ROD

Oregon State OfficeBLM

July 2007

Record of Decision

To Remove the Survey and Manage

Mitigation Measure Standards and

Guidelines

from Bureau of Land Management

Resource Management Plans Within the 

Range of the Northern Spotted Owl

Bureau of Land Management Districts in Oregon, 

and California Within the Range of the Northern 

Spotted Owl

ROD
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.

Cover artwork compliments of Elizabeth I. Gayner. Drawing 

includes the Greray grey owl (Strix nebulosa), an orchid 

(Cypripedium montanum), a mushroom (Gyromitra calfornica), 

and a snail (Monadenia fidelis).


Record of Decision

To Remove the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure

Standards and Guidelines from Bureau of Land Management Resource 

Management Plans within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl

USDI-Bureau of Land Management

July 2007

Amending the Resource Management Plans for the Salem, Eugene, Roseburg, Medford, and Coos Bay Districts 

in Oregon; the Klamath Falls Resource Area of the Lakeview District, also in Oregon; the Arcata, Redding, and 

Ukiah Field Offices in California, and the King Range National Conservation Area Management Plan in the 

Arcata Field Office in California

Table of Contents

1. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Background. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

 The Northwest Forest Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

 The 2000 Final SEIS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

 The 2004 FSEIS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

 The Need. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

 The Purposes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

 The 2004 Record of Decision and Subsequent Special Status Species Program Assignments. . . . . . . . . 6

 2004 Record of Decision Set Aside by District Court. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

 Ninth Circuit Court Decision Regarding Annual Species Reviews. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

The 2007 Final Supplement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

 The Proposed Action. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

 Special Status Species Programs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

 Response to Three Issues Identified by District Court. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

 Response to Ninth Circuit Court Decision Regarding Annual Species Reviews. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Results of the 2007 Final Supplement Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

2. The Decision. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Introduction – the Northwest Forest Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Details of the Decision. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

 Standards and Guidelines Removed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

 Plans Amended. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

 Concurrent Decision by the Secretary of Agriculture Not Required. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

 Mitigation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

 Monitoring. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

 Scope. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Bureau of Land Management Record of Decision to Remove the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

3. Reasons for the Decision. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Meeting the Purposes Identified in the Final Supplement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

 1. Comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement by considering, in detail, an alternative that 

removes the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

 2. Continue to provide for diversity of plant and animal communities in accordance with the National 

Forest Management Act and conserve rare and little known species that may be at risk of becoming 

listed under the Endangered Species Act. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

 Background – Species Effects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

 Adverse Outcomes Defined. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

 The 53 Species with Adverse Outcomes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

 The 2001, 2002, and 2003 Annual Species Reviews. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

 Reasons for Not Adopting Mitigation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

 Salamanders. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

 Great Gray Owl. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

 Red Tree Vole. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

 Non-Vertebrates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

 Effects to Species if They Are Not Assigned to Special Status Species Programs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

 Changed Conditions Since Previous Analyses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

 Ecosystem and Species Diversity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

 3. Reduce the Agencies’ cost, time, and effort associated with rare and little known 

species conservation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

 4. Restore the Agencies’ ability to achieve Northwest Forest Plan resource management goals and 

predicted timber outputs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Summary of the Reasons for the Decision. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Other Alternatives Considered in Detail and Reasons They Were Not Selected. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

 Alternative 1, No-Action with ASRs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

 Alternative 3, Modified Survey and Manage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

 Alternative 4, No-Action without ASRs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

4. Findings Required by Other Laws and Regulations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Endangered Species Act. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Federal Land Policy and Management Act. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Oregon and California Railroad and Coos Bay Wagon Road Grant Lands Act (O&C Act). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Protection of Tribal Treaty Rights and Trust Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Review by the Regional Interagency Executive Committee (RIEC). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Valid Existing Rights. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

5. Public Involvement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

 The 2004 FSEIS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

 The July 2006 Draft Supplement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

 The January 2007 Supplement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

 The 2007 Final Supplement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

6. Environmentally Preferable Alternative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

7. No Administrative Review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

8. Effective Date . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

9. Contact Person . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

10. Signature and Date. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

List of Tables

Table ROD-1. Summary of Environmental Consequences. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Bureau of Land Management Record of Decision to Remove the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

1. Introduction

Summary

With this Record of Decision, I am removing the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure 

Standards and Guidelines from the Resource Management Plans of the 9 Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) Districts and Field Offices in western Oregon, and northwestern 

California within the range of the northern spotted owl (the Northwest Forest Plan area). 

I am selecting Alternative 2 as described and analyzed in the 2007 Final Supplement to 

the 2004 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement To Remove or Modify the Survey 

and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines (Final Supplement). My Decision 

amends the Resource Management Plans by removing the species-specific Survey and 

Manage direction applicable for up to 337 rare and little-known species and 4 arthropod 

groups. This direction is a part of previous amendments to those Plans commonly 

referred to as the Northwest Forest Plan. My Decision relies on other provisions of 

the Northwest Forest Plan and the Agency’s Special Status Species Program (or other 

relevant policies) to continue to provide for the conservation of these species. The species 

affected by this Decision are fungi, bryophytes, lichens, mollusks, vascular plants, seven 

vertebrates, and four arthropod groups. 

The Forest Service was a co-lead agency for preparation of the Final Supplement, and 

the effects described in the Final Supplement and this Record of Decision assume a 

concurrent Decision by the Secretary of Agriculture. 

I am making this Decision because the Survey and Manage portion of the Northwest 

Forest Plan has unexpectedly limited the Agency’s ability to accomplish the goals and 

objectives of the Northwest Forest Plan. My Decision meets the Need and Purposes

identified in the Final Supplement by continuing to meet the habitat needs of latesuccessional forest associated species while making it possible for the BLM to provide:

- for ecosystem restoration and protection; 

- for timber harvest; and, 

- for the conduct of other management activities

to the degree that these have been frustrated by the Survey and Manage requirements. 

Compared to the No-Action Alternatives, the Final Supplement indicates this Decision 

(and the concurrent Decision by the Secretary of Agriculture) will better meet the Need

and Purposes by:

- reducing costs by $13 million annually;

- increasing fuels treatments by 5,000 acres annually and increasing the effectiveness 

of those treatments;

- increasing timber harvest by 70 million board feet annually; and, 

- adding 400 jobs.

Adverse effects to 53 species are identified in the Final Supplement as a result of the 

selected alternative, but I believe the overall increase in the risk of species extirpation is 

small due, in part, to the following factors: 

- 87 percent of the late-successional forest is in reserves;

- stated effects often cover only a portion of a species range;

- the Agency’s Special Status Species Program is available to help species truly at risk; 

and,

- the projected level of future habitat disturbance is small. 

This small increase in risk is reasonable, and acceptable under the statutes governing 

management of the BLM lands in the Northwest Forest Plan area (Final Supplement:26-

27). 
Bureau of Land Management Record of Decision to Remove the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Background

The Northwest Forest Plan

In 1994, the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior amended the planning documents 

of the 19 National Forests and 9 BLM units within the range of the northern spotted owl. 

Those amendments, commonly known (and referred to herein) as the Northwest Forest 

Plan, were intended to conserve late-successional forest related species and produce a 

sustainable level of timber harvest. The key elements of the Northwest Forest Plan are 

the land allocations and related standards and guidelines. The seven land use allocations 

are Congressionally Reserved Areas, Late-Successional Reserves, Adaptive Management 

Areas, Managed Late-Successional Areas, Administratively Withdrawn Areas, Riparian 

Reserves, and Matrix. Standards and guidelines describe how lands should be managed 

and specify conditions to be achieved or maintained; some apply to all lands while others 

apply to specific land allocations. 

Species experts assisting in the preparation of the Northwest Forest Plan predicted the 

Plan would provide adequate habitat for nearly 800 late-successional forest-associated 

species including those listed under the Endangered Species Act, but could not predict 

the Plan would adequately protect about 400 other late-successional forest related species 

that were apparently rare or about which little was known. In response to this concern, 

eight mitigation measures, including Survey and Manage, were added to the final Plan 

to provide additional benefits for these apparently rare species of fungi, bryophytes, 

lichens, mollusks, vascular plants, several vertebrates, and four arthropod groups. And 

since there was little information available about the abundance and distribution of 

these species, other than they were generally thought to be rare, Survey and Manage 

was projected to have a ‘relatively minor’ effect on the environmental, economic, and 

social consequences described in the 1994 Final SEIS (USDA, USDI 1994a:3&4-39; Final 

Supplement:101). 

Management of known species sites was required for activities beginning in 1995, and 

most other requirements were phased in by the late 1990s.

The 2000 Final SEIS

By November 1998, it was clear there were difficulties implementing the 1994 direction. 

Those difficulties included:

- Some species were more common than anticipated, resulting in more restrictions on 

timber harvest and other activities than needed to protect the species;

- Some species apparently needed more management than was prescribed;

- Some requirements created land allocations inconsistent with protections needed;

- Some requirements conflicted with each other;

- Some requirements were not practicable, incurring unreasonably high cost;

- Implementation dates were not specified, resulting in conflicting interpretations; 

and,

- No adaptive management process or criteria were specified to remove species no 

longer needing the additional protection, although such changes were specifically 

provided for in the Northwest Forest Plan (USDA, USDI 2000a:9-10).

However, because the Agencies had been implementing Survey and Manage only a 

short while and had little new information about habitat trends, species populations, 

or the actual benefits provided by Survey and Manage, the 2000 Final SEIS proposed 
Bureau of Land Management Record of Decision to Remove the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

only to restructure the Standards and Guidelines to make them more workable (Final 

Supplement:100).

Because the proposed action was simply to correct implementation difficulties, the 2000 

Final SEIS did not reexamine the need for Survey and Manage. However, the Final 

SEIS did display the costs and impacts of Survey and Manage to other programs more 

accurately than had been predicted in the Northwest Forest Plan Final SEIS. The 2000 

Final SEIS estimated the restructured Standards and Guidelines would reduce Northwest 

Forest Plan annual timber harvest by 51 million board feet, in addition to adversely 

affecting other potentially habitat-disturbing management activities (USDA, USDI 2000a:

xxxi). 

The proposed action in the 2000 Final SEIS was adopted in January 2001. That Decision 

removed about 70 species, and adopted new Survey and Manage Standards and 

Guidelines applying to the 337 remaining species that included:

- direction to manage known sites for nearly all species;

- a pre-disturbance survey requirement if characteristics of the species made locating 

them with such surveys practical; and,

- a new criteria-driven process for annually evaluating new information about species 

and determining whether this new information was basis for adding or removing 

species from Survey and Manage or changing assigned management categories (the 

Annual Species Review (ASR) process). 

Following the January 2001 Decision, the Agencies vigorously implemented all elements 

of the new Standards and Guidelines. The 2001, 2002, and 2003 ASR process changed the 

management category assignments for 32 species, removed 42 species from Survey and 

Manage in all of their range, and removed another 16 species in part of their range. By 

2004, there were 295 species on Survey and Manage. (These species and their post-ASR 

category assignments are displayed as No-Action Alternative 1 in the Final Supplement.)

The 2004 FSEIS 

Following the quantification of the adverse effects to timber harvest and other Survey 

and Manage effects in the 2000 Final SEIS, Douglas Timber Operators and others filed a 

lawsuit against the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior. The plaintiffs alleged that 

the Survey and Manage amendments effectively transferred more than 81,000 acres of 

timber-producing forest land into permanent reserves, resulting in a 7 percent reduction 

of the regional timber volume predicted from the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) area, 

or 51 million board feet annually, in perpetuity (Douglas Timber Operators, et al. v. 

Secretary of Agriculture, et al. Civil No. 01-6378-AA (D. Oregon, filing December 24, 

2001)). Thus, plaintiffs alleged, the Survey and Manage provisions were in violation of 

the substantive and procedural requirements of the Oregon and California Railroad and 

Coos Bay Wagon Road Grant Lands Act (O&C Act), 43 U.S.C. §1181a; the National Forest 

Management Act (NFMA), 16 U.S.C. §1600, et seq.; the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act 

of 1960, 16 U.S.C. §528-531; and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), 

43 U.S.C. §1701, et seq. (Final Supplement:5).

In settlement of the litigation, the Secretaries agreed to supplement the 2000 Final SEIS 

and to consider an alternative “that replaces the Survey and Manage mitigation requirements 

with existing Forest Service and BLM Special Status Species Programs to achieve the goals of the 

Northwest Forest Plan through a more streamlined process” (Final Supplement:5)

When work on this new supplement began in late 2002, the Agencies had gained 

more experience with implementation of the Survey and Manage provisions. They 

found that while the 2000 Final SEIS had improved upon the effects projections made 
Bureau of Land Management Record of Decision to Remove the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

in the 1994 Final SEIS, it nonetheless underestimated the impacts of Survey and 

Manage to timber harvest and fuels treatments. By this time, it was apparent that the 

provisions were significantly contributing to the Agencies’ inability to accomplish other 

Northwest Forest Plan goals, including those for ecosystem restoration and protection. 

Specifically, the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines 

were substantially reducing the level of timber harvest from that predicted for the 

Northwest Forest Plan area. They were also restricting the ability of the Agencies to 

conduct forest health treatments (i.e. fuels reduction and Late-Successional Reserve 

and riparian thinning) through exhaustive and time-consuming surveys and restrictive 

management prescriptions. Thus, the Need and Purposes identified for the 2004 FSEIS 

were substantially different from those identified for the 2000 Final SEIS. 

The Need

The underlying needs to which the 2004 FSEIS responded were healthy forest ecosystems 

and a sustainable supply of timber and other forest products, to the extent these were 

frustrated by the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines 

(Final Supplement:5). 

The Purposes

The Purposes of the 2004 FSEIS were:

- to meet the terms of the settlement agreement; 

- to conserve rare and little known species; 

- to reduce cost and effort; and, 

- healthy forests and timber outputs (Final Supplement:5-6).

The 2004 Record of Decision and Subsequent Special Status Species 

Program Assignments

On March 22, 2004, the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior issued a combined 

Record of Decision, removing Survey and Manage from the Land and Resource 

Management Plans in the Northwest Forest Plan area. By July 2004, 145 of the 295 

species included in the 2004 FSEIS had been assigned to one or more of the Agencies’ 

Special Status Species Programs. These nation-wide agency-specific programs are 

designed to provide additional species-specific management for rare species potentially 

negatively affected by management activities. 

2004 Record of Decision Set Aside by District Court 

In October 2004, a lawsuit by the Northwest Ecosystem Alliance and others alleged the 

2004 FSEIS contained numerous deficiencies in violation of the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA), the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), and the Federal Land 

Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) (Northwest Ecosystem Alliance v. Rey, 380 F. 

Supp. 2d 1175 (W.D. Wash. 2005), hereinafter NEA v. Rey). In October 2005, the Court 

found the 2004 FSEIS deficient under NEPA in three specific areas (see Response to Three 

Issues Identified by District Court later in this Section). In January 2006, the court set aside 

the 2004 Record of Decision and ordered the Agencies to apply the January 2001 Survey 

and Manage Standards and Guidelines, including any amendments or modifications 

(including the 2001, 2002, and 2003 Annual Species Review changes) that were in effect as 

of March 21, 2004. 



The Forest Service’s Sensitive Species Program and the BLM’s Special Status Species Program are collectively referred to as the Agencies’ Special 

Status Species Programs.
Bureau of Land Management Record of Decision to Remove the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

The Agencies published a Notice of Intent on December 12, 2005 to prepare a Supplement 

to the 2004 FSEIS to address these deficiencies. A Draft Supplement was issued for 90-

day public review beginning in July 2006. The Draft Supplement addressed the three 

deficiencies, updated the species effects discussions in response to new information, and 

added additional discussion of legal requirements, risk to species, and late-successional 

forest ecosystems.

