat and movement were conducted on BLM
admnstered lands wthn the Coos Bay Dstrct. Examples of current on-gong research on the
Dstrct are:

West Fork Smith River Salmonid Life-Cycle Monitoring (Oregon Department of Fsh
and Wldlfe): As part of the montorng the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds, Oregon
Department of Fsh and Wldlfe (ODFW) and the BLM are conductng a mult-year research study
on production and survival of salmonid fishes with the primary focus on Oregon Coast coho salmon.
The mportance of ths study s that t estmates the freshwater and marne survval of both juvenle
and adult salmonds and freshwater populaton numbers. Ths study began n 1999 and s one of eght
stes Statewde. The Coos Bay BLM has entered a partnershp wth the ODFW to assst wth fundng
of the operaton of ths trap. Numbers obtaned from trappng can be found n Table 7 of ths
Annual Program Summary.

Watershed Influences on Salmonids (US Envronmental Protecton Agency): EPA completed
field work for this study titled Landscape and Watershed Influences on Wild Salmon and Fish Assemblages in
Oregon Coast Streams at the end of the 2005/2006 wnter. Analyss of data contnued n 2006 and three
manuscrpts have been submtted for professonal publcaton.

Fish Passage/Culvert Monitoring Project (US Forest Servce, Corvalls Forestry Scences
Laboratory): In 2002 the Government Accountability Office launched a review of the “fish passage”
culvert replacement and effectveness montorng practces of the Forest Servce and the BLM n the
Pacific Northwest. The West Fork Smith River was selected for this research project because it has a
healthy salmond populaton, recent culvert replacements on trbutary streams, and s a State salmond
lfe-cycle montorng watershed. Feld work for ths study was completed at the end of the 2005/2006
winter. Analysis of data continued in 2006 and a final report is due to be completed in early 2007.

Effects of Boulder Placement on Fish and Macro-invertebrates Abundance Fisheries
(NOAA): The Natonal Marne Fsheres Servce study of boulder wers s currently n prnt and was
publshed n River Research and Applications Volume 22, Issue 9, November 2006, Pages 967-980. The
study s enttled “Rehabltaton of bedrock stream channels: the effects of boulder wer placement on
aquatc habtat and bota.” The authors are Phl Ron, Todd Bennett, Sarah Morley, George R. Pess,
Karre Hanson, Dan Van Slyke, and Pat Olmstead.

National Council of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream Improvement (Natonal Councl
of the Paper Industry for Ar and Stream Improvement): Coos Bay BLM entered a fourth year as a
partcpant n a cooperatve project wth the NCASI to nvestgate the habtat use of northern spotted
owls n the Coos Bay Dstrct. The project wll evaluate the response of northern spotted owls to
tmber management actvtes, partcularly commercal thnnng harvest prescrptons. The project
has another year of telemetry field work.. NCASI serves as an environmental resource for the forest
products ndustry. Coos Bay BLM provded $12,000 n specal project funds to support the project.

Vegetation Response to Variable Density Thinning in Young Douglas-fir Forests: The Coos
Bay Dstrct hosts two study stes ncluded n the Densty Management and Rparan Buffer Study.
The Density Management and Riparian Buffer Study is a collaborative effort among the BLM, Pacific
Northwest Research Staton, US Geologcal Socety, and Oregon State Unversty to develop and test
optons for young stand management to create and mantan late-successonal forest characterstcs
n western Oregon. A study overvew and lnks to reports and papers generated by ths study can be
found on the Internet at <http://ocd.nacse.org/nb/densty/>.




                                                                                                        53
Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006

RMP Maintenance and Amendments
                             The Coos Bay Dstrct Resource Management Plan and Record of Decson (RMP/ROD) was
                             approved n May 1995. Snce then, the Dstrct has been mplementng the plan across the entre
                             spectrum of resources and land use allocatons. As the plan s mplemented, t sometmes becomes
                             necessary to make minor changes, refinements, or clarifications of the plan. These actions are called
                             plan mantenance. They do not result n expanson of the scope of resource uses or restrctons or
                             changes n terms, condtons and decsons of the approved RMP/ROD. Plan mantenance does not
                             requre envronmental analyss, formal publc nvolvement or nteragency coordnaton.

                             The following minor changes, refinements, or clarifications have been implemented as a part of
                             plan mantenance for the Coos Bay Dstrct. To the extent necessary, the followng tems have been
                             coordinated with the Regional Ecosystem Office. These are condensed descriptions of the plan
                             mantenance tems, and nclude the major mantenance tems prevously reported n the 1996 to 2004
                             APS. Detailed descriptions are available at the Coos Bay District Office by contacting Steven Fowler.


                   Plan Maintenance for FY 1994
                             1. Land Acquisition and Disposal
                             − Acquired via purchase approximately 111 acres adjacent to the New River ACEC in Curry County.
                               The lands acqured by purchase wll be managed as part of the New Rver ACEC wth a Land Use
                               Allocation (LUA) of District Defined Reserve.
                             − Acquired, via purchase, a 127-acre archaeological site in Douglas County. The lands acquired by
                               purchase will be managed as an archaeological site with a LUA of District Defined Reserve.


                   Plan Maintenance for FY 1995
                             1. Land Acquisition and Disposal
                             − Acquired via purchase approximately 50 acres adjacent to the New River ACEC in Coos County.
                             − Acquired via purchase approximately 54 acres adjacent to the New River ACEC in Curry County.
                               The lands acqured by purchase wll be managed as part of the New Rver ACEC wth a LUA of
                               District Defined Reserve.
                             − Acquired Edson Park via donation, approximately 44 acres in Curry County. These lands will be
                               managed as a recreation site, with a LUA of District Defined Reserve.
                             − Acquired 160 acres adjacent to the North Fork Hunter Creek ACEC, disposed of 40 acres of
                               Matrx lands n an exchange (a net ncrease of 120 acres) n Curry County. The lands acqured n
                               this exchange will be managed as part of the ACEC with a LUA of District Defined Reserve.
                             − Acquired approximately 56 acres adjacent to the Dean Creek Elk Viewing Area (Spruce Reach
                               Island) as a porton of an exchange orgnatng on the Roseburg Dstrct. The lands acqured wll be
                               managed as part of the Elk Viewing Area with a LUA of District Defined Reserve.

                   Plan Maintenance for FY 1996
                             1. Land Acquisition and Disposal
                             − Publc Law 104-333 transferred jursdcton from the BLM of Squaw Island, Zwagg Island, and
                               North Ssters Rock. “All federally-owned named, unnamed, surveyed and unsurveyed rocks, reefs,
                               slets and slands lyng wthn three geographc mles off the coast of Oregon and above mean hgh
                               tde, and presently under the jursdcton of the Bureau of Land Managment, except Chefs Islands,
                               are hereby desgnated as wlderness, shall become part of the Oregon Islands Natonal Wldlfe
                               Refuge and the Oregon Islands Wlderness and shall be under the jursdcton of the Unted States
                               Fsh and Wldlfe Servce, Department of the Interor.” Ths nvolves approxmately 11 acres of
                               PD land located in Coos and Curry Counties. These lands were included in the District Defined
                               Reserve land use allocaton.

54
                          Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006
2. Refinement of Management Actions/Direction relating to
Riparian Reserves
The term “site-potential tree” height for Riparian Reserve widths has been defined as “the average
maxmum heght of the tallest domnant trees (200 years or older) for a gven ste class” (See
Northwest Forest Plan Record of Decson [NFP ROD] page C-31, RMP/ROD page 12). Ths
definition will be used throughout the RMP/ROD.

The method used for determnng the heght of a “ste-potental tree” s descrbed n Instructon
Memorandum OR-95-075, as revewed by the REO. The followng steps wll be used:
− Determine the naturally adapted tree species which is capable of achieving the greatest height
  within the fifth field watershed and/or stream reach in question.
− Determne the heght and age of domnant trees through on-ste measurements or from
  nventory data.
− Average the site index information across the watershed using inventory plots, or well-distributed
  site index data, or riparian specific data where index values have large variations.
− Select the appropriate site index curve.
− Use Table 1 (included in Instruction Memo OR-95-075) to determine the maximum tree height
  potental whch equates to one ste potental tree for prescrbng Rparan Reserve wdths.

Addtonal detals concernng ste-potental tree heght determnatons s contaned n the above
referenced memorandum. The ste potental tree heghts for the Coos Bay Dstrct are generally n the
range of 180 to 220 feet.

3. Refinement of Management Actions/Direction relating to
Riparian Reserves
Both the RMP/ROD (page 12) and the NFP ROD (page B-13) contan the statement “Although
Riparian Reserve boundaries on permanently-flowing streams may be adjusted, they are considered
to be the approxmate wdths necessary for attanng Aquatc Conservaton Strategy objectves.” The
REO and Research and Montorng Commttee agreed that a reasonable standard of accuracy for
“approximate widths” for measuring Riparian Reserve widths in the field for management activities is
plus or mnus 20 feet or plus or mnus 10 percent of the calculated wdth.

4. Minor Refinement of Management Actions/Direction relating to
Coarse Woody Debris Retention in the Matrix
The RMP/ROD descrbes the retenton requrements for coarse woody debrs (CWD) as follows: “A
minimum of 120 linear feet of logs per acre, averaged over the cutting area and reflecting the species
mx of the unt, wll be retaned n the cuttng area. All logs shall have bark ntact, be at least 16 nches
n dameter at the large end, and be at least 16 feet n length . . .” (RMP/ROD, p. 22, 28, 58).

Instructon Memorandum No. OR-95-028, Change 1 recognzed “that n many cases there wll be
large dameter decay class 1 and 2 logs resultng from breakage durng loggng left on the unt. These
log sectons possess desrable CWD characterstcs, but under the above standards and gudelnes do
not count because they are less than 16 feet long. Based on field examination of these large diameter,
shorter length logs, t seems prudent to recognze that these tree sectons have a substantal presence
on the landscape and are lkely to provde the desred CWD form and functon despte the fact ther
length is shorter than the specified minimum. As such, districts may count decay class 1 and 2 tree
sectons equal to or greater than 30 nches n dameter on the large end that are between 6 and 16 feet
n length toward the 120 lnear feet requrement.”




                                                                                                          55
Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006
                   Plan Maintenance for FY 1997
                             1. Land Acquisition and Disposal
                             − Acquired approximately 76 acres adjacent to the North Spit ACEC, disposed of approximately 320
                               acres (part of the effluent lagoon on the North Spit) in an exchange (a net decrease of 244 acres) in
                               Coos County. The lands acqured wll be managed as part of the North Spt ACEC wth a LUA of
                               District Defined Reserve.


                   Plan Maintenance for FY 1998
                             1. Land Acquisition and Disposal
                             − Acquired via purchase approximately 71 acres adjacent to the New River ACEC in Coos County.
                               The lands acqured by purchase wll be managed as part of the New Rver ACEC wth a LUA of
                               District Defined Reserve.
                             − Disposed of approximately 5,410 acres of Matrix LUA lands in a jurisdictional transfer to the
                               Bureau of Indan Affars as the “Coqulle Forest” n Coos County.

                             2. Coarse Woody Debris Management
                             Information Bulletin OR 97-064 provided clarification on Implementation of Coarse Woody Debris
                             Management Actons/Drecton as shown on page 22, 28, and 53 of the Coos Bay ROD. The
                             Information Bulletin provided options and clarification for the following CWD features:
                               • Retenton of exstng CWD;
                               • Credtng lnear feet of logs;
                               • Credtng of large dameter short peces usng a cubc foot equvalency alternatve;
                               • Standng tree CWD retenton versus fellng to provde CWD substrate; and
                               • Applcaton of the basc gudelne n areas of partal harvest.

                             3. Survey and Manage Species Management
                             − Instruction Memorandum OR 97-009 provided Interim Guidance and Survey Protocol for the Red
                               Tree Vole a Survey and Manage Component 2 speces, n November 1996. (Note: ths protocol has
                               been superceded by Instructon Memorandum OR 2000-37.)
                             − Management Recommendations were provided in January 1997 for 18 Bryophyte species.
                             − Management Recommendations were provided in September 1997 for 29 groups of Survey and
                               Manage Fung speces.


                   Plan Maintenance for FY 1999
                             1. Land Acquisition and Disposal
                             The Dstrct dsposed of approxmately two acres of PD land located n Coos County by drect sale to
                             Bally Bandon. These lands were ncluded n the Matrx land use allocaton.

                             2. Survey and Manage Species Management
                             − Instructon Memorandum No. OR-97-027 dated January 1997 provded survey protocol for 19
                               Bryrophyte Survey and Manage Component 2 Speces.
                             − Instruction Memorandum No. OR-98-038 dated March 1998 provided survey protocol for three
                               Lchen Survey and Manage Component 2 Speces.
                             − Instruction Memorandum No. OR-98-246 dated June 1998 provided adjustments to survey
                               protocol for Sskyou Mountan and Del Norte salamander speces.
                             − Survey and Manage Survey Protocols - Mollusks were provided in August 1998 as Instruction
                               Memorandum No. OR-98-097.

56
                             Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006
     − Instruction Memorandum No. OR-98-99 dated September 1998 provided additional clarification
       for terms used n Survey and Manage Component 2 Speces.
     − Instruction Memorandum No. OR-98-105 dated September 1998 extended the draft guidance for
       Survey and Manage Component 2 Speces and the Red Tree Vole.
     − Instruction Memorandum No. OR-98-051 dated December 1998 provided survey protocol for five
       Bryrophyte Survey and Manage Component 2 Speces.
     − Survey and Manage Survey Protocols - Lynx was provided in January 1999 as Instruction
       Memorandum No. OR-99-25.

     3. 15 Percent Analysis
     Joint BLM/FS final guidance, which incorporated the federal executives’ agreement, was issued on
     September 14, 1998, as BLM - Instructon Memorandum No. OR-98-100. It emphaszes termnology
     and ntent related to the Standards and Gudelnes (S&G), provdes methods for completng the
     assessment for each fifth field watershed, dictates certain minimum documentation requirements and
     establshes effectve dates for mplementaton.

     4. Conversion to Cubic Measurement System
     Begnnng n FY 98 (October 1998) all tmber sales wll be measured and sold based on cubc
     measurement rules. All tmber sales wll be sold based upon volume of hundred cubc feet (CCF). The
     Coos Bay Dstrct RMP ROD declared an allowable harvest level of 5.3 mllon cubc feet. Informaton
     for changes n unts of measure are contaned n Instructon Memorandum No. OR-97-45.


Plan Maintenance for FY 2000
     1. Land Acquisition and Disposal
     − The District disposed of approximately one acre of CBWR land located in Coos County by direct
       sale to Enos Ralph. These lands were ncluded n the Matrx land use allocaton.
     − The District disposed of approximately two acres of CBWR land located in Coos County by direct
       sale to Lesle Crum. These lands were ncluded n the Matrx (Connectvty/Dversty Block) land
       use allocaton.
     − A Solicitor’s Opinion was issued in FY 2000, which resolved title of the Coos Bay Wagon Road.
       Where the road crosses publc land, a 100-foot strp belongs to the county. In the Coos Bay
       Dstrct, the ownershp s Coos County; the porton n Douglas County whch s n the Roseburg
       Dstrct, belongs to Douglas County. Approxmately 15 mles of road crosses CBWR and O&C
       land n Coos Bay Dstrct. As a result of ths opnon, the Matrx s reduced by approxmately 137
       acres and the LSR s reduced by approxmately 55 acres.

     2. Marbled Murrelet Surveys
     This plan maintenance clarifies the situations where conducting two years of survey prior to any
     human dsturbance of marbled murrelet habtat may not be practcal. In stuatons where only
     scattered, individual trees are affected, such as fisheries tree lining projects, hiring trained climbers
     to clmb ndvdual trees to look for murrelet nests can meet the ntent of assurng marbled murrelet
     nestng habtat s not harmed. In some stuatons, clmbers can detect murrelet nests several years after
     the nest has been used. Wth projects lke tree lnng where the mpact s at the tree level and not the
     stand level, clmbng actually gves better results for ascertanng the mpact of the project to murrelets.

     For the Coos Bay District, this clarification can be accomplished by revising the language on page
     36 as follows: “Conduct surveys to accepted protocol standards pror to any human dsturbance
     of marbled murrelet habitat.” This revised language will provide more flexibility in conducting
     the requred murrelet surveys, but wll not result n the expanson of the scope of resource uses or
     restrctons or change the terms, condtons, and decsons of the approved RMP.



                                                                                                               57
Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006
                             3. Survey and Manage Species Management
                             − Survey and Manage Survey Protocols - for 15 Vascular Plant species was provided in January 1999
                               as Instructon Memorandum No. OR-99-26.
                             − Survey and Manage Management Recommendations - for 15 Vascular Plant species was provided in
                               January 1999 as Instructon Memorandum No. OR-99-27.
                             − Survey and Manage Management Recommendations - for 19 aquatic mollusk species was provided
                               n March 1999 as Instructon Memorandum No. OR-99-38.
                             − Survey and Manage Management Recommendations - for five bryophyte species was provided in
                               March 1999 as Instructon Memorandum No. OR-99-39.
                             − Instruction Memorandum No. OR-1999-047, dated March 1999, transmitted a Decision to delay
                               the survey schedule for 32 Component 2 Survey and Manage and Protecton Buffer speces. The
                               remanng 48 Component 2 speces were unaffected.
                             − Instruction Memorandum No. OR-2000-049, dated April 2000, transmitted changes in survey
                               protocol for seven fung.

                             4. Clarification of Administrative Actions that are in Conformance
                             with the RMP - Road Maintenance and Tree Falling for Timber Cruises
                             Admnstratve actons that are n conformance wth the RMP are dscussed n the Record of
                             Decson and Resource Management Plan (ROD/RMP) for the Coos Bay Dstrct (page 4).
                             Admnstratve actons are the day-to-day transactons that provde optmum use of the resources.
                             Various administrative actions that are in conformance with the plan are specifically listed in the
                             dscusson, however, the lst was not ntended to be nclusve of all such actons (“These actons are n
                             conformance wth the plan. They nclude but are not lmted to . . .” “These and other admnstratve
                             actons wll be conducted . . .”).

                             The ROD/RMP and BLM planning regulations provide that potential minor changes, refinements, or
                             clarifications may take the form of plan maintenance actions (ROD/RMP, p. 77; 43 CFR 1610.5-4).
                             Mantenance actons are not consdered a plan amendment. It s necessary to clarfy the status of the
                             day-to-day actons of road mantenance and tree fallng for tmber cruses.

                             Road Maintenance: This plan maintenance clarifies the relationship of routine road maintenance to
                             the RMP. Under the RMP, routne road mantenance s consdered an admnstratve acton whch s n
                             conformance wth the RMP. Routne road mantenance s performed day to day and provdes for the
                             optmum use and protecton of the transportaton system and natural resources.

                             The Coos Bay Dstrct road nventory ncludes approxmately 1,800 mles of roads. Routne forest
                             management actvty ncludes mantenance of forest roads. Whle certan routne road mantenance
                             is scheduled, other routine road maintenance is in response to specific needs that are identified by
                             Dstrct personnel or the locaton of tmber haulng actvty for a gven year. Although year to year
                             levels of road mantenance vary, the Dstrct has mantaned an average of 500 mles of road per year
                             (Coos Bay Dstrct Proposed Resource Management Plan/Fnal Envronmental Impact Statement, p.
                             3-8). Ths rate of mantenance provdes that most Dstrct roads are mantaned approxmately every
                             three years, although some roads may be mantaned more frequently, or even on an annual bass.
                             Road mantenance ncludes actvtes such as gradng road surfaces, cleanng road dtches, cleanng
                             culvert catch basns, mnor culvert replacement, mulchng and seedng of exposed slopes, clearng
                             of fallen trees, removal of hazard trees, and brushng for sght clearance. Road mantenance may
                             also nclude the correcton of routne storm damage. Heavy storm damage to roads that requre
                             engneerng and envronmental desgn or analyss would not be consdered routne road mantenance
                             and would not be conducted as an administrative action. This clarification of the RMP does not result
                             n the expanson of the scope of resource uses or restrctons or change the terms, condtons, and
                             decsons of the approved RMP.

