PROCESS FOR DETERMINATION OF RED TREE VOLE SITES AS NON-HIGH PRIORITY
SITES WITHIN THE "PILOT" AREA

**[Overview]{.underline}**

The High Priority Site (HPS) team for the red tree vole (RTV)
(*Arborimus longicaudus*) concluded that analysis for the determination
of non-high priority sites should consider the likely abundance and
distribution of the species at two spatial scales: 1) the watershed
scale, and 2) survey polygon scale. The HPS team considered four
specific watershed and survey area characteristics in order to
programmatically identify non-high priority sites. The following four
characteristics provide the basis for field level evaluation of RTV
survey and site polygons and allows for final field unit designation of
non-high priority status for sites within survey polygons. The four
characteristics the team considered are: 1) amount of federal forest
capable reserve land within each fifth^-^field watershed; 2) the quality
of habitat the site occurs within; 3) the number of active vole nests
detected within the survey area and 4) the total survey effort. Each of
these characteristics and the rationale for their use is explained
further in Appendix B.

The team divided the fifth-field watersheds within the pilot area into
three categories (high, moderate, and low) based on the percentage of
future federal forest capable land reserved. For the purposes of this
watershed characteristic "federal forest capable" is defined as forested
stands either currently providing or capable of growing into RTV
habitat. Table 1 lists each of the watersheds in the pilot area based on
this hierarchy.

The evaluation process presented in this document pertains only to the
previously identified "pilot" area (see map, Attachment 2), and only to
Matrix, Adaptive Management Area (AMA) Matrix/Riparian, or AMA/Riparian
Land Use Allocations (LUA). To conduct the survey polygon scales
assessment, field units will need to review their survey polygons using
the criteria listed below.

### [General Survey Polygon Evaluation Guidelines]{.underline} 

Field units will evaluate survey polygons within the pilot area to
determine if the RTV sites within the polygon may be identified as
non-high priority sites. The following guidelines are to be used in that
evaluation.

**Assessment Guideline Applicable to All Survey Polygons.**

The following assessment guideline applies to all survey polygons
whether surveys have been completed to protocol or not.

-   In cases where the survey polygon Number range CHAPTERstraddles the
    boundaries of two or more watersheds, apply the criteria for the
    watershed (Table 1) where the majority of survey polygon acres
    occur.

**Assessment Guidelines Applicable to Survey Polygons in Moderate and
Low Reserve Watersheds**

The following assessment guideline applies to all survey polygons
whether surveys have been completed to protocol or not.

-   The acreage values for survey polygons located within 100 meters of
    each other, and of equivalent habitat condition (seral stage, stand
    origin, age, or structural complexity), should be combined and
    counted as a single survey polygon for the purposes of evaluating
    the survey area.

-   For survey polygons in moderate watersheds containing habitat that
    meets both the survey protocol and non-survey protocol habitat
    definitions, the habitat type comprising the majority of the survey
    polygon should be used to determine which assessment rules listed
    below apply. Use only the majority habitat type when applying
    criterion 1, 2, 3 or 4 listed below.

[General Watershed Evaluation Guidelines]{.underline}

Field units will evaluate survey polygons within the pilot area based on
the watershed conditions to determine if the RTV sites within the
polygon may be identified as non-high priority sites. The following
guidelines are to be used in that evaluation.

Survey Polygons within High Reserve Watersheds

Survey polygons located in 5^th^ field watersheds listed as high in
Table 1 require no further evaluation, regardless of whether surveys
have been completed or not. All sites within the survey polygon can be
identified as non-high priority sites and may be released for other
management priorities. This direction applies to polygons in Matrix and
AMA LUAs or a combination of AMA/matrix and Riparian Reserve. This
change in site status must be documented in ISMS and in appropriate
project-specific NEPA documents.

Survey Polygons Within Moderate and Low Reserve Watersheds

*Survey polygons with completed protocol surveys*

Survey polygons with a *completed protocol survey* may be evaluated
using either Table 2 or the following section (Field Level Survey
Polygon Evaluation Criteria) to determine whether the sites within the
survey area polygon may be identified as non-high priority sites.