On October 11, 2006, the District Court modified its January 2006 order, permitting the 

2004 Record of Decision removing Survey and Manage to apply to thinning in stands 

less than 80 years of age, and to apply to certain prescribed fire fuel treatments, culvert 

replacements and removals, and riparian and stream habitat improvement projects. 

Because this order is limited in scope and represents relatively minor changes from the 

alternatives presented, no change to No-Action Alternative 1 in the Supplement was 

made or assumed (Final Supplement Vol. 2:620). 

Ninth Circuit Court Decision Regarding Annual Species Reviews

On November 6, 2006, in a different court case, the United States Court of Appeals for 

the Ninth Circuit ruled the BLM violated the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 

(FLPMA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) when it authorized two 

timber sales that did not apply Survey and Manage provisions to a species removed from 

Survey and Manage by the Annual Species Review (ASR) process (Klamath Siskiyou 

Wildlands Center et al. v. Boody et al., 468 F.3d 549 (Ninth Circuit 2006) hereinafter 

KSWC v. Boody). The court found the ASR category change and subsequent removal 

of the red tree vole from the Mesic Biological Zone constituted a Resource Management 

Plan amendment, which should have had accompanying NEPA analysis. The Ninth 

Circuit decision re-established the red tree vole as a Survey and Manage species in the 

Mesic Biological Zone for the BLM, and had potential implications for both Agencies 

regarding the other category changes and species removals made by the 2001, 2002, and 

2003 Annual Species Reviews.

Although the Ninth Circuit’s KSWC v. Boody decision was specific to the red tree vole 

and the BLM, the Agencies chose to consider the potential implications of that decision 

on all species affected by the ASR process by adding another “No-Action” alternative 

(Alternative 4) to the Supplement. Alternative 4 includes all 337 species and categories 

(plus 4 arthropod functional groups) as they were on Survey and Manage upon issuance 

of the 2001 Record of Decision. It therefore includes (on Survey and Manage) 58 species 

previously removed from Survey and Manage in all or part of their range by the 2001, 

2002, and 2003 ASRs, and restores the 2001 category assignments for another 32 species 

(USDA, USDI 2001a:41-51).

Alternative 4, and analysis of the 58 additional species under all four of the alternatives, 

was included in a Supplement to the July 2006 Draft Supplement. The Supplement was 

circulated for 90-day public review beginning in January 2007.

The 2007 Final Supplement 

To correct the three deficiencies identified by the U.S. District Court in NEA v. Rey, 

and to reconsider the ASR changes in response to the potential implications of the 

Ninth Circuit Court decision in KSWC v. Boody, the Agencies prepared the 2007 Final 

Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure 

Standards and Guidelines (Final Supplement), the document upon which this Decision 

is based. The Need, Purposes, and proposed action remained the same as in the 2004 

FSEIS. However, the Final Supplement addresses the court decisions, as described later 

in this Section (Section 1) and contains all of the analysis in the 2004 FSEIS, the July 2006 

Draft Supplement, and the January 2007 Supplement to the July 2006 Draft Supplement, 

updated to respond to new information, inflation, and additional public review (see 
Bureau of Land Management Record of Decision to Remove the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Section 5 (Public Involvement) of this Record of Decision). The Final Supplement includes 

an additional alternative, No-Action Alternative 4, and contains additional background 

material about habitat, management activity levels, species outcomes, and previous 

analyses, when compared with the 2004 FSEIS (Final Supplement:xxv). Discussions 

in the individual species effects sections are sometimes abbreviated because species 

background information in the 2000 Final SEIS and Appendix J2 of the 1994 Northwest 

Forest Plan Final SEIS were not repeated (Final Supplement Vol. 2:210) 

The Proposed Action

The Proposed Action (Alternative 2 in the Final Supplement) is to remove the Survey 

and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines from the Land and Resource 

Management Plans in the Northwest Forest Plan area. Conservation of rare and little 

known species would rely on other elements of the Northwest Forest Plan and, if 

additional species-specific management is needed, the two Agencies’ Special Status 

Species Programs. Three alternatives to the proposed action were considered; See Other 

Alternatives Considered in Detail and Reasons They Were Not Selected in Section 3 (Reasons for 

this Decision) of this Record of Decision.

Special Status Species Programs

The objectives of the Agencies’ Special Status Species Programs include avoiding actions 

that may contribute to the need to list a species under the Endangered Species Act and, 

for the Forest Service, ensuring vertebrate species viability. Qualifying species are 

assigned to these programs by the Regional Foresters and State Directors in accordance 

with national and regional policies. Nearly half of the Survey and Manage species 

qualify for one or more of these programs and have been so assigned2. The Agencies 

have the authority to update, amend, modify, change, or eliminate their policies, and add 

or remove species for reasons stated in the policies. 

For species included in Special Status Species Programs, pre-project clearances are 

completed prior to habitat-disturbing activities to evaluate the presence or potential 

presence of a species or its habitat, and the potential for it to be affected by the proposed 

management actions. For non-fungi botanical species whose characteristics make 

locating them with field surveys practical, clearances will generally be done by field 

surveys, field clearances, field reconnaissance, inventories, and/or habitat examinations 

(Final Supplement:122). For wildlife species and species whose characteristics 

make them impractical to locate during field surveys, pre-project clearances may be 

accomplished by surveys; habitat examinations; habitat evaluation; evaluation of specieshabitat associations and presence of suitable or potential habitat; review of existing 

survey records, inventories, and spatial data; or utilization of professional research, 

literature, and other technology transfer sources. The potential for a management 

activity to affect the species or its habitat must be addressed in the project-specific NEPA 

analysis.

Under the Special Status Species Programs, the Agencies would manage (protect) known 

sites needed to meet Program objectives. The Final Supplement includes an analysis 

assumption for species currently in the “rare” Survey and Manage Categories A, B, and 

E, that most known sites would be managed to prevent a listing. For species currently in 

the “uncommon” Survey and Manage Categories C and D, it was assumed that the loss 

of some sites would not contribute to a need to list (Final Supplement:122). Authority to 

disturb Special Status Species Program sites or habitat lies with the agency official who is 

responsible for authorizing the proposed habitat-disturbing activity. 

2

With two Agencies (BLM and FS) and two regions (OR/WA and CA), there are four programs considered in the analysis. Of the 337 species 

included in the analysis, 157 are currently assigned to one or more of these programs (Final Supplement:127 and others).
Bureau of Land Management Record of Decision to Remove the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Under Special Status Species Programs, conservation assessments or conservation 

strategies may be used to help meet program objectives. General inventories may be 

conducted to learn more about a species distribution and status. The Agencies update 

their Special Status Species Program lists in response to new state Heritage program 

rankings or other information that indicates a need to update the lists.

Response to Three Issues Identified by District Court

In NEA v. Rey at 1197-1198, the District Court found the 2004 FSEIS deficient under 

NEPA in three areas. The Final Supplement addresses these deficiencies as described 

below. Results of that analysis are discussed in Section 3 (Reasons for the Decision) of this 

Record of Decision.

1. The 2004 FSEIS effects analysis included an assumption that if species were removed 

from Survey and Manage, those qualifying would be assigned to one or more of the 

Agencies’ Special Status Species Programs. Since those assignments are discretionary on 

the part of Agency managers, the Court pointed out, the 2004 FSEIS “...failed to analyze 

potential impacts to Survey and Manage species if they are not added to or are removed from the 

Forest Service’s and BLM’s respective programs for special status species.”

Effects (outcomes) for the 157 species assumed3 to be assigned to one or more of the 

Agencies’ Special Status Species Programs, in alternatives where they are off Survey and 

Manage, are displayed in the Final Supplement as if that assignment were not made or 

is undone. A summary of those outcomes and their acceptability to me is included in 

Section 3 (Reasons for the Decision) of this Record of Decision. 

2. In the calculation of fuels treatment needs, the 2004 FSEIS relied on the historic 

fire rates described in the 1994 Final SEIS. Because the analysis did not include new 

information that may have altered the Agencies’ understanding of historic fire rates, 

the Court found the 2004 FSEIS “...failed to disclose and analyze flaws in their methodology 

for calculating the acreage in need of hazardous fuel treatments. Part of the cost analysis was 

similarly flawed because it relied on the acreage in need of hazardous fuel treatments in calculating 

the cost of the Survey and Manage standard.”

The Wildland and Prescribed Fire section in the Final Supplement has been revised, 

with the estimate of fuels treatment needs based on more recent and widely used 

methodologies measuring degrees of departure from natural (historic) conditions. This 

analysis shares the conclusions of the National Fire Plan and elsewhere that fuels issues, 

particularly around rural communities, are growing and not likely to be controlled at 

present treatment rates. However, treatment rates are currently limited by funding. 

Therefore, effects to the program displayed in the Final Supplement are based on the 

current (last three years) 80,000 acre annual fuels treatment program, with a caveat 

that if additional funding were available, the program and corresponding effects of the 

alternatives would increase proportionately.

3. The Court pointed out the Agencies believed they needed Survey and Manage in 1994 

and again in 2001, and that in changing that position in 2004, they“...failed to provide a 

thorough analysis of their assumption that the late-successional reserves would adequately protect 

species that the Survey and Manage standard was introduced to protect, particularly in light of 

their previous positions in earlier environmental impact statements.” 

The Final Supplement explains the 2000 Final SEIS did not address the need for Survey 

and Manage at all, but limited its analysis to solving implementation difficulties. In view 

3

Although Special Status Species Program assignments for all 157 species have been made, the Final Supplement continued to use the term “assumed” from the 2004 FSEIS because Agency managers could remove any or all of these species at any time if they no longer meet policy criteria 

for inclusion.
10

Bureau of Land Management Record of Decision to Remove the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

of new information about the constraints Survey and Manage places on the execution 

of other elements of the Northwest Forest Plan (and to apply this new information to 

the deference given to timber harvest on O&C lands by the FLPMA and to multiple 

use provided in the Forest Service diversity regulation), this Mitigation Measure 

is being reconsidered (Final Supplement:99-102). However, the Final Supplement 

also shows there is now as much or more late-successional forest in reserves as there 

was in the entire Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) area when the Plan was adopted 

(Final Supplement:107, 136). Further, there is new information presented in the Final 

Supplement about species, including the results of the Random Multi-Species (RMS) 

Surveys, and additional information about the risk to ecosystems and the risk to 

individual rare species, that indicates the effects of the selected alternative are acceptable. 

Response to Ninth Circuit Court Decision Regarding Annual 

Species Reviews

The individual effects discussions for each species include outcomes for both its pre 

and post-Annual Species Review (ASR) assignments. Species outcomes are displayed 

in the Final Supplement on Table 2-12, and the pre and post-ASR effects (No-Action 

Alternatives 4 and 1 respectively) are summarized and contrasted in the Final 

Supplement pp. 70-77.

Results of the 2007 Final Supplement Analysis

A tabular summary of the effects from the Final Supplement Summary (p. xix) is 

displayed in Table ROD-1, Summary of Environmental Consequences. The table is for 

reference; additional information about the data presented is in the Final Supplement 

and is discussed in Section 3 (Reasons for the Decision) of this Record of Decision. Effects 

displayed in the Final Supplement and this Record of Decision reflects the combined 

Agencies’ effects and assumes a concurrent Decision by the Secretary of Agriculture.

New information including increases in known site numbers, species research, and 

habitat increases has led to changed species outcomes for over 25 species when compared 

to the 2004 FSEIS. In most cases, outcomes have improved and now conclude that there 

will be sufficient habitat across all alternatives. 

The Final Supplement presents information about habitat increases that has recently 

become available in ten-year Northwest Forest Plan monitoring reports prepared by 

the Agencies. It also includes an expanded discussion of potential effects to forest 

ecosystems and presents additional information about the 53 species determined to 

have an outcome of insufficient habitat in all or part of their NWFP area range because of 

Alternative 2 (see additional discussion in the Section 3 (Reasons for the Decision) of this 

Record of Decision).
11

Bureau of Land Management Record of Decision to Remove the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Alternative 1

No-Action 

with ASRs, 

295 species 

on Survey and 

Manage

Alternative 2

Northwest Forest 

Plan without 

Survey and Manage

Alternative 3

Northwest Forest 

Plan with modified 

Survey and 

Manage

Alternative 4 

No-Action without 

ASRs, 337 species 

on Survey and 

Manage

Number of 

Species or Groups4

Insufficient Habitat not due to 

Federal Actions1 132 132 132 132

Insufficient Habitat due to 

Actions under the Alternatives 0 38 4 0

Sufficient Habitat range-wide in 

the NWFP Area but Insufficient 

Habitat in a Portion of their 

NWFP Area Range

37 158 78 17

Sufficient Habitat 182 132 174 184

Insufficient Information to 

Determine Outcome 24 24 24 24

Effect on Annual Timber Harvest5 

(million board feet) -105 -35 -45 -1052

Short-term Annual Cost (millions) $21.0 $7.9 $10.7 $21.03

Long-term (5-10 years) Annual Cost 

(millions) $14.4 $7.4 $9.0 $14.4

Employment Decrease From Full 

Harvest Level (per Northwest Forest 

Plan) (number of jobs)6

-953 -318 -409 -953

Survey Related Employment (number 

of jobs) +360 +142 +172 +360

Net Loss in Annual Personal Earnings 

(millions) -$23.8 -$7.4 -$9.8 -$23.8

Hazardous Fuel Treatment (Annual 

Acres) 73,040 78,400 77,440 73,0402

Hazardous Fuel Treatment (Cost to 

Protect Species/Acre) $98.95 $39.30 $29.95 $98.95

1

 Factors resulting in insufficient habitat are things such as limited potential habitat and few populations on federal lands, potential for stochastic 

events, low number of individuals, limited distribution, or narrow ecological amplitude.

2

 Additional 80 to 100 million board feet per year harvest reduction and 8 to 15 percent fuels treatment reduction for first two years for Alternative 4.

3

 Plus $0.5 million for ASR NEPA in the first 2 years.

4 The total in each column is 341, which includes 337 species and 4 arthropod groups.

5

 From 805 million board feet projected for the NWFP area for both Agencies.

6

 From 7,309 jobs at full 805 million board feet timber harvest.

7

 Includes the red tree vole in the North Coast range of the Northern Mesic Biological Zone, where the insufficient habitat is not due to federal 

action.

8

 Includes the a) red tree vole in the Xeric and North Cascades range of the Northern Mesic Biological Zones, where the portion of the range with 

insufficient habitat is due to federal action, and; b) the North Coast range of the Northern Mesic Biological Zone, where the insufficient habitat is 

not due to federal action.

There are no significant differences in environmental consequences between alternatives for any of the following 

environmental components: Aquatic Ecosystems, Late-Successional Forest Ecosystems, Air Quality, Water Quality, 

Soil Productivity, Threatened and Endangered Species, and Species Associated with Early-Successional Forest (Final 

Supplement:69). Increasing Northwest Forest Plan timber harvest to meet demand could help reduce global climate 

change (by an unknown amount) when compared to meeting wood demand by harvesting in other countries (Final 

Supplement:145).

Table ROD-1. Summary of Environmental Consequences
12

Bureau of Land Management Record of Decision to Remove the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

2. The Decision

Introduction – the Northwest Forest Plan 

Although this Decision continues to use the popular and inclusive title of “Northwest 

Forest Plan” to denote what is being amended, there is no one such “Plan.” The phrase 

denotes the April 13, 1994 Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management 

Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl, relating to management 

of habitat for late-successional and old-growth forest related species. The Northwest 

Forest Plan Decision amended, or was subsequently incorporated into, the Land and 

Resource Management Plans for the 28 Forest Service and BLM administrative units 

within the range of the northern spotted owl. That direction was subsequently amended 

by the January 2001 Record of Decision for Survey and Manage. 