                             Tree Falling for Timber Cruises: This plan maintenance clarifies the relationship of tree falling
                             for tmber cruses to the RMP. Under the RMP, tree fallng for tmber cruses s consdered an

58
                              Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006
     admnstratve acton whch s n conformance wth the RMP. Tree fallng s performed on a regular
     bass and provdes for the optmum use and protecton of the forest resource.

     The Coos Bay Dstrct cruses forest stands to evaluate the tmber avalable for proposed projects,
     ncludng tmber sales and land exchanges. Crusng nvolves ndrect measurement of the standng
     tmber volume and condton by non-destructve samplng of the stand. In conjuncton wth the
     cruse, a sub-set of ths sample of trees may need to be felled to drectly measure the tmber volume
     and condton. Ths drect measurement s used to ensure the accuracy of the ndrect measure
     of tmber volume and condton. For many projects, “3-P” samplng may be used, n whch the
     probablty of selectng any tree n the stand s proportonal to a predcted volume of tmber
     (“probablty s proportonal to predcton” or “3-P”). For some projects, especally slvcultural
     thnnng n relatvely homogeneous stands, trees may be felled to construct a volume table n whch
     the tmber volume of sample trees s related to the tree dameter.

     The number of trees felled s dependent on ste and stand condtons, especally the amount of
     defect n the tmber. In relatvely homogeneous stands of young tmber wth lttle defect, few f any
     trees are needed to be felled. In large and heterogeneous stands, especally those wth much tmber
     defect, more trees may need to be felled n the project area. Trees felled are scattered wdely and
     randomly over the project area, generally at a densty of one tree per acre. Tree fallng for tmber
     cruses nvolves less than 1 percent of the trees n a stand. Felled trees are cut nto lengths for drect
     measurement of volume and drect evaluaton of tmber condton. The removal or retenton of the
     felled trees is addressed in a project specific environmental assessment. Tree falling for timber cruises
     does not take place in late-successional reserves. This clarification of the RMP does not result in the
     expanson of the scope of resource uses or restrctons or change the terms, condtons and decsons
     of the approved RMP.

     5. Change in the formal evaluation cycle for the RMP
     Ths plan mantenance revses the formal evaluaton cycle for the RMP from a three-year cycle to a
     five-year cycle.

     The RMP, n the Use of the Completed Plan secton, establshed a three-year nterval for conductng
     plan evaluations. The purpose of a plan evaluation is to determine if there is significant new
     nformaton and/or changed crcumstance to warrant amendment or revson of the plan. The
     ecosystem approach of the RMP s based on long term management actons to acheve multple
     resource objectves ncludng; habtat development, speces protecton, and commodty outputs. The
     relatvely short three-year cycle has been found to be napproprate for determnng f long term goals
     and objectives will be met. A five-year interval is more appropriate given the resource management
     actions and decisions identified in the RMP. The Annual Program Summaries and Monitoring
     Reports contnue to provde the cumulatve RMP accomplshments. Changes to the RMP contnue
     through appropriate amendments and plan maintenance actions. A five-year interval for conducting
     evaluatons s consstent wth the BLM plannng regulatons as revsed n November 2000.

     The State Director’s decision to change the evaluation interval from three years to five years was made
     on March 8, 2002. The next evaluaton of the Coos Bay Dstrct RMP wll address mplementaton
     through September 2003.


Plan Maintenance for FY 2001
     1. Land Acquisition and Disposal
     − The District acquired approximately 44 acres within the Coos Bay Shorelands ACEC, in Coos
       County. The lands acqured wll be managed as part of the Coos Bay Shorelands ACEC wth a LUA
       of District Defined Reserve.




                                                                                                             59
Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006
                             2. Redesignation of Land Status
                             Publc Law 101-42, as amended requred n part, “. . . the Secretary shall redesgnate, from publc doman
                             lands within the tribe’s service area, as defined in this Act, certain lands to be subject to the O&C Act.
                             Lands redesignated under this subparagraph shall not exceed lands sufficient to constitute equivalent
                             timber value as compared to lands constituting the Coquille Forest.” The District has identified
                             approxmately 8,182 acres of PD whch would be redesgnated as CBWR or O&C to have “equvalent
                             tmber value” to the approxmate 4,800 acres of CBWR and O&C wthn the Coqulle Forest.

                             The redesgnaton s as follows:
                               Approxmately 2,730 acres redesgnated from PD to CBWR located n Coos County.
                               Approxmately 154 acres redesgnated from PD to O&C located n Lane County.
                               Approxmately 2,117 acres redesgnated from PD to O&C located n Douglas County.
                               Approxmately 3,179 acres redesgnated from PD to O&C located n Curry County.

                             The notice redesignating the identified PD lands was published in the Federal Register, Vol. 65, No. 96
                             on May 17, 2000 wth an effectve date of July 16, 2000. The complete legal descrptons of the lands
                             involved are available from the office.

                             3. Existing Roads within Key Watersheds
                             Numerous interdisciplinary teams have struggled with how to define the existing baseline for roads
                             within Key Watersheds. Guidance on how to define the baseline roads or the discretionary ability
                             to close roads was not ncluded n the RMP Management Acton/Drecton for Key Watersheds.
                             Information Bulletin OR-2000-134 issued on March 13, 2000, clarified what roads shall be included
                             n the 1994 BLM road nventory base used as a startng pont to montor the “reducton of road
                             mleage wthn Key Watersheds” as follows:

                              “Any road n exstence on BLM-admnstered land as of Aprl 1994, regardless of ownershp
                               or whether t was n the road records, shall be ncluded n the 1994 base road nventory. Also,
                               nclude BLM-controlled roads on non-BLM admnstered lands. A BLM controlled road s one
                               where the BLM has the authorty to modfy or close the road. Do not nclude skd roads/trals,
                               as techncally they are not roads.”

                             For the Coos Bay District, this clarification can be accomplished by adding the language as stated
                             above to page 7 of the RMP/ROD.

                             4. Survey and Manage Species Management
                             − Instructon Memorandum No. OR-2000-003, dated October 1999, transmtted Management
                               Recommendatons for 23 Terrestral Mollusks.
                             − Instruction Memorandum No. OR-2000-004, dated October 1999, transmitted survey protocol for
                               five amphibians.
                             − Instruction Memorandum No. OR-2000-015, dated November 1999, transmitted Management
                               Recommendatons for four Terrestral Mollusks.
                             − Instruction Memorandum No. OR-2000-017, dated December 1999 and June 2000, transmitted
                               survey protocol and correctons for sx bryophyte speces.
                             − Instruction Memorandum No. OR-2000-018, dated December 1999, transmitted survey protocol
                               for seven fung.
                             − Instruction Memorandum No. OR-2000-037, dated February 2000, transmitted survey protocol for
                               the red tree vole.
                             − Instruction Memorandum No. OR-2000-042, dated March 2000, transmitted Management
                               Recommendatons for 29 lchens.
                             − Information Bulletin No. OR-2000-315, dated August 2000, transmitted revised survey protocol for
                               the Marbled Murrelet.
60
                               Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006
          − Instruction Memorandum No. OR-2000-086, dated September 2000, transmitted Management
            Recommendatons for the red tree vole.


RMP Amendments for FY 2001
          2001 Survey and Manage Amendment to the Northwest Forest Plan
          The Survey and Manage mtgaton n the Northwest Forest Plan was amended n January 2001
          through the sgnng of the Record of Decson (ROD) for the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact
          Statement for Amendment to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures Standards
          and Guidelines. The ntent of the amendment was to ncorporate up-to-date scence nto management
          of Survey and Manage species and to utilize the agencies’ limited resources more efficiently. The
          ROD provdes approxmately the same level of protecton ntended n the Northwest Forest Plan
          but elmnates nconsstent and redundant drecton and establshes a process for addng or removng
          speces when new nformaton becomes avalable.

          The ROD reduced the number of speces requrng the Survey and Manage mtgaton, droppng
          72 speces n all or part of ther range. The remanng speces were then placed nto sx dfferent
          management categores, based on ther relatve rarty, whether surveys can be easly conducted, and
          whether there s uncertanty as to ther need to be ncluded n ths mtgaton. Table 28 shows a break
          down of the placement of these 346 speces, and a bref descrpton of management actons requred
          for each.


Table 28. Redefine Categories Based on Species Characteristics
                                                                                             Status Undetermined
   Relative          Predisturbance Surveys                  Predisturbance Surveys              Predisturbance
    Rarity                      Practical                            Not Practical           Surveys Not Practical
Rare                 Category A (57 speces)                 Category B (222 speces)       Category E (22 speces)
                     • Manage All Known Stes                • Manage All Known Stes       • Manage All Known Stes
                     • Predsturbance Surveys                • N/A                          • N/A
                     • Strategc Surveys                     • Strategc Surveys            • Strategc Surveys
Uncommon             Category C (10 speces)                 Category D (14 speces1)       Category F (21 speces)
                     • Manage Hgh-Prorty Stes            • Manage Hgh-Prorty Stes   • N/A
                     • Predsturbance Surveys                • N/A                          • N/A
                     • Strategc Surveys                     • Strategc Surveys            • Strategc Surveys
Includes three speces for whch predsturbance surveys are not necessary
1




          The ROD identifies species management direction for each of the above categories. Uncommon
          speces categores C and D requre the management of “hgh prorty” stes only, whle category
          F requres no known ste management. The new Standards and Gudelnes also establsh an n-
          depth process for revewng and evaluatng the placement of speces nto the dfferent management
          categores. Ths process allows for addng, removng, or movng speces around nto varous
          categores, based on the new nformaton acqured through our surveys.

          Approval of the Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines for Amendment to the Survey and Manage,
          Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures Standard and Guidelines amended the Standards and Guidelines
          contaned n the Northwest Forest Plan Record of Decson related to Survey and Manage, Protecton
          Buffers, Protect Stes from Grazng, Manage Recreaton Areas to Mnmze Dsturbance to Speces,
          and Provde Addtonal Protecton for Caves, Mnes, and Abandoned Wooden Brdges and Buldng
          That Are Used as Roost Stes for Bats. These standards and gudelnes were removed and replaced by
          the contents of the Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines for Amendment to the Survey and Manage,
          Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures Standard and Guidelines.

          Plan Mantenance actons to delete all references to Management Acton/Drecton for Survey
          and Manage and Protecton Buffer speces n the Coos Bay Dstrct Resource Management Plan

                                                                                                                     61
Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006
                             and Appendces and adopt the Standards and Gudelnes contaned n the Record of Decson and
                             Standards and Gudelnes for Amendment to the Survey and Manage, Protecton Buffer, and other
                             Mtgaton Measures are requred n response to the Record of Decson.

                          Copies of the ROD and Final SEIS may be obtained by writing the Regional Ecosystem Office at PO
                          Box 3623, Portland, Oregon 97208, or they can be accessed onlne at
                          <http://www.reo.gov/s-m2006/ndex.htm>.


                 Plan Maintenance for FY 2002
                          1. Land Acquisition and Disposal
                          − The District acquired via purchase approximately two acres of land located within the Dean Creek
                            Elk Vewng Area n Douglas County. The lands acqured wll be managed as part of the Dean
                            Creek EVA with a LUA of District Defined Reserve.
                          − The US Army Corps of Engineers relinquished approximately 313 acres of lands under their
                            jursdcton wthn the Coos Bay Shorelands ACEC n Coos County. As a result, the lands were
                            returned to the publc doman. The lands wll be managed as part of the Coos Bay Shorelands
                            ACEC with an LUA of District Defined Reserve.


                 Plan Maintenance for FY 2003
                          1. Land Acquisition and Disposal
                          − The District did not acquire or dispose of any lands in FY 2003.

                          In FY 2003, the US Ar Force relnqushed approxmately 43 acres of lands under ther jursdcton
                          at Coos Head, n Coos County. As a result, the lands were turned over to the General Servces
                          Admnstraton for dsposal and not returned to the publc doman. The relnqushment dd not affect
                          the total Dstrct acres because lands wthdrawn to other agences are not ncluded n Dstrct acreage
                          unless they are returned to the publc doman.

                          2. Survey and Manage Species Management
                          − Instruction Memorandum No. OR-2002-080, dated August 16, 2002, amended the Management
                            Recommendatons for 24 vascular plants, lchens, bryophytes, and fung speces to facltate certan
                            National Fire Plan Activities within one mile of at-risk communities identified in the August 2001
                            Federal Regster.


                 Plan Maintenance for FY 2004
                          1. Land Acquisition and Disposal
                          − The District disposed of approximately 67 acres of PD land located in Douglas County by
                            legslated transfer to the County. These lands were ncluded n the Matrx land use allocaton.
                          − The District did not acquire any lands in FY 2004.




62
                             Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006
    Table 1, publshed n the Coos Bay RMP/ROD, s updated as shown below n Table 29.


      Table 29. (Revised) BLM-Administered Land in the Planning Area
      by County (acres)
                                                                                                      Total          Reserved
      County            O&C            CBWR             PD          Acquired           Other         Surface1        Minerals
      Coos              93,943          60,447          6,464          414               0            161,268           7,828
      Curry              3,258               0         28,762          270               0             32,290           2,589
      Douglas          123,558             636          6,302          135               0            130,631           1,735
      Lane                 154               0            401            0               0                555               0
      Totals           220,913          61,083         41,929          819               0            324,744          12,152
      1
       Acres are based on the master title plat and titles for land acquisitions and disposals. It reflects changes in ownership and
       land status from March 1993 to September 2003. Acres are not the same as shown n the GIS.


    2. Conversion back to 16-foot Board Foot Measurement System
    Begnnng n June 2004, all tmber sales to be offered wll be measured and sold based on 16-foot
    board foot measurement. Eastsde Scrbner log rules wll apply. Informaton for changes n unts of
    measure are contaned n Instructon Memorandum No. OR-2004-073.


RMP Amendments for FY 2004
    1. Aquatic Conservation Strategy Amendment to the Northwest
    Forest Plan
    The provsons contaned n the Aquatc Conservaton Strategy (ACS) of the Northwest Forest Plan
    were clarified through the signing of the Record of Decision for the Final Supplemental Environmental
    Impact Statement – Clarification of Language in the 1994 Record of Decision for the Northwest Forest Plan
    National Forests and Bureau of Land management Districts Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl
    - Proposal to Amend Wording About the Aquatic Conservation Strategy. The March 2004 ROD amends the
    Resource Management Plans for seven BLM Dstrcts and the Lands and Management Plans for 19
    Natonal Forests.

    The Amendment removes ambguous and confusng language n the 1994 NFP ROD. The Aquatc
    Conservaton Strategy provsons had been nterpreted to mean that decson makers must evaluate
    proposed site-specific projects for consistency with all nine ACS objectives, and that a project cannot
    be approved f t has adverse short term effects, even f the ACS objectves could be met at the
    fifth-field or larger scale over the long term. However, the ACS objectives were never intended to be
    applied or achieved at the site-specific (project) scale or in the short term; rather, they were intended
    to be applied and achieved at the fifth-field watershed and larger scales, and over a period of decades
    or longer rather than n the short-term. Northwest Forest Plan tmber harvest and restoraton projects
    have been delayed or stopped due to recent court nterpretatons of certan passages n the ACS. Any
    project that may result n ste-level dsturbance to aquatc or rparan habtat, no matter how localzed
    or short-term, could be precluded under ths nterpretaton.

    The decision clarifies that the nine ACS objectives would be attained at the fifth-field watershed scale
    over the long term and that no-project-level finding of consistency with ACS objectives is required.
    All ste level projects would contnue to meet the protectve measures n the Standards and Gudelnes.
    The agences would contnue to seek attanment of ACS objectves at the watershed and landscape
    scales. By clarfyng that ACS objectves are meant to be attaned at the watershed scale, opportuntes
    to ntegrate tmber sales and restoraton projects may ncrease.

    Copies of the ROD and Final SEIS may be obtained by writing the Regional Ecosystem Office at PO
    Box 3623, Portland, Oregon 97208, or they can be accessed onlne at
    <http://www.or.blm.gov/nwfpnepa>.

                                                                                                                                   63
Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006
                             2. 2004 Survey and Manage Amendment to the Northwest Forest Plan
                             The Survey and Manage standards and gudelnes were removed n March 2004 through the sgnng of
                             the Record of Decson (ROD) for the “Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement To Remove or
                             Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines in Forest Service and Bureau of Land
                             Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl.” Ths Decson dscontnues
                             the Survey and Manage program and transfers selected Survey and Manage taxa to Agency Specal-
                             Status Speces Programs (SSSP).

                             A recent U.S. Dstrct Court rulng deemed the analyss n ths Supplemental EIS nadequate and t
                             is currently being rewritten to address the specific concerns raised in the Court’s Opinion, as well as,
                             other recent Court Opnons on related ltgaton.


                             3. Port-Orford-Cedar Management Amendment to the Coos Bay RMP
                             The management drecton for Port-Orford-cedar (POC) was amended by the Record of Decson
                             for the “Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement – Management of Port-Orford-Cedar in Southwest
                             Oregon.” Ths May 2004 ROD amends the RMPs for the Coos Bay, Roseburg, and Medford BLM
                             Dstrcts. The Decson provdes for “dsease-control procedures and plannng processes” n the
                             management of POC. Ths 2004 ROD s the result of U.S. Dstrct Court rulng statng that “the
                             Coos Bay Resource Management plan dd not contan an adequate analyss of the effects of tmber
                             sales on the drect, ndrect, and cumulatve mpacts on POC and ts root dsease.”

                             Copes of the ROD and Fnal SEIS may be obtaned by wrtng the Bureau of Land Management at
                             PO Box 2965, Portland, Oregon 97208, or they can be accessed at
                             <http://www.reo.gov/s-m2006/ndex.htm>


                   Plan Maintenance for FY 2005
                             No plan mantenance was undertaken n FY 2005.


                   Plan Maintenance for FY 2006
                             No plan mantenance was undertaken n FY 2006.




64
                                  Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006

Resource Management Plan Evaluations
  Third Year Evaluation
          On July 31, 2001, the Oregon/Washngton State Drector, Bureau of Land Management (BLM),
          issued the following findings based on the Third Year Plan Evaluation for the Coos Bay District.

         “The legslated transfer of Coos Bay Dstrct admnstered lands to the Coqulle Indan Trbe and the
          creaton of addtonal late-successonal land use allocatons through the dscovery and protecton of
          addtonal occuped marbled murrelet stes as requred under the Northwest Forest Plan and Coos Bay
          Dstrct RMP has resulted n a reducton of the land base avalable for planned tmber harvest. These
          reductons whch are non-dscretonary under ether law or management acton/drecton requre that
          the annual productve capacty (allowable harvest level) of the South Coast - Curry Master Unts be
          reduced from ts current level. I hereby declare that, effectve October 1, 1998, the annual productve
          capacty of the South Coast - Curry Master Unt s 4.5 mllon cubc feet. Because ths varaton n
          ASQ s consstent wth RMP assumptons and was dscussed n both the RMP FEIS and RMP Record
          of Decson, a plan amendment s not warranted.

          Based on this plan evaluation which included information through Fiscal Year 1998, I find that the Coos
          Bay Dstrct RMP goals and objectves are beng met or are lkely to be met, and that the envronmental
          consequences of the plan are smlar to those antcpated n the RMP FEIS and that there s no new
          nformaton, as of September 30, 1998, that would substantvely alter the RMP conclusons. Therefore
          a plan amendment or plan revson of the Coos Bay Dstrct RMP s not warranted. Ths document
          meets the requrements for a plan evaluaton as provded n 43 CFR 1610.4-9.”

