# United States Forest R-6 OR/ Bureau of United States

# Department of Service WA Land Department of

# Agriculture Management Interior

# 

# Reply Refer To: 2630(FS) /1736 PFP(BLM) (OR-935) P Date: September 21, 2001

# 

#  EMS TRANSMISSION

#  BLM-Information Bulletin No. OR-2001-273

# 

# 

> To: USDA Forest Service Forest Supervisors within the Area of the
> Northwest Forest Plan and USDI Bureau of Land Management District
> Managers (Coos Bay, Eugene, Lakeview, Medford, Roseburg, Salem) and
> Field Managers (OR: Klamath Falls, Tillamook)

#  Subject: Survey and Manage Species -- Identification of Non-high Priority Sites

> The Record of Decision (ROD) for Survey and Manage (S&M) Species (ROD
> and Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage,
> Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures Standards and
> Guidelines) provides several situations where specific projects may be
> exempted from the Standards and Guidelines. These provisions are
> varied, and are intended for very specific sets of conditions. The
> identification of non-high priority sites (Standards and Guidelines,
> Page 10) is one such example. The enclosed is a four-step process that
> allows the local land manager to identify non-high priority sites for
> Category C and D species on a case-by-case basis. This is an interim
> process until a Management Recommendation that identifies high
> priority sites is completed.
>
> Please use this process. We will monitor its implementation and adjust
> the process as necessary. If you have questions please call me, Terry
> Brumley, at 503-808-2968, or your agency representative: Rob Huff, R6
> Forest Service at 503-808-2661, Paula Crumpton, R5 Forest Service at
> 530-242-2242, or Cheryl McCaffrey, BLM at 503-952-6050.
>
> /s/ Bruce H. Rittenhouse (for)

TERRY D. BRUMLEY

Interagency Survey and Manage Program Manager

Enclosure

> cc: [BLM Distribution]{.underline}
>
> Terry Brumley, R6 WO-230 (Room 204LS) -- 1

P. Crumpton, R5 CA-330 (Paul Roush) -- 1

G. Lottritz, R5 CA-930 -- 1

R. Huff, R6 OR-912 (Cathy Harris, Chris Strebig) -- 2

R. Escano, R6 OR-930 (Ed Shepard) -- 1

P. Kain, R6 OR-931 (Judy Nelson, Lyndon Werner,

S. Odell, R6 Al Wood) -- 3

S. Mohoric, R6 OR-935 (Neal Middlebrook, Cheryl McCaffrey) -- 2

Monty Knudsen, FWS REO (Debbie Pietrzak, Jay Watson,

> Dave Renwald) -- 3

**OVERVIEW OF FOUR-STEP PROCESS FOR IDENTIFYING**

# [CATEGORY C AND D NON-HIGH PRIORITY SITES]{.underline}

## General Process

## 

The Record of Decision (ROD) (January 11, 2001) allows managers to
identify non-high priority sites for Category C and D species. Both
categories are comprised of species considered to be "uncommon" and with
direction to manage high priority sites. It is practical to conduct
pre-disturbance surveys for Category C species. It is not practical to
conduct pre-disturbance surveys for Category D species.

To identify a Category C or D species site as a Non-High Priority site
(NHP), the four-step process listed on Survey & Manage Standards &
Guidelines page 10 (see below) is to be followed and documented in the
project NEPA determination. The NHP document (described in Step 3) is
intended to be a concise and complete record of the process prepared by
the originating administrative unit, no more than 5-7 pages in total
length. The document provides the rationale and scientific evidence for
designating sites as Non-High Priority. This guidance applies, on a
case-by-case basis, to activities at the project level.

> "[*Manage High-Priority Sites*:]{.underline} High-priority sites will
> be managed according to the Management Recommendations for the
> species. Professional judgment, Appendix J2 in the Northwest Forest
> Plan Final SEIS, and appropriate literature will be used to guide
> individual site management for those species that do not have
> Management Recommendations.
>
> Until a Management Recommendation is written addressing high-priority
> sites, either assume all sites are high priority, or local
> determination (and project NEPA documentation) of non-high priority
> sites may be made on a case-by-case basis with:

1)  Guidance from the Interagency Survey and Manage Program Manager;

2)  Local interagency concurrence (BLM, FS, USFWS):

3)  Documented consideration of the condition of the species on other
    administrative units as identified by the Program Manager- typically
    adjacent units as well as others in the species range within the
    province: and,

4)  Identification in ISMS.

> The Survey and Manage Program Manager will involve appropriate taxa
> specialists".

**Step 1. Guidance from the Interagency S&M Program Manager (PM)**

 The first step in the process consists of the BLM Field Manager/FS
Line Officer originating the proposal ("Originating Manager") notifying
the Survey and Manage Program Manager (PM) of their intent to proceed.

 The PM assigns a taxa specialist (taxa lead, expert, team member, or
other qualified individual), who will provide technical assistance to
the originating office through out the process.

 **The originating office takes the lead in completing all four steps
of the process.** The Originating Manager is responsible for confirming
that all steps of this process have been completed and will make the
final determination of whether to proceed with the NHP site designation
before signing the NEPA record, concluding the process.

**Step 2. Local interagency concurrence (BLM, FS, FWS)**

 The Originating Manager will request written concurrence on the
proposed NHP site designations from other BLM Field Managers, FS Line
Officers, and FWS Field Office Managers in the local area that may
potentially be affected (see Appendix A for list of FWS contacts). The
tribes, the National Park Service and

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Refuges may also be contacted, since they
may have additional data useful in the analysis.