Details of the Decision

Standards and Guidelines Removed 

My Decision selects Alternative 2 as described and analyzed in the 2007 Final Supplement 

to the 2004 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement To Remove or Modify the 

Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines (Final Supplement). This 

Decision removes the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines 

portion of the Northwest Forest Plan. Specifically my Decision removes the Standards 

and Guidelines included in Attachment 1 to the January 2001 Record of Decision for 

Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation 

Measures Standards and Guidelines, Sections I through VIII, and XII4. However, the 

requirements for Management Recommendations, including how they are revised, (in 

Section V) would continue to apply to certain cavity nesting birds and some bat roosts as 

referenced in (retained) Sections IX and XI, respectively. 

 

Plans Amended

The administrative units whose Resource Management Plans are amended by this 

Decision are located in western Oregon and northwestern California (including some 

areas east of the Cascades). This Decision amends the BLM Resource Management 

Plans for the Salem, Eugene, Roseburg, Medford, and Coos Bay Districts in Oregon; 

the Klamath Falls Resource Area of the Lakeview District, also in Oregon; the 

Arcata, Redding, and Ukiah Field Offices in California, and the King Range National 

Conservation Area Management Plan in the Arcata Field Office in California

Concurrent Decision by the Secretary of Agriculture Not 

Required 

I am making this Decision today with the assumption the Secretary of Agriculture will 

also be selecting Alternative 2, as described in the Final Supplement, potentially without 

mitigation, and knowing the Forest Service may choose not to assign species to its 

Sensitive Species Program or even retain the program in its present form (see Section 

3, Reasons for this Decision). While the Courts have pointed out the risks of a Record of 

Decision including assumptions about the actions of others, including actions of other 

Agencies, such risk is attributable to an assumption that other’s actions will reduce 

4

Except that portion of Section I removing the 1994 Survey and Manage provisions.
13

Bureau of Land Management Record of Decision to Remove the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

adverse effects. Here, my assumption is that a Secretary of Agriculture Decision will 

reduce species protection. The selection of any of the other Final Supplement alternatives 

by the Secretary of Agriculture, including either of the no-action alternatives, or the 

application of any mitigation, would decrease the potential for the adverse species effects 

I am assuming with this Decision. Therefore, although I expect a corresponding, similar, 

and nearly simultaneous Decision from the Secretary of Agriculture, my Decision is not 

contingent upon it. The portion of the effects identified in the Final Supplement that will 

accrue to the BLM will be essentially the same either way. 

Mitigation 

I am not adopting mitigation because it is not needed for the reasons described under 

Reasons for Not Adopting Mitigation in Section 3 (Reasons for the Decision) of this Record 

of Decision, and because it would unnecessarily hamper achievement of the Purposes of 

the proposed action. For these reasons, I find there are no available practicable means to 

avoid or minimize negative effects of the selected alternative.

Monitoring 

This Decision does not require formal reviews or reports regarding Special Status 

Species nor does it change the existing monitoring requirements applicable to remaining 

elements of the Resource Management Plans for each of the BLM administrative units 

within the NWFP area. Monitoring will continue in accordance with existing monitoring 

requirements. No new monitoring requirements are proposed under any of the 

alternatives (Final Supplement:xx, 38, and others).

Scope 

This Decision provides plan level direction only, and does not authorize timber sales or 

any other specific activity on federally managed lands. Project-level compliance with 

NEPA, the Endangered Species Act, and other environmental laws is required before 

decisions are made to offer timber sales or conduct other land management activities. 

This Record of Decision complies with 40 CFR 1505.2.

3. Reasons for the Decision

Meeting the Purposes Identified in the Final 

Supplement

1. Comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement by 

considering, in detail, an alternative that removes the Survey 

and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines. 

The Douglas Timber Operators et al. v. Secretary of Agriculture et al. settlement 

agreement requires the Agencies to examine, in a SEIS, an alternative that replaces 

the Survey and Manage mitigation requirements with the existing Forest Service and 

BLM Special Status Species Programs to achieve the goals of the Northwest Forest Plan 

through a more streamlined process. The agreement does not stipulate the alternative to 

be selected, so this purpose is not a factor in my Decision (Final Supplement:5).
14

Bureau of Land Management Record of Decision to Remove the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

2. Continue to provide for diversity of plant and animal 

communities in accordance with the National Forest 

Management Act and conserve rare and little known species that 

may be at risk of becoming listed under the Endangered Species 

Act. 

It is policy in both the Forest Service and BLM to avoid taking actions that would lead to 

the listing of species under the Endangered Species Act. In addition, the Forest Service is 

required by the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) to “provide for diversity of plant 

and animal communities based on the suitability and capability of the specific land area in order to 

meet overall multiple-use objectives...”(16 U.S.C. 1604(g)(B))(Final Supplement:5-6). (In the 

Northwest Forest Plan, the BLM exercised the flexibility in the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and chose to adopt provisions of the Northwest 

Forest Plan intended for compliance with the Forest Service NFMA requirements. That 

choice was not required by any law, and is not assumed to continue under this Decision.)

Background – Species Effects

The Final Supplement analyzed the effects of the alternatives on the 337 species and 4 

arthropod functional groups that were in Survey and Manage in 2001, including the 

295 species (and 4 arthropod groups) included in No-Action Alternative 1, Survey and 

Manage as it was being applied by the Agencies on March 21, 2004, before the 2004 

Record of Decision (Table ROD-1). The following discussion of effects includes all 337 

species. 

Insufficient Habitat Not Due to Federal Actions - Due to factors such as limited potential 

habitat, few populations on federally managed lands, potential for stochastic events, low 

number of individuals, limited distribution, and narrow ecological amplitude, the Final 

Supplement predicted that no alternative could provide sufficient habitat to support stable 

populations for 132 of these species (115 fungi, 17 lichens). This outcome is not due to 

federal actions. The 1994 Northwest Forest Plan Final SEIS and the 2000 Survey and 

Manage Final SEIS made similar predictions for these species. Since the insufficiency of 

the habitat and uncertainty of population status does not result from differences among 

the alternatives, no alternative or mitigation could be proposed that would change this 

outcome (USDA, USDI 1994a; USDA, USDI 2000a; Final Supplement:79 and 102-104). 

Therefore, these effects provide little reason to choose any alternative over another.

Insufficient Information to Determine an Outcome - For 20 species and the 4 arthropod 

functional groups, there is insufficient information to determine an outcome under any 

alternative. There is so little information available about the abundance, distribution, 

and ecology of these species, or so little information about the effects of management 

practices and environmental conditions (including global climate change) for some 

of these species, that ascribing effects of the alternatives on these species would be 

speculative. Therefore, with respect to these species, there is little reason to choose any 

alternative over another.

Sufficient Habitat - For 132 species in all of their range, all of the alternatives would 

provide sufficient habitat to support stable populations in the NWFP area (Final 

Supplement:Table 3&4-9). These effects provide little reason to choose any alternative 

over another. Some of these outcomes are based on the species assumed assignment to 

one or more of the Agencies’ Special Status Species Programs, which I discuss later in this 

Section (Section 3) under Effects to Species if They Are Not Assigned to Special Status Species 

Programs.

Thus, the predicted effects for 284 of the 337 species (and the 4 arthropod groups) are 

the same across all alternatives and thus are not germane to the Decision to choose from 
15

Bureau of Land Management Record of Decision to Remove the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

among the alternatives. The alternatives under consideration here make a difference in 

predicted outcomes for 53 species, 38 species in all of their NWFP area range (25 fungi, 

2 lichens, 1 bryophyte, and 10 mollusks) and 15 species in a portion of their NWFP area 

range (3 fungi, 3 lichens, 6 vertebrates, 2 mollusks, and 1 vascular plant). For these, the 

sufficiency of habitat to support stable populations in the NWFP area is predicted to be 

affected differently by management under each alternative. 

Under Alternative 2, the selected alternative, it is projected that there would be insufficient 

habitat to support stable populations of these 53 species in all or part of their NWFP area 

range, caused by action under the alternative. Under Alternative 3, it is projected that 11

species would have insufficient habitat in all or a part of their NWFP area range, and under 

No-Action Alternative 1 it is projected that 3 species would have sufficient habitat rangewide in the NWFP area but insufficient habitat in a portion of their NWFP area range, caused by 

actions under the alternatives.

Adverse Outcomes Defined

The above outcomes are the best estimates of the taxa specialists who contributed to the 

2004 FSEIS and the (2007) Final Supplement. As with the 2000 Final SEIS, “the Agencies’ 

taxa specialists that contributed to this SEIS are highly qualified, experienced personnel who 

have drawn from all currently available information about these species. The fact that the 

public comment period resulted in very little new information about species is testament to 

the thoroughness of the taxa specialists in gathering and incorporating relevant information” 

(USDA, USDI 2000a:II-214). These specialists “were asked to evaluate known information and 

determine an outcome that was reasonably certain based on their professional interpretation and 

evaluation” (Final Supplement:119). And, as stated in the Secretaries’ Record of Decision 

in 2001, I am today “choosing, as with other species effects discussed in the Final SEIS, to place 

a high level of confidence on the conclusions of the agency experts on the SEIS Team and take the 

Final SEIS findings at face value” (USDA, USDI 2001a:14). Thus, I take these 53 adverse 

outcomes seriously, and I am specifically addressing them as follows.

For reasons described in the Final Supplement and briefly summarized below, the 

insufficient habitat outcomes for most species serve more as indicators of possible risk in 

general, or in a specific geographic area, rather than as predictions of the imminent loss 

of species. The Final Supplement points out, for example:

“The [species effects] determinations are based on information sufficient to support 

predictions of reasonably foreseeable outcomes in order to provide the Responsible Officials with 

an indication of the risk to species across the alternatives” (Final Supplement:119); and,

“Where the outcome definitions appear to exceed [minimum] legal requirements, (for 

example, for bryophytes on O&C lands), the outcomes will serve more as risk indicators to 

be weighed with other factors in determining how to best meet the purpose and need” (Final 

Supplement:121).

The Final Supplement at pp. 119-121 (Relationship of Outcome Determinations to ASR 

Species Removal Criteria and Legal Requirements) describes why and how the sufficient 

habitat outcome definition exceeds legal requirements. The Final Supplement at pp. 

164-165 describes, in part, that outcome-defining factors valuable to assessing differences 

in the effects of actions within Survey and Manage (e.g. the differences between Survey 

and Manage alternatives in the 2000 Final SEIS), or used for making changes during the 

Annual Species Reviews, are overly constraining in terms of making decisions about 

legal compliance. The outcome definitions (and Annual Species Review criteria) have 

their origins in the FEMAT species panel rating definitions and in the screens used by 

the 1994 Additional Species Analysis Team as documented in the Northwest Forest Plan 

Final SEIS in Appendix J2. Appendix J2 acknowledged, for example, that the criteria 

used for identifying species to be included in the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure 

did “not represent a judgment about what is required by the National Forest Management Act or 
16

Bureau of Land Management Record of Decision to Remove the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

the Endangered Species Act” (USDA, USDI 1994a:J2-2; Final Supplement:8). Examination 

of the outcome definitions used in the Final Supplement, and generally encompassing 

the Three Basic Criteria for Survey and Manage (Final Supplement:33), indicate the 

sufficient habitat outcome is a high standard affected by often unknown and assumed 

reference distributions, connectivity needs and sensitivity to disturbance, assumptions 

that all Matrix habitat will be removed, and a simple lack of information. Further, the 

Annual Species Review criteria (sharing components of the outcome definitions) were 

designed to provide the level of protection provided by the 1994 Decision, which itself 

exceeded legal requirements by providing a level of protection for mollusks, bryophytes, 

fungi, vascular plants and lichens (non-vertebrates) similar to that required under the 

1982 Forest Service Planning Regulations for vertebrates, to the extent practicable (Final 

Supplement:119). The Forest Service regulation requirements, even for vertebrates, 

exceed the legal requirements for the BLM, particularly with respect to the O&C lands.

Although it might have been less confusing if the outcomes used in the Final Supplement 

had been redefined to coincide with legal requirements, such redefinition was not done 

because: 

a) Outcomes would have departed from those used in the 1994 and 2000 Final SEISs, thus 

making use of those previous ratings difficult at best; 

b) The legal requirements of the two Agencies differ; and, 

c) That would have added non-biological considerations, normally reserved for the 

Decision-maker, to the outcome definitions being applied by biologists. 

The species outcomes presented in the Final Supplement provide the specialist’s best 

professional determinations based on the outcome definitions given to them, and the 

existing knowledge (including the latest research) about each species and its habitat 

needs. The combination of these outcomes, previous analyses, the additional analysis 

of species and risk presented in the Survey and Manage Species section, the additional 

analysis of habitat provided in the Late-Successional Forest Ecosystem section, and other 

information included in the Final Supplement as summarized and referenced below, 

together provide the expert opinion, data, and analysis needed for me to choose from 

among the alternatives. 

The 53 Species with Adverse Outcomes

For the 38 species predicted to have insufficient habitat in all of their NWFP area range and 

15 species with sufficient habitat range-wide in the NWFP area but insufficient habitat in a 

portion of their NWFP area range, the risk to the species is elucidated in the individual 

species effects discussions in Chapter 3&4 of the Final Supplement and in the Survey 

and Manage Species section of the Final Supplement at pp. 165-176. In this latter section, 

and applicable to the BLM, I concur with the section’s conclusion that “the risk to most if 

not all of these species appears limited to the potential to remove the species from some portion 

of its historic range, to remove individual populations, or to inhibit gene flow.” That section 

notes “With 87 percent of the late-successional forest and the entire aquatic habitat in reserves, 

and with the level of management activity predicted [under Alternative 2], there should be 

little risk of extirpating one of these species over much of its range, particularly considering that 

the entire range for many of these species goes well beyond the NWFP area boundary” (Final 

Supplement:176). That conclusion is supported by the following relevant points made in 

the Final Supplement (or the EISs it supplements):

	 •	 For the 28 fungi with insufficient habitat under Alternative 2 in all or part of their 

NWFP area range, only 3 have fewer than 20 known sites (17, 19, and 19). Five of 

these fungi have 100 or more known sites within the NWFP area. These numbers 

are significant because they all are Category B or D species for which predisturbance surveys have not been conducted, and most are underground and do 

not visibly fruit annually or predictably. Sixteen of the 28 species were detected 
17

Bureau of Land Management Record of Decision to Remove the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

on Random Multi-Species (RMS) Survey plots, with 9 of these having 3 detections 

or more and 2 having 10 detections or more (indicating hundreds of thousands of 

sites). All 28 are on one or more of the Agencies’ Special Status Species Programs, 

where they all are predicted to have sufficient habitat in that portion of their range 

(Final Supplement:167).

	 •	 For the five lichens with insufficient habitat in all or part of their NWFP area range, each 

have over 200 known sites, have 2 or more RMS Survey detections (estimating, on 

average, tens of thousands of sites), and each is on one or more of the Agencies’ 

Special Status Species Programs (Final Supplement:172-173).

	 •	 The one bryophyte with insufficient habitat in all of its NWFP area range, Marsupella 

emarginata var. aquatica, is known from only two NWFP area sites, and although it is 

aquatic, the concern is that management within the Riparian Reserve and activities 

in Waldo Lake, a reservoir upstream from one of the known sites, might place it at 

risk. It is a Category B species under Survey and Manage, meaning pre-disturbance 

surveys prior to management activities are not practical. Its global distribution 

includes Europe, northeastern United States, and it has been reported from British 

Columbia and Alaska (Final Supplement:173).

