FSEIS

FSBLM

June 2007

Final Supplement to the

2004 Supplemental Environmental Impact 

Statement

To Remove or Modify the Survey

and Manage Mitigation Measure

Standards and Guidelines

Volume 1 - Chapters and Text

Forest Service National Forests in Regions 5 

and 6 and Bureau of Land Management Districts 

in Washington, Oregon, and California Within the 

FSEIS

Range of the Northern Spotted Owl
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

prohibits discrimination in all its programs 

and activities on the basis of race, color, 

national origin, age, disability, and where 

applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, 

parental status, religion, sexual orientation, 

genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, 

or because all or part of an individual’s 

income is derived from any public assistance 

program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to 

all programs.) Persons with disabilities who 

require alternative means for communication 

of program information (Braille, large print, 

audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s 

TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and 

TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, 

write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 

1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, 

DC 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 or (202) 

720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity 

provider and employer.

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).
Final Supplement to the

2004 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

To Remove or Modify the

Survey and Manage

Mitigation Measure

Standards and Guidelines

Forest Service National Forests in Regions 5 and 6

and Bureau of Land Management Districts

in Washington, Oregon, and California

Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl

June 2007

Lead Agencies: Forest Service - U.S. Department of Agriculture

Bureau of Land Management - U.S. Department of the Interior

Responsible Officials: Mike Johanns, Secretary of Agriculture

Dirk Kempthorne, Secretary of the Interior

Information Contact: 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 

or Alan Christensen, Group Leader

Wildlife, Fisheries, Watershed, Soils and Range

Forest Service-NR

P.O. Box 3623

Portland, Oregon 97208

telephone (503) 808-2922

Copies of this document are also available on line at http://www.reo.gov/s-m2006. Printed copies or 

a CD version can be obtained by contacting Carol Hughes at U.S. Forest Service-NR, P.O. Box 3623, 

Portland, OR 97208-3623. Correspondence including requests for documents can also be sent to 

ORSMSEIS@blm.gov.
“With regard to plants and animals. . . , we are 

better for coming to a knowledge of them, for 

we are inhabitants of the same earth. They have 

a nearness and kinship to us. . . .In every natural 

object there is something to excite our imagination.”

Aristotle

4th Century BC
Notice

Readers should note that the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior are 

the responsible officials for this proposed action. Therefore, no administrative review 

(“appeal”) through the Forest Service will be available on the Record of Decision (ROD) 

under 36 CFR 217. Also no administrative review (“protest”) through the Bureau of Land 

Management will be available on the Final Supplement under 43 CFR 1610.5-2. Because 

there is no administrative review of the proposed plan or decision, the ROD(s) will not be 

signed until at least 30 days after the EPA Notice of Availability for the Final Supplement 

appears in the Federal Register (see 40 CFR 1506.10(b)).
Abstract 

This Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement examines the environmental effects 

of a proposal by the Forest Service and BLM to remove or modify the Survey and Manage 

Standards and Guidelines of the Northwest Forest Plan. Alternatives considered in detail 

are: (1) Alternative 1, No-Action as the Agencies have been most recently conducting 

the program; (2) Alternative 2, an alternative that would amend 28 land and resource 

management plans by removing the Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines; (3) 

Alternative 3, an alternative that would amend 28 land and resource management plans 

by modifying the Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines; and (4) Alternative 

4, No-Action to reflect the potential implications of a recent court decision relative to 

Alternative 1. The need for the proposal was generated by concerns that the Survey 

and Manage Standards and Guidelines are frustrating Forest Service and BLM efforts 

to accomplish resource management objectives of the Northwest Forest Plan. The 337 

Survey and Manage species (on the most inclusive alternative) affected by this proposal 

were analyzed to determine the environmental consequences under the four alternatives. 

Analyses show that the Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines and the Special 

Status Species Programs add protection and reduce risk to species. Recognizing there 

is much that remains unknown about many of the species, for 133 species there would 

be insufficient habitat (including known sites) to support stable populations in all or 

part of the Northwest Forest Plan area under all alternatives due to factors beyond the 

control of the Forest Service and BLM. When compared to Alternative 4, there are 2, 53, 

and 11 species that would have insufficient habitat (including known sites) to support 

stable populations in all or part of the Northwest Forest Plan area under Alternatives 

1, 2 and 3, respectively. These species would have sufficient habitat under Alternative 

4. Potential mitigation is identified to reduce the adverse effects to these species. The 

analysis also showed annual timber harvest would be 70 MMBF higher under Alternative 

2 and 60 MMBF higher under Alternative 3 compared to Alternatives 1 and 4, No-Action. 

Cost of both of the No-Action Alternative is projected to be $21.0 million annually for 

the next 5 years, dropping to $14.4 million annually, thereafter. Short-term annual costs 

of Alternatives 2 and 3 are $7.9 million and $10.7 million, respectively. After 5 years, 

those annual costs fall to $7.4 million and $9 million, respectively. Alternatives 2 and 3 

showed increases in annual employment and annual hazardous fuel treatment acreage 

relative to Alternatives 1 and 4. The preferred alternative is Alternative 2 because it best 

meets the purpose and need. Specifically, Alternative 2 conserves rare and little known 

species, reduces cost and effort, and allows for achievement of healthy forests and timber 

outputs. 
Acronyms and Abbreviations

ACEC Area of Critical Environmental Concern

ACS Aquatic Conservation Strategy

AMA Adaptive Management Area

As Bureau Assessment

ASR Annual Species Review

BBN Bayesian belief network

BE Biological Evaluation

BLM Bureau of Land Management

BO Biological Opinion

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CI Confidence Interval

CVS Continuous Vegetation Survey

EA Environmental Assessment 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

ESA Endangered Species Act

FEMAT Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team

FIA Forest Inventory and Analysis

FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act

FR Federal Register

FRCC Fire Regime Condition Class

FS Forest Service

FSEIS Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

FSM Forest Service Manual

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

GeoBOB Geographic Biotic Observations database

GIS Geographic Information System

ha hectare

HRV historic rate of variability

IMG Intermediate Management Group

ISMS Interagency Species Management System database

LRMP Land and Resource Management Plans

LSOG Late-Successional and Old-Growth forest

LSR Late Successional Reserve

MMBF million board feet

MR Management Recommendations

MUSY Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NFMA National Forest Management Act

NFP Northwest Forest Plan (Appendix 9)

NFPORS National Fire Plan Operations & Reporting System

NOAA Fisheries National Marine Fisheries Service

NWFP Northwest Forest Plan
O&C Act Oregon and California and Coos Bay Wagon Road Grant Lands Act

O&C lands lands that are the subject to the O&C Act

ONHP Oregon Natural Heritage Program

ORNHIC Oregon Natural Heritage Information Center

PCFFA Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Association

PM particulate matter

PNW Pacific Northwest Research Station

PSQ Probable Sale Quantity

R-5 Forest Service Region 5 (California)

R-6 Forest Service Region 6 (Oregon and Washington)

RA Rapid Assessment

RDS Random Double Sample

REO Regional Ecosystem Office

RIEC Regional Interagency Executive Committee

RMS Random Multi-Species

ROD Record of Decision

S&Gs Standards and Guidelines

SE Standard Error

SEIS Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

SS Forest Service or BLM Sensitive Species

SSSP Special Status Species Program(s)

U.S.C. United States Code

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

USDI United States Department of Interior

WFU Wildland Fire Use

WUI Wildland Urban Interface
i

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi

Why is the Action Being Proposed?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xii

What Would It Mean Not to Meet the Need?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii

What Action is Proposed?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii

Would Other Alternatives Meet the Need?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii

What are the Effects of the Alternatives?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii

What Factors Will be Used in Making the Decision?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xx

What Monitoring is Necessary that is Not Included in the Proposed 

Action or Alternatives?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xx

Which Alternative is Preferred?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xx

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxiii

Objectives of this FSEIS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxiii

Background. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxiii

District Court Decision on the 2004 FSEIS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxiii

The Ninth Circuit Court Decision on the Annual Species Reviews. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxiv

2007 Final Supplement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxv

Subsequent Documents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxv

Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

The Need . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

The Purposes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Meet Terms of the Settlement Agreement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Conserve Rare and Little Known Species. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Reduce Cost and Effort. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Healthy Forests and Timber Outputs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Reasons for the Purpose and Need. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Proposed Action. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

The Proposal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Decisions to be Made. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Scoping. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

2004 SEIS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

2007 Supplement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Preferred Alternative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Chapter 2 – The Alternatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Background for Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

The Northwest Forest Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

The Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

The 2000 Survey and Manage SEIS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Changes since the 2000 Final SEIS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

The Lawsuit and Settlement Agreement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

This Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Changing Standards and Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

The Planning Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Relationship of Alternatives to Existing Management Plans. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Bureau of Land Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Forest Service. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

The Alternatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
ii

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Elements Common to All Alternatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Alternative 1, No-Action with ASRs (Northwest Forest Plan Including Survey 

and Manage for 295 Species). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Program Objectives - Survey and Manage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Background - Changes since the 2000 Final SEIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Number of Species and Taxa. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Standards for Inclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Species Categories. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Project Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Site Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Inventories. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Adding/Removing Species. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Reports, Monitoring, and Review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Alternative 2, Proposed Action (Northwest Forest Plan without Survey and Manage). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Standards for Inclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Policy Objectives - Special Status Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Number of Species and Taxa. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Project Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Site Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Conservation Strategies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Inventories. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Adding/Removing Species. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Reports, Monitoring, and Review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Alternative 3 (Northwest Forest Plan with Modified Survey and Manage) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Program/Policy Objectives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Number of Species and Taxa. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Standards for Inclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Species Categories. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Project Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Site Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Conservation Strategies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Inventories. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Adding/Removing Species. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Reports, Monitoring, and Review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Alternative 4, No-Action without ASRs (Northwest Forest Plan Including Survey 

and Manage for 337 Species). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Number of Species and Taxa. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Project Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Site Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Adding, Removing, and Changing Species Between Categories. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

No Late-Successional and Old-Growth Harvest. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Keep Survey and Manage for Vertebrate Species Only. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Keep Survey and Manage, Use the Natural Heritage Program Process to Determine which Species to 

Include. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Eliminate Survey and Manage, Coordinate Agency Policies Regarding Special Status Species 

Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Keep Survey and Manage, Eliminate the Pre-Disturbance Survey Requirement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Keep Survey and Manage, Cut Costs by Exempting Certain Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Eliminate Survey and Manage, Keep Strategic Surveys. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Stop All Timber Harvest. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Strengthen the Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

List Survey and Manage Species under the Endangered Species Act. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Eliminate Survey and Manage, Do Not Add Species to Agency Special Status Species Programs. . . . . . . 63
iii

Table of Contents

Keep Survey and Manage in the Oregon Coast Range, SW Oregon, NW California, and Oregon 

BLM Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Keep Survey and Manage for Species About Which Little is Known, Put Insufficient Habitat 

Species on Agency Special Status Species Programs, and More Aggressively Remove Those 

with Sufficient Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Comparison of Alternatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Features of the Alternatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Effects of the Alternatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Species Effects without Special Status Species Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Comparison of the Species Effects Between Alternatives 1 and 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Potential Mitigation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Relationship of this SEIS to the Northwest Forest Plan Final SEIS and the 2000 Survey and 

Manage Final SEIS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Incomplete or Unavailable Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

Assumptions and Information Common to All Alternatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

New Information. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

Adaptive Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

Cumulative Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

Background for Effects Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

FEMAT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

Northwest Forest Plan Final SEIS including Appendix J2 (Results of Additional Species Analysis). . . . . 115

2000 Survey and Manage Final SEIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116

Comparison of Alternatives for this SEIS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

Relationship of Outcome Determinations to ASR Species Removal Criteria and Legal Requirements. . . 119

Key Assumptions for Pre-Project Surveys/Clearances and Known Site Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

Key Assumptions for Riparian Reserves and Late-Successional Reserves. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

Species Site Information Sources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124

Types of Survey and Manage Surveys. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124

Key Assumption for Environmental Consequences for Species on Survey and Manage and 

Agencies’ Special Status Species Programs Simultaneously. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

Key Assumption for Past Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128

Key Assumption for Non-Species-Specific Effects Analyses for Alternative 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128

Summary of Environmental Consequences for Species. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130

Environmental Consequences Without Special Status Species Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

Aquatic Ecosystem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

Affected Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

Environmental Consequences. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

Late-Successional Forest Ecosystem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134

Affected Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134

Environmental Consequences. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

Global Climate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

Air Quality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146

Affected Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146

Environmental Consequences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

Water Quality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148

Affected Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148

Environmental Consequences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148

Soil Productivity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148

Affected Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148

Environmental Consequences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148

Wildland and Prescribed Fire. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149

Affected Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149

Environmental Consequences. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
iv

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Survey and Manage Species. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162

Affected Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162

Environmental Consequences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164

Bryophytes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181

Affected Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181

Environmental Consequences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181

Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191

Fungi. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191

Affected Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191

Environmental Consequences. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192

Summary and Mitigation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202

Lichens. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203

Affected Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203

Environmental Consequences. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205

Summary and Mitigation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235

Vascular Plants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236

Affected Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236

Environmental Consequences. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236

Summary and Mitigation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244

Arthropods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244

Affected Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244

Environmental Consequences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245

Mollusks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246

Affected Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246

Environmental Consequences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246

Summary and Mitigation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269

Amphibians. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269

Affected Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269

Environmental Consequences. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274

Summary and Mitigation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283

Late-Successional Birds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283

Affected Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283

Environmental Consequences. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283

Great Gray Owl. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284

Affected Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284

Environmental Consequences. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285

Late-Successional Mammals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286

Affected Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286

Environmental Consequences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286

Oregon Red Tree Vole (Arborimus longicaudus). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287

Affected Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287

Environmental Consequences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 292

Species Associated with Early-Successional Forest. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297

Affected Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297

Environmental Consequences. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297

Threatened and Endangered Species. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297

Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298

Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus marmorata). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299

Bald Eagle (Halieatus leucocephalus). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300

Canada Lynx (Lynx canadensis). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300

Gray Wolf (Canis lupus). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301

Grizzly Bear (Ursus arctos). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301

Listed or Proposed Plant Species Associated with Late-Successional Forests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301

Other Species. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301

California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303
v

Table of Contents

Costs of Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 304

Comparison of Alternatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 304

Timber Harvest. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 308

Affected Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 308

Environmental Consequences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 312

Northwest PSQ - Context and Cumulative Effects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317

Scale and Precision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 318

Socioeconomic Effects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 318

Affected Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 318

Environmental Consequences. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319

Other Environmental Consequences. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325

Adverse Environmental Effects Which Cannot Be Avoided. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325

Relationship Between Short-term Uses of the Human Environment and Maintenance of Long-term Productivity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325

Irreversible or Irretrievable Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325

Conflicts with Other Plans. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 326

Glossary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355

References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 371

List of Preparers: 2006-2007. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 393

EIS Core Team. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 393

Specialists. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 393

Public Comment Analysis Team. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 396

Special Acknowledgements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 396

List of Preparers: 2002-2004. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 397

EIS Core Team. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 397

Specialists. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 398

Special Acknowledgments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 400

Distribution List and Document Availability on the Internet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 403

Elected Officials. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 403

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (including alternate members). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 403

Federal Agencies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 404

State, County, and Local Governments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 405

American Indian Tribes and Nations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 406

Businesses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 407

Other Organizations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 408

Libraries, Schools, and Universities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 409

Individuals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 410

Index. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 413
vi

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

List of Tables

Summary

Table S-1. Summary of Environmental Consequences for Species Assumed to be Managed Primarily by 

Special Status Species Programs under Each Alternative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvi

Table S-2. Summary of Environmental Consequences. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xix

Chapter 2

Table 2-1. Northwest Forest Plan Land Allocations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Table 2-2. Summary of Assumed Special Status Species Program Assignments for Species “Off” Survey 

and Manage in Alternative 1 (Specific species assignments are show on Table 2-13). . . . . . . 32

Table 2-3. Survey and Manage Categories and Management Requirements, Alternative 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Table 2-4. Summary of Assumed Special Status Species Program Assignments for Species “Off” Survey 

and Manage in Alternative 2 (Specific species assignments are show on Table 2-13). . . . . . . 42

Table 2-5. Summary of Assumed Special Status Species Program Assignments for Species “Off” Survey 

and Manage in Alternative 3 (Specific species assignments are show on Table 2-13). . . . . . . 50

Table 2-6. Survey and Manage Categories and Management Requirements, Alternative 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Table 2-7. Survey and Manage Categories and Management Requirements, Alternative 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Table 2-8. Summary of the Key Features of the Alternatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Table 2-9. Summary of Environmental Consequences. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Table 2-10. Summary of Environmental Consequences for Species Assumed to be Managed Primarily by 

Special Status Species Programs under Each Alternative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

Table 2-11. Summary of Environmental Consequences for all Species. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

Table 2-12. Comparison of Outcomes for the 85 Species that Have Different Category Assignments 

Between Alternatives 1 and 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

Table 2-13. Summary of Environmental Consequences, Survey and Manage Category Assignments, 

Special Status Species Program Assignments, and Known Site Numbers for All 337 

Species and All 4 Alternatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Chapter 3 & 4

Table 3&4-1. Fire Regime Condition Class Degree of Departure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152

Table 3&4-2. Federal Acres of Fire Regime Condition Classes in Northwest Forest Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153

Table 3&4-3. Acres of Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) Fire Regime Condition Classes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153

Table 3&4-4. Acres of Hazardous Fuel Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158

Table 3&4-5. Costs of Hazardous Fuel Treatments – Surveys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

Table 3&4-6. Summary Comparison of Fuel Treatment Acres and Total Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160

Table 3&4-7. Fire Regime Condition Class and Late-successional Forests Within the Wildland 

Urban Interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161

Table 3&4-8. Summary Comparison of Fuel Treatment Acres Potentially Forgone. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161

Table 3&4-9. Species Outcomes Summarized by Taxa. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166

Table 3&4-10. Compilation of information about 53 species with insufficient habitat in all or part of 

their range caused by management under Alternative 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168

Table 3&4-11. Red Tree Vole RDS Survey: Estimated Number of 2-ha Plots With Evidence of Recent 

Occupancy by Red Tree Voles in Different Biological Zones of Western Oregon. . . . . . . . . 293

Table 3&4-12. Red Tree Vole: Known Site Numbers and Summary of Outcomes and Program Assignments 

by Biological Zone and Sub-Zone Discussed in the Narrative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293

Table 3&4-13. Annual Cost (In millions of dollars). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 308

Table 3&4-14. Comparison of Timber Harvest Effects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 316

Table 3&4-15. Comparison of Annual Employment and Personal Earnings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321

Table 3&4-16. Probability Sampling Survey Results (RMS and GOBIG2K). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327

Table 3&4-17. Species Outcomes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 343

Table 3&4-18. Species with Multiples Names. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 352
vii

Table of Contents

List of Figures

Chapter 1

Figure 1-1. Range of the Northern Spotted Owl. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Chapter 3&4

Figure 3&4-1. Late Successional Forest in the Northwest Forest Plan Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

Figure 3&4-2. Development of Late-Successional Forest Over Time. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

Figure 3&4-3. Original Northwest Forest Plan Land Allocations and Late-Successional Forest. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

Figure 3&4-4. Random Multi Species Survey Regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

Figure 3&4-5. Red Tree Vole Surveys in the Northern Mesic Biological Zone. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294

Figure 3&4-6. Red Tree Vole Surveys in the Xeric Biological Zone. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295

Figure 3&4-7. Red Tree Vole Surveys in the Mesic Biological Zone. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 296

Figure 3&4-8. Annual Timber Sale Offerings in Relation to PSQ. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311

Figure 3&4-9. Acreage of Species Sites identified through 2001 under the alternatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 312

Figure 3&4-10. Projected Acres of Survey and Manage Sites Affecting PSQ. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315

Figure 3&4-11. Projected PSQ Reductions in Million Board Feet from the current 805 MMBF Baseline. . . . . . . . 316

Appendices 

Appendix 1 - January 2001 Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Appendix 2 - BLM Special Status Species Program and FS Sensitive Species Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Appendix 3 - Oregon Natural Heritage Information Center Rankings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

Appendix 4 - Proposed Standards and Guidelines for Alternative 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Appendix 5 - Biological Evaluation for Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species and Forest 

Service Sensitive Species. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

Appendix 6 - Response to Comments on the 2003 Draft SEIS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161

Appendix 7 - Comment Letters from Federal, State, and Local Government Agencies on the 

2003 Draft SEIS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279

Appendix 8 - Previous Analyses Incorporated by Reference. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297

Appendix 9 - Annual Species Review Summaries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 421

Appendix 10 - U.S. FWS Notice of Decision Regarding the Siskiyou Mountain and Scott Bar Salamanders 

(from Federal Register). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 521

Appendix 11 - Response to Comments on the July 2006 Draft Supplement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 535

Appendix 12 - Comment Letters from Federal, State, and Local Government Agencies on the July 2006 

Draft Supplement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 597

Appendix 13 - Response to Comments on the January 2007 Supplement to the July 2006 Draft Supplement. . . 609

Appendix 14 - Comment Letters from Federal, State, and Local Government Agencies on the 

January 2007 Supplement to the July 2006 Draft Supplement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 673
viii

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines
ix

Summary

Changes since the 2004 FSEIS:

Changes displayed in the July 2006 Draft Supplement or made in response to public 

comments received about that document:

•	 A brief description of court-identified deficiencies to which this Supplement responds 

has been added to the Introduction.

•	 Species effects summaries have been updated to reflect analysis changes based on new 

information.

•	 Effects for species “off” of Survey and Manage are also displayed as if they are not 

added to, or are removed from, Agencies’ Special Status Species Programs.

•	 The Wildland and Prescribed Fire effects have been changed to reflect the rewritten 

section in Chapter 3&4. In addition, effects to the program are displayed against an 

80,000 acre per year current program level.

•	 Costs are updated for inflation and to reflect the new analysis in the Wildland and 

Prescribed Fire section 

Changes displayed in the January 2007 Supplement to the July 2006 Draft Supplement or 

made in response to comments received about that document:

•	 A brief description of the court issue leading to the inclusion of No-Action Alternative 

4, a second no-action alternative, is included in the Introduction.

•	 Species and other resource effects are displayed for another no-action alternative, 

Alternative 4, added to display the potential implications of a November 2006 court 

decision. 

•	 Effects for 42 species in all of their range and an additional 16 in part of their range 

have been added to address the species added by the new No-Action Alternative, 

Alternative 4.

NOTE: In the January 2007 Supplement, Alternative 3 had been reconfigured based on the 

species and categories of Alternative 4. In this FSEIS, Alternative 3 is returned to the 2004 and 

July 2006 configuration based on Alternative 1. (See introduction to Alternative 3 in Chapter 2 

for details.)

Minor corrections, explanations, and edits are not included in this list.
x

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines
xi

Summary

Introduction

This Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) presents the environmental 

consequences of undertaking different management strategies for rare and little known 

species that are associated with late-successional and old-growth forests within the range 

of the northern spotted owl. The proposed action is to remove the Survey and Manage 

Standard and Guidelines from the Northwest Forest Plan.

The Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines were originally added to agency land 

and resource management plans as part of the 1994 Record of Decision for Amendments 

to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range 

of the Northern Spotted Owl (the Northwest Forest Plan). The Northwest Forest Plan 

primarily takes a landscape approach to providing habitat for late-successional and 

old-growth forest related species on Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM) (hereafter referred to as the Agencies) administrative units in western Washington 

and Oregon, and northwestern California. The Survey and Manage mitigation measure 

was added to the basic elements of the Northwest Forest Plan to provide benefits for 

rare and little known species. In January 2001, the Agencies modified the Survey and 

Manage Standards and Guidelines by identifying needed management, clarifying 

language, eliminating inconsistent and redundant practices, and establishing an annual 

species review process. Those modifications were embodied in the January 2001 Record 

of Decision for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation 

Measures Standards and Guidelines.

Following a species review process described in the 2001 Standards and Guidelines, 

the Agencies removed 58 species from Survey and Manage in all or part of their range 

between 2001 and 2003, so that by early 2004, 2951 species and 4 arthropod functional 

groups were being managed under the Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines.

A “proposed action” to remove the Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines was 

made public on October 21, 2002, through a Notice of Intent published in the Federal 

Register (67 FR 64601). This Notice of Intent provided preliminary information about the 

proposed action and resulted in over 650 public comments. A Draft SEIS was released 

in May 2003 and the public was again invited to comment. The 90-day public comment 

period resulted in the Agencies receiving more than 5,100 letters, postcards, and e-mails. 

In January 2004, the Agencies issued a Final SEIS, and in March 2004 issued a Record of 

Decision selecting the proposed action.

A lawsuit by the Northwest Ecosystem Alliance and others resulted in an August, 2005 

decision by the District Court of the Western District of Washington identifying three 

deficiencies in the 2004 analysis. The court found the Agencies had:

1. “...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”;

2. “...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.” (Northwest Ecosystem Alliance v. Rey, 380 F. Supp. 2d 1175 

(W.D.Wash. 2005) at 1197-98)

1

The 2004 FSEIS addressed “296” species but that number included a species since determined to be a synonym for another included species and 

was thus combined.

Summary
xii

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

3. “...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”; and,

The 2004 Record of Decision was set aside and the Agencies were required to return 

to implementation of the Standards and Guidelines including any amendments or 

modifications to the 2001 Record of Decision that were in effect as of March 21, 2004.

A Notice of Intent to prepare a Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS to address these three 

deficiencies was published in the Federal Register December 12, 2005. A Draft Supplement 

supplying the missing information, as well as new information about species that had 

become available since the 2004 analysis, was issued in July 2006 and the public was 

again invited to comment. The 90-day public comment period resulted in the Agencies 

receiving 55 letters and e-mails. 

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 protect a species removed from Survey and Manage by the 

2001-2003 species review process. The court found the 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. 

Although the court’s decision was specific to the red tree vole, the Agencies decided to 

consider the potential implications of that decision on other species affected by the 2001-

2003 species review process. 

On January 5, 2007, the Agencies issued a Supplement to the July 2006 Draft Supplement, 

which added another no-action alternative (Alternative 4), that included the 3372

species included in Survey and Manage in 2001. The Supplement displayed effects of the 

proposed action and other alternatives on all 337 species, and addressed the effects of the 

new alternative on other resource management activities including timber harvest and 

fuels management. The 90-day public comment period ending April 5, 2007 resulted in 

the Agencies receiving 45 letters and e-mails.

This (2007) Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS to Remove of Modify the Survey and Manage 

Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines updates the 2004 analysis to respond to both 

court decisions by adding the information in the above two drafts, improved in response 

to the public comments received during both 90-day public comment periods.

Why is the Action Being Proposed?

Agency managers and the public have raised concerns that the Survey and Manage 

Standards and Guidelines are frustrating the Agencies’ ability to meet the resource 

management goals and objectives as set forth in the Northwest Forest Plan. They assert 

that the costs of the Survey and Manage mitigation measure, both in dollars and in 

time, are excessive. They also suggest that because 80 percent of federally managed 

lands within the Northwest Forest Plan area are allocated to reserves, it is not necessary 

to manage substantially more land for late-successional and old-growth forest related 

species. The Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines require management of 

known species sites within areas allocated to multiple use such as timber harvest or 

watershed restoration. Such management can prevent timber sales and other activities 

such as habitat conservation and restoration from going forward. 

2

 The 2001 Decision addressed “346” species, but that number included 4 arthropod groups, 3 species that were counted twice because they were 

in more than one category and two species since determined to be synonyms for other included species and were thus combined. 
xiii

The underlying needs to which the Agencies are responding 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 Standards and Guidelines.

What Would It Mean Not to Meet the Need?

To answer this question, two No-Action Alternatives (Alternatives 1 and 4) were 

analyzed. Alternative 1 continues implementation of all current elements of the 

Northwest Forest Plan including the Survey and Manage mitigation measure as applied 

to the 295 species remaining after the 2001, 2002, and 2003 Annual Species Reviews, 

the underlying land and resource management plans, and relevant agency programs 

and policies. Alternative 4 is the same as Alternative 1 but includes analysis of effects 

for an additional 58 species, and 32 others in different categories than in Alternative 1, 

those affected by the Annual Species Reviews. Not meeting the need continues a 13 

percent fall-down in Northwest Forest Plan timber sale accomplishments attributable 

to Survey and Manage (105 MMBF reduction in the 805 MMBF goal), lowers the 

accomplishment and effectiveness of fuels treatments designed to protect communities 

and restore ecosystems, and continues annual costs of $13.1 million when compared with 

the proposed action, funds that could be assigned to other programs including higher 

priority ecosystem management such as invasive species control or eastside (dry forest) 

ecosystem improvements. 

What Action is Proposed?

The Agencies propose to remove the Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines by 

amending the 28 land and resource management plans for the National Forests and BLM 

Districts within the range of the northern spotted owl. This proposal is referred to as 

the “proposed action” or Alternative 2. Under Alternative 2, the Agencies would rely on 

their existing Special Status Species Programs to help conserve rare species. Alternative 2 

is described in detail in Chapter 2.

Would Other Alternatives Meet the Need?

During the scoping and public review phases for this project, many comments were 

received both internally and externally. Commenters suggested various ideas for meeting 

the need, and many of these are addressed in Chapter 2 under Alternatives Considered but 

Eliminated from Detailed Study. Several of these ideas were also incorporated into another 

alternative, Alternative 3. Alternative 3 would remove the uncommon species from 

the Survey and Manage mitigation measure while retaining rare species. Alternative 3 

would also remove the requirement to conduct pre-disturbance surveys in forest stands 

that have not developed late-successional and old-growth characteristics. Alternative 

3 would meet much of the need by reducing the fall-down in Northwest Forest Plan 

annual timber accomplishments to 10 MMBF when compared with the proposed action, 

significantly improving fuels treatment amounts and effectiveness when compared with 

the No-Action Alternatives, and reducing program implementation costs to $10.3 million 

annually compared with no-action. 

What are the Effects of the Alternatives?

This section summarizes the environmental consequences of the four alternatives 

discussed in detail in Chapter 3&4. 

Summary
xiv

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Survey and Manage Species

The environmental consequences analysis in this SEIS supplements the previous analyses 

in the 1994 Northwest Forest Plan Final SEIS and 2000 Survey and Manage Final SEIS. 

Those analyses concluded the Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines generally 

provide benefits to species and provide consistent processes for obtaining information 

about numbers, populations, and distribution. 

The analysis in this SEIS determines one of the following outcomes for each of the 337 

species: 

1. Habitat (including known sites) is sufficient to support stable populations in the 

Northwest Forest Plan area. 

2. Habitat (including known sites) is sufficient to support stable populations range-wide

in the Northwest Forest Plan area, although there is insufficient habitat to support 

stable populations in a portion of the Northwest Forest Plan area.

3. Habitat (including known sites) is insufficient to support stable populations in the 

Northwest Forest Plan area.

4. There is insufficient information to determine an outcome.

Recognizing there is much that remains unknown about many of the species, the analysis 

in this SEIS concludes that some species would have insufficient habitat (including 

known sites) to provide for stable populations in the Northwest Forest Plan area or 

in portions of the species range due to the proposed action. In addition, the analysis 

shows that some species have insufficient habitat or there is insufficient information 

to determine an outcome under any alternative. Table S-2 summarizes the number of 

species by outcome under each of the four alternatives.

The analysis determined Alternative 2, the proposed action, would not provide 

sufficient habitat to support stable populations for 38 of the 337 species analyzed, due 

to differences between No-Action Alternative 4 and the Proposed Action (Alternative 

2). This includes 2 lichens, 10 mollusks, 1 bryophyte, and 25 fungi. For these species, 

there is sufficient habitat (including known sites) to support stable populations under 

Alternative 4, while there is insufficient habitat to support stable populations under 

Alternative 2. The difference in outcome for almost all of these species was caused by a 

species not qualifying for one or more of the Agencies’ Special Status Species Programs in 

all or important parts of their range under Alternative 2, generally either because they are 

considered more secure in other parts of their range outside of the Northwest Forest Plan 

area or because too little is known about them to effectively manage them under these 

programs.

For the 337 species included in this analysis, Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 provide stable 

habitat range wide or in all but a portion of their range for 185, 147, 181, and 185 species 

respectively (Table S-2).

The analysis determined Alternative 3 would not provide sufficient habitat to support 

stable populations for four species in the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) area due to 

differences between Alternatives 1 and 3. This includes two fungi and two lichens. 

For these species, there is sufficient habitat (including known sites) to support stable 

populations under Alternative 4 while there is insufficient habitat (including known sites) 

to support stable populations under Alternative 3. Under Alternative 3, the difference in 

outcome for almost all of these species was caused by a species not qualifying for one or 

more of the Agencies’ Special Status Species Programs in all or important parts of their 

range for the reasons described under alternative 2 above.
xv

For some of the species, even though they would have sufficient habitat (including 

known sites) to support stable populations range-wide in the Northwest Forest Plan 

area, they would have insufficient habitat (including known sites) to support stable 

populations in a portion of their range under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3. For Alternative 

1, this includes one lichen and one vascular plant. For Alternative 2, this includes 

three fungi, three lichens, two mollusks, one vascular plant, and six vertebrates. For 

Alternative 3, this includes one lichen, one vascular plant, and five vertebrates.

However, the analysis shows that the Survey and Manage “sufficient habitat” outcome 

definition, and its application in this analysis, exceeds legal requirements. One species 

effects specialist (amphibians), for example, specifically notes management precluding 

listing under the Endangered Species Act and meeting the Forest Service viability and 

diversity provisions would not necessarily meet the definition for Outcome 1 in this 

FSEIS. The above species effects are for the Northwest Forest Plan area only, and many 

are for a portion of the Plan area only, and all are tied to a “persistence objective” that the 

1994 Record of Decision notes exceeds legal requirements. 

Additionally, habitat continues to improve. The analysis shows a 19 to 26 percent 

increase in late-successional forests in reserves since the Forest Ecosystem Management 

Assessment Team (FEMAT) did its original species ratings. Analysis also shows that 

older forest abundance, diversity, and connectivity are within the natural range of 

variability except perhaps for two provinces in the eastern Cascades (Moeur et al. 2005), 

a condition the FEMAT estimated had a 63 to 77 percent chance of occurring within 100 

years (USDA et al. 1993: IV-70). Ten-year monitoring results appear to show that certain 

of the Northwest Forest Plan’s assumptions about late-successional forest abundance and 

function were too conservative (Moeur et al. 2005).

Species Effects if Special Status Species Program Assignments Are 

Not Made 

The species effects for Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 in this FSEIS assume that the Agencies will 

assign qualifying species to one or more of their Special Status Species Programs3, and in 

fact, all of the assignments shown in this analysis as “assumed” have been made. While 

use of these programs is Agencies’ policy and can be assumed, Decision-makers have 

latitude regarding whether to assign specific species to these programs. Therefore, the 

effects for species “off” of Survey and Manage under each alternative are also described 

as if species are not assigned, or are removed from, these programs. Of the 58 species 

“off” Survey and Manage in all or part of their range under Alternative 1, 15 are assumed 

assigned to one or more Special Status Species Programs affecting at least part of that 

range. Of these 15, one has insufficient habitat in part of its range even with the Special 

Status Species Program assignments, while two (one additional) have insufficient habitat 

in part of their range if those assignment are removed (Table S-1). 

Of the 337 species “off” Survey and Manage under Alternative 2, 157 are assumed 

assigned to one or more Special Status Species Programs. Of these 157, 27 in all of their 

range and 15 in part of their range have insufficient habitat with the Special Status 

Species Program assignments, while 64 in all of their range and 18 in part of their range 

have insufficient habitat if those assignments are removed (Table S-1). 

Of the 61 species “off” Survey and Manage in all or part of their range under Alternative 

3, 28 species are assumed assigned to one or more Special Status Species Programs 

affecting at least part of that range. Of these 28, three in all of their range and four in

3

There are two Forest Service Regions and two BLM State offices involved, and each has its own Special Status Species Program and respective 

species assignments, based on National Policies applied to specific local situations (see Appendix 2). Table 2-13 at the end of Chapter 2 shows 

which species are assumed to be assigned to which of the four programs.

Summary
xvi

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

part of their range have insufficient habitat with the Special Status Species Program 

assignments, while five in all of their range and three in part of their range have 

insufficient habitat if those assignments are removed (Table S-1). 

Under Alternative 4, one Category F species’ “sufficient habitat” outcome is based, in 

part, on known sites being managed under one of the Special Status Species Programs in 

a portion of its range. When the Special Status Species Program assumption is removed, 

this species has insufficient habitat in a portion of its range in this alternative.

Potential Species Mitigation

Measures could be used to mitigate the adverse environmental effects for 2, 53, and 11 

species that would have insufficient habitat (including known sites) to support stable 

populations in all or a portion of the Northwest Forest Plan area under Alternatives 1, 2 

and 3 (respectively), but not under Alternative 4. Mitigation could include management 

of known sites where species are not included in the Agencies’ Special Status Species 

Programs. In addition, mitigation for some of these species could include pre-project 

clearances. 

There are also 132 species (and one in part of its range) with insufficient habitat 

(including known sites) to support stable populations in the Northwest Forest Plan 

area under all alternatives. This predicted outcome is due to factors such as limited 

potential habitat, few known populations on federally managed lands, potential for 

stochastic events, low number of individuals, limited distribution, and narrow ecological 

amplitude. Since the insufficient habitat is not a result of federal actions, no alternative 

could be proposed that would change this outcome (USDA, USDI 1994a; USDA, USDI 

2000a). There are also 20 species and 4 arthropod groups for which there is insufficient 

information to determine an outcome under all alternatives.

Table S-1. Summary of Environmental Consequences for Species Assumed to be 

Managed Primarily by Special Status Species Programs under Each Alternative3

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

With 

SSSP

Without 

SSSP

With 

SSSP

Without 

SSSP

With 

SSSP

Without 

SSSP

Species and Groups

Insufficient habitat not due to 

federal actions 1 2 2 38(12

) 38(12) 2 2

Insufficient habitat due to actions 

under the alternative 0(12

) 0(22) 27(152) 64(182) 3(42) 5(32)

Sufficient Habitat 12 12 81 44 21 19

Insufficient Information to 

Determine Outcome 1 1 11 11 2 2

Number of Species Managed Primarily 

by Special Status Species Programs in 

Each Alt.

15 (12 in all and 3 in 

part of their range) 157 28 (23 in all and 5 in part of their range)

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

 Species with sufficient habitat range-wide, but with insufficient habitat in a portion of the range. These are included in the “sufficient 

habitat” count.

3

 Does not include 1 species in Alternative 4 with insufficient habitat in a portion of its range without SSSP.

Table includes only species assumed assigned to Special Status Species Programs (SSSP) in one or more alternative, and the effects with and 

without SSSP. See Table 2-11 for total species effects with and without SSSP.
xvii

Under Alternative 1 and 4, when the analyses shows that there is “insufficient 

information to determine an outcome” or “there is insufficient habitat (including 

known sites) to support stable populations” for a species, this outcome is the same for 

Alternatives 2 and 3 as well. Although the Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines 

under Alternative 1 and 4 generally provide benefits to species, they do not substantively 

change the outcome or have as yet not resolved the insufficient information. However, 

many of these are species with few known sites or populations. For species with 

insufficient habitat under all alternatives that receive management under Alternative 

1 and 4, but are not included in the Agencies’ Special Status Species Programs under 

Alternatives 2 and 3, the differences in species management could somewhat increase the 

risk to these species. For species where there is “insufficient information to determine an 

outcome” that receive management under Alternatives 1 and 4, but are not included in 

the Agencies’ Special Status Species Programs under Alternatives 2 and 3, it is unknown 

if the lack of species management will increase the risk to these species. Mitigation that 

would eliminate the difference between the alternatives is possible. Mitigation would 

consist of conducting pre-project clearances and/or managing known sites. It is unknown 

to what degree mitigation lessens the risk for these species; however, it will not change 

the outcome or resolve the insufficient information needed to determine the outcome for 

a species.

Timber Harvest

The amount of late-successional forest projected for management of known sites reduces 

the acres of late-successional forest in the Matrix and Adaptive Management Areas 

available for harvest. The projected Probable Sale Quantity (PSQ) reductions shown 

below are reductions from the current 805 million board foot (MMBF) baseline.

Under Alternatives 1 and 4, there would be a 105 MMBF reduction in PSQ due to 

management of known sites. Under Alternative 4, there would also be an additional 80 

to 100 MMBF reduction in timber sales for the first two years if Annual Species Review 

changes resulted in a plan amendment requiring additional NEPA analysis. 

Under Alternative 2, there would be a 35 MMBF reduction in PSQ due to management 

of known sites. Mitigation measures for 53 species, including management of additional 

known sites, would reduce PSQ an additional 2 MMBF. Under Alternative 2 with 

mitigation, there would be a 35 MMBF (rounded to the nearest 5 MMBF) reduction in 

PSQ. 

Under Alternative 3, there would be a 45 MMBF reduction in PSQ due to management 

of known sites. Mitigation measures for 11 species, including management of additional 

known sites, would reduce PSQ an additional 5 MMBF. Under Alternative 3 with 

mitigation, the reduction in PSQ would be 50 MMBF. 

Wildland and Prescribed Fire

Under Alternatives 1 and 4, the annual acres available for hazardous fuel treatments 

would be 73,040. The cost per acre to manage for species would be $98.95. Under 

Alternative 4 there would be about a 10 percent reduction in these levels for the first two 

years if a species review process requires additional NEPA documentation.

Under Alternative 2, the annual acres available for fuel treatments would be 78,400, an 

increase of 5,360 acres compared to Alternatives 1 and 4. Fuel treatment costs to manage 

for species would be $39.30 per acre, a decrease of $60 compared with Alternatives 1 and 

4. If this savings could be directly applied to additional fuels treatment, an additional 

7,900 acres could be treated. Mitigation measures for 53 species under Alternative 2 

would result in 100 fewer acres available for annual fuel treatments and an increase 

Summary
xviii

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

of approximately $3 per acre to protect species compared to Alternative 2 without 

mitigation.

Under Alternative 3, the annual acres available for fuel treatments would be 77,440, an 

increase of 4,400 acres compared to Alternatives 1 and 4. Fuel treatment costs to manage 

for species would be $29.95 per acre, a decrease of $69 compared with Alternatives 1 and 

4. If this savings could be directly applied to additional fuels treatment, an additional 

9,350 acres could be treated. Mitigation measures for 11 species under Alternative 3 

would result in 140 fewer acres available for annual fuel treatments and an increase of 

less than $1 per acre to protect species compared to Alternative 3 without mitigation (See 

Table S-2).

Costs of Management

Under Alternatives 1 and 4, the Agencies’ short-term annual costs4 would be $21.0 

million. Long-term annual costs (5 to 10 years) would decrease to $14.4 million. Under 

Alternative 4 there would also be an additional $0.5 million cost in the first two years to 

conduct, if needed, an additional Annual Species Review with additional NEPA analysis.

Under Alternative 2, the Agencies’ short-term annual costs4 would be $7.9 million. 

This would result in a short-term cost savings of $13.1 million per year compared to 

Alternatives 1 and 4. The Agencies’ long-term annual costs would be $7.4 million. This 

would result in a long-term cost savings of $7.0 million per year compared to Alternatives 

1 and 4. The cost of mitigation under Alternative 2 would be $0.4 million (short-term) 

annually, mostly due to the need for additional clearance surveys.

Under Alternative 3, the Agencies’ short-term annual costs4 would be $10.7 million. 

This would result in a short-term cost savings of $10.3 million per year compared to 

Alternatives 1 and 4. The Agencies’ long-term annual costs would be $9.0 million. This 

would result in a long-term cost savings of $5.4 million per year compared to Alternatives 

1 and 4. The cost of mitigation under Alternative 3 would be negligible (See Table S-2).

Socioeconomic Effects

All alternatives have an adverse effect on Probable Sale Quantity (PSQ) that was not 

anticipated in the Northwest Forest Plan Final SEIS (see 2000 Survey and Manage Final 

SEIS, p. 429). The full PSQ level under the Northwest Forest Plan is currently 805 MMBF 

which would support 7,309 timber-related jobs. 

Under Alternatives 1 and 4, the timber-related employment decrease from the Northwest 

Forest Plan harvest level would be 953. Survey-related employment would provide 

an additional 360 jobs. This would result in a net decrease of 593 jobs and a net loss in 

annual personal earnings of $23.8 million compared to projected employment under the 

Northwest Forest Plan.

Under Alternative 2, the timber-related employment decrease from the Northwest Forest 

Plan harvest level would be 318 jobs. Survey-related employment would provide an 

additional 142 jobs. This would result in a net decrease of 176 jobs and a net loss in 

annual personal earnings of $7.4 million compared to projected employment under the 

Northwest Forest Plan. Mitigation under this alternative would result in an additional 

decrease of 11 jobs and an additional loss in annual personal earnings of $0.5 million 

when considering both timber and survey-related jobs. 

Under Alternative 3, the timber-related employment decrease from the Northwest Forest 

Plan harvest level would be 409 jobs. Survey-related employment would provide an 

4

Costs include direct program management costs including surveys, and additional fuels treatment costs for protecting known sites.
xix

additional 172 jobs. This would result in a net decrease of 237 jobs and a net loss in 

annual personal earnings of $9.8 million compared to projected employment under the 

Northwest Forest Plan. Mitigation under this alternative would result in an additional 

decrease of 35 jobs and an additional loss in annual personal earnings of $1.2 million 

when considering both timber and survey-related jobs (See Table S-2).

Other Resources

For the other resources, including the aquatic ecosystem, late-successional forest 

ecosystem, air quality, water quality, soil productivity, late-successional mammals 

(excluding red tree vole), late-successional birds (excluding great gray owl), threatened 

and endangered species, and species associated with early-successional forest, the 

alternatives would either have relatively minor effects or would not change the analysis 

or outcomes developed in the Northwest Forest Plan Final SEIS and implemented 

through its Record of Decision (USDA, USDI 1994b). 

Table S-2 displays a brief summary of the environmental consequences of the 

alternatives.

Table S-2. Summary of Environmental Consequences

Alternative 

1

Alternative 

2

Alternative 

2 with 

Mitigation

Alternative 

3

Alternative 

3 with 

Mitigation

Alternative 

4

Species and 

Groups

Insufficient habitat not due to 

federal actions 1 132(12

) 132(12) 132(12) 132(12) 132(12) 132(12)

Insufficient habitat due to 

actions under the alternative 0(22

)3 38(152) 0 4(72) 0 0

Sufficient Habitat 185 147 185 181 185 185

Insufficient Information to 

Determine Outcome 24 24 24 24 24 24

Effect on Annual Timber Harvest 

(MMBF) -105 -35 -35 -45 -50 -1054

Short-term Annual Cost (millions) $21.0 $7.9 $8.3 $10.7 $10.8 $21.05

Long-term (5-10 years) Annual Cost 

(millions) $14.4 $7.4 $7.8 $9.0 $9.1 $14.4

Employment Decrease From Full 

Harvest Level (per Northwest Forest 

Plan)

-953 -318 -336 -409 -445 -953

Survey Related Employment +360 +142 +149 +172 +173 +360

Net Loss in Annual Personal Earnings 

(millions) -$23.8 -$7.4 -$7.9 -$9.8 -$11.0 -$23.8

Hazardous Fuel Treatment (Annual 

Acres) 73,040 78,400 78,300 77,440 77,300 73,0404

Hazardous Fuel Treatment (Cost to 

Protect Species/Acre) $98.95 $39.30 $42.50 $29.95 $30.18 $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

 Species with sufficient habitat range-wide, but with insufficient habitat in a portion of the range. These are included in the “sufficient habitat” count.

3

 No “Alternative 1 with Mitigation” column because mitigation effects are negligible.

4

 Additional 80 to 100 MMBF/year harvest reduction and 8 to 15 percent fuels treatment reduction for first two years for Alternative 4.

5

 Plus 0.5 $million for ASR NEPA.

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.

Summary
xx

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

What Factors Will be Used in Making the Decision?

The Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior will each decide which 

alternative best meets the underlying need for this proposal. In making the decision, 

they will also weigh how well each of the alternatives meets the following purposes:

1. 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 has been longstanding 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 has regulations that require it “to provide for diversity of 

plant and animal communities based on the suitability and capability of the specific land 

area” (16 USC 1604(g)(3)(B)).

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

species conservation.

Pre-disturbance surveys, strategic surveys, and other elements of the Survey and Manage 

Standards and Guidelines are expensive and use a disproportionate share of available 

agency funding. Required pre-disturbance surveys can delay projects for 2 years and 

draw valuable personnel and resources away from other conservation efforts. 

3. Restore the Agencies’ ability to achieve resource management objectives that 

were established under the Northwest Forest Plan.

Some uncommon Survey and Manage species are so numerous that the acreage required 

to be managed far exceeds that projected in previous analyses. As a result, some 

project areas become dotted with dozens of known sites, severely reducing project size 

or making the entire project infeasible. This problem has limited the Agencies’ ability 

to restore forest health including fuel treatments to reduce the threat of catastrophic 

wildfire to watersheds and communities at risk. This problem has also contributed to 

the Agencies’ inability to achieve predictable and sustainable levels of timber outputs as 

anticipated in the Northwest Forest Plan.

What Monitoring is Necessary that is Not Included in 

the Proposed Action or Alternatives?

Monitoring will continue in accordance with existing monitoring requirements for the 

Northwest Forest Plan and for the land and resource management plans for each of the 

Forest Service and BLM administrative units within the Northwest Forest Plan area. No 

new monitoring requirements are proposed under any of the alternatives. 

Which Alternative is Preferred?

Based on consideration of the environmental consequences, Alternative 2 was found to 

best meet the purpose and need, and is the preferred alternative. Specifically, Alternative 

2 conserves rare and little known species, reduces cost and effort, and allows for 

achievement of healthy forests and timber outputs.
xxi

Introduction

Changes since the 2004 FSEIS:

•	 This is a new section.

•	 This section contains information about the objectives of this Final Supplement and the 

court cases that led to it.
xxii

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines
xxiii

Introduction

Objectives of this FSEIS

Background

This background discussion is brief, intended only to set the stage for presenting the two 

court decisions below. A more detailed background discussion for Survey and Manage 

can be found in Chapter 2. 

In a January 2001 Record of Decision, the Forest Service and BLM modified the 

Northwest Forest Plan standards and guidelines for Survey and Manage, reducing the 

number of species included to 3371 and providing a detailed Annual Species Review 

(ASR) process for adding or removing species, or for changing species between 

categories. The Agencies conducted the ASRs in 2001, 2002, and 2003 without additional 

NEPA analysis, ultimately changing the category assignments for 32 species and 

reducing the number of species on Survey and Manage to 2952. These 295 species and 

the categories to which they were then assigned subsequently made up the No-Action 

Alternative in a January 2004 FSEIS analyzing a proposal to remove or modify the Survey 

and Manage Standards and Guidelines.

In a March 2004 Record of Decision, the Agencies removed the Survey and Manage 

Standards and Guidelines entirely, relying on other elements of the Northwest Forest 

Plan and assumed Agency Special Status Species Programs assignments to achieve the 

goals and the Northwest Forest Plan through a more streamlined process. 

District Court Decision on the 2004 FSEIS

In October, 2004, the Northwest Ecosystem Alliance and others brought suit against the 

Agencies under the Administrative Procedure Act, alleging the 2004 FSEIS and Record 

of Decision violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), National Forest 

Management Act (NFMA), Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) and several other relevant land and species management 

statutes (Northwest Ecosystem Alliance, et al. v. Rey). On August 1, 2005, the United 

States District Court, Western District of Washington found the 2004 FSEIS deficient 

under the NEPA in three specific areas. This Supplement addresses those findings as follows: 

1. “...Agencies’ analysis of the environmental impacts of eliminating the standard is 

premised on an assumption that is inconsistent with their own prior analysis and therefore 

appears to lack support.....The Agencies have an obligation under NEPA to disclose and 

explain on what basis they deemed the standard necessary before but assume it is not now”

(Northwest Ecosystem Alliance v. Rey, 380 F. Supp. 2d 1175 (W.D.Wash. 2005) at 

1192-1193) and the Agencies “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.” (Northwest Ecosystem Alliance v. Rey, 380 

F. Supp. 2d 1175 (W.D.Wash. 2005) at 1198).

The Late-Successional Forest Ecosystems section in Chapter 3&4 has been supplemented. In 

addition, a new section called Survey and Manage Species has been added to discuss new 

1

The 2001 Decision addressed “346” species, but that number included 4 arthropod groups, 3 species that were counted twice because they were 

in more than one category and two species since determined to be synonyms for other included species and were thus combined. 

2

The 2004 FSEIS addressed “296” species but that number included a species since determined to be a synonym for another included species and 

was thus combined.

Introduction
xxiv

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

information, rarity, and risk for Survey and Manage species. Additional information 

about the 2000 Final SEIS and the Northwest Forest Plan’s objectives has been added to 

the section, Relationship of this SEIS to the Northwest Forest Plan Final SEIS and the 2000 

Survey and Manage Final SEIS.

2. The Agencies 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” (Northwest Ecosystem Alliance v. Rey, 380 F. Supp. 2d 1175 

(W.D.Wash. 2005) at 1197).

The circumstance of the Agencies not assigning species to Agencies’ Special Status 

Species Programs is addressed in this Supplement as “scenarios” under Alternatives 1, 

2 and 3, and not as new alternatives. Species effects under these scenarios are described 

in the text for each of the 157 species assumed to be assigned to one or more of these 

programs as shown on Table 2-13 in Chapter 2. Resultant outcomes, by species, are 

also displayed on Table 2-13, and summarized on Tables S-1 and 2-10. These effects 

are displayed so decision-makers can understand the implications of exercising their 

discretion to not follow through on one or more of the FSEIS species assignments 

assumed in the FSEIS. 

3. The Agencies “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” (Northwest Ecosystem Alliance v. Rey, 380 F. Supp. 2d 

1175 (W.D.Wash. 2005) at 1198).

A new Wildland and Prescribed Fire section is included in this FSEIS. The section addresses 

new approaches to hazardous fuel reduction to reflect recent identification and national 

mapping of Fire Regime Condition Classes and the emphases of the National Fire 

Plan. Resultant changes in cost have been incorporated into the analyses in the Costs of 

Management and Socioeconomic Effects sections.

The above new information was presented in a Draft Supplement circulated for 90-day 

public review beginning July 7, 2006.

The Ninth Circuit Court Decision on the Annual Species Reviews

On November 6, 2006, 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 the Cow Catcher and Cottonsnake 

timber sales, located in Oregon. The court found the 2001 and 2003 Survey and Manage 

Annual Species Review (ASR) category change and subsequent removal of the red tree 

vole from Survey and Manage requirements in the Mesic Biological Zone constituted a 

Resource Management Plan amendment, which should have had accompanying NEPA 

analysis. Although the court’s decision was specific to the red tree vole, it is prudent and 

reasonable for the Agencies to consider the implications of that decision on other species 

affected by the ASR process. 

This FSEIS, therefore, presents another no-action alternative (Alternative 4), which 

includes all 337 species included in Survey and Manage, and their category assignments, 

prior to completion of the three ASRs. Because no legal decision has been rendered about 

other ASR decisions, or even about the red tree vole on National Forests, the No-Action 

Alternative 1 from the 2004 FSEIS and July 2006 Draft Supplement is also retained. The 

difference in effects between Alternatives 1 and 4 disclose the effects of species removals 

and changes in management categories from the 2001, 2002, and 2003 ASRs. 
xxv

Compared to No-Action Alternative 1, Alternative 4 adds 42 species in all of their range, 

adds 16 species in part of their range, and changes the categories for 32 species in all or 

part of their range. Five of the species with changed categories in part of their range were 

removed in the other part of their range and are therefore included in the 16 above, so the 

total number of species different between Alternatives 1 and 4 is 85. This FSEIS provides 

effects analysis for these 85 species (and all others on Survey and Manage) under all four 

of the alternatives. For Alternative 4, the FSEIS also describes effects on fuel treatments, 

costs of management, timber harvest, and other non-Survey and Manage species-specific 

resources.

The above new information was presented in a Supplement to the July 2006 Draft 

Supplement and circulated for 90-day public review beginning January 5, 2007.

2007 Final Supplement

The above changes have been made within the 2004 FSEIS and the entire document is 

republished here. Although new information has been incorporated, costs have been 

updated, and language has been made internally consistent in an attempt to provide a 

current, seamless analysis, much of the 2004 FSEIS remains unchanged. Since Survey 

and Manage was dropped by the Agencies in March 2004, there is little additional 

experience upon which to base additional analysis for, for example, fuels treatments or 

timber harvest effects. The number of known sites for species, on the other hand, has 

doubled since the 2004 analysis and random multi-species survey results are available 

as well. Therefore, the species outcomes have been reconsidered and updated. There is 

a “Changes since the 2004 FSEIS” list at the start of each chapter. This Final Supplement 

is itself a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, and references to “this FSEIS” 

and “this Final Supplement” both refer to this document.

Subsequent Documents

The next documents to be prepared will be Records of Decision for each Agency. The 

Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior are the responsible officials 

for this proposed action. Therefore, no administrative review (“appeal”) through the 

Forest Service will be available on the Record of Decision (ROD) under 36 CFR 217. 