          Ths Plan Mantenance changes the Coos Bay Dstrct Resource Management Plan (RMP) by deletng
          all references to the prevously declared Allowable Sale Quantty (ASQ) of 5.3 mllon cubc feet
          (MMCF)(32 mllon board feet [MMBF]) and replacng t wth 4.5 MMCF (27 MMBF) n the RMP
          and Appendces. In addton, the nonnterchangable component of the allowable sale quantty
          attrbutable to Key Watersheds (as stated on page 7 of the RMP) s reduced from approxmately 0.5
          MMCF (3 MMBF) to approxmately 0.4 MMCF (2.4 MMBF).


  Eighth Year Evaluation
          A formal Resource Management Plan (RMP) evaluaton of the Coos Bay Dstrct RMP was completed
          in fiscal year 2004. This periodic evaluation of land use plans and environmental review procedures is
          requred by the Bureau’s plannng regulatons (43 Code of Federal Regulatons [CFR], Part 1610.4-9)
          to determne the status of Resource Management Plan mplementaton, conformance and montorng.
          The BLM plannng handbook (H-1601-1, V, B.) states, “. . . Land use plan (LUP) evaluatons determne
          f decsons are beng mplemented, whether mtgaton measures are satsfactory, whether there are
          significant changes in the related plans of other entities, whether there is new data of significance to
          the plan, and f decsons should be changed through amendment or revson.”

          The Coos Bay evaluation served as a review of cumulative progress for the composite fiscal year
          perod of 1995 through 2003 and assessed the progress of mplementaton and meetng the
          objectves of the RMP. Ths evaluaton determned that, wth the excepton of a few program
          areas, all RMP program management actons/objectves were beng mplemented at, or near, a100
          percent completon rate; the most notable excepton beng the Forest Management Program. The
          evaluaton stated, “Court decsons and judcal procedures, the frequency and contnual dscovery of
          occuped Marbled Murrelet stes, the S&M mtgaton measure, and constrants requred n bologcal
          opnons for projects affectng Marbled Murrelets, have had a measurable mpact on the Dstrct’s
          ability to achieve RMP objectives, particularly the declared annual ASQ. Through field monitoring
          of mplemented forest management actons, the APSs have documented that the decsons made
          on Tmber Resources are correct and proper over tme. However, the ablty to fully mplement the

                                                                                                                65
Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006
                             ASQ objectves as antcpated n the RMP/ROD to acheve the desred outcomes has been, and may
                             contnue to be lmted” (Secton V-1-A.).

                         “The evaluation team identified no unmet short-term needs or new opportunities that can only be met
                          through an RMP amendment or revson. There s the potental for mnor adjustments to address
                          nterm opportuntes for land tenure adjustment and coal bed methane leasng, dependant on publc
                          nterest. Whle the tmber management program can contnue to functon n general conformance
                          wth the RMP, constrants and restrctons from other programs lmt ts ongong and short-term
                          effectveness and an RMP revson may have been requred even absent a Settlement Agreement.
                          Overall, the Coos Bay RMP is sufficient to guide management direction for the next 5 years, subject
                          to montorng, and perodc evaluatons” [Secton X.].


        Evaluation of Coos Bay RMP Relative to Four
        Northern Spotted Owl Reports
                          In 2005, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Forest Servce (FS), and US Fsh and Wldlfe
                          Servce (USFWS) conducted a coordnated revew of four recently completed reports contanng
                          nformaton on the northern spotted owl (NSO). The Coos Bay Dstrct completed ts evaluaton of
                          the Dstrct’s Resource Management Plan relatve to the recent northern spotted owl reports.

                          The revewed reports (herenafter collectvely referred to as “the reports”) nclude the followng:
                          • Scientific Evaluation of the Status of the Northern Spotted Owl (Sustanable Ecosystems Insttute,
                            Courtney, et al. 2004);
                          • Status and Trends in Demography of Northern Spotted Owls, 1985-2003 (Anthony, et al. 2004);
                          • Northern Spotted Owl Five Year Review: Summary and Evaluation (USFWS, November 2004); and
                          • Northwest Forest Plan – The First Ten Years (1994-2003): Status and trend of northern spotted owl populations
                            and habitat, PNW Station Edit Draft (Lnt, Techncal Coordnator, 2005).

                          As a key element of the Northwest Forest Plan montorng strategy, completon of the NSO status
                          and trend porton of The First Ten Years montorng report, as well as other tmely studes pertnent
                          to the NSO, s consdered approprate to warrant a focused evaluaton. The montorng report and
                          ths evaluaton carry out the process of montorng and adaptve management envsoned by the
                          Northwest Forest Plan, as adopted and mplemented through the Coos Bay RMP.

                          The evaluation found that effects on NSO populations identified in the four reports are within those
                          antcpated n the RMP EIS, and that the RMP goals and objectves are stll achevable n lght of the
                          nformaton from the reports. Ths latest nformaton on the NSO dd not warrant a change n RMP
                          decsons pertnent to the NSO, and therefore does not warrant amendment or revson of the Coos
                          Bay Dstrct RMP.


        Western Oregon Resource Management Plan
        Revisions (WOPR)
                          In August 2003, the U.S. Department of Justce, on behalf of the Secretary of Interor and the
                          Secretary of Agrculture, agreed to settle ltgaton wth the Amercan Forest Resource Councl and
                          the Assocaton of O&C Countes, hereafter referred to as the Settlement Agreement (AFRC et al. v.
                          Clarke, Cvl No. 94-1031-TPJ [D.D.C.]). Among other tems n the Settlement Agreement, the BLM
                          s requred to revse the sx exstng Resource Management Plans n western Oregon by December
                          2008 consstent wth the O&C Act as nterpreted by the 9th Crcut Court of Appeals. Under the
                          Settlement Agreement, the BLM s requred to consder an alternatve n the land use plan revsons
                          whch wll not create any reserves on O&C lands, except as requred to avod jeopardy under the
                          Endangered Speces Act (ESA) or meet other legal oblgatons.


66
                          Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006
In FY 2005, the BLM Oregon State Office completed the Preparation Plan for the Western Oregon
Resource Management Plan Revisions and Environmental Impact Analysis document, whch was approved by
the Washington Office. Public Scoping and the Analysis of the Management Situation (AMS) were
completed early n FY 2006. The AMS s a document that descrbes the current condton and trends
of the resources and uses/actvtes n the plannng area. It creates the framework from whch to
resolve the plannng ssues rased durng the Scopng process through the development of alternatves.
A Draft Envronmental Impact Statement s scheduled to be completed n the summer of 2007 and
wll be avalable for publc comment.

Copes of these documents, newsletter updates, and other documents related to ths process are
avalable onlne on the Western Oregon Plan Revson webste at
<http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/wopr/ndex.php>.




                                                                                                        67
Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006




68
                                    Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006

Resource Management Plan Monitoring
          Provncal Implementaton and Effectveness montorng of the Northwest Forest Plan are conducted
          at hgher levels, larger spatal scales, and longer duraton. The nature of questons concernng
          effectveness montorng generally requre some maturaton of mplemented projects and research
          n order to dscern results. Ths montorng wll be conducted n future years and at provncal or
          regional scales. Specific implementation monitoring at the Coos Bay District level follows this section
          n the Resource Management Plan FY 2006 Montorng Report.


  Province Level Implementation Monitoring
          No Provncal level montorng was performed ths past year.

          Results of the FY 2005 Provncal Montorng are avalable onlne at
          <http://www.reo.gov/montorng/>.


     Effectiveness Monitoring
          The Dstrct contnues to work wth the state Research and Montorng Commttee and the
          Interagency Regonal Montorng Team, n the development of the components for effectveness
          montorng of the NWFP. The Regonal Effectveness Montorng Program s focused on montorng
          and evaluaton of the effectveness of the NWFP. The results from ths program nclude resource
          status and trend, complance wth standards and gudes, and evaluatons of the effectveness of the
          plan. Results from ths program generally requre a longer tme perod than what s typcal from
          mplementaton montorng actvtes.

          Several reports, lsted below, evaluatng the effectveness of the NWFP were released n 2005 and n
          2006. The full reports can be located at <http://www.reo.gov/montorng/10yr-report/>.
               - Northern Spotted Owl Fnal Report
               - Watershed Condton Fnal Report
               - Late-successonal and Old Growth Fnal Report
               - Implementaton Draft Report
               - Implementaton Fnal Summary of Interagency Montorng Results
               - Socal Economc Fnal Report
               - Marbled Murrelet Fnal Report
               - Trbal Fnal Report

          Marbled Murrelet Fnal Report, publshed n 2006, dscusses trend of populatons and habtat wthn
          the Plan area. The report s ttled:
          • Northwest Forest Plan—The first 10 years (1994-2003): status and trends of populations and nesting habitat for
            the marbled murrelet. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-650. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agrculture,
            Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

          In summary, montorng nformaton s nconclusve to answer whether the marbled murrelet
          populaton s stable, ncreasng, or decreasng. Marbled murrelet populaton estmates dd not change
          significantly over four years. Additional time is needed to determine statistically significant changes.
          Populaton estmates of about 22,000 marbled murrelets off the coast adjacent to the Plan area
          suggests that only a small fracton of the total populaton (maybe 2 to 3 percent) uses ths porton
          of the range durng the breedng season. Across all lands n the Plan area, t s estmated that about
          52 percent (2.1 mllon acres) of hgher qualty potental nestng habtat occurrs on nonfederal lands.
          Models ndcate that only about 13 percent of U.S. Forest Servce and Bureau of Land Management
          land are above moderate-qualty habtat for nestng.
                                                                                                                       69
Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006
                             Much recent dscusson has taken place about the trend of northern spotted owl populatons. Several
                             reports released n 2005 evaluated the effectveness of the NWFP relatng to the northern spotted
                             owl. They are:
                           • Scientific Evaluation of the Status of the Northern Spotted Owl (Sustanable Ecosystems Insttute,
                             Courtney et al. 2004);
                           • Status and Trends in Demography of Northern Spotted Owls, 1985-2003 (Anthony, et al. 2004);
                           • Northern Spotted Owl Five Year Review: Summary and Evaluation (USFWS, November 2004); and
                           • Northwest Forest Plan – The First Ten Years (1994-2003): Status and trend of northern spotted owl populations
                             and habitat, PNW Station Edit Draft (Lnt, Techncal Coordnator, 2005).

                           In summary, although the agences antcpated a declne of NSO populatons under land and
                           resource management plans during the past decade, the reports identified greater than expected NSO
                           populaton declnes n Washngton and northern portons of Oregon, and more stable populatons
                           in southern Oregon and northern California. The reports did not find a direct correlation between
                           habtat condtons and changes n NSO populatons, and they were nconclusve as to the cause of
                           the declnes. Lag effects from pror harvest of sutable habtat, competton wth barred owls, and
                           habitat loss due to wildfire were identified as current threats; west Nile virus and sudden oak death
                           were identified as potential new threats. The status of the NSO population, and increased risk to
                           NSO populatons due to uncertantes surroundng barred owls and other factors, were reported
                           as not sufficient to reclassify the species to endangered at this time. The reports did not include
                           recommendatons regardng potental changes to the basc conservaton strategy underlyng the
                           NWFP, however they dd dentfy opportuntes for further study.

                           Addtonal nformaton on the Effectveness Montorng program s avalable on the nternet at
                           <http://www.reo.gov/montorng/>. Several other Effectveness Montorng reports were released n
                           2006 and a lst may be found n Annual - Progress Report 2005 - Interagency Regional Monitoring - Northwest
                           Forest Plan USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, R6-RPM-TP-05-2006.




70
                                      Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006

Coos Bay District Resource Management
Plan FY 2006 Monitoring Report
  Introduction
            This report compiles the results and findings of implementation monitoring of projects initiated
            during the 2006 fiscal year as part of the Coos Bay District Resource Management Plan. It meets the
            requrements for montorng and evaluaton of resource management plans at approprate ntervals
            wthn BLM plannng regulatons (43 CFR 1610.4-9). Ths RMP montorng plan does not dentfy
            all the montorng conducted on the Coos Bay Dstrct; actvty and project plans may dentfy
            montorng needs of ther own.

            The lst of montorng questons can be found n Appendx L of the Coos Bay Dstrct RMP. The
            questions have been modified to reflect current Supplemental Environmental Statements, such as:
            − January 2001 Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage,
              Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines.
            − March 2004 Record of Decision to Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and
              Guidelines; applcable untl January 9, 2006.
            − March 2004 Record of Decision for Clarification of Language in the 1994 Record of Decision for the Northwest
              Forest Plan National Forests and Bureau of Land Management Districts Within the Range of the Northern
              Spotted Owl Proposal To Amend Wording About the Aquatic Conservation Strategy.


  Process
            Projects ntated durng FY 2006 were placed on a lst as they were routed through the Dstrct
            Planner/Environmental Coordinator or Procurement for processing. Every fifth project was
            selected from the lst to meet the “20 percent” requrement for most montorng categores. Ths
            ntal random number process was supplemented by addng one noxous weed project. Due to the
            uncertanty about the mplementaton of regeneraton harvest sales, the Camas Fre Salvage was
            monitored to reflect that category. Two additional projects were added based on the uniqueness of
            the projects: Halfway Creek channel restoraton and a Jeffrey pne/Oregon oak habtat restoraton.
            The projects selected have been Bolded n Table 30. Table 31 dsplays the types of projects by Feld
            Office available for selection and percentage selected for monitoring.

            Projects selected n prevous years, but not completed durng that year, were carred forward nto the
            current montorng cycle. These projects have already been montored for documentaton and are only
            beng montored for actual on-the-ground mplementaton.

            A total of 21 projects were montored n FY 2006: 11 projects ntated n FY 2006 and 10 from
            prevous years.




                                                                                                                        71
Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006

 Table 30. FY 2006 Project Numbers
     Project           Specifics on project identification,
     Number                 (Name, unit number, etc.)                            NEPA Document         Contract Number
                Umpqua FO Tree Planting and Tubing                            CX OR 120-06-01         HAP061002
       01         Bid Item 1 – initial plant (147 acres)
       02         Bid Item 2 – underplant (6 acres)
                Myrtlewood FO Tree Planting and Tubing                        CX OR120-06-01          HAP061001
       03         Bid Item 1 – initial plant (139 acres)
       04         Bid Item 2 – initial plant 13 acres
       05         Bid Item 3 – interplant 24 acres
       06       Umpqua Noxious Weed Control (800 acres)                       EA OR120-97-11          HAC061001
       07       Martin Track DM Timber Sale                                   EA OR125-03-10          OR120-TS06-02
       08       Homolac DM Timber Sale                                        EA OR125-04-06          OR120-TS06-03
                Umpqua FO Manual Maintenance                                  CX OR120-06-03          HAP061007
       09         Bid Item 1 – cut all (135 acres)
       10         Bid Item 2 – hdwd cut (4 acres)
       11         Bid Item 3 – sm07 (51 acres)
                Myrtlewood FO Manual Maintenance                              CX OR120-06-03          HAP061002
       12         Bid Item 1 – N ½ cut all (334 acres)
       13         Bid Item 2 – Curry cut all (245 acres)
       14       Coal Minor DM Timber Sale                                     EA OR125-03-10          OR120-TS06-01
       15       Dean Creek Field Burning                                      EA OR125-04-08
       16       Halfway Creek Channel Restoration                             EA OR125-05-07          HAC 061004
       17       Upper West Fork Smith Culvert Replacement                     DNA #6 EA OR120-02-12   HAP063007
                Road Renovation
       18         Bid Item 1 – Yankee Run                                     CX OR120-06-02          HAC063006
       19         Bid Item 2 – Big/Sandy Tie
       20       Brown Elk Timber Sale                                         EA OR125-03-24          OR120-TS05-31
       21       North Fork Chetco Road Improvement and Closure
                Umpqua FO FY2006 Precommercial Thinning
       22         Bid Item 1 – 13' x 13' (286 acres)                          CX OR120-06-03          HAP 061008
       23         Bid Item 2 – 18' x 18' (289 acres)
                Myrtlewood FO FY2006 Precommercial Thinning                   CX OR120-06-03          HAC061005
       24         Bid Item 1 – 13' x 13' (1,103 acres)
       25         Bid Item 2 – 13' x 13' (460 acres)
                Umpqua FY2006 Pruning                                         DNA #20 EA OR120-94-12 HAC061006
       26       Bid Item 1 – 1st lift to 11' (24 acres)
       27       Bid Item 2 – 2nd lift to 19" (296 acres)
                Myrtlewood FO FY 2006 Pruning                                 DNA #21 EA OR120-94-12 HAC063022
       28         Bid Item 1 – 1st lift to 11' (1,024 acres)
       29         Bid Item 2 – 2nd lift to 19" (119 acres)
       30         Bid Item 3 – 1 lift to 19' (53 acres)
       31       Umpqua Snag Creation                                          DNA #6 EA OR128-00-18   HAC061010
       32       Manual Fuels Treatment HCHR                                   EA OR120-04-07
       33       Camas Creek Fire Salvage                                      EA OR128-05-18          OR120-TS06-325
       34       South Powerstrip CT                                           EA OR125-04-17          OR120-TS06-04
       35       North Powerstrip CT                                           EA OR125-04-17          OR120-TS06-05


72
                                                                  Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006

Table 30. FY 2006 Project Numbers
     Project                Specifics on project identification,
     Number                      (Name, unit number, etc.)                                       NEPA Document                     Contract Number
       36            Luchsinger Fire Salvage                                                  EA OR125-06-05                      OR120-TS06-303
       37            Seed Orchard CT                                                          EA OR128-03-17                      OR120-TS06-30
       38            McKinley Garage CT                                                       EA OR125-04-17                      OR120-TS06-07
       39            Green Peak                                                               EA OR125-99-19                      OR120-TS06-08
       40            Scattered Skeeter DM                                                     EA OR128-03-24                      OR120-TS06-31
       41            Paradise Creek Watershed Restoration                                     EA OR125-05-06



Table 31. FY 2006 Projects Available and Selected for Monitoring by Selection Factors
                                                       Number in              Number Selected                Number Selected           Percentage of
          Type of Project                            Selection Pool           in Myrtlewood FO                in Umpqua FO             Pool Selected
Advertised Timber Sales                                     12                          1                            2                      25%
Regeneration Harvest                                         2                          0                            0                       0%
Thinning/Density Management                                  8                          0                            2                      25%
Salvage Sales                                                2                          1                            0                      50%
Silvicultural Projects                                      19                          3                            1                      21%
Road Decommissioning                                         0                          -                             -
Culvert Replacement                                          3                          1                            0                          33%
Stream Habitat Improvement                                   1                          0                            0                             -
Right-of-Way Projects                                        0                          -                             -
Noxious Weeds                                                1                          0                            1                        100%
Recreation Projects                                          0                          -                             -
Within Riparian Reserves1                                   35                          4                            4                          23%
Within Key Watersheds1                                      13                          3                            2                          38%
Within Late-Successional Reserves1                           9                          2                            1
Adjacent to ACEC                                             1                          1                            0                        100%
Within VRM Class II or III areas                             1                          0                            0                          0%
Within Rural Interface Area                                  0                          -                             -                           -
Involve Burning                                              2                          1                            0                         50%
Total Available/Selected2                                41/11                       18/6                         23/5
Percentage of Available Selected                          27%                        33%                           22%
1
    Projects selected were included in Timber sales, Silvicultural, Right-of-Way, or other projects listed above.
2
    The number of projects available for selection and selected are not additive, as many occurred within Timber Sales, Silvicultural, Culvert Replacement,
    Habitat Improvement, Right-of-Way, or Other projects listed above.