***Survey polygons without completed protocol surveys***

-   The programmatic process described in this document cannot be
    applied to survey polygons without completed protocol surveys. Field
    units may decide to complete protocol surveys in survey polygons in
    order to apply this programmatic process. For these situations if
    the decision is made to conduct additional surveys the following
    guidelines apply:

    -   The previously surveyed portion of the line transects within the
        survey polygon and any confirmed nest trees where the species
        and activity status were determined are considered current
        within the existing survey protocols five-year time frame. These
        areas do not need to be re-surveyed.

    -   If you are completing the survey protocol by returning to nest
        trees with unknown species or activity status, check all
        previously identified nests, including those previously
        identified as active. If the nest(s) are no longer intact, check
        trees within 100m for new nest structures and determine the
        species use and activity status of any new nests to assure the
        voles have not moved between the original survey and the time
        you are completing this survey.

    -   Finish any additional line transect segments that may be needed
        to complete the standard protocol survey effort.

    -   Once all surveys are completed, the polygon can be evaluated
        using the criteria listed in the next section (Field Level
        Survey Polygon Evaluation Criteria and summarized in Table 2).

**[Field Level Survey Polygon Evaluation Criteria]{.underline}**

Survey Polygons within High Reserve Watersheds

As previously stated above under the section "Watershed Evaluation
Guideline", survey polygons located in 5^th^ field watersheds listed as
high in Table 1 require no further evaluation, regardless of whether
surveys have been completed or not.

Survey polygons within Moderate and Low reserve watersheds listed in
Table 1

Survey polygons with completed protocol surveys, should be evaluated by
the field unit using the 5 different criteria listed below. Sites within
survey polygons that meet any of the criteria listed may be identified
as non-high priority sites and released for other management needs. This
direction applies to polygons in Matrix and AMA LUAs or a combination of
AMA/matrix and Riparian Reserve. Changes in site status must be
documented in ISMS and in appropriate project-specific NEPA documents. .

***Moderate Watersheds***

> **Criterion 1:**

-   If the survey polygon is comprised of non-survey protocol habitat;

-   is \< 30 acres in size; and

-   has only 1 active nest, then the site within the polygon is
    considered a non-high priority site.

> **Criterion 2:**

-   If the survey polygon is comprised of non-survey protocol habitat;

-   is [\>]{.underline} 30 acres in size; and

-   has \<5 active nests then all sites within the polygon are
    considered non-high priority sites.

> **Criterion 3:**

-   If the survey polygon is comprised of survey protocol habitat;

-   is [\>]{.underline} 30 acres in size; and

-   has only 1 active nest then the site within the polygon is
    considered a non-high priority site.

> **Criterion 4:**

-   If the survey polygon is comprised of survey protocol habitat;

-   is [\>]{.underline} 50 acres in size; and

-   has 2-4 active nests then all sites within the polygon are
    considered non-high priority sites.

***Low Watersheds***

> **Criterion 5:**

-   If the survey polygon is [\>]{.underline} 50 acres in size; and

-   has only 1 active nest; then the site within the polygon is
    considered non-high priority site.

Survey polygons not meeting any of the above criteria, and all sites
contained within the polygon, are not candidates for non-high priority
site status under this programmatic process, and should continue to be
managed as high-priority sites. Additional surveys may help to determine
if the sites could, depending upon additional survey effort, be
considered non-high priority. (For example, if the survey is within a
low reserve watershed, and 1 active nest has been located after
completing 48 acres of survey the site would need to be retained.
However, if you completed an additional 2 acres of survey effort and
found no additional active nests, the polygon would now meet the
"release" criteria, and the site within that polygon would then be
identified as non-high priority). Use Table 2 to help determine whether
the additional survey may be warranted.

In moderate or low reserve watersheds, where a decision is made to
conduct additional surveys, the habitat to be surveyed needs to be of
equivalent stand age and structure as the habitat that was previously
surveyed. If no additional equivalent habitat is available, then the
programmatic process would not be appropriate, and the more
site-specific 4-step process could be considered.