Also no administrative review (“protest”) through the Bureau of Land Management 

will be available on the Final Supplement under 43 CFR 1610.5-2. Because there is no 

administrative review of the proposed plan or decision, the Records of Decision will 

not be signed until at least 30 days after the EPA Notice of Availability for this Final 

Supplement appears in the Federal Register (see 40 CFR 1506.10(b)).

Introduction
xxvi

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines
1

Chapter 1

Changes since the 2004 FSEIS:

Changes displayed in the July 2006 Draft Supplement or made in response to public 

comments received about that document:

•	 A description of the December 2005-January 2006 Scoping period for the 2006 Draft 

Supplement has been added at the end of the chapter. 

•	 The text has been edited to show that assumed Special Status Species Program species 

assignments have now been made.

Changes displayed in the January 2007 Supplement to the July 2006 Draft Supplement or 

made in response to comments received about that document:

•	 None.

Minor corrections, explanations, and edits are not included in this list.
2

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines
3

Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

Introduction

This chapter specifies the purpose and need to which the Forest Service and Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM) (the Agencies) are responding in developing the proposed 

action and alternatives assessed in this Final Supplemental Environmental Impact 

Statement (FSEIS). The Agencies propose to amend 28 land and resource management 

plans within the range of the northern spotted owl to remove the Survey and Manage 

Standards and Guidelines. This includes land and resource management plans of the 

Forest Service and resource management plans of the BLM (collectively referred to as 

land and resource management plans) in the Pacific Northwest and northern California 

(Figure 1-1). The existing Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines were added 

to land and resource management plans as part of the 1994 Record of Decision for 

Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within 

the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl (aka the Northwest Forest Plan), and then amended 

by the January 2001 Record of Decision for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection 

Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines. Although the 1994 and 2001 

Records of Decision actually amended the land and resource management plans for the 

28 National Forests and BLM Districts within the Northwest Forest Plan area, the overall 

resource management strategy was, and continues to be, called the Northwest Forest 

Plan.

The Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines currently provide procedures and 

requirements for the management of around 3001 rare and/or little-known species and 

4 arthropod functional groups within the Northwest Forest Plan area. Species include 

fungi, lichens, vascular plants, mollusks, bryophytes, and vertebrates. The Survey 

and Manage Standards and Guidelines include species that are associated with latesuccessional or old-growth forests and for which other elements of the Northwest Forest 

Plan (such as reserves or other standards and guidelines) may not provide a reasonable 

assurance of persistence. Background information about the Survey and Manage 

Standards and Guidelines can be found in Chapter 2.

The Need 

Impacts of the Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines have been much greater 

than the impacts anticipated when the mitigation measure was added to the SEIS for the 

Northwest Forest Plan in 1994 (see Reasons for the Purpose and Need section later in this 

chapter). As a result, they are one of the factors frustrating the achievement of the stated 

needs of the Northwest Forest Plan “... protect the long-term health of our forests, our 

wildlife and our waterways ...,” “[w]here sound management policies can preserve the 

health of forest land, [timber] sales should go forward,” and “... produce a predictable 

and sustainable level of timber sales and non-timber resources that will not degrade or 

destroy the environment” (USDA, USDI 1994a:1-4; USDA, USDI 1994b:3). 

In 2003, Jack Ward Thomas, team leader for the Forest Ecosystem Management 

Assessment Team, was asked to evaluate the application of the Northwest Forest Plan in 

National Forests in northern California. In his report, he stated his opinion “The NWFP 

made two promises – enhanced environmental protection and a sustained (though much 

reduced) flow of goods and services. The first promise has been kept ... Performance on 

the second promise has lagged in a number of aspects and has the potential of producing 

longer-term negative consequences to the environment” (Thomas 2003:8). The Survey 

1

For reasons explained in the Introduction and Chapter 2, there are two No-Action Alternatives. No-Action Alternative 1 has 295 species and 4 

arthropod groups; No-Action Alternative 4 has 337 species and 4 arthropod groups.
4

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Olympic

Okanogan

Figure 1-1. Range of the Northern Spotted Owl.
5

Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

and Manage Standards and Guidelines are one of several reasons for the Agencies 

not meeting a predictable and sustainable flow of good and services. The Survey and 

Manage Standards and Guidelines are frustrating the Agencies’ ability to protect the 

long-term health of forests, wildlife, and waterways because they restrict forest health 

treatments. They are also preventing timber sales that were predicted under the 

Northwest Forest Plan from being implemented.

The underlying needs to which the Agencies are responding 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 Standards and Guidelines.

The Purposes 

Meet Terms of the Settlement Agreement

In response to a lawsuit against the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior concerning 

the 2001 Record of Decision for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection 

Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines, the Secretaries, on 

September 30, 2002, entered into a settlement agreement with the plaintiffs, Douglas 

Timber Operators and American Forest Resource Council (Douglas Timber Operators, 

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

24, 2001)). The lawsuit being settled alleges that the Survey and Manage amendments 

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 permitted 

under the Northwest Forest Plan. The lawsuit alleges that this equates to a loss of 51 

million board feet (MMBF) of timber sales per year in perpetuity. Thus, the lawsuit 

alleges the Survey and Manage amendments are 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 (MUSY) 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. The settlement agreement requires the Agencies to examine, in an 

SEIS, 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.”

A purpose is to comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement by considering, in 

detail, an alternative that removes the Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines. 

Other elements of the Northwest Forest Plan and the Agencies’ existing Special Status 

Species Programs would be relied on to provide for species viability and diversity while 

achieving other objectives of the Northwest Forest Plan. 

Conserve Rare and Little Known Species

It has been longstanding 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. 

Policies to this effect are found in U.S. Department of Agriculture Regulation 9500-4, 

Forest Service Manual 2670.32, and BLM Manual 6840.22. These policies share two 

principles: assist in the recovery of threatened and endangered species and implement 

management practices to ensure that species do not become threatened or endangered 

because of federal actions. In addition, the Forest Service has regulations that require 

it “to provide for diversity of plant and animal communities based on the suitability 

and capability of the specific land area” (16 U.S.C. 1604(g)(3)(B)). The National Forest 

Management Act (NFMA) implementing regulations for the Forest Service at 36 CFR 
6

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

219.19 (1982) require that “Fish and wildlife habitat shall be managed to maintain viable 

populations of existing native and desired non-native vertebrate species in the planning 

area.”

A purpose is to 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.

Reduce Cost and Effort

Agency funding is important to accomplishing overall management objectives. A review 

of the Northwest Forest Plan in northern California found “Implementation of predisturbance surveys and management recommendations are expensive, time consuming 

...” (USDA 2003a:4). The annual cost of the Survey and Manage Program is projected 

to be more than $21 million. While progress at streamlining processes has been made, 

some Survey and Manage processes are still complex and time consuming, leading to 

delays and stalled projects. These problems limit the Agencies’ ability to meet policy 

objectives and divert 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. 

A purpose is to reduce the Agencies’ cost, time, and effort associated with rare and little 

known species conservation.

Healthy Forests and Timber Outputs 

Some species in the “uncommon” category of Survey and Manage are so numerous or 

widespread that the acreage being set aside to protect them far exceeds that projected in 

previous analyses. A recent review of the Northwest Forest Plan in northern California 

found “Survey and Manage protection buffers have affected approximately 30% of 

the project areas proposed. The majority of fuels treatments and timber management 

activities are excluded within protection buffers” (USDA 2003a:3). As a result, some 

project areas become dotted with dozens of known sites, severely reducing project size 

or making the entire project infeasible. This problem has limited the Agencies’ ability 

to restore forest health including fuel treatments to reduce the threat of catastrophic 

wildfire to watersheds and communities at risk. This problem has also contributed to 

the Agencies’ inability to achieve predictable and sustainable levels of timber outputs as 

predicted in the Northwest Forest Plan.

A purpose is to restore the Agencies’ ability to achieve resource management goals and 

timber outputs that were established under the Northwest Forest Plan.

Reasons for the Purpose and Need

1. Effects of Survey and Manage were underestimated. The Survey and Manage Final 

SEIS in 2000 stated: 

“A 6 MMBF reduction in PSQ [probable sale quantity] was made for 1993 known sites, 

but the possibility of future sites was summarized as: ‘... other modifications made to 

Alternative 9 add to the uncertainty of the PSQ calculations. These changes include the 

requirement to survey and manage future sites of some late-successional forest associated 

species,...’ (USDA, USDI 1994a, page 3&4-267). The Northwest Forest Plan SEIS made 

no PSQ adjustment for Survey and Manage sites that would be identified in the future. 
7

Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

It was assumed that occurrences of these species would be rare and effects on lands 

available for harvest would be minimal” (USDA, USDI 2000a). 

The Survey and Manage Final SEIS 2000 estimated that Probable Sale Quantity (PSQ) 

would be reduced by 51 MMBF per year due to implementation of the Survey and 

Manage Standards and Guidelines, and notes proportionate limitations on habitat 

restoration, prescribed fire, and other forest management activities. With further 

implementation experience and new information gained primarily over the following 

3 years, effects of the Survey and Manage mitigation measure are estimated to be more 

than twice that projected in the 2000 Final SEIS (Chapter 3&4, Timber Harvest section). 

Jack Ward Thomas, in a 2003 evaluation of the Northwest Forest Plan in the National 

Forests in northern California, said “There is no record of which I am aware that 

indicates that efforts were made to ‘cost out’ the changes and additions to Option 9, such 

as survey and manage” (Thomas 2003:2). He also said “Responses (the addition of ‘bells 

and whistles’) that emerged in the NWFP to perceived problems with the adequacy of 

FEMAT Option 9 to stand up to judicial review do not seem to have been subjected to 

any economic assessment of costs and benefits, with survey and manage being the prime 

example. I find it hard to imagine that any Administration would have signed off on a 

NWFP that required $33,000,000 per year for S&M. If that figure were known, it would 

have been clear that most, likely all, land management activities would be destined to be 

carried out ‘below costs.’ Or, for projects not related to production of goods, at several 

times the actual cost of doing the project” (Thomas 2003:3-4). 

The Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines have clearly not had the relatively 

minor effects originally predicted. Some species in the “uncommon” category of 

Survey and Manage species are so numerous that the required avoidance substantially 

constrains other forest management activities including fuel reduction treatments, 

watershed and late-successional forest restoration, and timber harvests. There are a total 

of 72 Survey and Manage species that require pre-disturbance (clearance) surveys under 

No-Action Alternative 1 (63 requiring “practical” surveys because they are assigned to 

Survey and Manage Categories A or C, and 9 requiring equivalent-effort surveys as a 

mitigation measure or because Strategic Surveys are not complete). (Ninety-five species 

require pre-disturbance surveys under No-Action Alternative 4.) Field units, on average, 

must look for 20 of the 72 species prior to undertaking habitat-disturbing activities. 

When a species is located during surveys, a “known site” is established and managed. 

Management usually includes a buffer ranging from 1/4 to 10 acres in size. For one 

fungus species, Bridgeoporus nobilissimus, 600 acres are managed for each site found until 

a management plan is written. For some species, so many sites are found that whole 

projects are cancelled. This has reduced silvicultural treatments designed to enhance oldgrowth development in Late-Successional Reserves and prevented the implementation 

of some fuel treatments in areas in National Forests in northern California at high risk 

of catastrophic wildfire. The Agencies currently manage more than 33,000 acres of 

known sites under No-Action Alternative 1, typically to the exclusion of other forest 

management activities, regardless of the number of known sites nearby. (No-Action 

Alternative 4 currently has over 80,000 acres of known sites.)

2. Survey and Manage is costly and time consuming. The Survey and Manage Standards 

and Guidelines drain agency resources and impact project implementation. The 

annual cost for the Survey and Manage Program, assuming full implementation of the 

Northwest Forest Plan, is projected to be more than $21 million. “While ... [this] is a 

small amount of money relative to the value of the land and resources in question, it is 

a significant amount in terms of the limited amount of money in the budget of a land 

management agency” (Thomas 2003:4). Requirements for pre-disturbance surveys 

can extend project planning 1 to 2 additional years because “Survey protocols are time 

consuming to implement and survey windows are often less than several weeks in 

length due to inclement weather conditions. Project delays are often due to survey 
8

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

windows being too short” (USDA 2003a:4). Delays to complete pre-disturbance surveys 

delay other needed work. Seventy-two (72) Survey and Manage species require predisturbance surveys under No-Action Alternative 1 (95 under No-Action Alternative 

4), and few habitat-disturbing activities are exempt. These factors reduce the Agencies’ 

ability to complete work such as develop or expand recreation sites, prepare timber sales, 

or otherwise respond to management needs.

The various Survey and Manage administrative processes and procedures, originally 

intended to provide consistency of implementation, have turned out to be costly 

and time consuming. Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines for species in 

the “rare” category generally require retention of all known sites regardless of local 

situations or resource objectives. For example, fuel reduction projects reintroducing fire 

at the landscape scale have become difficult in some field units in northern California 

because of the requirement to protect sites even when the species occupying the site 

naturally occurs in fire-adapted ecosystems. The 2001 Record of Decision only requires 

management of high-priority sites for the “uncommon” category because of the large 

number of known sites for these species. Until Management Recommendations are 

revised to address high-priority sites, all sites are assumed high priority or field units 

must use the process described in the standards and guidelines to determine non-high 

priority sites on a case-by-case basis. To date, no Management Recommendations have 

been written that identify high-priority sites. Hence, all known sites must be managed 

even though not all sites are needed for a reasonable assurance of persistence for the 

species.

In some ways, protection measures for Survey and Manage species are more restrictive 

than those for federally listed threatened or endangered species. Jack Ward Thomas 

recently said that Survey and Manage “essentially treats all species ... identified as 

being ‘at risk’ to deserve protection until proven otherwise. This turns the concept 

of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) wherein species are declared as ‘threatened’ or 

‘endangered’ upon the evaluation of evidence that a species in question qualifies for that 

distinction ‘inside out’” (Thomas 2003:3). While the Endangered Species Act requires 

listing agencies to act on available information within a relatively short period of time 

following the application for permit or request for an opinion, the Survey and Manage 

Standards and Guidelines have required time-consuming surveys to demonstrate that 

such species are not present in the project area.

The amendments in the 2001 Record of Decision significantly reduced costs and conflicts 

when compared with what the Agencies would have experienced under the original 1994 

Northwest Forest Plan Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines. However, even 

as amended, the complexity and cost of the Survey and Manage mitigation measure is 

reducing agency resources that would otherwise be available for implementation of other 

elements of the Northwest Forest Plan. 

3. The Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines under the Northwest Forest 

Plan and the Agencies’ Legal Requirements. The Forest Service’s NFMA implementing 

regulation at 36 CFR 219.19 (1982) requires that “Fish and wildlife habitat shall be 

managed to maintain viable populations of existing native and desired non-native 

vertebrate species in the planning area.” The FEMAT, in crafting the ten alternatives 

considered in the 1994 SEIS, was instructed to “include alternatives that range from a 

medium to a very high probability of ensuring the viability of species” (USDA et al. 

1993:II-5). The Survey and Manage mitigation measure was added well after the ten 

alternatives were developed and analyzed by the FEMAT. The FEMAT did not include 

the Survey and Manage mitigation measure as a necessary component to achieving its 

task of identifying alternatives that would provide assurance of viability in the medium 

to high range of probability. 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 the Endangered Species Act” 
9

Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

(USDA, USDI 1994a:J2-2); therefore, inclusion in Survey and Manage does not necessarily 

mean species viability is dependent upon this mitigation measure. In fact, other adopted 

mitigation measures, such as the expansion of the riparian reserves and standards for 

course woody debris and snags in the Matrix were identified as benefiting these species 

(USDA, USDI 1994a:J2-56 through 79). To a large extent, the species included in the 

Survey and Manage mitigation measure were species which had not been studied and 

little was known about them.

The BLM regulations, issued under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 

(FLPMA) (43 U.S.C. 1701), have no diversity or viability requirements. The Ninth Circuit 

Court ruled in Headwaters vs. BLM (914 F.2d 1174 (9th Cr. 1990)) that the BLM has 

no authority under the O&C Act (43U.S.C. 1181a) to set aside timberlands for wildlife 

purposes. Yet, under Option 9, BLM administered lands were given the same species 

viability protections as National Forest System lands (USDA et al. 1993:II-5). Extending 

the viability requirements to BLM lands was not required by any law. 

The Northwest Forest Plan Record of Decision states, “By its own terms, the [Forest 

Service viability provision] regulation applies only to vertebrate species. Nonetheless, 

consistent with the statutory goals of providing for diversity of plant and animal 

communities and the long-term health of federal forests, as well as the agencies’ 

conservation policies, our decision satisfies a similar standard with respect to nonvertebrate species to the extent practicable” (USDA, USDI 1994b:44). Extending 

protection to non-vertebrate species on National Forests was a matter of policy discretion 

and not required by any law. 

The Forest Service NFMA implementing regulations at 36 CFR 219.27 (g) require 

management prescriptions to “..... preserve and enhance the diversity of plant and animal 

communities, including endemic and desirable naturalized plant and animal species, so that 

it is at least as great as that which would be expected in a natural forest......” However, 

this is only required “where appropriate and to the extent practical” In 1994, when the 

Northwest Forest Plan ROD was signed, the Agencies believed that applying Survey and 

Manage requirements were ‘practical’. By 1998, the Agencies had sufficient experience 

implementing the Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines to conclude the 

requirements were not clear, efficient, or practical. The January 2001 record of decision 

was a first attempt at modifying the requirements to make them practical. However, 

by 2002 it became apparent that the effects on programs and the costs associated with 

Survey and Manage continued to make this program impractical. That realization is 

what triggered the need for the current FSEIS.

While the Agencies may not be prohibited from implementing greater protections for 

these species, there is no law or regulation requiring such protections. By doing so, 

species protection measures included in the Survey and Manage mitigation measure have 

constrained other programs and activities to an extent not anticipated in the Northwest 

Forest Plan. 

4. Special Status Species Programs provide for species management. Rare and 

uncommon species in all other parts of the nation rely on the Agencies’ Special Status 

Species Programs to meet legal and policy requirements for such species.

Proposed Action

The Proposal

The Agencies propose to amend 28 land and resource management plans within the 

range of the northern spotted owl to remove the Survey and Manage Standards and 
10

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Guidelines, and rely on the Agencies’ Special Status Species Programs to provide any 

species-specific protections needed above those provided by other elements of the 

Northwest Forest Plan and the underlying land and resource management plans. 

The Agencies have already assigned nearly half of the Survey and Manage species to one 

or more of their Special Status Species Programs. Following the Annual Species Reviews 

in 2001, 2002, and 2003, many of the species removed from Survey and Manage were 

reviewed for, and some were added to, the Agencies’ Special Status Species Programs. 

Then, separate from the 2004 FSEIS, the Agencies reviewed the remaining 295 Survey 

and Manage species to determine their eligibility for inclusion in the Agencies’ existing 

Special Status Species Programs. Following the March 2004 decision to remove Survey 

and Manage, 145 of those species were added to one or more of the Agencies’ Special 

Status Species Programs (counting ones already included at the time). The Agencies’ 

Special Status Species Programs seek to further the objectives of the Endangered Species 

Act by preventing future listings of species as threatened or endangered. Both Agencies’ 

programs require coordination with state agencies to achieve conservation goals of 

species identified by state governments (see Chapter 2 and Appendix 2 for description 

of Special Status Species Programs). The objectives of the Forest Service’s program also 

include compliance with NFMA regulations requiring diversity of plant and animal 

communities. 

In making the determination of which of the Survey and Manage species to add to 

their respective Special Status Species Programs, the Agencies used global and state 

biodiversity database rankings from the Oregon Natural Heritage Information Center 

(ORNHIC) along with existing agency policy. ORNHIC rankings and criteria for 

inclusion in the Agencies’ Special Status Species Programs are not based solely on local 

abundance; they also consider habitat distribution, threats, global population levels, 

and other factors. None of the species affected by this proposal are currently listed as 

threatened or endangered or proposed for listing under the Endangered Species Act. The 

proposed action does not include any other changes to the Northwest Forest Plan. The 

proposed action is described in detail in Chapter 2.

Decisions to be Made

The decisions to be made by the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior are whether 

to select the proposed action or another alternative, and if any mitigation is to be applied. 

The decisions will be based on the degree to which the proposed action and alternatives 

meet the purpose and need. Specifically, alternatives will be evaluated on how well they 

achieve the resource management objectives of the Northwest Forest Plan including 

healthy forests and timber outputs, conserving rare or little known species, and reducing 

costs. While the settlement agreement provides an impetus to prepare this SEIS, it does 

not require the selection of any particular alternative. 

This Supplemental FSEIS is itself a supplement to the 2000 Survey and Manage Final 

SEIS, which was a supplement to the Northwest Forest Plan Final SEIS. The Agencies 

have chosen to focus this proposal on the Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines.

Scoping

2004 SEIS

A Notice of Intent to prepare the 2004 SEIS was published in the Federal Register on 

October 21, 2002 (67 FR 64601). The Notice of Intent provided preliminary information 

about the proposed action and invited public comment. Concurrently, a scoping letter 
11

Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

was mailed to more than 3,300 individuals and groups identified as potentially interested 

in the proposed action and analysis. The Agencies received more than 650 letters in 

response to the Notice of Intent and the scoping letter. Public comments contained a 

wide variety of suggestions for issues and alternatives. Alternative 3 was developed 

in response to scoping comments suggesting ways to cut costs and achieve resource 

objectives by making changes to the Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines. 

Chapter 2 of this SEIS includes a discussion of other alternatives that were considered 

but eliminated from detailed study, and explains why they were eliminated. Many 

issues raised during scoping are relevant to this analysis and are addressed in Chapter 

3&4. Other issues were raised that are not pertinent to this analysis. For example, some 

comments suggested ending all commercial logging everywhere in the Northwest while 

another was concerned about the inadequacies of city planning rules intended to protect 

the environment. These issues have not been considered further.

Some comments suggested that all old-growth forests need to be protected and placed 

off-limits to logging. They suggested that protecting all remaining late-successional 

and old-growth forests on federally managed lands would meet the purpose and 

need. Protecting additional old-growth forests outside the Late-Successional and 

Riparian Reserves would be akin to changing land allocations by creating additional 

Late-Successional Reserves. Various levels of reserves, including one which protected 

all remaining old-growth stands, were a key element in designing the ten alternatives 

originally considered for the Northwest Forest Plan in the 1994 SEIS which this SEIS 

supplements. 

Some comments suggested that eliminating the Survey and Manage mitigation measure 

would lead to Survey and Manage species being listed as threatened or endangered. 

Others were concerned that eliminating the Survey and Manage mitigation measure 

could lead to loss of old-growth forests, unraveling of ecological systems, and loss 

of social values. Other commenters provided different viewpoints and suggested 

elimination of the Survey and Manage mitigation measure was needed so that fuel 

reduction, thinning, and other restoration treatments could proceed without further 

delays.

2007 Supplement

According to Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations, scoping is 

specifically not required for supplements to environmental impact statements (CEQ 

Regulations Implementing NEPA, 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1502.9(c)(4)). 

The Agencies, however, did publish a Notice of Intent to prepare a Supplement to the 

2004 Final SEIS in the Federal Register (70 FR 73483) on December 12, 2005. The Notice of 

Intent provided preliminary information about objectives of the Supplement and invited 

public comment. Two letters were received, one from the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency and one from the Oregon Natural Resources Council et al. Suggestions from 

both of these letters were incorporated into this Supplement.

Preferred Alternative

The Agencies have identified Alternative 2 as the preferred alternative because it best 

meets the purpose and need. Alternative 2 relies on the Agencies’ Special Status Species 

Programs and the other elements of the Northwest Forest Plan to conserve rare and little 

known species. Alternative 2 is the least costly and requires the least effort to implement. 

Management of species under Alternative 2 reduces conflicts with other programs to the 

lowest levels, resulting in higher timber outputs and more acres available for hazardous 

fuels treatment. Species protection under Alternative 2 appears adequate and consistent 

with applicable laws and regulations. 
12

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines
13

Chapter 2

Changes since the 2004 FSEIS:

Changes displayed in the July 2006 Draft Supplement or made in response to public 

comments received about that document:

•	 Additional alternatives have been added to the Alternatives Considered but Eliminated 

from Detailed Study section.

•	 Tables showing “assumed” Special Status Species Program assignments now show 

only the assignments that have actually been made.

•	 The mitigation section(s) have been moved to the end of the chapter to follow the 

Summary and Comparison of Effects discussion; species-specific mitigation tables have 

been removed in favor of a detailed description of what the mitigation is.

•	 The Summary and Comparison of Effects section now includes species outcomes for 

species if they are not added to, or are removed from, the Agencies’ Special Status 

Species Programs for alternatives where they are “off” Survey and Manage.

Changes displayed in the January 2007 Supplement to the July 2006 Draft Supplement or 

made in response to comments received about that document:

•	 The description of the 2001, 2002, and 2003 Annual Species Reviews has been moved 

from Background to Alternative 1, since it is now assumed not to apply to Alternative 4.

•	 Another No-Action Alternative (Alternative 4) has been added to reflect the potential 

implications of a November 2006 Ninth Circuit Court decision. This alternative 

includes all 337 species on Survey and Manage following the 2001 Record of Decision. 

The original No-Action Alternative (Alternative 1) with 295 species is also displayed 

and analyzed.

•	 A section comparing the effects between Alternatives 1 and 4 has been added to show 

the implications of the changes made by the 2001, 2002, and 2003 Annual Species 

Reviews.

•	 Species outcomes (effects) are now included for all 337 species for all four alternatives.

NOTE: In the January 2007 Supplement, Alternative 3 had been reconfigured based on the 

species and categories of Alternative 4. In this FSEIS, it is returned to the 2004 and July 2006 

configuration based on Alternative 1. (See Introduction to Alternative 3 in Chapter 2 for details.)

Also:

•	 Various tables have been reformatted or combined, but the same information is 

displayed.

Minor corrections, explanations, and edits are not included in this list.
14

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines
15

Chapter 2 – The Alternatives

Chapter 2 – The Alternatives

Introduction

This chapter presents four alternatives including the Proposed Action. Alternative 1 

is the No-Action Alternative described in the 2004 FSEIS, and includes the 2951 species 

remaining on Survey and Manage after conduct of the 2001, 2002, and 2003 Annual 

Species Reviews. It would retain the Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines 

adopted by the Agencies in 2001. Under Alternative 2, the Proposed Action, the 

Agencies propose to amend 28 land and resource management plans within the range 

of the northern spotted owl by removing the Survey and Manage Standards and 

Guidelines. Alternative 3 was developed in response to comments received during 

scoping suggesting that the purpose and need would be better met by alternatives 

other than the proposed action. Alternative 3 is similar to the proposed action except 

the Agencies would amend 28 land and resource management plans by modifying 

the Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines. These modifications include: (1) 

removing provisions for uncommon species; (2) eliminating the requirement to conduct 

pre-disturbance surveys in non-late-successional and non-old-growth forest stands; 

and (3) changing the review process for excepting known sites from management. 

Alternative 4 is a No-Action Alternative added by this Supplement that would retain 

the Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines and, to respond to the potential 

implications of a November 6, 2006 Ninth Circuit Court decision regarding the Annual 

Species Review removal of the red tree vole from Survey and Manage, retains all 337 

species and categories described in the 2001 Survey and Manage Record of Decision. 

All alternatives apply to lands administered by the Forest Service, BLM, and Coquille 

Tribe (approximately 5,400 acres of forest lands known as the Coquille Forest) within the 

Northwest Forest Plan area. Alternatives 2 and 3 are referred to collectively as the action 

alternatives. 

The Northwest Forest Plan, adopted in 1994 and amended in 2001 (Survey and Manage), 

amended land and resource management plans on all 28 administrative units of the 

Forest Service and BLM in western Washington, western Oregon, and northwestern 

California (see Figure 1-1). The Northwest Forest Plan provides direction for managing 

habitat for late-successional and old-growth forest related species within the range of the 

northern spotted owl. The Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines proposed for 

removal in the Proposed Action were added to the Northwest Forest Plan as a mitigation 

measure for species that were rare or about which little was known. References to 

the Northwest Forest Plan in this SEIS are intended as references to those portions of 

individual land and resource management plans that were amended by the 1994 and 

2001 Records of Decision. 

Background for Survey and Manage Standards and 

Guidelines

The Northwest Forest Plan

In the late 1980’s and early 1990’s, conflicts between protecting late-successional and oldgrowth forest related species habitats and providing a predictable and sustainable level 

of timber harvest and other forest management activities brought many Forest Service 

and BLM forest management activities to an impasse. At a forest conference on April 2, 

1

The 2004 FSEIS addressed “296” species, but that number included a species that has since been determined to be a synonym for another 

included species and thus has been combined.
16

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

1993, then President Clinton directed the Agencies to prepare a plan that would balance 

an appropriate level of protection for wildlife, forest health, and waterways, with the 

human and economic dimensions dependent on timber sales. Specifically, the President 

chartered the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (FEMAT) to write a 

scientifically based plan for “protecting the long-term health of our forests, our wildlife, 

and our waterways ... in balance with ... a predictable and sustainable level of timber 

sales and non-timber resources ...” within the range of the northern spotted owl (USDA, 

USDI 1994a:1-4). To meet this charge, the FEMAT was asked to develop “alternatives 

that range from a medium to very high probability of ensuring the viability of species” (USDA et 

al. 1993:iv). In addition to a no-action (no-change) option, the FEMAT developed nine 

options for meeting this charge. The nine options served as the basis for the alternatives 

presented in the Northwest Forest Plan Final SEIS (USDA, USDI 1994a).

The Northwest Forest Plan resulting from this charge was adopted in April 1994, and 

amended or was included in Land Resource Management Plans for BLM and Forest 

Service lands within the range of the northern spotted owl in western Washington, 

western Oregon, and northwestern California. The Northwest Forest Plan has the dual 

purpose of providing for management of habitat for northern spotted owl and other latesuccessional and old-growth forest related species while providing for a predictable and 

sustainable level of timber harvest. 

The scientists who developed the proposal for the Northwest Forest Plan recommended 

a landscape approach to managing species associated with late-successional and oldgrowth forests. Of the 24.5 million federally-managed acres within the Northwest Forest 

Plan area, almost 20 million acres either provide for old-growth and late-successional 

forest conditions under designation of Congressionally Reserved Areas, or they are 

managed for such conditions in Late-Successional Reserves, Managed Late-Successional 

Areas, Administratively Withdrawn Areas, or Riparian Reserves. The remaining 4.5 

million acres are allocated to Matrix or Adaptive Management Areas where the bulk of 

timber outputs are produced. 

The Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines

The FEMAT assembled panels of experts to assess the likelihood of meeting various 

population stability and distribution outcomes for 1,120 species for 7 of their 10 options, 

including Option 9, the basis for the Northwest Forest Plan (USDA et al. 1993:IV-40 

through IV-49, IV-77 and IV-185). The panels used an outcome-based scale to assess 

the likelihood that habitat would support populations of these species. Although the 

majority of these species, including the northern spotted owl and all other threatened 

or endangered species, rated well, the panels could not confidently say that Option 9 

would provide for stabilized, well-distributed populations for 100 years across federally 

managed lands for some of the lichens, bryophytes, fungi, arthropods, mollusks, and 

other species. FEMAT (USDA et al. 1993:II-34) reported: 

“[t]he lack of information on the species and their responses to habitat manipulations coupled with 

the large proportion that are inherently rare and/or locally endemic and likely sensitive to habitat 

disturbance gave the expert panels and our Team little confidence to predict many species/groups 

would find habitat well distributed within the range of the northern spotted owl for the next 100 

years. These results are troubling.” 

Option 9 was identified as the preferred alternative in the Northwest Forest Plan Draft 

SEIS published for public comment in July 1993. In this option, approximately 78 

percent of the federally managed lands in the Northwest Forest Plan area were allocated 

to reserves. Late in the analysis process, in response to concerns about the above 

species, the SEIS team formed a scientist-staffed “Additional Species Analysis Team” to 
17

Chapter 2 – The Alternatives

reconsider these species and suggest mitigation measures (USDA, USDI 1994a:J2). This 

team selected species for additional analysis based on: (1) species ratings in the FEMAT 

report; (2) expected changes in Alternative 9 after the Northwest Forest Plan Draft SEIS; 

(3) cumulative effects on species; and, (4) additional species-specific criteria (USDA, 

USDI 1994a:J2-2 through J2-3). Through this screening process, the team identified 486 

species and 4 arthropod functional groups for additional analysis.

Following their analysis, the team described 23 possible mitigation measures to improve 

conditions for these species. Eight mitigation measures were eventually adopted but 

overall species ratings were not recalculated. Although these mitigation measures 

reduced the likelihood species would be disturbed by management activities, they 

are only a part of the overall strategy of the Northwest Forest Plan to meet species 

management objectives. The Northwest Forest Plan network of reserves and other 

designated areas, along with many other standards and guidelines, work together to 

provide habitat and protect species. The Survey and Manage mitigation measure was 

among the eight mitigation measures adopted, from the additional species analysis, 

in the final version of the Northwest Forest Plan (USDA, USDI 1994b:C-4 through C-6 

and Table C-3). Species were assigned to the Survey and Manage mitigation measure 

to increase the likelihood of a stable, well-distributed population of the species across 

federally managed lands or to decrease the likelihood of their extirpation on federally 

managed lands in the Northwest Forest Plan area. The other seven mitigation measures 

also variously add protections for most of these same species. The increase in Riparian 

Reserve width as a result of the Additional Species Analysis, for example, benefits 

“...mollusks, amphibians, lichens, fungi, bryophytes, vascular plants, ...red tree voles..” 

(USDA, USDI 1994b:B-13).

The late addition of the Survey and Manage mitigation measure to the Northwest Forest 

Plan SEIS precluded a detailed effects analysis. For example, the Survey and Manage 

mitigation measure was predicted to have a “relatively minor” effect on maintaining 

a functional and interconnected late-successional forest ecosystem. Other effects 

were “likely to improve at least slightly” when compared to effects without the eight 

mitigation measures (USDA, USDI 1994a:3&4-39). Similarly, except for a 6 million 

board foot (MMBF) reduction in Probable Sale Quantity (PSQ) to reflect management of 

Survey and Manage sites known at that time, the Northwest Forest Plan Final SEIS did 

not quantify socioeconomic effects of these mitigation measures, noting only that these 

measures “... add to the uncertainty of PSQ calculations” (USDA, USDI 1994a:3&4-267). 

The Final SEIS provided only a rough estimate for some species, and no estimate at all for 

others, of the overall acreage involved in managing known sites for Survey and Manage 

species (USDA, USDI 1994a:J2-40 and others). 

The original Survey and Manage and related Standards and Guidelines were developed 

for 23 bryophytes (mosses and liverworts), 234 fungi, 81 lichens, 58 mollusks (snails and 

slugs), 5 amphibians (salamanders), 17 vascular plants (plants with stems), 1 mammal 

(red tree vole), the great gray owl, and 4 arthropod functional groups (insects and 

related species). Species were assigned to one or more of the following four categories: 

(1) manage known sites where species are located; (2) survey prior to potential habitatdisturbing activities; (3) conduct extensive surveys to find high-priority sites for 

management; and, (4) conduct general regional surveys to acquire additional information 

and to determine necessary levels of protection. 

The Agencies have made changes to the Survey and Manage mitigation measure since 

it was first adopted in 1994. Changes were made in species assignments in 1995 and 

1996, primarily to correct errors in the original category assignments. The Agencies also 

changed the implementation date for pre-disturbance surveys for 32 species in February 

1999, and again for 7 of these same species in February 2000. 
18

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

The 2000 Survey and Manage SEIS

By 1998, the Agencies had sufficient experience implementing the Survey and Manage 

Standards and Guidelines to conclude the requirements were not clear, efficient, or 

practicable. A SEIS to assess alternative ways to correct these problems was begun in 

November 1998. The SEIS considered alternatives with an objective of continuing to 

provide the same level of protection intended by the 1994 Record of Decision. 

In January 2001, the Agencies issued a Record of Decision, based on the Survey and 

Manage Final SEIS 2000, which amended the Survey and Manage Standards and 

Guidelines to: (1) clarify required management in part by placing species in new 

categories based on species characteristics of relative rarity and whether they can 

be reasonably located and identified during site-specific field surveys; (2) remove 

unnecessary and duplicative or conflicting requirements; (3) add a process for changing 

species between categories, and for adding or removing species from Survey and 

Manage, based on new information (the Annual Species Review Process). Species would 

be removed when they fail to meet the three basic criteria for Survey and Manage: (1) 

does the species have suitable habitat in the Northwest Forest Plan area? (2) is the 

species associated with late-successional or old-growth forest? and, (3) does the reserve 

system and other standards and guidelines (other than Survey and Manage) provide for 

a reasonable assurance of species persistence? The January 2001 Record of Decision also 

removed 72 (of more than 400) species from Survey and Manage and related mitigation 

measures in all or part of their range, following the same process described therein 

for subsequent annual species reviews. The 2000 Survey and Manage Final SEIS, 2001 

Record of Decision, and Standards and Guidelines are available on the internet at http://

www.reo.gov/s-m2006. The current Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines 

Sections I through VIII and XII are included in Appendix 1 (No-Action), and summarized 

under Alternative 1 later in this chapter.

Changes since the 2000 Final SEIS

Delegation of Authority for Survey and Manage Related Reviews 

On May 16, 2003, the Regional Interagency Executive Committee (RIEC) delegated 

certain reviews to the Survey and Manage Intermediate Managers Group (Survey and 

Manage IMG) (USDA, USDI 2003d). These delegated reviews include: 

1. New or revised Management Recommendations. 

2. New or revised Survey Protocols.

3. Management exceptions for high-priority sites.

4. Pre-disturbance survey exceptions:

a. where the time required to complete the surveys greatly increases and creates an 

unacceptable environmental risk.

b. proposed to minimize wildland fire hazards or maximize resource benefits in 

backcountry areas.

c. proposed for Late-Successional Reserves (LSR), where the “LSR Assessment 

addresses the potential presence and likely effect on S&M species, and REO review 

of that aspect of the Assessment concludes such fire(s) will not prevent achievement 

of the persistence objectives of these S&G’s.”

The RIEC also delegated the Annual Species Review and Strategic Survey 

Implementation Guide to the RIEC Survey and Manage Subcommittee. 
19

Chapter 2 – The Alternatives

Exemption to Survey and Manage Pre-disturbance Survey 

Requirements for Wildland Fire for Resource Benefits

On July 31, 2003, the RIEC exempted wildland fires for resource benefits from predisturbance surveys, regardless of land allocation (USDA, USDI 2003e). Exemptions are 

allowed if the following conditions are met. 

1. The fire is consistent with the Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest or District 

Plan). 

2. A fire management plan has been developed that addresses wildland fire starts and 

appropriate prescriptions for the area.

3. The fire is burning within prescription, and the prescription is designed for resource 

benefits. (Note: A prescription designed for resource benefits provides for an 

adequate level of structural components such as snags, coarse woody debris, litter/

duff, and mid and overstory canopy. Typically, the fire has a low to moderate rate of 

spread and flame lengths less than 4-6 feet.)

4. In Late-Successional Reserves (LSRs) only:

a. The LSR Assessment, supplement to the LSR Assessment, or other large-scale 

analysis addresses the potential presence and likely effect on Survey and Manage 

species.

b. The Forest Supervisor or District Manager review of the LSR Assessment (and/or 

other documentation noted in 4.a., above) concludes that such fires will not prevent 

achievement of the persistence objectives of the Standards and Guidelines. 

No further REO or IMG review is required prior to implementation.

Copies of both of the above memorandums are available on the internet at http://www.

blm.gov/or/plans/surveyandmanage/.

The Lawsuit and Settlement Agreement

On December 26, 2001, the Douglas Timber Operators, Inc., and American Forest 

Resource Council filed a complaint against the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary 

of the Interior in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon (Douglas 

Timber Operators, et al. v. Secretary of Agriculture, et al., Civil No. 01-6378-AA (D. 

Oregon)). The complaint alleged that the January 2001 amendment to the Survey and 

Manage Standards and Guidelines “... transferred more than 81,000 acres of timberproducing NWFP forest land into permanent reserves, resulting in a 7% reduction on 

the regional timber volume permitted under the NWFP - a loss of 51 million board 

feet (MMBF) of timber sales per year in perpetuity” and “added uncertainty.” The 

complaint also alleged that the 2001 Survey and Manage amendment is “... in violation 

of substantive and procedural requirements of the Oregon and California 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 

(MUSY) 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.” The Association of O&C Counties intervened 

on behalf of plaintiffs and filed an Intervener’s Complaint substantially similar to the 

Douglas Timber Operators, et al., amended complaint. The Secretaries filed an answer 

denying all allegations.

On September 30, 2002, “to avoid further costly litigation, and without admission of any 

liability or wrongdoing by either party” the parties signed a Settlement Agreement. They 

agreed: 
20

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

“1. The BLM and Forest Service will supplement the 2000 FSEIS by considering 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. 

“2. The BLM and Forest Service will prepare a Biological Assessment to determine the effects of 

this alternative on species listed under the ESA, and will conduct consultation with the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service to the extent required by the ESA.

“3. Within 30 days after publication of the Final Supplemental EIS the Secretaries will issue a 

Record of Decision (2003 ROD) determining whether to adopt the new alternative presented in 

the Final Supplemental EIS, and the 2003 ROD shall become effective 30 days after the date of 

issuance by the Secretaries.”

Unless the parties agree on an amendment to change the dates, Douglas Timber 

Operators, Inc., and American Forest Resource Council agreed to stay their complaint 

until February 20, 2004, or the issuance of the Record of Decision, whichever comes first, 

and agreed to dismiss their previous complaint and seek no reimbursement for related 

legal fees when the Record of Decision is issued.

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) directs agencies to supplement an environmental 

impact statement:

“... if the agency makes substantial changes in the proposed action that are relevant to 

environmental concerns; or if there are significant new circumstances or information relevant 

to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts” (40 CFR 

1502.9(c)(1)(i) and (ii)).

In this case, the Settlement Agreement directs the Agencies to consider “... an alternative 

that replaces the Survey and Manage mitigation measure with existing Forest Service and 

BLM special status species programs.” This constitutes a significant new circumstance. 

Preparing this SEIS and the associated Record of Decision will fully meet the Secretaries’ 

commitment under the Settlement Agreement, and comply with the CEQ requirements 

for a supplemental environmental impact statement.

To respond to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the Agencies issued a Final 

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement in January 2004 (USDA, USDI 2004a), 

and a Record of Decision removing Survey and Manage in March 2004. By July 2004, 

the Agencies had assigned qualifying species to their respective Special Status Species 

Programs. 

This Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

On August 1, 2005, the United States District Court, Western District of Washington, 

found the 2004 FSEIS deficient under NEPA in three areas (see Introduction or Summary

sections), and subsequently set aside the 2004 Record of Decision, directing the Agencies 

to apply the Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines as they stood in 2004 before 

the decision was made. In December 2005, the Agencies filed a Notice of Intent to 

prepare a Supplemental EIS to correct these deficiencies. A Draft Supplement was issued 

for 90-day public review in July 2006.

On November 6, 2006, in a separate 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 the Cow Catcher 

and Cottonsnake timber sales, located in Oregon. The court found the 2001 Annual 

Species Review (ASR) category change and 2003 ASR removal of the red tree vole from 

Survey and Manage in the Mesic Biological Zone constituted a Resource Management 
21

Chapter 2 – The Alternatives

Plan amendment, which should have had accompanying NEPA analysis. Although the 

court’s decision was specific to the red tree vole, it is prudent and reasonable for the 

Agencies to consider the potential implications of that decision on other species affected 

by the ASR process by presenting an alternative based on Survey and Manage in 2001, 

before the ASRs were conducted.

The Agencies decided, therefore, to issue a January 2007 Supplement to the July 2006 Draft 

Supplement, to present the analysis of effects for an additional no-action alternative 

(Alternative 4) which included all 3372 species included in Survey and Manage, and 

their category assignments, prior to completion of the three ASRs. The additional 58 

species included in this alternative that were new to the 2004/2006 analysis, in all or part 

of their range, were also considered in the context of the other action alternatives. The 

effects of Alternative 4 on other forest management activities were also addressed in the 

Supplement. 

The analyses presented in both the July 2006 Draft Supplement and the January 2007 

Supplement to it, with corrections and additions made as a result of new information and 

both 90-day public comment periods, are incorporated into the updated 2004 FSEIS and 

issued here as the (2007) Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS.

Because the proposal is not an action separate and distinct from the Northwest Forest 

Plan and the land and resource management plans of the Agencies, a new EIS is not 

warranted. Therefore, it is appropriate to analyze the effects of this proposal in a 

Supplement to the Final SEIS for Amendment to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, 

and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines; the Northwest Forest Plan Final 

SEIS; and the Final EISs for the BLM and Forest Service land and resource management 

plans referenced in the Northwest Forest Plan or prepared subsequent to it.

The analysis in this SEIS relies heavily on the analysis in the 1994 Northwest Forest Plan 

Final SEIS and the 2000 Final SEIS for Amendment to the Survey and Manage, Protection 

Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines, and, to a lesser extent, on the 

EISs prepared for the land and resource management plans of the Agencies. Such data 

and analyses are incorporated in this SEIS by reference (per 40 CFR 1502.21) to the extent 

they continue to be relevant to, and are not superseded by, the contents of this SEIS. 

As described above and in more detail later in this chapter, selecting one of the action 

alternatives would result in amending the Agencies’ land and resource management 

plans that either incorporate or were amended by the 1994 and 2001 Records of Decision.

Changing Standards and Guidelines 

The Northwest Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines specify that “decisions to change 

... [these] standards and guidelines will be made only through the adoption, revision, 

or amendment of these documents following appropriate public participation, NEPA 

procedures, and coordination with the Regional Interagency Executive Committee” and 

“the amendments will be reviewed by the Regional Interagency Executive Committee to 

assure consistency with the objectives of these standards and guidelines” (USDA, USDI 

1994b:E-18). The alternative proposed for selection in this SEIS will be submitted to the 

RIEC for review prior to finalizing the Record of Decision.

2

The 2000 FSEIS addressed “346” species, but that number included 4 arthropod groups, 3 species that were counted twice because they were 

in more than one category and two species that have since been determined to be synonyms for other included species and thus has been 

combined. 
22

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

The Planning Area

The planning area for this SEIS is the federally administered land within the Northwest 

Forest Plan area, which corresponds to the range of the northern spotted owl as defined 

in 1994 (see Figure 1-1). These lands are generally located in western Washington, 

western Oregon, and northwestern California. 

Although all federally managed lands within the Northwest Forest Plan area are 

included in the analysis and are considered to contribute habitat for late-successional and 

old-growth forest related species, including species affected by Survey and Manage, the 

management direction addressed in this SEIS applies only to those lands managed by the 

Forest Service, BLM, and 5,400 acres managed by the Coquille Tribe. No management 

direction is included here for other federally managed lands, other Native American 

trust lands, or state and private lands. However, cumulative impacts from expected 

management activities on these other lands, as appropriate, were considered as part of 

the effects analysis in this SEIS.

Relationship of Alternatives to Existing Management 

Plans

If one of the action alternatives is selected, the direction established by the Record of 

Decision for this SEIS will remove or modify the Survey and Manage Standards and 

Guidelines in all 28 land and resource management plans for Forest Service and BLM 

administrative units within the Northwest Forest Plan area. 

The Coquille Indian Tribe currently manages approximately 5,400 acres of forest lands 

(Coquille Forest) under the same standards and guidelines as the adjacent federal land 

management agency (BLM Coos Bay District). By amending the land and resource 

management plans for the BLM Coos Bay District, the action alternatives would, in effect, 

also remove or modify the Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines from 5,400 

acres of tribal trust lands owned by the Coquille Indian Tribe. 

Bureau of Land Management

Adoption of one of the action alternatives would be consistent with 43 CFR 1610.5-5 

and would amend the resource management plans for the Coos Bay, Eugene, Medford, 

Roseburg, and Salem districts in Oregon; the Klamath Falls Resource Area of the 

Lakeview District, also in Oregon; and the Arcata, Redding, and Ukiah field offices in 

California. The King Range National Conservation Area Resource Management Plan in 

the Arcata Field Office would also be amended. Because the action alternatives would 

modify only a small portion of each of these resource management plans, plan revisions 

would not be necessary (43 CFR 1610.5-6).

When a decision is made to prepare an environmental impact statement, the amending 

process follows the same procedure required for preparation and approval of the plan 

(43 CFR 1610); consideration is limited to that portion of the plan being considered for 

amendment. The BLM resource management planning process includes nine steps. 

The planning steps that pertain to this SEIS include issue identification, data collection, 

formulation of alternatives, estimation of effects, selection of the preferred alternative, 

and selection of the proposed plan amendment. If several plans are being amended 

simultaneously, a single environmental impact statement may be prepared to cover all 

amendments (43 CFR 1610.5-5).
23

Chapter 2 – The Alternatives

Forest Service

Adoption of one of the action alternatives would result in amendment of the National 

Forest land and resource management plans for the Gifford Pinchot, Mt. BakerSnoqualmie, Okanogan, Olympic, and Wenatchee National Forests in Washington and 

the Deschutes, Mt. Hood, Rogue River, Siskiyou, Siuslaw, Umpqua, Willamette, and 

Winema National Forests in Oregon, in Region 6; and the Klamath, Lassen, Mendocino, 

Modoc, Shasta-Trinity, and Six Rivers National Forests in California in Region 5.

If an amendment to a Forest Plan results in “a significant change in the plan,” the NFMA 

and its 1982 implementing regulations under which this SEIS is prepared, require 

that the amendment process follow the procedures used in the initial development of 

the plan. If the proposed change in the plan is not significant, public notification and 

completion of the NEPA procedures are still required (16 USC 1604 (f)(4) and 36 CFR 

219.10(f)). Determining whether a plan amendment is a significant change uses different 

criteria than those used in evaluating significance in the NEPA process. For the NFMA 

requirement, the Forest Service Manual (FSM 1922.51 and .52) provides specific direction.

FSM 1922.51 - Changes to the Forest Plan that are Not Significant. Changes to the forest plan 

that are not significant can result from: 

1. Actions that do not significantly alter the multiple-use goals and objectives for the long-term 

land and resource management.

The actions proposed in these alternatives would not alter the objectives and the 

multiple-use goals of the land and resource management plans as amended by the 

Northwest Forest Plan. The purpose of the action alternatives is to facilitate achieving 

those goals and objectives. The action alternatives will continue to provide species 

protection in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations, while making more 

Agency resources available for other forest management priorities and simplifying 

processes so needed management actions can move forward more expeditiously. The 

underlying need to which the action alternatives are responding is the need to achieve 

the objectives originally established for the Northwest Forest Plan, to the extent these 

objectives are frustrated by the Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines.

2. Adjustments of management area boundaries or management prescriptions resulting from 

further on-site analysis when the adjustments do not cause significant changes in the multiple-use 

goals and objectives for long-term land and resource management. 

The action alternatives would change management on a portion of known sites occupied 

by rare and uncommon species. The action alternatives would not reduce species 

protection below legally required levels or increase timber harvest beyond levels 

identified in the Northwest Forest Plan Final SEIS. The action alternatives would reduce 

costs and improve the Forest Service’ ability to conduct forest management activities at 

a level described in the land and resource management plans. Selection of one of the 

action alternatives would enable the Forest Service to better meet the long-term goals and 

objectives currently identified in land and resource management plans.

3. Minor changes in standards and guidelines.

The action alternatives would remove or modify a mitigation measure added during 

preparation of the Northwest Forest Plan Final SEIS. The action alternatives would 

not significantly change any key elements of the underlying strategy or standards and 

guidelines. Removing or modifying the Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines 

would be a relatively minor change because: (1) the Northwest Forest Plan is an 

ecosystem-based approach that relies primarily on a system of reserves and standards 
24

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

and guidelines to accomplish its primary objectives; (2) the underlying land and resource 

management plans also provide habitat for the affected species; and, (3) Survey and 

Manage species that qualify are assumed to be given Sensitive Species status when the 

Regional Foresters update their Sensitive Species lists. The effects discussion in Chapter 

3&4 helps quantify the change within the context of the Northwest Forest Plan.

4. Opportunities for additional management practices that will contribute to achievement of the 

management prescription.

The action alternatives are specifically designed to better and more efficiently meet the 

underlying needs identified in the Northwest Forest Plan Final SEIS.

FSM 1922.52 - Changes to the Forest Plan that are Significant. The following examples are 

indicative of circumstances that may cause a significant change to a forest plan.

1. Changes that would significantly alter the long-term relationship between levels of multipleuse goods and services originally projected (36 CFR 219.10(e)).

The changes proposed by the action alternatives would help achieve, not alter, the 

relationship between the levels of multiple-use goods and services originally projected. 

Species currently included in the Survey and Manage mitigation measure will continue 

to receive protection as required to meet all applicable laws and regulations.

2. Changes that may have an important effect on the entire forest plan or affect land and resources 

throughout a large portion of the planning area during the planning period.

The changes proposed would remove or modify a mitigation measure added late in the 

preparation of the Northwest Forest Plan. The action alternatives do not change land 

allocations or other elements of the Northwest Forest Plan. There will be a reduction 

in the area managed as known species sites; however, no other Northwest Forest Plan 

resource objective is dependent upon those sites. There is predicted to be an increase 

in timber harvest from current levels; the current levels are well below the predictions 

displayed in the Northwest Forest Plan Final SEIS. The purpose of the proposal is to 

achieve levels of timber harvest that were expected when the Northwest Forest Plan 

was established in 1994. Thus, the action alternatives will help achieve (and not change) 

the multiple-use goals and objectives set forth in the Northwest Forest Plan Record of 

Decision.

The Alternatives

Overview

•	 Alternative 1, No-Action with ASRs, includes the 2953 species remaining after the 

Agencies’ 2001-2003 Annual Species Review (ASR) decisions. It would continue 

implementing all current elements of the Northwest Forest Plan including the Survey 

and Manage mitigation measure, the underlying land and resource management 

plans, and relevant agency programs and policies. 

•	 Alternative 2, the Proposed Action, would amend the 28 land and resource 

management plans within the range of the northern spotted by removing the Survey 

and Manage Standards and Guidelines. Conservation of rare and little known species 

would rely on the Agencies’ Special Status Species Programs and other elements of 

the Northwest Forest Plan, the underlying land and resource management plans, and 

relevant agency programs and policies.

3

The 2004 FSEIS addressed “296” species, but that number included a species that has since been determined to be a synonym for another 

included species and thus has been combined.
25

Chapter 2 – The Alternatives

•	 Alternative 3 would amend 28 land and resource management plans by modifying 

the Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines (as reflected in Alternative 14) by: 

(1) removing the Survey and Manage provisions for the three “uncommon” species 

categories; (2) eliminating the requirement to conduct pre-disturbance surveys in 

non-late-successional and non-old-growth forest stands; and (3) changing the review 

process for excepting known sites from management. Conservation of uncommon 

species would rely on the Agencies’ Special Status Species Programs and other 

elements of the Northwest Forest Plan, the underlying land and resource management 

plans, and relevant agency programs and policies.

•	 Alternative 4, No-Action without ASRs, includes all 3375 species and category 

assignments made by the 2001 Survey and Manage Record of Decision. It would 

continue implementing all current elements of the Northwest Forest Plan including the 

Survey and Manage mitigation measure (modified slightly to assume future ASRs will 

require additional NEPA analysis if they result in a plan amendment), the underlying 

land and resource management plans, and relevant agency programs and policies.

The BLM’s Special Status Species policies and the Forest Service’ Sensitive Species 

policies apply to Agencies’ lands nation-wide, including within the Northwest Forest 

Plan area. In this SEIS, these policies are referred to collectively as the Agencies’ Special 

Status Species Programs, or SSSPs. The objectives of the policies and, thus, the programs 

are for the Agencies to avoid actions that may contribute to the need to list a Special 

Status Species under the Endangered Species Act, and to help maintain the diversity 

and viability of species on Forest Service managed lands. Species are included in these 

programs by the Regional Foresters and State Directors using national and regional 

policies. The action alternatives in this SEIS propose to remove or modify the Survey 

and Manage Standards and Guidelines. Existing Special Status Species Program species 

assignments including many made in 2004 when the Agencies thought they had removed 

Survey and Manage are included as an analysis assumption for species “off” Survey and 

Manage under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3. The Agencies’ Decision-makers, however, have 

latitude regarding the assignment of individual species to, or removal from, their Special 

Status Species Programs. For this reason, effects to species under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 

as if they are not added, or are removed from, Agencies’ Special Status Species Programs 

at this time, are described in Chapter 3&4, displayed on Table 2-13, and summarized on 

Tables 2-10, 2-11, and S-1. Special Status Species Program assignments are shown on 

Table 2-13.

Elements Common to All Alternatives

Special Status Species Programs

All alternatives include utilizing the Agencies’ Special Status Species Programs. There 

are also several assumptions regarding these programs that are shared by all alternatives.