	 •	 For the twelve mollusks with insufficient habitat in all or part of their NWFP area range, 

only three (current records) or four (FEMAT records) have known sites on federal 

lands in the NWFP area, either on the Shasta National Forest and/or Redding BLM 

Field Office. Eleven are aquatic snails associated with cold springs and upper 

reaches of the Sacramento and/or Pitt River drainages in north-central California, 

and thus I expect them to be provided significant protection by the Aquatic 

Conservation Strategy if they occur within the NWFP area. Only three of these have 

more than four known sites, and only two (Fluminicola potemicus and Fluminicola 

seminalis) have new sites since 1994, in spite of all being Category A, pre-disturbance 

surveys required. Historical distribution is unknown. The remaining mollusk is 

terrestrial, with over 200 known federal sites in spite of pre-disturbance surveys not 

being practical (Final Supplement:174-175).

	 •	 For the one vascular plant, Cypripedium montanum, with sufficient habitat range-wide 

in the NWFP area but insufficient habitat in a portion of its NWFP area range, there are 

over a thousand known sites in the NWFP area. It is described in NatureServe as 

“Occasional in western North America, with thousands of occurrences, but many of those 

with few plants. Occurs in a wide variety of habitats, from full sun on eastern mountain 

slopes to full shade in moist wooded valleys (Luer 1975). Threatened by habitat loss or 

alteration. The main concern for this species is that present-day botanists are observing 

and hearing anecdotal accounts of population loss. Although populations are known to be 

declining significantly, there are still abundant enough numbers of plants and populations.” 

It occurs in western North America from Alaska to California and as far east as 

Wyoming, Montana, and Saskatchewan, and was determined by the 2001 Annual 

Species Review process to not be closely associated with late-successional forest 

in the Washington Eastern Cascades (see The 2001, 2002, and 2003 Annual Species 

Reviews later in this Section) (Final Supplement:175-176). 

	 •	 The 53 species include 6 vertebrates projected to have sufficient habitat range-wide in 

the NWFP area but insufficient habitat in a portion of their NWFP area range. My reasons 

for finding these 6 species adequately protected include those discussed under 

Reasons for Not Adopting Mitigation later in this Section (Section 3). 

	 •	 For the 53 species, an estimate of risk was calculated for having 20 percent of any 

species population intersected by management activities in a decade, using the 
18

Bureau of Land Management Record of Decision to Remove the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

detection estimates for those detected on the Random Multi-Species (RMS) Survey 

plots and 1/100th of a detection for all others5. The odds are less than 5 percent 

that 20 percent of the population of any one of the 53 would be intersected by 

harvest activities if none of the sites received protection under any program (Final 

Supplement:179). While “intersected” does not necessarily encompass all of the 

adverse effects management activities can have on species, it also does not mean a 

species so intersected is necessarily extirpated (Final Supplement:178).

	 •	 Twenty-nine of these species (of the 53) are in Survey and Manage Category B or 

E, which indicates that they are rare and pre-disturbance surveys are not practical 

or not required. Special Status Species Program assignment, with its requirement 

for pre-project clearances coupled with the likelihood that most known sites would 

continue to be managed, arguably provides for more analysis that could lead to 

more protection than Survey and Manage, in the area for which the Special Status 

Species Program assignment applies.

	 •	 The 53 species with insufficient habitat in all or part of their NWFP area range were 

analyzed for inclusion in the Agencies’ Special Status Species Programs and 

were either assigned to them or determined not to meet the criteria for inclusion, 

primarily because the independent rankings of the state Heritage programs do not 

rate them as imperiled (Final Supplement:166-171). The list of species included in 

the Agencies’ Special Status Species Programs is not static. 

	 •	 All project-level activities remain subject to compliance with Federal environmental 

laws such as the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, 

and the Clean Water Act.

	 •	 This Decision assumes that other elements of the Northwest Forest Plan remain in 

place, reducing the risks to these species and contributing to their conservation. 

These elements include:

	 o	Conservation principles of maintaining: (1) connectivity across the landscape; (2) 

landscape heterogeneity; (3) structural complexity; and, (4) the integrity of aquatic 

systems.

	 o	Less than 5 percent of late-successional forest in the NWFP area is projected to be 

disturbed by management in the next 10 years, including fuels treatments that do 

not remove the stand (Final Supplement:106).

	 o	Matrix Standards and Guidelines provide for retention of legacy elements of 

late-successional forest, such as snags, large green trees, and down logs. For most 

BLM lands, for example, a requirement to maintain a network of connectivity/

diversity blocks applies. There are also provisions for retaining old-growth 

fragments in watersheds where little remains (USDA, USDI 1994b:C-41 and 44). 

The 1994 Northwest Forest Plan Final SEIS identified these retention requirements 

as beneficial for many of the same late-successional and old-growth forest related 

species as included in Survey and Manage (USDA, USDI 1994a:J2-58 through 79 

and others). 

	 o	At 50 years (2044), late-successional forests are projected to have increased from 

8 million acres to 10.7 million acres on federally managed lands in the NWFP 

area. Development of late-successional forest is 2.5 times the rate of loss (Final 

Supplement:107).

	 o	81 percent of all federally managed lands and 87 percent of late-successional 

forest in the NWFP area are in reserves. Reserves remain the primary 

conservation element of the Northwest Forest Plan (Final Supplement:104).

5

This assumes the remaining undetected species (about half of the 53) have populations large enough that repeating the RMS Survey 100 times, or 

75,000 random plots, would result in a single detection.
19

Bureau of Land Management Record of Decision to Remove the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

	 o	On average, about 50 percent of the federally managed area is in Riparian 

Reserves6 (Final Supplement:136).

	 •	 Although it is possible to reduce risk to species, risk remains an inherent factor of 

resource management. 

	 o	There is no way to avoid all risk to the continued persistence of species.

	 o	The continued persistence of local rare endemic species, whose range is very 

limited, is intrinsically insecure. Many species have disjunct populations clearly 

dating to the last ice age or before, and no alternative would improve connectivity 

within the foreseeable future.

	 o	Even in the absence of any human-induced effects, the likelihood that habitat will 

continue to support species persistence can and does vary among species (Final 

Supplement:176-180).

	 •	 Since most of the Survey and Manage species known site information has come 

from required pre-disturbance surveys, any discussion of risk based on rarity and 

likelihood of disturbance for these 53 species must recognize that, for many species, 

only a small and biased percentage of potential habitat has been surveyed. Most 

surveys have been conducted in the Matrix and Adaptive Management Area land 

allocations, because most management activities are proposed there. Even though 

reserves have not been as intensively surveyed, it is reasonable to expect that the 

87 percent of late-successional forest in reserves would provide its proportionate 

share of the habitat needed to support populations of most of these species (Final 

Supplement:176). The Northwest Forest Plan tended to include the best quality, 

most contiguous late-successional forest in reserves. Thus, acre for acre, reserves 

are likely to be more effective than the Matrix and Adaptive Management Areas at 

providing habitat for Survey and Manage species (USDA, USDI 1994a:3&4-41).

	 •	 Within the late-successional forest ecosystems in the NWFP area, in order for 

species to persist, they would likely have some tolerance for disturbance, at least 

at the population level. Tolerance for disturbance by species at the population 

level is likely, because forest ecosystems are dynamic and have historically 

experienced significant levels of disturbance. In addition, the Northwest Forest 

Plan provides the most reserves in those physiographic provinces that had the 

least natural disturbance, providing additional assurance that late-successional and 

old-growth forest related species not adapted to disturbance, are protected (Final 

Supplement:140-141). 

	 •	 Forty-two of the 53 species are assigned to one or more of the Agencies’ Special 

Status Species Programs. The two Agencies’ Special Status Species Programs are 

the current fine-scale species-specific policies in use nation-wide for helping avoid 

management that would lead to a need to list species under the Endangered Species 

Act and, for the Forest Service, help meet the viability regulation. There is no reason 

to believe those policies would not adequately accomplish those objectives in the 

Pacific Northwest, where an unprecedented portion of the late-successional forest 

habitat is in reserves.

	 •	 The fact that forestlands within the Matrix are available for regularly scheduled 

timber harvest does not mean all habitat in the Matrix will be eliminated at any 

particular time and/or that the Matrix will serve as a barrier for dispersal. The 

planned “conversion” period lasts a half century or longer, standard and guidelines 

require retention of late-successional forest habitat components, and many stands in 

the Matrix are non-commercial or inoperable. Biomass in the Matrix continues 

6

Riparian Reserve acres displayed in the Final Supplement (pp. 29, 108) do not add up to 50 percent of land allocations overall because Riparian 

Reserves in land allocations other than Matrix are included in the acreages assigned to those higher order acreages.
20

Bureau of Land Management Record of Decision to Remove the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

 to increase (as evidenced by the Fire Regime Condition Class III, late-successional 

forest increases, and others) and the Riparian Reserves network contributes 

interconnection of habitat throughout the Matrix. The Matrix and interspersed 

Riparian Reserves will continue to provide substantial habitat and connectivity 

benefits for many, if not most, of these species. 

	 •	 The amount of late-successional forest in the NWFP area has increased significantly 

in the 14 years since the FEMAT analysis. The combination of larger reserves (since 

the 1993 FEMAT analysis) and in-growth (and corresponding aging of all current 

late-successional forests) has increased the amount of late-successional forest in 

reserves by 19 - 26 percent, to now total over 8 million acres. There are more latesuccessional forest acres now in reserves than were in the entire NWFP area when 

the Plan was adopted in 1994 (Final Supplement:135-139). Total late-successional 

forest continues to increase.

The 2001, 2002, and 2003 Annual Species Reviews

Because my Decision also removes Survey and Manage requirements for 58 species 

(including the red tree vole in the Mesic Biological Zone) formerly removed from Survey 

and Manage by the Annual Species Reviews (ASRs), to the extent the November 2006 

KSWC v. Boody Ninth Circuit decision would result in retaining any of these species on 

Survey and Manage, a brief discussion of the species effects related to the ASR changes 

is in order here. Specifically, the Ninth Circuit found the ASR category change and 

subsequent removal of the red tree vole from Survey and Manage in the Mesic Biological 

Zone constituted a BLM plan amendment that should have followed appropriate NEPA 

and planning processes. As a result, the Agencies decided to reconsider all 58 species 

removals and 32 category changes by addressing these species in the Final Supplement.

For the 43 species removed from Survey and Manage by the ASRs because other 

elements of the Northwest Forest Plan were determined to provide adequate protection, 

the predicted outcomes were sufficient habitat to provide stable populations under all 

alternatives. For the 15 species removed from Survey and Manage only because they 

were determined not to be associated with late-successional forests, two (one vascular 

plant and one lichen) are predicted to have insufficient habitat because of that removal (as 

under Alternative 2), and both of these adverse effects apply only to a part of the species 

range. Neither was assigned to the Agencies’ Special Status Species Programs because 

they were deemed secure in other portions of their range. Both are included in the 53 

species with adverse outcomes discussed earlier in this Section (Section 3).

The vascular plant, Cypripedium montanum is specifically discussed earlier in this Section 

(Section 3). For the lichen, Bryoria tortuosa, there are over 700 known sites spread from 

the Olympic Peninsula to the California Coast Range, but it is rare in the dryer portions 

of the NWFP area (from the Washington Eastern Cascades to the California Cascades) 

where it is not associated with late-successional forests (Final Supplement:173). 

The adverse effects to these two non late-successional forest associated species are limited 

in geographic scope, and no different than if they had been correctly excluded from the 

Northwest Forest Plan to begin with7. They are not at risk over a significant portion of 

their range, and certainly not threatened with extinction. Both are globally and even 

regionally secure. They may not be at significant risk within the indicated portions of 

their range either, but they did not meet the Final Supplement’s outcome definition for 

sufficient habitat in these areas.

7

Species not related to late-successional forests were never intended to be included in the Northwest Forest Plan because early and midsuccessional forest habitats are above historic levels.
21

Bureau of Land Management Record of Decision to Remove the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Reasons for Not Adopting Mitigation

Potential mitigation for adverse effects resulting from the selection of any of the 

alternatives are described in the Final Supplement as required by Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (Final Supplement:73-80). Mitigation 

so identified is separate from, and not a part of, the alternatives. Pertinent to my 

consideration of mitigation is that the Survey and Manage provision itself was a 

mitigation measure, one of eight adopted under the Northwest Forest Plan to mitigate 

adverse effects on late-successional species from that action. Therefore my Decision 

today is actually whether to eliminate or change a previously adopted measure for 

mitigating adverse effects from the Northwest Forest Plan, and it must be considered 

in that context. Survey and Manage is not a program independent of, or separate from, 

the Northwest Forest Plan. Thus, in deciding not to accept any of the Final Supplementidentified mitigation for this Decision, I am deciding to accept the level of risk or other 

adverse effects identified for the affected species from the continued implementation of 

the remaining elements of the Northwest Forest Plan. 

The mitigation described in the Final Supplement generally consists of completing 

pre-project clearances and managing known sites. After careful consideration of the 

projected adverse outcomes8 for 38 species in all of their range and 15 species (including 

6 vertebrates) in part of their range caused by Alternative 2, and the adverse outcomes 

predicted for 132 species in all of their Northwest Forest Plan range under all alternatives, 

I am selecting none of the mitigation described in the Final Supplement for the reasons 

described below: 

Salamanders

For the four salamanders with insufficient habitat in a portion of their range (Siskiyou 

Mountains/Scott Bar, Larch Mountain, Van Dyke’s, and Shasta), the adverse effects 

described in the Final Supplement are essentially limited to concerns about the 

maintenance of apparently distinct genetic populations and not about trends toward 

listing. The discussion for Shasta salamander notes “The management discretion in 

the Special Status Species Programs [to which all of the salamanders are assigned for 

essentially all of their ranges] is constrained by policy objectives that include maintaining 

viable populations in habitats throughout their geographic range on National Forest System lands 

and ensuring that actions do not contribute to the need to list under the Endangered Species 

Act” (Final Supplement:275-276). The discussion goes on to note “Under Alternative 2, 

the Shasta salamander would have habitat (including known sites) sufficient to support stable 

populations range-wide in the NWFP area, although there is likely to be insufficient habitat to 

support stable populations in a portion of the NWFP area. In particular, there is potential loss of 

discrete genetic populations in the NWFP area under Alternative 2” (Final Supplement:276). 

These four salamander conclusions are similar. The summary of the amphibian effects 

section notes these four “would achieve stable, well-distributed populations; however, there 

is some uncertainty regarding inadvertent site losses or localized population losses created 

by discretionary procedures and lack of a specified mechanism to improve knowledge” (Final 

Supplement:283). I conclude none require mitigation to continue to avoid listing. At 

least one of the salamanders (Van Dyke’s) is entirely riparian, and is thus well protected 

by elements of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy portion of the Northwest Forest Plan. 

The recently identified Scott Bar salamander is not known on BLM lands. 

Great Gray Owl

For the great gray owl, the Final Supplement attributes the insufficient habitat outcome in 

a portion of its western Oregon range to the lack of specificity (of management 

8

The analysis in the Final Supplement projected one of four outcomes for each species for each alternative. The outcomes were 1-Sufficient habitat; 

2-Sufficient habitat across the NWFP area but insufficient habitat in a portion of the NWFP area; 3-Insufficient habitat in all of their range within the NWFP 

area and, 4-Insufficient information to determine an outcome (Final Supplement:118).
22

Bureau of Land Management Record of Decision to Remove the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

direction) in one or more of the existing plans. All BLM Resource Management Plans 

include a requirement to protect raptor nests, which is essentially the mitigation the Final 

Supplement suggests for this species. It is recognized that consistent implementation of 

these provisions is important to achieving management objectives.

Red Tree Vole

For the red tree vole, the portion of the species’ range with insufficient habitat9 includes three 

distinct areas. The first is the North Cascades range of the Northern Mesic Biological 

Zone; north of highway 22 (including a line projected east along the Marion/Linn County 

line where the highway turns south at Whitewater Creek; see Figure 3&4-5 in the Final 

Supplement). Essentially all of this area is on National Forests, and mitigation applied 

to the small acreage of BLM lands would have little effect on providing for stable 

populations.