+---------------------+----------------------+-------------------------+
| **Table 1.          |                      |                         |
| --Assignment of     |                      |                         |
| pilot area 5th      |                      |                         |
| Field Watersheds    |                      |                         |
| into High,          |                      |                         |
| Moderate, and Low   |                      |                         |
| future reserved     |                      |                         |
| habitat levels. For |                      |                         |
| use in the          |                      |                         |
| assessment of tree  |                      |                         |
| vole survey         |                      |                         |
| polygons in         |                      |                         |
| designating         |                      |                         |
| non-high priority   |                      |                         |
| sites.**            |                      |                         |
+---------------------+----------------------+-------------------------+
| **High**            | **Moderate**         | **Low**                 |
+---------------------+----------------------+-------------------------+
| Lower Smith River   | Middle North Umpqua  | Calapooya Creek         |
|                     | River                |                         |
| Lower Umpqua River  |                      | Lower MF Willamette     |
|                     | Middle Umpqua River  | River                   |
| Wolf Creek          |                      |                         |
|                     | Elk Creek (Umpqua    | Little River            |
| Fall Creek          | River)               |                         |
|                     |                      | Lower NF of MF          |
| Upper Umpqua River  | Upper Smith River    | Willamette River        |
|                     |                      |                         |
| Mill Creek (Umpqua  | Rock Creek (North    | Lower Coast Fork        |
| River)              | Umpqua River)        | Willamette River        |
|                     |                      |                         |
| Canton Creek        | Salmon Creek         | Upper NF of MF          |
|                     |                      | Willamette River        |
| Lower Siuslaw River | Woahink / Siltcoos   |                         |
|                     | River/ Tachkenitch   | Salt Creek (Willamette  |
| Upper Siuslaw River |                      | River)                  |
|                     | Mosby Creek          |                         |
| Steamboat Creek     |                      | Upper North Umpqua      |
|                     | Wildcat Creek        | River                   |
| Boulder Creek       |                      |                         |
| (North Umpqua       | Hills Creek          | Fish Creek              |
| River)              | Reservoir            |                         |
|                     |                      | Lower Row River         |
| Middle Fork         | Layng Creek          |                         |
| Willamette          |                      | Lower North Umpqua      |
| River/Lookout Point | Lake Creek           | River                   |
|                     |                      |                         |
| Deadwood Creek      | Winberry Creek       | Upper MF Willamette     |
|                     |                      | River                   |
| North Fork Siuslaw  | Hills Creek          |                         |
| River               |                      | Clearwater Creek        |
|                     | Lost Creek           |                         |
| Little Fall Creek   |                      | Diamond Lake            |
|                     | Upper Coast Fork     |                         |
| Indian Creek Lake   | Willamette River     | Lemolo Lake             |
| Creek               |                      |                         |
+---------------------+----------------------+-------------------------+