1. Any Survey and Manage species the Agencies have determined eligible for their 

Special Status Species Programs may be added to those programs at the discretion 

of the Agency. The Special Status Species Programs cover all lands managed by an 

agency in a region or state, while Survey and Manage is confined to the Northwest 

Forest Plan area. Adding Survey and Manage species to the Special Status Species 

Programs can result in species being included outside of the Northwest Forest Plan 

area. 

4

In the January 2007 Supplement, Alternative 3 had been reconfigured based on the species and categories of Alternative 4. In this FSEIS, it is 

returned to the 2004 and July 2006 configuration based on Alternative 1. (See introduction to Alternative 3 later in this chapter for details.)

5

The 2000 FSEIS addressed “346” species, but that number included 4 arthropod groups, 3 species that were counted twice because they were 

in more than one category and two species that have since been determined to be synonyms for other included species and thus has been 

combined. 
26

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

2. The SSSP assignments shown on Table 2-13 are assumptions that apply to all 

alternatives where the species is “off” of Survey and Manage. The assignments 

shown have already been made. However, because managers have the discretion to 

add or remove species outside of the SEIS process, the assignments are described as 

assumptions, and the effects to species if they are removed from Agencies’ Special 

Status Species Programs at this time are also displayed.

3. Within the Northwest Forest Plan area, where species have been included in both 

Survey and Manage and a Special Status Species Program, the species have been 

managed primarily under the Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines. This 

is because (with the exception of Survey and Manage Category F), the Survey and 

Manage Standards and Guidelines generally meet or exceed the requirements of the 

Special Status Species Programs. This policy is expected to continue for species that 

become listed in both programs under any alternative selected.

4. Species removed from Survey and Manage because they are determined not to be 

closely associated with late-successional or old-growth forests continue to have their 

known sites managed until the Agencies determine whether to add them to their 

Special Status Species Programs.

Legal Requirements

There are many laws that affect the Agencies management of lands and resources. 

In order to better understand the alternatives and their objectives, it is important 

to understand the key laws governing the Agencies’ responsibilities. The key laws 

described below affect how the Agencies approach and manage various resources.

Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)

A principle law affecting species management for both Agencies is the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA). Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA requires that Federal agencies consult 

with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA 

Fisheries), as appropriate, to ensure that their actions do not jeopardize the continued 

existence of species listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA, or destroy or 

adversely modify their critical habitat. The Agencies prepare a biological assessment 

and consult with U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service or NOAA Fisheries for any management 

activities that are likely to affect listed species. 

Conservation plans are developed by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service or NOAA 

Fisheries with the goal of recovering listed species and eventually de-listing them. The 

Agencies must abide by these recovery plans and are actively engaged with the U. S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries in carrying them out.

Federal Land Policy and Management Act (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)

The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) requires the BLM to operate 

under a land use planning process that is based on multiple-use and sustained-yield 

principles. The law includes guidelines to be followed in the development and revision 

of resource management plans, including coordination with other federal agencies. The 

FLPMA requires that:

“goals and objectives be established by law as guidelines for public land use planning, and that 

management be on the basis of multiple use and sustained yield unless otherwise specified by 

law;” (43 U.S.C. Section 1701(a)(7))
27

Chapter 2 – The Alternatives

“the public lands be managed in a manner that will protect the quality of scientific, scenic, 

historical, ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric, water resource, and archeological 

values; that, where appropriate, will preserve and protect certain public lands in their natural 

condition; that will provide food and habitat for fish and wildlife and domestic animals; and 

that will provide for outdoor recreation and human occupancy and use;” (43 U.S.C. Section 

1701(a)(8))

“the public lands be managed in a manner which recognizes the Nation’s need for domestic 

sources of minerals, food, timber, and fiber from the public lands ...” (43 U.S.C. Section 

1701(a)(12)).

BLM planning regulations (43 CFR 1600) provide guidance in how to apply the FLPMA 

to BLM resource management. 

“Multiple use means the 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; making the most judicious use of the lands for some or all of these resources 

or related services over areas large enough to provide sufficient latitude for periodic adjustments 

in use to conform to changing needs and conditions; the use of some lands for less than all of the 

resources; a combination of balanced and diverse resource uses that takes into account the long 

term needs of future generations for renewable and non-renewable resources, including, but not 

limited to, recreation, range, timber, minerals, watershed, wildlife and fish, and natural scenic, 

scientific and historical values; and harmonious and coordinated management of the various 

resources without permanent impairment of the productivity of the lands and the quality of 

the environment with consideration being given to the relative values of the resources and not 

necessarily to the combination of uses that will give the greatest economic return or the greatest 

unit output”(43 CFR1601.0-5).

Section 701 of FLPMA states that not withstanding any provision of FLPMA, in the event 

of conflict or inconsistency between FLPMA and the O&C Act, insofar as they relate to 

management of timber resource and disposition of revenues from lands and resources, 

the O&C Act shall prevail (43 U.S.C 1701 note 701(b)).

Oregon and California Railroad and Coos Bay Wagon Road Grant Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 

§§1181a-1181j)

The Oregon and California Railroad and Coos Bay Wagon Road Grant Lands Act 

(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 has required 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. 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. This issue 

was not raised on the appeal of that decision. Seattle Audubon Society vs. Lyons, 871 

F.Supp. 1291 (W.D. Wash. 1994), aff’d. 80 F.3d 1401 (9th Cir. 1996).

National Forest Management Act (16 U.S.C. §§ 1600-1614)

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) requires the Secretary of Agriculture to 

assess forest lands, develop a management program based on multiple-use, sustainedyield principles, and implement a land and resource management plan for each unit of 

the National Forest System. It is the primary statute governing the administration of 

National Forests.
28

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

The NFMA directs the Forest Service 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. Forest Service planning regulations (36 CFR 

219, September 30, 1982) provide guidance in how to apply the diversity requirement in 

NFMA to National Forest management. 

“36 CFR 219.26 Diversity. Forest planning shall provide for diversity of plant and animal 

communities and tree species consistent with the overall multiple-use objectives of the planning 

area. Such diversity shall be considered throughout the planning process. Inventories shall 

include quantitative data making possible the evaluation of diversity in terms of its prior and 

present condition. For each planning alternative, the interdisciplinary team shall consider how 

diversity will be affected by various mixes of resource outputs and uses, including proposed 

management practices. (Refer to Sec. 219.27(g).)

“36 CFR 219.27(g) Diversity. Management prescriptions, where appropriate and to the extent 

practicable, shall preserve and enhance the diversity of plant and animal communities, including 

endemic and desirable naturalized plant and animal species, so that it is at least as great as that 

which would be expected in a natural forest and the diversity of tree species similar to that existing 

in the planning area. Reductions in diversity of plant and animal communities and tree species 

from that which would be expected in a natural forest, or from that similar to the existing diversity 

in the planning area, may be prescribed only where needed to meet overall multiple-use objectives. 

Planned type conversion shall be justified by an analysis showing biological, economic, social, and 

environmental design consequences, and the relation of such conversions to the process of natural 

change.” 

The 1982 rule also introduced the management requirement to provide for the viability of 

vertebrate species 

“219.19 Fish and wildlife resource. Fish and wildlife habitat shall be managed to maintain viable 

populations of existing native and desired non-native vertebrate species in the planning area. For 

planning purposes, a viable population shall be regarded as one which has the estimated numbers 

and distribution of reproductive individuals to insure its continued existence is well distributed 

in the planning area. In order to insure that viable populations will be maintained, habitat must 

be provided to support, at least, a minimum number of reproductive individuals and that habitat 

must be well distributed so that those individuals can interact with others in the planning area.” 

The 2004 FSEIS applied the amendment process set out in the Forest Service NFMA 

planning rule issued in 1982, and thus this supplement continues to do likewise. The 

1982 planning regulations may be viewed in their entirety at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nfma/includes/nfmareg.html. 

Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act (16 U.S.C. 528 et seq.)

This Act declares that the purposes of the National Forests include outdoor recreation, 

range, timber, watershed, and fish and wildlife (16 U.S.C. 528). The Act directs that the 

Secretary of Agriculture must develop and administer the renewable surface resources 

of the National Forests for multiple-use and sustained-yield of the various products and 

services obtained from these areas. The Secretary must give appropriate consideration 

to the relative values of the resources of particular areas (16 U.S.C. 529). Multiple use 

means: The management of all the various renewable surface resources of the National 

Forests so that they are utilized in the combination that will best meet the needs of the 

American people; making the most judicious use of the land for some or all of these 

resources or related services over areas large enough to provide sufficient latitude for 

periodic adjustments in use to conform to changing needs and conditions; that some 

land will be used for less than all of the resources; and harmonious and coordinated 

management of the various resources, each with the other, without impairment of the 

productivity of the land, with consideration being given to the relative values of the 
29

Chapter 2 – The Alternatives

various resources, and not necessarily the combination of uses that will give the greatest 

dollar return or the greatest unit output. Sustained yield of the several products and 

services means the achievement and maintenance, in perpetuity, of a high-level annual 

or regular periodic output of the various renewable resources of the National Forests 

without impairment of the productivity of the land (16 U.S.C. 531). 

All alternatives meet the legal and regulatory requirements of the ESA, FLPMA, O&C 

Act, NFMA, and Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act. Aside from the Survey and Manage 

mitigation measure, all alternatives retain all other elements of the Northwest Forest 

Plan. The alternatives include the standards and guidelines of the underlying land and 

resource management plans for the individual BLM and Forest Service administrative 

units.

Endangered Species Act Consultation

To conform to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the BLM and Forest Service 

prepared a Biological Assessment for the Final SEIS (see Appendix 5), and consulted with 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to comply with the Endangered Species Act.

Northwest Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines

The Northwest Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines were adopted in April 1994 as 

amendments to existing land and resource management plans, or were subsequently 

adopted into land and resource management plans completed since that date. The 

complete Northwest Forest Plan SEIS, appendices, Record of Decision, and Standards 

and Guidelines are available on the internet at http://www.reo.gov/s-m2006. The 

Northwest Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines were amended in January 2001. The 

2001 amendment, which primarily affected the Survey and Manage Standards and 

Guidelines, is also available on the internet at http://www.reo.gov/s-m2006 and is 

summarized under Alternative 1 below. The 2001 Standards and Guidelines proposed 

for removal also appear in their entirety in Appendix 1. 

The Northwest Forest Plan divides all BLM and Forest Service managed lands within the 

range of the northern spotted owl into specific land allocations. Each allocation comes 

with its own set of standards and guidelines to ensure management activities will meet 

plan objectives on those lands. About 80 percent of the area is designated as reserves or 

withdrawn areas. Table 2-1 displays how the 24.5 million acres of federally managed 

lands were allocated in the original Northwest Forest Plan. Additional information about 

Northwest Forest Plan land allocations is in the Assumptions and Information Common to 

All Alternatives section early in Chapter 3&4.

Table 2-1. Northwest Forest Plan Land Allocations

Allocation Acres1 (millions)

Congressionally Reserved Areas 7.3

Late-Successional Reserves and Managed Late-Successional Areas 7.4

Adaptive Management Areas 1.5

Administratively Withdrawn Areas 1.5

Riparian Reserves (within Matrix2) 2.6

Matrix 4.0

1

 Acres do not total 24.5 million because of rounding.

2

 Forty percent of the other land allocations are Riparian Reserve as well, but it is not shown to avoid double counting.
30

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Alternative 1, No-Action with ASRs (Northwest Forest 

Plan Including Survey and Manage for 2956 Species)

Alternative 1, the 2004 FSEIS No-Action Alternative, continues implementation of 

all current elements of the Northwest Forest Plan including the Survey and Manage 

mitigation measure for the 295 species remaining after the Agencies’ 2001, 2002, and 

2003 Annual Species Reviews (described below), the underlying land and resource 

management plans for the individual administrative units, and relevant agency programs 

and policies. Key features of the Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines are 

summarized below. The current Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines, Sections 

I through VIII and XII are included in Appendix 1. The January 2001 Record of Decision 

and the complete Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines are available on the 

internet at http://www.reo.gov/s-m2006. 

Program Objectives - Survey and Manage

In general, the Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines are designed to help 

the Northwest Forest Plan provide for a reasonable assurance of persistence of latesuccessional and old-growth forest associated species. The objective is to provide 

roughly the same likelihood of persistence as that provided by the Northwest Forest 

Plan as originally adopted in the 1994 Record of Decision (USDA, USDI 2001a:Standards 

and Guidelines - 3). In particular, the Northwest Forest Plan specified use of the 

Forest Service viability provision in the National Forest System Land and Resource 

Management Planning Regulation for the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (36 

CFR 219.19). This viability provision requires that fish and wildlife habitat be managed 

to maintain viable populations of existing native and desired non-native vertebrate 

species. The Northwest Forest Plan Record of Decision (p. 44) identified compliance with 

this Forest Service regulation as a goal across both Forest Service and BLM administered 

lands as a means of serving the important policy goal of protecting the long-term health 

and sustainability of all federal forests within the range of the northern spotted owl 

and the species that inhabit them. For non-vertebrate species, the Northwest Forest 

Plan Record of Decision extended “a similar standard (to the one reflected in the NFMA 

viability provision for vertebrate species) ... to the extent practicable” (p. 44). 

Background - Changes since the 2000 Final SEIS 

Following the Annual Species Review process described in the January, 2001 Survey 

and Manage Standards and Guidelines, the Agencies removed 37 species from Survey 

and Manage in all or part of their range in June 2002. (Since most of the analysis 

occurred in 2001, this is referred to herein as the 2001 Annual Species Review.) The 

2002 Annual Species Review resulted in removing 13 species (March 2003) and the 2003 

Annual Species Review resulted in removing 9 more species, including red tree vole in a 

portion of its range (December 2003). For those species removed because they were not 

associated with late-successional or old-growth forests (15), their known sites continued 

to be managed until the Agencies decided whether to add them to the Special Status 

Species Programs. More specifically, the Annual Species Reviews changed species as 

follows7:

6

The 2004 FSEIS addressed “296” species, but that number included a species that has since been determined to be a synonym for another 

included species and thus has been combined.

7

Annual Species Reviews also clarified ranges for over 50 species. Since the standards and guidelines only require pre-disturbance surveys 

within the species range, such changes and do not affect actual species protection levels and thus are not summarized here. 
31

Chapter 2 – The Alternatives

Annual Species Review 2001 

All 337 Survey and Manage species were evaluated during the 2001 Annual Species 

Review. 

•	 Number of species that changed category: 42.

•	 Number of species removed in all of their range: 26. 

•	 Number of species removed in part of their range: 11.

•	 Number of species that were removed and needed to be reviewed for Sensitive status: 9.

•	 Number of species moved into a category with a pre-disturbance survey requirement: 4.

•	 Estimate of known sites released for other resource considerations: 6,900.

Annual Species Review 2002 

A total of 313 species were reviewed during the 2002 Annual Species Review. The four 

arthropod functional groups were not reviewed. 

•	 Number of species that changed category: 8.

•	 Number of species removed in all of their range: 8.

•	 Number of species removed in part of their range: 5.

•	 Number of species that were removed and needed to be reviewed for Sensitive status: 4.

•	 Number of species moved into a category with a pre-disturbance survey requirement: 1.

•	 Estimate of known sites released for other resource considerations: 1,895.

Annual Species Review 2003

A total of 304 species were reviewed during the 2003 Annual Species Review. The four 

arthropod functional groups were not reviewed. 

•	 Number of species that changed category: 4.

•	 Number of species removed in all of their range: 8.

•	 Number of species removed in part of their range: 1.

•	 Number of species that were removed and needed to be reviewed for Sensitive status: 0.

•	 Number of species moved into a category with a pre-disturbance survey requirement: 1.

•	 Estimate of known sites released for other resource considerations: 2,140.

The above numbers do not add up to the sum of the changes because some of the species 

that were recorded as being removed or changed categories in part of their range in 

one year, were removed or changed categories in the remaining part of their range in 

subsequent years. For example, because a portion of the range for one species was 

removed from Survey and Manage in 2001 and the other portion was removed in 2003, 

the total number of species removed by the three ASRs in all or part of their range is 58.

As a result of the above changes, there are currently 295 species and 4 arthropod 

functional groups included in the Survey and Manage mitigation measure under 

Alternative 1, with management requirements for each species based on characteristics of 

relative rarity, whether they can be reasonably located and identified during site-specific 

field surveys, and whether there is sufficient information to determine conformance to 

the basic criteria. 

For 72 species, Alternative 1 currently requires site-specific “pre-disturbance” surveys 

prior to most management activities. In addition, “strategic” surveys are required for 
32

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

all Survey and Manage species to learn more about the species and its habitat. Strategic 

surveys are the primary source of information on species for which pre-disturbance 

surveys are not practical. Information gathered through strategic surveys helps provide 

the basis for making species management decisions. 

When surveys locate a species, a “known site” is established and is managed. These sites 

normally range from 1/4 to 10 acres in size. For about half of the species, each has been 

found on fewer than 19 sites. Only 10 of the species in Alternative 1 have been found on 

more than 200 sites.

Number of Species and Taxa

Because 42 species were removed from Survey and Manage in all their range (and 16 in 

part of their range) during the 2001, 2002, and 2003 Annual Species Review processes 

defined in the Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines, this no-action alternative 

applies to 295 species and 4 arthropod functional groups in all or part of their range. 

Taxa include: vertebrates, bryophytes, mollusks, vascular plants, fungi, and lichens, 

in addition to the 4 arthropod functional groups. Each species is assigned to one of six 

management categories as shown on Table 2-13. 

Effects discussions in Chapter 3&4 include effects for the 58 species “off” Survey and 

Manage in all or part of their range under this alternative. Of these, 15 have been 

assigned to one of more of the Agencies’ Special Status Species Programs (Table 2-

2). Management of these species would be as described under Alternative 2. Since 

assignment to those programs is partly discretionary on the part of local agency heads 

and done outside the EIS process, effects for these 15 are described both as if they were 

included, and not included, in those programs (See Tables 2-10, 2-11, 2-13, and individual 

species effects sections in Chapter 3&4).

Standards for Inclusion 

The Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines have three basic criteria (see box) that 

must be met for a species to be included. Species no longer meeting these criteria will be 

removed; species meeting the criteria can be added. 

Concern for persistence is one of the basic criteria for applying the Survey and Manage 

mitigation measure to a species. A concern for persistence exists when the reserve 

system and other standards and guidelines of the Northwest Forest Plan do not appear 

to provide a reasonable assurance of species persistence. Little or no concern for 

Table 2-2. Summary of Assumed Special Status Species Program Assignments for Species “Off” 

Survey and Manage in Alternative 1 (Specific species assignments are show on Table 2-13)

Taxon* BLM OR/WA1 BLM CA FS R-6 WA FS R-6 OR FS R-5 ANY2

Fungi (27) 0 0 2 2 0 2

Lichens (13) 0 2 3 2 0 5

Bryophytes (4) 0 0 0 1 0 1

Vertebrates (2) 0 0 1 1 0 1

Mollusks (10) 2 1 1 4 0 5

Vascular Plants (2) 1 0 1 1 0 1

Totals 3 3 8 11 0 15

*

 The total number of species “off” of Survey and Manage in all or part of their range under Alternative 1 is included in parens next to the taxon.

1

 Includes Bureau Sensitive and Bureau Assessment species. Bureau Tracking species are not included.

2

 The ANY column is the total number of species in one or more SSSP. This is not the total of the five columns.
33

Chapter 2 – The Alternatives

persistence exists when the reserve system and other standards and guidelines of the 

Northwest Forest Plan (other than Survey and Manage) provide a reasonable assurance 

of persistence. When this assurance of species persistence exists, the species may be 

removed from the Survey and Manage mitigation measure.

Criteria Indicating a Concern for Persistence. One or more of the following factors may 

indicate that persistence is a concern:

•	 Low-to-moderate number of likely extant known sites/records in all or part of a 

species range.

•	 Low-to-moderate number of individuals.

•	 Low-to-moderate number of individuals at most sites or in most populations.

•	 Very-limited to somewhat-limited range.

•	 Very-limited to somewhat-limited habitat.

•	 Distribution within habitat is spotty or unpredictable in at least part of its range. 

Criteria Indicating No Concern for Persistence. Usually, most of the following criteria 

need to be met to indicate that a concern for persistence does not exist:

•	 Moderate-to-high number of likely extant sites/records.

•	 High proportion of sites and habitat in reserve land allocations, or limited number of 

sites within reserves, but the proportion or amount of potential habitat within reserves 

is high and there is a high probability that the habitat is occupied.

•	 Sites are relatively well distributed within the species range.

•	 Matrix Standards and Guidelines or other elements of the Northwest Forest Plan 

provide a reasonable assurance of species persistence. 

Concern for persistence is based on existing knowledge and may change over time. 

Species Categories

Once species are included in Survey and Manage, they are 

assigned to one of six management categories (A-F) as shown 

in Table 2-3. Categories are based on: (1) relative rarity; (2) 

ability to reasonably and consistently locate occupied sites 

during surveys prior to habitat-disturbing activities; and, (3) 

the level of information known about the species or group of 

species. The species included in Survey and Manage, and the 

category to which each species, or portion of the range of each 

species, is assigned, are shown on Table 2-13 at the end of this 

chapter.

Relative Rarity

Species that are “rare” have a higher concern for persistence 

than species that are “uncommon.” Management direction 

for rare and uncommon species is different because relative 

rarity changes the level of concern and, subsequently, the 

management needed to provide for a reasonable assurance of 

persistence.

A determination that a species is “rare” is based on a 

combination of information, as described in the criteria for 

Three Basic Criteria for 

Survey and Manage

1. The species must occur within the 

Northwest Forest Plan area, or occur 

close to the Northwest Forest Plan 

area and have potentially suitable 

habitat within the Northwest Forest 

Plan area.

2. The species must be closely 

associated with late-successional or 

old-growth forest.

3. The reserve system and other 

Standards and Guidelines of the 

Northwest Forest Plan do not 

appear to provide for a reasonable 

assurance of species persistence.
34

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

each category. A species may be rare if it has: (1) limited distribution; (2) a low number 

of sites or individuals per site; (3) highly specialized habitat requirements; (4) declining 

habitat or population trends; (5) reproductive characteristics that limit population growth 

rates; (6) restricted distribution pattern relative to range or potential habitat; and/or, (7) 

narrow ecological amplitude.

A determination that a species is “uncommon” is based on information that indicates a 

species may have: (1) more widespread distribution; (2) higher numbers of sites; (3) lowto-high number of individuals per site; (4) more stable populations or habitats; (5) less 

restricted distribution pattern relative to range or potential habitat; and/or, (6) moderateto-broad ecological amplitude.

Ability to Reasonably and Consistently Conduct Pre-Disturbance 

Surveys 

Pre-disturbance surveys are “clearance” surveys that are completed when projects may 

disturb species habitats. They are conducted prior to signing NEPA documents with the 

goal of reducing the potential inadvertent loss of sites by searching specified habitats 

before habitat-disturbing activities occur. 

Pre-disturbance surveys are defined as “practical” if a reasonable effort is likely to 

determine the presence of a species on a specific area. Put another way, practicality of 

surveys generally relates to the ability to confidently answer questions about species 

presence through surveys, while avoiding unreasonable costs or spending unreasonable 

amounts of time. Surveys before habitat disturbance are considered practical if all of the 

following criteria apply: 

•	 The species appears annually or predictably, producing identifying structures that are 

visible for a predictable and reasonably long time.

•	 The species is not so minuscule or cryptic as to be barely visible.

•	 The species can authoritatively be identified by more than a few experts, or the 

number of available experts is not so limited that it would be impossible to accomplish 

all surveys or identifications for all proposed habitat-disturbing activities in the 

Northwest Forest Plan area needing identification within the normal planning period 

for the activity.

•	 The species can be readily distinguished in the field and needs no more than simple 

laboratory or office examination to confirm its identification.

Table 2-3. Survey and Manage Categories and Management Requirements, 

Alternative 1

Relative Rarity Pre-Disturbance Surveys 

Practical

Pre-Disturbance Surveys 

Not Practical

Status Undetermined

Rare Category A – 56 species

• Manage All Known Sites

• Pre-Disturbance Surveys

• Strategic Surveys

Category B – 183 species

• Manage All Known Sites

• N/A1, 2

• Strategic Surveys

Category E – 33 species

• Manage All Known Sites

• N/A2

• Strategic Surveys

Uncommon Category C – 7 species

• Manage High-Priority Sites

• Pre-Disturbance Surveys

• Strategic Surveys

Category D – 15 species3

• Manage High-Priority Sites

• N/A

• Strategic Surveys

Category F – 10 species

• N/A

• N/A

• Strategic Surveys

Species do not total 295 because the 4 arthropod functional groups are included in Category F, and for 5 species, different areas of their 

geographic ranges are assigned to different categories.

1

 Equivalent-effort surveys are required for 2006 and beyond (2011 for fungi) unless strategic surveys are completed. 

2

 Three mollusks require equivalent-effort surveys as a mitigation measure.

3

 Includes three species with pre-disturbance surveys practical but not necessary.
35

Chapter 2 – The Alternatives

•	 Surveys do not require unacceptable safety or species risks.

•	 Surveys can be completed in two field seasons (approximately 7-18 months).

•	 Credible survey methods for the species are known or can be developed within a 

reasonable time period (approximately 1 year).

Level of Knowledge About a Species

Species are assigned to Categories E and F if there is insufficient knowledge to determine 

whether they meet the three basic criteria for inclusion in the Survey and Manage 

mitigation measure.

Project Analysis 

Surveys prior to habitat-disturbing activities are required for some Survey and Manage 

species. Such surveys help gather relevant information during the NEPA process so that 

it is available to the Decision-maker(s) before actions are taken. Ideally, this information 

would be available to Interdisciplinary Teams during preparation of an EA or Draft 

EIS so it could be used in project analysis, formulation of alternatives, and evaluation 

of effects. Required surveys should be completed and their results included in an EA 

or Draft EIS whenever practicable. This would have the added advantage that results 

would be available during the public review and comment process.

Categories A and C (63 species) require that site-specific surveys be conducted prior 

to signing NEPA decisions or decision documents for habitat-disturbing activities. In 

Survey and Manage, these are called pre-disturbance surveys and they focus on the 

project unit with the objective of reducing the inadvertent loss of undiscovered sites by 

searching specified potential habitats prior to making decisions about habitat-disturbing 

activities. They are done according to the Survey Protocol for each species and can use 

methods such as transects or plots that focus on priority habitats, habitat features, or 

involve the entire project area. Generally, pre-disturbance surveys are only prescribed 

for species for which they are practical. “Equivalent-effort” surveys may be prescribed 

for other species whose characteristics, such as small size and identifying characteristics, 

prevent them from being consistently located during site-specific surveys. Under 

Alternative 1, equivalent-effort surveys are prescribed as a mitigation measure for three 

mollusk species, and for projects in old-growth for four Category B bryophytes and two 

Category B lichens because strategic surveys have not been completed for them.

Habitat-Disturbing Activities are disturbances likely to have a significant negative impact 

on the species’ habitat, its life cycle, microclimate, or life support requirements.

Survey Protocols provide guidelines for pre-disturbance surveys. These are interagency 

documents describing the survey techniques needed to have a reasonable chance of 

locating the species when it is present on the site, or needed to make an equivalent-effort 

of locating the species when it is present on the site.

Line officers should seek specialists’ recommendations to help determine the need for a 

survey based on site-specific information.

The policy governing pre-disturbance surveys for wildland fires for resource benefits 

was updated on July 31, 2003 (USDA, USDI 2003e). A wildland fire for resource benefit 

is a fire that results from natural ignition (i.e. lightning strike) and is (1) permitted to 

burn because it is resulting in resource benefits; (2) consistent with the land and resource 

management plan; (3) consistent with the fire management plan; and, (4) burning within 

prescription. No pre-disturbance surveys are required for wildland fires for resource 

benefits, regardless of land allocation, if certain conditions are met. See Exemption to 
36

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Survey and Manage Pre-disturbance Survey Requirements for Wildland Fire for Resource 

Benefits section earlier in this chapter.

Pre-disturbance surveys are not required in the unusual circumstance that a delay in 

implementation of the activity (to permit pre-disturbance surveys) would result in 

greatly increased and unacceptable environmental risk. Such circumstances are subject 

to review by the Survey and Manage IMG (USDA, USDI 2003d) to ensure the urgency of 

the activity justifies the risk to species.

Site Management

Known sites are historic and current locations of a species reported by a credible source, 

available to field offices, and that do not require additional species verification or survey 

by the Agency to locate the species. Known sites include those sites known prior to the 

signing of the Northwest Forest Plan Record of Decision (USDA, USDI 1994b), as well 

as sites located since then. Known sites are typically found during pre-disturbance or 

strategic surveys. Known sites are documented and recorded in Agency databases.

Manage All Known Sites applies to rare species and means all current and future known 

sites will be managed according to the Management Recommendation for the species. 

Professional judgment, coupled with locally specific information, and advice from taxa 

specialists about the species, may be used to identify occasional sites not needed for 

persistence. These exceptions will be reviewed by the Survey and Manage IMG (USDA, 

USDI 2003d).

Manage High-Priority Sites applies to uncommon species and means only high-priority 

sites need to be managed according to the Management Recommendation for the species. 

However, until a Management Recommendation is written addressing high-priority 

sites for the species, either assume all sites are high priority or, with guidance from the 

Interagency Survey and Manage Program Manager, determine locally that the known 

site is not high priority. Professional judgment, coupled with locally specific information 

and advice from taxa specialists about the species, may be used to identify occasional 

high-priority sites not needed for persistence. These exceptions will be reviewed by the 

Survey and Manage IMG (USDA, USDI 2003d).

Management Recommendations are interagency documents that address how to manage 

known sites and provide guidance for conserving Survey and Manage species. They 

describe the habitat parameters that will provide for maintaining the species at the site. 

They are the responsibility of management working closely with taxa experts and are 

developed by taxa experts and land managers (at any administrative level) for use at field 

offices. They are subject to review by the Survey and Manage IMG (USDA, USDI 2003d).

Management Recommendations may also provide information on natural history, current 

species status, species distribution, management goals, and objectives. They can also 

include specific management actions or recommendations, monitoring needs, and needs 

for information and research to the extent such information supports management of 

known sites, identification of high-priority sites, and identification of survey priorities. 

They also provide guidance for site-specific decisions about what management activities 

are appropriate within the site. The size of the area to be managed depends on the 

habitat and requirements for the species. Management may range from maintaining one 

or more habitat components (such as down logs or canopy cover) to complete exclusion 

from disturbance for many acres, and may allow loss of some individuals, areas, or 

elements not affecting continued site occupancy.
37

Chapter 2 – The Alternatives

For uncommon species, Management Recommendations identify high-priority sites that 

must be managed, as well as sites that no longer need to be managed.

Inventories

Inventory is conducted through “strategic surveys.” Strategic surveys are landscapescale surveys designed to collect information about a species, including its presence and 

habitat. They are required for all Survey and Manage species. Information provided 

by strategic surveys (as well as research and other information-gathering efforts) helps 

address fundamental questions about Survey and Manage species, including: (1) is there 

a concern for persistence? (2) is the species rare or uncommon? (3) is the species closely 

associated with late-successional forests? (4) what is the appropriate management for 

the species? and, (5) do the reserve land allocations and other standards and guidelines 

of the Northwest Forest Plan provide a reasonable assurance of species persistence? 

Information from strategic surveys is used in the annual species review process and 

is incorporated into Management Recommendations and Survey Protocols. Strategic 

surveys are prescribed for all categories. Once strategic surveys have helped answer 

these questions, or further surveys are not expected to contribute significant additional 

information, strategic surveys may be complete even if few or no additional sites are 

found. 

Strategic surveys are different from pre-disturbance surveys because they are focused on 

gathering information about the species and its habitat needs range-wide, and are not 

focused on determining presence or absence in specific areas prior to habitat-disturbing 

activities. 

Because Category B species are rare and do not have pre-disturbance surveys, completing 

strategic surveys is a high priority. For this category, the Standards and Guidelines 

require “To reduce the inadvertent loss of undiscovered sites, the Agencies will not sign 

NEPA decisions or decision documents for habitat-disturbing activities in old-growth 

forest (a sub-set of late-successional forest - see Glossary) in fiscal year 2006 (fiscal year 

2011 for fungi) and beyond, unless either:

•	 “strategic surveys have been completed [as defined in the standards and guidelines] 

for the province that encompasses the project area, or

•	 “surveys equivalent to pre-disturbance surveys have been conducted in the oldgrowth habitat to be disturbed.”

Adding/Removing Species

The Annual Species Review is a detailed process for annually analyzing new information 

about species and moving them to new categories, removing them from, or adding 

them to Survey and Manage. This process is based on new information about the 

species regarding numbers, distribution, and other factors indicating risk to persistence. 

New information about species is also used to develop or revise Management 

Recommendations, Survey Protocols, and the Strategic Survey Implementation Guide. 

The adaptive management process includes the following steps.

1. Acquiring new information relative to Survey and Manage species. New 

information about species status or needs is generated through strategic surveys, 

pre-disturbance surveys, and other sources. This information is maintained 

primarily in the GeoBOB/ISMS database. 
38

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

2. Evaluating new information. A regional-level, interagency group including taxa 

experts, meeting at least annually, weighs new information against the persistence 

and category criteria to determine if additions or deletions of species from Survey 

and Manage or changes of species among categories are warranted. Similarly, when 

new information indicates that a species no longer meets the Survey and Manage 

basic criteria, the species will be removed. Removed species can be considered 

for inclusion in the Agencies’ Special Status Species Programs. In particular, for 

species that are removed from Survey and Manage because they are found not to 

be associated with late-successional or old-growth forests, their known sites will 

continue to be managed until it is determined whether they are eligible for the 

Agencies’ Special Status Species Programs. 

3. Implementing changes or refinements to Survey and Manage. Changes include 

adding and removing species, and changing species between categories, as well 

as changes to Management Recommendations, Survey Protocols, and the Strategic 

Survey Implementation Guide. Changes are the responsibility of management 

working closely with taxa experts and may be made without further NEPA 

documentation. Changes are reflected in subsequent project planning documents.

The results are reviewed by the RIEC Survey and Manage Subcommittee (USDA, USDI 

2003d) to ensure that current information about the species has been appropriately 

considered and weighed against the stated criteria, and that proposed reassignments 

continue to provide at least the level of protection intended by the Standards and 

Guidelines. 

Reports, Monitoring, and Review

Annual Status Reports are required and will, at minimum, include: (1) the results of 

adaptive management changes; (2) status of Management Recommendations and Survey 

Protocols; (3) a summary of the Strategic Survey Implementation Guide (including 

the status of strategic surveys); (4) status and results of ongoing monitoring; and, (5) 

important new management direction. This report is the primary tool for the public to 

learn about annual changes to species assignments and resultant application of surveys 

to activities. The Agencies maintain a mailing list for all persons wishing to receive all or 

part of this report.

Monitoring will continue in accordance with existing monitoring requirements for the 

Northwest Forest Plan and for the land and resource management plans for each of the 

Forest Service and BLM administrative units within the Northwest Forest Plan area. 

Review by the Survey and Manage IMG or the RIEC Survey and Manage Subcommittee 

(USDA, USDI 2003d) is required for eight different documents or processes included 

in the Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines. Three documents are referenced 

in these Standards and Guidelines: Management Recommendations, Survey Protocols, 

and Strategic Survey Implementation Guide. Each document plays an important role 

in accomplishing Survey and Manage objectives. The documents are typically written 

for a species range. The documents are the responsibility of management working 

closely with taxa experts; they are developed by taxa experts and land managers (at 

any administrative level) for use at field offices of the BLM and Forest Service. New or 

revised versions of Management Recommendations and Survey Protocols are subject 

to review by the Survey and Manage IMG (USDA, USDI 2003d) to ensure they identify 

and integrate the habitat or life-history factors key to managing the species to the level 

of protection intended in the Standards and Guidelines. New or revised versions of 

the Strategic Survey Implementation Guide are subject to review by the RIEC Survey 

and Manage Subcommittee (USDA, USDI 2003d). Other processes (e.g., exceptions to 
39

Chapter 2 – The Alternatives

management of known sites, changes in categories resulting from the annual species 

review) are also subject to Survey and Manage IMG (or RIEC Survey and Manage 

Subcommittee) (USDA, USDI 2003d) review as described in these Standards and 

Guidelines. The Survey and Manage IMG or RIEC Survey and Manage Subcommittee 

(USDA, USDI 2003d) may develop criteria to exempt certain documents or processes 

from review.

Alternative 2, Proposed Action (Northwest Forest Plan 

without Survey and Manage)

The Agencies propose to remove the Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines by 

amending 28 land and resource management plans within the range of the northern 

spotted owl to remove the Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines. The Survey 

and Manage Standards and Guidelines Sections I-VIII and XII (USDA, USDI 2001a, 

Attachment 1) would be removed in their entirety except for that portion of Section 

I removing the 1994 Standards and Guidelines. The description of Management 

Recommendations and the explanation of how they are revised would continue to apply 

to certain cavity nesting birds and some bat roosts as referenced in Sections IX and XI, 

respectively. The Canada lynx Standard and Guideline, Section X, would also continue to 

apply.

This alternative assumes the BLM’s Special Status Species policies and the Forest Service’ 

Sensitive Species policies would continue to apply in the Northwest Forest Plan area. In 

this SEIS, these policies are referred to collectively as the Agencies’ Special Status Species 

Programs, or SSSPs. The guidance for these programs is found in the following national 

and regional/state policies (see Appendix 2 for excerpts):

BLM

1. National Policy - BLM Manual 6840 (Release 6-121 11/09/01).

2. OR/WA - OR/WA Instruction Memorandum OR-91-57 dated November 5, 1990, and 

OR/WA Instruction Memorandum 2003-054 dated March 24, 2003.

3. CA - BLM Manual Supplement 6840 (Release No. 6-24, dated March 25, 1996) and 

6840 Handbook Special Status Plant Management (Release 6-25 4/15/96).

Forest Service

1. National Policy - Forest Service Manual - Chapter 2670 Threatened, Endangered, 

and Sensitive Plants and Animals (effective June, 23, 1995) and Forest Service 

Manual Chapter 2620 - Habitat Planning and Evaluations (effective July 19, 1991).

2. Region 6 - 2670 letter to Forest Supervisors updating the Regional Forester’s 

Sensitive Animal List dated November 28, 2000, and 2670 letter to Forest Supervisors 

updating the Regional Forester’s Sensitive Plant List dated May 13, 1999.

3. Region 5 - Regional Forester’s 2670 letter dated June 10, 1998.

Standards for Inclusion

This SEIS does not propose to establish, update, amend, modify, or change existing 

policies for the Agencies’ Special Status Species Programs; it merely analyzes the 

effects of implementing the existing programs on the Survey and Manage species 

that were eligible for inclusion in one or more of the Agencies’ Special Status Species 

Programs. This SEIS assumes for the analysis of effects that once species are included 

in the Agencies’ Special Status Species Programs they will be managed according to 
40

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

the direction for those programs. The Agencies’ have the authority to update, amend, 

modify, change, or eliminate their policy. Species are included or removed from the 

Special Status Species Programs based on new information and the application of the 

Agencies’ policies in effect at that time. Existing policies that guide the activities and 

actions required for the Special Status Species Programs are described below.

The Agencies update their Special Status Species lists on a regular schedule, when state 

heritage programs publish new rankings, or when other information indicates a need. 

After 1994, both Forest Service regions delayed or deferred inclusion of additional species 

in their Sensitive Species programs because the species were already included in the 

Survey and Manage mitigation measure. With the proposed removal of the Survey and 

Manage Standards and Guidelines, and with new information about Survey and Manage 

species as a result of recent pre-disturbance and strategic surveys, the Agencies requested 

updated rankings from state natural heritage programs in 2003. 

The Agencies’ program managers used the updated rankings and other species 

information to review the 295 (Alternative 1) Survey and Manage species to determine 

their eligibility for inclusion in the Agencies’ existing Special Status Species Programs. 

Based on that review, the Agencies’ Special Status Species Program Managers provided 

the list of eligible species to be analyzed in this SEIS. For analysis purposes, it was 

assumed that the Survey and Manage species that were eligible for the Agencies’ Special 

Status Species Programs would be added to those programs if the Survey and Manage 

Standards and Guidelines were removed. Under Alternative 2, 152 of the 295 Survey and 

Manage species were identified as eligible for inclusion in one or more of the Agencies’ 

existing Special Status Species Programs (240 separate program assignments). The 2004 

FSEIS included an analysis assumption that if Alternative 2 was selected, the Regional 

Foresters and State Directors would exercise their authority to add species to the Special 

Status Species Programs. 

The Agencies subsequently added 145 of these 295 Alternative 1 species to one or 

more of their respective Special Status Species Programs (Table 2-13)(counting those 

already included at that time), and the effects to species described in Chapter 3&4 of 

this Supplement reflect these actual assignments. (Since such assignments are actually 

outside the purview of this SEIS, effects to these species are also described for a scenario 

of Alternative 2 without Special Status Species Programs assignments.)

For 15 (of the 240) Special Status Species Programs assignments assumed in the 2004 

FSEIS but not subsequently made, 13 species turned out not to occur or be suspected on 

relevant agency lands, the ORNHIC ranking changed for one, and one was deemed more 

secure than originally believed, in part because it is more common outside the Northwest 

Forest Plan area and is a synonym for another Survey and Manage fungus that is more 

common. The above numbers do not include the 42 species added to this analysis by 

Alternative 4. Twelve of those are also currently assigned to one or more of the Agencies’ 

Special Status Species Programs. Table 2-13 in this Supplement includes only those 

assignments actually made.

Alternative 2 continues implementation of all other elements of the Northwest Forest 

Plan, continues the underlying land and resource management plans for the individual 

administrative units, and continues relevant agency programs and policies. None of 

the species affected by this proposal are currently listed as threatened, endangered, or 

proposed for listing under the Endangered Species Act.

Policy Objectives - Special Status Species 

The Forest Service’ Sensitive Species Policies and the BLM’s Special Status Species 

Policies, and thus the Special Status Species Programs, have similar objectives (a 
41

Chapter 2 – The Alternatives

comparison table for both programs, and Survey and Manage, and excerpts from the 

Agencies’ policies are found in Appendix 2). The objectives of the policies, and thus 

the programs, are for the Agencies to avoid actions that may contribute to the need to 

list a Special Status Species under the Endangered Species Act. Both programs require 

coordination with state and other federal agencies to achieve conservation goals of 

species identified by state governments. The objectives of the Forest Service’ Sensitive 

Species Policy also include compliance with NFMA regulations requiring diversity of 

plant and animal communities, and requiring habitat to be managed to maintain viable 

populations of existing native and desired non-native vertebrate species. 

BLM: To ensure that actions requiring authorization or approval by the BLM are 

consistent with the conservation needs of special status species and do not contribute 

to the need to list any special status species, either under provisions of the Endangered 

Species Act or other provisions of this policy (BLM Manual 6840.02 B).

Forest Service: 

1. Develop and implement management practices to ensure that species do not become 

threatened or endangered because of Forest Service actions.

2. Maintain viable populations of all native and desired non-native wildlife, fish, and 

plant species in habitats distributed throughout their geographic range on National 

Forest System lands.

3. Develop and implement management objectives for populations and/or habitat of 

Sensitive species (Forest Service Manual 2670.22).

The following describes, for analysis purposes, how Survey and Manage species that 

have been included in one or more of the Agencies’ Special Status Species Programs 

would be managed under those programs. Policies and descriptions of the programs 

may have been summarized, condensed, or paraphrased. If there is a discrepancy 

between the language in the description of Alternative 2 and Agency policy, the policy 

prevails. Each Agency will follow their own policy for the species added to their 

programs. This SEIS does not propose to establish or change existing policies; it merely 

analyzes their implementation. Selected excerpts specific to the Special Status Species 

Programs can be found in Appendix 2 and on the internet by starting at http://www.

fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/.

Number of Species and Taxa

Not all of the Survey and Manage species qualify for the Agencies’ Special Status Species 

Programs. Agency personnel, using the existing criteria specific to their agency and 

region, identified which Survey and Manage species are eligible for inclusion in one or 

more of the Agencies’ Special Status Species Programs.

As described earlier in this chapter, the number of species “currently” on Survey and 

Manage depends upon which no-action alternative is being considered. The analysis for 

Alternative 2 discussed in Chapter 3&4 and summarized later in this chapter, however, 

describes the effects of not being on Survey and Manage for all 337 species included in 

this analysis. Out of these 337 species, 157 species are eligible for one or more of the 

Agencies’ “Sensitive” (or “Assessment,” Oregon /Washington BLM only) categories and 

have been so assigned. Sensitive and Assessment categories are described below. The 

numbers of species by taxa that are assumed to be included in these programs under 

Alternative 2 are shown in Table 2-4. Forest Service Regional Foresters and BLM State 

Directors are responsible for designating or removing species from their programs. It is 

assumed that qualifying species shown in Table 2-13 will be, or have been, added to the 

Agencies’ Special Status Species Programs as a reasonably foreseeable result of selecting 
42

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Alternative 2. For analysis purposes, this assumption is considered in the environmental 

consequences discussions in Chapter 3&4. However, the effects to species if they are not 

added to, or are removed from, Agencies’ Special Status Species Programs at this time are 

also displayed.

Of the 157 species eligible for inclusion in the Agencies’ Special Status Species Programs, 

only 2 species are included in all four programs (and several others are included 

throughout their range). However, many species are eligible for inclusion in more than 

one program. When a species is included in more than one program, each agency will 

manage the species in accordance with their own policy.

Project Analysis

BLM: The BLM should obtain and use the best available information deemed necessary 

to evaluate the status of special status species in areas affected by land use plans or other 

proposed actions and to develop sound conservation practices. Land use plans shall be 

sufficiently detailed to identify and resolve significant land use conflicts with special 

status species without deferring conflict resolution to implementation-level planning. 

Implementation-level planning should consider all site-specific methods and procedures 

which are needed to bring the species and their habitats to the condition under which the 

provisions of the Endangered Species Act are not necessary, current listings under special 

status species categories are no longer necessary, and future listings under special status 

species categories would not be necessary (BLM manual 6840.22 A). 

Bureau Sensitive. Analyze effects of the proposed action on potentially affected species. 

Request technical assistance, if appropriate, from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, NOAA 

Fisheries, or other qualified sources. Avoid taking actions that would contribute to the 

need to list the species under the Endangered Species Act (BLM 6840). 

Bureau Assessment (OR/WA only). Analyze effects of the proposed action on potentially 

affected species. Avoid taking actions that would contribute to the need to list the 

species under the Endangered Species Act. Impacts by BLM actions to the population 

and to the species as a whole will be determined in the NEPA process (BLM Instruction 

Memorandum Nos. OR 91-57 and OR 2003-054).

Bureau Tracking (OR/WA only). To enable the state natural heritage program to 

determine appropriate state rankings, collection of occurrence data is encouraged and 

Table 2-4. Summary of Assumed Special Status Species Program Assignments for 

Species “Off” Survey and Manage in Alternative 2 (Specific species assignments are 

show on Table 2-13)

Taxon* BLM OR/WA1 BLM CA FS R-6 WA FS R-6 OR FS R-5 ANY2

Fungi (208) 20 31 32 26 8 67

Lichens (49) 13 12 20 19 2 31

Bryophytes (17) 8 4 3 5 2 12

Vertebrates (7) 3 1 4 4 3 7

Mollusks (44) 8 5 13 14 8 30

Vascular Plants (12) 6 2 4 8 5 10

Totals 58 55 76 76 28 157

*

 The total number of species “off” of Survey and Manage under Alternative 2 is included in parens next to the taxon.

1

 Includes Bureau Sensitive and Bureau Assessment species. Bureau Tracking species are not included.

2

 The ANY column is the total number of species in one or more SSSP. This is not the total of the five columns.
43

Chapter 2 – The Alternatives

reported if observed. Bureau Tracking is not considered a special status species for 

management purposes (BLM Instruction Memorandum No. OR 91-57). 

Forest Service: The Forest Service’ 2670 Manual (June 23, 1995) requires:

As part of the NEPA process, review programs and activities through a biological 

evaluation, to determine their potential effect on Sensitive species. The biological 

evaluation analyzes the proposed action and the significance of potential adverse effects 

on the population or its habitat within the area and on the species as a whole, and makes 

recommendations for removing, avoiding, or compensating for any adverse effect. It 

must be prepared by a journey-level biologist or botanist and include: (1) Sensitive 

species that may be present; (2) identification of occupied and unoccupied habitat; (3) an 

analysis of the effects of the proposed action on the species or their occupied habitat; (4) a 

discussion of cumulative effects; (5) a determination of no effect, beneficial effect, or may 

affect; and, (6) recommendations for avoiding or mitigating any adverse effects. 

Region 5 Watch List: These species make an important contribution to forest biodiversity 

and should be maintained under the provisions of NFMA, and addressed as appropriate 

through the NEPA process (Region 5 Regional Forester letter). These are not considered 

special status species for the purpose of this analysis.

Pre-project clearances are activities conducted to learn whether a species is present or 

potentially present in a geographic area. Pre-project clearances may include, but are not 

limited to, 

•	 clearance surveys; 

•	 field clearances; 

•	 field reconnaissance; 

•	 inventories; 

•	 habitat examinations; 

•	 habitat evaluation; 

•	 evaluation of species-habitat associations and presence of suitable or potential habitat; 

•	 review of existing survey records, inventories, and spatial data; 

•	 utilization of professional research, literature, and other technology transfer sources; 

or 

•	 use of expertise, both internal and external, that is based on documented, 

substantiated professional rationale. 

Pre-project clearances are completed prior to habitat-disturbing activities to determine 

the presence of a species or its habitat and the effect of management actions on the 

species.

BLM: In general, BLM only conducts pre-project clearances for those Sensitive species 

where BLM administered lands or actions have a significant effect on their status. 

Bureau Sensitive: To ensure that actions authorized, funded, or carried out by the BLM 

do not contribute to the need to list any Sensitive species as threatened or endangered, 

conduct inventories (i.e., pre-project clearances) to determine the impacts of such actions 

on any Sensitive species that might be within the area of a proposed project. Inventories 

(i.e., pre-project clearances) are to be conducted at the time of year when species can be 

found (BLM Instruction Memorandum No. OR 91-57 and CA Supplement 6840).

The manual for BLM California goes on to present a decision key for determining 

the minimum level of inventory, at least for Sensitive plants, based on the probability 
44

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

of occurrence of the species and the level of habitat disturbance associated with the 

proposed activity. Survey exceptions require approval by the State Director. Potential 

effects to Sensitive species and their habitats are discussed in the environmental 

assessment for the proposed activity (BLM CA 6840 Handbook III).

Bureau Assessment (OR/WA only): Pre-project clearances are required contingent upon 

available funding and personnel. When funding and personnel are not available, a 

review of likely habitats on maps and aerial photos, and available data from other federal 

and state agencies and State Heritage Programs, will be the minimum acceptable level for 

clearances (BLM Instruction Memorandum No. OR 91-57).

Bureau Tracking (OR/WA only): Pre-project clearances are not required (BLM Instruction 

Memorandum No. OR 91-57).

Forest Service: Forest Service policy is to complete a Biological Evaluation to review 

potential impacts of proposed actions on Sensitive species, as described in the Project 

Analysis discussion above. The biological evaluation identifies all occupied and 

unoccupied habitat for Sensitive species that may occur in the project area. Surveys may 

be conducted in suitable habitat to determine if a species is present, but are not required. 

If suitable habitat is identified, the assumption may be made that it is occupied and 

measures are recommended to avoid impacts (Forest Service Manual 2670).

Region 5 Watch List: To analyze potential impacts to these species, consider the context, 

intensity, and duration of likely effects. Appropriate analysis may range from formal 

surveys to simple documentation of a lack of potential habitat. Do not incorporate 

analysis for the Watch List species into the biological evaluation, which is reserved for 

Sensitive Species. Regardless of inclusion on any list, concerns related to NFMA diversity 

and viability requirements for any species or its habitat can be raised as a NEPA issue, 

and should be tracked through the planning process (Region 5 Regional Forester letter).

Site Management

Manual direction concerning species site management is slightly different between the 

Agencies. It is the policy of both Agencies to avoid actions that would contribute to a 

need to list a Special Status species as threatened or endangered under the Endangered 

Species Act. Authority to disturb known Sensitive species sites lies with the agency 

official who is responsible for authorizing the proposed habitat-disturbing activity. 

BLM: The protection provided by the policy for candidate species shall be used as 

the minimum level of protection for BLM Sensitive species (BLM Manual 6840.06 E). 

Consistent with existing laws, the BLM shall conserve Sensitive species and their habitats 

and shall ensure that actions authorized, funded, or carried out by the BLM do not 

contribute to the need for the species to become listed. 

Specifically, BLM shall: 

1. Determine, to the extent practicable, the distribution, population dynamics, current 

threats, abundance, and habitat needs for Sensitive species occurring on lands 

administered by the BLM; evaluate the significance of lands administered by the 

BLM or actions undertaken by the BLM in maintaining and restoring those species.

2. For Sensitive species where lands administered by the BLM or BLM authorized 

actions have a significant effect on their status, manage the habitat to conserve the 

species by: 

 a. Ensuring candidate species are appropriately considered in land use plans.
45

Chapter 2 – The Alternatives

 b. Developing, cooperating with, and implementing range-wide or site-specific 

management plans, conservation strategies, and assessments for Sensitive species 

that include specific habitat and population management objectives designed 

for conservation, as well as management strategies necessary to meet those 

objectives.

 c. Ensuring that BLM activities affecting the habitat of Sensitive species are carried 

out in a manner that is consistent with the objectives for managing those species. 

 d. Monitoring populations and habitats of candidate species to determine whether 

management objectives are being met (BLM Manual 6840.06 C). 

Forest Service: Avoid or minimize impacts to species whose viability has been identified 

as a concern. If impacts cannot be avoided, analyze the significance of potential adverse 

effects on the population or its habitat within the area of concern and on the species as 

a whole. The line officer with project approval authority makes the decision to allow 

or disallow impact, but the decision must not result in loss of species viability or create 

significant trends toward federal listing (Forest Service Manual 2670.32).

Conservation Strategies

BLM: The protection provided by the policy for “candidate” species (taxa for which 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has sufficient information on their status and threats 

to support proposing the species for listing as endangered or threatened under the 

Endangered Species Act, but for which issuance of a proposed rule is currently precluded 

by higher priority listing actions) is used as the minimum level of protection for BLM 

Sensitive species (BLM Manual 6840.06 E). Policy regarding conservation strategies for 

BLM Sensitive species is: 

1. In coordination with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or NOAA Fisheries 

determine, to the extent practicable, the distribution, population dynamics, current 

threats, abundance, and habitat needs for candidate species occurring on lands 

administered by the BLM. Evaluate the significance of lands administered by the 

BLM or actions undertaken by the BLM in maintaining and restoring those species.

2. For Sensitive species where lands administered by the BLM or BLM authorized 

actions have a significant effect on their status, manage the habitat to conserve the 

species by:

 a. Ensuring Sensitive species are appropriately considered in land use plans.

 b. Developing, cooperating with, and implementing range-wide or site-specific 

management plans, conservation strategies, and assessments for candidate 

species that include specific habitat and population management objectives 

designed for conservation, as well as management strategies necessary to meet 

those objectives.

 c. Ensuring that BLM activities affecting the habitat of Sensitive species are carried 

out in a manner that is consistent with the objectives for managing those species.

 d. Monitoring populations and habitat of Sensitive species to determine whether 

management objectives are being met. 

In an effort to eliminate the need for listings under the Endangered Species Act, the BLM 

shall participate in developing habitat conservation assessments leading to conservation 

agreements for proposed, candidate, and Sensitive species, groups of species, or specific 

ecosystems. A conservation assessment is a technical document that describes the 

current state of the knowledge for the life history, habitat requirements, and management 

considerations for a species or group of species throughout its occupied range on the 
46

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

lands managed by the cooperating agencies. Habitat conservation assessments are often 

done as a forerunner to preparation of a conservation agreement (BLM Manual 6840.22.

C.2).

State Directors and line managers should identify opportunities for habitat conservation 

assessments or, if none exists, initiate the development of these assessments and 

conservation agreements for the purpose of furthering the conservation of the subject 

species on BLM administered and other lands (BLM 6840.22 C.2.b).

The BLM should use habitat conservation assessments to develop conservation 

agreements that outline the procedural assurance necessary to: (1) reduce, eliminate, 

or mitigate specific threats to proposed, candidate, or Sensitive species; (2) develop an 

ecosystem management approach to conservation on federal lands; and, (3) facilitate 

coordination and cooperation with others, such as States and private entities, to achieve 

species and habitat conservation through an ecosystem management approach that 

extends beyond federally managed lands (BLM 6840.22 C.2.c).

Regional manual supplements for Oregon/Washington and California summarize this 

policy, stating that for Sensitive species where lands administered by the BLM, or BLM 

actions, have a significant effect on their status: (1) manage the habitat to conserve 

the species; (2) prepare management plans when necessary; and, (3) implement active 

management where needed to prevent listing or to conserve the species. Progress toward 

meeting species management objectives will be monitored periodically (BLM Instruction 

Memorandum No. OR 91-57).

