Management Strategies

Text-only Preview

Section V
Management Strategies
Management strategies are specific actions that will be taken to achieve the management
goals described in Section IV. The forest plan is implemented by carrying out management
strategies. The plan’s success can be measured in part by the degree to which the
management strategies are successfully implemented. The plan will be implemented using
an adaptive management approach. This approach is described in Section VIII.
A detailed explanation of how the goals and strategies were developed is given in Section I
under the heading “The Eastern Region Planning Process.”
Strategies are given for the resources that were listed in Section IV, “Management Goals.”
The list of resources follows the same alphabetical order that was used in Section IV, except
for social and economic resources. The goals for social and economic considerations will be
met through implementation of the strategies for the other resources.
The individual strategies are presented in the following format.
1. Strategy: The strategies under each resource heading are numbered. The strategy
statement is printed in bold.
a. Details of the strategy are listed underneath, using an a, b, c format.
Analysis: The analysis provides a short explanation of why the strategy is needed, and
how the strategy will contribute to achieving the goals in Section IV. The analysis also
describes briefly the effects and outcomes that are expected to occur when the strategy is
implemented. The outcomes are described in either a qualitative or quantitative way.
The following acronyms are used in this section of the plan.
Bureau of Land Management
Department of Geology and Mineral Industries
Division of State Lands
Oregon Administrative Rules
Oregon Department of Agriculture
Oregon Department of Forestry
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
Oregon Revised Statutes
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Eastern Region Long-Range Forest Management Plan

Air Quality
1. Strategy: To protect visibility in Class I wilderness and national park areas:
a. Do most prescribed burning outside the restricted July 1 to September 15 period.
b. Consult ODF’s meteorologists whenever a prescribed burn is being planned during the
restricted period.
Analysis: Visibility protection in Class I areas is mandated by the federal Clean Air Act.
The strategy describes how ODF will comply with the Visibility Protection Plan, which is
Oregon’s plan for protecting visibility in these areas.
The Visibility Protection Plan specifies the visibility protection period as July 1 through
September 15, and implements protection measures through the Smoke Management Plan.
Its short-term strategies apply mostly to prescribed burning in western Oregon and affect
certain designated Class I areas. To ensure that the Eastern Oregon Region complies with
the standards of the Visibility Protection Plan, ODF’s meteorologists will be consulted
before burning during the restricted period. However, for the most part, burning will not
coincide with the restricted period. These strategies will prevent smoke intrusions that do
not comply with the Visibility Protection Plan.
2. Strategy: Comply with the Smoke Management Plan by continuing to participate in
the Klamath County voluntary smoke management program.
Analysis: The Smoke Management Plan is Oregon’s SIP for prescribed burning. Its goal is
to meet federal clean air standards. The Smoke Management Plan has established a Special
Protection Zone to protect the city of Klamath Falls from prescribed burning smoke during
the winter months.
The Department of Forestry will comply with the Smoke Management Plan’s requirements
by participating in the Klamath County voluntary program. From November 15 to February
15, prescribed burning will occur in the Special Protection Zone only when permitted by
the ODF meteorologist. No new ignitions will occur on any “red day” between December 1
and February 15. Refer to Section III for the procedures of the voluntary program and the
requirements of the SPZ.
3. Strategy: Notify DEQ of changes in prescribed burning that might significantly
increase the total yearly amount of smoke emissions.
Analysis: Under the Clean Air Act’s PSD (Prevention of Significant Deterioration)
standard, increases in PM-10 emissions are measured in comparison to the 1977/1978 base
years. PM-10 is the pollutant of most concern in wood smoke. Because of changes in slash
treatment and wood utilization, there has actually been a 40 percent reduction in fuels
burned on Eastern Region state forests since the 1970s. (See discussion in Section III,
under “Air Quality” and “Fire Management.”) The trend should remain fairly level or
continue to decrease through implementation of this long-range plan. To ensure
compliance with the PSD standard, ODF will notify DEQ of any significant changes in
burning practices that might increase total smoke emissions. An example would be the use
of underburning on a regular or widespread basis.
Management Strategies

4. Strategy: As an alternative to prescribed burning, use methods such as mechanical
slash disposal, chip/biomass sales, or leaving untreated slash in the woods.
Analysis: This strategy contributes toward meeting the air quality goals by providing
alternatives to prescribed burning.
Prescribed burning and alternative methods are also discussed in the resource description
and strategies for Fire Management. These are prescribed on a site-specific basis. Smoke
reduction is not always the primary reason for using the alternative methods. There may be
other reasons, such as protecting residual trees from fire, or offsetting precommercial
thinning costs by using leftover wood. In any case, smoke is reduced because these
methods are frequently used. Prescribed burning still remains the preferred method to
reduce fuel accumulations in many situations.
5. Strategy: Reduce the risk of wildfires, which would produce uncontrolled smoke.
(Fire prevention, fire suppression, and management of fuel build-up are discussed in
the strategies for Fire Management.)