 If local concurrence cannot be reached, all supporting documentation,
including responses from adjacent land managers, should be forwarded to
the S&M PM for review and assistance in gaining resolution. If a
satisfactory resolution cannot be achieved with the PM's assistance, a
memo to that effect will be included in the administrative record and
the Originating Manager will modify or withdraw NHP proposal.

**Step 3. Document consideration of the condition of the species on
other administrative units as identified by the PM - typically adjacent
units as well as others in the species range within the province.**

Using the format below, the originating administrative office staff is
responsible for documenting the condition of the species by preparing an
analysis on a local scale. The taxa specialist will provide technical
assistance to the originating office in preparation of the analysis.

> **Introduction** (1/2 to 1 page)

 Briefly explain the purpose for the NHP proposal.

> **Analysis** (3 to 5 pages)

 Using the most recent scientific information available (from all
verified sources, including ISMS and Annual Species Review) consider the
condition of the species by briefly discussing the species' life
history, ecology, number and distribution of known sites, and general
habitat condition on the originating administrative unit and adjacent
units within the province or other logical analysis unit that more
appropriately addresses the species distribution.

 Describe the proposed NHP sites and explain how this proposal will
comply with species persistence objectives and persistence criteria, on
the originating administrative unit and adjacent units within the
province or other logical analysis unit that more appropriately
addresses the species distribution. Base the analysis on the following
where most of these criteria must be met:

##### Criteria Indicating Little or No Concern for Persistence (S&Gs, page 5)

 Moderate-to-high number of likely extant sites/records

 High proportion of sites and habitat in reserve land allocations; or
limited number of sites within reserves, but the proportion or amount of
potential habitat within reserves is high and there is a high
probability that the habitat is occupied.

 Sites are relatively well distributed within the species range.

 Matrix Standards and Guidelines or other elements of the Northwest
Forest Plan provide a reasonable assurance of species persistence.

-   Originating office sends completed analysis and supporting
    documentation to the S&M PM and the taxa specialist. This becomes
    part of the administrative record.

> Maps

-   Prepare maps at two different scales to show distribution of
    proposed NHP sites in relation to: 1) all known sites in the field
    unit, and 2) all known sites in the province or other logical
    analysis unit that more appropriately addresses the species
    distribution.

-   Delineate clearly the administrative unit boundary, project area
    boundary, and all reserves and matrix land allocations on these
    maps. Copies of these maps will be included in the administrative
    record maintained by the field unit.

####  

#### Preparers

 Identify preparers on the file documents.

**Step 4. Identification of NHP sites in ISMS.**

A field has been created in Interagency Species Management System (ISMS)
for "Site Management Status". Once a site has been determined to be a
"non-high priority" site, please designate it as such in this field in
ISMS. Only a few designated people will have access to make changes in
this field. A request must be made to the ISMS team to have the database
administrator grant edit privileges to the Site Management Status field.
To assure that Step 4 required on S&G page 10 has been met, the sites
should be entered into and identified in ISMS immediately prior to the
signing of the NEPA decision. (If the decision is not signed, the NHP
designation will need to be reversed). The NHP sites will be included in
the Annual Species Review process.

**APPENDIX A LIST OF U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE CONTACTS**

[CALIFORNIA]{.underline}

**Field Office Manager/Staff**

**Arcata FWO** David Solis 1655 Heindon Rd.

Arcata CA 95521-5582

Robin Hamlin Six Rivers NF, Arcata RA

> Ph: 707-822-7201 BLM

**North Central Valley FWO** James Smith 10950 Tyler Rd.

Red Bluff Red Bluff, CA 96080

Ron Clementsen Shasta-Trinity NF, Mendocino NF,

> Ph: 530-527-3043 Lassen NF, Redding BLM

**Yreka FWO** Phil Dietrich P.O. Box 1006

Yreka, CA 96097-1006

Laura Finley Klamath NF

Ph: 530-842-5763

[OREGON]{.underline}

**Central Oregon FO** Jerry Cordova 20300 Empire Ave.

Bend Suite B-3

Bend, OR 97701-5713

Dede Steele Deschutes NF, Eastslope Mt.

> Ph: 541-312-6423 Hood NF

**Klamath Falls FWO** Steven Lewis 6610 Washburn Way

Klamath Falls, OR 97603

Doug Laye Winema NF, Klamath BLM

Ph: 541-885-8481

**Oregon State Office** Gary Miller 2600 SE 98^th^ Ave Suite 100

Portland Portland, OR 97266

Ray Bosch Willamette NF, Siuslaw NF,

Ph: 503-231-6179 Siskiyou NF, Medford BLM, Rogue River NF, Mt Hood
(west); Eugene, Salem and Coos Bay District BLM

**Southwest Oregon FO** Craig Tuss 2600 NW Stewart Parkway

Roseburg Roseburg, OR 97470

Scott Center Roseburg BLM, Umpqua NF

Ph: 541-957-3472

[WASHINGTON]{.underline}

**Wenatchee FO** Jodi Bush 215 Melody Lane

Wenatchee, WA 98801

Jeff Krupka Okanogan NF; Wenatchee

> Ph: 509-665-3504 NF

**Western Washington FWO** Pam Repp 510 Desmond Drive SE

Olympia Lacey, WA 98503

Cindy Levy Mt Baker-Snoqualmie

> Ph: 360-753-7760 Olympic NF
>
> Vince Harke Gifford-Pinchot NF;
>
> Ph: 360-753-9529 Mt.Adams RD