                                    Projects carred over from prevous years:
                                          2005-20        Bd Item 3 of the 2005 Myrtlewood FO Precommercal Thnnng
                                          2005-28        Bd Item 3 of the 2005 Myrtlewood FO Prunng
                                          2005-32        Mn Mose Tmber Sale                           OR120 TS05-04
                                          2005-39        Alder Cr. Converson Tmber Sale                OR120 TS05-07
                                          2004-29        Bg Grunt Tmber Sale                           OR120-TS04-02
                                          2004-58        Camas Central DM Tmber Sale                    OR120 TS04-30
                                          2004-68        Dora Dora Dora Tmber Sale                      OR120-TS04-31
                                          2003-42        Dora Rdge CT Tmber Sale                       OR120 TS03-30
                                          2003-46        Weatherly Creek R/W 21-8-15.5

                                                                                                                                                              73
Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006
                   Summary of Findings and Recommendations
                             The results of our twelfth year of montorng evaluaton contnue to support earler observatons
                             that, overall, the Dstrct s dong an excellent job of mplementng the Coos Bay Dstrct RMP. The
                             Dstrct contnues to mplement a varety of restoraton projects, although not as many as n prevous
                             years due to decreases n fundng. Tmber sales are mostly lmted to commercal thnnng or densty
                             management. As several of the montorng questons relate to regeneraton harvest, there was lmted
                             opportunty to evaluate ther mplementaton.

                             Only a few mnor tems relatng to documentaton were found durng the montorng process:
                             The accompanyng NEPA for a prescrbed burnng project (Manual Fuels Treatment HCHR) dd
                             not specifically address several air quality related questions specified in the Northwest Forest Plan.
                             The project dd address most of the questons and somewhat answered the others n a roundabout
                             manner. The project was mplemented n accordance wth current gudelnes and was n complance
                             wth ar qualty standards.

                             In addton, survey results for specal status or Survey and Manage speces for McKnley Garage,
                             Homolac DM, and Camas Fire Salvage were difficult to locate. Applicable surveys had been
                             completed, but documentation was sometimes not located in the ‘official’ file.

                             Each contract contaned desgn crtera set forth n the correspondng NEPA document wth one
                             excepton:
                             The EA for the McKnley Garage CT contaned spotted owl and murrelet seasonal nose dsturbance
                             restrctons whch appled to all unts n the analyss area. These seasonal restrctons were not lsted
                             n the contract. However, ths project and several other proposed thnnng unts are not adjacent to
                             sutable spotted owl or murrelet habtat; hence nose restrctons do not apply. Therefore, t s lkely
                             that the table contanng ths nformaton s ncorrect; ths same table was found n another EA for
                             the Homolac DM project.

                             Each project selected for montorng was mplemented n accordance wth ts contract.

                             The only recommendaton would be that some addtonal attenton be focused on documentaton and
                             consstency wth the related documents.




74
                                  Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006

Coos Bay District Specific Monitoring Questions

    All Land Use Allocations
         These questions have been modified as a result of two Supplemental Environmental Impact
         Statements and ther Records of Decsons (ROD).

         The January 2001 Record of Decision for Amendment to the Survey and Manage, protection Buffer, and other
         Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines ncorporated protecton buffer speces nto the Survey and
         Manage program.

         The March 2004 Record of Decision to Remove or modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards
         and Guidelines ncorporated the former Survey and Manage program nto the Bureau’s Specal Status
         Speces program. Ths was n effect for projects that had a Decson pror to January 2006, when a
         U.S. Dstrct Court found nadequaces n the document.


         Monitoring Requirement 1:
         At least 20 percent of all management actons wll be examned pror to project ntaton and re-
         examned followng project completon, to determne f: surveys are conducted for speces lsted n
         Appendx C and stes of speces lsted n Appendx C are protected.


         Monitoring Performed:
         All 11 selected projects n Table 30 of ths Annual Program Summary were revewed.

         Finding:
         All projects were revewed to determne whether surveys for Survey and Manage speces appled.
         Surveys were conducted for requred speces and ther respectve management protocol appled.


         Monitoring Requirement 2:
         Are the stes of amphbans, mammals, bryophytes, mollusks, vascular plants, fung, lchens, and
         arthropod speces lsted n Appendx C beng surveyed as drected n the SEIS ROD?

         Monitoring Performed:
         All 11 selected projects n Table 30 of ths Annual Program Summary were revewed.

         Finding:
         All projects were revewed to determne whether surveys for Survey and Manage speces appled.
         Surveys were conducted for requred speces and ther respectve management protocol appled.


         Monitoring Requirement 3:
         Are high priority sites for species management being identified?

         Monitoring Performed:
         All 11 selected projects n Table 30 of ths Annual Program Summary were revewed.

         Finding:
         The Survey and Manage speces whch are found wthn the Coos Bay Dstrct do not requre the
         identification of ‘high priority’ sites.


                                                                                                                    75
Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006
                             Monitoring Requirement 4:
                             Are general regonal surveys beng conducted to acqure addtonal nformaton and to determne
                             necessary levels of protecton for arthropods and fung speces that were not classed as rare and
                             endemc, bryophytes, and lchens?

                             Monitoring Performed:
                             All 11 selected projects n Table 30 of ths Annual Program Summary were revewed.

                             Finding:
                             Coordnaton of regonal surveys s beyond the scope of the Coos Bay Dstrct. The Dstrct supports
                             a regonal database (GeoBob) that provdes a ongong trackng of Survey and Manage and SSS speces
                             locatons to provde that vew. In past years, Dstrct staff has partcpated n gatherng data for these
                             efforts. Further nformaton on the regonal program can be found onlne at
                             <http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/surveyandmanage/>.


                   Riparian Reserves
                             Monitoring Requirement 1:
                             The files on each year’s on-the-ground actions will be checked annually to ensure that watershed
                             analyses were completed prior to project initiation and to ensure the concerns identified in the
                             watershed analyss were addressed n the project’s envronmental assessment.

                             Monitoring Performed:
                             All 11 selected projects n Table 30 of ths Annual Program Summary were revewed.

                             Finding:
                             For most projects, the watershed analysis is of an older vintage and concerns specific to the current
                             activity are not often identified. Some watershed analyses are being updated for watersheds concurrent
                             wth tmber sale actvty.

                             However, the watershed analyss process s of margnal utlty as a source of ‘new’ nformaton.
                             Watershed analyss was ntended to form the bass for understandng ecologcal functons, processes,
                             and their interactions on a watershed scale. These first iteration analyses have been completed for
                             most watersheds (refer to Table 3 of ths APS). Watershed analyss was not ntended to analyze
                             nformaton at the project scale for a proposed actvty; that s the role of NEPA. Analytcal questons
                             necessary for the Decson process are beng addressed n the accompanyng NEPA documentaton
                             and, n the case of tmber sale projects, the NEPA addresses cumulatve effects at an approprate scale
                             commensurate wth the project.


                             Monitoring Requirement 2:
                             At least 20 percent of management actvtes wthn each resource area wll be examned before
                             project ntaton and re-examned followng project completon to determne whether the wdth and
                             ntegrty of the Rparan Reserves were mantaned.

                             Monitoring Performed:
                                 2006-08        Homolac DM Tmber Sale
                                 2006-38        McKnley Garage CT




76
                         Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006
Prevously selected projects nclude:
    2005-32        Mn Mose Tmber Sale
    2005-39        Alder Creek Converson Tmber Sale
    2004-29        Bg Grunt Tmber Sale
    2004-58        Camas Central DM Tmber Sale
    2004-68        Dora Dora Dora Tmber Sale
    2003-42        Dora Rdge CT Tmber Sale

Finding:
Homolac DM was partally harvested durng 2006 and work on McKnley Garage CT was lmted
to road mprovement/constructon. Management actvty wthn the Rparan Reserves was thnnng
for the purpose of controllng tree stockng and Reserve wdths were not adjusted. To protect bank
stability and water quality, ‘No harvest’ areas were defined in the corresponding NEPA and in the sale
contract. These were observed to be mplemented.

Prevous year’s sales were perodcally montored durng harvest. Mn Mose and Alder Cr. Converson
were slvcultural treatments desgned to replace hardwood stands wthn the Rparan Reserves wth
a desirable coniferous stand. Sufficient buffer widths were specified to be left to protect water quality
concerns and observed to be mplemented.
The other sales ncluded thnnng wthn the Rparan Reserve to provde for growng space for large
confers and enhance understory development. Markng prescrptons retaned adequate shade for
adjacent perennal streams. ‘No harvest’ areas were also observed to be mplemented.


Monitoring Requirement 3:
The Annual Program Summary wll report what slvcultural practces are beng appled to meet the
Management Drecton for Rparan Reserves.

Monitoring Performed:
    2006-03        Bd Item 1 of the Myrtlewood FO Tree Plantng and Tubng
    2006-06        Umpqua Noxous Weed Control
    2006-08        Homolac DM Tmber Sale
    2006-13        Bd Item 2 of the Myrtlewood FO Manual Mantenance
    2006-23        Bd Item 2 of the Umpqua FO FY2006 PCT
    2006-38        McKnley Garage CT

Finding:
The slvcultural projects are ntended to reduce the amount of noxous weeds, promote survval
and growth of desrable rparan vegetaton. Tmber sale projects are ntended to provde for
growng space for large confers and enhance understory development. These are consstent wth the
Management Drecton for Rparan Reserves.


Monitoring Requirement 4:
At least 20 percent of the actvtes that are conducted or authorzed wthn Rparan Reserves wll
be revewed to dentfy whether the actons were consstent wth the SEIS ROD Standards and
Gudelnes, and RMP management drecton. In addton to reportng the results of ths montorng,
the Annual Program Summary wll also summarze the types of actvtes that were conducted or
authorzed wthn Rparan Reserves.




                                                                                                       77
Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006
                             Monitoring Performed:
                                 2006-03           Bd Item 1 of the Myrtlewood FO Tree Plantng and Tubng
                                 2006-06           Umpqua Noxous Weed Control
                                 2006-08           Homolac DM Tmber Sale
                                 2006-13           Bd Item 2 of the Myrtlewood FO Manual Mantenance
                                 2006-16           Halfway Creek Channel Restoraton
                                 2006-18           Bd Item 1 – Yankee Run Project Road Renovaton
                                 2006-23           Bd Item 2 of the Umpqua FO FY2006 PCT
                                 2006-28           Bd Item 1 of the 2006 Myrtlewood FY 2006 Prunng
                                 2006-38           McKnley Garage CT

                             Finding:
                             Based on the findings to other questions in this monitoring section, it is concluded that activities
                             wthn the Rparan Reserves were consstent wth the RMP management drecton.

                             Of the 35 projects ntated n FY 2006 lsted n Table 31, the types of actvtes conducted wthn the
                             Rparan Reserves are:

                                           category                                                number
                                 slvcultural vegetaton management
                                    precommercal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
                                    commercal thnnng. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
                                 rparan conversons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
                                 noxous weed control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
                                 n-stream habtat mprovement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
                                 culvert replacement (ncludes low-water crossng) . . 2
                                 road decommssonng/mprovement . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
                                 terrestral habtat mprovement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2


                             Monitoring Requirement 5:
                             All new structures and mprovements wthn a Rparan Reserve wll be montored durng and after
                             construction to ensure that it was constructed to: minimize the diversion of natural hydrologic flow
                             paths, reduce the amount of sediment delivery into the stream, protect fish and wildlife populations,
                             and accommodate the 100-year flood.

                             Monitoring Performed:
                                 2006-16           Halfway Creek Channel Restoraton
                                 2006-18           Bd Item 1 – Yankee Run Project Road Renovaton

                             Finding:
                             In the Halfway Creek project, exstng underszed culverts were replaced wth a low-water crossng and
                             the stream rerouted into its original channel. The new structure will accommodate all flows. The Yankee
                             Run project only installed ditch relief culverts and these are not subject to the 100-year flow requirement.


                             Monitoring Requirement 6:
                             a. Are all mnng structures, support facltes, and roads located outsde the Rparan Reserves?
                             b. Are those located wthn the Rparan Reserves meetng the Management Drecton for
                                Rparan Reserves?
                             c. Are all sold and santary waste facltes excluded from Rparan Reserves or located, montored, and
                                reclamed n accordance wth SEIS ROD Standards and Gudelnes and RMP management drecton?



78
                            Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006
    Finding:
    No change from the prevous year; there are no mnng structures or support facltes wthn the
    District. No Plans of Operations were filed during fiscal year 2006.


    Monitoring Requirement 7:
    The Annual Program Summary wll examne the status of evaluatons of exstng recreatonal facltes
    nsde Rparan Reserves to ensure that Management Drecton for Rparan Reserves s met. The
    Summary wll also report on the status of the mtgaton measures ntated where the Management
    Drecton cannot be met.

    Finding:
    No change from the prevous year ; exstng recreatonal facltes meet the Management Drecton for
    Rparan Reserves. No new recreatonal facltes have been bult.


    Conclusion:
    RMP requrements have been met.


Late-Successional Reserves

    Monitoring Requirement 1:
    What is the status of the preparation of assessments and fire plans for Late-Successional Reserves?

    Finding:
    No change from the prevous year. The Oregon Coast Provnce - Southern Porton LSR Assessments
    completed n 1997 and the South Coast - Northern Klamath LSR Assessment completed n 1998
    address habtat manpulaton actvtes. Pror to completon of these LSR Assessment documents,
    ndvdual project assessments were prepared and submtted to REO for revew.

    A Draft fire management plan for southwest Oregon, which includes the Coos Bay and Medford
    Dstrcts, as well as the Rogue Rver- Sskyou Natonal Forest, was completed n August 2004. The
    plan addresses fire management strategies within LSRs. This will replace the previous plan completed
    n 1998.

    Monitoring Requirement 2:
    What actvtes were conducted or authorzed wthn Late-Successonal Reserves and how were they
    compatble wth the objectves of the Late-Successonal Reserve Assessment? Were the actvtes
    consstent wth SEIS ROD Standards and Gudelnes, RMP management drecton, and Regonal
    Ecosystem Office review requirements and the Late-Successional Reserve assessment?

    Monitoring Performed:
        2006-06       Umpqua Noxous Weed Control
        2006-08       Homolac DM Tmber Sale
        2006-16       Halfway Creek Channel Restoraton
        2006-23       Bd Item 2 of the Umpqua FO FY2006 PCT
        2006-32       Manual Fuels Treatment HCHR

    Finding:
    Revew of the above projects ndcates that they follow Management Drecton for LSRs. The
    slvcultural actvtes are dscussed n the Late-Successonal Reserve Assessment and do not requre

                                                                                                            79
Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006
                             further REO revew. They are desgned to accelerate development of late-successonal habtat by
                             controllng tree stockng, ntroduce mnor speces, create snags, or remove noxous weeds. The LSR
                             assessment mentons restoraton of unque habtats wthn LSRs such as the Manual Fuels Treatment
                             HCHR (Hstorc Communty Habtat Restoraton) project desgned to restore a Jeffrey pne/Oregon
                             oak savannah habtat.

                           Monitoring Requirement 3:
                           What s the status of development and mplementaton of plans to elmnate or control non-natve
                           speces whch adversely mpact late-successonal objectves?

                           Finding:
                           No change from the prevous year. Control of nonnatve speces occurrng wthn LSRs s dscussed
                           n both the Oregon Coast Provnce - Southern Porton and the South Coast - Northern Klamath LSR
                           Assessments. The noxous weed program s concentratng weed control along transportaton routes,
                           some of whch are wthn LSRs. The ntent s to control the spread of prmarly broom speces nto
                           unnfected areas.

                           Conclusion:
                           RMP requrements have been met.


                  Matrix
                           Monitoring Requirement 1 :
                           Each year at least 20 percent of regeneraton harvest tmber sales n each resource area wll be
                           selected for examnaton by pre- and post-harvest (and after ste preparaton) nventores to determne
                           snag and green tree numbers, heghts, dameters, and dstrbuton wthn harvest unts. The measure
                           of dstrbuton of snags and green trees wll be the percent n the upper, mddle, and lower thrds of
                           the sale unts montored. Snags and green trees left followng tmber harvest actvtes (ncludng ste
                           preparaton for reforestaton) wll be compared to those that were marked pror to harvest.
                           The same tmber sales wll also be nventored pre- and post-harvest to determne f SEIS ROD and
                           RMP down log retenton drecton has been followed.

                           Monitoring Performed:
                           There was no designated regeneration timber sales harvested this past fiscal year; Camas Creek Fire
                           Salvage was selected for review as regeneration sale. The sale consisted of salvaging fire-killed 45 year
                           old tmber n the Matrx on 23 acres combned wth commercal thnnng of an adjacent 6 acres of
                           the same stand not affected by the fire. Pleasant Yankee was a regeneration sale selected as part of FY
                           2005 montorng process, but no acton was mplemented ths year as the sale s currently n ltgaton.

                           Finding:
                           Both the EA and the contract specified that patches of snags be left uncut and that standing trees be
                           desgnated for fallng after harvest to provde for course wood. The leave patches contaned some 197
                           trees with a combination of fire killed trees with some green trees. In addition, over 50 fire-killed trees
                           were left throughout the salvage harvest area. The contract requred that 32 trees be felled to provde
                           for course wood; some 46 cut and recent blowdown trees were observed on-ste.

                           Monitoring Requirement 2:
                           At least 20 percent of the files on each year’s timber sales will be reviewed annually to determine if
                           ecosystem goals were addressed n the slvcultural prescrptons.




80
                              Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006
     Monitoring Performed:
         2006-33        Camas Creek Fre Salvage

     Finding:
     The EA for Camas Fre Salvage addresses the need to recover the merchantable volume from
     the Matrx. Ths drecton s consstent wth the Management Drecton n the RMP. The EA also
     discusses the need to thin a portion of the stand not affected by the fire to produce larger and more
     valuable logs, maintain good crown ratios, and wind-firm trees.

     Monitoring Requirement 3:
     All proposed regeneraton harvest tmber sales n watersheds wth less than 15 percent late-
     successonal forest remanng wll be revewed pror to sale to ensure that a watershed analyss has
     been completed.

     Finding:
     No regeneraton harvest was proposed n watersheds wth less than 15 percent late-successonal
     forests. Table 5 of ths Annual Program Summary lsts watersheds wth deferred regeneraton harvest.


     Conclusion:
     RMP requrements have been met.


Air Quality
     Monitoring Requirement 1:
     Each year at least 20 percent of prescrbed burn projects wll be randomly selected for montorng
     to assess what efforts were made to mnmze partculate emssons, and to assess whether the
     envronmental analyss that preceded the decson to burn addressed the questons set forth n the
     SEIS dscusson of Emsson Montorng (p. 3&4-100).

     Monitoring Performed:
         2006-32        Manual Fuels Treatment HCHR

     Finding:
     The project conssts of ple burnng slashed debrs and s ntended to occur over a several year perod.
     The ntent of the mult-year approach was to reduce the amount of fuels burned at any one pont n
     time to avoid damage to soils and the residual stand. This procedure has a secondary benefit of not
     producng a large amount of smoke durng any partcular treatment, but spreadng t out over several
     years. Implementaton for fuels reducton s scheduled for the wnter months. Ths wll mnmze the
     amount of partculate emssons put nto the arshed.

     Although not specifically listed in the EA for the HCHR project, the document does address the
     nne questons lsted on page 3&4-100 of the Northwest Forest Plan. Two of the questons ask to
     “Quantfy emssons of ar pollutants.” Whle the EA does not quantfy the amount and types of ar
     pollutants, the prescrbed burn plan does estmate the tonnage to be consumed. Prescrbed burnng s
     regulated by the Oregon Smoke Management Plan, whch regulates the amount of partculate put nto
     an arshed based on current and antcpated weather.