Analysis: Wildfires produce amounts of smoke that could exceed federal clean air
standards or impair visibility in Class I areas. This strategy provides air quality protection
not covered by the Smoke Management Plan or the Visibility Protection Plan.
Cultural Resources
1. Strategy: Comply with state laws to preserve and protect American Indian sites
and objects, as well as historic non-Indian cultural resources.
a. ORS 358.920(1)(a) The Department of Forestry will not knowingly or intentionally
excavate, injure, destroy or alter an archaeological site or object, or remove an
archaeological object. An archaeological object is at least 50 years old, comprises the
physical record of an indigenous or other culture, and is material remains of past
human life or activity that are of archaeological significance. An archaeological site
contains archaeological objects and the contextual associations of the objects with
each other or with biotic or geological remains or deposits.
b. ORS 390.235 The Department does not intend to excavate, alter or disturb any
archaeological sites. If a previously unknown site should be discovered to be
inadvertently disturbed during road construction, fire suppression, or other forest
management activity, the Department will immediately consult the Klamath Tribes
(if the site is American Indian), and the Director of the Oregon State Parks and
Recreation Department, and will obtain a permit if needed, for example to allow for
salvage of material from unavoidable destruction.
c. ORS 97.740 If a native Indian cairn or burial, funerary object, sacred object or object
of cultural patrimony is inadvertently disturbed, the Department will immediately
notify the Klamath Tribes. If human remains are discovered which are suspected to
be native Indian, this will also be reported to the state police, the State Historic
Preservation Officer, and the Commission on Indian Services. American Indian
Eastern Region Long-Range Forest Management Plan

human remains or funerary objects may be required to be reinterred at the
Department’s expense under the supervision of the Klamath Tribes.
Analysis: Descriptions of archaeological sites and objects that may be found on state
forest lands managed by the Klamath-Lake District are in Section III, under “Cultural
Resources.” Definitions of archaeological terms are also found in this section.
Protection measures will be considered on a case-by-case basis. The Klamath-Lake
District will preserve and protect archaeological sites found on state forest land by site-
specific management plans, which may include protective buffers, or location of timber
sales and routing of roads to avoid sites.
If historic, non-Indian sites are deemed to be of interest to the public, can be displayed
without damage to the resource, and can be safely accessed by the public, the
Department may work with appropriate specialists to develop a plan for interpreting and
displaying the site. For example, people may be interested in traveling the route of the
historic Applegate Trail.
2. Strategy: Identify and assess cultural resources on state forest lands.
Analysis: Cultural resources likely to be found on Klamath-Lake District managed
forest lands are described in Section III under “Cultural Resources.” State law does not
require archaeological surveys of land prior to forest management activities. However,
the Department of Forestry is committed to preserving and protecting cultural resources.
Location and assessment of archaeological sites is necessary to avoid damage to the sites.
Some areas have been identified that have a relatively high likelihood of containing
cultural resources. The Klamath-Lake District plans to contract with a qualified
consultant with archaeological expertise to inventory the cultural resource sites in those
areas. Any person hired to conduct surveys will be required to seek the assistance and
expertise of the Klamath Tribes. For historic, non-Indian trails, such as the Applegate
Trail, it may be possible to contract with qualified consultants and volunteers to locate
and mark the trail.
3. Strategy: Maintain confidentiality pertaining to the location of American Indian
sites and artifacts. This information will be disclosed only to the Klamath Tribes
and to appropriate state officials, except where other disclosure is required by law.