Forest Service: To preclude trends toward endangerment that would result in the need 

for federal listing, units must develop conservation strategies for those Sensitive species 

whose continued existence may be negatively affected by the forest plan or a proposed 

project. To devise conservation strategies, first conduct biological assessments of 

identified Sensitive species. In each assessment, meet these requirements:

1. Base the assessment on the current geographic range of the species and the area 

affected by the plan or project. If the entire range of the species is contained within 

the plan or project area, limit the area of analysis to the immediate plan or project 

area. If the geographic range of the species is beyond the plan or project area, 

expand the area of analysis accordingly.

2. Identify and consider, as appropriate for the species and area, factors that may 

affect the continued downward trend of the population, including such factors as: 

distribution of habitats, genetics, demographics, habitat fragmentation, and risk 

associated with catastrophic events.

3. Display findings under the various management alternatives considered in the plan 

or project (including the no action alternative) (FSM 2621.2).

For Sensitive plants in Region 5, the interim Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plant 

Handbook (Region 5 Forest Service Handbook 2609.25) requires that, when information 

on a Sensitive species is needed, a professional botanist directs the botanical investigation 

of species in order to determine the status of the species. The botanical investigation is 

an in-depth investigation conducted to gather information on distribution, abundance, 

trends, ecological requirements, and management needs. Based on the botanical 

investigation, a Species Management Guide is produced. A Species Management Guide 

is a biological and administrative action document that contains the information and 

guidance necessary for successful management of a species through time. A guide 

specifies monitoring and periodic review to ensure that it is working to benefit the 

species. As new data becomes available, it is incorporated into species management 
47

Chapter 2 – The Alternatives

guides. Effective implementation of these guides should ensure the long-term viability 

of Sensitive species, thereby, preventing the need to list the species under the Endangered 

Species Act. 

In Region 6, conservation strategies are developed for candidate and Sensitive species. 

The strategy is based on the best scientific information available for the species and 

usually includes an outline of the biological limiting factors, recommended conservation 

measures to manage or protect the species, and a monitoring plan (Region 6 Regional 

Forester letter dated August 17, 1995).

Inventories

General inventories are similar to Strategic Surveys. They are conducted to learn more 

about a species distribution and status. These surveys can be conducted to help develop 

conservation strategies. 

BLM: State Directors are responsible for establishing programs to determine which 

special status species occur on public land, and the condition of the populations and their 

habitats (BLM Manual 6840.04 E.3). Field managers are responsible for conducting and 

maintaining current inventories for special status species on public lands (BLM Manual 

6840.04 F.1).

BLM OR/WA: For Sensitive species, general inventories are required where needed to 

determine species distribution and status, and monitoring to determine the species’ 

requirements and trends (BLM Instruction Memorandum No. OR 91-57).

BLM CA: It is policy to conduct inventories to determine the occurrence and status of all 

special status plant species on lands managed by BLM or affected by BLM actions. This 

includes pro-active inventories directed toward development of plans or determining 

the status of plant species. Such inventories are to be conducted at the time of year when 

such plant species can be found and positively identified (BLM CA 6840 Handbook III).

Forest Service: Inventories are encouraged where needed to support biological 

evaluations and establish management objectives for conservation of Sensitive species. 

Inventories are not required.

Adding/Removing Species

The heritage program rankings are updated on a regular cycle of 2-3 years, depending 

on the state. These rankings are then published or posted on their websites. The BLM 

Sensitive species list in Oregon is considered to include all ORNHIC List 1 species, with 

few exceptions, when new rankings are published. The State Director is able to accept, 

add, or remove ranked species as information warrants. In addition, BLM District 

managers can nominate species for addition or deletion.

Forest Service Sensitive species lists are updated at the discretion of the Regional 

Forester. These lists are updated as demand warrants. 

Reports, Monitoring, and Review

Monitoring will continue in accordance with existing monitoring requirements for the 

Northwest Forest Plan and for the land and resource management plans for each of the 

Forest Service and BLM administrative units within the Northwest Forest Plan area. No 

new monitoring requirements are proposed. 
48

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Formal reviews or reports regarding special status species are not required. 

BLM: The Special Status Species Program Manager is responsible for monitoring 

implementation of the special status species program and recommending changes to 

ensure compliance with law, regulation, and policy and to maintain effectiveness of the 

program (BLM Manual 6840.04 E.8). BLM policy is to monitor populations and habitats 

of Sensitive species to determine whether management objectives are being met (BLM 

Manual 6840.06 C.2.d). Field Managers are responsible for ensuring actions are evaluated 

to determine if special status species objectives are being met (BLM Manual 6840.04 F.5).

BLM OR/WA: Monitoring is required for Bureau Sensitive species where lands 

administered by the BLM or BLM actions have a significant effect on their status. 

Monitoring should be designed on a case-by-case basis at the intensity appropriate 

for the monitoring objective (related to an EA, to species trend, or species/habitat 

management). Monitoring may include any of the following: (1) Compliance monitoring 

to determine if protection and mitigation measures included in project EAs were 

implemented in the field; (2) Impact analysis monitoring to determine if protection and 

mitigation implemented in the field achieved management objectives; or (3) Research and 

studies to determine biological status, taxonomic status, threats, trend, etc., by qualitative 

and quantitative data collection. Monitoring is optional for Bureau Assessment and 

Bureau Tracking species (BLM Instruction Memorandum No. OR 91-57).

BLM CA: For Sensitive plants, BLM California prioritizes Sensitive species for 

monitoring based upon degree of rarity, existing threats, and potential conflicts. Plant 

species with the highest rating are monitored annually while others are monitored every 

3-5 years. A study plan is developed and peer reviewed for each species being monitored 

(BLM CA 6840 Handbook IV).

Forest Service: Monitoring should be proposed as necessary to determine if wildlife, 

fish, and other resource objectives are being met. Develop and implement management 

strategies (objectives, management prescriptions, and monitoring) to meet riparian 

habitat goals for dependent fish and wildlife species.

Regional Foresters are responsible for ensuring Region-wide consistency in standards, 

technologies, and methods used in habitat planning and evaluation and monitoring of 

wildlife and fish resources (Forest Service manual 2620.43).

Region 6: Include a monitoring plan in conservation strategies for candidate and 

Sensitive species. 

Region 5: For Sensitive plants, monitor key populations and specify monitoring and 

periodic review in species management guides to ensure that the guide is working to 

benefit the species.

Alternative 3 (Northwest Forest Plan with Modified 

Survey and Manage) 

Under Alternative 3, the Agencies would amend 28 land and resource management 

plans within the range of the northern spotted owl by modifying the Survey and Manage 

Standards and Guidelines. Modifications include: (1) removing the uncommon species 

categories and all Survey and Manage requirements pertaining to them; (2) eliminating 

the requirement to conduct pre-disturbance surveys in non-late-successional and nonold-growth forest stands; and, (3) changing the review requirements for excepting known 

sites from management.
49

Chapter 2 – The Alternatives

This alternative retains Survey and Manage for the 271 species in the “rare” categories 

(Categories A, B, and E) in Alternative 1. The Survey and Manage Standards and 

Guidelines, as modified by Alternative 3, are included in Appendix 4. Key features 

of Alternative 3 are summarized below. If there is a conflict between the Standards 

and Guidelines found in Appendix 4 and the text in this document, the Standards and 

Guidelines in Appendix 4 prevail. 

Twenty-eight Survey and Manage species plus 4 arthropod functional groups in the 

“uncommon” categories in No-Action Alternative 1, as well as the 58 species previously 

removed by one of the Annual Species Reviews in all or part of their range and not 

included in Alternative 1, are not included in Survey and Manage under this alternative. 

For these species, the Agencies have reviewed their eligibility and assigned qualifying 

species to one or more of their Special Status Species Programs. (Details about the 

Agencies’ Special Status Species Programs are summarized under Alternative 2.) If 

Alternative 3 is selected, the analysis in this SEIS assumes qualifying species will be 

managed under those programs. However, the effects of not adding species to these 

programs, or of removing them, are also discussed in the Environmental Consequences

section for each species in Chapter 3&4, displayed on Table 2-13 at the end of this chapter, 

and summarized on Tables 2-10, 2-11, and S-1.

NOTE: Species placements in this alternative are based on Alternative 1, as described 

in the 2004 FSEIS and July 2006 Draft Supplement. The January 2007 Supplement

showed this alternative reconfigured based on the species and category assignments of 

Alternative 4 so that more species would be included in the analysis. That configuration 

also shared an effects analysis assumption with Alternative 4 that were it to be selected, 

a species review process would begin immediately and the changes made in the 2001, 

2002, and 2003 Annual Species Reviews would be expected to be reinstated. After 

publication of the January 2007 Supplement, is was realized it was not appropriate for 

an Action Alternative to carry an analysis assumption that it would be immediately 

changed, and in this case, changed in predictable ways based on information already 

available to the Agencies and even displayed in Appendix 9. Alternative 3 now simply 

adopts (and thus analyzes) the assumed changes, those made by the previous Annual 

Species Reviews, by being based on the species and category assignments of Alternative 

1. The appropriateness of these changes is not based on the information in Appendix 9 

alone; the species effects analyses in Chapter 3&4 and summarized later in this chapter 

describe the effects of the individual species assignments, thus providing the evidence as 

to whether those assignments are appropriate.

The description of this alternative is returned to that displayed in the 2004 FSEIS and July 

2006 Draft Supplement previously made available for public review and comment. 

Program/Policy Objectives

Program objectives for the Survey and Manage mitigation measure are the same as those 

described under Alternative 1. Policy objectives for the Agencies’ Special Status Species 

Programs are the same as those described under Alternative 2.

Number of Species and Taxa

The number of “rare” species and the categories to which they are assigned are the 

same as No-Action Alternative 1. Alternative 3 removes Standards and Guidelines 

for the “uncommon” categories in Survey and Manage. The 271 species assigned to 

“rare” Categories A, B, or E in Alternative 1 as shown on Table 2-13 would continue 

to be included in the Survey and Manage mitigation measure. Taxa would include: 

vertebrates, bryophytes, mollusks, vascular plants, fungi, and lichens. For four species 
50

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

that are included in both the “rare” and “uncommon” categories, the species would be 

removed from Survey and Manage in the “uncommon” portion of the species’ range, and 

would be retained in Survey and Manage in the “rare” portion of the range. 

The twenty-eight Survey and Manage species plus 4 arthropod functional groups in 

the “uncommon” categories in No-Action Alternative 1, and the 58 species previously 

removed by one of the Annual Species Reviews in all or part of their range and not 

included in Alternative 1, are not included in Survey and Manage under this alternative. 

Because, for five species, “part of their range” was removed by an Annual Species Review 

and another part of their range is removed as an uncommon species, the total number of 

species not on Survey and Manage in this alternative is 81, for all or part of their range. 

Of these 81, 66 are not included in Survey and Manage for their entire NWFP area range, 

and 15 are not on Survey and Manage for part of their range. These species are shown as 

“off” under this alternative on Table 2-13. 

For these species, the Agencies reviewed their eligibility and assigned 28 to one or 

more of their Special Status Species Programs (summarized on Table 2-5; individual 

assignments shown on Table 2-13). Effects for these species under the Special Status 

Species Programs are described in Chapter 3&4 and included on Table 2-13. Because 

Agency managers have latitude regarding assignments to the these Programs, the effects 

of not adding species to these programs, or of removing them, are also discussed in the 

Environmental Consequences section for each species in Chapter 3&4, displayed on Table 

2-13 near the end of this chapter, and summarized on Tables 2-10, 2-11 and S-1.

Details about qualifications for, and management under, the Agencies’ Special Status 

Species Programs are summarized under Alternative 2. 

Standards for Inclusion 

Survey and Manage has three basic criteria (see box included with Alternative 1 

description) that must be met for a species to be included in the Survey and Manage 

Standards and Guidelines. Species no longer meeting these criteria will be removed; 

species meeting the criteria can be added. (Note: Since uncommon species are not 

included in Survey and Manage under Alternative 3, the criteria addressing concern for 

persistence reflects a higher threshold of concern than under Alternative 1.) 

Table 2-5. Summary of Assumed Special Status Species Program Assignments for 

Species “Off” Survey and Manage in Alternative 3 (Specific species assignments are 

show on Table 2-13)

Taxon* BLM OR/WA1 BLM CA FS R-6 WA FS R-6 OR FS R-5 ANY2

Fungi (42) 1 1 4 4 0 6

Lichens (17) 1 5 6 5 1 9

Bryophytes (4) 0 0 0 1 0 1

Vertebrates (3) 2 0 1 3 0 3

Mollusks (11) 2 2 2 4 0 7

Vascular Plants (4) 1 2 1 1 2 2

Totals 7 10 14 18 3 28

*

 The total number of species “off” of Survey and Manage in all or part of their range under Alternative 3 is included in parens next to the 

taxon.

1

 Includes Bureau Sensitive and Bureau Assessment species. Bureau Tracking species are not included.

2

 The ANY column is the total number of species in one or more SSSP. This is not the total of the five columns.
51

Chapter 2 – The Alternatives

Concern for persistence is one of the basic criteria for applying the Survey and Manage 

mitigation measure to a species. A concern for persistence exists when the reserve 

system and other standards and guidelines of the Northwest Forest Plan do not appear 

to provide a reasonable assurance of species persistence. Little or no concern for 

persistence exists when the reserve system and other standards and guidelines of the 

Northwest Forest Plan (other than Survey and Manage) provide a reasonable assurance 

of persistence. When this assurance of species persistence exists, the species may be 

removed from the Survey and Manage mitigation measure.

Criteria Indicating a Concern for Persistence. A combination of one or more of criteria 

1 through 9 and criteria 10 or 11, considered in the context of the reserve system and 

other standards and guidelines of the Northwest Forest Plan, may indicate a concern 

for species persistence. These criteria must be considered separate from the Survey and 

Manage mitigation measure and must apply within the Northwest Forest Plan area.

1. Low number of likely extant known sites/records or low number of estimated 

sites predicted from statistical analysis of random-grid surveys or comparable 

statistical surveys.

2. Low numbers of individuals throughout the species range.

3. Low number of individuals at most sites or in most populations.

4. Reproductive characteristics that limit population growth rates.

5. Found or suspected in only one physiographic province or a similar small area.

6. Limited habitat or narrow ecological amplitude within known or suspected 

range.

7. Not well distributed within range or habitat or distribution is unpredictable in a 

significant part of its range.

8. Declining habitat or populations in a significant part of its range.

9. Habitat fragmentation significant enough to cause genetic isolation.

10. Low proportion of sites and habitat in reserve land allocations or limited number 

of sites within reserves, but the proportion or amount of potential habitat within 

reserves is high and there is a low probability that the habitat is occupied.

11. Matrix Standards and Guidelines or other elements of the Northwest Forest Plan 

do not provide for a reasonable assurance of species persistence.

Criteria Indicating Little or No Concern for Persistence. Any one of criteria 1 through 

9 or either 10 or 11 indicates that a concern for persistence may not exist. These criteria 

must apply within the Northwest Forest Plan area.

1. Moderate-to-high number of likely extant sites/records or moderate-to-high 

number of estimated sites predicted from statistical analysis of random-grid 

surveys or comparable statistical surveys.

2. Moderate-to-high numbers of individuals throughout the species range.

3. Moderate-to-high number of individuals at most sites or in most populations.

4. Population growth rates are not limited by reproductive characteristics.

5. Found or suspected in more than one physiographic province or similar small 

area.

6. Habitat is not limited or moderate-to-broad ecological amplitude within known 

or suspected range.

7. Well distributed in a significant part of its range.

8. Stable or increasing habitat or populations in a significant part of its range.

9. Habitat continuity allows reasonable flow of genetic material.
52

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

10. Moderate-to-high proportion of sites and habitat in reserve land allocations, 

or limited number of sites within reserves, but the proportion or amount 

of potential habitat within reserves is high and there is a moderate-to-high 

probability that the habitat is occupied.

11. Matrix Standards and Guidelines or other elements of the Northwest Forest Plan 

provide a reasonable assurance of species persistence. 

Concern for persistence is based on existing knowledge and may change over time. 

While concern will remain for some species that are truly rare, the concern for many 

species will be alleviated as more information is accumulated through pre-disturbance 

and strategic surveys, and considered with the criteria indicated above. A species for 

which there is no longer a concern for persistence will be removed from the Survey and 

Manage mitigation measure as described in the Adaptive Management section.

The criteria for adding species to the Special Status Species Programs are described under 

Alternative 2.

Species Categories

Species included in Survey and Manage would be assigned to one of three management 

categories (A, B, or E) as shown on Table 2-6. Categories are based on: (1) ability to 

reasonably and consistently locate occupied sites during surveys prior to habitatdisturbing activities, and (2) the level of information known about the species or group 

of species. The species included in Survey and Manage, and the category to which each 

species, or portion of the range of each species, is assigned, are shown on Table 2-13.

Ability to Reasonably and Consistently Conduct Pre-Disturbance 

Surveys 

Pre-disturbance surveys are completed for projects that may disturb species habitats. 

They are conducted prior to signing NEPA documents with the goal of reducing the 

inadvertent loss of sites by searching specified habitats. 

Pre-disturbance surveys are defined as practical, if a reasonable effort is likely to 

determine the presence of a species on a specific area. Put another way, practicality of 

surveys generally relates to the ability to confidently answer questions about species 

presence through surveys, while avoiding unreasonable costs or spending unreasonable 

amounts of time. 

Table 2-6. Survey and Manage Categories and Management Requirements, 

Alternative 3

Pre-Disturbance Surveys Practical Pre-Disturbance Surveys Not 

Practical

Status Undetermined

Category A – 56 species

• Manage All Known Sites

• Pre-Disturbance Surveys in 

LSOG

• Strategic Surveys

Category B – 183 species

• Manage All Known Sites

• N/A1, 2

• Strategic Surveys

Category E – 33 species

• Manage All Known Sites

• N/A2

• Strategic Surveys

Species do not total 271 because for 1 species, different areas of their geographic ranges are assigned to different categories.

LSOG = Late Successional and/or old-growth forest stands 

1

 Equivalent-effort surveys are required for FY 2006 and beyond (2011 for fungi) unless strategic surveys are completed.

2

 Three mollusks require equivalent-effort surveys as a mitigation measure.
53

Chapter 2 – The Alternatives

Surveys prior to habitat disturbance are considered practical if all of the following criteria 

apply: 

•	 The species appears annually or predictably, producing identifying structures that are 

visible for a predictable and reasonably long time.

•	 The species is not so minuscule or cryptic as to be barely visible.

•	 The species can authoritatively be identified by more than a few experts, or the 

number of available experts is not so limited that it would be impossible to accomplish 

all surveys or identifications for all proposed habitat-disturbing activities in the 

Northwest Forest Plan area needing identification within the normal planning period 

for the activity.

•	 The species can be readily distinguished in the field and needs no more than simple 

laboratory or office examination to confirm its identification.

•	 Surveys do not require unacceptable safety or species risks.

•	 Surveys can be completed in two field seasons (approximately 7-18 months).

•	 Credible survey methods for the species are known or can be developed within a 

reasonable time period (approximately 1 year).

Level of Knowledge About a Species

Species are assigned to Category E if there is insufficient knowledge to determine 

whether they meet the three basic criteria for inclusion in the Survey and Manage 

mitigation measure.

Species categories for Special Status Species are described under Alternative 2.

Project Analysis

Project analysis requirements for Survey and Manage species would be the same as 

described for Alternative 1 except that the requirement to conduct pre-disturbance 

surveys is limited to habitat in late-successional or old-growth forests (see below). 

Project analysis requirements for Special Status Species would be the same as described 

for Alternative 2.

Category A requires that pre-disturbance surveys be conducted prior to signing NEPA 

decisions or decision documents for habitat-disturbing activities in late-successional 

and/or old-growth forests. They focus on the project unit with the objective of reducing 

the inadvertent loss of undiscovered sites by searching specified potential habitats prior 

to making decisions about habitat-disturbing activities. They are done according to the 

Survey Protocol for each species and can use methods such as transects or plots that 

focus on priority habitats, habitat features, or involve the entire project area. Generally, 

pre-disturbance surveys are only prescribed for species for which they are practical. 

“Equivalent-effort” surveys are prescribed as a mitigation measure for three Category B 

mollusk species whose characteristics, such as small size and identifying characteristics, 

prevent them from being consistently located during site-specific surveys. 

Habitat-Disturbing Activities are disturbances likely to have a substantial negative 

impact on the species’ habitat, its life cycle, microclimate, or life support requirements.

Survey Protocols provide guidelines for pre-disturbance surveys. These are interagency 

documents describing the survey techniques needed to have a reasonable chance of 

locating the species when it is present on the site, or needed to make an equivalent-effort 

of locating the species when it is present on the site.
54

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Line officers should seek specialists’ recommendations to help determine the need for a 

survey based on site-specific information.

Pre-disturbance and equivalent-effort surveys are not required in stands that have not 

yet become late-successional and/or old-growth forest. The unit proposing the project 

will be responsible for applying the following definition in making the determination 

whether a forest stand is late-successional.

Late-successional forests - Forest stands consisting of trees, structural attributes, 

supporting biological communities, and processes associated with old-growth and/

or mature forests (USDA, USDI 1994a). Forest seral stages that include mature and 

old-growth age classes (USDA, USDI 1994a). These stands exhibit increasing stand 

diversity, patchy multi-layered canopy, trees of several age classes, larger standing 

dead trees (snags), large woody debris and species that represent the potential 

natural community (USDA et al. 1993). Age is not a defining characteristic but has 

been used as a proxy or indicator in the past. Minimum ages vary depending on 

the site quality, species, rate of stand development, and other factors.

The policy governing pre-disturbance surveys for wildland fires for resource benefits 

was updated on July 31, 2003 (USDA, USDI 2003e). A wildland fire for resource benefit 

is a fire that results from natural ignition (i.e. lightning strike) and is (1) permitted to 

burn because it is resulting in resource benefits; (2) consistent with the land and resource 

management plan; (3) consistent with the fire management plan; and, (4) burning within 

prescription. No pre-disturbance surveys are required for wildland fires for resource 

benefits, regardless of land allocation, if certain conditions are met. See Exemption to 

Survey and Manage Pre-disturbance Survey Requirements for Wildland Fire for Resource 

Benefits section earlier in this chapter.

Pre-disturbance surveys are not required in the unusual circumstance such that a delay 

in implementation of the activity (to permit pre-disturbance surveys) would result 

in greatly increased and unacceptable environmental risk. Such circumstances are 

subject to review by the line officer at the next level above the official responsible for the 

proposal to ensure the urgency of the activity justifies the risk to species.

Pre-project clearances for Special Status Species would be the same as described under 

Alternative 2.

Site Management

Known sites are historic and current locations of a species reported by a credible source, 

available to field offices, and that do not require additional species verification or survey 

by the Agency to locate the species. Known sites include those sites known prior to the 

signing of the Northwest Forest Plan Record of Decision (USDA, USDI 1994b), as well 

as sites found since then. Known sites are typically found during pre-disturbance or 

strategic surveys. 

Known site management for Survey and Manage species would be the same as 

Alternative 1, except: it would only apply to Categories A, B, and E; and, exceptions to 

known site management would be approved by the line officer at the next level above the 

official responsible for the proposal.

For the 66 species not included in Survey and Manage in all of their range, and 15 not 

included in part of their range, known sites of species not assigned to Agency Special 

Status Species Programs would no longer be managed and would be made available 

for multiple use. For the 28 species that qualify for the Agencies’ Special Status Species 

Programs, site management would be the same as described under Alternative 2.
55

Chapter 2 – The Alternatives

Conservation Strategies

Conservation strategies for Special Status Species would be the same as described under 

Alternative 2.

Inventories

For species remaining in Survey and Manage, inventory will continue through strategic 

surveys. Strategic surveys are landscape-scale surveys designed to collect information 

about a species, including its presence and habitat. Information provided by strategic 

surveys (as well as research and other information-gathering efforts) helps address 

fundamental questions about Survey and Manage species, including: (1) is there a 

concern for persistence? (2) is the species closely associated with late-successional 

forests? (3) what is the appropriate management for the species? and, (4) do the reserve 

land allocations and other standards and guidelines of the Northwest Forest Plan provide 

a reasonable assurance of species persistence? Information from strategic surveys 

is used in the annual species review process and is incorporated into Management 

Recommendations and Survey Protocols. Strategic surveys are prescribed for all 

categories. Once strategic surveys have helped answer these questions, or further 

surveys are not expected to contribute significant additional information, strategic 

surveys may be complete even if few or no additional sites are found. 

Strategic surveys are different from pre-disturbance surveys because they are focused on 

gathering information about the species and its habitat needs range-wide, and are not 

focused on determining presence or absence in specific areas prior to habitat-disturbing 

activities. 

Because Category B species are rare and do not have pre-disturbance surveys, completing 

strategic surveys is a high priority. For this category, the Standards and Guidelines 

require “To reduce the inadvertent loss of undiscovered sites, the Agencies will not sign 

NEPA decisions or decision documents for habitat-disturbing activities in old-growth 

forest (a sub-set of late-successional forest - see Glossary) in fiscal year 2006 (fiscal year 

2011 for fungi) and beyond, unless either:

•	 “strategic surveys have been completed [as defined in the standards and guidelines] 

for the province that encompasses the project area, or

•	 “surveys equivalent to pre-disturbance surveys have been conducted in the oldgrowth habitat to be disturbed.”

Currently, equivalent-effort surveys would be required for four bryophytes and two 

lichens species under this requirement.

Inventories for Special Status Species would be the same as described under 

Alternative 2.

Adding/Removing Species

For Survey and Manage species, the process for adding or removing species would 

be the same as described under Alternative 1, except that additional NEPA analysis is 

assumed required if the proposed changes are determined to be a plan amendment. For 

Special Status Species, the process for adding or removing species would be the same as 

described under Alternative 2.
56

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Reports, Monitoring, and Review

Requirements for reports, monitoring, and review for Survey and Manage species would 

be the same as described under Alternative 1. Reports, monitoring, and review for 

Special Status Species would be the same as described for Alternative 2. 

Alternative 4, No-Action without ASRs (Northwest 

Forest Plan Including Survey and Manage for 337 

Species)

Alternative 4, No-Action, would continue implementing all current elements of the 

Northwest Forest Plan including the Survey and Manage mitigation measure (modified 

slightly to assume future ASRs will require additional NEPA analysis if they result in a 

plan amendment), the underlying land and resource management plans, and relevant 

agency programs and policies. It responds to the November 6, 2006 Ninth Circuit 

Court decision on two BLM timber sales by including those species previously thought 

removed by Annual Species Reviews. It therefore includes all 337 species and categories 

(plus 4 arthropod functional groups) listed in the 2001 Survey and Manage Record of 

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

Background 

In 2001, there were 3378 species and 4 arthropod groups included in the Survey and 

Manage mitigation measure. The 2001 Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines 

include an Annual Species Review (ASR) process for adding, removing, or changing 

a species from one category to another, based on new information relative to the 

Survey and Manage three basic criteria. The ASR process is a rigorous, science-based, 

comparison of available species information with criteria specified in the Survey and 

Manage Standards and Guidelines and used to place the species in 2001 (USDA, USDI 

2001a:Standards and Guidelines-68). The process was completed in 2001, 2002, and 

2003 according to the prescribed process and criteria (see Appendix 9). The three ASRs 

removed 42 species in all of their range and 16 species in part of their range because 

they did not meet one or more of the three basic criteria for inclusion in Survey and 

Manage, and changed the categories of another 32 in all or part of their range, including 

5 in part of their range that are also counted in the 16 above. Thus, for the 2004 Final 

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) and Record of Decision, there 

were 2959 species and 4 arthropod functional groups remaining on Survey and Manage. 

Those species and the categories to which they were assigned were described in the 2004 

FSEIS, the July 2006 Draft Supplement, and this Final Supplement as Alternative 1, NoAction with ASRs.

On November 6, 2006, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found 

the 2001 and 2003 Survey and Manage 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 National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) analysis. Although the court’s decision was specific to the red tree vole, 

it is prudent and reasonable for the Agencies to consider the potential implications of 

that decision on other species affected by the ASR process. This Supplement, therefore, 

presents analysis of another no-action alternative (Alternative 4), which includes all 337

8

The 2000 FSEIS addressed “346” species, but that number included 4 arthropod groups, 3 species that were counted twice because they were 

in more than one category, and two species that have since been determined to be synonyms for other included species and thus has been 

combined. 

9

The 2004 FSEIS addressed “296” species, but that number included a species that has since been determined to be a synonym for another 

included species and thus has been combined.
57

Chapter 2 – The Alternatives

species included in Survey and Manage, and their category assignments as they appeared 

in the 2001 Record of Decision prior to completion of the three ASRs. 

This alternative does not reflect the Agencies’ position on any further legal proceedings 

related to the Ninth Circuit Court ruling on the Cow Catcher and Cottonsnake Timber 

Sales or the Annual Species Review process. Because no legal decision has been rendered 

about other ASR decisions, or even about the red tree vole on National Forests, NoAction Alternative 1 from the 2004 FSEIS and July 2006 Draft Supplement is also retained.

This alternative is the same as Alternative 1 except as follows: 

Number of Species and Taxa

The Annual Species Review changes of 2001, 2002, and 2003 are assumed not to have 

occurred. Thus, 42 species previously removed in all of their range and 26 species 

previously removed in part of their range are included in Survey and Manage in this 

alternative. It also includes 32 species with changed categories in all or part of their 

range (5 or which are ones previously removed in the other part of their range), variously 

increasing or decreasing protection levels when compared to Alternative 1. Table 2-7 

shows the number of species by category. Table 2-13 shows the categories to which each 

species is assigned.

Project Analysis

“Equivalent-effort” surveys were prescribed in the 2001 Record of Decision as a 

mitigation measure for certain mollusk species “for as long as they remain in Category 

B or E.” Thus, this mitigation measure applies to an additional four mollusks (These are 

in addition to the three already identified under Alternative 1). The affected mollusks 

are Ancotrema voyanum, Helminthoglypta hertleini, Monadenia infumata ochromphalus, and 

Pristoloma arcticum crateris. 

Table 2-7. Survey and Manage Categories and Management Requirements, 

Alternative 4

Relative Rarity Pre-Disturbance Surveys 

Practical

Pre-Disturbance Surveys Not 

Practical

Status Undetermined

Rare Category A – 57 species

• Manage All Known Sites

• Pre-Disturbance Surveys

• Strategic Surveys

Category B – 220 species

• Manage All Known Sites

• N/A1, 2

• Strategic Surveys

Category E – 22 species

• Manage All Known 

Sites

• N/A2

• Strategic Surveys

Uncommon Category C – 10 species

• Manage High-Priority Sites

• Pre-Disturbance Surveys

• Strategic Surveys

Category D – 14 species3

• Manage High-Priority Sites

• N/A

• Strategic Surveys

Category F – 21 species

• N/A4

• N/A

• Strategic Surveys

Species do not total 337 because the 4 arthropod functional groups are included in Category F, and for 3 species, different areas of their 

geographic ranges are assigned to different categories.

1

 Equivalent-effort surveys are required for FY 2006 and beyond (2011 for fungi) unless strategic surveys are completed.

2

 Seven mollusks require equivalent-effort surveys as a mitigation measure. 

3

 Includes three species with pre-disturbance surveys practical but not necessary.

4

 Two mollusks require management of sites known as of 9/30/99, as a mitigation measure.
58

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Site Management

Manage sites known as of September 30, 1999 was prescribed in the 2001 Record of 

Decision as a mitigation measure for two mollusk species, Megomphix hemphilli in 

California and south of Lincoln, Benton, and Linn Counties in Oregon, and Monadenia 

churchi, “for as long as these species remain in Category F.” Thus, this mitigation 

measure applies to these two mollusks under Alternative 4.

Adding, Removing, and Changing Species Between Categories

The reference in the Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines to adding species or 

removing species, from Survey and Manage and making changes to species categories 

“without further NEPA documentation” now assumes such changes will be accompanied 

by appropriate NEPA analysis when such changes would result in a plan amendment. 

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study

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.

Many of the alternatives considered by the interdisciplinary team were eliminated 

from detailed study in attempts to find reasonable alternatives that would fulfill the 

Underlying Need for the Proposed Action and the Purpose of this SEIS. The Purpose 

and Need, as described in Chapter 1, is the need for “... healthy forest ecosystems and a 

sustainable supply of timber and other forest products, to the extent these are frustrated by the 

Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines.” This includes purposes to conserve rare and 

little known species, reduce costs, and improve the Agencies’ ability to provide healthy 

forests and 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. It was not the objective or intent of this SEIS to re-examine the overall 

strategy of the Northwest Forest Plan. 

Among potential alternatives considered were various strategies proposed by the 

public during the scoping process, as well as some strategies proposed by Agency 

staff. Some proposals reflected a desire to make fundamental changes in the Northwest 

Forest Plan, some proposals were technical in nature, and others were based on broad 

generalizations. Overall, the interdisciplinary team discovered that few strategies 

were available that would meet the goal of improving the Agencies’ ability to meet the 

underlying needs of the Northwest Forest Plan by addressing the problems associated 

with the Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines. Additional alternatives would 

have been possible if a broader revision of the Northwest Forest Plan had been the 

objective of this action; however, no such broad revision was deemed necessary to meet 

the Purpose and Need.

Alternatives considered but eliminated from detailed study are described below.

No Late-Successional and Old-Growth Harvest

This alternative addresses concerns that the proposed action would result in the loss 

of some late-successional and old-growth forests that are not already protected by the 

Late-Successional and Riparian Reserves in the Northwest Forest Plan. By prohibiting 
59

Chapter 2 – The Alternatives

harvest of these forests, proponents hope to avoid negative impacts to ecological systems 

and social values like spiritual renewal, scenic beauty, and recreation. This alternative 

would extend prohibitions on harvest of late-successional and old-growth forests to the 

remaining 20 percent of federally managed lands not already included in the reserve 

system in the Northwest Forest Plan. During the scoping process, several variations 

of this theme were proposed including no old-growth harvest both with and without 

the Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines. Many scoping respondents cited 

an alternative proposed by the Oregon Natural Resources Council (now Oregon Wild). 

This variation prohibits late-successional and old-growth harvest, retains the Survey and 

Manage Standards and Guidelines, and eliminates pre-disturbance survey requirements 

for some projects. 

In 1994, the Northwest Forest Plan Record of Decision (USDA, USDI 1994b) resolved 

the issue of late-successional and old-growth forest protection through selection of 

Alternative 9. Alternative 9 allocated about 80 percent of federally managed lands to 

reserves, leaving about 20 percent for sustainable timber production. In making that 

decision, the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior considered nine other alternatives 

that included varying levels of late-successional and old-growth forest preservation. In 

particular, Alternative 1 retained essentially all remaining old-growth and reduced lands 

available for sustainable timber production to 11 percent (USDA, USDI 1994a:2-41). 

Alternative 1 was rejected in the 1994 Record of Decision. 

Protecting additional late-successional and old-growth forests outside reserves would 

be similar to Alternative 1 in the 1994 Final SEIS, and would be akin to expanding the 

reserve land allocation decision in the 1994 Record of Decision. As previously stated, the 

Agencies have not identified a need to make changes to the Northwest Forest Plan land 

allocations. Therefore, any alternative that includes no harvest of late-successional and 

old-growth forests is considered outside the scope of this proposal. 

Keep Survey and Manage for Vertebrate Species Only

The intent of this alternative is to reduce costs by removing all species from the Survey 

and Manage mitigation measure except for vertebrate species. Some have suggested that 

only vertebrate species warrant protection because the viability provision in the National 

Forest Management Act planning regulations at 36 CFR 219.19 refers only to “existing 

native and desired non-native vertebrate species.” This alternative reduces the list of 

Survey and Manage species from 337 to 7. 

This alternative is similar to the proposed action and does not merit further consideration 

because it would be redundant to the proposed action in terms of environmental 

consequences. Effects would only differ from the proposed action for the six of the seven 

species that would be retained in Survey and Manage under this alternative. However, 

under Survey and Manage, these six all require pre-disturbance surveys in all or part of 

their range and all are on one or more of the Agencies’ Special Status Species Programs 

(four previous to the proposed action, and two added in 2004), although the red tree vole 

and great gray owl are included in the Special Status Species Programs in only a portion 

of their range. Under those programs, pre-project clearances will also be used where 

needed or required to meet SSSP goals. Thus, the only substantial difference between 

this alternative and the proposed action is in treatment of the red tree vole and great gray 

owl. Effects of including the red tree vole and great gray owl in Survey and Manage, or 

not, are already discussed in Chapter 3&4, and potential mitigation is described where 

adverse effects are identified. Repeating that analysis for this alternative would be 

redundant. 
60

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Keep Survey and Manage, Use the Natural Heritage Program 

Process to Determine which Species to Include

This alternative would use the natural heritage program species ranking process as 

the basis for determining which species would be subject to the Survey and Manage 

Standards and Guidelines. Proponents have suggested that this process would remove 

potential agency bias and result in a more credible Survey and Manage species list. 

Other elements of the Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines would remain. 

Criteria would need to be developed for determining which species to include in Survey 

and Manage. Without such criteria, it is impossible to predict exactly which species 

would be included in Survey and Manage under this alternative. 

Survey and Manage focuses on providing for rare species persistence at the Northwest 

Forest Plan scale. The Natural Heritage Programs do not assess species threats and 

rarity at this scale. Instead, these programs look at State and Global scales as a means to 

determine species ranks. These differences in scales make use of the Natural Heritage 

Programs ranking system impossible to use for determining species concerns at the 

Northwest Forest Plan scale. Inflexible management and survey requirements would 

continue frustrating accomplishments of multiple-use and NWFP goals and continue 

high costs.

Eliminate Survey and Manage, Coordinate Agency Policies 

Regarding Special Status Species Management

This alternative responds to concerns that there are differences in the Agencies’ Special 

Status Species Programs, between the Agencies, between BLM state offices, and between 

Forest Service regions. Differences in programs can lead to inconsistencies in Special 

Status Species listings between and within agencies. This alternative is the same as the 

Proposed Action except it goes further by requiring the Agencies to coordinate their 

Special Status Species Programs so they are consistent throughout the Northwest Forest 

Plan area. 

Coordinating Special Status Species Programs between agencies already occurs as 

appropriate. Existing agency policies include guidance aimed at coordinating their 

respective programs with States and other federal agencies: 

•	 Regional Foresters are responsible for coordinating Regional programs with States, 

other federal agencies, groups, and individuals concerned with the management of 

threatened, endangered, and Sensitive species (Forest Service Manual 2670.44).

•	 BLM State directors are responsible for coordinating the special status species program 

with adjoining BLM State Offices, State, and other federal agencies, various private 

organizations, and BLM constituents (BLM Manual 6840.04 E.2).

The different laws governing the two agencies and the different habitat capabilities 

associated with agency lands explain most of the inconsistencies. While there may be 

some benefits from additional coordination of Special Status Species Programs between 

and within agencies, this alternative is outside the scope of this proposal since it involves 

policies and processes independent of the Northwest Forest Plan. The purpose and need 

for this proposal is focused on reducing costs and management limitations associated 

with the Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines. Suggesting changes in how 

the Agencies manage and coordinate their Special Status Species Programs does not 

address the purpose and need for this proposal. These programs are national in scope 

and their management and coordination go well beyond the Northwest Forest Plan 

area. The Proposed Action removes the Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines 

and identifies species that are likely to gain, or have gained, Special Species status after 
61

Chapter 2 – The Alternatives

they are removed from Survey and Manage. The Agencies have the discretion to add or 

remove species from their Special Status Species Programs as appropriate. Coordinating 

such programs is an administrative function; nothing in this proposal prevents the 

Agencies from coordinating their Special Status Species Programs at any time. 

Keep Survey and Manage, Eliminate the Pre-Disturbance Survey 

Requirement

This alternative seeks to reduce costs by eliminating the requirement for pre-disturbance 

surveys. All other elements of the Survey and Manage mitigation measure would 

continue. Of the 295 Survey and Manage species in Alternative 1, pre-disturbance 

surveys apply to 72 species (including 9 receiving equivalent-effort surveys). Yet, predisturbance surveys are the most expensive mitigation measure in the Survey and 

Manage Standards and Guidelines and account for about half the cost of the program. 

This alternative shares some similarities with Alternative 3, which eliminates predisturbance surveys for the uncommon species (Category C) and eliminates the predisturbance survey requirement for projects in non-late-successional and non-old-growth 

forest stands. However, it differs in the requirement to survey for the 56 rare species in 

late-successional and old-growth forest stands. Without this requirement, many species 

would have insufficient habitat to support stable populations. Therefore, eliminating the 

pre-disturbance requirement in its entirety (meaning they would also not be added to 

Agency Special Status Species Programs) would not meet the purpose to conserve rare 

and little known species and is eliminated from further study.

Keep Survey and Manage, Cut Costs by Exempting Certain 

Projects 

This alternative seeks to reduce Survey and Manage costs by exempting certain projects 

from requirements for pre-disturbance surveys. All other elements of the Survey 

and Manage Standards and Guidelines would remain. Examples include no predisturbance surveys for precommercial thinning, prescribed fire, or fire salvage projects; 

low intensity surveys in Matrix and in plantations in Late-Successional Reserves; and 

no surveys required for stands below specified age limits (e.g. less than 80 years old). 

This alternative was considered, but eliminated from further consideration because it 

is similar to Alternative 3. Alternative 3 eliminates requirements for pre-disturbance 

surveys for projects in non-late-successional and non-old-growth forest stands. All other 

elements of Survey and Manage would be retained except for the uncommon species 

and some requirements for REO review. As such, this alternative was considered, but 

eliminated from detailed study because it would be redundant to the alternatives already 

considered in detail.

Eliminate Survey and Manage, Keep Strategic Surveys

This alternative would be similar to the Proposed Action except that Strategic Surveys 

would continue until they were completed. It continues information-gathering through 

strategic surveys, but eliminates all other elements of Survey and Manage including 

pre-disturbance surveys and management of known sites. As with the Proposed Action, 

qualifying Survey and Manage species would probably be added to the Agencies’ 

Special Status Species Programs. The Agencies did in fact continue with many aspects 

of strategic surveys after March 2004 when they thought they had removed Survey and 

Manage, because of initial investments and the applicability of results to the management 

of Special Status Species. Statistical analysis of results from the Random Multi-Species 

Surveys, for example, was completed late in 2006 (see Chapter 3&4). In addition, the 
62

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Agencies’ Special Status Species Programs have provisions for general inventories, which 

are similar to strategic surveys. This alternative was considered, but eliminated from 

further consideration because it is basically the same as Alternative 2.

Stop All Timber Harvest

This alternative prohibits all timber harvest and recommends only custodial management 

of federal forests in the Northwest Forest Plan area. Prohibiting timber harvest would 

not fulfill the underlying need because the need for timber outputs would not be met. 

In addition, fuel treatment projects that include commercial timber harvest would not 

be undertaken. This would leave many forests at risk of catastrophic wildfire and 

compromise forest health. This alternative would also violate the O&C Act, which 

mandates that lands managed under the Act be managed for the sustained-yield of 

timber. This alternative was eliminated because it does not meet the underlying need for 

the proposal and violates federal law. 

Strengthen the Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines

This alternative would expand the current Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines 

by retaining more species in the program, increasing the frequency and intensity of 

strategic and pre-disturbance surveys, and managing more known sites. This alternative 

addresses two concerns. First, some commenters feel the current Survey and Manage 

Standards and Guidelines are a good model for species management and should be 

expanded to other species. Second, other commenters believe the current Survey and 

Manage Standards and Guidelines were weakened by the 2001 Record of Decision and 

need to be restored to the requirements in the 1994 Record of Decision.

Alternative 3 in the Survey and Manage Final SEIS 2000 had objectives similar to 

this alternative including pre-disturbance surveys for 322 species, and known site 

management for 337 species. Alternative 3 in the Survey and Manage Final SEIS 2000 

would have reduced the PSQ to 455 MMBF per year with a cost of $60 million per year 

(USDA, USDI 2000a:417 and 434). The No-Action Alternative in the Survey and Manage 

Final SEIS 2000 would have maintained a program similar to that in the 1994 Record 

of Decision, and would also be representative of this alternative. It included predisturbance surveys for 87 species and management of known sites for 272 species. That 

alternative would have reduced the PSQ to 510 MMBF with a cost of $117 million per 

year (USDA, USDI 2000a:417 and 434). Analysis for Timber Harvest in this SEIS (Chapter 

3&4) indicates that the PSQ under Alternative 1 and 4 (No-Action) would be 700 MMBF 

per year. Since both Survey and Manage Final SEIS 2000 alternatives would reduce 

the PSQ well below the 700 MMBF PSQ predicted under Alternative 1, and the ability 

to do fuels treatments and other potentially habitat-disturbing management activities 

would be proportionately reduced, strengthening the Survey and Manage Standards 

and Guidelines as suggested would fail to meet the underlying need of the proposal to 

achieve the objectives of the Northwest Forest Plan. In addition, this alternative would 

fail to reduce costs below that of the No-Action Alternatives ($21 million) and thus fails 

to meet the purpose to reduce costs. Because it fails to meet the purpose and need of this 

proposal, this alternative was eliminated from detailed study. 

List Survey and Manage Species under the Endangered Species 

Act

This alternative moves all Survey and Manage species into threatened or endangered 

species status under the Endangered Species Act. This alternative addresses concerns 
63

Chapter 2 – The Alternatives

that the Survey and Manage program is flawed and that species would be better 

conserved through the Endangered Species Act. 

The Department of the Interior, acting through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, is 

responsible for protecting most threatened and endangered species. The Department 

of Commerce, through NOAA Fisheries, is responsible for marine species, including 

marine mammals and anadromous fish such as salmon. The process for listing involves 

a rigorous consideration of rarity, threat, and other factors. There is no evidence 

suggesting that all Survey and Manage species are at sufficient risk to warrant listing 

under the Endangered Species Act. Currently, none of the Survey and Manage species 

are listed as threatened or endangered.

Listing species under the Endangered Species Act is outside the authority of the 

Agencies. Threatened and endangered species listing would need to be carried out by 

the regulatory agencies separate from this SEIS.

Although this alternative eliminates the Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines, 

there is no evidence that it would address the purposes of providing protection for rare 

and little known species while reducing costs and improving the Agencies’ ability to 

accomplish forest health projects. In fact, it is likely that managing 295 or 337 species 

under terms of the Endangered Species Act would be more costly and time consuming 

than either the Proposed Action or No-Action Alternatives. Both Survey and Manage 

and the Special Status Species Programs would, operating as designed, prevent species 

from becoming imperiled to the degree they warrant listing under the Endangered 

Species Act. There is no evidence to suggest that these programs are not working as 

intended. For these reasons, this alternative was eliminated from detailed study. 

Eliminate Survey and Manage, Do Not Add Species to Agency 

Special Status Species Programs

This alternative is similar to Alternative 2, the Proposed Action, except the Agencies 

would not add Survey and Manage species to their Special Status Species Programs. This 

alternative would assure the maximum achievement of Northwest Forest Plan resource 

objectives with little or no cost for species conservation other than for species listed 

under the Endangered Species Act. This alternative was not considered in detail because 

1) the decision of whether or not to add species to the Agencies’ Special Status Species 

Programs is outside the scope of the SEIS, and 2) the effects of such an alternative are 

fully discernable from the analysis, as described below. 

Although not an “alternative”, since the addition of species to Special Status Species 

Programs is up to local Agency heads and thus may not happen (or current assignments 

may be removed), the effects of such a “de facto” alternative are displayed in this 

analysis. Individual species sections include outcomes without SSSP assignment. These 

outcomes are included as additional columns on Table 2-13, and summarized for all 

species on Tables S-1, 2-10, and 2-11. The effects of a wholesale removal of species from 

SSSP on Timber Harvest, Fuels Treatments, Costs and so forth are discernable in those 

sections as the effects of Alternative 2. For example, the PSQ effect of assigning species to 

the SSSPs is displayed as 35MMBF, and so forth. 

Keep Survey and Manage in the Oregon Coast Range, SW 

Oregon, NW California, and Oregon BLM Lands 

This alternative was suggested during the 2006 public comment period for the July 2006 

Draft Supplement. This alternative would retain Survey and Manage where past harvest 

has reduced mature and old-growth stands to low levels, and where future harvest 
64

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

appeared to commenter to be focused. Such an alternative would help protect Survey 

and Manage species where habitat is most limited or at most risk.

In provinces where mature stands are at comparatively low levels, such as the Oregon 

Coast Range, most older stands are already in reserves so the risk to late-successional 

forest habitat related species is low. Otherwise, the alternative is similar to Alternative 

1. Survey and Manage surveys and known site management is already focused where 

harvest, fuel treatments, and other activities are focused. Known sites managed outside 

of areas where activities are proposed are not the ones frustrating accomplishment of 

other Northwest Forest Plan goals. Thus the effects of such an alternative, both in terms 

of species protection and program effects to other management activities, would be 

similar to those described for Alternative 1.

Keep Survey and Manage for Species About Which Little is 

Known, Put Insufficient Habitat Species on Agency Special 

Status Species Programs, and More Aggressively Remove 

Those with Sufficient Habitat 

This alternative seeks to better align species needs with existing programs, while making 

the entire species protection program more efficient. Species with “sufficient habitat” 

would be removed altogether, reducing costs. Species needing protection and about 

which enough is known to manage them under one or more of the Agencies’ Special 

Status Species Programs would be so assigned, and Survey and Manage would be 

retained for species about which little is known.

This proposal has similarities to what would happen under the proposed action. In 

Alternative 2, virtually no Category F species and few D species make it to an Agency 

Special Status Species Program because they are too common. Virtually every Category 

A species (Rare, Pre-Disturbance Surveys practical) is assigned to one or more of the 

Agencies’ Special Status Species Programs because they are both rare and they can be 

consistently located with reasonable effort. Category C is split, some following Category 

A because of remaining apparent rarity or special interest, and some following Category 

F because of apparently high numbers. Category E, status uncertain, splits as might 

be expected. Some in this category are there not because of high numbers but because 

their reliance on late-successional habitats is in question. That would not stop them 

from being assigned to a Special Status Species Program, because such programs are not 

limited to late-successional forest associated species.

Only Category B is widely split. Most lichens and bryophytes in this category have been 

assigned to Agency Special Status Species Programs, because although they are hard to 

identify based on field or simple laboratory examination, their habitats are often unique 

and identifiable. Not enough is known about many Category B fungi, on the other hand, 

for them to qualify for Special Status Species Programs. Thus, it is predominantly these 

that would benefit from the suggested alternative.

For species about which little is known and not assigned to the Agencies’ Special Status 

Species Programs, predominantly the Category B fungi, the land management Agencies 

are neither mandated nor funded to do basic research on populations and habitat 

identification. These are roles better left to research, academia, and other specialists. 

Retaining only this aspect of Survey and Manage would substantially reduce impacts to 

timber sales, fuel treatments, and other management activities because the number of 

species sites would be so low. However, Agency administrative costs would continue 

because of the need to maintain specialists, databases, and processes. Also, the Agencies 

expect the populations of many of these species are likely much higher than currently 

known because fungi do not regularly fruit or otherwise predictably show themselves 
65

Chapter 2 – The Alternatives

for population sampling. Results of the Random Multi-Species Surveys for fungi 

illustrate this point; about a third of the fungi were detected even though the numbers 

of previously known sites were very low. For species actually determined to need 

additional protection, the Agencies’ Special Status Species Programs would then be 

applicable.

Comparison of Alternatives

Features of the Alternatives

Tables 2-8 summarizes the key features for all four alternatives in a comparative format. 

Alternatives differ primarily in the number of species that would be managed under the 

Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines versus the Agencies’ Special Status Species 

Programs. The key differences between the current Survey and Manage Standards and 

Guidelines and the Special Status Species Programs relevant to this analysis are briefly 

described below:

1. Species are included in the Survey and Manage mitigation measure if the three basic 

criteria are met: 

 a. The species must occur within the Northwest Forest Plan area, or occur close to 

the Northwest Forest Plan area and have potentially suitable habitat within the 

Northwest Forest Plan area.

 b. The species must be closely associated with late-successional or old-growth 

forest.

 c. The reserve system and other standards and guidelines of the Northwest Forest 

Plan do not appear to provide for a reasonable assurance of species persistence. 

For the Agencies’ Special Status Species Programs, species are generally included 

only if they are rare, there is enough known about the species and its habitat to 

affect management, and agency actions could possibly move the species toward 

listing under the Endangered Species Act.

2. For species in Survey and Manage categories A, B and E, the Standards and 

Guidelines require management of all known sites. Exceptions are permitted 

following review by another office. For Special Status Species, final decisions 

about the management of occupied sites are up to local line officers following 

analysis documented in a biological evaluation or NEPA document. That analysis 

can weigh a variety of factors including the condition of the species and habitat 

locally, the potential short and long-term benefits, and other effects of the proposed 

management activity.

3. Survey and Manage only considers concerns for persistence in the Northwest Forest 

Plan area, and the Standards and Guidelines only apply to that area. The Agencies’ 

Special Status Species Programs consider the conservation status of the species 

state-wide and globally, and inclusion of species in one of those programs includes 

it for the entire state or region, not just the Northwest Forest Plan area. Survey and 

Manage species with few sites known within the Northwest Forest Plan area but 

with extensive sites outside the area may be considered secure and not be included 

in the Special Status Species Programs.

4. The Survey and Manage mitigation measure only focuses on species closely 

associated with late-successional or old-growth forests because that habitat was 

decreasing up until the early 1990’s when work on the Northwest Forest Plan was 

begun (such habitat has subsequently increased, see Assumptions and Information 
66

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines Table 2-8. Summary of the Key Features of the Alternatives Feature Alternatives 1 & 4 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Program Survey and Manage BLM Special Status Species FS Sensitive Species Survey and Manage and Special Status Species Alt. 1 Alt. 4 OR/WA CA R-6 R-5 Program Objectives Continued persistence of old-growth and late- successional species in the Northwest Forest Plan area. Prevent listing under ESA. Prevent listing under ESA and maintain viable populations of fish, plants, and wildlife. For Survey and Manage species, objectives are the same as Alternative 1. For special status species, objectives are the same as Alternative 2 Standards for Inclusion Northwest Forest Plan area inhabitant, late- successional and old- growth related, and a concern for persistence. Concern for listing and knowledge of decline and threat from state natural heritage programs. Capability to significantly affect the conservation status of the species. Concern for viability or listing based on current or predicted downward trends in population or habitat capability. For Survey and Manage species, must be Northwest Forest Plan area inhabitant, late-successional and old- growth related, and a concern for persistence. For special status species, same as Alternative 2. Species Categories 6 (A-F) based on rarity, uncertainty, and survey practicality. 3 - Sensitive, Assessment, Tracking 1- Sensitive 1 - Sensitive 2 - Sensitive and Watch For Survey and Manage species: 3 (A, B, E) based on uncertainty and survey practicality. For special status species, same as Alternative 2. # Species included (primary management) S&M: 295 SSSP: 15 S&M: 337 SSSP: 0 S&M: 0 SSSP: 58 S&M: 0 SSSP: 55 S&M: 0 SSSP: 102 S&M: 0 SSSP: 28 S&M: 271 SSSP: 28 Project Analysis Requirements Follow Survey Protocols, Management Recommendations and include in NEPA documents. Impacts and mitigation considered in NEPA documents. Analyze effects through BE and recommend mitigation in NEPA documents. For Survey and Manage species, same as Alternative 1. For special status species, same as Alternative 2. Pre-Project Surveys Pre-disturbance surveys required for 72 or 95 species (includes 9 or 28 equivalent -effort surveys) for alts 1 & 4 respectively. Exceptions are limited and require IMG review. Multiple sources of survey data are utilized as needed to determine potential impacts. Required for sensitive species in OR/WA BLM. Exceptions require State Director approval. As needed to conduct BE effects analysis. Usually needed, unless habitat assumed occupied or prior surveys are adequate. For Survey and Manage species, pre-disturbance surveys required for 65 species in late-successional/old-growth forest stands (includes 9 equivalent-effort surveys). Exceptions are limited and require approval by the line officer at next level above the official responsible for the proposal. For special status species, same as Alternative 2. Site Management Manage all Category A, B, and E sites and all high- priority C and D sites, exceptions reviewed by IMG. Manage site if loss would contribute to need to list. Manage site if loss would create significant trend toward listing or loss of species viability. For Survey and Manage species, manage all known sites. Exceptions approved by the line officer at next level above the official responsible for the proposal. For special status species, same as Alternative 2.
67

Chapter 2 – The Alternatives

Table 2-8. Summary of the Key Features of the Alternatives

Feature Alternatives 1 & 4 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Program Survey and Manage BLM Special Status Species FS Sensitive Species Survey and Manage and Special Status Species 

Alt. 1 Alt. 4 OR/WA CA R-6 R-5

Conservation Strategies

Management Recommendations describe managing known sites and guidance for conserving species, including high-priority sites for 22 or 24 Category C and D species (alts. 1 and 4 respectively). 