**Table 2. Matrix of survey polygon evaluation criteria with outcome for
polygon classes**

+-----------+-----------+-----------+----------+----------+-----------+
| Relative  | Habitat   | Survey    | 1 Active | 2 to 4   | [\>]{.u   |
| amount of | Class     | Polygon   | Nest     | Active   | nderline} |
| capable   | ification | Size      |          | Nests    | 5 Active  |
| forest    |           |           |          |          | Nests     |
| lands in  |           | (in       |          |          |           |
| reserve,  |           | acres)    |          |          |           |
| by 5^th^  |           |           |          |          |           |
| field     |           |           |          |          |           |
| watershed |           |           |          |          |           |
|           |           |           |          |          |           |
| (see      |           |           |          |          |           |
| Table 1)  |           |           |          |          |           |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+----------+----------+-----------+
| HIGH      | ***All*** | All       | **R      | **R      | **        |
|           | Habitat   |           | elease** | elease** | Release** |
|           | Types     |           |          |          |           |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+----------+----------+-----------+
| MODERATE  | ***Non-   | Less than | **R      | Retain   | Retain    |
|           | Survey*** | 30 acres  | elease** |          |           |
|           | Protocol  |           |          |          |           |
|           | Habitat   |           |          |          |           |
|           |           |           |          |          |           |
|           | (         |           |          |          |           |
|           | Criterion |           |          |          |           |
|           | 1 and 2)  |           |          |          |           |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+----------+----------+-----------+
|           |           | 30 to 49  | **R      | **R      | Retain    |
|           |           |           | elease** | elease** |           |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+----------+----------+-----------+
|           |           | Greater   | **R      | **R      | Retain    |
|           |           | than 50   | elease** | elease** |           |
|           |           | acres     |          |          |           |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+----------+----------+-----------+
|           | ***       | Less than | Retain   | Retain   | Retain    |
|           | Survey*** | 30 acres  |          |          |           |
|           | Protocol  |           |          |          |           |
|           | Habitat   |           |          |          |           |
|           |           |           |          |          |           |
|           | (         |           |          |          |           |
|           | Criterion |           |          |          |           |
|           | 3 and 4)  |           |          |          |           |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+----------+----------+-----------+
|           |           | 30 to 49  | **R      | Retain   | Retain    |
|           |           |           | elease** |          |           |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+----------+----------+-----------+
|           |           | Greater   | **R      | **R      | Retain    |
|           |           | than 50   | elease** | elease** |           |
|           |           | acres     |          |          |           |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+----------+----------+-----------+
| LOW       | ***All*** | Less than | Retain   | Retain   | Retain    |
|           | Habitat   | 50 acres  |          |          |           |
|           | Types     |           |          |          |           |
|           |           |           |          |          |           |
|           | (         |           |          |          |           |
|           | Criterion |           |          |          |           |
|           | 5)        |           |          |          |           |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+----------+----------+-----------+
|           |           | Greater   | **R      | Retain   | Retain    |
|           |           | than 50   | elease** |          |           |
|           |           | acres     |          |          |           |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+----------+----------+-----------+

Release---The site is likely incidental, non-viable, or otherwise not
important for meeting the overall species persistence objectives and no
longer needs to be managed for the benefit of the red tree vole. The
site can be managed for other resource needs.

Retain---The site does not meet the criteria for non-high priority site
status under this programmatic process, and should continue to be
managed as a High Priority site.

**Table 3 - Programmatic Step 3 Evaluation Form for the Identification
of non-High Priority Sites for the Oregon Red Tree Vole**

###### WATERSHED INFORMATION

Administrative Unit:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Resource Area/Ranger District:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Contact Person:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Watershed Name:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Watershed Ranking (High, Moderate, Low):
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

###### SURVEY POLYGON INFORMATION

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 17%" />
<col style="width: 18%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 11%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td rowspan="2">Survey Polygon ID</td>
<td rowspan="2">Project Name</td>
<td colspan="3">Does the Habitat Meet the Trigger for Survey Protocol
Habitat? (Y/N)</td>
<td colspan="3"><p>RTV Nest Activity Status</p>
<p>(enter # of nests within the <u>survey</u> polygon)</p></td>
<td rowspan="2">Number of Active RTV <em>Sites</em> in the <u>Survey</u>
Polygon</td>
<td rowspan="2"><p>ISMS Entry Date</p>
<p>(identifying these as non-HP)</p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>N. Mesic</td>
<td>Mesic</td>
<td>Xeric</td>
<td>Active</td>
<td>Inactive</td>
<td>Unknown</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

**[Appendix A-Guidance on the management of red tree vole sites found
incidentally]{.underline}**

This Appendix provides direction on whether or not to manage new sites
found incidentally: either in projects not requiring pre-disturbance
surveys (Category D areas); species occurrences incidentally detected
outside projects by staff conducting other field work (Category C and D
areas); or new sites found after pre-disturbance surveys (in Category C
areas) have been completed. Options on management of the site are
dependent upon when in the NEPA process the site is found, as well as
whether the site is found in a high, moderate, or low category
watershed.

For new active red tree vole nest trees located incidentally and found
prior to the NEPA decision date, apply the following guidelines
(summarized in Table 4):

# High Reserve Watersheds (those listed in Table 1, in Attachment 1) 

# All incidental discoveries located in Matrix, AMA or a combination of Matrix/Riparian or AMA/Riparian land use allocations within high reserve watersheds are considered non-HPS and are therefore released for other management priorities. Identify the site as a non-HPS site in ISMS and in appropriate project-specific NEPA documents. 