For the North Coast range of the Northern Mesic Biological Zone, the outcome is based 

on a lack of federal lands. Ninety-three percent of the federal land in the North Coast 

range is already in reserves or reserve-like management (AMA requiring restoration and 

maintenance of late-successional forest habitat). The insufficient habitat not due to federal 

actions outcome here applies across all alternatives, and mitigation would not change the 

outcome. 

For the Xeric Biological Zone, the red tree vole’s Douglas-fir habitat becomes naturally 

patchy near this southeast corner of its range (Mellen-McLean et al. 2006). The 2000 

Final SEIS notes, for example, “Populations are believed to be more widespread in the more 

mesic portions of their range, such as the central Coast Range and Cascades, but are progressively 

more limited and with less connectivity in portions of the range where mesic forests intergrade 

with xeric forests such as adjacent to the Rogue River Valley, the Klamath Mountains, and the 

drier Siskiyou Mountains” (USDA, USDI 2000a:377), and “There is concern with red tree vole 

habitat in [the Xeric] zone due to natural fragmentation and limited amounts of mesic forest 

conditions combined with the small number of confirmed sites. In the Rogue River basin, this xeric 

habitat is in a belt between the mesic forests conditions found in the Mesic Forest Distribution 

Zone and the very dry oak woodlands of the Rogue River Valley. ... there is a poor understanding 

of red tree vole distribution or habitat relationships in these forests. Red tree vole habitat naturally 

becomes more isolated with progressively less connectivity toward the edges of this zone where it 

intergrades with the oak woodlands” (USDA, USDI 2000a:384). The Final Supplement found 

“Recent surveys indicate that, in Oregon, tree voles do not occur in part of the Xeric Biological 

Zone, and are unevenly distributed and relatively uncommon in the rest of the zone, where they 

occur only in Josephine County and in a narrow area along the western and northern edges of 

Jackson County (Figure 3&4-6)” (Final Supplement:289).

While acknowledging that patchy habitat conditions and “relatively uncommon” 

sites are the stated basis for concern in this area, my examination of the survey map 

at Figure 3&4-6 (Final Supplement:295) shows most known sites to fall in a relatively 

intensively populated strip immediately adjacent and parallel to the Mesic Biological 

Zone (where the red tree vole is secure). This observation is consistent with the abovecited descriptions. Further, the Random Double Sample (RDS) Survey estimates there are 

46,000 recently occupied10 2-hectare size plots in the Xeric Biological Zone, apparently all 

concentrated in this portion of the Zone (Final Supplement:Table 3&4-11). Other portions 

of the Xeric Biological Zone, east of the identified “range line” and other areas clearly east 

of the populated areas, appear in the survey data to have no red tree voles whatsoever. 

It is not a case of dense versus sparse; it is a case of dense versus non-existent. It is 

acknowledged that in the California portion of this area (which is predominantly 

9

As noted in Section 2 (The Decision) of this Record of Decision, the insufficient habitat determination is a standardized outcome statement used in 

the Final Supplement. In this or any other specific case, the issue may not be habitat at all, but other factors that include but are not limited to low 

numbers of known sites, stochastic events, and fire-caused isolation that limited population density and/or dispersal of the species.

10

Evidence of recent occupancy includes a nest with green or tan-colored resin Douglas-fir ducts or cuttings. Such evidence can remain green or 

tan-colored for over a year inside the nest out of the sunlight (Final Supplement:290).
23

Bureau of Land Management Record of Decision to Remove the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

National Forest), survey effort may not be sufficient to conclusively define the range 

line11. However, this appears to be an example of where the outcome is being judged 

against a larger “reference distribution”12 based on relatively limited historic evidence, 

and that the unpopulated areas of this zone have contributed to the overall adverse 

outcome. 

The Final Supplement indicates, “The lack of clarity regarding both the distribution and 

taxonomy of the tree vole in the southern end of the Xeric Biological Zone in California is not 

likely to be resolved without a survey that systematically examines areas at the eastern edge of the 

range, including the areas where Zentner (1977) found evidence of tree voles.” I do not disagree, 

and continued examination of this area by researchers and others may be appropriate to 

further clarify the range or for other monitoring or research purposes. Pre-disturbance 

surveys, however, are not a cost-efficient way of gathering such information. The 

existing evidence does not indicate a need for mitigation to preclude listing under the 

Endangered Species Act.

Finally, I am concerned about the effect mitigation in the Xeric Zone would have on 

the BLM’s ability to conduct forest health thinning and other fuel reduction-related 

treatments. The Xeric Biological Zone is within the Final Supplement-identified dry 

forest type particularly prone to moisture stress and wildfire, is part of the area where 

recent wildfires (Biscuit, Timbered Rock, etc.) have had the biggest impact on latesuccessional forests, and is where Wildland Urban Interface issues are most acute. Red 

tree voles typically require connecting crowns for dispersal, and known sites encompass 

10 acres. Mitigation for red tree voles in the populated portions of this area would 

directly and in large part simply continue to “limit the Agencies’ ability to restore forest 

health including fuel treatments to reduce the threat of catastrophic wildfire to watersheds, latesuccessional habitats, and communities at risk”, one of the Purposes the selected alternative 

seeks to resolve.

In Summary, I am not adding mitigation for the Xeric Biological Zone because: 

	 •	 The occupied portion of the zone appears well populated and is adjacent and 

parallel to (linked to) the Mesic Biological Zone;

	 •	 There do not appear to be persistence concerns that could lead to a need to list the 

species under the Endangered Species Act; 

	 •	 There is relatively little area that would significantly benefit from mitigation; 

	 •	 The Zone is at the edge of the red tree vole range where habitat is naturally 

fragmented; and, 

	 •	 The application of mitigation would hamper the Agency’s ability to deal with forest 

health and fire protection issues in this area. 

Non-Vertebrates

I have not added mitigation for the 47 non-vertebrate species with adverse effects 

resulting from the selected alternative because:

- The outcome discussions for each of these species in the Final Supplement as well 

as the additional information provided for them in the Survey and Manage Species 

section and elsewhere in the Final Supplement, as highlighted earlier in this Section 

(Section 3), indicates that additional mitigation is not warranted. Existing habitat 

and policies will adequately provide for them; and,

- To add mitigation would simply replace the management direction removed by 

the selected alternative, removing some of the beneficial effects predicted for that 

selection.

11However, the lesser-surveyed areas tend to be in reserves.

12

See Adverse Outcomes Defined in Section 3 (Reasons for the Decision) of this Record of Decision.
24

Bureau of Land Management Record of Decision to Remove the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

I am also not selecting mitigation for the 132 species with adverse outcomes under all 

alternatives. As noted in the Final Supplement at pp. 79-81, removal of Survey and 

Manage could increase risks for these species. However, there is no way to quantify that 

increase, and therefore no way to quantify the benefits of mitigation. Mitigation would 

not change the outcome; the analysis indicates factors other than the presence or absence 

of species-specific protection are affecting these species and leading to the insufficient 

habitat outcome. There is no clear evidence the species would benefit from mitigation, 

and to add mitigation would add costs and otherwise nullify some of the multiple-use 

and ecosystem protection benefits of the selected alternative. Further, some of the factors 

cited earlier in this Section (Section 3), including increases in habitat acreage, apply 

equally to these species.

Effects to Species if They Are Not Assigned to Special Status 

Species Programs 

Under my Decision, all 337 species included in the Supplement are “off” Survey and 

Manage. An analysis assumption in the Final Supplement is that if the Survey and 

Manage provision is eliminated from the Northwest Forest Plan, qualifying species 

will be assigned to the two Agencies’ Special Status Species Programs according to 

each Agency’s existing policies. In NEA v. Rey, the District Court pointed out that 

such assignments are outside of the SEIS process and discretionary on the part of 

Agency managers, and therefore the analysis and Decision should have considered the 

implications if such assignments are not made or are subsequently removed. The Final 

Supplement therefore includes outcomes for each species for each alternative, without 

the Special Status Species Programs assignments. Those outcomes have been considered 

in my Decision.

Of the 337 species included in the Final Supplement, 157 are assumed in the analysis to 

be assigned to one or more of the BLM or Forest Service Special Status Species Programs, 

and in fact, those assignments were all made by 2004. Of these 157:

- 27 have insufficient habitat in all of their NWFP area range and 15 have insufficient 

habitat in part of their NWFP area range due to actions under the alternative.

Also:

- 38 have insufficient habitat in all of their NWFP area range and 1 has insufficient habitat 

in part of their NWFP area range, not due to federal actions;

- 81 have sufficient habitat in all or part of their range under all alternatives; and,

- 11 have insufficient information to determine an outcome (Final Supplement:71).

If the Special Status Species Programs assignments are removed:

- 64 have insufficient habitat in all of their NWFP area range and 18 have insufficient 

habitat in part of their NWFP area range, an increase of 37 and 3 respectively (Final 

Supplement:71). 

These outcomes would be worst case, i.e., if there were a wholesale departure from 

the existing Special Status Species Programs. More likely, one or more individual 

assignments to Special Status Species Programs would not be made, or would be 

removed. However, I find the potential for additional adverse effects without Special 

Status Species Program assignments to be acceptable for the reasons I find the 53 adverse 

outcomes acceptable (see The 53 Species with Adverse Outcomes earlier in this Section). 

Also, I expect the Agency to continue to manage lands in the planning area as necessary 

to meet the legal responsibilities of the Endangered Species Act and other applicable 

laws and regulations. I am removing Survey and Manage in part, because adequate 

management controls are in place such as the Special Status Species Program to ensure 

the Agency does not take any action that would result in the need to list species under 

the Endangered Species Act. I find no reason to believe legal responsibilities can be 
25

Bureau of Land Management Record of Decision to Remove the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

met only with Survey and Manage, or that they might not be met without Survey and 

Manage. I agree with the Final Supplement assertion that if species trend toward listing, 

they can be expected to be assigned to one or more of these programs or other mitigating 

action taken.

For these reasons, I make no assumption or reliance on current Special Status Species 

Program assignments. I recognize species can and will be removed from the Special 

Status Species Programs in the future, usually when they no longer qualify for, or need, 

management under the programs. Reasons might include, but are not limited to, changes 

in state Heritage rankings, increases in known populations or habitat, absence of an 

apparent management threat, or the presence of other protection measures. 

I also make no assumption the Agencies will continue to implement the Special Status 

Species Programs as currently described. In the event the Agencies should propose a 

change in the manner in which rare and little known species are managed, I expect the 

Agencies to continue to take reasonable and appropriate action to ensure their actions are 

not likely to result in the need to list a species under the Endangered Species Act, and to 

apply species-specific measures as necessary to comply with applicable regulations and 

statutes.

Changed Conditions Since Previous Analyses

To respond to a portion of the deficiency identified by the District Court in NEA v. Rey of 

“the failure to provide a thorough analysis of their assumption that the late-successional reserves 

would adequately protect species...” the Final Supplement thoroughly examined new 

information applicable to the need for the species protection conveyed by the Survey and 

Manage Mitigation Measure. The following information about changed habitat, species 

information, and progress towards completing original Survey and Manage objectives is 

pertinent to this portion of my Decision.

	 •	 As noted in The 53 Species with Adverse Outcomes section, but bearing on this point 

as well, the amount of late-successional forest in the NWFP area has increased 

significantly in the 14 years since the FEMAT analysis. The combination of larger 

reserves (since FEMAT) and in-growth (and corresponding aging of all current 

late-successional forests) has increased the amount of late-successional forest in 

reserves 19 - 26 percent to now total over 8 million acres. There are more latesuccessional forest acres now in reserves than were in the entire NWFP area when 

the Plan was adopted in 1994 (Final Supplement:135-139). Late-successional forest 

within reserves has increased from approximately 34 percent of reserves in 1994 to 

approximately 40 percent today (Final Supplement:104).

	 •	 Conditions of late-successional old-growth habitat are substantially better than 

(believed) when Survey and Manage was developed. Northwest Forest Plan tenyear monitoring determined “older forest abundance, diversity, and connectivity at 

the start of the Plan to have been generally ... within the typical range of conditions that 

occurred during previous centuries ..., except perhaps for the provinces of the eastern 

Cascades. Connectivity was strong, characterized by short distances between large older 

forest patches. The condition of older forest in the eastern Cascades provinces was ... below 

long-term averages, with relative scarcity in some areas or occurring as scattered remnant 

patches.” The FEMAT predicted such conditions would not be achieved for many 

decades (Final Supplement:138).

	 •	 The recently completed Random Multi-Species (RMS) Surveys field work and 

analytical analysis of results indicates there are a significantly higher number of 

Survey and Manage species sites than are currently known. However, since the 

95% confidence bound includes zero for many species-specific results, many of 
26

Bureau of Land Management Record of Decision to Remove the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

the RMS Survey results did not affect species outcomes. Nevertheless, taken as a 

group, the confidence bound does not include zero and there are estimated to be 

millions of Survey and Manage species sites13. For some of these species, the RMS 

Survey detections themselves exceeded previously known site numbers (Final 

Supplement:163, 327-342). 

	 •	 A known site database [GeoBOB/ISMS database] populated with over 68,000 known 

species sites, distribution maps, science documents, management guidelines, survey 

protocols, and conservation strategies, which were developed for the Survey and 

Manage program are now available for use, as applicable, with the Agencies’ Special 

Status Species Programs.

	 •	 Many of the Survey and Manage species were originally only Categories 3 

(Extensive Surveys) or 4 (General Regional Surveys). The intent of these categories 

was to find high-priority sites for management or acquire additional information 

to determine necessary levels of protection. To a large degree, these original 

objectives for many of these species have already been accomplished by the RMS 

Surveys and other Survey and Manage activities. (The resultant information has 

been used to help place species in the Agencies’ Special Status Species Programs, 

and help prepare Management Recommendations and other documents used for 

management of those species (Final Supplement:102).)

Ecosystem and Species Diversity

Because the BLM previously chose to exercise its authority under the FLPMA and 

adopt provisions of the Northwest Forest Plan intended to meet the viability provision 

in the 1982 Forest Service planning regulations (although this Decision is under no 

such obligation), and because the FEMAT’s original stated concern for lesser known 

species was “these taxa should received priority attention because it is widely accepted that 

the vascular plants, fungi, and lichens, along with the invertebrates, are critically important for 

the maintenance of ecosystem function and productivity” (USDA et al. 1993:II-34), I have 

considered the implications of my Decision to ecosystem diversity. 

The Late-Successional Forest Ecosystem section of the Final Supplement makes a compelling 

case that if any of the Survey and Manage species are actually so rare as to be at 

significant risk of extirpation, they likely have no unique role in ecosystem function (the 

maintenance of plant and animal communities) (Final Supplement:141-145). For the 

reasons discussed in this and other Final Supplement sections and listed throughout 

other parts of Section 3 (Reasons for the Decision) I find my Decision today is unlikely to 

significantly or even noticeably affect the appearance or function of plant and animal 

communities. 

For the 53 species with insufficient habitat in all or part of their range caused by Alternative 

2, and to some degree for the 132 species with insufficient habitat in all of their range under 

all alternatives and 24 species or groups with insufficient information to determine an 

outcome, my Decision to adopt Alternative 2 probably increases the risk to these species. 