     Monitoring Requirement 2:
     Each year at least 20 percent of the constructon actvtes and commodty haulng actvtes wll be
     montored to determne f dust abatement measures were mplemented.

                                                                                                             81
Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006
                             Monitoring Performed:
                                 2006-08        Homolac DM Tmber Sale
                                 2006-13        Bd Item 2 of the Myrtlewood FO Manual Mantenance
                                 2006-33        Camas Creek Fre Salvage
                                 2005-32        Mn Mose Tmber Sale
                                 2005-39        Alder Creek Converson Tmber Sale
                                 2004-29        Bg Grunt Tmber Sale
                                 2004-58        Camas Central DM Tmber Sale
                                 2004-68        Dora Dora Dora Tmber Sale
                                 2003-42        Dora Rdge CT Tmber Sale

                             FY 2006 and prevous year’s sales were ntermttently montored durng the summer months.

                             Finding:
                             No construction or timber harvest operations occurred during the fiscal year that required dust
                             abatement measures.

                             Monitoring Requirement 3:
                             Are conformty determnatons beng prepared pror to actvtes whch may: contrbute to a new
                             volaton of the Natonal Ambent Ar Qualty Standards, ncrease the frequency or severty of an
                             exstng volaton, or delay the tmely attanment of a standard?

                             Finding:
                             No ntrusons occurred nto desgnated areas as a result of prescrbed burnng actvtes on the Dstrct.

                             No change from the previous year. All prescribed fire activities were conducted in accordance with the
                             Oregon Smoke Management Plan and Visibility Protection Plan. Prescribed fire activities were down
                             from hstorcal levels and are comparable to FY 2006 levels. Mechancal and alternatve treatment
                             methods were used to decrease the amount of acreage requiring prescribed fire. Fuel consumption varies
                             due to factors such as tme of year, aspect, fuel type, gnton method, fuel mosture, fuel contnuty
                             and treatment method. Most prescrbed burnng prescrptons target sprng-lke burnng condtons to
                             mnmze large fuel, duff and ltter consumpton, and smolderng s reduced by rapd mop-up.

                             Conclusion:
                             Overall, RMP requrements have been met.


                   Water and Soils
                             Monitoring Requirement 1:
                             Each year at least 20 percent of the timber sales and other relevant actions stratified by management
                             category wll be randomly selected for montorng to determne whether Best Management Practces
                             (BMPs) were mplemented as prescrbed. The selecton of management actons to be montored wll
                             be based on beneficial uses likely to be impacted, and for which BMPs are being prescribed.

                             Monitoring Performed:
                             All 11 selected projects n Table 30 of ths Annual Program Summary were revewed.

                             Finding:
                             Approprate BMPs were desgned to avod or mtgate potental mpacts to water qualty and sols
                             productvty. Perodc revew durng mplementaton of 2006 and prevous year’s projects revealed that
                             BMPs identified in the respective NEPA document were being implemented on the ground.

82
                        Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006
Monitoring Requirement 2:
Complance checks wll be completed for all agreements entered nto wth provders of muncpal water.

Finding:
The Dstrct does not have agreements wth the ctes of Myrtle Pont or Coqulle that use water from
source water watersheds, nvolvng multple ownershps ncludng BLM lands.


Monitoring Requirement 3:
What is the status of identification of in-stream flow needs for the maintenance of channel
condtons, aquatc habtat, and rparan resources?

Finding:
No in-stream flow needs were identified in FY 2006.


Monitoring Requirement 4:
What watershed restoraton projects are beng developed and mplemented?

Finding:
In FY 2006, the followng types (and numbers) of restoraton projects n Rparan Reserves were
approved usng Secure Rural Schools and Communty Self-Determnaton Act of 2000 - Ttle II funds
(Table 4 of ths Annual Program Summary):

    Culvert Replacement Projects     0
    In-stream Wood Placement         1
    Rparan/Channel Restoraton     2
    Road Related Restoraton         1
    Noxous Weed Control             7

More detal can be found n the Fsh Secton of ths Annual Program Summary.

Monitoring Requirement 5:
What fuel treatment and fire suppression strategies have been developed to meet Aquatic
Conservaton Strategy objectves?

Finding:
No change from the prevous year. Fuel treatment strateges are developed as a part of the
nterdscplnary team (IDT) process. No chemcal retardant, foam or other addtves are to be used
on or near surface waters. In accordance wth BLM Prescrbed Fre Manual 9214, Coos Bay Dstrct
RMP, the Dstrct Fre Management Plan, and the ODF/BLM Protecton Agreement, mmedate and
appropriate suppression action is to be applied on all wildfires.

Monitoring Requirement 6:
What s the status of development of road or transportaton management plans to meet Management
Drecton for Rparan Reserves?

Finding:
No change from the prevous year. The Dstrct s contnung to operate under the 1996 Western
Oregon Transportaton Management Plan and the Dstrct Implementaton Plan developed n late
1998. Both plans have, as one of ther two man goals, mantenance programs and operaton plans
desgned to meet Management Drecton for Rparan Reserves.
                                                                                                      83
Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006
                             The Dstrct has ressued ts Mantenance Operaton Plan outlnng the prescrbed mantenance levels
                             for the transportaton network.


                           Monitoring Requirement 7:
                           What s the status of preparaton of crtera and standards whch govern the operaton, mantenance,
                           and desgn for the constructon and reconstructon of roads?

                           Finding:
                           No change from 2004 (see answer to queston 6 above). In addton, desgn standards comply wth the
                           Best Management Practces lsted n the Coos Bay RMP.


                           Monitoring Requirement 8:
                           a. What is the status of the reconstruction of roads and associated drainage features identified in
                              watershed analyss as posng a substantal rsk?
                           b. What s the status of closure or elmnaton of roads to further Management Drecton for Rparan
                              Reserves and to reduce the overall road mleage wthn Key Watersheds?
                           c. If funding is insufficient to implement road mileage reductions, are construction and authorizations
                              through dscretonary permts dened to prevent a net ncrease n road mleage n Key Watersheds?

                           Finding:
                           a. Fundng for road related projects contnued n 2006, concentratng mostly on reducng potental
                              sediment delivery and removal of fish barriers. Through the IDT process, culverts identified as
                              barriers to fish passage continue to be replaced as funding becomes available. Roads determined to
                              be potental sources of sedment delvery, dsruptve to a natural hydrologc process, or barrers to
                              natural delvery of LWD are ether decommssoned or upgraded to correct the condton.
                           b. Contnung n FY 2006, emphass on road closures remans on more senstve areas n non-Key
                              watersheds. Earlier road closures targeted roads in flood-plain areas where the greatest benefit to
                              the resources could be realzed. Current closures target roads to meet mleage reducton objectves.
                              Forest management actons wthn Key watersheds contnue to meet the no-net gan n road mleage.
                           c. No change from the prevous year. It s not polcy to deny access to lands of prvate partes.
                              BLM will review any request and fulfill its obligations under the appropriate laws and regulations
                              governng ssuance of such permts.


                           Monitoring Requirement 9:
                           What is the status of reviews of ongoing research in Key Watersheds to ensure that significant risk to
                           the watershed does not exst?

                           Finding:
                           No change from the prevous year. Currently, no research s ongong wthn Key Watersheds.


                           Monitoring Requirement 10:
                           What s the status of evaluaton of recreaton, nterpretve, and user-enhancement actvtes/facltes
                           to determne ther effects on the watershed? What s the status of elmnatng or relocatng these
                           activities/facilities when found to be in conflict with Management Direction for Riparian Reserves?

                           Finding:
                           No change from the prevous year. Rsk of sedment delvery from roads and other facltes has
                           been evaluated n the watershed analyss process. In some nstances, pavng of portons of recreaton
                           sites or other upgrades were identified. The Department of Environmental Quality performed water

84
                               Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006
     qualty testng of the lake water at the Loon Lake Recreaton Area durng the summer months, and
     results ndcate that water qualty remans wthn normal ranges.

     An occasonal hazard tree has been felled wthn Rparan Reserves wthn developed recreaton stes
     for safety reasons, but the speces composton and structural dversty of plant communtes has
     been mantaned.


     Monitoring Requirement 11:
     What s the status of cooperaton wth other agences n the development of watershed-based
     Research Management Plans and other cooperatve agreements to meet Management Drecton for
     Rparan Reserves?

     Finding:
     No change from the prevous year. Fsh bologsts and other specalsts were actvely nvolved wth
     the Coos and Coqulle Watershed Assocatons; the Umpqua Sol and Water Dstrct; and the Smth
     Rver, Lower Rogue Councl, and South Coast Coordnatng Watershed Councls. Specalsts provded
     techncal support n the form of project recommendatons, desgn and evaluaton, basn acton
     plannng, montorng plan development and mplementaton, database management, and specal
     resources (such as aeral photography). MOUs have been developed between the Dstrct and each of
     the Assocatons/Councls.


     Conclusion:
     RMP requrements have been met.


Wildlife Habitat
     Monitoring Requirement 1:
     Each year at least 20 percent of regeneraton harvest tmber sales n each resource area wll be
     selected for examnaton by pre- and post-harvest (and after ste preparaton) nventores to determne
     snag and green tree numbers, heghts, dameters and dstrbuton wthn harvest unts. The measure
     of dstrbuton of snags and green trees wll be the percent n the upper, mddle and lower thrds of
     the sale unts montored. Snags and green trees left followng tmber harvest actvtes (ncludng ste
     preparaton for reforestaton) wll be compared to those that were marked pror to harvest.
     The same tmber sales wll also be nventored pre- and post-harvest to determne f SEIS ROD and
     RMP down log retenton drecton has been followed.

     Monitoring Performed:
         2006-33        Camas Creek Fre Salvage

     Finding:
     See ‘Fndng’ to Montorng Requrement 1 n the Matrx secton of ths Montorng Report.


     Monitoring Requirement 2:
     Each year at least 20 percent of BLM actons wthn each resource area, on lands ncludng or near
     specal habtats, wll be examned to determne whether specal habtats were protected.

     Monitoring Performed:
     All 11 selected projects n Table 30 of ths Annual Program Summary were revewed to assess
     whether potential impacts to special habitats were being identified.


                                                                                                             85
Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006
                             Finding:
                             The Manual Fuels Treatment HCHR does occur wthn a specal habtat –Jeffrey pne/Oregon oak. The
                             project s ntended to restore ths specal habtat, whch s beng encroached upon by confer trees due to
                             fire exclusion. Documentation for the other projects in Table 30 did not identify any special habitats.


                             Monitoring Requirement 3:
                             What s the status of desgnng and mplementng wldlfe habtat restoraton projects?

                             Finding:
                             Restoraton projects ncluded; expanded technques and mantenance of snowy plover habtat, bald
                             eagle habtat mprovement, road closures, elk meadow mprovement, and snag creaton. More detal
                             can be found n the Wldlfe Habtat secton of ths Annual Program Summary.


                             Monitoring Requirement: 4
                             What s the status of desgnng and constructng wldlfe nterpretve and other
                             user-enhancement facltes?

                             Finding:
                             Wldlfe nterpretaton focus prmarly on the snowy plover, bats and career plannng. Snowy plover
                             outreach s accomplshed on-ste and n a coordnated state-wde program. Bat programs are offered
                             at area schools and through volunteer opportuntes. Career nformaton s provded each year at
                             “Women n Scence.” Interpretve hkes and evenng programs at recreaton stes were used to dscuss
                             more general wldlfe topcs. More detal can be found n the Envronmental Educaton secton of ths
                             Annual Program Summary.


                             Conclusion:
                             RMP requrements have been met.


                   Fish Habitat
                             Monitoring Requirement 1:
                             The Annual Program Summary will report on the status of watershed analysis to identify at-risk fish
                             speces and stocks, ther habtat wthn ndvdual watersheds, and restoraton project needs.

                             Finding:
                             Within the Coos Bay District, there is one Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESUs) for listed
                             anadromous fish; the Southern Oregon/Northern California coho salmon (listed as threatened).
                             Listed fish, along with candidate species, and a description of the habitat conditions are addressed in
                             project-level NEPA and relevant watershed analysis. Watershed restoration opportunities are identified
                             to benefit the habitat needs of these species.


                             Monitoring Requirement 2:
                             The Annual Program Summary will report on the status of the design and implementation of fish
                             habtat restoraton and habtat actvtes.




86
                         Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006
Finding:
In FY 2006, the followng types (and numbers) of restoraton projects n Rparan Reserves were
approved usng Secure Rural Schools and Communty Self-Determnaton Act of 2000 - Ttle II funds
(Table 4):
    Culvert Replacement Projects      0
    In-stream wood placement          1
    Rparan/Channel Restoraton 2
    Road Related Restoraton          1
    Noxous Weed Control              7

Projects approved in previous years and implemented this year include one fish passage culvert on
West Fork Smth Rver and n-stream log placement n Dement Creek and South Sster/Bum Creeks.
More detal can be found n the Fsh Secton of ths Annual Program Summary.


Monitoring Requirement 3:
a. The Annual Program Summary wll report on the status of cooperaton wth federal, trbal, and
   state fish management agencies to identify and eliminate impacts associated with poaching, harvest,
   habitat manipulation, and fish stocking which threaten the continued existence and distribution of
   native fish stocks inhabiting federal lands. The Summary will also identify any management activities
   or fish interpretive and other user-enhancement facilities which have detrimental effects on native
   fish stocks.
b. At least 20 percent of the files on each year’s timber sales and other relevant actions will be
   reviewed annually to evaluate documentation regarding fish species and habitat and related
   recommendatons and decsons n lght of polcy and SEIS ROD Standards and Gudelnes
   and RMP management drecton. If mtgaton was requred, revew wll ascertan whether such
   mtgaton was ncorporated n the authorzaton document, and the actons wll be revewed on the
   ground after completon to ascertan whether the mtgaton was carred out as planned.

Monitoring Performed:
All 11 selected projects as per Table 30 of ths Annual Program Summary were montored to assess
whether potential impacts to fish were being identified.

Finding:
a. No change from the prevous year. The BLM contnues to work wthn the 1997 MOU wth ODFW,
   regardng cooperatve and comprehensve aquatc habtat nventory, to dentfy physcal condtons
   threatening the continued existence and distribution of native fish stocks on federally-managed
   lands. Monitoring did not identify any project which had a detrimental effect on fish stocks.
b. Streams adjacent to all projects are assessed to determne f and what speces are present. The
   activity is then assessed to determine what impacts might occur to fish habitat or water quality.
   Desgn features are ncorporated to elmnate or reduce mpacts. Feld revew of mplemented
   projects ndcates that desgn measures were mplemented.


Conclusion:
RMP requrements have been met.




                                                                                                       87
Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006
                   Special Status and SEIS Special Attention
                   Species Habitat
                             Monitoring Requirement 1:
                             Each year at least 20 percent of all management actons wll be selected for examnaton pror to
                             project ntaton and re-examned followng project completon to evaluate documentaton regardng
                             specal status speces and related recommendatons and decsons n lght of ESA requrements, polcy,
                             SEIS ROD Standards and Gudelnes, and RMP management drecton. If mtgaton was requred,
                             revew wll ascertan whether such mtgaton was ncorporated n the authorzaton document, and
                             the actons wll be revewed on the ground after ther completon to ascertan whether the mtgaton
                             was carred out as planned.

                             Monitoring Performed:
                             All 11 selected projects n Table 30 of ths Annual Program Summary were montored to assess
                             whether potential impacts to special status species were being identified.

                             Finding:
                             Revew of NEPA documentaton ndcates that both lsted and non-lsted specal status speces are
                             beng addressed n development of projects. Actvtes wthn the habtat of lsted speces (under the
                             Endangered Speces Act) are evaluated and f necessary consultaton wth the respectve regulatory
                             agency under Secton 7 of the Endangered Speces Act occurs.

                             The EA for McKinley Garage CT specified that seasonal restrictions for noise disturbance would
                             be appled to all unts n the analyss area. These seasonal restrctons were not lsted n the
                             correspondng contract. However, ths project and several other proposed thnnng unts are not
                             adjacent to sutable spotted owl or murrelet habtat; therefore t s lkely that ths table n the EA s
                             ncorrect. Ths same table was found n another EA for the Homolac DM project.

                             Assessment of mpacts to other (nonlsted) specal status speces follows the gudelnes of the
                             Bureau’s Specal Status Speces program. Dependng upon the habtat, t s determned what speces
                             might occur and in most cases field surveys are conducted if needed to determine presence. The
                             actvty s then assessed to determne what potental mpacts mght occur. Full project mplementaton
                             or use of mtgaton measures are at the dscreton of the Feld Managers.

                             Monitoring Requirement 2:
                             Revew mplementaton schedule and actons taken annually to ascertan f the actons to recover
                             speces were carred out as planned.

                             Finding:
                             See answer to “Montorng Requrement 6” below.


                             Monitoring Requirement 3:
                             What coordnaton wth other agences has occurred n the management of specal status speces?

                             Finding:
                             Coordnaton wth FWS and NMFS occurs durng Level 1 dscussons and consultaton for proposed
                             projects for lsted speces. The RMP provdes overall drecton for management of northern spotted
                             owls and marbled murrelets. A new Level 1 Team was formed n 2006 for western snowy plover
                             consultaton of projects and for general management. Team members nclude representatves from
                             FWS, FS, and BLM. Recovery goals are coordnated by the Oregon/Washngton Snowy Plover
                             Workng Team.


88
                          Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006
Management of senstve speces s prortzed through a coordnated process wth the Forest Servce,
FWS and BLM at a state and regional scale. Fishers were identified this year for surveys to better
understand dstrbuton on Dstrct and n western Oregon. Surveys were completed and Coos Bay
Staff are partcpatng n a regonal workng group to share nformaton.


Monitoring Requirement 4:
What land acqustons occurred or are underway to facltate the management and recovery of specal
status speces?

Finding:
No change from the prevous year. The Dstrct s contnung to work on acquston of parcels
adjacent to New Rver. Several of the potental acqustons would enhance habtat for Aleutan
Canada Goose and Western snowy plover populatons.


Monitoring Requirement 5:
What site-specific plans for the recovery of special status species were, or are being, developed?

Finding:
Coos Bay BLM implemented the fifth year of predator control for western snowy plovers; other
projects for snowy plover recovery are lsted n the Wldlfe Secton of ths Annual Program Summary.
The New Rver ACEC Plan and the North Spt Plan both provde management drecton to Coos Bay
BLM for management actons to support western snowy plover recovery.

Snce 1997, the recovery of Western Lly has been addressed by an off-ste populaton study at New
Rver ACEC through a Challenge Cost Share project wth Berry Botanc Garden. The Challenge Cost
Share project addresses one of the 1998 recovery plans for the speces.


Monitoring Requirement 6:
What s the status of analyss whch ascertans speces requrements or enhances the recovery or
survval of a speces?

Finding:
No change from the prevous year. The Secton 7 consultaton streamlnng process developed n FY
1996 was used agan ths year. Coos Bay bologsts partcpate on Level 1 Teams wth both USFWS
and NMFS. The Dstrct Manager represents the Dstrct on the Level 2 Team. Approved protocol for
marbled murrelets, dsturbance buffers for bald eagles, and current gudelnes for northern spotted
owls were used n preparaton of all bologcal assessments for the consultaton process wth the
USFWS. Yearly montorng ensures that Terms and Condtons are followed n all project actvtes.
In addton, the Dstrct partcpates on the team mplementng the Western Snowy Plover Draft
Recovery Plan n Recovery Unt 1. Coos Bay BLM contnues to place a hgh prorty on mplementng
as many of the measures recommended for recovery of Western Snowy Plovers as possble. Challenge
Cost Share funds were successfully obtaned for much of ths work and also for montorng of a
western lly populaton found on Dstrct. As recommended n the bald eagle recovery plan, plannng
s underway to enhance the development of bald eagle nest and roost trees.