-   **Moderate Reserve Watersheds** (those listed in Table 1, in
    Attachment 1)

> For incidental finds in moderate reserve watersheds, evaluate
> according to the type of habitat the site occurs within.
>
> **1. Non-survey protocol habitat:** Incidental discoveries within
> non-survey protocol habitat in the pilot area are considered non-HPS
> and are released for other management priorities. Identify the site as
> a non-HPS site in ISMS and in appropriate project-specific NEPA
> documents.
>
> **2. Survey protocol habitat:** Incidental discoveries in survey
> protocol habitat should be managed either as a known site or Table 4
> (below) can be used to determine whether the site may have the
> potential to be released under this programmatic non-HPS guidance. To
> potentially release these sites, a protocol survey around the site
> must be completed. After a full protocol survey is completed, the site
> may be released, depending on the number of active nests and survey
> effort. Table 4 outlines various scenarios based on survey effort and
> numbers of active nests and should be used as a guide to determine the
> survey effort the field unit would conduct. This requirement applies
> to Category C and D areas.

-   **Low Reserve watersheds** (those listed in Table 1, in Attachment
    1)

> Number range CHAPTERFor all incidental discoveries of active nest
> trees located in low reserve watersheds, sites should be managed as
> known sites. The only exception to this requirement would be a site
> where the original incidental discovery was the only active nest tree
> detected after a protocol survey of at least 50 acres of habitat
> around the original nest tree. In these situations, the site could be
> released.

**If active red tree vole nests are incidentally found after the NEPA
date, but before the sale date,** site-specific analysis should be
conducted to determine the level of concern for persistence of the
species and the habitat in and adjacent to the activity area. The site
under these circumstances could be recommended for retention based on
the level of concern. This site guidance, for sites incidentally
detected, follows verbatim the discussion under the Standards and
Guidelines, page 22, of the 2001 Survey and Manage Record of Decision.

# 

# Table 4 - Matrix for the management of incidental finds discovered prior to NEPA signing

+-----------+-----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| Relative  | Habitat   | Survey   | 1 Active | 2 to 4   | [\>]{.un |
| amount of | Class     | Polygon  | Nest     | Active   | derline} |
| capable   | ification | Size     |          | Nests    | 5 Active |
| forest    |           |          |          |          | Nests    |
| lands in  |           | (in      |          |          |          |
| reserve,  |           | acres)   |          |          |          |
| by 5^th^  |           |          |          |          |          |
| field     |           |          |          |          |          |
| watershed |           |          |          |          |          |
|           |           |          |          |          |          |
| (see      |           |          |          |          |          |
| Table 1)  |           |          |          |          |          |
+-----------+-----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| ###       | ***All*** | All      | **No     | **No     | **No     |
| #### HIGH | Habitat   | survey   | site     | site     | site     |
|           | Types     | areas    | pr       | pr       | pr       |
|           |           |          | otection | otection | otection |
|           |           |          | needed** | needed** | needed** |
+-----------+-----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| #######   | ***Non-   | All      | **No     |          |          |
|  MODERATE | Survey*** | surveys  | site     |          |          |
|           | Protocol  | areas    | pr       |          |          |
|           | Habitat   |          | otection |          |          |
|           |           |          | needed** |          |          |
+-----------+-----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
|           | ***       | Less     | Retain   | Retain   | Retain   |
|           | Survey*** | than 30  |          |          |          |
|           | Protocol  | acres    |          |          |          |
|           | Habitat   |          |          |          |          |
+-----------+-----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
|           |           | 30 to 49 | **No     | Retain   | Retain   |
|           |           |          | site     |          |          |
|           |           |          | pr       |          |          |
|           |           |          | otection |          |          |
|           |           |          | needed** |          |          |
+-----------+-----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
|           |           | Greater  | **No     | **No     | Retain   |
|           |           | than 50  | site     | site     |          |
|           |           | acres    | pr       | pr       |          |
|           |           |          | otection | otection |          |
|           |           |          | needed** | needed** |          |
+-----------+-----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| ##        | ***All*** | 0 to 49  | Retain   | Retain   | Retain   |
| ##### LOW | Habitat   |          |          |          |          |
|           | Types     |          |          |          |          |
+-----------+-----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
|           |           | Greater  | **No     | Retain   | Retain   |
|           |           | than 50  | site     |          |          |
|           |           | acres    | pr       |          |          |
|           |           |          | otection |          |          |
|           |           |          | needed** |          |          |
+-----------+-----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+

**No site protection needed**---site does not need to be managed for
benefit of the Red Tree vole. Site is released for other resource needs.