To eliminate the need for listings under the ESA, the BLM shall participate in developing habitat conservation assessments leading to conservation agreements for some species.

Include objectives in LRMPs to ensure viable populations throughout geographic ranges. Develop conservation strategies for sensitive species where continued existence can be negatively affected by the LRMP or a planned project.

For Survey and Manage species, Management Recommendations describe how to manage known sites and provide guidance for conserving species. For special status species, same as Alternative 2.

Inventory Strategic surveys required 

for all species.

Recommended where needed to determine species status on BLM lands. Not required.

Encouraged as needed to support BEs. Not required.

Strategic surveys required for all Survey and Manage species. For special status species, same as Alternative 2.

Adding/Removing Species

Annual Species Review includes new information and recommendations for category changes/ additions/deletions. RIEC review required.

Generally bi-annual, when heritage rankings or state lists are updated. State Director authorizes changes/additions/deletions.

As needed. Regional Forester authorizes changes/ additions/deletions.

For Survey and Manage species, Annual Species Review includes new information and recommendations for category changes/additions/deletions. RIEC review required. For special status species, same as Alternative 2.

Reports, Monitoring, Review

Annual Status Reports required. IMG review required for most information products. Monitoring in accordance with LRMPs.

Formal reviews/reports not required. Monitor populations and habitats to determine if management objectives are being met. Monitoring in accordance with LRMPs.

Formal reviews/reports not required. Monitoring recommended depending on level of concern. Monitoring in accordance with LRMPs.

For Survey and Manage species, Annual Status Reports required. IMG review required for most information products. Monitoring in accordance with LRMPs. For special status, species same as Alternative 2.

Potential Mitigation None for Alt. 4; Continued 

site management and surveys for 2 species in Alt. 1

Continued site management and/or pre-project clearances for 53 species with insufficient habitat due to Alternative 2.

Continued site management and/or pre-project clearances for 11 species with insufficient habitat due to Alternative 3.

BE = Biological EvaluationESA = Endangered Species ActLRMP = Land and Resource Management Plan

NEPA = National Environmental Policy ActRIEC = Regional Interagency Executive Committee
68

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Common to All Alternatives section in Chapter 3&4). Species not closely associated 

with late-successional or old-growth forests are removed from Survey and Manage 

and, where they qualify, would be added to the Agencies’ Special Status Species 

Programs. The Special Status Species Programs include species associated with a 

variety of terrestrial and aquatic habitat types and seral stages.

Finally, there is a difference between the Agencies’ Special Status Species Programs 

and Survey and Manage regarding the taxa potentially included. Before the additional 

evaluation done for this SEIS, certain taxa groups had not been included in the Agencies’ 

Special Status Species Programs either because of: (1) an absence of perceived threats; (2) 

the rules embedded in agency regulations and policies pertaining to inclusion of Special 

Status Species; (3) a lack of sufficient information to evaluate potential management 

effects; (4) a lack of available agency expertise; (5) absence of heritage rankings; (6) a lack 

of suitable habitat on agency lands; or, (7) other reasons. For example, the Forest Service 

in California excludes species about which so little is known that effective surveys and 

management strategies cannot be designed. BLM Oregon/Washington maintains a broad 

list at the state level that can be modified at the District level to exclude species that do 

not inhabit federally managed lands in the vicinity of the local administrative unit. 

Effects of the Alternatives

Table 2-9 summarizes the key environmental consequences for all four alternatives in a 

comparative format. 

Species Effects 

Species effects are summarized on Table 2-9. (Table 2-13 display species outcomes 

for each alternative for all 337 species included in this analysis. Table 2-13 also shows 

Survey and Manage category assignments (or “off”) applicable to each alternative, and 

the Special Status Species Program assignments applicable to species/alternatives where 

species are “off” Survey and Manage. In these cases, outcomes for species “without” 

assignment to any of the Agencies’ Special Status Species Programs are also displayed.) 

Under Alternative 1, two species previously removed from Survey and Manage by the 

2001, 2002, or 2003 Annual Species Reviews received outcomes of sufficient habitat 

range wide, but insufficient habitat in a portion of their range due to actions under 

the alternative. Both were removed because they were determined not to be closely 

associated with late-successional forest, and because they were deemed secure when 

their entire range was considered. 

Under Alternative 2, 53 species received outcomes of insufficient habitat to support 

stable populations in all or a portion of their range due to actions under the alternative. 

This includes 6 vertebrates in a portion of their range: the great gray owl, the red tree 

vole, and four salamanders (see Table 2-13). Mitigation (described later in this chapter) 

of manage known sites and/or pre-project surveys could remove the adverse effects for 

these 53 species. The cost and program effects for such mitigation are displayed on Table 

2-9. 

Under Alternative 3, 11 species receive outcomes of insufficient habitat to support 

stable populations in all or a portion of their range due to actions under the alternative. 

This includes the red tree vole and four salamanders in a portion of their range. As in 

Alternative 2, the costs and program effects of mitigation to remove these adverse effects 

are displayed on Table 2-9.

Under Alternative 4, all 337 species are assigned to Survey and Manage and none have 

insufficient habitat to support stable populations due to actions under the alternative. 
69

Chapter 2 – The Alternatives

Table 2-9. Summary of Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Alternative 

2 with 

Mitigation

Alternative 3

Alternative 

3 with 

Mitigation

Alternative 4

Species and 

Groups

Insufficient habitat not due to federal actions 1 132(12) 132(12) 132(12) 132(12) 132(12) 132(12)Insufficient habitat due to actions under the alternative 0(22)3 38(152) 0 4(72) 0 0Sufficient Habitat 185 147 185 181 185 185Insufficient Information to Determine Outcome 24 24 24 24 24 24

Effect on Annual Timber Harvest (MMBF) -105 -35 -35 -45 -50 -1054Short-term Annual Cost (millions) $21.0 $7.9 $8.3 $10.7 $10.8 $21.05Long-term (5-10 years) Annual Cost (millions) $14.4 $7.4 $7.8 $9.0 $9.1 $14.4Employment Decrease From Full Harvest Level (per Northwest Forest Plan) -953 -318 -336 -409 -445 -953Survey Related Employment +360 +142 +149 +172 +173 +360Net Loss in Annual Personal Earnings (millions) -$23.8 -$7.4 -$7.9 -$9.8 -$11.0 -$23.8Hazardous Fuel Treatment (Annual Acres) 73,040 78,400 78,300 77,440 77,300 73,0404Hazardous Fuel Treatment (Cost to Protect Species/Acre) $98.95 $39.30 $42.50 $29.95 $30.18 $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 Species with sufficient habitat range-wide, but with insufficient habitat in a portion of the range. These are included in the “sufficient habitat” count.3 No “Alternative 1 with Mitigation” column because mitigation effects are negligible.4 Additional 80 to 100 MMBF/year harvest reduction and 8 to 15 percent fuels treatment reduction for first two years for Alternative 4.5 Plus 0.5 $million for ASR NEPA.There are no meaningful 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.
70

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

For one of these species in Category F, however, the sufficient habitat outcome is based in 

part on known site management added by its also being included in one or more of the 

Agencies’ Special Status Species Programs.

Species outcomes are shown on Table 2-13 for each species range subdivision made 

in Survey and Manage. That is, if a species is in two categories (or “off”) in different 

parts of its range, outcomes are included for both areas. In these cases, the outcomes 

are combined (averaged) for the entire species’ range (shaded blocks) before being 

summarized onto Table 2-9.

Program Effects

The effects to Timber Harvest, Costs, Employment, and the Fuels Treatment Program 

are summarized on Table 2-9. The effects of mitigation are also summarized10. Effects 

for Alternative 1 and 4 are the same because of the analysis assumption (see Chapter 

3&4) that if Alternative 4 is selected, the Agencies would immediately begin a species 

review, supported by appropriate NEPA, with the results expected to look very 

much like Alternative 1. This assumption is consistent with limiting of species site 

projections in other alternatives. If this assumption were not made, the constraining 

effects of Alternative 4 would be nearly three times those of Alternative 1. There are 

approximately 15,500 known sites for species included in Survey and Manage under 

Alternative 1. The are an additional 26,000 known sites just for the 58 species previously 

removed during the 2001, 2002, and 2003 Annual Species Reviews and assumed added 

back to Survey and Manage under Alternative 4.

Species Effects without Special Status Species Programs 

To comply with the order of the District Court (see Introduction) and because 

managers have latitude about specific assignments to the Agencies’ Special Status 

Species Programs, effects to species as if the assumed Special Status Species Program 

assignments are not made, or are removed at this time, are also displayed on Table 2-

13 and summarized on Tables S-1, 2-10 and 2-11. Under Alternative 2 without Special 

Status Species Programs, the number of species with insufficient habitat to support stable 

populations in all or part of their range would increase from 53 to 94 (Table 2-11). Onehundred-nine of the 337 species included in this analysis would have stable populations 

throughout the Northwest Forest Plan area even without the Agencies’ Special Status 

Species Programs. This number increases to 147 when the Special Status Species 

Program assignments are assumed.

Comparison of the Species Effects Between Alternatives 1 and 4

Alternative 4 is an additional No-Action Alternative with 337 species on Survey and 

Manage, each in the category to which it was assigned in the 2001 Survey and Manage 

Record of Decision. Compared with No-Action Alternative 1, it includes 42 more species 

in all of their range, and another 16 in part of their range. It also includes 32 species with 

changed categories in all or part of their range, 5 of which are ones previously removed 

in (the other) part of their range.

As noted earlier in this chapter, No-Action Alternative 4 was added to this analysis 

because a November 6, 2006 decision by the Ninth Circuit Court found the 2001 and 2003 

ASR decisions for red tree vole constituted a BLM Plan Amendment and should have 

10The effects of mitigation were not recalculated from the 2004 analysis even though the number of species with adverse outcomes (and 

therefore needing mitigation) has declined. Because the effects of mitigation were small, and the decline in the number of species with 

adverse outcomes is small, the change in timber, fuels management, and cost effects for mitigation from the 2004 analysis would be on the 

order of ten percent.
71

Chapter 2 – The Alternatives

Table 2-10. Summary of Environmental Consequences for Species Assumed to be 

Managed Primarily by Special Status Species Programs under Each Alternative3

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

With SSSP Without 

SSSP

With 

SSSP

Without 

SSSP

With 

SSSP

Without 

SSSP

Species and Groups

Insufficient habitat not due to 

federal actions 1 2 2 38(12

) 38(12

) 2 2

Insufficient habitat due to actions 

under the alternative 0(12

) 0(22) 27(152) 64(182) 3(42) 5(32)

Sufficient Habitat 12 12 81 44 21 19

Insufficient Information to 

Determine Outcome 1 1 11 11 2 2

Number of Species Managed Primarily by Special 

Status Species Programs in Each Alt.

15 (12 in all and 3 in 

part of their range) 157 28 (23 in all and 5 in part of their range)

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

 Species with sufficient habitat range-wide, but with insufficient habitat in a portion of the range. These are included in the “sufficient 

habitat” count.

3

 Does not include 1 species in Alternative 4 with insufficient habitat in a portion of the range without SSSP.

Table 2-11. Summary of Environmental Consequences for all Species3

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

With SSSP Without 

SSSP

With 

SSSP

Without 

SSSP

With 

SSSP

Without 

SSSP

Species and Groups

Insufficient habitat not due to 

federal actions 1 132 (12

) 132 (12) 132 (12) 132 (12) 132 (12) 132 (12)

Insufficient habitat due to actions 

under the alternative 0(22

) 0(32) 38(152) 76(182) 4(72) 7(62)

Sufficient Habitat 185 185 147 109 181 178

Insufficient Information to 

Determine Outcome 24 24 24 24 24 24

Number of Species Managed Primarily by 

Special Status Species Programs in Each Alt.

15 (12 in all and 3 in 

part of their range) 157 28 (23 in all and 5 in part of their range)

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

 Species with sufficient habitat range-wide, but with insufficient habitat in a portion of the range. These are included in the “sufficient 

habitat” count.

3

 Does not include 1 species in Alternative 4 with insufficient habitat in a portion of the range without SSSP.

been subject to additional NEPA analysis. The inclusion of Alternative 4 in this FSEIS 

allows an analysis of the effects to species of all 85 species affected by the 2001, 2002, and 

2003 ASR process. The pre-ASR (2001) category assignments are retained in Alternative 

4 (Table 2-12), while the 58 species removals (in all or part of their range) and 32 species 

with category changes (in all or part of their range, with 5 of the “part of” ranges being 

species also included in the 58 removals for the other “part of” their range) made by the 

ASRs are reflected in Alternative 1. A comparison of the species outcomes under each 

of these two alternatives provides an understanding of the effects of the changes made 

by the three ASRs (Table 2-12). Since many of the ASR species removals and category 

changes applied only to part of a species range, Outcomes shown on Table 2-12 apply 

only to the part of the range affected by the ASR. 
72

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

For the 58 species returned to Survey and Manage in Alternative 4 in all or part of their 

range:

•	 1 species has insufficient information to determine an outcome under both 

alternatives, 

•	 2 species have insufficient habitat to support stable populations under both 

alternatives, and 

•	 2 species in part of their range have sufficient habitat under Alternative 4 but 

insufficient habitat under Alternative 1. 

The Agencies had previously removed these 5 species from Survey and Manage because 

they are not closely associated with late-successional forests. Mitigation in the form of 

pre-disturbance survey and manage known sites could be applied. The remaining 53 

species have sufficient habitat to maintain stable populations across the Northwest Forest 

Plan area under all alternatives. 

For the 32 species (including 5 of the 58 “part of their range” species above) that are in 

different categories in all or part of their range under No-Action Alternative 1 than under 

No-Action Alternative 4:

•	 2 species have insufficient information to determine an outcome under both 

alternatives.

•	 5 species have insufficient habitat to support stable populations under both 

alternatives; and 

•	 25 species have sufficient habitat to support stable populations under both 

alternatives.

When examining the species outcomes under each of these two alternative, its important 

understand 15 of the 58 species removed from Survey and Manage in all or part of their 

range were removed only because they were determined not to be closely associated 

with late-successional forests. This criteria is part of the Survey and Manage Standards 

and Guidelines because they, like the rest of the Northwest Forest Plan, were written 

specifically to protect late-successional and old-growth forest related species (and 

watersheds). Habitat for early seral forest species was not an issue because timber 

harvest combined with natural disturbances had raised the acreage in early seral forests 

above natural levels. 

Known sites for species removed because they are not closely associated with latesuccessional forests continued to be managed until each agency made a decision about 

whether or not to include it in their respective Special Status Species Programs. Twelve 

of the 58 species removed by the ASRs have been subsequently added to one or more 

Special Status Species Program, and most of these additions were for the 15 species 

removed because they are not closely associated with late-successional forests.

As noted above, 2 species in part of their range have sufficient habitat under Alternative 

4 but insufficient habitat under Alternative 1. The vascular plant Cypripedium montanum 

in the Washington Eastern Cascades Physiographic Province portions of its range has 

an Outcome 3 (insufficient habitat to support stable populations) when removed from 

Survey and Manage under Alternative 1. It was removed by the ASR process because it 

was not associated with late-successional forests in this eastside province. It has not been 

assigned to a Special Status Species Program because it has nearly 300 known sites in the 

WA Eastern Cascades Province, because it ranges in the Pacific Northwest from northern 

California to Wyoming, and in British Columbia and Alberta in Canada, and because the 

Washington Natural Heritage Program does not list the species on their Rare Plant List.

The lichen Bryoria tortuosa in the portion of its range in the Washington Olympic 

Peninsula, Washington Western lowlands, Washington Western Cascades, Oregon 

Western Cascades, Oregon Coast Range, Oregon Willamette Valley, and California Coast 
73

Chapter 2 – The Alternatives

Range Provinces has an Outcome 3 (insufficient habitat to support stable populations) 

when removed from Survey and Manage under Alternative 1. It was removed by the 

ASR process because it was not associated with late-successional forests and determined 

to be secure range-wide. It has not been added to Special Status Species Programs in 

most of this area because it is believed to be secure range-wide with “many occurrences 

documented in southern Oregon. This species is also found in British Columbia, 

California, Idaho, eastern Washington, Norway, and the Carpathian Mountains in 

Europe” (ORNHIC ranking factors).

Alternative 1 and 4 Effects Without Special Status Species Program 

Assignments

The Agencies’ Special Status Species Program assignments are shown on Table 2-12. 

Assignments made but not applicable to the area or to these two alternatives are shown 

as NA. (SSSP assignments, and outcomes without SSSP, only apply to alternatives and 

areas where species are “off” SSSP.) If the Agencies’ Special Status Species Program 

assignments had not occurred or were removed, only two of the Outcome 1 (sufficient 

habitat) ratings are affected, one each for Alternative 1 and 4. Under Alternative 1, 

the 2002 ASR removal of Cypripedium fasciculatum in the Washington Eastern Cascades 

was based on the species not being closely associated with late-successional forests. Its 

outcome rating under Alternative 1 is based on its assignment to the Forest Service’s 

Special Status Species Program in Region 6 (Washington and Oregon). If that assignment 

is removed, it falls to Outcome 3, habitat insufficient to support stable populations. It is 

known from over 1,000 sites within the Northwest Forest Plan area, and 180 sites within 

this portion of its range. 

Under Alternative 4, the lichen Nephroma bellum in the Oregon Klamath, Willamette 

Valley, and Eastern Cascades; Washington Western Cascades (outside the Gifford Pinchot 

National Forest), Eastern Cascades, and Olympic Peninsula Physiographic Provinces 

is in Category F and receives only strategic surveys. The Outcome 1 under Alternative 

4 is dependent, in the Washington portion of the range, on the management of known 

sites under the Forest Service’s Special Status Species Program. Removal of this species 

from that program would result in an outcome of insufficient habitat in the Washington 

portion of its range. The 2001 ASR moved it to the more restrictive Category E, where 

under Alternative 1 it has an Outcome 1 (sufficient habitat), even without the Special 

Status Species Program assignment. 

Potential Mitigation

Mitigation measures avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce, or compensate for adverse 

environmental impacts of management actions (40 CFR 1508.20). NEPA implementing 

regulations require agency’s to “Include appropriate mitigation measures not already 

included in the proposed action or alternatives” and include a discussion of “Means to 

mitigate adverse environmental impacts.” The regulations also require that in the Record 

of Decision the Responsible Officials “State whether all practicable means to avoid or 

minimize environmental harm from the alternative selected have been adopted, and if 

not, why they were not.” Consistent with those requirements, mitigation measures are 

identified and described here for all adverse effects identified for the proposed action. 

However, it is important to remember the Survey and Manage provisions are themselves 

a mitigation measure applied to the Northwest Forest Plan, and its removal simply 

restores the potential for adverse effects resulting from management under other aspects 

of that plan (as identified in this analysis).

The following mitigation was not included as part of the alternatives themselves, as 

mitigation often is, because it would in large part have duplicated the provision proposed 

for removal, negating the positive effects of the proposal along with the negative.
74

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Table 2-12. Comparison of Outcomes for the 85 Species that Have Different Category 

Assignments Between Alternatives 1 and 4

TAXA GROUP

 Species1

Category 

Assignment Outcomes2

Special Status Species Programs 

(SSSP)3, 4

Outcome 

for Alt. 1 

without 

SSSP6

ASR 

Alt. 1 Year

Alt. 

4

Alt. 

1 Alt. 4

BLM 

OR/WA

BLM 

CA

FS 

R-65

FS

R-55

FUNGI

Albatrellus flettii, Oregon off B 1 1 - NA - - NA 2001

Bondarzewia mesenterica, 

Oregon off B 1 1 - - - - - 2001

Cantharellus subalbidus, Oregon off D 1 1 - - - - - 2001

Chromosera cyanophylla off B 1 1 - - - - - 2001

Clavariadelphus truncatus D B 1 1 - - - - - 2001

Collybia bakerensis F B 1 1 - - - - - 2001

Cordyceps capitata off B 1 1 - - ss - 1 2001

Craterellus tubaeformis, Oregon off D 1 1 - - - - - 2001

Craterellus tubaeformis, 

Washington and California off D 1 1 - - - - - 2003

Galerina atkinsoniana off B 1 1 - - - - - 2003

Galerina vittaeformis off B 1 1 - - - - - 2001

Gomphus clavatus F B 1 1 - - - - - 2002

Gomphus kauffmanii E B 1 1 - - NA - NA 2001

Gymnopilus punctifolius, 

Oregon and Washington off B 1 1 - NA - - NA 2001

Gyromitra esculenta off F 1 1 - - - - - 2001

Gyromitra infula off B 1 1 - - - - - 2001

Gyromitra melaleucoides off B 1 1 - - - - - 2001

Gyromitra montana off F 1 1 - - - - - 2001

Helvella maculata off B 1 1 - - - - - 2001

Hydnum umbilicatum off B 1 1 - - - - - 2001

Mycena monticola off B 1 1 - - ss - 1 2001

Mycena overholtsii D B 1 1 - - - - - 2001

Neournula pouchetii off B 1 1 - - - - - 2001

Nivatogastrium nubigenum, 

OR Eastern Cascades and 

CA Cascades Physiographic 

provinces off B 1 1 - - - - - 2001

Otidea leporina D B 1 1 - - - - - 2001

Otidea onotica off F 1 1 - - - - - 2001

Phaeocollybia olivacea, 

Washington and California E B 1 1 NA NA NA NA NA 2001

Phaeocollybia olivacea, Oregon F B 1 1 NA NA NA NA NA 2001

Pithya vulgaris off D 1 1 - - - - - 2001

Plectania melastoma off F 1 1 - - - - - 2001

Plectania milleri off B 1 1 - - - - - 2001

Ramaria rubripermanens, 

Oregon D B 1 1 - - NA - NA 2001

Sarcodon imbricatus off B 1 1 - - - - - 2001

Sarcosoma latahense off B 1 1 - - - - - 2001

Sarcosoma mexicana off F 1 1 - - - - - 2001

Sarcosphaera eximia off B 1 1 - - - - - 2001
75

Chapter 2 – The Alternatives

Table 2-12. Comparison of Outcomes for the 85 Species that Have Different Category 

Assignments Between Alternatives 1 and 4

TAXA GROUP

 Species1

Category 

Assignment Outcomes2

Special Status Species Programs 

(SSSP)3, 4

Outcome 

for Alt. 1 

without 

SSSP6

ASR 

Alt. 1 Year

Alt. 

4

Alt. 

1 Alt. 4

BLM 

OR/WA

BLM 

CA

FS 

R-65

FS

R-55

Tremiscus helvelloides D B 1 1 - - - - - 2001

Turbinellus floccosus, California off F 1 1 - - - - - 2001

LICHENS

Bryoria pseudocapillaris A B 3 3 NA NA NA - NA 2001

Bryoria spiralifera A B 3 3 NA NA NA - NA 2001

Bryoria tortuosa, WA Eastern 

Cascades, OR Eastern 

Cascades, OR Klamath, CA 

Klamath, and CA Cascades 

Physiographic Provinces off D 1 1 - ss - - 1 2002

Bryoria tortuosa, WA Olympic 

Peninsula, WA Western 

Lowlands, WA Western 

Cascades, OR Western 

Cascades, OR Coast Range, 

OR Willamette Valley and CA 

Coast Range Physiographic 

Provinces off A 3 1 - ss - - 3 2002

Calicium glaucellum off F 1 1 - - - - - 2002

Calicium viride off F 1 1 - ss - - 1 2002

Chaenotheca furfuracea off F 1 1 - - - - - 2003

Cladonia norvegica off B 1 1 - - - - - 2003

Dendriscocaulon intricatulum, 

Oregon in Coos, Douglas, 

Curry, Josephine, and Jackson 

Counties off B 1 1 - NA NA - NA 2002

Dendriscocaulon intricatulum, 

all of Washington and Oregon 

except Coos, Douglas, Curry, 

Josephine, and Jackson 

Counties A B 1 1 - NA NA - NA 2001

Dendriscocaulon intricatulum, 

California E B 1 1 - NA NA - NA 2001

Dermatocarpon meiophyllizum E B 1 1 - - NA - NA 2001

Fuscopannaria saubinetii E F 3 3 - - - - - 2003

Hypogymnia duplicata C A 1 1 - - NA - NA 2002

Hypogymnia oceanica off F 1 1 - - - - - 2001

Leptogium burnetiae var. 

hirsutum E A 4 4 - - NA - NA 2001

Leptogium rivale E B 1 1 - - - - - 2001

Lobaria linita, WA Western 

Cascades physiographic 

province north of Snoqualmie 

Pass and the Olympic 

Peninsula off A 1 1 as - ss-o - 1 2002
76

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Table 2-12. Comparison of Outcomes for the 85 Species that Have Different Category 

Assignments Between Alternatives 1 and 4

TAXA GROUP

 Species1

Category 

Assignment Outcomes2

Special Status Species Programs 

(SSSP)3, 4

Outcome 

for Alt. 1 

without 

SSSP6

ASR 

Alt. 1 Year

Alt. 

4

Alt. 

1 Alt. 4

BLM 

OR/WA

BLM 

CA

FS 

R-65

FS

R-55

Nephroma bellum, In OR: 

Western Cascades and Coast 

Range. In WA: Western 

Cascades in the Gifford 

Pinchot National Forest off F 1 1 - - ss-w - 1 2001

Nephroma bellum, In OR; 

Klamath, Willamette 

Valley, Eastern Cascades; 

WA; Western Cascades 

(outside the Gifford Pinchot 

National Forest), Eastern 

Cascades, Olympic Peninsula 

physiographic provinces E F 1 1 - ss ss-w -

Outcome 

2 in Alt. 47 2001

Nephroma occultum C B 1 1 - - NA - NA 2001

Platismatia lacunosa, Oregon 

Coast Range physiographic 

province off C 1 1 - - NA - NA 2002

Platismatia lacunosa, Except 

in Oregon Coast Range 

physiographic province E C 1 1 - - NA - NA 2002

Pseudocyphellaria perpetua A B 3 3 - - - - - 2003

Pyrrhospora quernea off E 3 3 - - ss - 3 2002

Ramalina pollinaria off E 3 3 as ss ss - 3 2002

Ramalina thrausta off A 1 1 - - - - - 2003

Usnea hesperina E B 3 3 - - - - - 2001

BRYOPHYTES

Buxbaumia viridis, Oregon and 

Washington off D 1 1 - - - - - 2001

Buxbaumia viridis, California E D 1 1 - NA - NA NA 2001

Diplophyllum albicans off D 1 1 - - - - - 2002

Encalypta brevicolla var. 

crumiana off B 4 4 - - ss-o - 4 2002

Herbertus aduncus E B 4 4 NA - - - NA 2001

Racomitrium aquaticum E B 1 1 - - - - - 2001

Rhizomnium nudum, 

Washington off B 1 1 as - ss-o - 1 2002

VERTEBRATES

Great Gray Owl Strix nebulosa A C 1 1 - - NA NA NA 2002

Oregon Red Tree Vole 

Arborimus longicaudus, Mesic off C 1 1 - - - - - 2003

Del Norte salamander 

Plethodon elongates off D 1 1 - - ss - 1 2001

Siskiyou Mountains 

salamander Plethodon stormi, 

South Range A C 1 1 NA - NA NA NA 2002

Siskiyou Mountains 

salamander Plethodon stormi, 

North Range D C 1 1 NA - NA NA NA 2001
77

Chapter 2 – The Alternatives

Table 2-12. Comparison of Outcomes for the 85 Species that Have Different Category 

Assignments Between Alternatives 1 and 4

TAXA GROUP

 Species1

Category 

Assignment Outcomes2

Special Status Species Programs 

(SSSP)3, 4

Outcome 

for Alt. 1 

without 

SSSP6

ASR 

Alt. 1 Year

Alt. 

4

Alt. 

1 Alt. 4

BLM 

OR/WA

BLM 

CA

FS 

R-65

FS

R-55

MOLLUSKS

Ancotrema voyanum off E 1 1 - - - - - 2003

Fluminicola n. sp. 1 off A 1 1 ss - ss-o - 1 2001

Fluminicola n. sp. 2 off A 1 1 - - ss-o - 1 2001

Helminthoglypta hertleini off B 1 1 ss ss ss-o - 1 2002

Helminthoglypta talmadgei D A 1 1 - NA - - NA 2001

Hemphillia burringtoni E A 1 1 - - NA - NA 2001

Hemphillia glandulosa, In WA: 

Olympic Peninsula and OR: 

Coast Range off C 1 1 - - ss-w - 1 2001

Hemphillia glandulosa, In 

WA Western Cascades 

Physiographic Province E C 1 1 - - NA - NA 2001

Hemphillia malonei, Oregon off C 1 1 - - ss-w - 1 2001

Megomphix hemphilli, North of 

south boundary of Lincoln, 

Benton, and Linn Counties, 

Oregon off A 1 1 - - - - - 2003

Megomphix hemphilli, South of 

south boundary of Lincoln, 

Benton, and Linn Counties, 

Oregon off F 1 1 - - - - - 2003

Monadenia churchi off F 1 1 - - - - - 2001

Monadenia infumata 

ochromphalus off B 1 1 - - - - - 2003

Pristiloma arcticum crateris A B 1 1 NA - NA - NA 2002

Vorticifex klamathensis sinitsini off B 1 1 - - ss-o - 1 2001

VASCULAR PLANTS

Corydalis aquae-gelidae A C 1 1 NA - NA - NA 2002

Cypripedium fasciculatum

, WA Eastern Cascades 

physiographic province off C 1 1 ss ss ss ss 3 2002

Cypripedium montanum, 

WA Eastern Cascades 

physiographic province off C 3 1 - NA - NA NA 2001 1

 Current taxonomic name. Any differences between these and previous NWFP documents are displayed in Table 3&4-18.

2

 Outcomes:

1 - Sufficient Habitat

2 - Sufficient Habitat but Insufficient Habitat in a Portion of their Range

3 - Insufficient Habitat

4 - Insufficient Information to Determine and Outcome

3

 SSSP Codes: ss Bureau Sensitive or Forest Service Sensitive as Bureau Assessment ss-o Sensitive in Oregon

ss-w Sensitive in Washington

NA Species is on SSSP in this region or state, but is not applicable because the species is not “off” Survey and Manage in this area under these two 

alternatives.

4

 Actual SSSP assignments. Supplement text uses “assumed” assignments because managers have the discretion to add or remove species outside of the SEIS 

process.

5

 FS R-5: Forest Service, Region 5 (California); FS R-6: Forest Service, Region 6 (Oregon and Washington)

6

 Applies only to species assumed to be on one or more SSSP, and only to alternatives where species is “off” Survey and Manage.

7

 For the Nephroma bellum in this portion of its range, under the scenario of Alternative 4 without SSSP, the outcome is 2 (Sufficient Habitat but Insufficient 

Habitat in a Portion of its Range).
78

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

The 2004 FSEIS included tables specifically identifying the species, Agency/region, and 

management activity (manage known sites/pre-disturbance surveys) that would reduce 

each adverse species outcome (Outcomes 3 and 4). These tables have been removed in 

favor of descriptions of the mitigations available and how they could be applied. When 

these descriptions are coupled with the outcomes, the Special Status Species Programs or 

Survey and Manage assignments, and the discussion of the species status and outcomes 

in Chapter 3&4, the specific mitigations available become self-evident. The tables in the 

2004 FSEIS could not display all of such considerations and thus were unnecessarily and 

misleadingly prescriptive.

Decision-makers may decline to select identified mitigation measures for many 

reasons, including the fact that species effects described in this analysis are limited to 

the Northwest Forest Plan area, or in many cases to a portion of the Northwest Forest 

Plan area. Many of these species are secure in other areas both in and outside of the 

Northwest Forest Plan area. See the Survey and Manage Species section in Chapter 3&4 for 

a more detailed discussion of species with adverse outcomes, and their implications.

There are two different groups of species’ outcomes discussed in this section. The first is 

species with insufficient habitat caused by management actions under Alternatives 1, 2 or 

3. The second group is species with insufficient habitat under all alternatives or species 

where there is insufficient information to determine an outcome.

Species with Insufficient Habitat Caused by Management under 

Alternatives 1, 2, or 3

The analysis of environmental consequences for Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 indicates that 

removing the Survey and Manage requirements for known site management and/or 

pre-disturbance surveys results in some species having insufficient habitat (including 

known sites) to support stable populations in all or part of their range (Table 2-13). In 

these cases, mitigation to eliminate this adverse environmental effect can be identified. 

Mitigation is identified by comparing the management actions in Alternative 4 to those 

in Alternative(s) with the adverse outcome, assisted by the specific outcome discussion 

in Chapter 3&4, to isolate what caused the difference in species outcomes. Mitigation 

usually consists of applying management of known sites and, for Category A and C 

species, pre-project clearances, in the species range within the Agency and region/state 

the Special Status Species Program assignment is not made or is removed. 

Pre-project clearances are completed prior to habitat-disturbing activities to determine 

the presence of a species or its habitat and the effect of management actions on the 

species. Pre-project clearances may include, but are not limited to, 

•	 clearance surveys; 

•	 field clearances; 

•	 field reconnaissance; 

•	 inventories; 

•	 habitat examinations; 

•	 habitat evaluation; 

•	 evaluation of species-habitat associations and presence of suitable or potential habitat; 

•	 review of existing survey records, inventories, and spatial data; 

•	 utilization of professional research, literature, and other technology transfer sources; 

or 

•	 use of expertise, both internal and external, that is based on documented, 

substantiated professional rationale. 
79

Chapter 2 – The Alternatives

Managing a known site is designed to maintain the habitat elements needed to provide 

for persistence of the species at the site. Management may range from maintaining 

one or more habitat components such as down logs or canopy cover, up to complete 

exclusion from disturbance for many acres, and may permit loss of some individuals, 

area, or elements not affecting continued site occupancy. Authority to disturb known 

sites lies with the agency official who is responsible for authorizing the proposed habitatdisturbing activity. 

If the Responsible Officials adopt mitigation in the Record of Decision for the SEIS, 

the analysis indicates that site management and/or pre-project clearances would 

effectively eliminate the adverse effects caused by management actions (refer to Chapter 

3&4). If adopted, the ROD will identify how long the mitigation will remain in effect 

- typically until the species is added to the Agencies’ Special Status Species Programs 

or a conservation agreement or a conservation strategy has been approved for the 

species. A conservation strategy is a technical document based on the available scientific 

information for a species or group of species that discuss the biological and ecological 

factors of the species and determines if management actions are necessary for a species or 

group of species to persist over time. If actions are necessary, the strategy describes the 

actions land management agencies must take to maintain a species or group of species 

and usually includes a monitoring plan. Conservation strategies can also be known as 

management strategies.

For the scenario of Alternatives 1, 2 or 3 without assumed assignments to Agencies’ 

Special Status Species Programs, species outcomes are displayed on Table 2-13. Under 

this scenario, there are additional species with insufficient habitat (including known 

sites) to support stable populations in all or part of their range. These adverse effects 

could be similarly mitigated by the application of manage known sites and pre-project 

clearances within the Agency and region/state where the Special Status Species Program 

assignment is not made, or where such assignment are subsequently removed. 

Species with Insufficient Habitat Under all Alternatives or with 

Insufficient Information to Determine an Outcome.

When the analyses shows that there is “insufficient information to determine an 

outcome” or “there is insufficient habitat (including known sites) to support stable 

populations not caused by federal action” for a species, this outcome is the same for all 

alternatives (Table 2-13). Although the Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines 

generally add protection and reduce risks to species by completing pre-disturbance 

surveys and managing known sites, it does not change the outcome of insufficient 

habitat or resolve the inadequate information needed to determine the outcome for a 

species. Many of these are species with few known sites or populations. Some of these 

species did not meet the criteria for inclusion in one or more of the Agencies’ Special 

Status Species Programs and the lack of managing known sites or completing predisturbance surveys would increase the risk to these species. In these cases, mitigation to 

eliminate the difference between the alternatives can be identified. Mitigation consists of 

conducting pre-project clearances and/or managing known sites for species that currently 

have these requirements under the Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines. The 

requirements for conducting pre-project clearances and managing known sites are 

the same as those described in the previous mitigation. It is unknown to what degree 

mitigation lessens the risk to the species; however, it will not change the outcome of 

insufficient information or resolve the inadequate information needed to determine the 

outcome for a species. 

There is insufficient information to determine an outcome for the four arthropod 

functional groups. Since pre-disturbance surveys and known site management are not 

required under Alternative 1, pre-project clearances and known site management are not 

offered as mitigation under Alternative 2 or 3. No mitigation was identified for the four 
80

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

arthropod functional groups because the effects of Alternatives 2 and 3 are similar to the 

effects of Alternatives 1 and 4. 

If the Responsible Officials adopt mitigation in one or both Records of Decision for 

this SEIS, the analysis indicates that site management and/or pre-project clearances 

could effectively reduce the risk to the same level for all alternatives (refer to Chapter 

3&4). If adopted, the Record of Decision will indicate the duration of mitigation or 

the circumstances under which it could be terminated – typically it would remain in 

effect until the species is added to the Agencies’ Special Status Species Programs, where 

appropriate, or a conservation agreement or conservation strategy has been approved for 

the species.

If species are not assigned to or are removed from the Agencies’ Special Status Species 

Programs as assumed (see Table 2-13), outcomes would not change but additional risk 

might be incurred. Mitigation for that additional risk is the same as that described 

above. That is, apply manage known sites and, for Survey and Manage Categories A 

and C species, pre-project clearances, in the species range within the Agency and region/

state where the Special Status Species Program assignment is not made or where such 

assignments are subsequently removed.

Other available mitigation for adverse species effects identified under Alternatives 1, 

2 or 3 would require changes in management in larger, or specific, blocks of known or 

suspected habitat. Such changes would effectively result in changed land allocations, 

departing from the Northwest Forest Plan allocations for which Survey and Manage is a 

mitigation measure. Different land allocations were considered in the 1994 FSEIS for the 

Northwest Forest Plan; such changes are outside the scope of this analysis. 

Table 2-13 displays category assignment, outcomes with and without Special Status 

Species Programs, Special Status Species Program assignment, and numbers of known 

sites and RMS detections, for each of the species discussed in this supplement under each 

alternative.

The outcomes used in Table 2-13 are as follows:

1: Sufficient Habitat

2: Sufficient Habitat but Insufficient Habitat in a Portion of their Range

3: Insufficient Habitat

4: Insufficient Information to Determine and Outcome
81

Chapter 2 – The Alternatives

Table 2-13. Summary of Environmental Consequences, Survey and Manage Category Assignments, Special Status Species Program Assignments, and Known Site Numbers for All 337 Species and All 4 Alternatives

TAXA GROUP

Species1

Category

Assignment2 for

each Alternative Outcomes3, 9

Special Status Species

Programs4

Outcomes3

without SSSP5, 9

Known Sites during the

last ASR or 2004 FSEIS

Additional Known Sites 

since the last ASR or the 

2004 FSEIS10 RMS 

Sites

6,7

Alt

1

Alt

2

Alt

3

Alt

4

Alt

1

Alt

2

Alt

3

Alt

 4

BLM 

OR

BLM 

CA

FS 

R68 FS R58

Alt

1

Alt

2

Alt

3

Federal Land 

Only Total ASR Year

Federal Land 

Only Total

FUNGIAcanthophysium farlowii B off B 3 3 3 3 - - - - - - - 1 2 0 0 0Albatrellus avellaneus B off B 3 3 3 3 SS - SS - - 3 - 1 3 4 4 0Albatrellus caeruleoporus B off B 3 3 3 3 - SS - - - 3 - 4 9 0 0 1Albatrellus ellisii B off B 1 315 1 1 - SS SS-W - - 3 - 39 41 7 7 0Albatrellus flettii 1 215 1 1

- SS

- - - 2 -

Washington and California B off B 1 315 1 1 - - - 3 - 39 43 0 0 1

Oregon off B 1 1 1 1 - - - 1 - 57 67 2001 16 16 1

Alpova alexsmithii B off B 3 3 3 3 SS - - - - 3 - 6 6 0 0 0Alpova olivaceotinctus B off B 3 3 3 3 - - - - - - - 1 1 0 1 1Arcangeliella camphorata B off B 3 3 3 3 SS - - - - 3 - 8 11 0 0 2Arcangeliella crassa B off B 3 3 3 3 - - - - - - - 2 2 0 0 1Arcangeliella lactarioides B off B 3 3 3 3 - - - - - - - 3 3 0 0 1Asterophora lycoperdoides B off B 3 3 3 3 - - - - - - - 1 5 2 2 1Asterophora parasitica B off B 3 3 3 3 - - - - - - - 1 5 0 0 0Baeospora myriadophylla B off B 3 3 3 3 - - - - - - - 9 17 1 1 0Balsamia nigrens B off B 3 3 3 3 - - - - - - - 1 4 1 1 0Boletus haematinus B off B 3 3 3 3 - SS - - - 3 - 1 1 6 6 0Boletus pulcherrimus B off B 1 1 1 1 SS - SS SS - 3 - 6 12 14 14 0Bondarzewia mesenterica 1 1 1 1

- - - -

- - -

Washington and California B off B 1 1 1 1 - - - 22 23 4 4 0Oregon off B 1 1 1 1 - - - 102 122 2001 44 46 0

Bridgeoporus nobilissimus A off A 3 3 3 3 SS - SS SS - 3 - 48 60 29 38 0Cantharellus subalbidus 1 1 1 1

- - - -

- - -

Washington and California D off D 1 1 1 1 - - - 53 68 7 7 9Oregon off D 1 1 1 1 - - - 164 199 2001 50 51 22

Catathelasma ventricosa B off B 3 3 3 3 - - - - - - - 6 15 1 1 0Chalciporus piperatus D off D 1 1 1 1 - - - - - - - 43 76 6 6 0Chamonixia caespitosa B off B 3 3 3 3 - - - - - - - 3 5 1 1 3Choiromyces alveolatus B off B 3 3 3 3 - - - - - - - 7 8 0 0 1Choiromyces venosus B off B 3 3 3 3 - SS - - - 3 - 2 2 1 1 0Chromosera cyanophylla off B 1 1 1 1 - - - - - - - 189 222 2001 41 41 7
82

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines Table 2-13. Summary of Environmental Consequences, Survey and Manage Category Assignments, Special Status Species Program Assignments, and Known Site Numbers for All 337 Species and All 4 Alternatives TAXA GROUP Species1 Category Assignment2 for each Alternative Outcomes3, 9 Special Status Species Programs4 Outcomes3 without SSSP5, 9 Known Sites during the last ASR or 2004 FSEIS Additional Known Sites since the last ASR or the 2004 FSEIS10 RMS Sites 6,7 Alt

1

Alt

2

Alt

3

Alt

4

Alt

1

Alt

2

Alt

3

Alt

 4

BLM 

OR

BLM 

CA

FS 

R68 FS R58

Alt

1

Alt

2

Alt

3

Federal Land 

Only Total ASR Year

Federal Land 

Only Total

Chroogomphus loculatus

B off

B 3 3 3 3 - - - - - - - 4 4 0 0 0

Chrysomphalina grossula

B off

B 3 3 3 3 - - - - - - - 9 14 1 1 2

Clavariadelphus ligula

B off

B 1 315 1 1 - SS - - - 3 - 41 47 4 4 4

Clavariadelphus occidentalis

B off

B 1 1 1 1 - - SS-W - - 1 - 57 70 9 10 9

Clavariadelphus sachalinensis

B off

B 1 315 1 1 - - SS-W - - 3 - 29 34 1 1 0

Clavariadelphus subfastigiatus

B off

B 3 3 3 3 - - - - - - - 5 5 3 3 0

Clavariadelphus truncatus

D off

B 1 1 1 1 - - - - - - - 106 118 12 12 2

Clavulina castanopes v. lignicola

B off

B 1 1 1 1 - SS - - - 1 - 4 11 4 4 13

Clitocybe senilis

B off

B 3 3 3 3 - - - - - - - 5 5 1 1 3

Clitocybe subditopoda

B off

B 3 3 3 3 - SS - - - 3 - 2 4 0 0 3

Collybia bakerensis F off

B 1 1 1 1 - - - - - - - 124 129 0 0 2

Collybia racemosa

B off

B 1 1 1 1 - SS - SS - 3 - 17 34 2 2 4

Cordyceps capitata off

B 1 1 1 1 - - SS - 1 1 1 26 40 2001 5 5 3

Cordyceps ophioglossoides

B off

B 3 3 3 3 - SS - - - 3 - 9 12 0 0 1

Cortinarius barlowensis

B off

B 1 1 1 1 - - SS-O - - 3 - 0 0 9 9 17

Cortinarius boulderensis

B off

B 3 3 3 3 - - - - - - - 8 9 0 0 7

Cortinarius cyanites

B off

B 3 3 3 3 - - - - - - - 1 1 5 5 2

Cortinarius depauperatus

B off

B 3 3 3 3 - - - - - - - 1 1 0 0 0

Cortinarius magnivelatus

B off

B 3 3 3 3 - - - - - - - 8 8 2 2 0

Cortinarius olympianus

B off

B 1 1 1 1 - - - - - - - 41 42 3 3 5

Cortinarius speciosissimus

B off

B 3 3 3 3 - - - - - - - 5 5 0 0 0

Cortinarius tabularis

B off

B 4 4 4 4 - - - - - - - 0 0 0 0 0

Cortinarius umidicola

B off

B 3 3 3 3 - - - - - - - 1 1 0 0 0

Cortinarius valgus

B off

B 3 3 3 3 - - - - - - - 0 0 1 1 0

Cortinarius variipes

B off

B 3 3 3 3 - - - - - - - 4 5 0 0 1

Cortinarius verrucisporus

B off

B 3 3 3 3 - - - - - - - 7 8 1 1 0

Cortinarius wiebeae

B off

B 3 3 3 3 - - - - - - - 1 1 0 0 1

Craterellus tubaeformis 1 1 1 1

- - - -

- - -

Oregon off

D 1 1 1 1 - - - 156 156 2001 61 61 36

Washington and California off

D 1 1 1 1 - - - 103 103 2003 5 5 42

Cudonia monticola

B off

B 1 315 1 1 - - SS SS - 3 - 12 12 11 14 6

Cyphellostereum laeve

B off

B 3 3 3 3 - - - - - - - 3 3 1 1 2
83

Chapter 2 – The Alternatives

Table 2-13. Summary of Environmental Consequences, Survey and Manage Category Assignments, Special Status Species Program Assignments, and Known Site Numbers for All 337 Species and All 4 Alternatives

TAXA GROUP

Species1

Category

Assignment2 for

each Alternative Outcomes3, 9

Special Status Species

Programs4

Outcomes3

without SSSP5, 9

Known Sites during the

last ASR or 2004 FSEIS

Additional Known Sites 

since the last ASR or the 

2004 FSEIS10 RMS 

Sites

6,7

Alt

1

Alt

2

Alt

3

Alt

4

Alt

1

Alt

2

Alt

3

Alt

 4

BLM 

OR

BLM 

CA

FS 

R68 FS R58

Alt

1

Alt

2

Alt

3

Federal Land 

Only Total ASR Year

Federal Land 

Only Total

Cystangium idahoensis B off B 3 3 3 3 SS - - - - 3 - 2 2 0 0 0Cystangium lymanensis B off B 3 3 3 3 - - - - - - - 0 0 0 0 0Dermocybe humboldtensis B off B 3 3 3 3 SS SS - - - 3 - 1 3 1 1 0Destuntzia fusca B off B 3 3 3 3 - - - - - - - 1 3 0 0 0Destuntzia rubra B off B 3 3 3 3 SS - - - - 3 - 0 4 0 0 0Dichostereum boreale B off B 3 3 3 3 - - - - - - - 1 1 0 0 0Elaphomyces anthracinus B off B 3 3 3 3 - - - - - - - 1 1 0 0 0Elaphomyces subviscidus B off B 3 3 3 3 - - - - - - - 1 1 0 0 1Endogone acrogena B off B 3 3 3 3 - - - - - - - 3 3 0 0 0Endogone oregonensis B off B 3 3 3 3 - - - - - - - 3 7 0 0 0Entoloma nitidum B off B 3 3 3 3 - SS - - - 3 - 6 7 0 0 2Fayodia bisphaerigera B off B 3 3 3 3 - - - - - - - 10 14 0 0 0Fevansia aurantiaca B off B 3 3 3 3 - - - - - - - 2 2 0 0 0Galerina atkinsoniana off B 1 1 1 1 - - - - - - - 83 83 2003 0 0 57Galerina cerina B off B 1 1 1 1 - - - - - - - 3 3 0 0 24Galerina heterocystis E off E 1 1 1 1 - - - - - - - 3 7 2 3 18Galerina sphagnicola E off E 3 3 3 3 - - - - - - - 0 0 0 0 1Galerina vittaeformis off B 1 1 1 1 - - - - - - - 37 44 2001 24 24 99Gastroboletus imbellus B off B 3 3 3 3 SS - - - - 3 - 1 1 0 0 0Gastroboletus ruber B off B 1 1 1 1 - - - - - - - 25 25 1 1 1Gastroboletus subalpinus B off B 1 1 1 1 - - - - - - - 29 30 9 9 0Gastroboletus turbinatus B off B 1 1 1 1 - - - - - - - 3 4 25 25 0Gastroboletus vividus B off B 3 3 3 3 - - - - - - - 3 3 2 2 0Gastrosuillus amaranthii E off E 4 4 4 4 - - - - - - - 0 0 0 0 0Gastrosuillus umbrinus B off B 3 3 3 3 - - - - - - - 1 1 0 0 0Gautieria magnicellaris B off B 3 3 3 3 - - - - - - - 2 2 0 0 0Gautieria otthii B off B 3 3 3 3 - - - - - - - 1 2 0 0 0Gelatinodiscus flavidus B off B 1 1 1 1 - - - - - - - 19 19 35 35 0Glomus radiatum B off B 3 3 3 3 - - - - - - - 2 3 0 0 0Gomphus clavatus F off B 1 1 1 1 - - - - - - - 71 96 14 14 11Gomphus kauffmanii E off E B 1 315 1 1 - - SS - - 3 - 43 54 16 16 2Gymnomyces abietis B off B 3 3 3 3 - - - - - - - 21 21 2 2 0
84

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines Table 2-13. Summary of Environmental Consequences, Survey and Manage Category Assignments, Special Status Species Program Assignments, and Known Site Numbers for All 337 Species and All 4 Alternatives TAXA GROUP Species1 Category Assignment2 for each Alternative Outcomes3, 9 Special Status Species Programs4 Outcomes3 without SSSP5, 9 Known Sites during the last ASR or 2004 FSEIS Additional Known Sites since the last ASR or the 2004 FSEIS10 RMS Sites 6,7 Alt

1

Alt

2

Alt

3

Alt

4

Alt

1

Alt

2

Alt

3

Alt

 4

BLM 

OR

BLM 

CA

FS 

R68 FS R58

Alt

1

Alt

2

Alt

3

Federal Land 

Only Total ASR Year

Federal Land 

Only Total

Gymnomyces fragrans

B off

B 3 3 3 3 - - - - - - - 3 3 0 0 0

Gymnomyces nondistincta

B off

B 3 3 3 3 SS - - - - 3 - 1 1 1 1 0

Gymnopilus punctifolius 1 215 1 1

- SS - -

- 2 -

California

B off

B 1 315 1 1 - 3 - 0 5 1 1 0

Oregon and Washington off

B 1 1 1 1 - 1 - 63 63 2001 18 18 4

Gyromitra californica

B off

B 1 315 1 1 - - SS - - 3 - 22 22 16 16 4

Gyromitra esculenta off F 1 1 1 1 - - - - - - - 225 323 2002 56 57 21Gyromitra infula off

B 1 1 1 1 - - - - - - - 71 82 2001 52 53 8

Gyromitra melaleucoides off

B 1 1 1 1 - - - - - - - 68 85 2001 40 41 7

Gyromitra montana off F 1 1 1 1 - - - - - - - 1108 1311 2001 23 23 1Hebeloma olympianum

B off

B 3 3 3 3 - - - - - - - 6 6 0 0 0

Helvella crassitunicata

B off

B 3 3 3 3 - - - - - - - 25 25 0 0 0

Helvella elastica

B off

B 1 1 1 1 - - - - - - - 33 36 4 4 5

Helvella maculata off

B 1 1 1 1 - - - - - - - 64 91 2001 24 24 1

Hydnotrya inordinata

B off

B 3 3 3 3 - - - - - - - 3 3 2 2 0

Hydnotrya subnix

B off

B 3 3 3 3 - - - - - - - 1 1 0 0 0

Hydnum umbilicatum off

B 1 1 1 1 - - - - - - - 103 137 2001 50 50 32

Hydropus marginellus

B off

B 3 3 3 3 - SS - - - 3 - 9 14 3 3 1

Hygrophorus caeruleus

B off

B 3 3 3 3 - - - - - - - 4 5 2 2 0

Hygrophorus saxatilis

B off

B 1 1 1 1 - - - - - - - 0 0 18 19 1

Hygrophorus vernalis

B off

B 3 3 3 3 - - - - - - - 1 1 0 0 0

Hypomyces luteovirens

B off

B 3 3 3 3 - - - - - - - 7 11 1 1 1

Leucogaster citrinus

B off

B 1 1 1 1 - SS SS - - 1 - 8 21 2 3 33

Leucogaster microsporus

B off

B 3 3 3 3 - - - - - - - 7 7 2 2 5

Macowanites chlorinosmus

B off

B 3 3 3 3 - - - - - - - 2 11 2 2 0

Macowanites mollis

B off

B 3 3 3 3 - - - - - - - 3 3 0 0 1

Marasmius applanatipes

B off

B 3 3 3 3 - - - - - - - 2 2 1 1 3

Mycena hudsoniana

B off

B 3 3 3 3 - - - - - - - 6 7 0 0 3

Mycena monticola off

B 1 1 1 1 - - SS - 1 1 1 102 134 2001 53 53 11

Mycena overholtsii

D off

B 1 1 1 1 - - - - - - - 130 136 6 6 2

Mycena quinaultensis

B off

B 3 3 3 3 - SS - - - 3 - 3 9 0 0 0

Mycena tenax

B off

B 1 1 1 1 - - - - - - - 12 29 0 0 11
85

Chapter 2 – The Alternatives

Table 2-13. Summary of Environmental Consequences, Survey and Manage Category Assignments, Special Status Species Program Assignments, and Known Site Numbers for All 337 Species and All 4 Alternatives

TAXA GROUP

Species1

Category

Assignment2 for

each Alternative Outcomes3, 9

Special Status Species

Programs4

Outcomes3

without SSSP5, 9

Known Sites during the

last ASR or 2004 FSEIS

Additional Known Sites 

since the last ASR or the 

2004 FSEIS10 RMS 

Sites

6,7

Alt

1

Alt

2

Alt

3

Alt

4

Alt

1

Alt

2

Alt

3

Alt

 4

BLM 

OR

BLM 

CA

FS 

R68 FS R58

Alt

1

Alt

2

Alt

3

Federal Land 

Only Total ASR Year

Federal Land 

Only Total

Mythicomyces corneipes B off B 3 3 3 3 - - - - - - - 8 9 0 0 0Neolentinus adhaerens B off B 3 3 3 3 - - - - - - - 3 4 0 0 1Neolentinus kauffmanii B off B 1 1 1 1 - - - - - - - 20 34 1 1 1Neournula pouchetii off B 1 1 1 1 - - - - - - - 48 67 2001 8 8 16Nivatogastrium nubigenum 1 1 1 1

- - - -

- - -

Entire range except OR Eastern 

Cascades and CA Cascades Physiographic provinces

B off B 1 1 1 1 - - - 8 8 2 2 1

OR Eastern Cascades and CA 

Cascades Physiographic provinces off B 1 1 1 1 - - - 171 193 2001 19 20 1

Octavianina cyanescens B off B 3 3 3 3 - - - - - - - 1 1 0 0 1Octavianina macrospora B off B 3 3 3 3 SS - - - - 3 - 0 0 0 0 0Otidea leporina D off B 1 1 1 1 - - - - - - - 101 110 21 22 0Otidea onotica off F 1 1 1 1 - - - - - - - 643 749 2001 480 480 9Otidea smithii B off B 3 3 3 3 - - SS SS - 3 - 11 12 1 1 0Phaeocollybia attenuata D off D 1 1 1 1 - - SS - - 1 1 78 106 39 40 6Phaeocollybia californica B off B 1 315 1 1 SS SS SS-O - - 3 - 39 44 9 9 0Phaeocollybia dissiliens B off B 1 315 1 1 - - SS-O - - 3 - 16 18 4 4 0Phaeocollybia fallax D off D 1 315 3 1 - - SS-W - - 3 3 61 88 25 27 2Phaeocollybia gregaria B off B 3 3 3 3 SS - - - - 3 - 4 4 0 0 0Phaeocollybia kauffmanii D off D 1 1 1 1 - - - - - - - 78 97 13 13 5Phaeocollybia olivacea 1 1 1 1