Analysis: Vandalism and theft are recognized risks to any cultural resources that remain
on the land. In addition, it is the expressed wish of the Klamath Tribes to preserve Indian
sites and objects in place with as little disturbance as possible.
Confidentiality is not required by law, but it is standard policy. American Indian sites on
state forest land in the Klamath-Lake District will not be considered for interpretive or
recreational use, or for archaeological excavation.
Management Strategies

Fire Management
1. Strategy: Prevent and suppress wildfires on state forests and other protected lands
by supporting ODF’s Protection from Fire Program.
Analysis: Uncontrolled wildfire is not permissible due to resource damage and public
safety concerns. This strategy is an essential element of protecting forest resources, and
is consistent with Oregon public policy as expressed in ORS Chapter 477.
The Protection from Fire program is described in Section III. All state and private forest
lands, and some BLM lands in the Klamath-Lake District, are protected through this
program. This program should continue to be successful in preventing and limiting the
size of natural and human-caused wildfires.
2. Strategy: Manage fuel build-up using the tools listed below.
a. Prescribed burning.
b. Alternatives to prescribed burning, such as mechanical slash disposal and
chip/biomass sales.
c. Implementing silvicultural prescriptions to control species composition and stocking
d. Salvaging dead timber from areas where the concentration is high enough to
constitute a fire hazard, as consistent with the goals and strategies for wildlife and
Analysis: Fuels accumulate when light, frequent natural wildfires are not allowed to
occur. Hazardous fuel levels increase the risk of an intense, uncontrollable wildfire. This
strategy gives several approaches for mitigating fuel buildup. It also contributes toward
maintaining a healthier forest ecosystem in the absence of a natural fire regime.
Prescribed burning and alternative methods are prescribed on a site-specific basis.
Decisions are based on many factors, such as silviculture, fuel loads, fire risks, chip
markets, and related planning goals (e.g., long-term soil productivity, air quality).
Silvicultural prescriptions that control species composition and stocking levels are a
fundamental aspect of this strategy. These prescriptions are discussed in other contexts
throughout the long-range plan (e.g. in the resource descriptions and management
strategies for Biodiversity, Vegetation, Soils, Wildlife and Fish, Forest Health, and
Timber). Taken as a whole, the strategies for the various resources will mitigate and take
advantage of changes that have occurred in the forest ecosystem as a result of excluding
natural fires.
The Department of Forestry does not have a plan for “prescribed natural fire” under which
naturally ignited fires could be allowed to burn within certain predetermined conditions.
This has been used by federal agencies to manage fuels and achieve ecosystem
management goals.
Eastern Region Long-Range Forest Management Plan

Forest Health
1. Strategy: Forest health will be maintained or improved primarily through
silvicultural treatments.
Analysis: This strategy is based on the premise that a diverse, productive, resilient, and
sustainable forest ecosystem can be achieved through silvicultural methods. Human
intervention is needed to mitigate undesirable forest conditions that tend to result from
excluding natural fires.
The silvicultural approaches outlined in “Forest Health” in Section III will generally be
followed. (These approaches are found under the headings “Management of Forest Health”
and “Specific Management Recommendations for Insects/Diseases” in the “Forest Health”
subsection of Section III.) Forest health also underlies the silvicultural approaches that are
detailed in the strategies for Timber, Fire Management, Soils, and Wildlife and Fish.
Most treatments will be done in conjunction with timber harvesting and post-harvest
activities. The forest health status of individual stands is the major consideration in setting
priorities for timber harvesting. Site-specific silvicultural methods will be articulated in
pre-sale plan reports. (“Forest Health” in Section III describes stand conditions that
increase vulnerability to insects and disease, and outlines various treatments. Analytical
methods for timber harvest planning are discussed under “Timber” in Section III.)
Basically, this strategy is a refinement of the silvicultural systems that have kept the
Klamath-Lake District healthier than most eastern Oregon forests. ODF’s insect and
disease staff, as well as specialists in the other forest disciplines, have been consulted to
develop a comprehensive approach. Insect and disease problems will not be eliminated, but
should be held to reasonable levels. In fact, a certain number of dead or unhealthy trees
may have to be encouraged in order to enhance biodiversity and resilience of the forest
ecosystem. This strategy is expected to maintain long-term productivity and revenue
generation, and will be compatible with the goals for all forest resources.
2. Strategy: Continue to monitor insect and disease damage levels through aerial
surveys, ground surveys, stand exams, insect trapping, and other methods.
Analysis: Insect and disease levels are an indication of forest health. Monitoring is done to
detect and evaluate problem situations and to analyze trends. As an element of adaptive
management, monitoring is used to evaluate the results of forest health strategies.
Monitoring methods are discussed in “Forest Health” in Section III.
3. Strategy: Where monitoring has determined that damage is occurring above
threshold levels, prescribe appropriate treatments in accordance with the Integrated
Pest Management (IPM) law as described in ORS 527-310 to 370.