**Retain**---The site does not meet the criteria for designation as a
non-high priority site under this programmatic evaluation. Site must be
retained, and managed as a known site.

# [Appendix B -Site characteristics and rationale used by the HPS Team in non-high priority site identification]{.underline}

**Overview**

The HPS Team developed Attachment 1 as a process to designate some sites
as non-high priority sites prior to the completion of a high priority
site management recommendation. Initial assessment by the team indicates
that characteristics of many known sites are such that they are likely
non-viable, and unlikely to be needed to provide for a reasonable
assurance of species persistence. In the HPS team's professional
judgment, the decision to release these sites for other management
priorities should result in a low risk to species persistence within the
pilot area and provide for a reasonable assurance of species
persistence.

The pilot area was selected for high priority site management
recommendation development because of the relatively high amount of
older forests remaining, the current and historical information
available regarding the occurrence and distribution of the species, the
elevation range (sea level to Cascade crest) traversed within the pilot
area, and the variation in land ownership and reserve patterns across
the landscape. The high proportion of older forests remaining in the
Umpqua Basin, relative to other portions of the species range, suggests
the species status is not immediately a concern within the basin.

Prior to developing this programmatic process for designation of
non-high priority status, the HPS Team has developed habitat models and
reviewed species abundance estimates both within the pilot area and
range wide. In addition, the team has reviewed stand characteristics
such as overstory size class, elevation, stand age, and other site
parameters for all survey and site polygons recorded in the ISMS Red
Tree Vole data module. Considerable discussions were conducted regarding
what site characteristics were needed to permit normal biological
function and species interactions, considering life history
characteristics of the species. Given the species low reproductive rate
and poor dispersal characteristics, the team identified minimum values
for sufficient habitat quality, species abundance, and distribution to
assure that high priority sites selected will meet the species
persistence objectives under the NFP.

Sites not meeting minimum criteria for sufficient habitat quality,
species abundance, or distribution characteristics were considered not
likely to be candidates for high priority site selection and therefore
could be designated as non-high priority sites. The exception to this
philosophy would be in watersheds where even poor quality sites might
need to be retained, in the short term, to maintain well-distributed
vole populations. This occurs mainly in the 5^th^-field watersheds
listed in the "low" category in Table 1.

**Review of Evaluation Criteria**

The following sections review the development and use of each criterion
used in the assessment process for determining characteristics for
non-high priority sites.

**Watershed Rankings**

The watershed scale was used to provide a larger context with which to
evaluate whether habitat is well distributed and being maintained to
support reproductive, interacting individuals. Watershed assessments are
best conducted through habitat modeling where the amount and
juxtaposition of persistence quality habitat can provide insight into
the long-term persistence of the species within the watershed. The
non-HPS assessment ranked all 5^th^ field watersheds within the pilot
area into three categories (high, moderate, and low) based upon the
amount of federal forest capable land in reserves. Watershed rankings
were developed based on the amount of future red tree vole habitat in
reserves from predictions using the present natural vegetation (PNV)
modeling approach developed by Jan Henderson. For the purposes of this
process, "federal forest capable" is defined as stands either currently
providing or capable of growing into red tree vole habitat. The amount
of reserve land within the 5^th^ field watershed was compiled using
local GIS information provided in October 2001 by the six administrative
units within the pilot area. Reserve types considered included; LSR's,
the administrative unit's most current riparian reserve layer, 100 acre
northern spotted owl cores, marbled murrelet reserves, Areas of Critical
Environmental Concern, Research Natural Areas and other Forest and BLM
district individual plan reserves. These additional reserves were
considered as part of the overall reserve and habitat rating for the
watershed. These additional reserves were considered if management
guidelines for the reserve areas included development or retention of
late successional forest and are providing or capable of growing into
RTV habitat.