SS SS SS-O SS

- 2 1

Washington and California E off E B 1 1 1 1 - 3 - 6 18 6 6 0Oregon F off B 1 1 1 1 - 1 1 0 0 22 23 0

Phaeocollybia oregonensis B off B 1 1 1 1 SS - SS - - 3 - 31 36 6 6 0Phaeocollybia piceae B off B 1 315 1 1 - SS SS - - 3 - 41 46 11 11 0Phaeocollybia pseudofestiva B off B 1 315 1 1 - SS SS - - 3 - 21 31 14 14 0Phaeocollybia scatesiae B off B 1 315 1 1 - SS SS - - 3 - 13 13 6 6 0Phaeocollybia sipei B off B 1 315 1 1 - - SS-O - - 3 - 38 42 11 11 1Phaeocollybia spadicea B off B 1 315 1 1 - SS SS - - 3 - 41 56 24 24 3Phellodon atratus B off B 1 1 1 1 - - - - - - - 8 29 1 1 0Pholiota albivelata B off B 3 3 3 3 - - - - - - - 7 14 0 0 0
86

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines Table 2-13. Summary of Environmental Consequences, Survey and Manage Category Assignments, Special Status Species Program Assignments, and Known Site Numbers for All 337 Species and All 4 Alternatives TAXA GROUP Species1 Category Assignment2 for each Alternative Outcomes3, 9 Special Status Species Programs4 Outcomes3 without SSSP5, 9 Known Sites during the last ASR or 2004 FSEIS Additional Known Sites since the last ASR or the 2004 FSEIS10 RMS Sites 6,7 Alt

1

Alt

2

Alt

3

Alt

4

Alt

1

Alt

2

Alt

3

Alt

 4

BLM 

OR

BLM 

CA

FS 

R68 FS R58

Alt

1

Alt

2

Alt

3

Federal Land 

Only Total ASR Year

Federal Land 

Only Total

Pithya vulgaris off

D 1 1 1 1 - - - - - - - 193 220 2001 20 20 5

Plectania melastoma off F 1 1 1 1 - - - - - - - 90 129 2001 39 39 60Plectania milleri off

B 1 1 1 1 - - - - - - - 228 260 2001 80 80 1

Podostroma alutaceum

B off

B 3 3 3 3 - - - - - - - 4 9 1 1 1

Polyozellus multiplex

B off

B 1 315 1 1 - SS - - - 3 - 53 55 10 10 0

Pseudaleuria quinaultiana

B off

B 3 3 3 3 - - - - - - - 3 3 1 1 0

Ramaria abietina

B off

B 1 1 1 1 - - - - - - - 4 9 2 2 0

Ramaria amyloidea

B off

B 1 315 1 1 - SS SS - - 3 - 14 15 4 4 1

Ramaria araiospora

B off

B 1 315 1 1 - - SS-W - - 3 - 80 89 29 33 11

Ramaria aurantiisiccescens

B off

B 1 315 1 1 - SS SS - - 3 - 22 25 4 4 0

Ramaria botryis var. aurantiiramosa

B off

B 3 3 3 3 - - - - - - - 8 10 2 2 0

Ramaria celerivirescens

B off

B 1 1 1 1 - - - - - - - 62 65 28 29 14

Ramaria claviramulata

B off

B 3 3 3 3 - - - - - - - 1 1 0 0 0

Ramaria concolor f. marrii

B off

B 4 4 4 4 - - - - - - - 0 0 0 0 0

Ramaria concolor f. tsugina

B off

B 3 3 3 3 - - - - - - - 4 5 0 0 0

Ramaria conjunctipes var. sparsiramosa

B off

B 1 1 1 1 - - - - - - - 4 4 5 8 7

Ramaria coulterae

B off

B 3 3 3 3 - - - - - - - 8 8 6 8 1

Ramaria cyaneigranosa

B off

B 1 315 1 1 - SS SS-W - - 3 - 21 27 9 10 0

Ramaria gelatiniaurantia

B off

B 1 1 1 1 - - SS - - 3 - 13 22 4 6 0

Ramaria gracilis

B off

B 3 3 3 3 - - - - - - - 1 2 1 1 0

Ramaria hilaris var. olympiana

B off

B 3 3 3 3 - - - - - - - 0 0 1 1 0

Ramaria largentii

B off

B 1 315 1 1 - SS SS - - 3 - 8 10 7 7 0

Ramaria lorithamnus

B off

B 3 3 3 3 - - - - - - - 0 0 1 1 0

Ramaria maculatipes

B off

B 3 3 3 3 - - - - - - - 8 8 2 2 0

Ramaria rainierensis

B off

B 3 3 3 3 - - - - - - - 2 3 0 0 0

Ramaria rubella var. blanda

B off

B 3 3 3 3 - - - - - - - 0 0 3 3 0

Ramaria rubribrunnescens

B off

B 3 3 3 3 - - - - - - - 9 9 2 2 0

Ramaria rubrievanescens

B off

B 1 315 1 1 - - SS-W - - 3 - 42 46 9 13 3

Ramaria rubripermanens 1 215 1 1

- - SS-W -

- 2 -

Washington and California

B off

B 1 315 1 1 - 3 - 10 11 3 5 1

Oregon

D off

B 1 1 1 1 - 1 - 113 124 20 20 9

Ramaria spinulosa var. diminutiva

B off

B 3 3 3 3 SS - - - - 3 - 1 1 0 0 0
87

Chapter 2 – The Alternatives

Table 2-13. Summary of Environmental Consequences, Survey and Manage Category Assignments, Special Status Species Program Assignments, and Known Site Numbers for All 337 Species and All 4 Alternatives

TAXA GROUP

Species1

Category

Assignment2 for

each Alternative Outcomes3, 9

Special Status Species

Programs4

Outcomes3

without SSSP5, 9

Known Sites during the

last ASR or 2004 FSEIS

Additional Known Sites 

since the last ASR or the 

2004 FSEIS10 RMS 

Sites

6,7

Alt

1

Alt

2

Alt

3

Alt

4

Alt

1

Alt

2

Alt

3

Alt

 4

BLM 

OR

BLM 

CA

FS 

R68 FS R58

Alt

1

Alt

2

Alt

3

Federal Land 

Only Total ASR Year

Federal Land 

Only Total

Ramaria stuntzii B off B 1 315 1 1 - - SS-W - - 3 - 73 76 23 24 1Ramaria suecica B off B 3 3 3 3 - - - - - - - 1 1 0 0 1Ramaria thiersii B off B 3 3 3 3 - - - - - - - 4 4 5 5 1Ramaria verlotensis B off B 3 3 3 3 - - - - - - - 0 3 0 0 0Rhizopogon abietis B off B 3 3 3 3 - - - - - - - 0 0 1 2 0Rhizopogon atroviolaceus B off B 3 3 3 3 - - - - - - - 1 1 10 10 2Rhizopogon brunneiniger B off B 3 3 3 3 - - - - - - - 6 7 2 2 0Rhizopogon chamaleontinus B off B 3 3 3 3 SS - - - - 3 - 1 1 0 0 0Rhizopogon ellipsosporus B off B 3 3 3 3 SS - - - - 3 - 1 1 1 3 1Rhizopogon evadens var. subalpinus B off B 3 3 3 3 - - - - - - - 18 19 4 4 0Rhizopogon exiguus B off B 3 3 3 3 SS - - - - 3 - 2 3 0 0 0Rhizopogon flavofibrillosus B off B 3 3 3 3 - - - - - - - 8 8 0 0 1Rhizopogon inquinatus B off B 3 3 3 3 - - - - - - - 2 2 0 0 0Rhizopogon truncatus D off D 1 1 1 1 - - - - - - - 31 55 29 32 15Rhodocybe speciosa B off B 3 3 3 3 - - - - - - - 3 3 0 0 2Rickenella swartzii B off B 1 1 1 1 - - - - - - - 3 8 12 14 0Russula mustelina B off B 3 3 3 3 - - - - - - - 0 0 1 1 0Sarcodon fuscoindicus B off B 1 315 1 1 - SS SS-W - - 3 - 27 40 2 2 6Sarcodon imbricatus off B 1 1 1 1 - - - - - - - 100 127 2001 27 27 1Sarcosoma latahense off B 1 1 1 1 - - - - - - - 49 57 2001 11 11 1Sarcosoma mexicana off F 1 1 1 1 - - - - - - - 676 817 2001 15 15 8Sarcosphaera eximia off B 1 1 1 1 - - - - - - - 533 674 2001 73 74 0Sedecula pulvinata B off B 3 3 3 3 - - - - - - - 0 0 0 0 0Sowerbyella rhenana B off B 1 315 1 1 - SS SS SS - 3 - 58 68 5 5 0Sparassis crispa D off D 1 315 3 1 - SS - - - 3 3 59 60 18 19 1Spathularia flavida B off B 1 1 1 1 - SS SS-W - - 1 - 24 38 5 5 9Stagnicola perplexa B off B 3 3 3 3 - - - - - - - 7 7 0 0 0Thaxterogaster pavelekii B off B 3 3 3 3 SS - - - - 3 - 3 7 0 0 0Tremiscus helvelloides D off B 1 1 1 1 - - - - - - - 81 107 5 5 3Tricholoma venenatum B off B 3 3 3 3 - - - - - - - 0 0 0 0 1Tricholomopsis fulvescens B off B 3 3 3 3 - - - SS - 3 - 2 2 2 2 0Tuber asa B off B 3 3 3 3 - - - - - - - 3 3 0 0 0Tuber pacificum B off B 3 3 3 3 - - - - - - - 2 3 0 0 0
88

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines Table 2-13. Summary of Environmental Consequences, Survey and Manage Category Assignments, Special Status Species Program Assignments, and Known Site Numbers for All 337 Species and All 4 Alternatives TAXA GROUP Species1 Category Assignment2 for each Alternative Outcomes3, 9 Special Status Species Programs4 Outcomes3 without SSSP5, 9 Known Sites during the last ASR or 2004 FSEIS Additional Known Sites since the last ASR or the 2004 FSEIS10 RMS Sites 6,7 Alt

1

Alt

2

Alt

3

Alt

4

Alt

1

Alt

2

Alt

3

Alt

 4

BLM 

OR

BLM 

CA

FS 

R68 FS R58

Alt

1

Alt

2

Alt

3

Federal Land 

Only Total ASR Year

Federal Land 

Only Total

Turbinellus floccosus (California) off F 1 1 1 1 - - - - - - - 286 327 2001 12 12 3Tylopilus porphyrosporus

D off

D 1 1 1 1 - - - - - - - 21 34 2 3 0

Zelleromyces papyracea

B off

B 3 3 3 3 - - - - - - - 0 1 0 0 0

LICHENSBryoria pseudocapillaris

A off

A

B 3 3 3 3 SS SS SS - 3 - 13 24 32 52 0

Bryoria spiralifera

A off

A

B 3 3 3 3 SS SS SS-O - - 3 - 20 49 16 25 2

Bryoria subcana

B off

B 3 3 3 3 As - - - - 3 - 18 18 4 5 0

Bryoria tortuosa 2 2 2 1

- SS - -

2 2 2

WA Olympic Peninsula, WA Western Lowlands, WA Western Cascades, OR Western Cascades, OR Coast Range, OR Willamette Valley and CA Coast Range Physiographic Provinces

off

A 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 18 2002

113 114 2

WA Eastern Cascades, OR Eastern Cascades, OR Klamath, CA Klamath, and CA Cascades Physiographic Provinces

off

D 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 650 650 2002

Buellia oidalea

E off

E 3 3 3 3 - - - - - - - 5 18 1 1 0

Calicium abietinum

B off

B 4 4 4 4 - - - - - - - 9 10 1 1 1

Calicium adspersum

E off

E 4 4 4 4 As - - SS - 4 - 0 0 0 0 0

Calicium glaucellum off F 1 1 1 1 - - - - - - - 64 64 2002 29 29 71Calicium viride off F 1 1 1 1 - SS - - 1 1 1 119 119 2002 57 57 45Cetrelia cetrarioides

E off

E 1 1 1 1 - - SS-W - - 2 - 29 60 29 36 2

Chaenotheca chrysocephala

B off

B 1 1 1 1 - - - - - - - 21 21 4 5 15

Chaenotheca ferruginea

B off

B 1 1 1 1 - - - - - - - 12 12 93 94 3

Chaenotheca furfuracea off F 1 1 1 1 - - - - - - - 153 153 2003 181 181 28Chaenotheca subroscida

E off

E 3 3 3 3 - - SS - - 3 - 5 5 14 14 4

Chaenothecopsis pusilla

E off

E 1 1 1 1 - - - - - - - 4 4 5 5 0

Cladonia norvegica off

B 1 1 1 1 - - - - - - - 70 70 2003 0 0 28

Collema nigrescens (WA and OR, except in OR Klamath Physiographic province)

F off F 4 4 4 4 - - SS-W - - 4 4 18 28 7 7 5
89

Chapter 2 – The Alternatives

Table 2-13. Summary of Environmental Consequences, Survey and Manage Category Assignments, Special Status Species Program Assignments, and Known Site Numbers for All 337 Species and All 4 Alternatives

TAXA GROUP

Species1

Category

Assignment2 for

each Alternative Outcomes3, 9

Special Status Species

Programs4

Outcomes3

without SSSP5, 9

Known Sites during the

last ASR or 2004 FSEIS

Additional Known Sites 

since the last ASR or the 

2004 FSEIS10 RMS 

Sites

6,7

Alt

1

Alt

2

Alt

3

Alt

4

Alt

1

Alt

2

Alt

3

Alt

 4

BLM 

OR

BLM 

CA

FS 

R68 FS R58

Alt

1

Alt

2

Alt

3

Federal Land 

Only Total ASR Year

Federal Land 

Only Total

Dendriscocaulon intricatulum 1 2 1 1

- SS SS-W -

- 2 -

In all of Washington and Oregon except Coos, Douglas, Curry, Josephine, and Jackson Counties

A off A B 1 2 1 1 - 3 - 23 6 6 1

California E off E B 1 1 1 1 - 1 - 101 105 2Oregon in Coos, Douglas, Curry, Josephine, and Jackson Counties off B 1 1 1 1 - 1 - 526 526 2002 117 117 0

Dermatocarpon meiophyllizum E off E B 1 1 1 1 - - SS - - 3 - 12 16 35 35 0Fuscopannaria saubinetii E off E F 3 3 3 3 - - - - - - - 180 190 4 4 0Heterodermia sitchensis E off E 4 4 4 4 As - - - - 4 - 0 0 1 1 0Hypogymnia duplicata C off A 1 1 1 1 - - SS-O - - 1 1 200 211 31 42 8Hypogymnia oceanica off F 1 1 1 1 - - - - - - - 441 456 2001 7 7 17Hypogymnia vittata E off E 4 4 4 4 - - - - - - - 0 0 0 0 0Hypotrachyna revoluta E off E 3 3 3 3 As - SS - - 3 - 10 10 2 11 0Leptogium burnetiae var. hirsutum E off E A 4 4 4 4 - - SS - - 4 - 1 4 0 0 0Leptogium cyanescens A off A 3 3 3 3 - - SS - - 3 - 8 10 0 0 0Leptogium rivale E off E B 1 1 1 1 - - - - - - - 67 71 87 87 0Leptogium teretiusculum E off E 3 3 3 3 - - - - - - - 7 8 22 22 3Lobaria linita 1 1 1 1

As - SS-O -

- 2 -

Oregon and Washington except WA Western Cascades physiographic province north of Snoqualmie Pass and Olympic Peninsula physiographic province

A off A 1 1 1 1 - 3 - 29 5 5 2

WA Western Cascades physiographic province north of Snoqualmie Pass and Olympic Peninsula physiographic province

off A 1 1 1 1 - 1 - 119 119 2002 28 28 10

Lobaria oregano (California) A off A 3 3 3 3 - SS - - - 3 - 11 11 19 19 2Microcalicium arenarium B off B 4 4 4 4 As - - - - 4 - 0 0 2 2 0
90

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines Table 2-13. Summary of Environmental Consequences, Survey and Manage Category Assignments, Special Status Species Program Assignments, and Known Site Numbers for All 337 Species and All 4 Alternatives TAXA GROUP Species1 Category Assignment2 for each Alternative Outcomes3, 9 Special Status Species Programs4 Outcomes3 without SSSP5, 9 Known Sites during the last ASR or 2004 FSEIS Additional Known Sites since the last ASR or the 2004 FSEIS10 RMS Sites 6,7 Alt

1

Alt

2

Alt

3

Alt

4

Alt

1

Alt

2

Alt

3

Alt

 4

BLM 

OR

BLM 

CA

FS 

R68 FS R58

Alt

1

Alt

2

Alt

3

Federal Land 

Only Total ASR Year

Federal Land 

Only Total

Nephroma bellum 1 1 1 1

- SS SS-W -

1 2 1

In OR; Klamath, Willamette Valley, Eastern Cascades; WA; Western Cascades (outside the Gifford Pinchot National Forest), Eastern Cascades, and Olympic Peninsula physiographic provinces

E off

E F 1 1 1 1 1 212 1 20 20 13 13 6

In OR: Western Cascades and Coast Range. In WA: Western Cascades in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest

off F 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 151 173 2001 7 11 23

Nephroma isidiosum

E off

E 4 4 4 4 - - - - - - - 0 0 0 0 0

Nephroma occultum

C off

B 1 3 3 1 - - SS - - 3 3 168 168 48 49 4

Niebla cephalota

A off

A 3 3 3 3 As SS SS - - 3 - 4 15 3 29 0

Pannaria rubiginosa

E off

E 3 3 3 3 As SS SS - - 3 - 10 13 2 7 0

Peltigera pacifica

E off

E 1 1 1 1 - - SS - - 1 - 72 80 84 85 12

Platismatia lacunosa 1 2 1 1

- - SS-W -

- 2 -

Except in Oregon Coast Range physiographic province

E off

E

C 1 2 1 1 - 3 - 37 21 22 3

Oregon Coast Range physiographic province off

C 1 1 1 1 - 1 - 14 59 2002 39 41 18

Pseudocyphellaria perpetua

A off

A

B 3 3 3 3 - - - - - - - 5 5 43 49 0

Pseudocyphellaria rainierensis

A off

A 1 3 3 1 - - SS - - 3 - 167 167 101 101 6

Pyrrhospora quernea off

E 3 3 3 3 - - SS - 3 3 3 ≤60 ≤60 2002 2 2 0

Ramalina pollinaria off

E 3 3 3 3 AS SS SS - 3 3 3 <25 <25 2002 8 33 1

Ramalina thrausta off

A 1 1 1 1 - - - - - - - 327 327 2003 391 395 15

Stenocybe clavata

E off

E 4 4 4 4 - - - - - - - 7 7 0 0 4

Teloschistes flavicans

A off

A 3 3 3 3 As SS SS-O - - 3 - 3 9 2 4 0

Tholurna dissimilis (south of Columbia River)

B off

B 4 4 4 4 As - SS - - 4 - 3 5 0 0 0

Usnea hesperina

E off

E

B 3 3 3 3 - - - - - - - 14 17 14 31 0
91

Chapter 2 – The Alternatives

Table 2-13. Summary of Environmental Consequences, Survey and Manage Category Assignments, Special Status Species Program Assignments, and Known Site Numbers for All 337 Species and All 4 Alternatives

TAXA GROUP

Species1

Category

Assignment2 for

each Alternative Outcomes3, 9

Special Status Species

Programs4

Outcomes3

without SSSP5, 9

Known Sites during the

last ASR or 2004 FSEIS

Additional Known Sites 

since the last ASR or the 

2004 FSEIS10 RMS 

Sites

6,7

Alt

1

Alt

2

Alt

3

Alt

4

Alt

1

Alt

2

Alt

3

Alt

 4

BLM 

OR

BLM 

CA

FS 

R68 FS R58

Alt

1

Alt

2

Alt

3

Federal Land 

Only Total ASR Year

Federal Land 

Only Total

Usnea longissima 1 1 1 1

- SS SS SS

- 2 1

California and in Curry, Josephine, 

and Jackson Counties, Oregon A off A 1 1 1 1 - 3 1 19 26 24 27 0

Oregon, except in Curry, Josephine, 

and Jackson Counties and in Washington

F off F 1 1 1 1 - 1 1 115 207 103 104 13

BRYOPHYTESBrotherella roellii E off E 4 4 4 4 - - - - - - - 5 5 0 0 0Buxbaumia viridis 1 1 1 1

- SS - SS

- 2 -

California E off E D 1 1 1 1 - 3 - 4 5 1 1 0Oregon and Washington off D 1 1 1 1 - 1 - 536 637 2001 202 202 19

Diplophyllum albicans off D 1 1 1 1 - - - - - - - 117 117 2002 18 19 25Diplophyllum plicatum B off B 1 1 1 1 As - - - - 3 - 78 80 21 21 1Encalypta brevicolla var. crumiana off B 4 4 4 4 - - SS-O - 4 4 4 2 2 2002 3 3 0Herbertus aduncus E off E B 4 4 4 4 As - - - - 4 - 8 9 1 1 0Iwatsukiella leucotricha B off B 1 1 1 1 As - SS - - 3 - 2 2 15 18 0Kurzia makinoana B off B 4 4 4 4 As - - - - 4 - 3 4 1 1 0Marsupella emarginata var. aquatica B off B 1 3 1 1 - - - - - - - 1 1 1 1 0Orthodontium gracile B off B 1 1 1 1 - SS - - - 1 - 2 29 0 0 0Ptilidium californicum (California) A off A 1 1 1 1 - SS - SS - 1 - 228 228 50 50 4Racomitrium aquaticum E off E B 1 1 1 1 - - - - - - - 24 28 8 8 6Rhizomnium nudum 1 1 1 1

As - SS-O -

- 1 -

Oregon and California B off B 1 1 1 1 - 1 - 26 22 22 3Washington off B 1 1 1 1 - 1 - 160 166 2002 67 67 21

Schistostega pennata A off A 1 1 1 1 As - SS - - 3 - 59 59 22 22 0Tetraphis geniculata A off A 1 1 1 1 As SS SS - - 3 - 57 57 26 26 1Tritomaria exsectiformis B off B 4 4 4 4 As - - - - 4 - 15 15 6 6 0Tritomaria quinquedentata B off B 4 4 4 4 - - - - - - - 11 12 4 4 0VERTEBRATESDel Norte salamander Plethodon elongatus off D 1 1 1 1 - - SS - 1 1 1 1838 1838 2001 329 344 -Larch Mountain salamander Plethodon larselli A off A 1 2 2 1 As - SS - - 2 - 88 88 15 16 -
92

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines Table 2-13. Summary of Environmental Consequences, Survey and Manage Category Assignments, Special Status Species Program Assignments, and Known Site Numbers for All 337 Species and All 4 Alternatives TAXA GROUP Species1 Category Assignment2 for each Alternative Outcomes3, 9 Special Status Species Programs4 Outcomes3 without SSSP5, 9 Known Sites during the last ASR or 2004 FSEIS Additional Known Sites since the last ASR or the 2004 FSEIS10 RMS Sites 6,7 Alt

1

Alt

2

Alt

3

Alt

4

Alt

1

Alt

2

Alt

3

Alt

 4

BLM 

OR

BLM 

CA

FS 

R68 FS R58

Alt

1

Alt

2

Alt

3

Federal Land 

Only Total ASR Year

Federal Land 

Only Total

Shasta salamander Hydromantes shastae

A off

A 1 2 2 1 - SS - SS - 2 - 56 56 22 22 -

Siskiyou Mountains salamander Plethodon stormi 1 2 2 1

SS - SS-O SS

- 2 2

South Range

A off

A

C 1 2 2 1 - 2 2 30 30 19 20 -

North Range

D off

C 1 2 2 1 - 2 2 143 143 182 185 -

Van Dyke’s salamander Plethodon vandykei

A off

A 1 2 2 1 - - SS - - 2 - 23 29 17 21 -

Great Gray Owl Strix nebulosa

A off

A

C 1 2 1 1 - - SS-W SS - 2 - 103 114 15 17 -

Oregon Red Tree Vole Arborimus longicaudus 2 2 2 2

SS13 - SS13 -

- 2 2

Xeric and Northern Mesic

C off

C 2 2 2 2 - 2 2 346 346 201 204 1814

Mesic off

C 1 1 1 1 - 1 1 404 405 2003 81 84 6214

MOLLUSKSAncotrema voyanum off

E 1 1 1 1 - - - - - - - 225 285 2003 41 41 2411

Cryptomastix devia

A off

A 1 1 1 1 SS - SS - - 3 - 121 148 27 29 0

Cryptomastix hendersoni

A off

A 1 1 1 1 - - SS - - 3 - 18 22 0 0 0

Deroceras hesperium

B off

B 1 1 1 1 SS - SS - - 3 - 2 4 12 16 0

Fluminicola n. sp. 1 off

A 1 1 1 1 SS - SS-O - 1 1 1 3 27 2001 2 5 0

Fluminicola n. sp. 2 off

A 1 1 1 1 - - SS-O - 1 1 1 0 1 2001 0 0 0

Fluminicola n. sp. 3

A off

A 1 1 1 1 SS - SS-O - - 3 - 3 5 0 1 0

Fluminicola n. sp. 11

A off

A 1 1 1 1 SS - - - - 3 - 2 2 13 17 0

Fluminicola n. sp. 15

A off

A 1 3 1 1 - - - - - - - 0 4 0 0 0

Fluminicola n. sp. 16

A off

A 1 3 1 1 - - - - - - - 0 17 0 0 0

Fluminicola n. sp. 17

A off

A 1 3 1 1 - - - - - - - 0 2 0 0 0

Fluminicola n. sp. 18

A off

A 1 3 1 1 - - - - - - - 1 3 0 0 0

Fluminicola n. sp. 19

A off

A 1 3 1 1 - - - - - - - 0 1 0 0 0

Fluminicola n. sp. 20

A off

A 1 3 1 1 - - - - - - - 0 2 0 0 0

Fluminicola potemicus

A off

A 1 3 1 1 - - - - - - - 3 12 0 0 0

Fluminicola seminalis

A off

A 1 2 1 1 - - - SS - 3 - 5 15 0 0 0

Helminthoglypta hertleini off

B 1 1 1 1 SS SS SS-O - 1 1 1 97 97 2002 103 110 311

Helminthoglypta talmadgei

D off

A 1 1 1 1 - SS - - - 1 1 761 761 370 370 011

Hemphillia burringtoni

E off

E

A 1 1 1 1 - - SS-W - - 1 - 17 55 7 7 1
93

Chapter 2 – The Alternatives

Table 2-13. Summary of Environmental Consequences, Survey and Manage Category Assignments, Special Status Species Program Assignments, and Known Site Numbers for All 337 Species and All 4 Alternatives

TAXA GROUP

Species1

Category

Assignment2 for

each Alternative Outcomes3, 9

Special Status Species

Programs4

Outcomes3

without SSSP5, 9

Known Sites during the

last ASR or 2004 FSEIS

Additional Known Sites 

since the last ASR or the 

2004 FSEIS10 RMS 

Sites

6,7

Alt

1

Alt

2

Alt

3

Alt

4

Alt

1

Alt

2

Alt

3

Alt

 4

BLM 

OR

BLM 

CA

FS 

R68 FS R58

Alt

1

Alt

2

Alt

3

Federal Land 

Only Total ASR Year

Federal Land 

Only Total

Hemphillia glandulosa 1 1 1 1

- - SS-W -

1 1 1

In WA Western Cascades Physiographic Province E off E C 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 139 140 13 13 0In WA: Olympic Peninsula and OR: Coast Range off C 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1084 1132 2001 412 412 8

Hemphillia malonei 1 1 1 1

- - SS-W -

- 1 1

Washington C off C 1 1 1 1 - 1 1 341 352 275 275 1Oregon off C 1 1 1 1 - 1 1 585 619 2001 350 350 8

Hemphillia pantherina B off B 4 4 4 4 - - SS-W - - 4 - 0 0 0 0 0Juga (O) n. sp. 2 A off A 1 1 1 1 - - SS-O - - 3 - 3 7 1 3 0Juga (O) n. sp. 3 A off A 1 3 1 1 - - - - - - - 0 4 0 0 0Lyogyrus n. sp. 1 A off A 1 1 1 1 - - SS - - 3 - 49 61 3 3 0Lyogyrus n. sp. 2 A off A 1 1 1 1 - - SS - - 3 - 3 3 0 0 0Lyogyrus n. sp. 3 A off A 1 3 1 1 - - - - - - - 0 1 0 0 0Megomphix hemphilli 1 1 1 1

- - - -

- - -

North of south boundary of Lincoln, Benton, and Linn Counties, Oregon

off A 1 1 1 1 - - - 813 825 2003 138 139 3

South of south boundary of Lincoln, Benton, and Linn Counties, Oregon

off F 1 1 1 1 - - - 1119 1119 2003 21 23 1

Monadenia chaceana B off B 1 2 1 1 SS SS SS-O - - 3 - 110 125 96 98 211Monadenia churchi off F 1 1 1 1 - - - - - - - 2213 2372 2001 652 652 5611Monadenia fidelis minor A off A 1 1 1 1 - - SS - - 3 - 60 61 37 37 0Monadenia infumata ochromphalus off B 1 1 1 1 - - - - - - - 223 223 2003 0 0 1611Monadenia troglodytes troglodytes A off A 1 1 1 1 - - - SS - 3 - 8 9 0 0 011Monadenia troglodytes wintu A off A 1 1 1 1 - - - SS - 3 - 7 8 0 0 011Oreohelix n. sp. A off A 1 1 1 1 - - SS-W - - 3 - 43 54 43 50 0Pristiloma arcticum crateris A off A B 1 1 1 1 SS - SS-O - - 1 - 90 90 119 119 0Prophysaon coeruleum (Washington and California) A off A 1 1 1 1 - - SS-W SS - 3 - 112 112 18 18 011Trilobopsis roperi A off A 1 1 1 1 - - - SS - 3 - 140 146 0 0 011Trilobopsis tehamana A off A 1 1 1 1 - SS - SS - 3 - 4 7 5 5 011Vertigo n. sp. A off A 1 1 1 1 - - SS-W - - 3 - 1 1 0 0 0Vespericola pressleyi A off A 1 1 1 1 - SS - SS - 3 - 21 21 6 6 011
94

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines Table 2-13. Summary of Environmental Consequences, Survey and Manage Category Assignments, Special Status Species Program Assignments, and Known Site Numbers for All 337 Species and All 4 Alternatives TAXA GROUP Species1 Category Assignment2 for each Alternative Outcomes3, 9 Special Status Species Programs4 Outcomes3 without SSSP5, 9 Known Sites during the last ASR or 2004 FSEIS Additional Known Sites since the last ASR or the 2004 FSEIS10 RMS Sites 6,7 Alt

1

Alt

2

Alt

3

Alt

4

Alt

1

Alt

2

Alt

3

Alt

 4

BLM 

OR

BLM 

CA

FS 

R68 FS R58

Alt

1

Alt

2

Alt

3

Federal Land 

Only Total ASR Year

Federal Land 

Only Total

Vespericola shasta

A off

A 1 1 1 1 - - - SS - 3 - 72 78 0 0 0

Vorticifex klamathensis sinitsini off

E 1 1 1 1 - - SS-O - 1 1 1 0 7 2001 0 0 0

Vorticifex n. sp. 1

E off

E 1 3 1 1 - - - - - - - 0 2 0 0 0

VASCULAR PLANTSArceuthobium tsugense mertensianae (Washington) F off F 1 1 1 1 - - - - - - - 2 2 0 0 -Bensoniella oregana (California)

A off

A 1 1 1 1 SS - SS-O SS - 3 - 3 25 0 0 -

Botrychium minganense (Oregon and California)

A off

A 1 1 1 1 - - SS-O SS - 3 - 13 16 2 2 -

Botrychium montanum

A off

A 1 1 1 1 As - SS-O SS - 1 - 68 68 29 29 -

Coptis asplenifolia

A off

A 1 1 1 1 - - SS-W - - 1 - 21 21 5 5 -

Coptis trifolia

A off

A 1 1 1 1 As - SS-O - - 3 - 2 3 1 1 -

Corydalis aquae-gelidae

A off

A

C 1 1 1 1 SS - SS - - 3 - 102 110 26 26 -

Cypripedium fasciculatum 1 1 1 1

As SS SS SS

2 3 3

Entire Range except WA Eastern Cascades physiographic province

C off

C 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 818 282 285 -

WA Eastern Cascades physiographic province off

C 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 147 147 2002 33 33 -

Cypripedium montanum 2 2 2 1

- SS - SS

- 3 3

Entire range except WA Eastern Cascades physiographic province

C off

C 1 2 2 1 - 3 3 393 424 180 184 -

WA Eastern Cascades physiographic province off

C 3 3 3 1 - 3 3 274 247 2001 21 21 -

Eucephalus vialis

A off

A 1 1 1 1 SS - SS-O - - 3 - 65 89 75 85 -

Galium kamtschaticum (Olympic Peninsula, WA Eastern Cascades, OR & WA Western Cascades physiographic provinces, south of Snoqualmie Pass)

A off

A 1 1 1 1 - - SS - - 1 - 11-14 11-14 2 2 -

Platanthera orbiculata var. orbiculata

C off

C 1 1 1 1 - - - - - - - 146 146 53 54 -

ARTHROPODSCanopy herbivores (south range) F off F 4 4 4 4 - - - - - - - - - - - -Coarse wood chewers (south range) F off F 4 4 4 4 - - - - - - - - - - - -Litter and soil dwelling species (south range) F off F 4 4 4 4 - - - - - - - - - - - -
95

Chapter 2 – The Alternatives

Table 2-13. Summary of Environmental Consequences, Survey and Manage Category Assignments, Special Status Species Program Assignments, and Known Site Numbers for All 337 Species and All 4 Alternatives

TAXA GROUP

Species1

Category

Assignment2 for

each Alternative Outcomes3, 9

Special Status Species

Programs4

Outcomes3

without SSSP5, 9

Known Sites during the

last ASR or 2004 FSEIS

Additional Known Sites 

since the last ASR or the 

2004 FSEIS10 RMS 

Sites

6,7

Alt

1

Alt

2

Alt

3

Alt

4

Alt

1

Alt

2

Alt

3

Alt

 4

BLM 

OR

BLM 

CA

FS 

R68 FS R58

Alt

1

Alt

2

Alt

3

Federal Land 

Only Total ASR Year

Federal Land 

Only Total

Understory and forest gap herbivores (south range) F off F 4 4 4 4 - - - - - - - - - - - -

1 Current taxonomic name. Any differences between these and previous NWFP documents are displayed in Table 3&4-18.2 See Table 2-3 (Alt. 1), Table 2-6 (Alt. 3), or Table 2-7 (Alt. 4) for information about Management Requirements for Category Assignments3 Outcomes:

1 - Sufficient Habitat

2 - Sufficient Habitat but Insufficient Habitat in a Portion of their Range3 - Insufficient Habitat4 - Insufficient Information to Determine and Outcome 4 Actual SSSP assignments. Supplement text uses “assumed” assignments because managers have the discretion to add or remove species outside of the SEIS process. SSSP placement applies to 

entire states (except in the case of the red tree vole), not just the NWFP area. SSSP Codes: 

ss Bureau Sensitive or Forest Service Sensitiveas Bureau Assessmentss-o Sensitive in Oregonss-w Sensitive in Washington 5 Applies only to species assumed to be on one or more SSSP, and only to alternatives where species is “off” Survey and Manage.

6 RMS sites: Please see Table 3&4-16 for more information about the Random Multi-Species Surveys.7 Species removed from Survey and Manage during the process of the 2001 Annual Species Review may not be accurately represented in the RMS Surveys, as surveys may not have been completed.8 FS R-5: Forest Service, Region 5 (California); FS R-6: Forest Service, Region 6 (Oregon and Washington).9 Species outcomes are shown for each species range subdivision made in Survey and Manage. If a species is in two categories (or “off”) in different parts of its range, outcomes are included for both areas. In these cases, outcomes are combined (averaged) for the entire species range (shown as shaded blocks) for use in various summary tables (e.g. 2-9). (Assumed ratings for averaging purposes are also shaded.)10 Additional sites since the last ASR or the 2004 FSEIS. For species with new sites since their last ASR (as indicated by the year in the ASR year column) the known site numbers are the result of a data call with a cutoff date of 11/22/06. For all other species, the data entry deadline was 09/29/06.11 Surveyed as part of the GOBIG2K Survey. See Table 3&4-16 for more information.12 For the Nephroma bellum in this portion of its range, under the scenario of Alternative 4 without SSSP, the outcome is also 2 (sufficient habitat but insufficient habitat in a portion of its range).13 The Red Tree Vole is included in SSSP in the northwestern Oregon Coast area only (North of Highway 20, west of the Willamette Valley).14 Surveyed as part of the Random Double Sample Survey. See Table 3&4-11 for more information.15 Insufficient habitat range-wide, but sufficient habitat in the portion of the range where the species in on one or more SSSP.Note: Site numbers and outcomes are for the NWFP area unless a smaller area is specified with the species name.
96

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines
97

Chapter 3 & 4

Changes since the 2004 FSEIS:

Changes displayed in the July 2006 Draft Supplement or made in response to public 

comments received about that document:

• Species effects discussions have been updated for new information.

• Species effects are provided for species as if they are not added to, or are removed 

from, Agencies’ Special Status Species Programs.

•	 The Late-Successional Forest Ecosystems section has been expanded to address 10-year 

Northwest Forest Plan monitoring results.

•	 A new Survey and Manage Species section has been added to discuss the implications 

of species outcomes and the level of risk potentially created by the Agencies’ 

management activities.

•	 The Wildland and Prescribed Fire section has been totally rewritten. The anticipated 

fuels treatment program is more accurately described as coming from fuel hazard 

inventories rather than from an assumption of duplicating historic wildfire levels. 

Further, effects to the program are displayed against an 80,000 acre per year current 

program level. 

Changes displayed in the January 2007 Supplement to the July 2006 Draft Supplement or 

made in response to comments received about that document:

• The statistical analysis of the Random Multi-Species Surveys is complete, displayed 

on Table 3&4-16 near the end of the chapter, and referenced in various species effects 

discussions. Random plot detections are displayed on the known sites table (Table 2-

13).

• Species effects discussions have been updated for new information, and updated to 

address the new no-action alternative.

• Effects for 42 species in all of their range and an additional 16 in part of their range 

have been added to address the species added by the new No-Action Alternative, 

Alternative 4.

• The effects of the new no-action alternative on Wildland Fire, Timber Harvest, Cost, 

and other non-species specific sections are discussed as, after two years, equivalent to 

the effects for No-Action Alternative 1.

Also:

• Implications of the BLM Western Oregon Plan Revision and other management actions 

have been updated in the Cumulative Impacts section.

• Species known site numbers have been updated for new information and continued 

data checking and analysis.

• Costs have been updated for inflation.

• Species outcomes have changed based on new information.

• The Global Climate section has been expanded in response to public comments.

Minor corrections, explanations, and edits are not included in this list.
98

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines
99

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences

Introduction

Chapter 3 (Affected Environment) and Chapter 4 (Environmental Consequences) are 

combined in this document, as was done in the Northwest Forest Plan Final SEIS (USDA, 

USDI 1994a), to more clearly present information to the readers. The text is ordered 

by first describing a resource or environmental component, and then describing the 

environmental consequences to that resource or component.

This chapter describes aspects of the environment likely to be most directly affected by 

the proposed management. This chapter also describes the effects (direct, indirect, and 

cumulative) of management under the alternatives. Together, these descriptions form 

the scientific and analytic basis for the Comparison of Effects of the Alternatives section in 

Chapter 2. Additional information regarding the existing environment may be found in 

the 2000 Survey and Manage Final SEIS.

Relationship of this SEIS to the Northwest Forest Plan 

Final SEIS and the 2000 Survey and Manage Final SEIS

The Final SEIS (1994) for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land 

Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl 

(the Northwest Forest Plan) is referred to as the 1994 Final SEIS or the 1994 Northwest 

Forest Plan Final SEIS. The Final SEIS (2000) for Amendment to the Survey and Manage, 

Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines is referred to 

as the 2000 Final SEIS or the 2000 Survey and Manage Final SEIS.

This SEIS supplements the analysis contained in the 2000 Survey and Manage Final SEIS, 

and the 1994 Northwest Forest Plan Final SEIS. Whenever a broad environmental impact 

statement has been prepared and a subsequent environmental impact statement is then 

prepared on an action within the entire program, the subsequent environmental impact 

statement need only summarize the issues discussed in the broader environmental 

impact statement and incorporate by reference the discussions from the broader 

statement (40 CFR 1502.20). Appendix 8 contains a summary of the species analyses from 

the previous two Final SEISs. 

Additional information is incorporated, where appropriate, from the Forest Ecosystem 

Management: An Ecological, Economic, and Social Assessment: Report of the Forest 

Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (FEMAT) 1993, as well as from the 2001, 2002, 

and 2003 Annual Species Reviews of Survey and Manage species.

The analysis of environmental consequences of Alternative 1 in the 2000 Survey and 

Manage Final SEIS is the analytical equivalent of Alternative 1 (one of the no-action 

alternatives) in this SEIS. A feature of this alternative is that 58 species have been 

removed from Survey and Manage in all or part of their Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) 

area range, and another 32 are in different categories in all or part of their NWFP 

area range, as a result of the 2001, 2002, and 2003 Annual Species Reviews conducted 

according to the Standards and Guidelines of this alternative. For the sake of brevity, the 

effects analysis for Alternative 1 in this SEIS only includes the outcomes from the 2000 

Final SEIS. The complete analysis from the 2000 Final SEIS is incorporated by reference. 

Outcomes for the 58 species previously removed by the 2001-2003 ASRs from Survey and 

Manage are also included.
100

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

The analysis of environmental consequences for Alternative 2 includes consideration 

of the analysis from the 2000 Final SEIS, the 1994 Final SEIS, and FEMAT, as well as 

information from the 2001, 2002, and 2003 Annual Species Reviews of Survey and 

Manage species. 

Alternative 3 combines elements of Alternative 1 with elements of Alternative 2. As 

a result, much of the analysis of Alternative 3 can be interpolated from the analysis of 

Alternatives 1 and 2.

Alternative 4, the other no-action alternative, is essentially the same as Alternative 1 

except this alternative retains (on Survey and Manage) all 337 species and categories 

in effect prior to the conduct of the 2001, 2002, and 2003 Annual Species Reviews. For 

other, non-species-specific resource effects, an analysis assumption for Alternative 4 is 

that if it is selected, an Annual Species Review supported by appropriate NEPA would 

be completed within one to two years, and the species remaining on Survey and Manage 

would most likely be the same as those included in Alternative 1 today. Therefore, in the 

longer term, effects to timber harvest, fuels treatments, and other non-species-specific 

resources would be same as those described for Alternative 1. Only in the short term 

then, would these alternate versions of no-action be expected to differ.

The analysis of environmental consequences in this SEIS is limited to those consequences 

that would result from the actions described in the alternatives. Many aspects of the 

alternatives in this SEIS have already been thoroughly analyzed in FEMAT, the 1994 

Final SEIS, and the 2000 Final SEIS. During the Annual Species Review process, new 

information was considered where available and changes to the Survey and Manage 

Program were made as appropriate (Alternative 1). A summary of that information is 

presented in Appendix 9. For all species in this analysis, new information that would 

substantially change the conclusions provided in these earlier documents is presented 

and applied where applicable. 

Environmental consequences described in the 1994 Final SEIS relating to other aspects 

and elements of the Northwest Forest Plan, which are unchanged by the alternatives 

in this SEIS or time, are assumed to remain valid. Ten-year Northwest Forest Plan 

monitoring has routinely confirmed the accuracy of those consequences, or determined 

that the 1994 projections were more pessimistic than evidence now shows.

The 2000 Final SEIS did not propose a major change in Survey and Manage. The 

proposed action in 2000 was limited to correcting Survey and Manage implementation 

difficulties. The resultant decision clarified required management, removed unnecessary 

and duplicative or conflicting requirements, removed species found to be much more 

common than anticipated, added a process for changing species between categories, 

and added a process for adding or removing species from Survey and Manage based on 

new information. The 2000 Final SEIS did not re-examine whether Survey and Manage 

was needed to meet the requirements of the 1982 NFMA, FLPMA, or the O&C Act, 

and let stand the 1994 statement in Appendix J2 that the analysis screens leading to the 

adoption of Survey and Manage and seven other mitigation measures did “not represent 

a judgment about what is required by either the National Forest Management Act 

(NFMA) or the Endangered Species Act (ESA).” The 2000 Final SEIS simply indicated 

there was not enough experience with the Survey and Manage provision itself to justify 

an alternative specifying its removal at that time.

To provide sideboards for the alternatives, the 2000 Final SEIS introduced the term 

“persistence objective” as “providing for roughly the same likelihood of persistence as that 

which was provided by the Northwest Forest Plan as originally adopted in the 1994 ROD” 

(USDA, USDI 2000a:42). The 2000 Final SEIS did not establish, define, or assume a legal 

requirement with respect to persistence. It simply referenced the level of protection 

provided by the Plan. 
101

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Similarly, the 2000 Final SEIS did not define or attempt to rebalance the objectives of 

the Plan. Those objectives remain as President Clinton established them: “The need 

to protect long term health of our forests, our wildlife and our waterways...” and ... 

“produce a predictable and sustainable level of timber sales and non timber resources 

that will not degrade or destroy the environment” (USDA, USDI 1994a:1-4; USDA, USDI 

1994b:3). Survey and Manage was not a foundational objective of the Plan. Rather, 

Survey and Manage was a mitigation measure adopted to help “avoid, rectify, reduce, 

or eliminate potentially adverse environmental impacts of forest management activities” 

expected under the basic elements of the Northwest Forest Plan (USDA, USDI 1994b:29). 

As noted on page 10 of the 2000 Final SEIS, the evidence and experience in 2000 did not 

suggest a need for fundamental restructuring of Survey and Manage Standards and 

Guidelines at that time, nor did it suggest alternatives to satisfy the Plan’s foundational 

objectives. The purposes of the 2000 Final SEIS, and the resulting decisions were 

narrowly focused, and were therefore quite different from those of this SEIS. 

In discussing the origin of the Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines, the 2000 

Final SEIS noted that “Survey and Manage and other mitigation measures were designed 

to provide additional benefits to species while maintaining the balance between latesuccessional and old-growth forest habitat and forest products” (USDA, USDI 2000a:8). 

Of the alternatives examined in 1994, the selected alternative “was deemed to provide 

the most appropriate level of management for late-successional and old-growth forest 

related species while providing a sustainable and predictable level of timber harvest 

and other forest uses. The benefits or detriments of the adopted mitigation measures on 

environmental, economic, and social consequences were anticipated to have ‘relatively 

minor’ changes on expected effects of the alternatives” (USDA, USDI 1994a:3&4-39; 

USDA, USDI 2000a:8). Chapter 1 (Purpose and Need) notes that in 1994, Survey and 

Manage was predicted to decrease Probable Sale Quantity (PSQ) by 6 million board feet 

annually (MMBF) and “add to the uncertainty of the PSQ calculations”; in the 2000 Final 

SEIS the PSQ decrease was estimated at 51 MMBF, and is now estimated at 105 MMBF 

(see Timber Harvest later in this chapter). That this effect no longer maintains the balance, 

and no longer results in relatively minor changes on expected effects, are presented as 

part of the frustration of the “Need” for healthy forest ecosystems and a sustainable 

supply of timber and other forest products (Chapter 1).

The system of Late-Successional and other reserves provide the Plan’s primary 

management for late-successional and old-growth forest associated species including 

those on Survey and Manage (USDA, USDI 2000a:26). The mitigation of Survey and 

Manage was established for species whose persistence was uncertain to be provided 

by the reserves and other elements of the Northwest Forest Plan. The FEMAT had 

originally expressed concern about these species 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:II34). However, in comparing alternatives, the FEMAT found both numbers of species 

as well as individuals within a species responded favorably to increased protection of 

late-successional forest (USDA et al. 1993:II-29). The Agencies’ Northwest Forest Plan 

monitoring report Status and Trend of Late-Successional and Old-Growth Forest similarly 

noted a link between the likelihood of maintaining the viability of species and the 

likelihood of maintaining a functional, interacting older forest ecosystem on federal 

lands. The monitoring report went on to report older forest abundance, diversity, 

and connectivity to be within the range of natural variability, except perhaps, for the 

provinces of the eastern Cascades, a condition the FEMAT predicted as 63 percent likely 

on the eastside, and 77 percent likely on the westside, in 100 years (Moeur et al. 2005). 

These findings are significant to Survey and Manage species, and are discussed in more 

detail in the Late-Successional Forest Ecosystems section later in this Final Supplement.

The FEMAT did not add Survey and Manage. The senior FEMAT scientists took the view 

that there was sufficient late-successional and old-growth forest in reserves to protect 
102

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

these species, and that further protections should await evidence of risk (Thomas et al. 

2006). These scientists recommend that management:

“Focus species-specific protection on endangered, threatened, and at-risk species. 

Management plans can cope with only a limited number of individual species if they are 

to be effective. Franklin (1993), for example, argues that “larger-scale approaches – at the 

level of ecosystems and landscapes – are the only way to conserve the overwhelming mass 

– the millions of species- of existing biodiversity.” Thus, we generally advocate a coarsefilter approach in which we rely on ecosystem diversity to provide for maintenance of species 

diversity. We recognize, however, that additional species-level criteria will often be needed. 

Clearly a fine-filter approach is required for federally threatened and endangered species. 

It is also prudent to recognize species whose habitat, without special consideration, might 

deteriorate sufficiently so as to require listing under our Endangered Species Act. The new 

USFS planning rules and directives provide an example of this approach ... They call for 

forest plans to provide for appropriate ecological conditions for threatened and endangered 

species and species of concern, with “species of concern” being those species that might 

require listing as threatened without special action. Furthermore the directives suggest use 

of lists from credible independent sources (“NatureServe”) in making that determination” 

(Thomas et al. 2006). 

This is precisely what the proposed action suggests.

Survey and Manage was adopted to address concerns related to uncertainty, endemism, 

small populations sizes, association with scarce habitats, and impacts from previous 

management (USDA, USDI 2000a:26). When the 2000 Final SEIS was written, the 

Agencies did not have enough species information, habitat information, or experience 

implementing the standard to adequately address alternatives to it. Since then, the 

Agencies have more than twice the years of experience implementing the Survey and 

Manage standard. Survey Protocol and Management Recommendation documents are in 

use for most species, tens of thousands of sites have been discovered, and the field work 

for over 700 Random Multi-Species (RMS) Survey sites and other Strategic Surveys are 

completed and statistically analyzed. This last item provides much of the information 

sought by the original Survey and Manage Categories 3 (extensive surveys) and 4 

(general regional surveys). This and other information about Survey and Manage species 

is discussed in the Survey and Manage Species section later in this Final Supplement.

Incomplete or Unavailable Information 

The management of natural resources and the analysis in the Northwest Forest Plan Final 

SEIS has been surrounded by public and scientific controversy. The Northwest Forest 

Plan Final SEIS acknowledged this controversy. The public and scientific controversy 

concerning natural resource management in the Pacific Northwest has continued to the 

present time. Additionally, the amount of information available for description and 

analysis varies greatly by species and taxa managed under the Survey and Manage 

Standards and Guidelines. 

One step in preparing an environmental impact statement is to evaluate whether 

information about effects of a proposed action is incomplete or unavailable and, if so, to 

disclose that fact and make certain findings about the relevance, importance, and/or costs 

of acquiring data that could help fill any such gaps. Much of the discussion concerning 

these issues in the Northwest Forest Plan Final SEIS (pp. 3&4-3 and 3&4-4) and the 2000 

Final SEIS (pp. 180-182) remains relevant for purposes of the analysis in this SEIS and is 

specifically tiered to and incorporated by reference. 

When encountering a gap in information, the question implicit in the Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 CFR 1502.22(a)) on incomplete or 
103

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

unavailable information was posed: Is this information “essential to a reasoned choice 

among alternatives?” While additional information would often add precision to 

estimates, the basic data and central relationships are sufficiently well established that 

any new information would not likely reverse or nullify relationships. Though new 

information would be welcome, no missing information is essential to a reasoned choice 

among the alternatives.

As noted throughout the species analyses in this SEIS, there is much that remains 

unknown about many of the species subject to analysis. Despite more than 5 years and 

tens of millions of dollars spent on surveys, it is unknown how many sites are located in 

reserves because they have not been surveyed to the same degree as Matrix and Adaptive 

Management Area lands. In fact, for dozens of species, no new sites have been found 

anywhere since the FEMAT analysis, and ten have no known sites within the NWFP area 

at all. Although some species are thought to be closely associated with late-successional 

and old-growth (LSOG) forests, for some species, the strength of this association is not 

well known. Connectivity and habitat needs, range, and other specific information for 

many species are unknown or uncertain. For many species, it is still unknown if the 

reserve system and other standards and guidelines provide for a reasonable assurance 

of persistence or if they are associated with LSOG forests. Any discussion of risk based 

on rarity and likelihood of disturbance must recognize that, for most species, only a 

small percentage of potential habitat has been surveyed. In situations where limited 

species-specific information is available, more reliance, by necessity, must be placed 

on information regarding the condition and management of the overall landscape in 

formulating conclusions regarding environmental consequences. The best available 

information was used to evaluate the alternatives. 

Of the 337 species analyzed here, the analysis indicates there are 20 species (and 

4 arthropod groups) with insufficient information to determine an outcome, and 

132 species (and one in part of its range) with insufficient habitat to support stable 

populations under all alternatives. The risk that one or more of these species could be 

extirpated from the NWFP area, and the change in that risk between alternatives, is 

unknown. Over 700 random survey plots, as well as other surveys, have been done; 

the cost of obtaining additional information about these species is prohibitive; they 

have been included in the Survey and Manage Program for over 10 years in large part 

because little is known about them. The effect of such a loss to ecosystem function is 

also unknown. These risks and implications are discussed in the Survey and Manage 

Species and Late-Successional Forest Ecosystem sections in this chapter. For an additional 

53 species, effects writers have assigned an outcome of insufficient habitat to support 

stable populations in all or part of their NWFP area range under Alternative 2, 11 species 

receive this outcome prediction under Alternative 3, and 2 receive this outcome for part 

of their range under Alternative 1. As discussed in the Survey and Manage Species section, 

outcomes are based on the species’ reference distribution and may not necessarily be a 

good predictor of extirpation from the NWFP area. These species, and the implications of 

risk, are also discussed in the new Survey and Manage Species and Late-Successional Forest 

Ecosystem sections in this chapter.

As described in the Timber Harvest and Wildland and Prescribed Fire sections, the area 

expected to be managed as known species sites is projected from pre-disturbance 

survey detection rates, and then the more common species projections are capped to 

simulate their removal from Survey and Manage during the Annual Species Review 

process. A public comment between the Draft and Final Supplements suggested that 

with the completion of the Random Multi-Species (RMS) Survey, additional species 

would be removed (by the Annual Species Review process) from Survey and Manage. 

If these were not accounted for, the impacts to timber sales and fuel treatments would 

be overestimated (see public comment and response in the Timber Harvest section of 

Appendix 11). Since the RMS Survey was completed after the 2004 removal of Survey 

and Manage, it is true the Agencies have little experience upon which to predict these 
104

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

additional species removals and therefore adverse effects to timber harvest and fuels 

treatments may be slightly overestimated for Alternatives 1 and 4 and to a smaller 

degree, Alternative 3. However, species removal rates were reconsidered between the 

2003 Draft and the 2004 FSEIS because of the 2001 and 2002 Species Reviews. Also, 

as part of the PSQ analysis, species 1997-2001 site detection rates were doubled for all 

Category B species for seven years, to reflect sites expected to be found with the RMS 

and other Strategic Surveys. While designed primarily to accommodate the actual site 

impacts, this doubling probably goes a long way in accommodating Strategic Survey 

result extrapolations as well, since such surveys are the most likely source of information 

that will result in removal of Category B species, those for which pre-disturbance 

surveys are not practical and therefore will not be located in other ways. Any additional 

unmeasured effects to timber harvest and fuels treatment must be very small. Most 

effects to fuels treatment, timber harvest, and so forth come from managing sites of the 

more common species, and these are already predicted to be removed from Survey and 

Manage as known site levels increase. An increase in species removals based even in part 

on results of the RMS Survey would be ones with fewer known sites, which are therefore 

a relatively small portion of the timber and fuels effects calculations – no more than 5 to 

10 percent. If the conservative interpretations of the RMS Survey used by taxa specialists 

as described in the individual species discussions later in this chapter are an indication 

of how the RMS Survey would be used during the Annual Species Reviews, species 

removals based on the RMS Survey would likely change the timber and fuels effects less 

than five percent from those described later in this chapter. 

Assumptions and Information Common to All 

Alternatives

The land allocations and Northwest Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines provide 

direction for retention, protection, and development of late-successional forest. 