                                                                                                        89
Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006
                             Monitoring Requirement 7:
                             What s the status of efforts to mantan or restore the communty structure, speces composton, and
                             ecologcal processes of specal status plant and anmal habtat?


                             Finding:
                             Dune communtes, at New Rver and North Spt ACECs, are beng restored (through a Challenge
                             Cost Share project) wthn whch pnk sand verbena (Bureau senstve) s a member, along wth a
                             trackng speces (yellow sand verbena). Ths communty also ncludes the western snowy plover.
                             Addtonally, an ntroduced populaton of western lly (endangered, Bureau senstve) at New Rver
                             along wth a naturally occurrng populaton have receved vegetaton management (prunng of
                             competng vegetaton).

                             The Coos Bay Dstrct contnues to restores habtat for northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet
                             through densty management thnnng n LSR. The objectve of these sales s to promote late
                             successonal habtat characterstcs on prevously harvested over-stocked stands.

                             Contnued restoraton and mantenance of western snowy plover habtats was accomplshed ths year
                             at both the New Rver ACEC and Coos Rver North Spt (see SSS dscusson for further nformaton).


                             Conclusion:
                             RMP requrements have been met.


                   Special Areas
                             Monitoring Requirement 1:
                             Annually, at least 20 percent of the files on all actions and research proposals within and adjacent to
                             specal areas wll be revewed to determne whether the possblty of mpacts on ACEC values was
                             considered, and whether any mitigation identified as important for maintenance of ACEC values
                             was requred. If mtgaton was requred, the relevant actons wll be revewed on the ground, after
                             completon, to ascertan whether t was actually mplemented.

                             Monitoring Performed:
                                 2006-32        Manual Fuels Treatment HCHR

                             Finding:
                             The Hstorc Communty Habtat Restoraton project was the only project wthn an ACEC that
                             was ntated n FY 2006. The project s located wthn the North Fork Hunter Creek ACEC.
                             The project s ntended to re-establsh a Jeffrey pne/Oregon oak savannah. It nvolves removng
                             encroaching Douglas-fir; then piling and burning the resultant slash. This action is consistent with
                             the Management Drecton for specal areas to “. . . restore natve speces composton and ecologcal
                             processes.” The project s second of several planned entres wthn ths area.


                             Monitoring Requirement 2:
                             What s the status of the preparaton, revson, and mplementaton of ACEC management plans?

                             Finding:
                             An update of the North Spt Plan, whch ncludes the North Spt ACEC, was completed n FY 2006.
                             No other management plans have been prepared or revsed durng 2006. Management plans for other
                             ACECs within the Umpqua Field Office are completed.



90
                      Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006
The New Rver ACEC management plan was updated n FY 2004. The North Fork Hunter Creek
/Hunter Creek Bog ACEC Management Plan was completed n FY 1996 wth mplementaton
begnnng n FY 1997.


Monitoring Requirement 3:
What envronmental educaton and research ntatves and programs are occurrng n the Research
Natural Areas and Envronmental Educaton Areas?

Finding:
No new research or ntatves were started n the Cherry Creek RNA or the Powers Envronmental
Educaton Area n 2006.


Monitoring Requirement 4:
Are exstng BLM actons and BLM authorzed actons and uses not consstent wth management
drecton for specal areas beng elmnated or relocated?

Monitoring Performed:
    2006-32       Manual Fuels Treatment HCHR

Finding:
The HCHR project s consstent wth the management drecton and the relevant and mportant
values of the Hunter Creek ACEC. In addton, a lst of all actons mplemented n FY 2006 wthn
ACECs s lsted n the Specal Areas secton of ths Annual Program Summary. These actons are
evaluated to determne whether they mantan or restore the mportant values.


Monitoring Requirement 5:
Are actions being identified which are needed to maintain or restore the important values of the
specal areas? Are the actons beng mplemented?


Finding:
A lst of actons mplemented wthn ACECs s lsted n the Specal Areas secton of ths Annual
Program Summary.


Monitoring Requirement 6:
Are protection buffers being provided for specific rare and locally endemic species and other species
in habitats identified in the SEIS ROD?

Not Applcable. The 2001 SEIS to Amend the Standards and Gudelnes for Survey & Manage ether
transferred Protecton Buffer speces nto the Survey and Manage program or removed them from
because they no longer meet the basc crtera for Survey and Manage.


Conclusion:
RMP requrements have been met.




                                                                                                    91
Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006
                   Cultural Resources Including American Indian Values
                             Monitoring Requirement 1:
                             At least 20 percent of the files on each year’s timber sales and other relevant actions (e.g., rights-of-
                             way and n-stream structures) wll be revewed annually to evaluate documentaton regardng cultural
                             resources and Amercan Indan values and decsons n lght of requrements, polcy, SEIS ROD
                             Standards and Gudelnes, and RMP management drecton. If mtgaton was requred, revew wll
                             ascertan whether such mtgaton was ncorporated n the authorzaton document, and the actons
                             wll be revewed on the ground after completon to ascertan whether the mtgaton was carred out
                             as planned.

                             Monitoring Performed:
                             All 11 selected projects n Table 30 of ths Annual Program Summary were revewed.

                             Finding:
                             Cultural resources were addressed n the documentaton for each project revewed. Clearances for
                             projects are a routine part of the analysis; no sites were identified. Furthermore, all contacts contain
                             stpulatons protectng cultural resources f dscovered durng mplementaton.


                             Monitoring Requirement 2:
                             What mechansms have been developed to descrbe past landscapes and the role of humans n
                             shapng those landscapes?

                             Finding:
                             No change from the prevous year. Watershed analyss s the prmary mechansm used to descrbe past
                             landscapes and the role of humans n shapng those landscapes, utlzng old photos, maps, lterature,
                             verbal dscusson wth many people, county records, agency records and trbal nput.


                             Monitoring Requirement 3:
                             What efforts are beng made to work wth Amercan Indan groups to accomplsh cultural resource
                             objectves and acheve goals outlned n exstng memoranda of understandng and to develop
                             addtonal memoranda as needs arse?

                             Finding:
                             The Dstrct contnued to mantan an MOU wth two of the trbes whose area of nterest extends
                             to Coos Bay BLM lands. The Dstrct Natve Amercan Coordnator poston, as well as staff and
                             management mantans a workng relatonshp wth federally-recognzed trbes whose current nterests
                             extend to Coos Bay BLM lands.


                             Monitoring Requirement 4:
                             What publc educaton and nterpretve programs were developed to promote the apprecaton of
                             cultural resources?

                             Finding:
                             In 2006, two nterpretve efforts were made n conjuncton wth Natonal Publc Lands Day:
                             - A permanent nterpretve sgn was desgned and nstalled at the BLM New Rver ACEC that
                               descrbes the hstory of early 20th century cranberry bogs n the New Rver area.




92
                              Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006
     - An nterpretve dsplay on the abandoned facltes assocated wth the North Bend Auxlary Naval
       Staton was created and presented to the publc n conjuncton wth ther clean-up of bunkers
       (assocated wth ths WWII ar staton) on BLM land on the North Spt of Coos Bay.


     Conclusion:
     RMP requrements have been met.


Visual Resources
     Monitoring Requirement 1:
     Twenty percent of the files for timber sales and other substantial projects in VRM Class II or III areas
     wll be revewed to ascertan whether relevant desgn features or mtgatng measures were ncluded.

     Monitoring Performed:
         2006-32        Manual Fuels Treatment HCHR


     Finding:
     The GIS map of Vsual Resources n the Coos Bay Dstrct was recently updated as part of the RMP
     Revson process. Accordng to an updated map, a small porton of the area s wthn a VRM III,
     whch was not avalable at the tme that the NEPA was completed. The NEPA mentons that the
     project area les wthn a VRM IV. The project s ntended to restore the characterstc landscape of
     the area and s, therefore, consstent wth the Management Drecton for Vsual Resources.


     Conclusion:
     Overall, RMP requrements have been met.


Wild and Scenic Rivers
     Monitoring Requirement 1:
     Annually, the files on all actions and research proposals within and adjacent to Wild and Scenic River
     corrdors wll be revewed to determne whether the possblty of mpacts on the outstandngly
     remarkable values was considered, and whether any mitigation identified as important for maintenance
     of the values was requred. If mtgaton was requred, the relevant actons wll be revewed on the
     ground, after completon, to ascertan whether t was actually mplemented.


     Monitoring Requirement 2:
     The Annual Program Summary wll report progress on preparaton and revson of Wld and Scenc
     Rver management plans, ther conformance wth the Management Drecton for Rparan Reserves,
     and the degree to whch these plans have been mplemented.

     Monitoring Performed:
     All 11 selected projects n Table 30 of ths Annual Program Summary were revewed.

     Finding:
     No change from the prevous year. There are no Desgnated Wld and Scenc corrdors wthn the
     Coos Bay Dstrct. There are, however, four ‘elgble-but not-studed’ rver segments that could meet
     a recreational classification. No activities have occurred adjacent to these river segments that would
     have a negative effect on their identified ‘outstandingly remarkable’ values.


                                                                                                            93
Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006
                             Conclusion:
                             RMP requrements have been met.


                   Rural Interface Areas
                             Monitoring Requirement 1:
                             Each year at least 20 percent of all actions within the identified rural interface areas will be selected
                             for examnaton to determne f specal project desgn features and mtgaton measures were ncluded
                             and mplemented as planned.


                             Monitoring Performed:
                             No actions occurred within rural interface areas this past fiscal year.


                   Socioeconomic Conditions
                             Monitoring Requirement 1:
                             What strateges and programs have been developed, through coordnaton wth state and local
                             governments, to support local economes and enhance local communtes?

                             Finding:
                             No change from the prevous year. The Dstrct has made good use of new procurement authortes
                             to support local busnesses. These nclude:
                             − Using the “Best Value Procurement” process, award contracts and purchases to local business when
                               t can be demonstrated the local capabltes result n a better product or outcome.
                             − Awarding contracts between $2500 and $25,000 to “small businesses.”
                             − Direct mailing of contract solicitations to local contractors, in addition to the Bureau’s eCommerce
                               contract advertsng program.
                             − Usng check-wrtng capabltes to provde prompt payment to busness wth a mnmum
                               of paperwork.
                             − During FY 2006, the Coos Bay District prepared projects for potential funding under the Secure
                               Rural Schools and Communty Self-determnaton Act of 2000. Through the local Resource
                               Advsory Commttee, almost $1.4 mllon n fundng was made avalable for fundng of restoraton
                               contracts n FY 2006.


                             Monitoring Requirement 2:
                             Are RMP implementation strategies being identified that support local economies?

                             Finding:
                             Yes, see response to queston 1 above. In addton, the Dstrct s takng every step to provde a
                             contnuous offerng of tmber sale contracts for publc bddng as court decsons allow.




94
                            Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006
    Monitoring Requirement 3:
    What s the status of plannng and developng amentes (such as recreaton and wldlfe vewng
    facltes) that enhance local communtes?

    Finding:
    Dean Creek Elk Vewng Area s a hghly popular Watchable Wldlfe ste (attractng approxmately
    400,000 vstors annually) stuated just outsde of Reedsport, OR. Much progress was made ths year
    n addressng some serous management concerns wth the Dean Creek Elk Vewng Area. Efforts to
    mantan elk forage ncluded mowng approxmately 300 acres, burnng about 135 acres, and annual
    noxous weed removal on 400 acres. These actons wll assure that the Dean Creek Elk Vewng area
    remans as a major tourst attracton n western Douglas County.


    Conclusion:
    RMP requrements have been met.


Recreation
    Monitoring Requirement 1:
    What s the status of the development and mplementaton of recreaton plans?

    Findings:
    A complete lst of completed management plans for recreaton ste and trals s lsted below:

    Umpqua Field Office
    • Coos Bay Shorelands SRMA - completed 1995, updated n 2006.
    • Loon Lake Busness Plan - completed 2005.
    • Loon Lake SRMA Management Plan - completed 2002.
    • Vncent Creek House hstorcal assessment - completed FY 2001.
    • Smth Rver Falls and Vncent Creek Campgrounds Ste Plans - completed FY 1999.
    • Bg Tree Recreaton Ste - recreaton plan completed FY 1999.
    • Dean Creek Elk Vewng Area SRMA - completed 1993, amended 1998.
    • .Blue Rdge mult-use tral plan - completed 1998.
    • Park Creek Campground Ste Plan - completed 1998.
    • Loon Lake SRMA Operatons Plan - completed 1997.

    Myrtlewood Field Office
    • Cape Blanco Busness Plan - completed 2005.
    • New Rver ACEC/SRMA Management Plan - completed 1995. Plan update completed n 2004.
      Vstor use montorng plan ntated n FY 2001.
    • Sxes Rver SRMA Recreaton Area Management Plan - completed FY 2000.
    • Hunter Creek Bog ACEC Management Plan - completed 1996 (tral plannng FY 1999).
    • Euphora Rdge Tral - completed 1999.
    • Doerner Fr tral plan and tral head constructon - completed FY 1999.
    • Cape Blanco Lghthouse Natonal Hstorc Ste - Interm Management Plan completed 1996.

    Recreaton stes are beng managed n accordance wth these plans.


                                                                                                          95
Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006
                             Conclusion:
                             RMP requrements have been met.


                   Timber Resources
                             Monitoring Requirement 1:
                             The Annual Program Summary wll report both planned and non-planned volumes sold. The report
                             wll also summarze annual and cumulatve tmber sale volumes, acres to be harvested, and stand ages
                             and types of regeneraton harvest for General Forest Management Areas and Connectvty/Dversty
                             Blocks, stratified to identify them individually.

                             Finding:
                             Tmber sale nformaton s dsplayed n the Forest Management secton and Table B1 of Appendx B
                             of ths Annual Program Summary.

                             Monitoring Requirement 2:
                             An annual Dstrct-wde report wll be prepared to determne f the slvcultural and forest health
                             practices identified and used in the calculation of the ASQ were implemented. This report will be
                             summarzed n the Annual Program Summary.

                             Finding:
                             Slvcultural nformaton s dsplayed n Table 24 of ths Annual Program Summary. Intensve forest
                             practces are dependant upon regeneraton harvest; the amount of ntensve reforestaton practces s
                             commensurate wth the acres of regeneraton harvest, both of wth are below projecton.

                             Conclusion:
                             RMP requrements have been met.


                   Special Forest Products
                             Monitoring Requirement 1:
                             Is the sustanablty and protecton of specal forest product resources ensured pror to sellng specal
                             forest products?


                             Finding:
                             No change from the prevous year. Use of specal provsons on permts for specal forest products
                             lmt the amount of plant materal or geographc area to be harvested.

                             Monitoring Requirement 2:
                             What is the status of the development and implementation of specific guidelines for the management
                             of ndvdual specal forest products?

                             Finding:
                             No change from the prevous year. The Dstrct contnues to use the gudelnes contaned n the
                             Oregon/Washington Special Forest Products Procedure Handbook.

                             Conclusion:
                             RMP requrements have been met.


96
                             Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006
Noxious Weeds
    Monitoring Requirement 1:
    Review the files of at least 20 percent of each year’s noxious weed control applications to determine if
    noxous weed control methods were compatble wth the management drecton for Rparan Reserves.

    Monitoring Performed:
        2006-06        Umpqua Noxous Weed Control

    Findings:
    Revew of the NEPA document and the contract ndcate that the project s compatble wth the
    Management Drecton for Rparan Reserves. The project s ntended to reduce the spread of noxous
    weeds by controllng key speces along roads. Ths approach wll also reduce the spread nto Rparan
    Reserves. The contract specified that weeds be hand-pulled adjacent to live streams. Field review of
    the project revealed that contract specifications were followed.


    Conclusion:
    RMP requrements have been met.




                                                                                                           97
Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006
                   Fire/Fuels Management
                             Monitoring Requirement 1:
                             What is the status of the preparation and implementation of fire management plans for Late
                             Successonal Reserves and Adaptve Management Areas?

                             Finding:
                             No change from the previous year. The current interagency fire management plan (replaces the Coos
                             Bay District 1998 fire management plan) for southwest Oregon which includes the Coos Bay and
                             Medford Dstrcts, as well as the Rogue Rver- Sskyou Natonal Forest, was sgned n August 2004.
                             The plan does and required plan revisions will address fire management strategies within LSRs.

                             Monitoring Requirement 2:
                             Have additional analysis and planning been completed to allow some natural fires to burn under
                             prescrbed condtons?

                             Finding:
                             No change from the prevous year. Both the Oregon Coast Provnce – Southern Porton (1997) and
                             the South Coast – Northern Klamath (1998) LSR Assessments consdered and rejected allowng some
                             natural fires to burn under specified conditions, based primarily on the fact that the ecosystems are
                             not fire-dependent, and that permitting natural fires to burn would not be consistent with neighboring
                             landowners management objectves.

                             Monitoring Requirement 3:
                             Do wildfire suppression plans emphasize maintaining late-successional habitat?

                             Finding:
                             No change from the previous year. The fire management plan contained in both the Oregon Coast
                             Provnce - Southern Porton and the South Coast - Northern Klamath LSR Assessments call for full
                             and aggressive suppression of all wildfires as well as the use of prescribed fire to reduce activity and
                             natural fuels buldup and to acheve a desred speces mx.

                             Monitoring Requirement 4:
                             Are Wildfire Situation Analyses being prepared for wildfires that escape initial attack?

                             Finding:
                             Wildfire Situation Analyses are prepared for wildfires fires escaping initial attack. In FY 2006, the
                             Coos Bay District had six human caused fires totaling six acres.

                             Monitoring Requirement 5:
                             What s the status of the nterdscplnary team preparaton and mplementaton of fuel hazard
                             reducton plans?

                             Finding:
                             Interdscplnary teams revew projects that produce actvty fuels, such as tmber sales, slvcultural
                             treatments, and restoraton efforts to determne f the addtonal fuels generated create an addtonal
                             fire hazard and identify mitigation measures.


                             Conclusion:
                             RMP requrements have been met.

98
                                    Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006

Glossary
           Allowable Sale Quantity (ASQ) - The gross amount of tmber volume, ncludng salvage, that
           may be sold annually from a specified area over a stated period of time in accordance with the
           management plan. Formerly referred to as “allowable cut.”

           Anadromous Fish - Fsh that are hatched and reared n freshwater, move to the ocean to grow and
           mature, and return to freshwater to reproduce. Salmon, steelhead, shad are examples.

           Archaeological Site - A geographc locale that contans the materal remans of prehstorc and/or
           hstorc human actvty.

           Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) - An area of BLM-admnstered lands where
           specal management attenton s needed to protect and prevent rreparable damage to mportant
           historic, cultural or scenic values, fish and wildlife resources or other natural systems or processes; or
           to protect lfe and provde safety from natural hazards (also see Potential ACEC).

           Best Management Practices (BMP) - Methods, measures, or practces desgned to prevent or reduce
           water polluton. Not lmted to structural and nonstructural controls, and procedures for operatons and
           mantenance. Usually, BMPs are appled as a system of practces rather than a sngle practce.

           Biological Diversity - The varety of lfe and ts processes, ncludng a complexty of speces,
           communtes, gene pools, and ecologcal functon.

           Board Foot (BF) - A unt of sold wood that s one foot square and one nch thck.

           Candidate Species - Those plants and anmals ncluded n Federal Regster “Notces of Revew”
           that are beng consdered by the Fsh and Wldlfe Servce (USFWS) for lstng as threatened or
           endangered. The category that s of prmary concern to BLM s Category 1, taxa for whch the
           USFWS has substantal nformaton on hand to support proposng the speces for lstng as threatened
           or endangered. Lstng proposals are ether beng prepared or have been delayed by hgher prorty
           lstng work.