######## HIGH RESERVE WATERSHEDS

Fifth-field watersheds rated in the *"high"* category are dominated by
large block Late Successional Reserves, with a smaller proportion of the
reserve network in riparian reserves and other smaller withdrawn land
allocations. These large block Late-Successional Reserves were
originally designated in the Northwest Forest Plan because they
contained a greater proportion of older forest conditions than the
surrounding matrix lands. Therefore, because these "*high"* category
watersheds contain a higher amount of reserved older forest habitat and
habitats are better connected because of the large block LSRs, the HPS
team concluded that there is less concern of not meeting species
management objectives within these watersheds. This conclusion led to
the recommendation that all RTV sites in Matrix and AMA LUAs within
these watersheds may be considered non-high priority, and may be
released for other management priorities.

While the non-HPS assessment process documented in Attachment 1 relies
heavily on estimates of future habitat conditions, estimates of current
"high-quality" habitat in the "high" category 5th-field watersheds also
supports the conclusion that there is a greater amount of reserved
habitat in these watersheds. On average, 48 percent of reserve lands in
the high watersheds are comprised of high-quality vole habitat and the
reserves captured an average of 93 percent (range 83-100 %) of the high
quality habitat occurring in the watersheds. Due to the overall high
percentage of the watershed in reserves, and the high percentage of
current RTV habitat reserved, the team concluded the additional
protection measures offered by identification of high priority sites
would not contribute appreciatively to meeting species persistence
objectives within these high watersheds.

######## MODERATE AND LOW RESERVE WATERSHEDS

In fifth-field watersheds rated as *"moderate"* or *"low"* there is more
uncertainty about whether the amount and distribution of habitat in
reserves will be sufficient, in the long term, to meet persistence
objectives of well-distributed and connected populations. In these
moderate and low watersheds, the riparian reserve network and other
smaller reserves contribute a greater proportion of the amount of
acreage of federal forest capable land in reserves. In the low and
moderate watersheds, a smaller proportion or no portions of the future
forest capable habitat in reserves is contributed to by large block
LSRs. Combined with checker-board federal ownership patterns, habitat in
these lower reserve watersheds are less well connected and vole
populations are less likely to remain well-distributed over the next 100
years. The HPS team concluded that there is sufficient uncertainty as to
the role and significance of sites in Matrix and AMA LUAs in these low
and moderate reserve watersheds to release them at this time. A better
understanding of the spatial distribution and persistence of sites
within these watersheds is needed to determine if some of these sites
will be identified as high priority. These sites are retained as
candidates for HPS designation and are not released for other management
priorities through this programmatic process.

The current condition assessment provides insight into the species
likely condition for short to moderate time frames while habitat is
developing under the Northwest Forest Plan (NFP). Estimates of current
habitat conditions in the "moderate" and "low" category watersheds also
tends to support the conclusion that there is less current habitat in
reserve land allocations and therefore more uncertainty in designating
vole sites in matrix/AMA as non-high priority. Currently the reserve
network in moderate and low reserve watersheds averages 36 and 27
percent "quality habitat" in reserves, respectively. Within moderate
reserve watersheds, on average 69 percent (range 60-78%) of the high
quality habitat is within reserves. In low reserve watersheds, on
average 44% (range 39-53%) of the high quality habitat is within
reserves.

The connectedness of quality habitat may be diminished because of the
lower amount of quality habitat and the distribution of the habitat.
While no assessment of the distance between current habitat blocks has
been completed, conservation biology theory suggests that connectedness
declines as the percent of habitat on the landscape declines. Low and
moderate reserve watersheds are primarily the areas where concern for
releasing sites under the programmatic non-HPS process occurs. The
reserves in the low and moderate reserve watersheds either do not
currently contain a high proportion of quality RTV habitat or do not
reserve the quality tree vole habitat that currently exists. The overall
low amount of quality habitat leads to some concern for maintaining the
species from both a distributional and demographic perspective.
Therefore, the low and moderate watersheds are where management
activities may have the greatest impacts on the distribution and
abundance of the species. In particular many low and moderate watersheds
are located at higher elevations where the species' occurrence rates are
lower and where maintaining the species historical distribution would be
of higher concern.