Within the overall context of the Northwest Forest Plan and for the reasons elucidated in 

the Final Supplement including those listed earlier in this Section (Section 3), I believe the 

increased risk to the species is small. I find that the provisions of the Northwest Forest 

Plan and other policies, including the Special Status Species Program, will conserve rare 

and little known species that may be at risk of becoming listed under the Endangered 

Species Act. To the degree there is some increased risk to species or to the diversity 

13

It is acknowledged there has been no Annual Species Review since the extrapolation of the RMS Survey results, and many of these species might 

be removed if that process were conducted again with this new information. On the other hand, the November 2006 Ninth Circuit decision tends 

to complicate the ASR process adopted in 2001. Time and costs for future ASRs may be increased. Thus, the effects of these species sites on future 

management could be higher than projected.
27

Bureau of Land Management Record of Decision to Remove the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

of plant and animal communities from this Decision, it is warranted in order to meet 

Northwest Forest Plan objectives and permitted under FLPMA to meet and O&C Act 

objectives. 

Conclusion

I conclude that under Alternative 2, the level of protection afforded the 337 latesuccessional and old-growth forest related species by the provisions of the Northwest 

Forest Plan, combined with existing Agency management policies (with or without the 

placement of any or all species in the two Agencies’ Special Status Species Programs), 

will continue to conserve rare and little known late-successional forest associated species 

that may be at risk of becoming listed under the Endangered Species Act. I am not 

concluding that no species are at risk. Rather, I am concluding that the Northwest Forest 

Plan without Survey and Manage provides an adequate and reasonable approach to 

species conservation, consistent with the Agency’s legal obligations.

3. Reduce the Agencies’ cost, time, and effort associated with 

rare and little known species conservation.

Agency funding is important to accomplishing overall management objectives. The 

annual cost difference between species-specific protection under my Decision and the 

Survey and Manage Program is projected at $13 million. This cost limits the Agencies’ 

ability to meet a more balanced range of management objectives, diverting money 

from other work including watershed restoration projects, fuel reduction projects, 

timber management projects, and projects designed to improve habitat for Threatened, 

Endangered, and other species. 

Under the Decision I make today, costs will be reduced compared to Alternatives 1 and 4, 

the No-Action Alternatives, because:

	 •	 Pre-disturbance surveys will be eliminated for some species. Many species included 

in the Agencies’ Special Status Species Programs will have pre-project clearances 

(determining the presence or absence of species or its habitat) completed in a 

portion of their range. However, since the Special Status Species Programs allow the 

flexibility of using various methods (other than field surveys) for completing preproject clearances, these will be less costly than surveys under Survey and Manage; 

	 •	 While some general surveys will be completed, the costs will be far less than 

Strategic Surveys under Survey and Manage; and, 

	 •	 The current Survey and Manage program is highly centralized, with mandatory 

processes and procedures. The Agencies’ Special Status Species Programs are less 

centralized and allow more flexibility in processes and procedures. 

These differences will allow Alternative 2’s program management costs to be far lower 

than under the other alternatives. Under Alternative 2, the Agencies’ short-term (1-5 

years) annual costs are projected at $7.9 million, resulting in a short-term cost savings of 

$13.1 million per year compared to Alternatives 1 and 4. Alternative 2’s long-term (6-10 

years) annual costs are projected at $7.4 million, resulting in a long-term cost savings 

of $7.0 million per year compared to Alternatives 1 and 4. Under Alternative 3, the 

Agencies’ short-term annual costs are projected at $10.7 million and the long-term annual 

costs are projected at $9.0 million (Final Supplement:304-308). Both short-term and longterm cost savings under this Decision (adoption of Alternative 2) will be greater than 

savings under any of the other alternatives. The selected alternative best reduces the 

Agency’s cost, time, and effort associated with rare and little known species conservation. 
28

Bureau of Land Management Record of Decision to Remove the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Additionally, annual personal income related to forestry employment would be greater 

under Alternative 2 compared to Alternatives 1, 3, or 4. Under Alternative 2, there would 

be a projected increase in annual personal earnings of $16.4 million per year compared 

to Alternatives 1 and 4, and a projected increase of $2.4 million per year compared to 

Alternative 3. 

Costs described in this Section are direct costs based on surveys and timber volume; 

they do not include additional costs that stem from the longer planning time required to 

complete Survey and Manage requirements, or the costs of reconfiguring management 

activities to avoid known or presumed sites. 

4. Restore the Agencies’ ability to achieve Northwest Forest 

Plan resource management goals and predicted timber outputs. 

By projecting each species site detection rate (with the more common species projections 

capped to simulate Annual Species Review removals), the Final Supplement estimates 

that 15 percent of late-successional forest in the Matrix and Adaptive Management Area 

(AMA) land allocations is or will be encumbered by species site management under 

No-Action Alternatives 1 and 4. The Final Supplement shows these encumbrances 

would reduce the Probable Sale Quantity (PSQ) by approximately 105 million board feet 

per year, or 13 percent, from the Northwest Forest Plan PSQ level of 805 million board 

feet. Under Alternative 2, it is projected that the PSQ would be reduced by 35 million 

board feet from the current PSQ level of 805 million board feet. Under Alternative 

3, it is projected that the PSQ would be reduced by 45 million board feet (Final 

Supplement:316). My Decision, which adopts Alternative 2, best achieves the level of 

timber outputs predicted under the Northwest Forest Plan. 

The same 15 percent projection for managed sites (above) is expected to apply to all 

land allocations, so resource management activities (e.g. fuels reduction and to some 

degree, habitat-improvement thinning) in all late-successional forests would be similarly 

encumbered (up to 15 percent) by the No-Action Alternatives. My Decision to adopt 

Alternative 2 reduces this encumbrance to about 5 percent of late-successional forests, 

and permits forest health, protection, and restoration activities to move forward more 

efficiently. The 1994 Record of Decision identifies the ability to do restoration silviculture 

in reserves as one of the significant benefits of Alternative 9 (the Northwest Forest Plan) 

when compared to the other alternatives examined in the 1994 Final SEIS (USDA, USDI 

1994b:28).

The current direction (no-action) would result in 7,000 acres (of the 80,000 acres per year 

annual program) being managed for species site protection, while the selected alternative 

would reduce this species site management to 1,600 acres, an increase in fuel treatment of 

5,400 acres per year when compared to the No-Action alternatives. Since the total fuels 

treatment need exceeds the Agencies’ current budget, it could be argued that some of 

these 5,400 acres could be simply treated elsewhere, and to some degree, this is true. My 

concerns are not with the size of this difference, but with the following:

	 •	 Not all of these treatments would be transferable to other areas; a certain percentage 

of the treatment dollars go into planning (other than Survey and Manage), and 

moving planned treatments elsewhere after species surveys are conducted would 

result in additional planning costs. 

	 •	 Strategically placed treatments, particularly those protecting nearby towns, 

watersheds, or reserves cannot always simply be moved elsewhere.
29

Bureau of Land Management Record of Decision to Remove the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

	 •	 The cost savings resulting from ceasing to conduct pre-disturbance surveys and 

managing resultant sites, when compared with those required under Alternative 2, 

would make available funds that could pay for nearly another 8,000 acres of needed 

treatments annually. 

	 •	 I am concerned about the effectiveness of treatments and resultant safety from 

future wildfire. On average, known Survey and Manage species sites would 

preclude most fuel treatment on about 8.7 percent of the area in all planned fuel 

treatment units. Treatment acres must be effectively and strategically placed on the 

landscape, and this percentage can significantly compromise treatment effectiveness. 

Treatment effectiveness is particularly critical in the National Fire Plan-emphasis 

Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) areas where the juxtaposition of structures and 

hazard typically limits treatment location options (Final Supplement:157, 160). 

Treatment effectiveness is also an important consideration around Late-Successional 

Reserves. The Northwest Forest Plan Final SEIS predicts fuels treatments and fire 

suppression will extend the average “rotation” within Late-Successional Reserves 

from the historic 250 years to 400 years (USDA, USDI 1994a:3&4-42). The Standards 

and Guidelines for Late-Successional Reserves require treatments protecting such 

reserves to be located outside or around the reserves where possible. The two 

percent impact projected under the selected alternative is far more workable for 

meeting these protection objectives, particularly since the Special Status Species 

Programs (Alternative 2) allow managers more flexibility in determining which sites 

will make up that two percent when additional species sites or habitat is nearby 

(Final Supplement:149-161). 

The selected alternative significantly improves the BLM’s ability to implement projects 

designed to improve forest health, including more efficient implementation of the 

National Fire Plan.

Summary of the Reasons for the Decision

The underlying needs to which this Decision responds are healthy forest ecosystems and 

a sustainable supply of timber and other forest products, to the extent these are frustrated 

by the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines. 

The Northwest Forest Plan goals have their origin in the Forest Service and BLM 

multiple-use missions. For the BLM, this is based in the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) where the term “multiple use” management is 

defined as “. . . management of the public lands and their various resource values so that they 

are utilized in the combination that will best meet the present and future needs of the American 

people.” FLPMA requires that the public lands be managed in a manner which provides 

for “. . . a combination of balanced and diverse resource uses that takes into account the long-term 

needs of future generations for renewable and nonrenewable resources, including, but not limited 

to, recreation, range, timber, minerals, watershed, wildlife and fish, and natural scenic, scientific 

and historical values” (Final Supplement:26-27). For the Northwest Forest Plan, the BLM 

exercised its authority under the FLPMA to adopt Northwest Forest Plan provisions 

intended to meet the Forest Service diversity and viability provisions.

However, Survey and Manage has proven to be an expensive way to conserve rare or 

poorly known species. I cannot justify continuing to spend millions of dollars on Survey 

and Manage while other existing policies already provide for species conservation.

I also cannot justify continuing Survey and Manage given the Final Supplement’s 

determination of the extent to which it frustrates the Agencies’ abilities to achieve the 

environmental and economic balance of the Northwest Forest Plan. The Northwest 

Forest Plan is an attempt to strike a balance between conserving ecosystems upon which 
30

Bureau of Land Management Record of Decision to Remove the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

species depend, and providing raw materials that are needed to sustain the health 

and economic well-being of communities. The Northwest Forest Plan seeks to balance 

these sometimes conflicting purposes by maintaining the late-successional, old-growth 

forest ecosystem while also providing a predictable and sustainable supply of timber, 

recreational opportunities, and other resources at the highest possible level. When 

Survey and Manage was adopted, it was believed that the occurrences of species would 

be rare and effects on lands available for harvest would be minimal (USDA, USDI 

2000a:8). Since that time, it has become clear that the constraints on harvest and forest 

health treatments were greatly underestimated. The effects of this Mitigation Measure 

on the Agency’s ability to maintain and restore healthy ecosystems as well as provide a 

sustainable and predictable timber supply have been considerable. The current program, 

with 15 percent of the existing late-successional forest expected to be managed for known 

Survey and Manage species sites, significantly alters the Agencies’ ability to achieve the 

balance intended by the Northwest Forest Plan.

My Decision to adopt Alternative 2 will best restore the BLM’s ability to accomplish 

the dual goals of the Northwest Forest Plan. Specifically, it best achieves the Purposes

set forth in the Final Supplement, which include providing for species conservation, 

reducing costs and effort, and restoring the ability to implement Northwest Forest Plan 

resource management goals and predicted timber outputs. Alternative 2 provides for 

species diversity and conservation through the other elements of the Northwest Forest 

Plan and management controls such as the Special Status Species Programs, particularly 

in light of increases of late-successional forest documented by the ten-year monitoring 

reporting. Alternative 2 also provides the largest short and long-term cost reduction, 

the best opportunity for accomplishing resource management projects to improve and 

protect forest health, and best improves the Agency’s ability to achieve the level of 

timber outputs predicted under the Northwest Forest Plan, when compared to the other 

alternatives.

Finally, and to the degree my Decision increases risks to species, the FLPMA requires that 

multiple-use and other provisions defer to the O&C Act where the two Acts conflict (43 

U.S.C. 1701 note 701 (b); Final Supplement:27). The Final Supplement is the Agencies 

first opportunity to examine and quantify the impacts of Survey and Manage on their 

respective missions in an EIS format with a range of alternatives wide enough to apply 

the deference required by the statutes, and remove Survey and Manage. 

Other Alternatives Considered in Detail and Reasons 

They Were Not Selected

In addition to the proposed action (Alternative 2) and the alternatives considered in the 

2000 Final SEIS to which the 2007 Final Supplement is a supplement, three alternatives 

were considered in detail.

Alternative 1, No-Action with ASRs

Alternative 1, the No-Action Alternative with the ASRs, would have continued 

implementation of the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and 

Guidelines as implemented by the Agencies following the species removals and category 

changes of the 2001, 2002, and 2003 Annual Species Reviews. Under this alternative, 295 

species would have continued to be managed under Survey and Manage (at least until 

another Annual Species Review was conducted).

I have not selected No-Action Alternative 1 because, while it would meet the purpose of 

providing for conserving rare and little known species that may be at risk of becoming 
31

Bureau of Land Management Record of Decision to Remove the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

listed under the Endangered Species Act, it would not meet the other Purposes. 

Specifically, it would not reduce the costs, time, and effort associated with rare and little 

known species conservation. It also would continue to frustrate the Agency’s ability 

to achieve Northwest Forest Plan resource management goals and predicted timber 

outputs. It therefore did not meet the Need. 

Alternative 3, Modified Survey and Manage 

Alternative 3 would have modified the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure 

Standards and Guidelines by: (1) removing the uncommon species category and all 

requirements pertaining to that category; (2) eliminating the requirement to conduct predisturbance surveys in non-late-successional and non-old-growth forest stands; and, (3) 

changing the review requirements for excepting known sites from management. 

Alternative 3 would go a long way toward meeting the Purposes and Need because it 

would remove the species currently representing the majority of known species sites, and 

eliminate pre-disturbance surveys for red tree vole. Alternative 3 would achieve about 

79 percent of the cost reduction and 86 percent of the Probable Sale Quantity increase 

of the selected alternative. It would also achieve 81 percent of the fuels treatment 

increases achieved by the selected alternative, and 85 percent of the job gains. However, 

the remaining 15 to 21 percent of benefits is significant to achievement of Northwest 

Forest Plan objectives, and I do not believe the differences in species outcomes between 

Alternative 3 and the selected alternative justify the selection of Alternative 3. Alternative 

3 would not sufficiently reduce short or long-term costs, increase the Agencies’ ability 

to implement resource management projects to improve forest health, nor improve the 

Agency’s ability to achieve the predicted timber output under the Northwest Forest Plan 

when compared to the magnitude of its incremental gain in species conservation when 

compared with Alternative 2. 

Alternative 4, No-Action without ASRs

Alternative 4, the No-Action Alternative without the changes made by the 2001, 2002, 

and 2003 Annual Species Reviews, would have continued implementation of the Survey 

and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines as it was after the 2001

Record of Decision was signed. Under this alternative, 337 species would be managed 

under Survey and Manage until an Annual Species Review with any required NEPA 

analysis was conducted.

I have not selected this version of the No-Action Alternative because the adverse effects 

to Probable Sale Quantity, costs, fuels treatments, jobs, and other management activities 

would be about 2 1⁄2 times those under Alternative 1 until an ASR was conducted, and 

about the same as Alternative 1 thereafter.
32

Bureau of Land Management Record of Decision to Remove the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

4. Findings Required by Other Laws and 

Regulations

Except as otherwise discussed below, this Decision builds on the findings of compliance 

with applicable laws found in the April 13, 1994 Record of Decision for the Amendments 

to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the 

Range of the Northern Spotted Owl.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

The NEPA requires that Federal agencies prepare detailed statements on proposed 

actions that significantly affect the quality of the human environment. The BLM has 

integrated NEPA analysis with its resource management planning process. Under the 

BLM planning provisions used in this process, an environmental impact statement 

(EIS), when appropriate, accompanies its Resource Management Plans or in this case, 

amendments to them. Site-specific NEPA analyses for future management activities will 

then tier to the EIS accompanying the resource management plan.