           Commercial Thinning (CT) - The removal of merchantable trees from an even-aged stand to
           encourage growth of the remanng trees.

           Connectivity/Diversity blocks - Connectivity/Diversity blocks are specific lands spaced throughout
           the Matrix lands, which have similar goals as Matrix but have specific Standards & Guidelines which
           affect ther tmber producton. They are managed on longer rotatons (150 years), retan more green
           trees followng regeneraton harvest (12-18) and must mantan 25-30 percent of the block n late
           successonal forest.

           Coos Bay Wagon Road (CBWR) Lands - Publc lands granted to the Southern Oregon Company
           and subsequently reconveyed to the Unted States.

           Cubic Foot - A unt of sold wood that s one foot square and one foot thck.

           Cumulative Effect - The impact that results from identified actions when they are added to other
           past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actons regardless of who undertakes such other
           actions. Cumulative effects can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking
           place over a perod of tme.

           Density Management (DM or DMT)- Cuttng of trees for the prmary purpose of wdenng ther
           spacng so that growth of remanng trees can be accelerated. Densty management harvest can also
           be used to mprove forest health, open the forest canopy, or accelerate the attanment of old growth
           characterstcs f mantenance or restoraton of bologcal dversty s the objectve.

                                                                                                                    99
Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006
                             District Defined Reserves - Areas designated for the protection of specific resources, flora, fauna,
                             and other values. These areas are not ncluded n other land use allocatons nor n the calculaton of
                             the ASQ.

                            Endangered Species - Any species defined through the Endangered Species Act as being in danger
                            of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range and published in the Federal Register.

                            Environmental Assessment (EA) - A systematic analysis of site-specific BLM activities used to
                            determine whether such activities have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment
                            and whether a formal envronmental mpact statement s requred and also to ad an agency’s
                            complance wth NEPA when no EIS s necessary.

                            Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) - A formal document to be filed with the Environmental
                            Protection Agency and that considers significant environmental impacts expected from
                            mplementaton of a major federal acton.

                            Extensive Recreation Management Areas (ERMAs) - All BLM-admnstered lands outsde Specal
                            Recreaton Management Areas. These areas may nclude developed and prmtve recreaton stes wth
                            mnmal facltes.

                            General Forest Management Area (GFMA) - Forest land managed on a regeneraton harvest cycle
                            of 70-110 years. A bologcal legacy of sx to eght green trees per acre would be retaned to assure
                            forest health. Commercal thnnng would be appled where practcable and where research ndcates
                            there would be gans n tmber producton.

                            Green Tree Retention - A stand management practice in which live trees—as well as snags and large
                            down wood—are left as biological legacies within harvest units to provide habitat components over
                            the next management cycle.

                            Harvested Volume or Harvested Acres - Refers to tmber sales where trees are cut and taken to a
                            mill during the fiscal year. Typically, this volume was sold over several years. This is more indicative of
                            actual support for local economes durng a gven year.

                            Hazardous Materials - Anythng that poses a substantve present or potental hazard to human health
                            or the envronment when mproperly treated, stored, transported, dsposed of, or otherwse managed.

                            Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) – A group of ndvduals wth varyng areas of specalty assembled to
                            solve a problem or a task. The team is assembled out of recognition that no one scientific discipline is
                            sufficiently broad enough to adequately analyze the problem and proposed action.

                            Land Use Allocations (LUA) - Allocations that define allowable uses/activities, restricted uses/
                            actvtes, and prohbted uses/actvtes. They may be expressed n terms of area such as acres or
                            miles. Each allocation is associated with a specific management objective.

                            Late-Successional Forests - Forest seral stages that nclude mature and old-growth age classes, 80
                            years and older.

                            Late-Successional Reserve (LSR) - A forest n ts mature and/or old-growth stages that has
                            been reserved.

                            Matrix Lands - Federal land outsde of reserves and specal management areas that wll be avalable
                            for tmber harvest at varyng levels.

                            Noxious Plant/Weed - A plant specified by law as being especially undesirable, troublesome, and
                            difficult to control.



100
                        Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006
O&C Lands - Publc lands granted to the Oregon and Calforna Ralroad Company and
subsequently revested to the Unted States, that are managed by the BLM under the authorty of the
O&C Lands Act.

Offered (sold) Volume or Offered (sold) Acres - Any tmber sold durng the year by aucton
or negotiated sales, including modifications to contracts. This is more of a “pulse” check on the
Dstrct’s success n meetng ASQ goals than t s a socoeconomc ndcator, snce the volume can
get to market over a perod of several years. It should be noted that for ths APS we are consderng
“offered” the same as “sold.” Occasonally sales do not sell. They may be reworked and sold later or
dropped from the tmber sale program. Those sold later wll be pcked up n the APS trackng process
for the year sold. Those dropped wll not be tracked n the APS process.

Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) - Any motorzed track or wheeled vehcle desgned for cross country
travel over natural terran. (The term “Off-Hghway Vehcle” s used n place of the term “Off-Road
Vehicle” to comply with the purposes of Executive Orders 11644 and 11989. The definition for both
terms s the same.)
  Off-Highway Vehicle Designations
    Open: Desgnated areas and trals where off-hghway vehcles may be operated subject to
    operatng regulatons and vehcle standards set forth n BLM Manuals 834l and 8343.
    Limited: Desgnated areas and trals where off-hghway vehcles are subject to restrctons
    lmtng the number or types of vehcles, date, and tme of use; lmted to exstng or desgnated
    roads and trals.
    Closed: Areas and trals where the use of off-hghway vehcles s permanently or temporarly
    prohbted. Emergency use s allowed.

Plantation Maintenance - Actons n an unestablshed forest stand to promote the survval of
desred crop trees.

Plantation Release - All actvtes assocated wth promotng the domnance and/or growth of
desred tree speces wthn an establshed forest stand.

Precommercial Thinning (PCT) - The practce of removng some of the trees less than
merchantable sze from a stand so that remanng trees wll grow faster.

Prescribed Fire - A fire burning under specified conditions to accomplish certain planned objectives.

“Projected Acres” - are dsplayed by modeled age class for the decade. These “modeled” age
class acres are estmates derved from modelng varous slvcultural prescrptons for regeneraton,
commercal thnnng, and densty management harvest. Modeled age class acre projectons may
or may not correspond to “Offered” or “Harvested” age class acres at ths pont n the decade.
Addtonal age classes are scheduled for regeneratron, commercal thnnng, or densty management
harvest at other ponts n the decade.

Public Domain Lands (PD) - Orgnal holdngs of the Unted States never granted or conveyed to
other jursdctons, or reacqured by exchange for other publc doman lands.

Regeneration Harvest (RH) - Tmber harvest conducted wth the partal objectve of openng a
forest stand to the pont where favored tree speces wll be reestablshed.

Regional Ecosystem Office (REO) - The main function of this office is to provide staff work
and support to the Regonal Interagency Executve Commttee so the standards and gudelnes n the
forest management plan can be successfully mplemented.

Research Natural Area (RNA) - An area that contains natural resource values of scientific interest
and s managed prmarly for research and educatonal purposes.

                                                                                                     101
Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006
                             Resource Management Plan (RMP) - A land use plan prepared by the BLM under current
                             regulatons n accordance wth the Federal Land Polcy and Management Act.

                         Right-of-Way (R/W) - A permit or an easement that authorizes the use of public lands for specified
                         purposes, such as ppelnes, roads, telephone lnes, electrc lnes, reservors, and the lands covered by
                         such an easement or permt.

                         Riparian Reserves – Desgnated rparan areas found outsde Late-Successonal Reserves.

                         Rural Interface Areas (RIA) - Areas where BLM-admnstered lands are adjacent to or
                         ntermngled wth prvately-owned lands zoned for 1- to 20-acre lots, or areas that already have
                         resdental development.

                         Seral Stages - The seres of relatvely transtory plant communtes that develop durng ecologcal
                         succession from bare ground to the climax stage. There are five stages:
                             Early Seral Stage: The perod from dsturbance to crown closure of confer stands usually
                             occurrng from 0 to 15 years. Grass, herbs, or brush are plentful.
                             Mid Seral Stage: The period in the life of a forest stand from crown closure to first
                             merchantablty. Usually ages 15 through 40. Due to stand densty, the brush, grass, or herbs
                             rapdly decrease n the stand. Hdng cover s usually present.
                             Late Seral Stage: The period in the life of a forest stand from first merchantability to
                             culmnaton of mean annual ncrement. Usually ages 40 to 100 years of age. Forest stands are
                             domnated by confers or hardwoods; canopy closure often approaches 100 percent. Durng
                             ths perod, stand dversty s mnmal, except that confer mortalty rates and snag formaton
                             wll be farly rapd. Bg game hdng and thermal cover s present. Forage s mnmal except n
                             understocked stands.
                             Mature Seral Stage: The perod n the lfe of a forest stand from culmnaton of mean annual
                             ncrement to an old-growth stage or to 200 years. Confer and hardwood growth gradually
                             decline, and larger trees increase significantly in size. This is a time of gradually increasing stand
                             dversty. Understory development ncreases n response to openngs n the canopy from dsease,
                             nsects, and wndthrow. Vertcal dversty ncreases. Larger snags are formed. Bg game hdng
                             cover, thermal cover, and some forage are present.
                             Old-Growth: Ths stage consttutes the potental plant communty capable of exstng on a ste
                             gven the frequency of natural dsturbance events. For forest communtes, ths stage exsts from
                             approxmately age 200 untl the tme when stand replacement occurs and secondary successon
                             begins again. Depending on fire frequency and intensity, old-growth forests may have different
                             structures, speces composton, and age dstrbutons. In forests wth longer perods between natural
                             dsturbance, the forest structure wll be more even-aged at late mature or early old growth stages.

                             As mortalty occurs, stands develop greater structural complexty. Replacement of trees lost to
                             fire, windthrow, or insects results in the creation of a multi-layered canopy. There may be a shift
                             toward more shade-tolerant speces. Bg game hdng cover, thermal cover, and forage s present.

                         Silvicultural Prescription - A professonal plan for controllng the establshment, composton,
                         consttuton, and growth of forests.

                         Site Preparation - Any action taken in conjunction with a reforestation effort (natural or artificial) to
                         create an environment that is favorable for survival of suitable trees during the first growing season.
                         Ths envronment can be created by alterng ground cover, sol, or mcroste condtons through usng
                         bologcal, mechancal, or manual clearng, prescrbed burns, herbcdes, or a combnaton of methods.

                         Special Forest Products (SFP) - Firewood, shake bolts, mushrooms, ferns, floral greens, berries,
                         mosses, bark, grasses, and other forest materal that could be harvested n accordance wth the
                         objectves and gudelnes n the proposed resource management plan.



102
                          Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006
Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA) - An area where a commtment has been made to
provide specific recreation activity and experience opportunities. These areas usually require a high
level of recreaton nvestment and/or management. They nclude recreaton stes, but recreaton stes
alone do not consttute SRMAs.

SEIS Special Attention Species - a term whch ncorporates the “Survey and Manage” and
“Protecton Buffer” speces from the Northwest Forest Plan (RMP p. 32).

Special Status Species (SSS) - Plant or anmal speces fallng n any of the followng categores:
    − Threatened or Endangered Species
    − Proposed Threatened or Endangered Species
    − Candidate Species
    − State Listed Species
    − Bureau Sensitive Species
    − Bureau Assessment Species
    − Bureau Tracking Species
    − Species of Concern

Visual Resource Management (VRM) - The nventory and plannng actons to dentfy vsual
values and establsh objectves for managng those values and the management actons to acheve
vsual management objectves.




                                                                                                       103
Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006

Acronyms/Abbreviations
                             ACEC -             Area of Crtcal Envronmental Concern
                             ACS    -           Aquatc Conservaton Strategy
                             APS    -           Annual Program Summary
                             ASQ    -           Allowable Sale Quantty
                             BA     -           Bologcal Assessment
                             BIA    -           Bureau of Indan Affars
                             BLM    -           Bureau of Land Management
                             BMP    -           Best Management Practce
                             CBWR -             Coos Bay Wagon Road
                             CCF    -           Hundred cubc feet
                             C/DB -             Connectvty/Dversty Blocks
                             CIT    -           Coqulle Indan Trbe
                             COE    -           U.S. Army Corps of Engneers
                             CT     -           Commercal Thnnng
                             CWA -              Clean Water Act
                             CWD -              Coarse woody debrs
                             CX     -           Categorcal Exclusons
                             DBH -              Dameter Breast Heght
                             DEQ -              Department of Envronmental Qualty
                             DM/DMT -           Densty Management
                             EA     -           Envronmental Analyss
                             EIS    -           Envronmental Impact Statement
                             ERFO -             Emergency Relef Federally Owned
                             ERMA -             Extensve Recreaton Management Areas
                             ESA    -           Endangered Speces Act
                             ESU    -           Evolutionarily Significant Unit
                             FEIS   -           Fnal Envronmental Impact Statement
                             FONSI -            Finding of No Significant Impacts
                             FY     -           Fscal Year
                             GFMA -             General Forest Management Area
                             GIS    -           Geographc Informaton System
                             GPS    -           Global Postonng System
                             IDT    -           Interdscplnary Teams
                             ISMS -             Interagency Speces Management System
                             JITW -             Jobs-n-the-Woods
                             LSR    -           Late-Successonal Reserve
                             LUA    -           Land Use Allocaton
                             LWD -              Large woody debrs
                             MBF    -           Thousand board feet
                             MFO -              Myrtlewood Field Office
                             MMBF -             Mllon board feet
                             MOU -              Memorandum of Understandng
                             NEPA -             Natonal Envronmental Polcy Act
                             NFP    -           Northwest Forest Plan
                             NHS    -           Natonal Hstorc Ste
                             NRDA -             Natural Resource Damage Assessment
                             NOAA -             Natonal Oceanc and Atmospherc Admnstraton
                             OCEAN -            Oregon Coastal Envronment Awareness Network
                             O&C -              Oregon and Calforna Revested Lands
                             ODFW -             Oregon Department of Fsh and Wldlfe
                             ODOT -             Oregon Department of Transportaton
                             OHV -              Off-Hghway Vehcle
                             OSU    -           Oregon State Unversty
                             PAC(s) -           Provncal Advsory Commttee(s)

104
                  Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006
PD    -     Publc Doman Lands
PIMT -      Provncal Implementaton Montorng Team
PL    -     Publc Law
PNW -       Pacific Northwest Research Station
POC   -     Port-Orford-Cedar
R&PP -      Recreaton and Publc Purpose
REO   -     Regional Ecosystem Office
RH    -     Regeneraton Harvest
RIEC -      Regonal Interagency Executve Commttee
RMP   -     Resource Management Plan
RMP/ROD -   The Coos Bay District Resource Management Plan and Record of Decision
ROD -       Record of Decson
RR    -     Rparan Reserve
R/W   -     Rght-of-Way
SEIS  -     Supplemental Envronmental Impact Statement
S&M   -     Survey and Manage
SRMA -      Specal Recreaton Management Areas
SSS         Specal Status Speces
SSSP        Specal Status Speces Program
TMO -       Tmber Management Objectve(s)
TNC   -     The Nature Conservancy
UFO   -     Umpqua Field Office
USFS -      U.S. Forest Servce
USFWS -     U.S. Fsh and Wldlfe Servce
USGS -      U.S. Geologc Servce
WQMP -      Water Qualty Management Plan




                                                                                               105
Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006




106
                                                                  Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006

                                                             Appendix A
Coos Bay District Watershed Analysis Summary
Reported acres are for Coos Bay Dstrct only. Some analyses ncluded addtonal acres on other BLM Dstrcts.1

    Table A-1. Watershed Analysis Summary
                                                                                                                        Percent of Coos
                                                                                                                           Bay District
                                              BLM                                                                      covered by a first
                                             Acres                                                   BLM Acres:          iteration WSA
                                            on Coos          Non-                                   Running total     based the following
                                              Bay            BLM         Total      Square Percent of first iteration  total BLM acres:
             Name                 Iteration District         Acres       Acres       Miles  BLM    accomplishment            321,746
    Fiscal Year 1994
    Lower Umpqua Frontal             1st         13,826       26,088      39,914        62          35%
    Mddle Fork Coqulle             1st         42,773      101,145     143,918       225          30%
    Total Fscal Year 1994                       56,599      127,233     183,832       287          31%               56,599                       18%
    Fiscal Year 1995
    Sandy Creek2                     2nd          5,943        6,785      12,728         20         47%
    Smth Rver3                     1st          2,826        1,853       4,679          7         60%
    Paradse Creek                   1st          6,648        5,590      12,238         19         54%
    Mddle Creek                     1st         19,393       13,063      32,456         51         60%
    North Coqulle4                  1st          7,544       20,275      27,819         43         27%
    Farvew5                        1st          6,725       12,533      19,258         30         35%
    Mddle Umpqua                    1st          1,050        2,335       3,385          5         31%
    Frontal6 (Waggoner
    Creek Dranage)
    Total Fscal Year 1995                       49,079       60,099     109,178       171          45%
    1st and 2nd teraton acres
    Fscal Year 1995                             44,186       55,649      99,835       156          44%               100,785                      31%
    1st teraton only
    Fiscal Year 1996
    Sandy Remote7                  2nd/3rd       10,374       13,620      23,994        37          43%
    Mddle Smth Rver               1st         22,400       29,909      52,309        82          43%
    Mll Creek                       1st         24,506       60,653      85,159       133          29%
    Oxbow                            1st         23,463       17,956      41,419        65          57%
    Lower South Fork                 1st          7,353       48,716      56,069        88          13%
    Coqulle
    West Fork Smth Rver            1st         11,121         5,200     16,321         26         68%
    Toga Creek8                     1st         15,788         8,866     24,654         39         64%




1
  Some acre figures in this table are different from those reported in previous years. Large changes are the result of excluding those acres covered by our watershed
  documents that are outsde the Coos Bay Dstrct boundary. Small changes are attrbutable to dfferences n sort crtera used to obtan these acres usng GIS.
2
 Sandy Creek Subwatershed is in the Middle Fork Coquille Watershed and is a more specific analysis at the subwatershed scale.
3
 Roseburg Dstrct BLM prepared the Smth Rver (covers Coos Bay’s Lower Upper Smth Rver Subwatershed) watershed analyss document.
4
 The hydrologc unt used n ths document was based on the superceded analytcal watershed GIS theme. Hudson Dranage was moved from the North Coqulle
  Subwatershed to the Farvew Subwatershed when we corrected the subwatershed boundares.
5
 See footnote 4.
6
 Roseburg Dstrct BLM prepared ths document.
7
 The Sandy Remote Watershed Analyss covers the Sandy Creek and Remote Subwatersheds. They are both parts of the Mddle Fork Coqulle Watershed, whch
  was analyzed at the watershed scale in a Fiscal Year 1994 document. The Sandy Remote Watershed Analysis is a more specific anlaysis at the subwatershed scale.
8
 Replaced by the Fscal Year 2000 verson of the South Fork Coos Watershed Analyss.