**Habitat Quality**

The Standards and Guidelines direct that Survey Protocols should
identify habitat conditions or locations where surveys are not needed
for a reasonable assurance of persistence. Such habitat may include, but
is not limited to, seral stages, stand age, stand complexity, or stand
origin and where occupied sites are likely incidental, non-viable, or
otherwise not important for meeting overall species persistence
objectives. On October 23, 2002, a direction memo (BLM-Information
Bulletin No. OR-2003-003) was issued describing changes to Survey
Protocol, Version 2.0. The new sections of the Survey Protocol (Version
2.1) were developed to exclude habitats that are not anticipated to be
capable of supporting long-term species persistence, at the site level.
In addition ISMS data analyzed for Step 1 of the 2002 annual species
review process indicates that 72% of locations where red tree voles were
confirmed, and an overstory size class was reported, were in stands with
an over story of 21 inches dbh or greater. Survey Protocol revisions
were designed to locate sites in habitats and stand types that may be
needed to help provide for a reasonable assurance of species
persistence, and may be chosen as sites to maintain through the
development of a "high-priority" site Management Recommendation. These
protocol changes imply that sites located in habitats/stand types not
meeting these triggers are not needed for maintenance of species
persistence and therefore are not candidates for high priority site
designation, unless watershed conditions indicate they may be needed in
the short term to meet overall species objectives.

# Occurrence of the site in "protocol" versus "non-protocol" habitat

# Protocol quality habitat is habitat that meets the definition/trigger for surveys, as identified in the Survey Protocol Version 2.1 (OCT 2002). Protocol habitat is considered likely to provide a stable, complex canopy structure, and is more likely to provide for long-term site persistence. Non-survey protocol habitat may not provide the long-term stable, complex canopy structure needed for long-term site persistence. However, in watersheds with moderate and low amounts of federal forest capable land in reserves, some sites in poorer quality habitat may need to be retained as high priority site candidates because of their spatial distribution to meet short term species persistence needs. These sites in poorer quality habitat may need to be retained until better habitat develops, or until the species distribution and connectivity objectives can be determined through the HPS MR process. RTV sites were evaluated as to whether they were in protocol or non-protocol quality habitat. 

# Number of active nest trees and Survey Sufficiency 

The High Priority Site working group has concluded that characteristics
of many current vole sites, based on ISMS data and field visits, made
them unlikely to persist for the duration of the Northwest Forest Plan
(NFP). Characteristics such as low number of individuals per site, poor
quality habitat, predation, and surrounding habitat modifications,
predisposes many of these sites to loss. Some of these sites, while
temporarily occupied, are likely associated with larger sites not
determined due to survey design, non-viable, or are otherwise not
important for meeting the overall species persistence objectives. Given
these site characteristics the HPS team suggests that these sites are
ephemeral and are not likely to be designated as high priority sites.

Approximately 35 percent of the site polygons identified in the ISMS Red
Tree Vole Module (data accessed February 10, 2003) range-wide contain
only a single active nest tree and many are less than one half acre in
size. In addition, 1179 (46 %) of the site polygons registered in ISMS
do not meet the "Known Site" definition for tree vole sites (see Red
Tree Vole Management Recommendations version 2.0, page 15). These sites
are not considered to be extant because they do not contain any active
tree vole nests. These sites do not require known site management
(including Habitat Area delineation) and therefore are also not
candidates of HPS designation.

The *number of active nest* trees in the survey area is used as an
indicator of site quality and the likelihood of normal biological
function and species interactions at a given location. Site persistence
requires the occurrence of sufficient numbers of individuals to interact
with each other, reproduce and provide for a stable population at a site
over time. The number of active nest trees and *survey polygon size* is
used in Attachment 1 to identify those places on the landscape where
larger patches of habitat were surveyed and the number of active nests
was identified. This assessment assumes the original survey followed the
protocol and the survey results accurately depict local abundance. Large
survey polygons containing low numbers of active nests were judged not
likely to provide for an interacting stable population, at the site, and
therefore are not needed to help provide for a reasonable assurance of
species persistence.