The Final Supplement and referenced documents incorporate all new relevant 

information (including that from the 2004 FSEIS). These data build upon information 

already compiled in the 1994 Northwest Forest Plan Final SEIS and the 2000 Survey and 

Manage Final SEIS. All the available information about these species was considered and 

a thorough analysis of the potential environmental effects associated with each of the 

alternatives, and the differences between them, was completed. This Decision reflects my 

consideration of the best available science. 

There has also been extensive opportunity for public involvement in the NEPA process. 

Scoping letters were sent to 3,300 individuals in October 2002, and 7,000 postcards were 

sent in March 2006 asking potentially interested people, groups, agencies, libraries, 

schools, and others (including the 3,300 above) if they wished to remain on the mailing 

list for the Supplement. Ninety-day public comment periods began in May 2003 for the 

Draft, July 2006 for the Draft Supplement, and January 2007 for the Supplement to the 

Draft Supplement. In all, the Agencies received over 5,000 comments. The Agencies 

used these comments to improve the analysis in the Final Supplement. The Agencies 

also responded to the substantive comments raised in these letters (See Section 5 (Public 

Involvement) of this Record of Decision). These responses are included in Appendices 6, 

11, and 13 of the Final Supplement. Letters received by other government agencies or 

governing bodies are displayed in their entirety in Appendices 7, 12, and 14. Although 

the Final Supplement was improved because of comments on the July 2006 Draft and the 

January 2007 supplement to it, I do not find the changes to be so significant as to warrant 

re-issuance of the Final Supplement as a draft. 

I find that the process also complied with the requirements set forth in the regulations 

that the Council on Environmental Quality has promulgated to implement NEPA: 

1. An environmental impact statement must rigorously explore and objectively evaluate 

all reasonable alternatives. The range of alternatives is limited by the requirement to 

fulfill the Purpose and Need to which the Agencies are responding in proposing the 

action. Among potential alternatives considered were various strategies proposed by 

the public during the scoping process, as well as some strategies proposed by Agency 

staff. Many of these alternatives were eliminated from detailed study in attempts to 

find reasonable alternatives that would fulfill the Need and Purposes for the Proposed 

Action. The Need, as described in Chapter 1 of the Final Supplement (p. 5), is for “healthy 

forest ecosystems and a sustainable supply of timber and other forest products, to the extent these 
33

Bureau of Land Management Record of Decision to Remove the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

are frustrated by the Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines.” The Need is expressed 

in Purposes to conserve rare and little known species, reduce costs, and improve the 

Agencies’ ability to achieve the Northwest Forest Plan resource management goals 

and predicted timber outputs. The Purpose and Need substantially limited the range of 

reasonable alternatives available for analysis and provided a relatively narrow scope for 

this action (Final Supplement:58). It is important to note the proposed action is limited to 

removing a mitigation measure applied to the multifaceted Northwest Forest Plan, itself 

the subject of NEPA analysis with multiple alternatives. Further, the Final Supplement 

is a supplement to the 2000 Survey and Manage Final SEIS, which contained additional 

alternatives for Survey and Manage.

2. The Final Supplement considered the cumulative impacts of the proposed action and 

all other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the planning 

area. The BLM’s ongoing Western Oregon Plan Revision (WOPR) effort is discussed in 

the Final Supplement (pp. 112-113). The WOPR planning effort is examining a range of 

alternatives that include ones that would revise the elements of the Northwest Forest 

Plan for BLM-administered lands. 

Since a decision selecting one of the WOPR alternatives is not expected for over a year, 

specific changes resulting from that decision are not considered foreseeable at the present 

time. More importantly, however, the Survey and Manage provision was a mitigation 

measure adopted to reduce the effects of the selected alternative of the Northwest Forest 

Plan, and is not an independent action that can be considered apart from other elements 

of the Northwest Forest Plan. The current BLM plans being amended by my Decision 

today will serve as the “no action” alternative for the WOPR effort. Effects to species, 

resulting from changes to the plans under the management alternatives in the BLM 

WOPR, will be analyzed and displayed in the BLM’s environmental documentation for 

those proposed changes, and new mitigation measures will be considered for reducing 

any adverse effects of those alternatives. 

Until a revised plan is adopted, the BLM will continue to manage lands under its 

administration in accordance with existing resource management plans. Although the 

analysis for the BLM WOPR might borrow information about species from the Final 

Supplement, the WOPR EIS could not tier to, or otherwise expect to use, effects described 

in the Final Supplement without thoroughly explaining why they might still apply. 

As noted in the Final Supplement at pp. 112-113, while there is a potential for the future 

BLM Western Oregon Plan Revision to affect individuals of species that spend part 

of their lives on National Forest System lands, the potential for such negative effects 

is limited. The BLM’s revised land use plans will continue to provide sufficient older 

forests and other habitats to avoid jeopardy and contribute to recovery of listed species, 

and incidentally provide habitat for other species dependent on late-successional habitat. 

Given this limited potential for negative effects from the management of BLM lands to 

species on National Forest System lands, no significant cumulative impacts to Survey and 

Manage species on National Forests are expected from the proposed BLM WOPR. The 

WOPR EIS will consider the potential for such effects (Final Supplement:112-113).

Although the management of non-federal lands is outside the scope of the Final 

Supplement, their management have been considered in the species outcomes and other 

effects. Non-federal actions are primarily described in the 2000 Final SEIS to which the 

Final Supplement is a supplement (USDA, USDI 2000a:182-187). 

3. There is a lack of information regarding many of the species analyzed in the Final 

Supplement. For 20 species and 4 arthropod functional groups, there was not sufficient 

information to predict environmental consequences. The Incomplete and Unavailable 

Information section of the Final Supplement (pp. 102-104) includes a discussion of this lack 

of information. The rationale and basis for my Decision, including the species for which 
34

Bureau of Land Management Record of Decision to Remove the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

there was not sufficient information, are discussed under Reasons for the Decision. None 

of the incomplete or unavailable information was deemed essential for a reasoned choice 

among the alternatives. The Final Supplement describes the levels of risk and the relative 

benefits of each of the alternatives, thus sharply defining the issues and providing a clear 

basis for my Decision.

Endangered Species Act

No species included in Survey and Manage are listed or proposed for listing under the 

Endangered Species Act. A petition to list the Siskiyou Mountains/Scott Bar salamanders 

is being examined now. For those species (two closely associated species, currently 

managed on Survey and Manage together), a previous U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

finding (since vacated by court action) included assignment to Survey and Manage as one 

of five reasons for concluding listing may not be justified. I do not expect my Decision 

today to be a significant factor in the decision whether or not to list either or both of these 

species because:

- The decision now before the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is whether or not listing 

is justified (not may be), 

- There were four other factors indicating listing may not be justified; 

- The Agency’s Special Status Species Program exists precisely to respond to the 

potential for species to become listed; and,

- Almost none of the range for these two species is on BLM-administered lands.

Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act requires that Federal agencies consult with 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries, as appropriate, to ensure that 

their actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of species listed as Threatened 

or Endangered under the Endangered Species Act, or destroy or adversely modify their 

critical habitat. Although no Survey and Manage species is listed or proposed for listing 

under the Endangered Species Act, the proposed action was examined because of the 

potential for the Decision to affect a listed species. 

The Agencies completed a Biological Evaluation (BE) (included as Appendix 5 of the 

Final Supplement) that determined that the preferred alternative, Alternative 2, would 

not affect any species listed or proposed for listing as Threatened or Endangered 

except for the northern spotted owl. The evaluation determined Alternatives 2 and 3 

would have minimal effects on spotted owl habitat across the NWFP area, which is the 

meaningful scale for consideration of spotted owl populations. Large reserves and other 

components of the Northwest Forest Plan would continue to provide habitat blocks for 

population clusters and dispersal conditions for individual spotted owls under all of the 

alternatives. The patches of late-successional forest managed as Survey and Manage 

species sites in the Matrix that would be released and potentially available for timber 

harvest would not significantly lower the amount of habitat or change the distribution of 

habitat originally expected to be available to spotted owls. However, at the project level 

there is a potential for adverse effects on individual owls due to removal of one or more 

acres of suitable habitat. Therefore, the determination for Alternatives 2 and 3 is may 

affect, likely to adversely affect the northern spotted owl, and may affect, likely to adversely 

affect its critical habitat (Final Supplement Vol. 2:125).

In response to the Biological Evaluation and the Agencies’ determination of may affect, 

likely to adversely affect, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service prepared a Biological Opinion 

on May 31, 2007, on the effects of Alternative 2 on the Threatened northern spotted owl 

and its critical habitat. In the Biological Opinion, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

concurred with the Agencies’ likely to adversely affect determination, but concluded 
35

Bureau of Land Management Record of Decision to Remove the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

nevertheless that the selected alternative “is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence 

of the northern spotted owl or destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat, and would have 

minimal adverse effects” (Biological Opinion:35). The Biological Opinion superseded the 

March 15, 2004 Biological Opinion regarding the same proposed action. 

The Biological Opinion noted “with implementation of the proposed action, these potential 

effects are likely to involve about 24,900 acres out of about 8 million acres (0.03 percent) of 

federally managed Late Successional Old Growth habitat in the NWFP area, based on figures 

presented in the BE. Given the relatively small magnitude of federally managed Late Successional 

Old Growth habitat likely to be affected by the proposed action, the scattered distribution of Survey 

and Manage sites throughout the NWFP area, and the reserve system established under the 

Northwest Forest Plan, the biological significance of these effects to the owl is considered minimal” 

(Biological Opinion:33). “The effects of the proposed action on the spotted owl are consistent 

with those anticipated in the Service’s 1994 BiOp ...” (Biological Opinion:34). This Opinion 

assumes the total acreage in Survey and Manage known sites could be altered or lost and, 

short of examining each specific location of the known sites themselves, thus considers 

the full effect of this action.

The Agencies and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recognize that the Decision to 

remove the Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines does not alter the requirement 

for project-level consultations and that the proposed action would not “authorize timber 

sales or other habitat-disturbing activities” (Final Supplement:308, Biological Opinion:33, 

35). Thus, before any of the formerly protected areas under the Survey and Manage 

Mitigation Measure would be disturbed by management actions, further project-level 

analysis and decision-making would take place, during which the Agencies would 

consult on any proposed actions that are likely to adversely affect any listed species. 

That consideration would be based on the listed species themselves, and would be 

unrelated to whether or not a particular acre were occupied by a current or past Survey 

and Manage species. Those site-specific considerations would be necessary in any event, 

are therefore unrelated to today’s Decision and are thus not a deferral of consideration of 

the effects of this Decision. The Opinion does not rely on or expect future consultation’s 

retention of any of these acres. 

The Agencies did not consult on any listed species other than the northern spotted owl, 

or with NOAA Fisheries (for listed anadramous fish), because the Biological Evaluation 

determined the preferred alternative would not affect any other listed or proposed 

species.

On June 12, approximately two weeks after completion of the Biological Opinion by 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and approximately six weeks prior to this Decision, 

a proposed rule to revise the northern spotted owl critical habitat was published in the 

Federal Register by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The proposal would reduce critical 

habitat from 6,887,000 acres to 5,337,839 acres, based on “new delineation of areas determined 

to be essential for the conservation of the northern spotted owl...based, in part, on an improved 

understanding of the limits of habitat usage by northern spotted owls combined with refinements 

in mapping technology” Federal Register Vol. 72, No. 112:32462). Most of the known 

species sites being “released” by my Decision are not in the proposed critical habitat. The 

Agencies have considered the determinations in the May 31, 2007 Biological Opinion for 

this action and the adjustments to critical habitat that are proposed, and determined there 

is no reason to conclude this action will affect the proposed critical habitat any more than 

it affects critical habitat currently designated. Therefore the Agencies have concluded reinitiation of consultation on the proposed action to conference on the proposed, revised 

rule, is not needed (Madsen 2007).
36

Bureau of Land Management Record of Decision to Remove the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Federal Land Policy and Management Act

The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and its implementing 

regulations provide land use planning authority to the Secretary of the Interior. The most 

pertinent section to the present Decision is the regulation at 43 CFR 1610.5-5 concerning 

amendments to BLM resource management plans, which shall be initiated by the need 

to consider new evaluation findings or new data, among other reasons. In the event a 

decision is made to prepare an environmental impact statement, the amending process 

follows the same procedure required for the preparation and approval of the resource 

management plan, but consideration shall be limited to only the portion of the plan being 

amended. These procedures have been followed in preparing this Decision to amend 

the 2001 Record of Decision that amended the resource management plans of the BLM. 

The Final Supplement Governors’ Consistency Review for Oregon and California (no 

Washington BLM lands are included in this Decision) was initiated on May 8, 2007. No 

comments were received from either state.

The principles of multiple use and sustained yield have been applied in the development 

of this Decision; my Decision provides for a better balance of resource use. My Decision 

provides the opportunity for better multiple-use utilization of resources within species 

sites managed under the Agencies’ Special Status Species Program policies, in accordance 

with the principles of multiple use and sustained yield (see 43 U.S.C. 1712(c)(1)). Because 

no use of land is eliminated, this Decision will not require a report to Congress as 

required in 43 U.S.C. 1712(e)(2). 

For reasons elucidated in Section 3 (Reasons for the Decision), I find my Decision will not 

significantly increase the risk of extirpation for any species. However, to the degree any 

such risk may result (short of leading to a need to list species under the ESA), the FLPMA 

requires deference to the provisions of the O&C Act (see below) and its emphasis on 

timber production.

Oregon and California Railroad and Coos Bay Wagon 

Road Grant Lands Act (O&C Act)

The O&C Act requires the Secretary of the Interior to manage O&C lands for permanent 

forest production; and such management must also be in accord with sustained-yield 

principles. Further, the O&C Act intends that management of O&C lands protect 

watersheds, regulate steam flow, provide for recreational facilities, and contribute to the 

economic stability of local communities and industries (43 U.S.C. 1181a). In Headwaters, 

Inc. vs. Bureau of Land Management (1990, CA9 Or) 914 F.2d 1174, the Ninth Circuit 

Court of Appeals held that Congress clearly intended that these lands be used primarily 

for sustained yield timber production, and not multiple use, including wildlife 

conservation. Although a U.S. District Court ruled that the Secretary of the Interior was 

within the authority of this mandate to designate the reserves in the Northwest Forest 

Plan for the purposes of fulfilling the conservation duties of the Endangered Species 

Act (Seattle Audubon Society vs. Lyons, 871 F.Supp. 1291 (W.D. Wash. 1994), aff’d. 80 

F.3d 1401 (9th Cir. 1996)), the analysis indicates Survey and Manage is not needed to 

preclude listings or otherwise meet the provisions of the ESA. Other elements of the 

Northwest Forest Plan and Agency policies provide assurance on this point; Survey and 

Manage is redundant with these other provisions and thus is unnecessarily inhibiting the 

BLM’s ability to meet its sustained timber yield obligation under the O&C Act. The 2001

lawsuit in Douglas Timber Operators, et al. v. Secretary of Agriculture, et al., civil No. 

01-6378-AA (D. Oregon) alleges that allocation of managed sites for Survey and Manage 

species violates the required timber harvest emphasis of the O&C Act. While not taking a 

position on that case, my Decision today moots this argument.
37

Bureau of Land Management Record of Decision to Remove the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Protection of Tribal Treaty Rights and Trust Resources

American Indian treaty rights and trust resources will be protected under this Decision. 

This Decision does not change the effects on tribal treaty rights and trust resources 

described in the Northwest Forest Plan Final SEIS, pp. 3&4-314 through 319, and in the 

Northwest Forest Plan Record of Decision, pp. 54-55. Compliance, coordination, and 

consultation requirements in the Northwest Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, p. E21, are unchanged by this Decision.