                                                                                                                                                                107
Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006

    Table A-1. Watershed Analysis Summary
                                                                                                                     Percent of Coos
                                                                                                                        Bay District
                                               BLM                                                                  covered by a first
                                              Acres                                               BLM Acres:          iteration WSA
                                             on Coos       Non-                                  Running total     based the following
                                               Bay         BLM        Total      Square Percent of first iteration  total BLM acres:
             Name                  Iteration District      Acres      Acres       Miles  BLM    accomplishment            321,746
    Total Fscal Year 1996                    115,005      184,920    299,925         469       38%
    1st, 2nd/3rd teraton acres
    Fscal Year 1996                          104,631      171,300    275,931         431       38%              205,416                      64%
    1st teraton only
    Fiscal Year 1997
    Bg Creek9                       2nd       10,083     6,586 16,669     26                   60%
    Smth Rver10                    2nd       33,519   35,875  69,394   108                    48%
    (North Smth)                    1st        3,694   68,210  71,904   112                     5%
    Upper Mddle Umpqua              1st         7,235 22,206   29,441     46                   25%
    Mddle Man Coqulle/            1st    5,728      83,858 89,586   140                       6%
    North Fork Mouth/
    Catchng Creek
    North Fork Chetco               1st     9,263         16,299     25,562      40             36%
    Total Fscal Year 1997                  69,522        233,034    302,556     473            23%
    1st plus subsequent teraton acres
    Total Fscal Year 1997                  25,920        190,573    216,493     338            12%                     231,336               72%
    1st teraton acres only
    Fiscal Year 1998
    Mddle Umpqua                   2nd     22,634        40,505     63,139      99             36%
    Frontal11
    Lower Umpqua12                  1st     1,548         58,688     60,236      94             3%
    Hunter Creek    13
                                    1st     3,564         24,609     28,173      44             13%
    Total Total Fscal Year 1998            27,746        123,802    151,548     237            18%
    1st plus subsequent teraton acres
    Total Fscal Year 1998                  5,112         83,297     88,409      138             6%                     236,448               73%
    1st teraton only acres
    Total Fiscal Year 1999
    South Fork Coos Rver           2nd     15,788        8,866      24,654      39             64%
                                    1st     16,047        117,371    133,418     208            12%
    East Fork Coqulle              1st     45,636        38,369     84,005      131            54%
    Lobster Creek    14
                                    1st     1,402         42,723     44,125      69             3%
    Total Total Fscal Year 1999            78,873        207,329    286,202     447            28%
    1st plus subsequent teraton acres
    Total Fscal Year 1999                  63,085        198,463    261,548     409            24%                     299,533               93%
    1st teraton only acres




9
 Big Creek Subwatershed is in the Middle Fork Coquille Watershed and is a more specific analysis at the subwatershed scale.
10
  The Suslaw Natonal Forest prepared the North Smth Watershed Analyss document. The document was prepared at the watershed scale and encompasses
   some areas prevously covered by the Coos Bay Dstrct at the subwatershed scale. Only acres wthn the Coos Bay Dstrct boundares are shown n the table.
11
  Ths 2nd teraton document addresses management actvtes and the attanment of the Aquatc Conservaton Strategy objectves n the Mddle Umpqua Frontal
   Watershed. The 1st teraton documents coverng ths assesssment are the 1994 Lower Umpqua Frontal, the 1995 Paradse Creek, and the western part of the
   1997 Upper Mddle Umpqua watershed analyss.
12
  The Siuslaw National Forest prepared the Lower Umpqua Watershed Analysis (Lower Umpqua Frontal) with input from the Coos Bay BLM office.
13
  The Siskiyou National Forest contracted with Engineering and Science and Technology to prepare the Hunter Creek Watershed Analaysis. Coos Bay BLM office
   nput and nformaton was used to prepare the document.
14
  The Sskyou Natonal Forest wll do ths analyss wth BLM nput.

108
                                                              Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006

 Table A-1. Watershed Analysis Summary
                                                                                                                    Percent of Coos
                                                                                                                       Bay District
                                          BLM                                                                      covered by a first
                                         Acres                                                   BLM Acres:          iteration WSA
                                        on Coos           Non-                                  Running total     based the following
                                          Bay             BLM        Total      Square Percent of first iteration  total BLM acres:
          Name                Iteration District          Acres      Acres       Miles  BLM    accomplishment            321,746
 Fiscal Year 2000
 South Fork Coos Rver15         3rd       31,835     126,237 158,072 247                     20%
 Total Fscal Year 2000                        31,835 126,237 158,072     247                 20%
 1st plus subsequent teraton acres
 Fscal Year 2000                                    0           0          0            0     0%                     299,533              93%
 1st teraton only acres
 Fiscal Year 2001
 North Fork Coqulle16           2nd           36,861     61,606      98,467         154      37%
 South Fork Coos Rver    17
                                 3rd           31,835    126,237     158,072         247      20%
 Total Fscal Year 2001                        68,696    187,843     256,539         401      27%
 1st plus subsequent teraton acres
 Fscal Year 2001                                    0           0          0            0     0%                     299,533              93%
 1st teraton only acres
 Fiscal Year 2002
 Oxbow18                         2nd           23,463      17,956     41,419          65      57%
 Upper Umpqua      19
                                 2nd            6,396      19,511     25,907          40      25%
 Total Fscal Year 2002                        29,859      37,467     67,326         105      44%
 1st plus subsequent teraton acres
 Fscal Year 2002                                    0           0          0        0         0%              299,533                     93%
 1st teraton only acres
 Fiscal Year 2003
 Mddle Umpqua Rver20           2nd           22,626      40,513     63,139        99        36%
 Total Fscal Year 2003                        22,626      40,513     63,139        99        36%
 1st plus subsequent teraton
 Fscal Year 2003                                    0           0          0        0         0%              299,533                     93%
 1st teraton only
 Fiscal Year 2004
 Addtonal chapters for         2nd           22,626      40,513     63,139        99        36%
 Mddle Umpqua Rver
 Total Fscal Year 2004                        22,626      40,513     63,139        99        36%
 1st plus subsequent teraton
 Fscal Year 2004                                    0           0          0        0         0%              299,533                     93%
 1st teraton only acres
 Fiscal Year 2005
 Mill Creek-Lower                2nd           24,800     61,100      85,900      134         29%
 Umpqua River     21




15
  Lsted as verson 1.2. Replaces the Fscal Year 1996 Toga Creek and the Fscal Year South Fork Coos Rver documents.
16
  Replaces the Fscal Year 1994 Mddle Creek, North Coqulle, and Farvew documents. Also replaces the North Fork Mouth Subwatershed proton of the Fscal
   Year Mddle Man Coqulle/North Fork Mouth/Catchng Creek document
17
  Replaces the Fscal Year 1996 Toga Creek and the Fscal Years 1999 and 200 South Fork Coos Rver documents.
18
  Replaces the Fscal Year Oxbow document.
19
  The Roseburg Dstrct BLM wll do ths analyss wth Coos Bay Dstrct nput.
20
  Replaces the Fscal Year 1994 Lower Umpqua Frontal (Mddle Umpqua Frontal), Fscal Year 1995 Paradse Creek, and a porton of the Fscal Year 1997 Upper
   Mddle Umpqua documents.
21
  Replaces the Fscal Year 1996 Mll Creek document.

                                                                                                                                                        109
Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006

 Table A-1. Watershed Analysis Summary
                                                                                                                    Percent of Coos
                                                                                                                       Bay District
                                          BLM                                                                      covered by a first
                                         Acres                                                   BLM Acres:          iteration WSA
                                        on Coos          Non-                                   Running total     based the following
                                          Bay            BLM         Total      Square Percent of first iteration  total BLM acres:
          Name                Iteration District         Acres       Acres       Miles  BLM    accomplishment            321,746
 Total Fscal Year 2005                        24,800     61,100      85,900      134         29%
 1st plus subsequent teraton acres
 Fscal Year 2005                                    0          0           0        0         0%             299,533     93%
 1st teraton only acres
 Fiscal Year 2006
 no watershed analyss completed
 Fscal Year 2006                                    0          0           0        0         0%             299,533     93%
 1st teraton only acres
 Planned FY 2007
 Lower Smth Rver-              2nd           36,981    100,616     137,597      215         27%
 Lower Umpqua Rver      22


 Total planned for Fscal Year 2007            36,981    100,616     137,597      215         27%
 1st plus subsequent teraton acres
 Fscal Year 2007                                    0          0           0        0         0%             299,533     93%
 1st teraton only acres




 Replaces the Fscal Year 1995 Mddle Smth Rver and the Fscal Year 1997 West Fork Smth Rver documents.
22




110
                                                   Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006

Appendix B
Comparisons Between ROD Projections
and Actual Harvest
Table B-1 dsplays the antcpated acres and volume to be harvested from the Matrx LUA by age class, ether by regeneraton
harvest and/or commercal thnnng and selectve cut/salvage for the second decade, as well as the accomplshments for FY
2006. Only confer volume harvested from the Matrx counts toward the ASQ volume projecton. It was recognzed that densty
management treatments wthn the Rparan Reserves (RR) or Late-Successonal Reserves (LSR) would occur to provde habtat
condtons for late-successonal speces, or to develop desred structural components meetng the Aquatc Conservaton Strategy
objectves. It was estmated that approxmately 5 MMBF could be harvested from these LUAs annually. Volume harvested from
the RR or LSR LUAs does not contrbute to the ASQ.

It should be noted that ths table only ncludes confer volume (not hardwood volume) and does not nclude acres or volume
from road constructon. It does nclude acres assocated wth hardwood converson (Regeneraton Harvest n all LUAs). Some
pockets of confer may have been wthn the hardwood converson acreage. These pockets may have been thnned whch shows
up wth the confer volume reported. In cases were there was only hardwood volume, only acreage would be reported. Hardwood
conversons or some Salvage unts may have been accomplshed n younger age classes than projected for Regeneraton Harvest.




                                                                                                                                111
112
      Table B-1. ROD Harvest Projections and Annual Accomplishments (Acres and MMBF by Age Class)
                            ROD 2nd Decadal Projection                     Accomplishment FY 2006                    Accomplishments FY 2005 to FY 2014
                          Regeneration                               Regeneration        Thinning/                    Regeneration     Thinning/Selective
                                                                                                           LUA
                            Harvest          Thinning                  Harvest          Selective Cut                   Harvest               Cut
        Age
       Class    LUA       Acres Volume1 Acres Volume1     LUA        Acres Volume1      Acres   Volume1              Acres   Volume1   Acres    Volume1
               GFMA2         0       0       0       0    GFMA         0           0       0         0    GFMA          0         0        0          0
               C/DB          0       0       0       0    C/DB         0           0       0         0    C/DB          0         0        0          0
      20-29
                                                          RR 3         0           0       0         0    RR 3          0         0        0          0
                                                                 3                                               3
                                                          LSR          0           0       0         0    LSR           0         0       29       0.353
               Subtotal      0       0       0       0                 0           0       0         0                  0         0       29       0.353
                      2
               GFMA          0       0       0       0    GFMA         0           0      17      0.391   GFMA          0         0       32       0.497
               C/DB          0       0       0       0    C/DB         0           0       0         0    C/DB          0         0        0          0
      30-39
                                                          RR 3         0           0       8      0.183   RR 3          0         0       35       0.374
                                                          LSR 3       12           0     159      1.482   LSR 3        12         0      404       4.088
               Subtotal      0       0       0       0                12           0     184      2.056                12         0      471       4.959
               GFMA2         0       0     600      5.0   GFMA        11        0.175    466      9.736   GFMA         14      0.175     688      11.961
               C/DB          0       0       0       0    C/DB         0           0       0         0    C/DB          0         0        0          0
      40-49
                                                          RR 3        11        0.048    260      4.842   RR 3         13      0.048     344       5.726
                                                          LSR 3       23        0.132      0         0    LSR 3        79      0.132     360       4.089
               Subtotal      0       0     600      5.0               45        0.355    726     14.578               106      0.355    1,392     21.776
                                                                                                                                                            Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006




               GFMA2         0       0     500      6.0   GFMA        28        0.836      8      0.184   GFMA         28      0.836     397       5.852
               C/DB          0       0       0       0    C/DB         0           0       0         0    C/DB          0         0        0          0
      50-59
                                                          RR 3         5        0.113      0         0    RR 3          5      0.113     325       4.869
                                                          LSR 3        0           0     186      4.154   LSR 3        58         0      703      10.824
               Subtotal      0       0     500      6.0               33        0.949    194      4.338                91      0.949    1,425     21.545
               GFMA2      3,200   122.0      0       0    GFMA        55        1.755    327      6.685   GFMA        142      4.450     327       6.685
               C/DB          0       0       0       0    C/DB         0           0       0         0    C/DB          0         0        0          0
      60-79
                                                          RR 3         5        0.002    154      2.913   RR 3          5      0.002     154       2.913
                                                          LSR 3       11           0     222      3.076   LSR 3        11         0      317       4.246
               Subtotal   3,200   122.0      0       0                71        1.757    703     12.674               158      4.452     798      13.844
               GFMA2       700     20.0      0       0    GFMA         0           0       0         0    GFMA          0         0        0          0
               C/DB          0       0       0       0    C/DB         0           0       0         0    C/DB          0         0        0          0
      80-99
                                                          RR3          0           0       0         0    RR3           0         0        0          0
                                                          LSR3         0           0       0         0    LSR3          0         0        0          0
      Table B-1. ROD Harvest Projections and Annual Accomplishments (Acres and MMBF by Age Class)
                                  ROD 2nd Decadal Projection                                       Accomplishment FY 2006                                   Accomplishments FY 2005 to FY 2014
                                Regeneration                                                Regeneration                Thinning/                             Regeneration           Thinning/Selective
                                                                                                                                                 LUA
                                  Harvest                   Thinning                          Harvest                  Selective Cut                            Harvest                     Cut
           Age
          Class       LUA       Acres Volume1 Acres Volume1                      LUA       Acres Volume1             Acres       Volume1                    Acres         Volume1    Acres    Volume1
                    Subtotal     700         20.0            0           0                     0              0            0             0                        0             0        0           0
                            2
                    GFMA        3,100       147.0            0           0      GFMA           8           .411            0             0     GFMA               8          .411        0           0
                    C/DB           0            0            0           0      C/DB           3           .073            0             0     C/DB               3          .073        0           0
          100-199                                                                   3                                                               3
                                                                                RR             0              0            0             0     RR                 0             0        0           0
                                                                                LSR3           0              0            0             0     LSR3               0             0        0           0
                    Subtotal    3,100       147.0            0           0                    11           .484            0             0                      11           .484        0           0
                            2
                    GFMA         600         21.0            0           0      GFMA           0              0            0             0     GFMA               0             0        0           0
                    C/DB           0            0            0           0      C/DB           0              0            0             0     C/DB               0             0        0           0
            200+                                                                    3                                                               3
                                                                                RR             0              0            0             0     RR                 0             0        0           0
                                                                                LSR3           0              0            0             0     LSR3               0             0        0           0
                    Subtotal     600         21.0            0           0                     0              0            0             0                        0             0        0           0
                            2
                    GFMA        7,600       310.0        1,100       11.0       GFMA         102          3.177         818        16.996      GFMA            192          5.872     1,444     24.995
                      C/DB         0            0            0           0      C/DB           3           .073            0             0     C/DB               3          .073        0           0
           Totals                                                                   3                                                               3
                                                                                RR            21           .163         422         7.938      RR               23           .163      858      13.882
                                                                                LSR3          46           .132         567         8.712      LSR3            160           .132     1,813     23.600
                  ASQ Totals    7,600       310.0        1,100       11.0                    105          3.250         818        16.996                      195          5.945     1,444     24.995
           Non-ASQ Totals          0            0            0           0                    67          0.295         989        16.650                      183           .295     2,671     37.482
             Grand Totals       7,600       310 .0       1,100        11 .0                  172         3 .545       1,807        33 .646                     378          6 .240    4,115     62 .477
      1
       Only conferous volume from the Matrx contrbutes to the ASQ. Includes only sold advertsed sales. Does not nclude hardwood or mscellaneous volume harvested.
      2
       ROD commtment s for the Matrx only; Matrx ncludes both the General Forest Management Area (GFMA) and Connectvty/Dversty Blocks (C/DB).
      3
       No ROD commtment for the Rparan Reserves (RR) or Late-Successonal Reserves (LSR) – Opportunty to treat where treatments meet the Objectves for these LUAs.
      4
       Hardwood converson acres; therefore, no confer volume.




113
                                                                                                                                                                                                          Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006
Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - Fiscal Year 2006

 Table B-2. Allowable Sale Quantity (ASQ) Reconciliation
                                                                                              Coos Bay District
                                                                                           South Coast – Curry SYU

               Evaluation Period                                            FY 2005                     FY 2006              FY 2005 thru 2014
            Fiscal Years 2005-2014                                     CCF           MBF           CCF           MBF           CCF            MBF
 ASQ Volume1         Advertsed and Sold                                 19,200        11,362        37,505        21,328        56,705         32,690
                              Negotated                                    717           478           237            133             954        611
                              Modification                                  360           205          2,366         1,319            2,726      1,524
                              5450-5 (Short form)                             59            32            18            10              77          42
                                                           Totals        20,336        12,077        40,126        22,790        60,462         34,867
 Autonomous Program     Key Watershed                       3,512                       2,349         3,651         2,115        7,163           4,464
 Summares2             5900 (Salvage/Forest Health)        3,591                       1,998         1,501           836        5,092           2,834
                        5810 (Tmber Ppelne)             14,250                       8,513        34,814        19,546       49,064          28,059
 Planned Total ASQ for Fscal Years 2005 through 2014                                                                         450,0003        270,0004
 Planned ASQ for Key Watersheds for Fscal Years 2005 through 2014                                                             40,0003         24,0004
 Non-ASQ Volume         Advertsed and Sold                47,794                     25,726        34,395        19,004        82,189          44,730
                        Negotated                            107                         56           179           106           286             162
                        Modification                        3,567                      2,118         2,734         1,552         6,301           3,670
                        5450-5 (Short form)                    59                         32           115            62           174              94
                                                Totals     51,527                     27,932        37,423        20,724        88,950         48,656
 Autonomous Program Key Watershed                           7,092                      4,015        10,088         5,548        17,180           9,563
 Summares2             5900 (Salvage/Forest Health)       26,133                     14,282         9,125         5,152        35,258          19,434
                        5810 (Tmber Ppelne)             15,306                      8,313        26,828        14,737        42,134          23,050
 All Volume             Advertsed and Sold                66,994                     37,088        71,900        40,332       138,894          77,420
 (ASQ + NonASQ)         Negotated                            824                        534           416           239         1,240             773
                        Modification                        3,927                      2,323         5,100         2,871         9,027           5,194
                        5450-5 (Short form)                   118                         64           133            72           251             136
                                                 Grand Totals           71,863        40,009        77,549         43,514       149,412        83,523
 Autonomous Program           Key Watershed                             10,604         6,364       131,739          7,663        24,343        14,027
 Summares2                   5900 (Salvage/Forest Health)              29,724        16,280        10,626          5,988        40,350        22,268
                              5810 (Tmber Ppelne)                    29,556        16,826        61,642         34,283        91,198        51,109
 1
  Volume from the Harvest Land Base that “counts” (s chargeable) towards Allowable Sale Quantty (ASQ) accomplshments.
 2
  Autonomous Program Summaries figures are for information purposes and are included in the ASQ and/or Non-ASQ figure respectively.
  3
   CCF Volume for the perod calculated as follows:     Planned Total ASQ = (45,000 CCF x 10 yrs)
                                                        Key Watershed ASQ = (4,000 CCF x 10 yrs)
 4
  MBF Volume for the perod calculated as follows:      Planned Total ASQ = (27,000 MBF x 10 yrs)
                                                        Key Watershed ASQ = (2,400 MBF x 10 yrs)




114
      UNITED STATES                      PRIORITY MAIL
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR           POSTAGE & FEES PAID
 BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT          Bureau of Land Management
        Coos Bay Office                  Permit No. G-76
        1300 Airport Lane
     Coos Bay, Oregon 97459
       OFFICIAL BUSINESS
    PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300




                                                                BLM/OR/WA/PT-07/039+1792
                                      Management
                                       Bureau of



                                                   Coos Bay
                                                    District
                                                    Office
                                         Land
Coos Bay District Annual Program Summary and Monitoring Report - FISCAL YEAR 2006

								
To top