•	 Reserves - Congressionally Reserved, Late-Successional Reserves, Administratively 

Withdrawn Areas, and Riparian Reserves encompass about 81 percent of the NWFP 

area and 87 percent of the existing late-successional forest. In-growth since the Plan 

was adopted has increased this total to approximately 8.1 million acres. The objectives 

of these reserves are to provide for protection and development of late-successional 

forest. These reserves were originally about 34 percent late-successional forest. Tenyear monitoring indicates in-growth has increased this amount, on average, to over 40 

percent. 

	 	Late-Successional Reserves and Congressionally Reserved - Late-Successional 

Reserves were designed around the most ecologically significant existing latesuccessional forest. Late-Successional Reserves and Congressionally Reserved Areas 

designate 60 percent of federally managed lands in large block reserves. Forested 

portions of these reserves are being managed for the creation of large blocks of latesuccessional forest habitat. Smaller Late-Successional Reserves were also designated 

around known spotted owl activity centers and occupied marbled murrelet 

sites. These Late-Successional Reserves provide additional protection of the latesuccessional forest associated with these sites. 

	 	Administratively Withdrawn Areas - The current land and resource management 

plans have administratively withdrawn an additional six percent of federally 

managed lands, which protect and preserve existing resource values. While the 

objectives of some of these areas (such as recreation facilities) are not to provide for 

protection and development of late-successional forest, most of these areas contain 

late-successional forest and incidentally protect them. Examples of administratively 

withdrawn areas include Research Natural Areas, Areas of Critical Environmental 

Concern, Scenic Areas, fragile sites not suitable for long-term timber production, 
105

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

unique habitat areas (caves, meadows, wetlands, etc.), recreation areas, and wildlife 

management areas (eagles, peregrine falcon, etc.). 

	 	Riparian Reserves - The Riparian Reserve network adopted under the Northwest 

Forest Plan was the most extensive among the alternatives considered. In 1994, the 

Riparian Reserves were estimated to encompass 40 percent of federally managed 

lands. Since 1994, revised estimates have indicated as much as an additional 

10 percent of federally managed lands are in Riparian Reserves. This reserve 

component spans the full range of forest conditions including late-successional 

forest and provides a network of reserve lands intermingled throughout Matrix 

lands. Riparian Reserves are managed to protect water courses, and that 

management includes developing and protecting late-successional forest in riparian 

areas. The 1994 Record of Decision specifically doubled the width of the narrowest 

category of Riparian Reserves (from the widths recommended by the FEMAT) as 

a mitigation measure to benefit most of the same species included on Survey and 

Manage. 

•	 Matrix and Adaptive Management Areas – Thirteen percent of the existing latesuccessional forest (originally 1.1 million acres but currently more than 1.2 million 

acres because of in-growth and lower-than-expected harvest rates) is assumed to be 

available for harvest within the Matrix and Adaptive Management Areas in support of 

the Probable Sale Quantity (PSQ) objectives of the Northwest Forest Plan.

	 	Matrix management activities, including regeneration harvest, partial cut harvest, 

and prescribed fire, are expected to modify about 5 percent of the existing latesuccessional forest in the Matrix/AMAs over the next decade (see Figure 3&4-1).1

,

2

 

	 	Matrix Standards and Guidelines provide for retention of legacy elements of latesuccessional forest after harvest such as snags, large green trees, and down logs. 

There are also provisions for retaining old-growth fragments in watersheds where 

little remains.

	 	The lands available for harvest in the Matrix contain all seral stages. The 

management of some of these lands, particularly in the southern half of the 

Northwest Forest Plan, is under longer rotations and partial cut regimes that will 

maintain some forest in older stages of stand development at all times.

Of the 24.5 million acres under the Northwest Forest Plan, over 9.3 million acres are now 

late-successional forest (Figure 3&4-1). The existing distribution and spatial patterns 

of this late-successional forest are the result of past land management activities, natural 

disturbances, the land allocations designated prior to the Northwest Forest Plan, and ingrowth. 

Under the assumptions of the Northwest Forest Plan, much of the original 1.1 million 

acres of late-successional forest in the Matrix and Adaptive Management Areas would be 

harvested over the next 40 to 50 years. During this same timeframe, with the Northwest 

Forest Plan assumptions for harvest and stand replacement fire, it is estimated the 

overall amount of late-successional forest will increase by 2.7 million acres due to the 

development of late-successional forest in reserves (see Figure 3&4-2). Although the 

Biscuit Fire was large, with approximately 204,000 acres containing stands with high fire 

mortality (USDA 2003b), the Northwest Forest Plan SEIS (p. 3&4-84) acknowledged the 

potential for this type of disturbance. It said, “The risk of large-scale wildfire in Northern 

Spotted Owl habitat is greatest within the dry provinces.” Acknowledging the variability 

of fire events that analysis assumed that 12.5 percent of the reserves would 

1

The Northwest Forest Plan Biological Opinion assumed that 2.5 percent of existing owl habitat will be removed as suitable 

habitat through timber harvest. Figure 3&4-1 differs from the Biological Opinion assumption in that it displays all latesuccessional forest not just owl habitat. Further, the 2.5- 4 percent is “modified” not “removed” by activities such as prescribed 

fire, partial cuts, and forest health treatments as well as regeneration harvest.

2

An additional 2 percent in reserves would be subject to modification by fuel treatments at full implementation levels, but such 

treatments usually retain (albeit usually reduced at least in the short term) late-successional forest characteristics. 
106

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Figure 3&4-1. Late-Succesional Forest in the Northwest Forest Plan Area – 

Second Decade

be subject to severe disturbance over 50 years (USDA, USDI 1994a:3&4-42). Ten-year 

monitoring results indicate late-successional forest within the Oregon Klamath Province, 

the province most affected by the Biscuit Fire, is 34 percent; the same as in 1994 when the 

Northwest Forest Plan was adopted.

Ten-year Northwest Forest Plan monitoring found first decade in-growth has been about 

twice the predicted rate (Moeur et al. 2005); see further discussion in the Late-Successional 

Forest Ecosystem section later in this chapter.

The development of forest over time occurs across the full spectrum of late-successional 

forests, including old-growth, so acreage increases due to in-growth do not necessarily 

mean the age-class distribution is more heavily weighted toward younger forests. Latesuccessional forest is increasing at 2.5 times the rate of loss that occurs through stand 

replacement fire and harvest. The relative amounts in reserves and Matrix (as shown in 

Figure 3&4-2) have been adjusted to account for the assumed increase in reserves as a 

result of the 15 percent reduction in PSQ which has occurred since the beginning of the 

Northwest Forest Plan (see Timber Harvest Section).

Conclusions regarding the environmental consequences of the alternatives are based 

on specific species information, information about the landscape, and assumptions 

regarding management actions. Information and assumptions regarding federally 

managed lands that are common to all alternatives include:

•	 The Northwest Forest Plan incorporates conservation principles of maintaining: 

(1) connectivity across the landscape; (2) landscape heterogeneity; (3) structural 

complexity; and, (4) the integrity of aquatic systems;

•	 81 percent of the NWFP area is reserved (see Figures 3&4-2 and 3&4-3);
107

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

•	 86 percent of current late-successional forest is reserved (see Figure 3&4-1);

•	 Less than 5 percent of late-successional forest will be disturbed by management per 

decade, and less than 14 percent in the first 50 years;

•	 Development of late-successional forest is 2.5 times the rate of loss through stand 

replacement fire and harvest (see Figure 3&4-2);

•	 Under the Northwest Forest Plan, there is a 600,000-acre net increase in latesuccessional forest predicted per decade (although monitoring indicates the actual 

increase in the first decade has been twice that), and a 2.7 million-acre net increase in 

late-successional forest over 5 decades;

•	 On average, 40 to 50 percent of any watershed is reserved by the application of 

Riparian Reserves; and 

•	 The 1994 Final SEIS and FEMAT concluded the Northwest Forest Plan would provide 

for maintenance and restoration of a functional and interconnected late-successional 

forest ecosystem, and ten-year monitoring indicates those parameters are now 

essentially within the lower end of their historic range.

New Information

This subject was addressed in the 2000 Survey and Manage Final SEIS (pp. 183-187) 

which this SEIS supplements. This SEIS only addresses new information since the 2000 

Final SEIS was prepared. 

Figure 3&4-2. Development of Late-Successional Forest Over Time
108

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

One of the primary events that has taken place since the 2000 Survey and Manage Final 

SEIS is the occurrence of wildfire. In the summer of 2002, wildfires burned many acres 

of federally managed lands within the NWFP area. Fires burned with varying degrees 

of intensity. Low-intensity ground fires consumed light fuels while leaving much of the 

forest structure intact. Other forested areas were completely consumed in high-intensity, 

stand-replacing fires. Effects to Survey and Manage species probably varied with the 

intensity of the fires. Some species that depend on fire probably benefited while others 

that do not tolerate fire may have been killed or displaced. However, it is important 

to recognize that late-successional forests in the planning area are dynamic and have 

historically experienced varying levels of disturbance from fire, windstorms, insects, and 

disease. Survey and Manage species have evolved within this ecosystem.

A Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the Biscuit Fire Recovery Project was 

completed in June 2004. The fire burned in a mosaic pattern; approximately 20 percent of 

the area burned lightly, with less than 25 percent of the vegetation killed. Approximately 

50 percent of the area burned very hot, with more than 75 percent of the vegetation 

killed. The analysis in the Biscuit Fire EIS refers to a fire history analysis of the KlamathSiskiyou Region of northwest California and southwest Oregon (Frost and Sweeney 

2000) which stated “... initial analysis of 20th Century fire history suggests that forests of 

the Klamath-Siskiyou Region have experienced a reduction in both the total amount of 

area burned and the average fire size since the middle of the 1900’s ...” It continued with 

the hypothesis that “... fire suppression has been somewhat effective at reducing area 

burned at low and moderate intensities - when fire sizes are likely to be small - but not at 

high intensities when extreme conditions typically exist and allow fires to grow to large 

Figure 3&4-3. Original Northwest Forest Plan Land Allocations and 

Late-Successional Forest.
109

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

size.” And, “while high intensity fires may now comprise a larger proportion of total 

area burned than before 1950, this does not necessarily imply that the size or frequency 

of large fire events is outside the historic range” (USDA, USDI 2004b:III-28). Moeur 

et al. 2005 reported 10-year Northwest Forest Plan-wide late-successional forest losses 

to fire of 1.3 percent (102,500 acres), of which 78,700 acres were lost in the 2002 Biscuit 

fire, affecting 21 percent of the late-successional forests in Congressionally Reserved 

and Administratively Withdrawn land allocations in the Oregon Klamath Province, 

and 7 percent of the Late-Successional Reserves. These are acres of stand-replacement 

intensity fire; other acres were affected to a lesser degree. The overall late-successional 

forest percentage in the Oregon Klamath Province is 34 percent, or within the range of 

expectation. There is currently no information that indicates that the fires of 2002 are 

inconsistent with assumptions made in the Northwest Forest Plan Final SEIS regarding 

the importance of hazardous fuels reduction or the predicted amount of disturbance due 

to fires.

A data call for new species site information for the 295 species in the 2004 FSEIS was sent 

to Agencies’ administrative units on March 8, 2006, and resultant new data was used to 

update Agencies’ databases, which in turn were used to compile data for this analysis. 

When the Agencies decided to add Alternative 4 in November 2006, an additional data 

call was initiated for information about the 42 species new to that alternative. The 

numbers of sites known for each species, as well as new sites reported since the data 

cutoff date for the 2004 FSEIS (or, for the 42 new species, since the Annual Species 

Review), are shown in Table 2-13 at the end of Chapter 2. New site data, new research, 

and other publications, as well as new information about threats and other activities, 

have been considered and used to help determine the effects of the different alternatives 

to each individual species discussed later in this chapter. More than 25 species outcomes 

have changed since the 2004 FSEIS, and 58 new species are analyzed in all or part of their 

NWFP area range. 

Monitoring of the Northwest Forest Plan has indicated the Agencies have a high degree 

of fidelity in implementing the Standards and Guidelines as written. The 2005 field 

season marked the tenth consecutive year of the Northwest Forest Plan implementation 

monitoring program. This program is designed to determine whether the Record of 

Decision and its corresponding Standards and Guidelines are consistently followed 

across the NWFP area. Overall, compliance in meeting the Northwest Forest Plan 

Standards and Guidelines was 97 percent for the 24 projects and watersheds monitored 

in 2005. The assumed level of timber sales under the Northwest Forest Plan has not 

been achieved for a variety of reasons including greater than anticipated effects from the 

Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines and lawsuits. 

It is important to understand the relationship of monitoring and information to 

mitigation. New information is always welcome and often facilitates decision-making 

and adaptive management. Additional information may allow a more accurate 

management of risk. Monitoring is often an important source of new information. 

Although monitoring and gaining new or additional information are important, they are 

not mitigation measures that reduce the environmental consequences of management 

actions. For instance, monitoring or completing research on water temperature would 

not mitigate a management action that removed shade from streams. Gaining new 

information can aid the adaptive management process, but it does not predetermine 

what specific management decisions will be taken in response to that information. New 

information does not have a direct mitigating effect on the environmental consequences 

of management actions. 

Both the Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines and the Special Status Species 

Programs (SSSPs) have mechanisms to obtain new information. The Survey and 

Manage Standards and Guidelines arguably have the more intensive and uniform 

strategy to accomplish information gathering. In general, new information facilitates 
110

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

decision-making and adaptive management. It is not possible to attribute a reduction 

of specific environmental consequences from information gathering and the facilitation 

of adaptive management. Even though a direct link to environmental consequences is 

not attributable to information gathering and monitoring, these are the basis of adaptive 

management and informed decision-making.

Adaptive Management

The Northwest Forest Plan requires adaptive management. Adaptive management is a 

continuing process of action-based planning, monitoring, researching, evaluating, and 

adjusting with the objective of improving implementation and achieving the goals of the 

selected alternative. Under the concept of adaptive management, new information will 

be evaluated and a decision will be made whether to make adjustments. Each alternative 

provides for acquiring and utilizing additional information to improve management 

direction for species. Alternatives 1, 3, and 4 prescribe Strategic Surveys to obtain new 

information and the Annual Species Review process to evaluate new information relating 

to species currently included in the Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines. One 

type of Strategic Survey is a random-grid survey (see Species Site Information Sources in 

the Background for Effects Analysis section later in this chapter). Region-wide, randomgrid surveys (the Random Multi-Species (RMS) Surveys for most Survey and Manage 

fungi, lichens, bryophytes, and mollusks, and the Random Double-Sample (RDS) Survey 

for red tree vole) were completed and analyzed in 2006. These surveys were conducted 

on existing, randomly selected Current Vegetation Survey (CVS)/Forest Inventory 

and Analysis (FIA) plots. The objectives of the surveys were to estimate species’ 

abundances throughout the NWFP area and to determine if species are associated with 

late-successional/old-growth habitats and reserve land allocations. For all alternatives, 

the Agencies’ Species Status Species Programs also provide for evaluation of new 

information regarding species. If the Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines were 

eliminated as described under Alternative 2, it is expected that the results of the above 

surveys would be used in guiding species management under the Agencies’ Special 

Status Species Programs.

Cumulative Impacts 

Cumulative impacts to the environment are defined in the CEQ regulations as those 

that result from the incremental effects of a proposed action when added to other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of which agency or person 

undertakes them (40 CFR 1508.7). Given the programmatic nature and scale of this SEIS, 

the environmental consequences represent a general projection of the accumulated effects 

of management actions that are reasonably assumed to occur given the current status of 

federally managed lands and the full compliance of the Northwest Forest Plan Standards 

and Guidelines.

The cumulative effects analysis in Chapter 3&4 of the Northwest Forest Plan Final 

SEIS, including Appendix J2, and in the 2000 Survey and Manage Final SEIS, addressed 

in detail the cumulative effects relating to species that are the subject of the analysis 

in this SEIS. The extensive cumulative effects analysis in these documents, as well as 

that contained in FEMAT, is incorporated by reference in this SEIS. The analysis and 

conclusions contained in the environmental consequences sections of this SEIS have 

considered new information as well as information contained in FEMAT and other 

Final SEISs. As in the previous efforts, the primary focus of the analysis in this SEIS is 

on federally managed lands, “The intent was and continues to be to make explicit the 

‘benefit expected to accrue to ... species ... from habitat provided on federally managed 

lands under each of the alternatives’” (USDA, USDI 1994a, Appendix J3).
111

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

New actions taking place at a scale that could affect many species, or affect the 

programmatic nature of the alternatives included in this analysis, are described below. 

Land management actions at the site-specific scale, such as the likely disturbance of 

a specific species site, the operation and use of a reservoir upstream from an aquatic 

species site, or a proposal to dam and flood most of the known habitat for a specific 

species, are considered and displayed in the discussions for the affected species later in 

this chapter.

The Agencies proposed to amend the Northwest Forest Plan to clarify the proper spatial 

and temporal scale for evaluating progress toward attainment of Aquatic Conservation 

Strategy (ACS) objectives and clarify that no project-level finding of consistency with 

the ACS objectives was required. An October 2003 FSEIS explained the proposal was 

consistent with the original intent of the report prepared by the Forest Ecosystem 

Management Assessment Team. A decision selecting the proposed action was issued 

in March 2004. That decision was set aside on March 30, 2007 by the U.S. District Court 

of the Western District of Washington. The analysis in this Final Supplement assumes 

implementation of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy with the 2004 amendment. A 

change in assuming implementation of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy without the 

2004 amendment does not alter the expected effects of the Survey and Manage proposal 

because the process in which consistency with ACS objectives is being evaluated has no 

bearing on the determination of effects under the four alternatives.

Changes have been made to the Forest Service appeal rule (36 CFR 215), and changes 

have been made for categorical exclusions for both Agencies. Neither of these changes 

affects the design of projects that comply with Northwest Forest Plan Standards and 

Guidelines and land allocations. These rule changes did not increase PSQ, but they are 

likely to contribute to agency success in meeting the PSQ. Changes were made to the 

Forest Service planning rule in 2005 (36 CFR 219), but implementation of those changes 

was recently enjoined by the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of California. As 

explained in Chapter 2, this supplement continues to use the Forest Service 1982 planning 

rule.

The Forest Service amended land and resource management plans for all Forests in 

Oregon and Washington (in and out of the NWFP area) on November 9, 2005, with an 

Invasive Plant treatment strategy. The April 2005 analysis indicates herbicide harm 

to amphibians was one of the identified issues, but that the risk under the selected 

alternative was low (similar to the risk for fish), and noted the Agency’s Special Status 

Species Program direction would be followed for all projects (all Survey and Manage 

amphibians are included in the Region 6 (Oregon and Washington Forest Service) 

Special Status Species Program). The analysis noted, “Any short-term adverse effects 

would be largely offset by the long-term benefits to these species from protecting their 

habitat from loss due to invasive plants” (USDA 2005b:4-55). The adopted strategy is 

similarly sensitive to vascular plants, again noting they are sensitive to invasive plants 

and carefully designed control strategies would be beneficial. A similar BLM western 

U.S. strategy is in preparation and is intended (among other things) to address problems 

identified in court injunctions from the 1980’s that continue to restrict BLM herbicide use. 

A BLM and Forest Service Port-Orford-cedar SEIS resulted in amending three BLM 

District and one National Forest land and resource management plans in 2004, improving 

existing controls for the control of Port-Orford-cedar root disease. No part of the adopted 

strategy is anticipated to have negative effects for Survey and Manage species. The 

SEIS resulted from a need to address cumulative effects as directed by the Kern v. BLM

decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 

The Forest Service is beginning land and resource management plan revisions, with 

the Wenatchee/Okanogan/Colville plan being the only NWFP area Forest to be far 

enough along in the process to foresee potential effects. A draft plan is expected to be 
112

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

issued for 90-day public review in the fall of 2007. The proposed action is expected to 

retain extensive areas of late-successional forest, and continue the current emphasis on 

maintaining and restoring aquatic habitat. 

None of these efforts have changed the Northwest Forest Plan goals and objectives, land 

allocations, or Standards and Guidelines that are the basis for the effects analysis in this 

SEIS. None of these analyses, regulatory proposals, or settlement agreements currently 

alters the effects of the Northwest Forest Plan as analyzed in the 1994 Final SEIS. 

The BLM has begun the process of revising its current Resource Management Plans 

within the NWFP area. Although a settlement agreement in American Forest Resources 

Council v. Clarke, Civ. No. 94-1031TPJ (D.D.C.) served as an impetus for the revision 

process, under the BLM’s normal planning cycles and the analysis of the management 

situation a revision was expected to be prepared even without the agreement. A draft 

Environmental Impact Statement is expected to be issued in 2007, with a Record of 

Decision expected in 2008. The range of action alternatives being considered would 

revise the land allocations and Standards and Guidelines of the Northwest Forest 

Plan. These alternatives have been designed to consider new approaches to achieve the 

intent of the O&C Act while still complying with the Endangered Species Act and other 

applicable laws. For example, alternatives will range from designating late-successional 

management areas essentially as large as the current Late-Successional Reserves, to 

designating reserves matching expected changes in designated Northern Spotted Owl 

and Marbled Murrelet Critical Habitat, to managing the entire landscape using a long 

rotation to provide for timber production and habitat for a variety of species. 

The BLM planning effort is expected to revise the direction in the Northwest Forest 

Plan for BLM-administered lands. However, until a revised plan is adopted, the BLM 

will continue to manage lands under its administration in accordance with existing 

resource management plans. The selection of one of the alternatives from this Survey 

and Manage FSEIS would apply until a revised BLM plan is adopted. 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 the plans themselves. Thus, if the plans themselves are revised, 

mitigation measures will be considered anew for reducing adverse effects of the new 

plans.

The current plans being amended by this Supplemental EIS will serve as the “no action” 

alternative for the BLM plan revisions. Effects to species, resulting from changes to the 

plans under the management alternatives in the BLM plan revisions, will be analyzed 

and displayed in the BLM’s environmental documentation for those proposed changes. If 

one has to consider possible future changes to a plan while analyzing the proposed plan 

itself, the analysis could never be completed because such an analysis would be circular. 

Although the analysis for the BLM plan revisions might borrow information about 

species from this analysis, that analysis could not tier to, or otherwise expect to borrow, 

effects described herein without thoroughly explaining why they might still apply. The 

BLM plan revision EIS will itself consider the effects of each its alternatives on habitats 

and the species associated with those habitats.

While there is a potential for the BLM 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. For non-mobile species (the majority of Survey and Manage species), 

if they are truly at any significant risk, are assumed to have relatively restricted mobility 

and dispersal capabilities. Given this, even a significant change in the management 

of BLM lands is not likely to substantially affect species on adjacent National Forests, 

because these species are affected most likely by site-specific management, rather than 
113

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

management of broad landscapes that is the focus of plan level decisions. For mobile 

species that could easily migrate, negative effects are also limited. This is due to the fact 

that the BLM alternatives will be designed to meet the requirements of the Endangered 

Species Act. Thus, 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 very limited potential for negative effects from the management of BLM lands 

to species on National Forest System lands, no significant cumulative effects to Survey 

and Manage species are expected from the proposed BLM plan revision. In any case, 

the appropriate context for analyzing whether the BLM Plan revision alternatives would 

have an effect on management objectives of the Forest Service is that planning process, 

not this one that is only considering whether to continue a mitigation measure under the 

existing plans.

Background for Effects Analysis

The information used to describe the affected environment and environmental 

consequences in this chapter in this SEIS was, with consideration of new information, 

compiled or derived from FEMAT; the Northwest Forest Plan Final SEIS, including 

Chapter 3&4 and Appendix J2; the 2000 Survey and Manage Final SEIS; and the 2001, 

2002, and 2003 Annual Species Reviews.

The analysis of environmental consequences in this SEIS must be understood in the 

context of the overall Northwest Forest Plan. The Northwest Forest Plan is an ecosystem 

approach to land management that focuses on habitat for late-successional and oldgrowth forest related species. Overall, environmental consequences cannot be attributed 

to a single set of standards and guidelines, such as Survey and Manage. The overall 

strategy in the Northwest Forest Plan is comprised of a combination of seven different 

land allocations and many different standards and guidelines.

The Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines were a mitigation measure added 

to Alternative 9 in the Northwest Forest Plan Final SEIS and adopted in its Record of 

Decision. This mitigation measure was included to decrease the likelihood of extirpation 

of little known species that were thought to be rare. 

A brief summary of the analyses provided in FEMAT, the Northwest Forest Plan Final 

SEIS (including Appendix J2), and the 2000 Survey and Manage Final SEIS is included 

here to help the reader understand the effects analysis in this SEIS.

FEMAT

The Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (FEMAT) was commissioned in 

1993 to formulate and assess options for managing Forest Service and BLM administered 

lands within the range of the Northern Spotted Owl. Of 64 options considered by 

FEMAT, 10 options encompassing various mixes of Late-Successional Reserves, Riparian 

Reserves, and prescriptions for management of forests both inside and outside of these 

reserves were selected for detailed consideration and analysis. In Late-Successional and 

Riparian Reserves, standards and guidelines were designed to restore and maintain latesuccessional forests and to maintain natural ecosystem processes. In the Matrix (areas 

outside of reserves), standards and guidelines were designed to provide connectivity 

between reserves and provide for important ecological functions such as dispersal of 

organisms, carryover of some species from one stand to the next, and maintenance of 

ecologically valuable structural components such as down logs, snags, and large trees. 
114

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

The Matrix and portions of many of the Adaptive Management Areas was also expected 

to provide for ecologically diverse early-successional conditions and planned timber 

harvest. 

For each of the 10 options, the team evaluated the likelihood of maintaining welldistributed habitat conditions on federally managed lands for threatened Marbled 

Murrelets and Northern Spotted Owls. In addition, for seven of the options, similar 

assessments were done for more than 1,000 plant and animal species thought to be 

closely associated with late-successional forests. In keeping with agency policies to 

prevent species from being listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and with 

the regulations issued pursuant to the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), the 

team assessed the “likelihood of maintaining species viability, defined as the continued 

persistence of the species population, well distributed throughout its historical range 

on federal lands within the range of the Northern Spotted Owl over the next 100 years” 

(USDA et al. 1993:IV-40).

Panels of experts were convened to make a determination of the likelihood of achieving 

four possible outcomes relating to habitat conditions on federally managed lands for 

each species. Panelists were asked to assign 100 “likelihood votes” (or points) across 

four outcomes. A panelist could express complete certainty in a single outcome for a 

species/option combination by allocating 100 points to a single outcome. The panelist 

could express uncertainty by spreading votes across the outcomes. Following are the 

four outcomes:

Outcome A: Habitat is of sufficient quality, distribution, and abundance to allow the 

species population to stabilize, well distributed across federal lands (Note that the 

concept of well distributed must be based on knowledge of the species distribution, 

range, and life history).

Outcome B: Habitat is of sufficient quality, distribution, and abundance to allow 

the species population to stabilize, but with significant gaps in the historic species 

distribution on federal land. These gaps cause some limitation in interactions among 

local populations (Note that the significance of the gaps must be judged relative to the 

species distribution, range, and life history, and the concept of metapopulations).

Outcome C: Habitat only allows continued species existence in refugia, with strong 

limitations on interactions among local populations.

Outcome D: Habitat conditions result in species extirpation from federal land [within the 

range of the Northern Spotted Owl] (USDA et al. 1993:IV-43).

While the use of a “point” system implies a certain precision, the ratings were 

compilations of subjective ratings by numerous scientists (USDA et al. 1993:II-29). 

Although the overall evaluation may have been reasonable, the ratings are not precise 

and the ratings are conservative for many rare species. The following areas, which are 

relevant to the assessment of rare species, were subject to different interpretations by 

different panels.

1. Treatment for rare and locally endemic species. Many of these species had small and 

restricted ranges or existed in refugia even before habitat alteration by harvesting and 

other activities. Some panelists tended to rate these species in Outcome B or C under 

even the most protective options (USDA, USDI 1994a:3&4-122).

2. Habitat versus population outcomes. Outcomes were defined in terms of habitat 

“quality, distribution, and abundance.” Some panelists found it difficult to separate 

the habitat and population elements (USDA, USDI 1994a:3&4-122).

3. Definition of “well distributed.” Panelists were not uniformly clear about what “well 
115

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

distributed” meant for each taxon. This issue was particularly confusing between 

Outcome A and B (USDA, USDI 1994a:3&4-123).

4. Historic versus current species distribution. Reference in the scale to “historic species 

distribution” in Outcome A was difficult for species groups for which information is 

limited to the current distribution. Taken literally, the reference to historic distribution 

held the ratings to a high standard of requiring habitat reestablishment throughout the 

historic range (USDA, USDI 1994a:3&4-123).

5. It was difficult for panelists to project changes in biophysical conditions over the 

100-year timeframe specified (USDA et al. 1993:IV-42 through IV-43; USDA, USDI 

1994a:3&4-123). 

FEMAT compared outcomes of the options on by assessing whether the scientists 

believed that under the alternative being evaluated, species had an 80 percent or greater 

likelihood of achieving Outcome A. In focusing on the 80 percent likelihood of achieving 

Outcome A, FEMAT did not suggest that only options attaining that likelihood satisfied 

the viability provision. FEMAT specifically noted that no single such level represents a 

viable population for all species and circumstances. The 80 percent level was chosen only 

as a point of comparison (USDA et al. 1993:IV-49).

The analysis by FEMAT was limited to assessing the sufficiency of habitat. It did not 

assess population viability per se. The team did note, for some species, continued 

persistence was in question regardless of federal land management. A system of LateSuccessional Reserves was the central feature of all the options considered. The extent of 

the reserve system (i.e. total acreage) was the single most distinguishing feature across 

the array of options.

Late in the Northwest Forest Plan Final SEIS process, eight mitigation measures were 

added to Alternative 9. The panels and assessments were not repeated to determine if 

the additional protections would have caused a different outcome.

Northwest Forest Plan Final SEIS including Appendix J2 

(Results of Additional Species Analysis)

Using the FEMAT report, the Northwest Forest Plan interdisciplinary team prepared a 

Supplemental EIS, basing the alternatives on FEMAT’s 10 options. The 1994 Record of 

Decision selected Alternative 9 as the alternative that best met the dual needs: the need 

for forest habitat and the need for forest products. 

Additional species analysis was completed between the Northwest Forest Plan Draft and 

Final SEIS. Species were screened for the necessity of further analysis if, for vertebrates, 

there was a likelihood of Outcome A of less than 80 percent or any percent likelihood of 

Outcome D. For all other taxa, the screen was a combined likelihood of Outcome C and 

D of 20 percent or more, or any percent likelihood of Outcome D. The screening levels 

were not intended to represent a judgment of what is required by either the NFMA or the 

ESA (USDA, USDI 1994a:J2-2). The additional species analysis is described in detail in 

Appendix J2 of the Northwest Forest Plan Final SEIS.

The additional species analysis process described in Appendix J2 of the Northwest Forest 

Plan Final SEIS considered 23 additional mitigation measures, including Survey and 

Manage, which might improve the ratings for the species that did not pass the screen. 

Eight of the 23 mitigation measures, including Survey and Manage, were incorporated 

into Alternative 9 and were adopted in the Northwest Forest Plan Record of Decision. 

Other mitigation measures adopted at this time included Riparian Reserve Scenario 1 

(doubling the width of Riparian Reserves on either side of intermittent streams outside 

of Key Watersheds), and creating 100 acre Late-Successional Reserves around all known 
116

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

spotted owl activity centers in the Matrix and Adaptive Management Areas. These 

greatly increased the amount of forest protected in reserves. Since these mitigation 

measures were added late in the process, the ratings for species were never changed 

to reflect the added mitigation. Chapter 3&4 of the 1994 Final SEIS contained only 

general statements that the additional standards and guidelines resulting from the 

added mitigation provided increased habitat protection for some species. The overall 

assessment of maintenance of a functional and interconnected late-successional forest 

ecosystem in the Final SEIS was not revised to reflect the additional mitigations because 

the Agencies anticipated that the changes to the outcomes would be relatively minor.

After a species was screened for additional analysis in the Northwest Forest Plan Final 

SEIS, the thresholds by which it was screened for additional analysis (see explanation 

above) were used in evaluating the benefits of proposed mitigation (USDA, USDI 1994a:

J2-57). Although the screening levels did not represent a judgment as to what is required 

by either the NFMA or the ESA (USDA, USDI 1994a:J2-2), it is easy to confuse the screen 

thresholds with targets that must be met. The 1994 Final SEIS did not adopt any specific 

level of likelihood of Outcomes A, B, C, or D from the additional species analysis as 

representing a threshold of reasonable certainty to support a conclusion regarding 

environmental consequences. 

2000 Survey and Manage Final SEIS 

In 1998, the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior determined the Survey and 

Manage mitigation measures added to Alternative 9 as a result of the additional species 

review needed to be revised. The revision was intended to: (1) better identify the 

management needed; (2) clarify language; (3) eliminate inconsistent and redundant 

direction; and, (4) establish a process that better responded to new information. 

To accomplish this revision, three action alternatives were considered in a Supplemental 

EIS. The conclusions in the 2000 Survey and Manage Final SEIS were complex. For any 

given species, the process in that SEIS allowed for: 30 different descriptions of range 

and distribution, 5 different descriptions of populations, 24 different descriptions of 

habitat associations, 9 different descriptions of known sites, and 10 different standard 

conclusions for the outcome (USDA, USDI 2000a, Appendix J:345). 

Potential outcomes based on population stability and distribution patterns were:

Outcome 1: Habitat (including known sites) is of sufficient quality, abundance, and 

distribution to allow species to stabilize in a pattern similar to reference distribution.

Outcome 2: Habitat (including known sites) is of sufficient quality, abundance, and 

distribution to allow species to stabilize in a pattern altered from reference distribution 

with some limitations on biological functions and species interactions.

Outcome 3: Habitat (including known sites) is insufficient to support stable populations 

of the species.

Outcome 4: Information is insufficient to determine an outcome.

The results of the analysis were stated with varying degrees of uncertainty: low, 

moderate, or high.

Alternative 1 from the 2000 Final SEIS was adopted in the subsequent Record of 

Decision. Alternative 1 in the 2000 Final SEIS is the approximate analytical equivalent to 

Alternative 1, one of the no-action alternatives in this SEIS. 
117

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Comparison of Alternatives for this SEIS

The Agencies’ Special Status Species Programs are described in Chapter 2 and Appendix 2 

of this SEIS. An analytical assumption of the environmental consequences is that species 

“off” of Survey and Manage in Alternatives 1, 2, or 3 will be assigned to any or all of 

the Agencies’ Special Status Species Programs to which they qualify, as shown in Table 

2-13. One hundred fifty-seven of the 337 species included in this analysis are currently 

assigned to one or more of these programs. However, because the addition of specific 

species to these programs is discretionary on the part of Forest Service Regional Foresters 

and BLM State Directors, the effects of not adding species to these programs, or of 

removing them at this time, are also described.

The environmental consequences analysis of Alternative 1 considers the 58 species 

removed from Survey and Manage in all or part of their NWWFP area range by the 

2001-2003 ASR process to be “off” Survey and Manage. The environmental consequences 

analysis of Alternative 2 considers all 337 species and 4 arthropod functional groups that 

are included in this analysis as “off” Survey and Manage. 

The environmental consequences analysis of Alternative 3 considers the 58 removed 

by the 2001-2003 ASRs in all or part of their NWFP area range as “off” Survey and 

Manage, as well as the 28 species and 4 arthropod functional groups in all or part of their 

NWFP area range that are included in the Survey and Manage ”uncommon” categories 

(Categories C, D, and F) in Alternative 1. Alternative 3 also eliminates pre-disturbance 

surveys in stands that have not developed late-successional or old-growth characteristics.

The Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines and the Agencies’ Special Status 

Species Programs have similar objectives; they both provide species-specific management 

for species of concern. They both contain strategies that provide for site management 

and determining if a project would affect a species. While little management discretion 

exists under the Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines, on-the-ground 

management discretion exists for the Special Status Species Programs. Line officers have 

discretion in survey methodology and in implementing protection measures in sitespecific situations. This discretion in the Special Status Species Programs is constrained 

by policy objectives that include not contributing to the need to list species under the 

Endangered Species Act and, for the Forest Service, maintaining viable populations 

in habitats distributed throughout the species range. The BLM uses environmental 

analysis (in the form of an EA or EIS) and the Forest Service requires a biological 

evaluation to identify whether effects on populations, habitat, and viability as a whole 

would occur. Coordination with other concerned units and agencies may be necessary 

to gather information about the species. If adverse effects are expected to individuals 

of the species, the analysis also determines whether it would result in a trend toward 

federal listing. In addition, the Forest Service biological evaluation identifies whether 

the project is part of a trend towards loss of viability. A broad assumption of this SEIS 

is that the expected future conservation status of species included under the Agencies’ 

Special Status Species Programs is basically similar to the expected conservation status 

for species included under the Survey and Manage mitigation measure. Timeframes for 

projections of outcomes are the same as described in the Northwest Forest Plan, “Our 

approach involves complex projections regarding the likely fate of species over the next 

50 to 100 years, or more” (USDA, USDI 1994b:44).

As noted throughout the effects analyses in this SEIS, there is much that remains 

unknown about many of the species subject to analysis. Despite more than 5 years and 

tens of millions of dollars spent on surveys, it is unknown how many sites are located 

in reserves because they have not been surveyed to the same degree as the Matrix and 

Adaptive Management Area lands. In fact, for dozens of species no new sites have 

been found anywhere since the adoption of the Northwest Forest Plan. Although some 
118

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

species are thought to be closely associated with late-successional and old-growth forests, 

for some species, the strength of this association is not well known. Connectivity and 

habitat needs, range, and other specific information for many species are unknown or 

uncertain. For many species, it is still unknown if the reserve system and other standards 

and guidelines provide for a reasonable assurance of persistence. Any discussion of risk 

based on rarity and likelihood of disturbance must recognize that, for most species, only 

a small percentage of potential habitat has been surveyed. In situations where limited 

species-specific information is available, more reliance, by necessity, must be placed 

on information regarding the condition and management of the overall landscape in 

formulating conclusions regarding environmental consequences.

The environmental consequences analysis in this SEIS supplements the previous analyses 

in the Northwest Forest Plan Final SEIS and 2000 Final SEIS. The analysis in this SEIS 

determines one of the following outcomes for each species: 

Outcome 1: Habitat (including known sites) is sufficient to support stable 

populations in the NWFP area 

Outcome 2: Habitat (including known sites) is sufficient to support stable 

populations range-wide in the NWFP area, although there is insufficient 

habitat to support stable populations in a portion of the Northwest 

Forest Plan area.

Outcome 3: Habitat (including known sites) is insufficient to support stable 

populations in the NWFP area (either caused by the differences between 

the alternatives or for reason beyond the control of the Agencies).

Outcome 4: There is insufficient information to determine an outcome.

These outcomes correlate to those found in the 2000 Survey and Manage Final SEIS with 

the following exceptions: 

Outcome 1 in this Final SEIS is a combination of Outcomes 1 and 2 from the 2000 

Survey and Manage Final SEIS. In the 2000 Final SEIS, Outcome 1 described species 

as stabilizing “in a pattern similar to reference distribution” while Outcome 2 

described species as stabilizing “in a pattern altered from reference distribution, 

with some limitations on biological functions and species interactions” (emphasis 

added). 

Outcome 2 is new. It allows for an outcome of habitat that supports stable 

populations in most of the planning area while acknowledging that there are 

certain portions of the species range where habitat does not provide for stable 

populations. Populations may or may not be described by distinct population 

segments or evolutionarily significant units. The viability provision and the 

Survey and Manage persistence objectives define a viable population as “continued 

existence is well distributed in the planning area” (36 CFR 219.19). The 2000 Survey 

and Manage Final SEIS described well-distributed as “distributed sufficiently 

to permit normal biological function and species interactions ...” (USDA, USDI 

2000a:189). Insufficient habitat to support stable populations in a portion of a 

species range could result in some restriction on normal biological function and 

species interactions. This would imply that the species is no longer well distributed 

in at least a part of the planning area, which could result in a downward trend 

in distribution. So, while a species may be well distributed and have stable 

populations in most of the NWFP area, it is important to describe and disclose in 

the analysis of environmental consequences that a species may not have stable 

populations in a portion of its range. 

The determination of an outcome is based on numerous factors including (1) the 

extent of the reserve system; (2) Matrix and Adaptive Management Area Standards 

and Guidelines; (3) provisions for species management under the Survey and Manage 
119

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

or Special Status Species Programs; (4) species range, distribution, and populations; 

(5) species life history and habitat needs; and, (6) the number and location of known 

sites. Information from FEMAT; the Northwest Forest Plan Final SEIS; the 2000 Survey 

and Manage Final SEIS; the Annual Species Reviews; and the Agencies’ known site 

database, along with recent publications and the professional knowledge of biologists 

and botanists was used to make the determination. Since each species has different life 

histories, ranges, distributions, and habitat needs, it is nearly impossible to devise precise 

thresholds for determining outcomes. Determinations are based on the evaluation of 

experts and tend to be more qualitative than quantitative in nature. This is consistent 

with the approach used throughout the Northwest Forest Plan. Even FEMAT, with 

its 100-point rating system, described their evaluations as “qualitative expert opinion 

assessments” (USDA et al. 1993:II-101). 

When analyzing species, particularly rare species, it is nearly impossible to have 

complete information. When a species has very low known population numbers despite 

intensive survey efforts, a narrow range, poor distribution, and the proposed action 

is likely to eliminate the few remaining populations, the determination that habitat is 

insufficient to provide for stable populations is highly certain. When a species has very 

high numbers, a large range, good distributions, and the proposed action is not likely to 

eliminate a significant number of populations, the determination that the proposed action 

would result in habitat sufficient to support stable populations is highly certain. Between 

these two situations are a range of conditions and outcomes that are not as certain. The 

effects writers were asked to evaluate known information and determine an outcome that 

was reasonably certain based on their professional interpretation and evaluation. The 

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.

Relationship of Outcome Determinations to ASR Species 

Removal Criteria and Legal Requirements

The Annual Species Review process, the “outcome” definitions used in this Supplement, 

and the finding of legal sufficiency that will be used in the Record of Decision, are each 

based on standards or criteria that are different. A brief discussion of those differences is 

offered here.

The Annual Species Review (ASR) process considers species removals or additions to 

Survey and Manage based on their meeting the Three Basic Criteria for Survey and 

Manage (see the description of Alternative 1 in Chapter 2). The first two of those criteria 

are fairly straight forward, but the third (the one relevant to this discussion) requires 

a determination that “the reserve system and other Standards and Guidelines of the 

Northwest Forest Plan “do not appear to provide for a reasonable assurance of species 

persistence.” This determination is based on criteria in the Standards and Guidelines 

indicating “a concern for persistence” (see Appendix 1, Adaptive Management Process, and 

Appendix 9, The Review Process). These criteria were developed for the 2000 FSEIS to 

identify species that could be removed from Survey and Manage while “providing for 

roughly the same likelihood of persistence as that which was provided by the Northwest 

Forest Plan as originally adopted in the 1994 ROD” (USDA USDI 2000a:42). Since 

the selected Northwest Forest Plan alternative was the second-most protective of the 

nine action alternatives considered, and the Record of Decision found that alternative 

“satisfies a similar standard [to the NFMA vertebrate viability standard3] with respect to 

non-vertebrate species to the extent practicable,” the Northwest Forest Plan by its own 

terms exceeded legal requirements. No lower standard was considered in the 2000 FSEIS, 

because in 2000 the Agencies only sought to correct implementation difficulties 

3

The National Forest Manage Act (NFMA) viability standard applies only to native and desired non-native vertebrate species (see Legal 

Requirements in Chapter 2).
120

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

by clarifying wording, removing common species, and providing a clear ASR process. 

The ASR criteria developed for the 2000 FSEIS are thus more restrictive than legal 

requirements. The ASR process also does not consider existing Special Status Species 

Program placements or populations outside of the NWFP area. Further, the process 

does not lead to species removals unless the available information is convincing that one 

or more of the Survey and Manage Three Basic Criteria are not met. Thus, while about 

130 species were removed from Survey and Manage in all or part of their NWFP area 

range between 1999 and 2003 using the ASR criteria, 295 species remained on Survey and 

Manage following the Annual Species Reviews.

The Outcome Definitions used to determine species outcomes in this Final Supplement 

are essentially the same as those used in the 2000 FSEIS which this SEIS supplements. 

Those outcomes had their origins primarily from those used by the 1993 FEMAT species 

review panels, and thus the criteria to apply when determining species outcomes were 

developed somewhat differently than the ASR criteria. The outcomes criteria consider 

the known distribution and population, minus expected losses from habitat disturbing 

activities and other factors, and then weigh that against an assumed historic distribution 

and the species’ anticipated ability to interact and thus maintain stable, healthy 

populations. Species with naturally disjunct populations are often rated down even if 

that isolation dates from the most recent ice age or other prehistoric event. Application of 

the outcomes requires expert judgments about dispersal mechanisms and habitat needs 

often based on limited knowledge or using inferred relationships from the same genera 

or family. The decisions are strictly biological, and at least one effects writer assigned 

Outcome 2 to a species even assuming the existing Special Status Species Programs 

assignment would meet the NFMA viability standards and prevent a trend toward ESA 

listing (see Shasta salamander discussion in this chapter). Without Survey and Manage, 

185 species are judged to have “insufficient habitat” using these outcome definitions, 

and another 20 have insufficient information to determine an outcome (These numbers 

include 132 with “insufficient habitat” under all alternatives). Since the ASR criteria 

have retained 295 species on Survey and Manage, but the outcomes criteria find only 205 

species have insufficient habitat or insufficient information, the outcome definitions and 

their application are somewhat less restrictive than the criteria for the Annual Species 

Reviews4. For a variety of reasons discussed in the Survey and Manage Species section 

later in this chapter, both the outcome definitions themselves, and their application by 

the effects writers, tend to be restrictive. In particular, favorable outcomes are limited by 

a lack of information, with apparently rare species having unfavorable outcomes even 

though survey efforts may have been very limited. Nine species with insufficient habitat 

under all alternatives in the 2000 FSEIS are now considered to have sufficient habitat 

under all alternatives because of new sites discovered since 2000. Outcomes have tended 

toward worst case and thus were far more pessimistic than turned out to be the case 

when more information was obtained.

The Legal Sufficiency standard that will be applied in the Record of Decision will be 

based on the applicable laws described in the Legal Requirements section in Chapter 2, most 

notably avoiding listing under ESA5 and, on the National Forests, meeting the applicable 

viability (for vertebrates) and diversity standards. Decisions may consider factors 

beyond those considered in the ASRs and outcome determinations, such as populations 

in other parts of the species range (including those outside of the NWFP area), risk, 

conflicts with other multiple-use mandates, consistency with other laws such as the 

O&C Act, and whether there are laws requiring the Agency to protect a species or class 

of species beyond Endangered Species Act requirements. This is a lower standard than 

used in the ASRs or outcome determinations, and involves consideration of elements that 

could not have been written into the “biological” outcome definitions used by the effects 

authors. Meeting this standard is the objective of the Agencies’ Special Status

4

Part of the (90 species) difference between the two standards is related to time; the ASR process has not been conducted sine 2003. If the ASR 

process were conducted today, a portion of those 90 species would be expected to be removed.

5

ESA listing is based on criteria in the Endangered Species Act – see Appendix 3, last page.
121

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Species Program placements, which helps explain why a species with Outcome 3 may not 

necessarily be assigned to one of those programs. For species where legal requirements 

may be similar to the species outcome definitions (for example, those for vertebrates on 

the National Forests), the Decision-maker(s) may be able to use the outcome statements 

as fairly reasonable indicators of legal sufficiency. Where the outcome definitions appear 

to exceed 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. This is particularly true for species on Survey and 

Manage primarily because little is known about them.

Thus, the above standards and criteria should not be considered equivalents. An 

outcome 3, for example, does not by itself indicate a failure to meet legal sufficiency, 

nor is it necessarily an indicator of impending ESA listing. That a species is still on 

Survey and Manage is not itself an indicator that removing it would not be legally 

sufficient. There are species on Survey and Manage that, because of populations 

outside of the NWFP area, are raked as globally common by Heritage programs. The 

Decision-maker(s) will use the species outcomes and other factors in the analysis in 

their appropriate context and purpose, to select an alternative and make findings of 

compliance with applicable laws.

Key Assumptions for Pre-Project Surveys/Clearances and 

Known Site Management 

Alternatives 1 and 4

Implement current Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines for pre-disturbance 

surveys and managing known sites.

Alternative 2

Special Status Species policies have an objective that the effects of a proposed project 

(management activity) do not result in a trend toward the listing of a Special Status 

Species under the Endangered Species Act. For the Forest Service, policy also requires 

that the effects of a proposed project would not result in a trend towards loss of viability 

for Sensitive Species. The analysis of the effects of the project on Special Status Species is 

in the NEPA documentation for the project for the BLM, and the Biological Evaluation for 

the Forest Service. 

Pre-project clearances are activities conducted to learn whether a species is present or 

potentially present in a project area. Pre-project clearances may include, but are not 

limited to, 

•	 clearance surveys; 

•	 field clearances; 

•	 field reconnaissance; 

•	 inventories; 

•	 habitat examinations; 

•	 habitat evaluation; 

•	 evaluation of species-habitat associations and presence of suitable or potential habitat; 

•	 review of existing survey records, inventories, and spatial data; 

•	 utilization of professional research, literature, and other technology transfer sources; 

or 

•	 use of expertise, both internal and external, that is based on documented, 

substantiated professional rationale. 
122

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Pre-project clearances are completed prior to habitat-disturbing activities to determine 

the presence of a species or its habitat and the effect of management actions on the 

species. The following assumptions are made regarding the most likely methods for 

completing pre-project clearances under the Special Status Species Programs.

If pre-disturbance surveys are practical under the Survey and Manage Standards and 

Guidelines, then clearance surveys, field clearances, field reconnaissance, inventories, 

and/or habitat examinations are most likely to be used under the Special Status Species 

Programs.

If pre-disturbance surveys are not practical under the Survey and Manage Standards 

and Guidelines (most Category B and D species) or a species status is undetermined 

(Categories E and F species), then field surveys are not likely to occur under the 

Species Status Species Programs either. Instead, the other components of pre-project 

clearances such as habitat examinations; habitat evaluation; evaluation of species-habitat 

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 are most likely to be used.

The assumption for managing known sites under the Special Status Species Programs 

is that those sites needed to prevent a listing under Endangered Species Act, would be 

managed. For the Forest Service, this also includes managing as needed to maintain 

viability. For species currently included in Survey and Manage Categories A, B, and E 

(which require management of all known sites), it is anticipated that only in rare cases 

would a site not be needed to prevent a listing. For species currently included in Survey 

and Manage Categories C and D (which require management of only high-priority sites), 

it is anticipated that loss of some sites would not contribute to a need to list.

For the Bureau Assessment category, the Agencies assumed in this SEIS that those sites 

needed to avoid a trend toward federal listing for species would be managed. BLM 

policy states that pre-project clearances are completed subject to limitations in funding 

or positions. Funding for pre-project clearances comes out of field-level project dollars. 

Given the realities of limited funding and heavy staff workloads at the field level, costly 

field surveys are unlikely to occur. For species in the Bureau Assessment category, it is 

assumed that methods other than field surveys would be used for these clearances. The 

agency must still determine the effect of a planned management action on a species and 

provide appropriate management.

Species in the BLM OR/WA Tracking category are not considered a special status species 

for management purposes. The assumption for this SEIS is that pre-project clearances 

would not be completed and known sites would not be managed. This category is not 

included on Table 2-13, and is generally not considered in effects determinations later in 

this chapter.

Alternative 3

Exceptions for known site management and pre-disturbance surveys in emergency 

situations would be made by the line officer above the official responsible for the 

proposal instead of the Survey and Manage Intermediate Managers Group. The same 

criteria used under Alternative 1 (Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines) would 

be used under Alternative 3 to make these determinations. 

Pre-disturbance surveys would not be completed in stands that have not become latesuccessional and/or old-growth forest. Since it is a requirement that species included 

in Survey and Manage have a close association with late-successional or old-growth 

forest, the Agencies assumed that such species would not likely be present in non-latesuccessional and non-old-growth stands. Existing Northwest Forest Plan Standards and 
123

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Guidelines provide for retention of late-successional or old-growth legacy components 

in Matrix. Therefore, even if they were present, the components of the stands, which 

support their use, would likely be retained anyway.

All other Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines remain the same. Uncommon 

species that are assumed to be included in the Special Status Species Programs would 

follow the assumptions listed under Alternative 2. For uncommon species removed 

from the Survey and Manage mitigation measure, known sites would be released from 

management constraints unless the species were included in the Agencies’ Special Status 

Species Programs.

Key Assumptions for Riparian Reserves and Late-Successional 

Reserves

Riparian Reserves 

Management of Riparian Reserves will be as written in the 1994 Record of Decision and 

Northwest Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines. This is the same assumption used in 

the 2000 Survey and Manage Final SEIS. Riparian Reserves are one of the components of 

the Aquatic Conservation Strategy along with Key Watersheds, Watershed Analysis, and 

Watershed Restoration. These components are designed to operate together to maintain 

and restore the productivity and resiliency of riparian and aquatic ecosystems. There 

are nine objectives included in the Aquatic Conservation Strategy, which are intended 

to benefit aquatic and riparian-dependent species. The Aquatic Conservation Strategy 

provides for a high degree of protection for aquatic and riparian associated species that 

may be locally rare, but have a wide distribution. Species that occur only in a few locales 

would be at a slightly increased risk compared to widely distributed aquatic or riparian 

species from habitat-disturbing activities under the Aquatic Conservation Strategy. 

However, the Aquatic Conservation Strategy provides substantial protective measures 

to reduce the risk to aquatic-dependent flora and fauna, such as riparian buffers and 

associated standards and guidelines.

Late-Successional Reserves

Management of the Late-Successional Reserves will be as written in the 1994 Record 

of Decision and Northwest Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines. This is the same 

assumption used in the 2000 Survey and Manage Final SEIS. Activities are allowed in 

Late-Successional Reserves but only within the context of Late-Successional Reserve 

objectives. The objectives are described on Page C-11 of the 1994 Standards and 

Guidelines:

Late-Successional Reserves are to be managed to protect and enhance conditions of latesuccessional and old-growth forest ecosystems, which serve as habitat for late-successional 

and old-growth related species including the Northern Spotted Owl. These reserves are 

designed to maintain a functional, interacting, late-successional and old-growth forest 

ecosystem.

Approximately 30 percent of all federally managed lands in the NWFP area are contained 

in Late-Successional Reserves. Approximately 87 percent (over 8 million acres) of latesuccessional forest on federally managed lands in the NWFP area is in late-successional 

and other reserves. Based on Late-Successional Reserve objectives and the large amount 

of late-successional forest in reserves, it is assumed that all alternatives include the same 

protective measures to reduce the risk to late-successional or old-growth forest associated 

species.
124

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Species Site Information Sources

The species site numbers displayed on Table 2-13 serve as one of the key sources of 

information upon which species outcomes, and other analysis within this Supplement, 

are based. Known species sites are recorded in the Agencies’ databases when there 

is credible information as to species and specific location. This information can come 

from a variety of sources including private and public herbaria and other collections, 

publications, agency and other surveys conducted for purposes other than Survey and 

Manage (e.g. lichen air quality survey), and other sources. As noted in the Survey and 

Manage Species section in this Supplement, compilation of data from these sources served 

as the beginning of the Survey and Manage database. Site data also comes from the 

Agencies’ own surveys conducted under Survey and Manage. For example, 79 percent of 

the Agencies’ 68,000 site records of current and former Survey and Manage species have 

come from pre-disturbance Survey and Manage surveys.

Sites are removed from the database or otherwise downgraded if confirmation visits fail 

to relocate them, if they do not have location information specific enough to find them 

on the ground, if further examination of samples indicates they are a different species, 

and so forth. Agencies’ specialists, including those contributing to the analysis in this 

Supplement, are familiar with the data. They regularly examine and challenge suspect 

or older data, particularly during the Annual Species Review process. Also, see “Known 

Sites” in the Glossary.

Species sites within the GeoBOB and ISMS databases have sufficient geospatial 

information that comparisons with Northwest Forest Plan land allocation maps is 

possible, and thus many of the species sections later in this chapter note what percentage 

of known sites are in reserves versus Matrix and Adaptive Management Areas (AMAs). 

In these breakdowns, it is important to note that there is no map layer for Riparian 

Reserves, so “Matrix/AMA” almost always also includes Riparian Reserves. If the species 

is aquatic or riparian dependant, virtually 100 percent of its sites are “in reserves,” and 

the stated percentages refer only to the surrounding landscape away from the reserve. 

Sometimes the phrase “large reserves” is used to remind the reader where Riparian 

Reserves are not included. 

Types of Survey and Manage Surveys

There are two main categories of surveys conducted for Survey and Manage species, 

pre-disturbance surveys and Strategic Surveys. Pre-disturbance and many types of Strategic 

Surveys are non-random, so the ability to make inferences about occupancy in similar 

habitat away from the survey area can be limited. Random Strategic Surveys can be used 

to make statistically-based inferences about sample populations and habitat, but data 

from such surveys have only recently become available (see Table 3&4-16 near the end of 

this chapter). 