I recognize my Decision also removes the Survey and Manage requirement from 5,400 

acres managed by the Coquille Tribe (Final Supplement:22). As part of the agreement for 

the acquisition of these lands, the Tribe manages according to the Northwest Forest Plan 

direction on the adjacent BLM lands.

Review by the Regional Interagency Executive 

Committee (RIEC)

The 1994 Northwest Forest Plan Record of Decision, pp. 58 and E-18, requires that 

proposed amendments to that Decision be coordinated with, and reviewed by, the 

RIEC. The purpose of the review is to “. . . assure consistency with the objectives of these 

[Northwest Forest Plan] standards and guidelines” (Final Supplement:21). In February 

2007, the RIEC delegated review of proposed plan amendments involving Survey and 

Manage Standards and Guidelines to the Survey and Manage RIEC Subcommittee, 

which includes executives from the Pacific Northwest Research Station, Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Forest Service, and Bureau of Land Management. The required review and 

coordination of this proposed amendment was completed in June 2007. 

As part of the review process, the Agencies determined that the proposed amendment 

is consistent with the relevant objectives of the Northwest Forest Plan Standards 

and Guidelines. None of the Subcommittee members recommended changes in that 

consistency determination, and no other comments were received. 

Future amendments to Resource Management Plans that would modify the direction 

established by this Record of Decision may be done under the current authorities of the 

BLM, and subject to review by the Regional Interagency Executive Committee (RIEC) as 

described in the original Northwest Forest Plan Record of Decision.

Valid Existing Rights

This Decision does not affect valid existing rights on federal lands. Valid existing rights 

are those rights or claims to rights that take precedence over any actions required by 

this plan. Valid existing rights may be held by other Federal, State, or local government 

agencies or by private individuals or companies. Valid existing rights may pertain to 

mining claims, mineral or energy easements, rights-of-way, reciprocal rights-of-way, 

leases, agreements, permits, and water rights.
38

Bureau of Land Management Record of Decision to Remove the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

5. Public Involvement

In developing the Final Supplement, the Agencies published two Notices of Intent with 

related scoping periods, and three 90-day public comment periods. 

The 2004 FSEIS

The process that culminates in my Decision today began with a Notice of Intent to 

prepare the SEIS published in the Federal Register (63 FR 65167) on October 21, 2002. 

The Notice of Intent provided preliminary information about the proposed action 

and invited public comment about the “scope” of the document. Concurrently, a 

scoping letter was mailed to more than 3,300 individuals and groups identified as 

potentially interested in the proposed action and analysis. Scoping is the process used 

to identify issues, concerns, and opportunities associated with the proposed action in an 

environmental impact statement. According to the Council on Environmental Quality 

regulations, scoping is specifically not required for supplements to environmental impact 

statements (40 CFR 1502.9(c)(4)). However, the Agencies did conduct scoping for the 

SEIS. The Agencies received approximately 700 letters in response to this Notice of 

Intent and letter. This scoping helped define the issues and, subsequently, the range of 

alternatives presented in Chapter 2 of the 2004 FSEIS. 

A Draft SEIS was issued for 90-day public review on May 23, 2003. Over 5,100 

transmittals were received in the form of letters, postcards, facsimiles, and e-mails 

(collectively referred to as letters). Letters were received from a variety of interests 

including: individuals, organizations, businesses, Advisory Committees, and Federal 

and State Agencies. Letters were received from 49 of the 50 states and from three foreign 

countries (Canada, England, and Germany). More than 3,000 letters originated from 

Washington, Oregon, and California. All letters were analyzed and considered in the 

preparation of the 2004 FSEIS. Explanations of how comments were used were included 

in the 2004 FSEIS in Appendix 6. During preparation of the Final Supplement, those 

comments were re-examined and responses were generally updated to be consistent with 

the supplemented analysis. Those edited responses are presented in Appendix 6 of the 

Final Supplement. Comment letters received from other agencies, elected officials, tribes, 

and the California Coast Provincial Advisory Committee (PAC) during the 2003 comment 

period are included in their entirety in Appendix 7 of the Final Supplement.

The BLM and Forest Service issued a Final SEIS in January 2004 (2004 FSEIS), and a 

Record of Decision in March 2004. 

The July 2006 Draft Supplement

In August 2005, the U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington found the 2004 

FSEIS deficient on three specific grounds under NEPA and subsequently set aside the 

Record of Decision (NEA v. Rey).

On December 12, 2005, the Agencies published a Notice of Intent in the Federal Register 

(70 FR 73483) to prepare a Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS. The Notice of Intent provided 

preliminary information about objectives of the Supplement and invited public comment. 

The Agencies received two letters: one from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

and one from the Oregon Natural Resources Council and others. Suggestions from both 

of these letters were incorporated into the Supplement.

During March 2006, 7,000 post cards were mailed to persons known or believed by the 

Agencies to be potentially interested in any revisions to the Northwest Forest Plan. The 
39

Bureau of Land Management Record of Decision to Remove the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

card explained both the objective of the Supplement and when it would be available. A 

response card was also supplied; approximately 300 responses were received requesting 

the document or notification of when it would be available on the internet. 

The Draft Supplement was issued for 90-day public review beginning July 7, 2006. 

Individuals; interest groups; organizations; businesses; elected officials; state, local, and 

other Federal agencies; and Tribes were invited to comment on the Draft Supplement. 

In addition, the document was mailed to libraries, elected officials, and BLM and Forest 

Service offices. Fifty-five transmittals were received in the form of letters, facsimiles, 

and e-mails (collectively referred to as letters). Letters were received from a variety of 

interests including individuals, organizations, businesses, Advisory Committees, and 

Federal and State Agencies. Letters were received from 10 of the 50 states, with the 

majority originating from Washington, Oregon, and California. Responses to substantive 

comments in these letters are included in Appendix 11 of the Final Supplement. Letters 

received from government agencies are displayed in their entirety in Appendix 12.

The January 2007 Supplement

Following the 2006 public comment period described above, the Agencies were nearing 

completion of a Final Supplement when, the Ninth Circuit issued its November 6, 

2006 decision in KSWC v. Boody. In response, the BLM and Forest Service issued a 

January 2007 Supplement to the July 2006 Draft Supplement for 90-day public review 

beginning January 5, 2007. The Supplement added another alternative and 42 additional 

species, examining Survey and Manage as it existed prior to the 90 Annual Species 

Review changes made in 2001, 2002, and 2003. The same individuals; interest groups; 

organizations; businesses; elected officials; state, local, and other Federal agencies; and 

Tribes described above were invited to comment on the Supplement. In addition, the 

document was mailed to libraries, elected officials, and BLM and Forest Service offices. 

Forty-five transmittals were received in the form of letters, and e-mails (collectively 

referred to as letters). Letters were received from a variety of interests and one Federal 

Agency. Letters were received from Washington, Oregon, and California.

Received suggestions were used to improve the Supplement, and responses to all 

substantive comments are included in Appendix 13 of the Final Supplement. The federal 

agency letter is displayed in Appendix 14.

The 2007 Final Supplement

The Environmental Protection Agency Notice of Availability for the Final Supplement 

appeared in the Federal Register on June 8, 2007, and copies or email notices were 

simultaneously sent to the same individuals; interest groups; organizations; businesses; 

elected officials; state, local, and other Federal agencies; and Tribes described above 

and included on the SEIS Team’s mailing list. In addition, the document was mailed to 

libraries, elected officials, and BLM and Forest Service offices. 

According to Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations, “No decision on 

the proposed action shall be made until Thirty (30) days after publication [in the Federal 

Register] of the notice [of availability] for a final environmental impact statement” (CEQ 

Regulations Implementing NEPA, 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1506.10(b)). 

The regulations go on to permit an exception to the 30 days if the Agency has a formal 

administrative review process, which the BLM normally has. However, as noted in the 

Final Supplement and in this Record of Decision (Section 7, No Administrative Review), 

the Secretary of the Interior is the deciding official and the BLM administrative review 

(protest) process does not apply.
40

Bureau of Land Management Record of Decision to Remove the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

By July 12 (34 days following publication of the Notice of Availability for the Final 

Supplement), 15 transmittals had been received in the form of letters and e-mails 

(collectively referred to as letters). Letters were received from 14 individuals and the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The individuals’ letters were from Oregon, 

Washington, and Oklahoma. These all requested retention of the Survey and Manage 

program, but that if it were removed, mitigation for the red tree vole should be applied 

to the Xeric and the North Cascades range of the Northern Mesic Biological Zones. Some 

of the letters requested application of mitigation for all species with adverse outcomes, or 

explained that their reason for supporting mitigation was to retain as much old-growth 

forest as possible.

The EPA did not object to the analysis, referencing their earlier findings that the 

analysis supports both the utilization of the Special Status Species Programs and 

previous determinations made as a part of the Annual Species Reviews. They noted the 

importance of the other elements of the Northwest Forest Plan in providing for species 

persistence. 

These letters were considered in my Decision. I have not adopted mitigation for the red 

tree vole in the two areas mentioned in the letters for the reasons described under Reasons 

for Not Adopting Mitigation in Section 3 (Reasons for the Decision) of this Record of Decision. 

6. Environmentally Preferable Alternative

CEQ regulations require that the Record of Decision specify “the alternative or alternatives 

which were considered to be environmentally preferable” (40 CFR 1505.2(b)). CEQ’s “Forty 

Most Asked Questions” document (46 Federal Register 18026, March 23, 1981) clarifies 

that “The environmentally preferable alternative is the alternative that will promote the 

national environmental policy as expressed in NEPA’s Section 101. Ordinarily, this means 

the alternative that causes the least damage to the biological and physical environment; it also 

means the alternative that best protects, preserves, and enhances historic, cultural, and natural 

resources.” NEPA’s Section 101 calls for Federal agencies to make decisions to achieve 

“conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony and fulfill the social, 

economic, and other requirements of present and future generations of Americans.” It also 

calls for Federal agencies to “(3) attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment 

without degradation, risk to health or safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences; 

. . . (5) achieve a balance between population and resource use which will permit high standards 

of living and a wide sharing of life’s amenities; and (6) enhance the quality of renewable resources 

and approach the maximum attainable recycling of depletable resources.” See National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Sec. 101.

I cannot choose Alternative 1 as meeting the criteria of “environmentally preferred” 

using the approach suggested by CEQ. The Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure 

Standards and Guidelines interfere with the Agencies’ ability to implement hazardous 

fuel treatment projects as well as the other resource management projects needed to reach 

the forest health goals identified in the Northwest Forest Plan. The existing situation 

is the one created by Alternative 1; therefore, this alternative is not environmentally 

preferred, nor is Alternative 4 for the same reasons.

Alternatives 2 and 3 are both environmentally preferred over Alternative 1 for the 

following reasons:
41

Bureau of Land Management Record of Decision to Remove the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

1. Alternatives 2 and 3 would both increase the Agencies’ ability to accomplish resource 

management projects to improve forest health while continuing to provide for diversity 

of plant and animal communities and conserving rare and little known species that may 

be at risk of becoming listed under the Endangered Species Act. Occupied known sites 

of Survey and Manage species under Alternative 1 affect, and thus encumber, resource 

management projects including those designed to improve forest health - 15 percent of 

the area in late-successional forests in all land allocations. Alternative 2 reduces that 

effect to about 5 percent and Alternative 3 reduces this effect to about 7 percent. In 

addition to these direct effects, the Global Climate section of the Final Supplement reminds 

us that the U.S. demand for wood products continues to increase. Each decrease in 

harvest levels locally likely translates to a corresponding increase in harvesting elsewhere 

in the world where environmental controls might not lead to efficient replacement, the 

type of forest harvested may be more efficient at slowing global change than Pacific 

Northwest temperate forests, and fossil fuels will be burned to deliver the products to 

U.S. markets.

2. Alternatives 2 and 3 would also increase the Agencies’ ability to plan and implement 

hazardous fuels treatment projects by increasing the acres available for treatment and 

reducing the costs of treatment. Under Alternative 2, the annual acres available for 

hazardous fuel treatments are projected at nearly 78,400, an increase of nearly 5,400 acres 

compared to Alternative 1. Fuel treatment costs to manage for species would be $39 

per acre, a decrease of $60 compared to Alternative 1. Under Alternative 3, the annual 

acres available for hazardous fuel treatments would be 77,440, an increase of 4,400 acres 

compared to Alternative 1. Fuel treatment costs to manage for species would be $30 per 

acre, a decrease of $69 compared to Alternative 1.

3. Species effects are acceptable under both Alternatives 2 and 3. Adverse outcomes are 

predicted for 53 and 11 species in all or part of their range, respectively, but other factors 

in the analysis lead me to conclude these adverse effects are likely limited in scope. 

Therefore, with the additional forest health and protection treatments permitted by 

Alternative 2, I conclude that Alternative 2 is slightly more environmentally preferable 

than Alternative 3.

7. No Administrative Review

A Decision by the Secretary of the Interior is not subject to administrative review under 

the BLM or Departmental regulations. Therefore, this Decision is the final agency action 

for the amendment of the 9 District and Field Office Resource Management Plans to 

remove the Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines as described in Section 2 (The 

Decision) of this Record of Decision. 

8. Effective Date

My Decision to select Alternative 2 is effective immediately. Projects in compliance 

with the 2001 Survey and Manage Survey and Manage Record of Decision, including 

subsequent 2001-2003 Annual Species Review changes in effect at the time of the project 

decisions, may proceed. However, before certain projects may proceed, the injunctions 

issued by the U.S. District Courts in NEA v. Rey and KSWC v. Boody may need to be 

modified or dissolved. 
42

Bureau of Land Management Record of Decision to Remove the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

9. Contact Person

Michael Haske, Chief

Branch of Forest Resources and Special Status Species

Bureau of Land Management

P.O. Box 2965

Portland, Oregon 97208

Telephone: (503) 808-6066

10. Signature and Date

___________________________________________

C. Stephen Allred

Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals Management

U.S. Department of the Interior

Dated: _______________________________ 

References

Madsen, S. 2007. Documented determination on the status of the 2007 US FWS BiOp. 

Forest Service Threatened/ Endangered/ Sensitive Species Program Leader.

Mellon-McLean, K., Johnson, T., and Craig, D. 2006. Red Tree Vole Status Review - 

Report to the IMG. 

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1994a. Final Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement on Management of Habitat for Late-Successional 

and Old-Growth Forest Related Species within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl 

(Northwest Forest Plan). Portland, Oregon. 

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1994b. Record of Decision 

on Management of Habitat for Late-Successional and Old-Growth Forest Related Species 

within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl (Northwest Forest Plan). Portland, 

Oregon.

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2000a. Final Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection 

Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines. Portland, Oregon.

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2001a. Record of Decision 

and Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection 

Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines. Portland, Oregon. 

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2004a. Final Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement to Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage 

Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines. Portland, Oregon.
43

Bureau of Land Management Record of Decision to Remove the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2007. Final Supplement to 

the 2004 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement to Remove or Modify the 

Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines. Portland, Oregon.

USDA Forest Service, U.S. Department of Commerce (National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration), U.S. Department of the Interior (Bureau of Land Management, Fish and 

Wildlife Service, and National Park Service), and Environmental Protection Agency. 1993. 

Forest Ecosystem Management: An Ecological, Economic, and Social Assessment. Report 

of the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team [FEMAT]. U.S. GPO 1993-793-

071. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Biological Opinion on the Forest Service’s and 

Bureau of Land Management’s proposal to remove Northwest Forest Plan Survey and 

Manage Standards and Guidelines. 48 pp.
44

Bureau of Land Management Record of Decision to Remove the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

BUREAU OF

LAND

MANAGEMENT

BLM/OR/WA/PT-07/071-1792

UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

333 S.W. First Avenue

Oregon State Office

Portland, Oregon 97204

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300

PRIORITY MAIL

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

Bureau of Land Management

Permit No. G-76