Analysis: Integrated Pest Management is a decision-making process that promotes
environmentally sound pest management activities. The “Forest Health” subsection of
Section III has specific details about IPM.
Management Strategies

The management strategies for forest health and other resources already incorporate IPM
processes. For example, site-specific management objectives are well-defined, detection
and monitoring systems are in place, and pest conditions are periodically evaluated. The
basic silvicultural systems (uneven-aged and even-aged management) and related strategies
for insects and disease are designed to handle problem situations that are normally
encountered. (See strategy 1.) Some examples are the root disease pockets or scattered
insect-attacked trees that are found in mixed conifer stands, and the high mistletoe levels in
lodgepole pine stands. Strategies have been articulated to handle these situations.
Under IPM, when damage exceeds an established threshold level, some type of special
action may be needed. For example, it may become necessary to consider aerial insecticide
applications or animal damage control measures. Any proposed actions would be
developed, analyzed, implemented, and monitored using IPM procedures. ODF’s insect
and disease specialists would be consulted for technical advice.
1. Strategies for Common School Forest Lands:
a. Review DSL’s rangeland management plans to ensure that there is an adequate plan for
each DSL leasehold on Common School Forest Lands, consistent with the goals of this
long-range plan.
b. Work with DSL to resolve any problems or concerns having to do with DSL grazing
leases or federal grazing allotments associated with these leases.
Analysis: ODF and DSL have overlapping land management responsibilities on Common
School Forest Lands. These strategies define their roles in livestock grazing, based upon
applicable statutes and interagency agreements.
The responsibilities of ODF and DSL are spelled out in a contract that was approved by the
State Land Board (Oregon Division of State Lands and Oregon Department of Forestry,
1993). Although DSL is assigned the authority and responsibility to manage grazing leases,
ODF is responsible for the overall management, control, and protection of Common
School Forest Lands. The contract makes ODF responsible for preparing long-range
management plans that govern grazing management in addition to the other forest
resources. Consequently, ODF will rely upon DSL’s expertise in grazing and will regard
DSL’s grazing management plans as extensions of the long-range plan. ODF will actively
review grazing plans such as the Yainax Coordinated Resource Management Plan. ODF
will also rely upon DSL to administer grazing leases and to coordinate with federal
agencies with regard to grazing allotments and exchange of use. DSL’s management of
grazing must comply with the current administrative rules for rangeland management on
Common School trust lands.
Eastern Region Long-Range Forest Management Plan

2. Strategies for Board of Forestry Lands that are associated with federal grazing
a. Continue to issue grazing leases as requested by federal permittees.
b. Review the fee structure for grazing leases as part of plan implementation.
c. Seek the cooperation of federal agencies (USFS and BLM) to ensure that the holders of
federal grazing permits comply with allotment management plans on all state, private,
and federal lands in the federal allotments. Emphasize compliance with applicable laws
such as the Clean Water Act.
d. Actively participate in the development and maintenance of coordinated management
plans for federal grazing allotments that include Board of Forestry lands. Make sure
that these plans provide for proper grazing stewardship on Board of Forestry lands.
e. Examine ODF leases and revise as necessary to ensure proper grazing stewardship.
Ensure that grazing leases do not interfere with land ownership goals (e.g., trading or
selling land).
g. Within 2 years of plan approval, request assistance from DEQ, NRCS (Natural
Resource Conservation Service), ODA, USFS and/or BLM, and grazing leaseholders to
develop environmental guidelines for grazing on Board of Forestry lands. Use this
information to develop strategies c, d, and e above.
Analysis: The Department of Forestry is responsible for grazing leases on Board of
Forestry lands. This subset of Board of Forestry lands is located inside federal grazing
allotments. The strategies address the open range situation, ODF’s relationship to the
federal allotments, and ODF’s mandates to produce income and protect natural resources.
ODF chooses to comply with the open range laws by allowing grazing and maintaining a
relationship with the federal permittee and the federal agency that is responsible for the
allotment. The alternative, which is to exclude cattle by fencing, is not practical. Before
leases are granted, ODF will make sure they do not conflict with land base goals, for
example by becoming an encumbrance that could interfere with the sale or exchange of the
3. Strategies for Board of Forestry Lands outside federal grazing allotments:
Sun Pass State Forest
ODF will not pursue grazing leases on these lands. Ranchers will be asked to remove
livestock that stray onto the state forest, and problems will be handled on a case-by-case
basis. Any person who requests a grazing lease will be responsible for preparing a
rangeland management plan. Among the concerns that must be addressed by the plan are:
a. Suitability and carrying capacity of range for grazing.
b. How livestock will be kept out of areas where land use designations preclude grazing
(i.e., conservancy areas along Sun Creek and Annie Creek).
Management Strategies

c. How grazing will be managed to protect or be compatible with timber production,
recreation, cultural resources, fish and wildlife, soils, special forest products, and water
d. How livestock will be prevented from trespassing onto federal lands.
ODF must determine that the plan adequately addresses all concerns and that ODF’s share
of revenues generated under the plan will cover the costs of administering the plan, before
the plan would be approved.
Other Parcels
Most of these parcels are in open range. Lease requests will be considered on a case-by-
case basis. Any resource problems caused by open range grazing without a lease will be
handled on a case-by-case basis as well.
Analysis: The Department of Forestry is responsible for grazing leases on Board of
Forestry lands. This subset of Board of Forestry lands is in open range, but not within
federal grazing allotments. (No lands are known to be in livestock districts.) The strategies
address how ODF will deal with open range grazing that may occur, and what criteria will
be used to issue leases.
The strategies are consistent with the planning goals. The burden of preparing a rangeland
management plan for Sun Pass lies with the lease applicant because ODF does not have the
necessary resources. Neighboring ranchers currently do not want their livestock to graze on
Sun Pass because they would be in trespass if they wandered onto nearby federal lands.
Therefore, grazing probably will not occur at Sun Pass unless a lease and rangeland
management plan are formalized. Grazing leases for the other Board of Forestry lands
would not be likely to generate enough revenue to offset the cost of issuing the lease.
Land Base
A. Scattered Tracts
See “Location of Eastern Region State Forests” in Section I, for a definition of the scattered
tracts; and Appendix L for a detailed discussion of the scattered tract situation.
1. Strategy: Evaluate each parcel for exchange potential that would result in blocking
these lands on the Klamath-Lake District or other districts with state lands
management staff.

2. Strategy: Make recommendations on land exchanges and sales to DSL. On lands
with no exchange or sales potential, work with DSL to decide the best course of
action to remove these tracts from the Common School Forest Land list.

Analysis: As currently located and distributed, these lands are very inefficient to manage.
These two strategies will increase efficiency by blocking land where the management staff
exists, and by removing the remaining lands from the Common School Forest Land list.
Removal from the list takes the lands from ODF’s management responsibility.
Eastern Region Long-Range Forest Management Plan

3. Strategy: During the evaluation and exchange of these lands, manage the lands
only to prevent losses in asset value.
Analysis: This strategy is aimed at keeping the value of these lands as high as possible
until the time of exchange. Management will occur only to prevent loss of value.
B. Klamath-Lake District Lands
1. Strategy: The long-term strategy is to exchange the satellite parcels for forest lands
that are in or adjacent to the three major tracts. (See “Location of Eastern Region
State Forests” in Section I, for a definition of satellite parcels.)

Analysis: The satellite parcels tend to be small and surrounded by lands not owned by the
state. For these reasons they tend to create access problems and inefficiencies during
intensive management operations. However, because there is local management of the
satellite parcels, their management is not as inefficient as the scattered tracts. For this
reason, this strategy is a lower priority than the strategy for the scattered tracts. This
strategy will result in increased efficiency of intensive forest management.
2. Strategy: Private lands mostly or wholly surrounded by state forest lands
(inholdings) will be a high priority for acquisition through exchange or purchase.
Analysis: Inholdings can cause significant access problems. In addition, management
objectives of inholding landowners can be incompatible with state forest management
objectives. This strategy will result in increased efficiency of intensive forest management.
3. Strategy: Follow the procedures in ORS 197.180 and OAR 660-30, 660-31, and the
Department’s State Agency Coordination Program, OAR 629-20, to assure that the
Klamath-Lake District’s land use programs comply with Statewide Land Use
Planning Goals and are compatible with acknowledged city and county
comprehensive plans and land use regulations; while carrying out Board of
Forestry and Department of Forestry statutory responsibilities.

Analysis: All state agencies must comply with the Statewide Planning Goals, by
assuring that land uses are compatible with acknowledged local government
comprehensive plans and land use regulations. The Department of Forestry’s State
Agency Coordination Program at OAR 629-20 describes the procedures to be followed.
OAR 629-20-000 states that “it is not the intent of these rules to prevent either the Board
of Forestry or the Department of Forestry from carrying out their statutory
In the case of the Eastern Region Forest Management Plan, the District Forester has
followed the specified procedure by notifying local government that the forest plan is
being developed and by requesting their review and comment on the compatibility of the
draft forest plan with the local government’s comprehensive plan. The procedures in
OAR-629-20 will also be followed in order to ensure that the following elements of the
State Forest Land Management Program are compatible with acknowledged city and
county comprehensive plans and land use regulations:
Management Strategies