Since individual species discussions later in this chapter reference, and necessarily rely 

on, site numbers obtained from all of these sources, it is important to understand the 

nature and objective of each of the types of surveys used. 

Pre-Disturbance Surveys

Pre-disturbance surveys are clearance surveys that focus on a project unit with the 

objective of reducing the inadvertent loss of undiscovered sites by searching specified 

potential habitats prior to making decisions about habitat-disturbing activities. They are 

done according to a written survey protocol for each species and can use methods such 

as transects or plots that focus on priority habitats, habitat features, or involve the entire 
125

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

project area (USDA, USDI 2001a:Attachment 1-21). Practical pre-disturbance surveys 

are required for most Survey and Manage species if such surveys are “practical.” Predisturbance surveys are deemed practical for species whose physiological characteristics 

make them likely to be located with reasonable effort. (Some species are too small to 

be detected, do not show themselves regularly and predictably, or cannot be separated 

from other species outside of a lab.) Surveys for some species must be conducted during 

a relatively narrow timing window when they are in bloom or otherwise annually 

(or no less than semi-annually) showing definitive characteristics. Equivalent-effort 

pre-disturbance surveys are required for some species whose characteristics preclude 

“practical” surveys. Pre-disturbance surveys prior to habitat-disturbing activities have 

been required at least since 2001 for 66 species on Survey and Manage under Alternative 

1. Since the majority of management activities take place in the Matrix land allocation, 

most pre-disturbance surveys have been conducted there. Pre-disturbance surveys have 

covered approximately 16 percent of the Matrix, but probably less than 1 percent of other 

land allocations (Reserves, etc.). The majority of the existing Survey and Manage species 

known sites have been located with these surveys. However, because these surveys focus 

only on lands proposed for management (usually in Matrix), the ability to extrapolate 

resultant site information to other areas and land allocations is limited.

Strategic Surveys

Strategic Surveys gather information at different scales about the species’ range, 

distribution, and habitat requirements. Strategic survey efforts have varied from broadscale, multiple-species surveys to more small-scale surveys depending on the information 

needs. These surveys and methods include probability-sampling approaches; proposive 

surveys in likely habitat (if known); known site surveys to collect habitat information; 

modeling of potential habitat; and for some species, specific surveys and other 

information-gathering techniques used to answer specific information needs. Existing 

pre-disturbance survey experience is used to help design Strategic Surveys, in part 

because pre-disturbance surveys were conducted before Strategic Surveys. Both positive 

and negative detection information helps indicate the most appropriate Strategic Survey 

approach.

Probability-Sampling Approaches: 

Probability-based approaches allow for inference to the broader sampled landscape 

(Molina et al. 2003). The random selection of sample plots reduces bias and includes 

measures of uncertainty, including standard errors and confidence intervals. It is also 

a method of formally testing statistical hypotheses. Probabilistic sampling has been 

conducted at different spatial scales for various Survey and Manage species groups and 

individual species including amphibians, red tree vole, mollusks, lichens, bryophytes, 

and fungi.

The Random Multi-Species (RMS) Survey is an example of a statistically-based 

probability-sampling survey. It used a double sample design of random and systematic 

sampling that allows unbiased detection estimates and estimates of species associations 

with reserve land allocations and late-successional forest. The Agencies completed the 

field survey portion of the RMS Survey in autumn 2004, using a stratified sample from 

existing Continuous Vegetation Surveys (CVS) and Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) 

plots. The percentages of plots by strata were as follows:

60% Reserve and late-successional/old-growth

20% Reserve and non-late-successional/old-growth

10% Matrix and late-successional/old-growth

10% Matrix and non-late-successional/old-growth

The survey sampled 750 botany plots, 658 fungi plots, and 509 mollusk plots. (The 

RMS Survey sampled mollusks only in Oregon and Washington, although the similar 
126

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

GOBIG2K random survey sampled mollusks in California - see Table 3&4-16.) Analysis 

of the results is complex and necessarily species and taxa-specific. Although detailed 

species-specific biological interpretations of the results are lacking, numerical expansion 

(statistical inference) of the plot results has been completed and is displayed on Tables 

3&4-16 at the end of this chapter and 3&4-11 in the Red Tree Vole section. Except as 

otherwise footnoted, the displayed data expansion covers the entire NWFP area, 

including areas where a species may 

have been removed from Survey 

and Manage in the 2001 Survey and 

Manage Record of Decision because it 

was determined to no longer meet the 

Survey and Manage Basic Criterion. 

(Raw RMS detections shown on 

Table 2-13 are only for the area where 

species are included in Survey and 

Manage.) 

Detections in the statistical sample 

are used to estimate detections across 

the sample area. For the RMS Survey, 

the population was stratified (see 

Figure 3&4-4) so that detection in one 

stratum does not necessarily represent 

the same area as detection in another 

stratum. For example, each sample 

plot represents anywhere from 7,000 

to over 200,000 similar areas (i.e., 

plots of the same size), depending 

upon the species and strata. Since 

there is uncertainty (standard error) 

associated with sampling, a 95% 

confidence bound was calculated to 

give a range of plausible values of 

the true, unknown number. Thus, 

depending upon the stratification of 

the plots, the 95% confidence bound 

for one to four detections generally 

includes zero.

Table 3&4-16 presents RMS detection 

levels and the percent of the 

Northwest Forest Plan landscape 

estimated as occupied, along with 

the standard error. Additional 

columns display resultant projections 

of number of occupied sites across 

the NWFP area (assuming sites the 

same size as the sample plots), and 

lower and upper limits on such site 

numbers assuming a 95% confidence 

bound. Table 3&4-16 presents 

only the detections and statistical 

analysis; consideration of what those 

numbers represent in terms of species 

aggregation, locations, or relative 

rarity have been made by the species 

effects writers. 

Figure 3&4-4. RMS Survey Regions.
127

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Proposive Surveys: 

The proposive survey is a knowledge-based approach that relies on the ability of experts 

to recognize and concentrate survey effort in potentially occupied or suitable habitats. 

The objective of these surveys was to locate additional sites in high-likely habitats or 

attempt to relocate known sites of species that have not been observed for several years. 

They are used primarily for species known from none or few sites to help confirm 

presence.

Known Site Surveys: 

Known site surveys (surveying known locations of Survey and Manage species to 

relocate the site and collect habitat information) have been conducted for selected species 

at hundreds of known sites. The data collected from these surveys provides information 

about habitat, provides specific location data, and can be used to develop potential 

habitat maps for species modeling. In association with these surveys, habitat modeling 

using potential natural vegetation is ongoing for selected Survey and Manage species.

Habitat Modeling: 

Modeling of Survey and Manage species habitat has occurred at various scales. Largescale habitat modeling using Potential Natural Vegetation and Plant Associations has 

been done for several species in all taxonomic groups. These models use data collected 

from known site surveys to develop maps showing high-, moderate, and low- likely 

habitats and can be used to identify areas where proposive surveys can be conducted. 

These maps are then calibrated and validated through ground-truthing surveys. Once 

these models are validated, they can estimate the amount of potential habitat there is for 

that species. Micro-site habitat modeling using the Bayesian Belief Model identifies the 

likelihood a species is present at a specific location. A similar modeling effort has been 

conducted for red tree vole habitat. These site-specific models potentially can be used 

to determine if pre-disturbance surveys are necessary. Additional habitat modeling has 

been conducted for three salamander species.

Species-Specific Surveys and Other Information-Gathering Techniques: 

Other Strategic Surveys have been conducted that focused on answering specific 

information needs. These varied efforts included species-specific surveys, research 

designed to address specific questions such as habitat associations, genetic and 

taxonomic analyses, and historic data compilation. Examples include arthropod 

literature synthesis, radio telemetry work on red tree vole to answer connectivity 

concerns and seasonal movement questions, determination of mollusk clades, and 

determining habitat associations at multiple scales for an amphibian species.

Key Assumption for Environmental Consequences for Species 

on Survey and Manage and Agencies’ Special Status Species 

Programs Simultaneously

One hundred fifty-seven of the species discussed in this Supplement are on one or more 

of the Agencies’ Special Status Species Programs at this time. With the reinstatement of 

the Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines in January 2006 by the District Court, 

these species are now covered by both programs. Because the Survey and Manage 

provisions generally provide protections that are similar to or exceed those provided by 

the Special Status Species Programs, species effects discussions for Alternative 1 and 4 

(and Alternative 3 for Category A, B, and E species) in this Supplement generally do not 

mention, or attribute benefits to, inclusion in the Special Status Species Programs. Such 

attribution would be unnecessarily duplicative.
128

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Key Assumption for Past Management

The effects analysis in the Final Supplement assumes all previous project or management 

activity decisions will be executed as described in their respective NEPA decisions or 

decision documents.

Key Assumption for Non-Species-Specific Effects Analyses for 

Alternative 4

Effects to 337 individual species are displayed in this chapter for each of the four 

alternatives considered in detail, according to the category to which they are assigned in 

each of those alternatives. No-Action Alternative 4, for example, has 58 more species (in 

all or part of their NWFP area range) included in Survey and Manage than No-Action 

Alternative 1. Outcomes for those species on Survey and Manage are described for 

Alternative 4, and for those species “off” Survey and Manage under Alternatives 1, 2, 

and 3.

Effects for non-species-specific resources such as Costs, Timber Harvest, and Wildland 

and Prescribed Fire are handled somewhat differently. Previous analyses of these 

resources (2000 Final SEIS, 2004 FSEIS) assumed more common species would be 

removed from Survey and Manage following the adaptive management provisions 

of the Standards and Guidelines, as new information indicated the species was more 

secure. Site acreage projection caps were applied for all species with over 100 acres 

in known sites in 2000, as described in the Timber Harvest section in this chapter. Such 

an assumption is consistent with the 1994 Standards and Guidelines as well, which 

included: “As experience is acquired with these requirements, agencies may propose 

changes ... These changes could include... dropping this mitigation requirement for any 

species whose status is determined to be more secure than originally projected” (USDA, 

USDI 1994b: C-6). Those capped species site acreage projections from the Timber Harvest

section were applied to the Wildland and Prescribed Fire section as well, and in turn were 

reflected in the Costs of Management section of this analysis. 

Modeling caps were neither arbitrary nor uniform; species experts helped predict when 

each species might be removed from Survey and Manage if the individual species’ 

detection rates continued as in the past. To not have applied such caps would have been 

to ignore a key element of the Standards and Guidelines, and would have provided the 

Survey and Manage alternatives with unrealistically high effects on these non-speciesspecific resources. Consistent with that previous modeling, effects for the newly added 

Alternative 4 are displayed in this chapter as if the adaptive management process would 

be applied as described in the Standards and Guidelines. In the case of Alternative 4, 

however, there is considerable evidence regarding what adaptive management (Annual 

Species Review) changes would be made. That evidence, displayed in Appendix 9, is the 

record of changes actually made by the Agencies following the prescribed process. The 

version of Survey and Manage resulting from those changes is Alternative 1.

Therefore, an analysis assumption for the species new to No-Action Alternative 4 in 

all or part of their NWFP area range (when compared to No-Action Alternative 1), as 

well as for category differences between this and Alternatives 1, is that if Alternative 

4 is adopted, a revised species review process would begin, and changes previously 

adopted during the 2001, 2002, and 2003 Annual Species Reviews would most likely be 

reinstituted. This is a reasonable assumption. The Ninth Circuit did not address whether 

species were sufficiently protected or if the species removal criteria were flawed, only 

that the planning and NEPA processes required for plan amendments were not followed 

with respect to one such species, the red tree vole in its Mesic Biological Zone. 
129

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

The Annual Species Review process considered copious amounts of information 

(summarized in Appendix 9), rigorously judged against specific criteria spelled out in 

the 2001 Record of Decision. The Agencies made changes only where new information 

indicated the species’ status had changed relative to the Three Basic Criteria for Survey 

and Manage. Because this copious information has already been carefully considered 

by the Agencies, and the specified criteria are those already published and used to 

categorize and remove species from Survey and Manage in the 2000 Final SEIS, it would 

be reasonable to expect those ASR decisions to represent the preferred alternative in 

any subsequent proposal, including proposals which are determined to require plan 

amendment and associated NEPA analysis. The Agencies would of course rigorously 

comply with their responsibilities to consider any new information revealed during the 

analysis or resulting from public comments, and could arrive at a different decision after 

that consideration. Nevertheless, hypothetically, but in the interest of providing the 

public with a fair comparison of alternatives in this analysis, the Agencies believe that it 

is reasonable to assume that if the processes required by the Ninth Circuit for the Mesic 

Biological Zone red tree vole were used for other species also previously addressed in the 

2001-2003 ASRs, the Agencies are more likely than not to select the preferred alternative, 

and that on average and on the whole, the previous species category changes or species 

removals would be reaffirmed or reoccur. The result of this assumption is that effects to 

timber harvest, costs of management, wildland and prescribed fire, and other potentially 

habitat-disturbing management activities under Alternative 4 are expected, at least after 

the first one to two years, to be the same as those described for Alternative 1. 

Even if the previous ASR decisions were not assumed as likely to be reaffirmed or 

reoccur, the previously used analysis capping of projected site numbers to simulate the 

adaptive management process would simulate removal of many of these same species, 

particularly those common enough to have a significant effect on fuel treatments, costs 

of management, timber harvest, and other non-Survey and Manage species-specific 

resources. Failure to simulate a removal process during effects modeling would, as 

noted above, cast Alternative 4 in an unrealistically negative light with respect to adverse 

effects on other Northwest Forest Plan goals. No such prohibition should be assumed 

or inferred from the Ninth Circuit Court decision. The Ninth Circuit did not find that 

making such changes would be illegal, but just that additional procedures would be 

required before they could be made.

In the short term, for the one to two years potentially required to conduct any planning 

steps that may be identified by the above-referenced reconsideration, Alternative 4 would 

have additional adverse effects on timber harvest and other potentially habitat-disturbing 

management activities including fuels management when compared to Alternative 1. 

Achievement of fiscal year 2007 and 2008 timber sale targets would be reduced 80 to 100 

million board feet per year (about 16 percent of the 530-600 million board feet target) 

under Alternative 4 when compared to the effects under Alternative 1. Short term effects 

to fuels treatment and other management activities are less than 16 percent of those 

programs because of shorter planning lead-time requirements and the greater availability 

of substitute treatment methods and locations. Short term costs to conduct the planning 

and NEPA analysis associated with the above assumption would include $0.5 million 

spread over two years. If the analysis assumption described above proves to be incorrect, 

effects to timber harvest, fuels treatments, and other management activities could occur 

for a longer period of time.
130

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Summary of Environmental Consequences for Species

Habitat (including known sites) is insufficient to support stable 

populations in the Northwest Forest Plan area under all alternatives

There are 132 species (115 fungi and 17 lichens) with an outcome of habitat (including 

known sites) is insufficient to support stable populations range-wide in the NWFP area 

under all alternatives (see Tables 2-11 and 2-13), and 1 species (red tree vole) with this 

outcome for part of its range. This outcome is not due to federal actions, but other factors 

such as: (1) limited potential habitat and few populations on federally managed lands; 

(2) potential for stochastic events; (3) low number of individuals; (4) limited distribution; 

and, (5) narrow ecological amplitude (USDA, USDI 1994a; USDA, USDI 2000a). 

Insufficient information to determine an outcome under all 

alternatives 

There are 20 species (6 bryophytes, 3 fungi, 1 mollusk, and 10 lichens) and 4 arthropod 

functional groups for which there is insufficient information to determine an outcome 

under all alternatives (see Tables 2-11 and 2-13). This is due to limited information 

about abundance, distribution, and ecology of these species. In addition, for some 

of these species, there is uncertainty regarding effects of management practices and 

environmental conditions including global climate change.

Under Alternative 4, when the analyses show that there is “insufficient information to 

determine an outcome” or “insufficient habitat (including known sites) to support stable 

populations” for a species, this outcome is the same for Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 as well. 

Although presumably the Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines generally 

provide benefits to species, they do not substantively change the outcomes or resolve the 

lack of sufficient information. However, many of these are species with few known sites 

or populations. For species with insufficient habitat under all alternatives that are not 

included in the Agencies’ Special Status Species Programs under Alternatives 1, 2 or 3, 

the lack of species management may increase the risk to these species. For species where 

there is “insufficient information to determine an outcome” and they are not included in 

the Agencies’ Special Status Species Programs under Alternatives 1, 2 or 3, it is unknown 

if the lack of species management would increase the risk to these species.

Habitat (including known sites) is sufficient to support stable 

populations in the Northwest Forest Plan area under all alternatives

There are 147 species with an outcome of habitat (including known sites) is sufficient to 

support stable populations in the NWFP area under all alternatives (see Tables 2-11 and 

2-13). 

Habitat (including known sites) is insufficient to support stable 

populations in the Northwest Forest Plan area because of actions 

under Alternatives 2 and/or 3

There are 38 (Alternative 2) and 4 (Alternative 3) species for which an outcome of habitat 

(including known sites) is sufficient to support stable populations in the NWFP area 

under Alternative 1 and 4, but habitat (including known sites) is insufficient to support 

stable populations in the NWFP area under Alternatives 2 and 3, respectively (see Tables 

2-11 and 2-13).

Habitat is insufficient to support stable populations in a portion of 

the Northwest Forest Plan area because of actions under Alternatives 

1, 2, and/or 3

There are 2 (Alternative 1), 15 (Alternative 2), and 7 (Alternative 3) species for which an 

outcome of habitat (including known sites) is sufficient to support stable populations 
131

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

in the NWFP area under Alternative 4, but habitat is insufficient to support stable 

populations in a portion of the NWFP area under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3, respectively (see 

Tables 2-11 and 2-13). 

Environmental Consequences Without Special Status Species 

Programs 

The August 1, 2005 District Court decision that lead, in part, to the creation of this 

Supplement requires the Agencies 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” (Northwest Ecosystem Alliance v. Rey, 

380 F. Supp. 2d 1175 (W.D.Wash. 2005) at 1197). Therefore, effects discussions for 

species included in this Supplement provide, for every species assumed to be assigned 

to one or more of the Agencies’ Special Status Species Programs, outcome statements 

for Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 without the assumption of Special Status Species Programs 

assignment. The outcomes are provided to display for the public, the Decision-makers 

(Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior), and the Special Status Species Programs’ 

administrators (BLM State Directors in California and Oregon, and Forest Service 

Regional Foresters in Regions 5 and 6) the consequences of not adding individual 

species to the respective Special Status Species Programs as shown on Table 2-13 and 

otherwise assumed in the effects analysis. Display of such effects is required under 

NEPA, the Court explained, because even though the Agencies have subsequently added 

the species to their Special Status Species Programs, the 2004 FSEIS analysis relied on 

“an assumption based on uncertain future events that there is no guarantee will occur” 

(Northwest Ecosystem Alliance v. Rey, 380 F. Supp. 2d 1175 (W.D.Wash. 2005) at 1190).

Removal of the Special Status Species Programs (SSSP) assignments are displayed as 

“scenarios” in the species effects discussions in this Supplement, and may be abbreviated 

“Alternative 2 without SSSP”, “Alternative 2 without assignment to the Region 5 

(California Forest Service) Sensitive Species Program,” and so forth. The reference means 

the outcome (effect) is for Alternative 2 as if none of the assumed Special Status Species 

Program assignments were to occur, or were undone at this time for those species where 

such assignment has already occurred. Species outcomes under these scenarios are 

displayed on Table 2-13, and summarized on Tables 2-10 and 2-11.

Aquatic Ecosystem

Affected Environment

The Northwest Forest Plan provides for a high level of protection for all streams, lakes, 

and wetlands on Forest Service and BLM managed lands within the NWFP area. The 

Aquatic Conservation Strategy is a habitat-based approach for restoring and maintaining 

ecological health of watersheds and the aquatic ecosystems contained within them 

on these federally managed lands (USDA, USDI 1994a; USDA, USDI 1994b). The key 

assumption of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy in the Northwest Forest Plan was that 

species-specific strategies would be insufficient to maintain and recover the populations 

of aquatic-dependent species. The Northwest Forest Plan Record of Decision emphasized 

this concept by stating:

“Any species-specific strategy aimed at defining explicit standards for habitat elements 

would be insufficient for protecting even the targeted species. The Aquatic Conservation 

Strategy must strive to maintain and restore ecosystem health at watershed and landscape 

scales to protect habitat for fish and other riparian-dependent species and resources and 

restore currently degraded habitats” (USDA, USDI 1994b:B-9).
132

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

The four major components of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy (Riparian Reserves, 

Key Watersheds, Watershed Analysis, and Watershed Restoration) provide the basis 

for protection of aquatic-dependent and full- and part-time riparian-dependent flora 

and fauna. Some of these species are currently included under the Survey and Manage 

Standards and Guidelines. Species that spend their entire life histories in water 

receive the highest degree of protection on federally managed lands, because they 

are all contained within Riparian Reserves. Managing Riparian Reserves under the 

specific standards and guidelines, combined with the other components of the Aquatic 

Conservation Strategy, should meet the habitat/life history needs of the water-dependent 

flora and fauna throughout the NWFP area. Riparian Reserves also benefit species that 

spend considerable portions of their life histories within the water or within riparian 

areas.

Alternative 9 in the Northwest Forest Plan Final SEIS incorporated Riparian Reserve 

Scenario 1, which increased the width recommended by the FEMAT from one-half site 

potential tree height or 50 feet, to one-site potential tree height or 100 feet, whichever is 

greatest, on each side of intermittent streams outside of Key Watersheds (those within 

Key Watersheds already had been proposed for this protection in FEMAT). This change 

was a result of the additional species analysis and response to public and internal 

comments in the Northwest Forest Plan Final SEIS. The analysis in the Northwest Forest 

Plan Final SEIS underestimated the potential landscape level of protection provided by 

the Aquatic Conservation Strategy. The quantity of Riparian Reserve acres is higher than 

originally analyzed, and the amount of land within all reserves has increased from a 

6:1 ratio of reserve to non-reserve lands in the Northwest Forest Plan Final SEIS to a 7:1 

ratio. This higher acreage has resulted in a 15 percent decrease in PSQ when compared 

to that anticipated in the Northwest Forest Plan Final SEIS. The absolute increase in 

reserves is in addition to the increase in prescribed Riparian Reserve widths identified in 

the Northwest Forest Plan Record of Decision. The Agencies assume that the conclusions 

regarding the level of protection provided by the Aquatic Conservation Strategy 

contained in the Northwest Forest Plan Final SEIS remain valid or are exceeded. 

Several species of fish occurring in the NWFP area have been listed under the 

Endangered Species Act since the Northwest Forest Plan Record of Decision was signed 

(see Appendix 5, Table 5-2 for the complete list of threatened and endangered fish). 

These listings do not reflect the integrity of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy. The 

Northwest Forest Plan anticipated the potential of these listings and adopted a strategy to 

assist in the long-term recovery of these species. Factors other than habitat and land uses 

contributed to the need to list these species. Anadromous fish spend the majority of their 

life histories in areas outside of the federally managed lands covered by the Northwest 

Forest Plan. Other mortality factors (commercial and recreational fish harvest, ocean 

conditions, etc.) contributed to the listing of these fish. The relative contribution of each 

mortality factor was not identified in the listing announcements. The Northwest Forest 

Plan Final SEIS states:

“...the [Aquatic Conservation] strategy can succeed at maintaining and restoring the 

aquatic and riparian habitats regardless of what happens on nonfederal lands, but that 

would not ensure population viability of many of the fish stocks evaluated in this SEIS. For 

these reasons, it is not possible to determine whether any of the alternatives in this SEIS 

would preclude listing of fish species under the Endangered Species Act” (USDA, USDI 

1994a:3&4-202).

The Aquatic Conservation Strategy has been in place for approximately 14 years, a time 

period too short to demonstrate a measurable improvement in habitat conditions for 

fish populations to respond to the improved conditions. This, too, is consistent with 

the analysis contained in the Northwest Forest Plan Final SEIS and FEMAT Report. The 

authors of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy (USDA et al. 1993) stated:
133

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

“We emphasize, however, that it will require time for this strategy to work. Because it is 

based on natural disturbance processes, it may take decades to over a century to accomplish 

all of its objectives.”

Implementing the Aquatic Conservation Strategy over the last 14 years has not affected 

the listings of water quality-impaired stream segments under section 303(d) of the Clean 

Water Act. Although the number of stream miles added to the 303(d) list in Oregon 

increased from approximately 12,000 miles during 1994-1996, to approximately 13,700 

miles in 1998 (Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 1999), not all of these 

streams occur within the NWFP area. The increase in stream miles is due primarily 

to more information being available and a greater emphasis on water quality in recent 

years. For example, the State of Oregon initiated a statewide effort aimed at recovering 

declining fish stocks. The State’s effort involved identifying water quality-impaired water 

bodies and developing Water Quality Recovery Plans to address factors that contribute to 

the listing of the water body under section 303(d). The Northwest Forest Plan recognized 

these water quality concerns prior to their listing under 303(d). These listings are not 

new information for the Northwest Forest Plan.

Environmental Consequences

The Aquatic Conservation Strategy emphasizes restoring watersheds, ecosystem 

functions, and aquatic systems, which results in a high degree of protection for aquaticdependent flora and fauna regardless of the alternative selected. The Riparian Reserve 

network is designed to protect and restore functions and processes of an interconnected 

network of aquatic systems (USDA, USDI 1994b). The Northwest Forest Plan Record 

of Decision requires Riparian Reserve widths that maintain the functions and processes 

that support the particular aquatic community and associated riparian area. Watershed 

analyses address the factors that affect the protection and restoration of the habitat 

type affected (such as a lake or wetland). They also recommend Riparian Reserve 

management designed to protect and restore the functions and processes necessary to 

support the habitat type. The Riparian Reserve widths applied through project-level 

NEPA decision documents are based on these watershed analyses.

Regardless of the understanding of the ecological needs of aquatic-dependent flora and 

fauna or their existing distribution, the Aquatic Conservation Strategy provides a high 

degree of protection of their habitat. The risk to the persistence of a particular species 

depends on its distribution and life history characteristics. Species that have very limited 

distribution throughout their known range and/or occur in rare or isolated habitats 

(wetlands, lakes, geothermal springs, isolated seeps, etc.) are generally at higher risk than 

more widely distributed species and/or species that utilize a broader range of habitat 

conditions.

The degree of dependence on water is also a risk factor. Species that spend their 

entire lives within water generally have a lower risk of long-term negative effects due 

to habitat-disturbing activities. Species that spend greater proportions of their life 

histories out of water and within Riparian Reserves have a somewhat higher risk to their 

persistence than purely aquatic species, but they have a relatively lower risk to their 

persistence than species that commonly use areas outside of Riparian Reserves. The 

other components of the Northwest Forest Plan, such as Late-Successional Reserves and 

Administratively Withdrawn Areas, provide other levels of protection for those species 

that spend more time outside Riparian Reserves.

All alternatives in this SEIS include the same protective measures to reduce the risk to 

aquatic-dependent flora and fauna such as riparian buffers and associated standards 

and guidelines. Aquatic-dependent flora and fauna will benefit from the restoration 

of aquatic ecosystem functions and processes, which is required to meet the Aquatic 
134

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Conservation Strategy objectives. Application of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy is 

expected to yield functioning riparian and aquatic ecosystems in the long term.

The effects of the alternatives to aquatic species do not change the outcomes described 

in the Northwest Forest Plan Final SEIS. This is due to the fact the Aquatic Conservation 

Strategy provides a high level of protection to aquatic habitats and associated species 

regardless of the presence of known sites for Survey and Manage or Special Status 

species. The managed area for Survey and Manage or Special Status species that 

contributes to additional protection for wetlands less than 1-acre, for example, would 

provide additional protection to other species that inhabit the affected wetland. These 

protections would accrue primarily at the site scale versus the scale of the Northwest 

Forest Plan and would not alter the conclusions reached in the Northwest Forest Plan 

Final SEIS.

None of the alternatives in this SEIS change the assessment of achieving the Aquatic 

Conservation Strategy goals described in the Northwest Forest Plan Final SEIS. The 

effectiveness of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy in achieving its goals is independent 

of whether managed sites are added in the future or currently managed sites are 

removed from the Survey and Manage category. The goal of the Aquatic Conservation 

Strategy is to restore the functions and processes to maintain the ecological health of 

watersheds and aquatic ecosystems. The four components (Riparian Reserves, Key 

Watersheds, Watershed Analysis, and Watershed Restoration) were determined to 

effectively achieve the overall goal independent of the Survey and Manage mitigation 

measure. The Aquatic Conservation Strategy applied through the Northwest Forest Plan 

Record of Decision resulted in an 80 percent or higher likelihood of providing sufficient 

aquatic habitat to support stable, well-distributed populations of the seven races/species 

and groups of salmonids. Similarly, the Aquatic Conservation Strategy provides a high 

probability for aquatic species persistence. 

Late-Successional Forest Ecosystem

Affected Environment

The Northwest Forest Plan is an ecosystem approach to land management that focuses on 

habitat for late-successional and old-growth forest related species within the range of the 

Northern Spotted Owl. The Northwest Forest Plan features a functional, interconnected, 

late-successional forest ecosystem that is extensive and well distributed and provides 

for dispersal and movement between populations of species. The Northwest Forest Plan 

comprises a network of reserves, which protect large blocks of late-successional forest 

and aquatic resources, and Matrix where most timber harvest occurs. In general, the 

reserve system is designed to be comprehensive, adequate, representative, and replicated. 

The proportion of the landscape in reserves varies among physiographic provinces; the 

reserves always predominate, ranging from 59 percent to 99 percent at the province level 

(USDA et al. 1993:IV-64 and IV-65; USDA, USDI 1994a, Appendix G:G-35). 

The Northwest Forest Plan anticipated and planned for increases in late-successional 

acres in the long term, as well as short-term harvest of late-successional stands in Matrix 

and Adaptive Management Areas. Standards and guidelines for Late-Successional 

Reserves are designed to maintain late-successional forest ecosystems and reduce their 

loss from large-scale fire, insect and disease epidemics, and major human impacts. 

Nevertheless, the Northwest Forest Plan acknowledged the role of natural disturbance 

in the development of late-successional forests and anticipated continued disturbances, 

even large-scale fire, in the reserves (USDA, USDI 1994a:3&4-46 through 49 and 3&4-89 

through 91; USDA, USDI 1994b:B-3 through B-4). The reserves are designed to maintain 

frequent, low-intensity natural ecosystem processes such as gap dynamics, natural 
135

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

regeneration, pathogenic fungal activity, insect herbivore, and low-intensity fire (USDA, 

USDI 1994b:B-8 through B-9 and C-13 through C-14). 

The Matrix is an integral part of the conservation strategy. Land allocations and 

standards and guidelines within the Matrix important to maintaining ecological 

processes include: (1) Riparian Reserves; (2) 100-acre owl activity centers; (3) 

Connectivity Diversity Blocks (BLM managed lands north of Grants Pass); (4) green tree 

and snag retention within cutting units; (5) provisions for downed woody debris; and, 

(6) protection of all remaining late-successional stands within fifth-field watersheds 

currently comprised of 15 percent or less late-successional forests on federally managed 

lands. Estimates from FEMAT on the percent of the land base within Riparian Reserves 

averaged 40 percent (USDA, USDI 1994b:B-12). Estimation done on individual 

administrative units has found that these initial estimates were conservative and, in most 

cases, Riparian Reserves are more extensive than originally estimated. In the 2000 Survey 

and Manage FSEIS, approximately 81,000 acres or 1 percent of the late-successional forest 

were projected to be managed for the protection of Survey and Manage species (USDA, 

USDI 2000a:436).

The Northwest Forest Plan and this SEIS assume a continuation of succession and 

disturbance processes that interrupt succession. Assumptions used in this SEIS also 

include the natural variability in successional process rates and directions. The latesuccessional forest ecosystems in the NWFP area are dynamic and have historically 

experienced varying levels of disturbance, generally from frequent, low-intensity fires in 

the dry, southern provinces to infrequent, severe fires in the northern provinces (USDA, 

USDI 1994a:3&4-17 through 24, 3&4-88 through 91, and B-44 through 46; USDA, USDI 

2000a:208). Although disturbance regimes (high rates of change) are often described 

precisely in terms of frequency, intensity, duration, and extent, such regimes are also 

highly variable. For example, the average fire return interval in the temperate forests 

of Oregon vary from less than 10 years between fires at low elevation, drier habitats to 

more than 100 years between fires in the high elevation, moister habitats. Variability 

throughout the overall region is greater yet. These frequencies seem precise, but the 

standard deviations (variability associated with the average) are often greater than the 

average. This means that average conditions and average rates of change can only be 

approximated. Because natural variability is wide, chaotic, and takes at least several 

decades to establish patterns and trends, it is premature to effectively evaluate humancaused effects and trends since the establishment of the Northwest Forest Plan 13 years 

ago. 

However, there have been changes to the reserves that are pertinent to this analysis. The 

reserves are larger and contain far more late-successional forest than assumed by the 

FEMAT viability rating panels, because of the subsequent addition to Riparian and LateSuccessional Reserves, under-estimates of Riparian Reserve acreage, and increases in the 

acreage of late-successional forest over the last 10 years due to higher than expected rates 

of in-growth. The latter has come from growth into the lower end of the age class (80-

90 years) used to define older forest. While these areas may not be the same quality as 

forests with larger trees and more structural diversity, all existing late-successional forest 

areas are growing older at the same time, so it is appropriate to attribute at least a portion 

of this in-growth as additional acres in all age classes. Even without such an assumption, 

the 80 to 90 year old stands themselves contribute habitat for many late-successional 

forest related species. 

In addition to these late-successional forest increases in the reserves, late-successional 

forest in the Matrix has been increasing as well, in part because harvest rates of latesuccessional forests in the Matrix have been a fraction of the rate projected in the Plan. 

Supporting details are as follows.
136

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Mitigations adopted as a result of the Additional Species Analysis (see Background for 

Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines in Chapter 2) resulted in the addition of 

775,000 acres to the Riparian and Late-Successional Reserves between the 1993 FEMAT 

report and the 1994 Northwest Forest Plan Record of Decision (USDA, USDI 1994b:29). 

Approximately 35 percent of this (USDA, USDI 1994a:3&4-41), or 270,000 acres, was latesuccessional forest.

Additionally, the FEMAT (and 1994 Northwest Forest Plan Record of Decision) estimated 

Riparian Reserves to encompass, on average, 40 percent of all NWFP areas (USDA, USDI 

1994b:B-12). The FEMAT estimate was based on analysis of sample stream systems 

appearing on broad scale topographic maps (Johnson et al. 1993). Subsequent Watershed 

Analyses and project planning experience by the Agencies’ administrative units has 

shown that estimate to be 20 to 30 percent too low west of the Cascade crest where dense 

vegetation apparently kept photo-interpreters from seeing and mapping all intermittent 

streams, wet areas, and unstable soils. Northwest Forest Plan practitioners generally 

use at least 50 percent as a more accurate reflection of average area in Riparian Reserves, 

or an increase of approximately 675,000 acres from within Matrix, and approximately 

100,000 acres from within Adaptive Management Areas (AMA). Approximately 29 

percent of these acres (USDA, USDI 1994a:3&4-41), or 225,000 acres, is late-successional 

forest in reserves.

Much of this 225,000 acres Riparian Reserve increase is reflected in the decrease in PSQ 

from the original 958 to the present 805 million board feet (MMBF). Six Oregon BLM and 

four Region 5 (California) Forest Service land and resource management plans were in 

draft when the Northwest Forest Plan was finalized in 1994. Completion of those plans 

in 1995, and subsequent review of six Region 6 (Oregon and Washington) Forest Service 

land management plan PSQs resulted in a 15 percent decrease in PSQ “based primarily 

on increases...in Riparian Reserves”, including an increase of late-successional forests in 

reserves from 6.7 to 6.9 million acres (USDA, USDI 2000a:429-430). Other west-side units 

also report actual Riparian Reserve acres to be considerably higher than estimated in the 

documentation of the FEMAT sampling (Johnson et al. 2003).

Additionally, the net ten-year increase in late-successional forest within reserves was 

projected to be about 2.8 percent of the NWFP area (3.5 percent in-growth less 0.7 percent 

loss to fire)(Figure 3&4-2), or 685,000 acres. Actual in-growth was nearly double this rate 

because of a particularly large cohort of approximately 100 year old stands originating 

from large fires at the turn of the last century but not quite old enough to be counted as 

late-successional by the FEMAT (Moeur et al. 2005). These are ten-year gains; it has been 

14 years since the FEMAT panel rated species, so the in-growth gains could be 40 percent 

higher or an additional two to three hundred thousand acres6. It is important to note 

that the effect of in-growth is not just more acres in the youngest age class; all existing 

late-successional forest has aged ten years as well, resulting in a corresponding increase 

in all late-successional forest age classes. While the continued development of latesuccessional characteristics in these older stands is dependent upon processes and events 

as well as age, a general assumption that these acres become richer in late-successional 

forest characteristics as they get older, is reasonable. 

Taken together, these factors indicate an increase in late-successional forest in reserves of 

at least 1.3 million acres from the reserves considered by the FEMAT viability panels, and 

perhaps as much as 1.7 million. This is a 19 to 26 percent increase over the 6,623,200 acres 

of late-successional forests in reserves displayed in the FEMAT report (USDA et al. 1993:

IV-54). 

6

This is not to suggest that this faster rate of in-growth will continue. While there is a large cohort of stands around 180 years 

of age that are becoming late-successional now, there is a nearly empty age class at 60 to 80 years, so in-growth will slow in 

decades 4 and 5, and the total late-successional forest after 50 years may be 10.7 million acres as predicted in the NWFP (see 

Figure 3&4-2).
137

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Substantial increases in late-successional forest in the Matrix and AMAs are in addition 

to the above gains. Actual harvest during the first ten years of the Northwest Forest Plan 

(contributing to PSQ, including regeneration harvesting in the Matrix) has been about 56 

percent of PSQ (Timber Harvest section; Baker et al. 2005). Reasons for this have included: 

more Survey and Manage site protection occurred than was expected; for some species, 

Endangered Species Act compliance has resulted in more habitat acres retained in the 

Matrix; AMA Plan(s) have called for deferral of harvests from the first decade; project 

and program lawsuits have reduced sale offerings (including the Pacific Coast Federation 

of Fishermen’s Association v. National Marine Fisheries Service, 71 F. Supp.2d 1063, 

1069 (W.D. Wash. 1999)); some areas are not economical to harvest, often in part because 

adjacent areas are excluded from harvest by the other factors listed here; and, funding 

and personnel issues have slowed some offerings. Further, the above factors have 

prevented harvests within late-successional forests disproportionate with the volume 

reduction. Thus, although the Agencies expected to harvest (remove) approximately 

247,000 acres of late-successional forest in the first decade (see Assumptions and 

Information Common to All Alternatives earlier in this chapter), less than 50,000 acres have 

been harvested, so there are approximately 200,000 acres more late-successional forest in 

the Matrix/AMAs at the end of the first decade than had been projected in 1994. While 

these stands may eventually be harvested, their retention through the first decade can be 

assumed to have helped maintain species to a greater degree than had been expected in 

the analysis of effect for the 1994 Northwest Forest Plan.

A ten-year Northwest Forest Plan Monitoring Report, Status and Trend of Late-Successional 

and Old-Growth Forest, was published in 2005. The late-successional forest increases 

shown in the ten-year report parallel and confirm the acreage increases described above. 

That is, 

“The environmental impact statement (USDA, USDI 1994a, USDA, USDI 2000) assumed 

that 0.7 percent of the Plan area would be lost to stand-replacing wildfire per decade, and 

that 1 percent of the Plan area (or 3 percent of the total late-successional forest) would be 

harvested per decade. It further assumed that ingrowth from younger classes into older 

forest classes would occur at a rate of 3.5 percent per decade on reserve lands, and 0.7 

percent per decade on matrix lands. On balance, older forest was expected to increase by 

600,000 acres in the first decade, and by 2.7 million acres after 50 years.

“Our monitoring results, albeit based on short-term observed trend, appear to show that 

certain of the Plan’s assumptions were too conservative. Our data show that during the 

first 10 years of the Plan, projected gains far outpaced losses of older forest, resulting in 

a net projected increase of between 1.25 and 1.5 million acres of older forest on federally 

managed land... The observed rate of gain was about twice the first decadal gain expected 

under the Plan” (Moeur et al. 2005:106).

The report goes on to note there was more than expected in-growth likely because large 

fires in the late 1800s and early 1900s poised many acres on the brink of late-successional 

size. In addition, actual stand-replacing harvest of late-successional forest in the ten 

years following adoption of the Plan was 16,900 acres7 rather than the 230,000 projected 

to have been harvested at the three percent rate. Fire losses over the same period had a 

larger than expected effect on some provinces, but the overall rate was within Northwest 

Forest Plan expectations.

Some of the above-described acreage increase is due to the addition of wider Riparian 

Reserves and 100 acre patches of late-successional forest scattered across the Matrix 

(from the Option 9 analyzed by the FEMAT panels), creating a better web or network of 

7

These are the acres visible on the monitoring team’s inventory photos, typically 5 acre and larger regeneration harvests. The 

US Fish and Wildlife Service 2004 report of 156,000 acres of owl habitat harvested during the same period is considered grossly 

overstated because it includes consultations for harvests that did not take place, and thinning or other stand tending that did not 

remove the stands (Haynes et al. 2006:90). See Appendix 11, Comment and Response #51, for additional discussion.
138

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

late-successional forest connecting larger reserves. The improved connectivity and 19 to 

26 percent increase in reserved late-successional forest acreage are significant, and as a 

result, late-successional forest related species would be expected to be more secure than 

estimated in 1994.

The ten-year monitoring report addressed this increased connectivity and overall latesuccessional forest ecosystem health as well. Given the improvements between the 

FEMAT report and the final version of the Northwest Forest Plan, along with more 

detailed inventory information and more time for analysis (the FEMAT developed their 

entire report in 90 days), the ten-year monitoring report states:

“...we perceive the condition of older forest abundance, diversity, and connectivity at the 

start of the Plan to have been generally consistent with Outcome 2, except perhaps for the 

provinces of the eastern Cascades. The interpretation for this outcome is that the older forest 

baseline was within the typical range of conditions that occurred during previous centuries, 

but less than the long-term presettlement average of 65 percent of the landscape [Outcome 

1] (USDA, USDI 1994a). Connectivity was strong, characterized by short distances 

between large older forest patches. The condition of older forest in the eastern Cascades 

provinces was more typical of Outcome 3, interpreted as below long-term averages, with 

relative scarcity in some areas or occurring as scattered remnant patches” (Moeur et al. 

2005:106).

While the report did not address fine-scale functionality features such as the number 

of snags and logs, the reported increases in acreage, diversity, and connectivity are 

significant indicators of improvement in the functionality of the late-successional forests. 

The FEMAT estimated Option 9 had a 77 percent likelihood of achieving Outcome 2 or 

better in the moist provinces in 100 years, and a 63 percent chance in the dry provinces 

(USDA et al. 1993:VI-70). However, Outcome 2 was essentially achieved by the reserve 

additions made in the final Plan. The late-successional forest in-growth in the past 14 

years is in addition to, and helps strengthen, these findings. This does not suggest that 

the existing mix of age classes in Late-Successional Reserves is not still a concern, that 

fragmentation or connectivity are restored to target levels, that restoration is complete, 

or that any other concerns noted in the 1994 Northwest Forest Plan analysis should not 

continue to guide the Agencies’ restoration goals. The findings do, however, indicate 

significant gains have been made toward meeting those goals, and thus these findings 

have significant implications for late-successional forest related species including those 

included in the Survey and Manage Program.

Finally, the more than 200,000 acre reduction in first decade harvest (from FEMAT 

projections) (Moeur et al. 2005:106) coupled with silvicultural techniques of green-tree 

retention, snag and coarse wood retention, smaller unit size, and yarding techniques to 

minimize disturbance, simply helps to facilitate the transition from 1993 conditions to a 

fully functional network of reserves. 

Recent trends in global climate have raised questions from the public about impacts to 

forest vegetation. There is a generally accepted principle that temperature rises will 

have a corresponding effect on the lower elevation boundary of various forest types, 

although the magnitude and timing for such change is also affected by other factors 

such as disturbance events. The literature concerning plant establishment and growth 

has long documented that environmental conditions needed for establishment of new 

perennial plants are narrower than the environmental conditions needed for persistence 

of established perennial plants. However, whether older forests are uniquely suited to 

“resist” climate change and younger trees are uniquely vulnerable to climate change 

are unexplored questions. Recent experiences with different types of disturbances 

suggest that older trees can be more vulnerable than younger trees due to differences in 

rooting depth, affecting access to soil water needed for several plant processes. All plant 

species have ecological limits. As environmental stressors increase, the likelihood that 
139

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

an individual plant will succumb to any particular stressor increases, regardless of age. 

For example, the recent increase in bark beetle-related mortality in nearly all coniferous 

forest types is believed to be due to a combination of past management practices, current 

climate, and, in higher elevation forests, natural timeframes for susceptibility (Fettig et al. 

2007, WFLC 2007). Many of the large fires in Oregon and Washington during 2006 were 

associated with insect outbreaks and mortality, both from bark beetles and defoliators, 

which have been on-going for several years. Merely retaining older forest is no guarantee 

that such forests will continue to persist under a changing climate, providing the benefits 

claimed. Whether younger trees are more susceptible depends on how well matched the 

species planted is to the changing site conditions. 

It would be inappropriate, however, to view “old-growth” as a monolith forest type. 

The structure and species composition of old forest varies considerably with biophysical 

setting. There is no evidence that climate change means the absolute end of old forests. 

It does mean that the structures and compositions of old forests will change and are less 

likely to resemble the structures and compositions of today’s old forests regardless of 

what management strategies and activities the Agencies undertake. As noted later in 

this section, pollen deposition studies in the Pacific Northwest dating back 10,000 years 

indicate significant changes in major forest species dominance every 2 to 3 thousand 

years.

Environmental Consequences

In assessing the environmental consequences of the alternatives to the 337 Survey and 

Manage species and four arthropod functional groups included in this analysis, specific 

information about the species is used whenever available. Information about the exact 

habitat requirements of many organisms does not exist, nor is it possible to accurately 

predict the exact consequences of each potential land management activity for all species 

(USDA, USDI 1994a:3&4-122). When specific species information is insufficient to base 

a conclusion of reasonable certainty regarding the security of habitat, reliance must be 

made on information regarding the overall design and effectiveness of the Northwest 

Forest Plan (land allocations, standards and guidelines, and other assumptions) and the 

understanding of the overall ecology of the late-successional forest ecosystem within the 

NWFP area. 

PSQ has been adjusted downward by approximately 15 percent primarily to more 

accurately reflect the extent of Riparian Reserves. This has resulted in a corresponding 

increase in protection of late-successional forest. Under any of the Alternatives, 

approximately 5 percent of existing late-successional forest on federally managed lands 

would be modified per decade by management actions such as partial cut harvests, 

regeneration harvests, and fuels treatments. In relation to long-term and regional 

ecological objectives, the environmental consequences associated with the rates of 

management disturbance per decade are small in comparison to the large extent of 

reserves and the large range of natural variability. Because the rate of disturbance 

through management activities is so small, there would be no meaningful difference 

in environmental consequences to the late-successional forest ecosystem, as a whole, 

between the alternatives, and certainly no departure from the consequences described in 

the 1994 FSEIS. 

Under all alternatives, late-successional and old-growth forest is anticipated to be 

replaced due to aging of existing stands across the NWFP area in the long term at a rate 

2.5 times greater than the rate of current anticipated harvest. In the long term, large 

blocks of late-successional and old-growth forest would be limited to the reserves and 

administratively withdrawn land allocations (USDA, USDI 1994a:3&4-42 through 46). 

The Matrix would include smaller patches of late-successional forest (such as within 
140

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

connectivity/diversity blocks) and late-successional structural elements within younger 

or multi-aged stands (such as older trees, snags, and coarse woody debris) (USDA, USDI 

1994b:C-40 through C-43).

FEMAT and the Northwest Forest Plan assessed the likelihood of maintaining a 

functional and interconnected, late-successional forest ecosystem. The ecosystem 

assessments were based upon diversity, function, dynamics, and spatial patterns of the 

late-successional forest ecosystem. Three attributes were assessed: abundance and 

ecological diversity, processes and function, and connectivity. Because the amount of 

forest habitat that is managed for known sites under the Survey and Manage Standards 

and Guidelines is small when compared to the 20 million acres of reserves, the rating 

of the likelihood of maintaining a functional and interconnected, late-successional 

forest ecosystem would not substantively vary among the four alternatives. Moreover, 

variation associated with implementation of the alternatives is likely to be insignificant 

when compared to the effects of successional disturbance processes and because of the 

high natural variability of the forest ecosystems.

The most substantial effect of Alternatives 1, 3 and 4 would be when the speciesspecific direction of the Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines conflict with 

the Northwest Forest Plan strategy of maintaining functioning, late-successional forest 

ecosystems. An example of this conflict is the use of prescribed fire to restore ecological 

functions to fire-associated forests in southern or eastside provinces when the known site 

of a Survey and Manage species consists of habitat resulting from the exclusion of fire 

from the ecosystem. Management aimed at dampening extreme ecological variations 

caused by fire tends to lead to extreme magnification of the effects associated with 

disturbance (USDA et al. 1993:IV-35 through IV-36 and IV-71 through IV-76; USDA, USDI 

1994b:B-4; USDA, USDI 2000a:205).

Given that approximately 80 percent of the NWFP area (and 87 percent of currently 

existing late-successional forests) is reserved, most late-successional and old-growth 

forest related species are likely to be adequately protected by the reserve system. There 

may be greater uncertainty about some late-successional and old-growth forest related 

species, such as those that have limited distribution and that are highly intolerant of 

disturbance. However, the design of the reserve system, which generally provides the 

most reserves in those physiographic provinces that had the most late-successional forest 

historically and the least natural disturbance, provides some additional assurance that 

late-successional and old-growth forest related species adapted to more static systems are 

adequately protected by the reserve system. 

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

persist, they would likely need some tolerance for disturbance at least at the population 

level. Tolerance for disturbance by species at the population level is needed because the 

forest ecosystems are dynamic and have historically experienced levels of disturbance as 

described above.

Physiographic provinces with the least reserves and most Matrix are the Willamette 

Valley, California Cascades, and the Oregon Klamath Provinces. In the Willamette 

Valley Province, 66 percent of all federally managed forest and 59 percent of latesuccessional forest is in Reserves. In the California Cascade Province, 57 percent of all 

federally managed forest and 68 percent of late-successional forest is in Reserves. In 

the Oregon Klamath Province, 68 percent of all federally managed forest and 74 percent 

of late-successional forest is in reserves. These provinces have had historically high 

fire frequencies, have had the least late-successional forests, and have had forests that 

were naturally highly fragmented (USDA, USDI 1994a:3&4-21 through 3&4-24, 3&4-

37; USDA, USDI 2001b). Species that might be limited predominately to the Matrix in 

these areas would most likely have evolved in an ecosystem characterized by the least 

late-successional forest, the least connectivity of late-successional habitat, and the most 
141

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

frequent disturbance. Therefore, in general and in the absence of specific information to 

the contrary, if there are late-successional and old-growth forest related species that are 

restricted to provinces that have disproportionately more Matrix, such as the Willamette 

Valley, California Cascades, and Oregon Klamath provinces, then they are more likely to 

be at less risk from limited or fragmented late-successional habitat, and are more likely to 

be relatively tolerant of disturbance. 

Physiographic provinces with the most infrequent fire have the most reserves and least 

Matrix. The Olympic Peninsula and high elevations of Western Washington Cascades 

have “... the lowest fire frequencies of Pacific Northwest forest ecosystems” (USDA, USDI 

1994a:3&4-17 through 18). In the Olympic Peninsula Province, 92 percent of all federally 

managed forest and 99 percent of late-successional forest is in reserves. In the Western 

Washington Cascade Province, 88 percent of all federally managed forest and 92 percent 

of late-successional forest is in reserves (USDA, USDI 1994a:2-39 and G-35). Therefore, 

if there are species that are restricted to these provinces, they may be highly intolerant 

of disturbance (in contrast to species that might be restricted to the drier provinces 

described above). However, if there are species restricted to these provinces that are 

highly intolerant of disturbance, they are likely to be adequately protected by the reserve 

system, because these provinces have disproportionately more reserves. 

The coarse filter/fine filter approach to species management has become well established 

in the ecological literature (Noss 1987, Hunter 1991, Noss and Cooperider 1994, Groves 

2003). Large reserved areas can be presumed to protect 85-90% of species, with fine 

filter methods providing for the rest (Iverson 2001). This was more or less the strategy 

used in the Northwest Plan, with Survey and Manage provisions for fine filter concerns. 

Coarse filter reserves efficiently conserve large numbers of species while allowing 

resource development in the non-reserved areas (the “Matrix” of the Northwest Plan). 

The post-FEMAT analysis resulted in several other fine-filter standards and guidelines 

as well. Since the Northwest Plan began implementation in 1994, monitoring and other 

information results suggest the Survey and Manage aspect of the fine filter approach may 

not be necessary. The Agencies present evidence for this as follows:

For the species eventually placed on Survey and Manage, the FEMAT reported their 

species evaluation panel’s lower ratings as “troubling,” and went on to suggest that 

investigations of these taxa receive 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). 

The purpose of the following discussion is to examine whether this concern would be 

exacerbated by the removal of the Survey and Manage mitigation measure.

Certainly, vascular plants, fungi, lichens, and so forth are important ecosystem 

components, but the role of actually rare individual species is not well understood 

(Lyons et al. 2005, Schwartz et al. 2000). The FEMAT scientists themselves chose not to 

add individual species protection to Option 9, taking the view that there was sufficient 

late-successional and old-growth forest in the Late-Successional and Riparian Reserves to 

protect these species, and further protections should await evidence of risk (Thomas et al. 

2006). 

About 25 percent of the original Survey and Manage species have been removed from 

the program with the 2001 Record of Decision and subsequent Annual Species Reviews 

(Alternative 1), primarily because they were found to be more common and/or more 

secure than originally thought. For this discussion, it is assumed some additional 

number of species would eventually be determined to be more common and/or more 

secure than currently thought. For example, the recently completed RMS Survey and 
142

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

resultant statistical analysis indicates many species that were previously thought rare 

are likely more numerous and widespread than originally believed. Because reserves, 

including riparian reserves, cover so much of the landscape, it is reasonable to assume 

these reserves would protect the majority of these sites. (As noted above, the amount of 

late-successional forest in reserves has increased more than 19 percent, or more than a 

million acres, since the Plan was adopted. It is unknown what portion of the continuing 

increase in known sites is attributable to increases in habitat, and what portion is 

attributable to surveys simply finding previously occupied sites.) 

More than one-third of the species currently on Survey and Manage had at least one 

RMS detection, and on average, such a detection suggests 7,000 to over 200,000 similarly 

occupied sites (although the 95% confidence bound includes zero for such a single 

detection) depending upon the sample stratification (see RMS Survey discussion in the 

Background for Effects Analysis section). From these existing detections, it is possible to 

mathematically project average species numbers and populations for those not detected 

(and indeed several models are available), but those projections cannot accurately predict 

extremely rare species (Schreuder et al. 2000). Such projections are used, for example, 

to predict how many unknown species of a taxa (e.g. insects) there are in the world. 

Projection techniques preclude the need to continue random sampling with lower and 

lower likelihoods of finding additional, proportionately rarer species. For example, if 

the 750 half-acre botany RMS Survey points were repeated 100 times, for example (75,000 

plots), to where a detection represents (on average) about 650 occupied 1⁄2-acre sample 

sites, many more of the Survey and Manage species would be detected, and they would, 

on average, have populations covering hundreds of acres and more. 

There are, however, some Survey and Manage species that still may not be detected at 

such intensity because they have smaller populations than hundreds of acres. In fact, 

such a situation is likely. There are mollusks, for example, associated with dry province 

springs, and lichens in hypermaritime sand dunes, that have fewer than 30 acres of 

known sites and their habitat is so specialized that it all may have been identified and 

examined, and all extant sites located. These species may have developed in these rare 

habitats, or they may have once been more widespread and have been relegated to their 

current locations by major events such as the advance or retreat of glacial ice. Species 

so rare are most likely to be, though not necessarily always, associated with specialized, 

limited habitat and not with late-successional forests.

A discussion of risk to species (from management or natural disturbance) and in the 

implications of that risk to Northwest Forest Plan late-successional forest ecosystems first 

requires a distinction between rare and “actually” rare. That is, if a species is considered 

rare simply because it is known only from a few sites, it is not necessarily “actually” rare. 

Many of the Category B fungi, for example, may be rare only because the difficulty in 

locating them has kept the number of known sites low. Thorough searches done for the 

RMS Survey increased the known sites for some Survey and Manage fungi species by 

several times, and subsequent statistical analysis indicates they are not actually rare at 

all. The only reason such species were included in Survey and Manage in the first place 

was lack of information, and given enough time and inventory funding, all species not 

“actually” rare would eventually be removed from Survey and Manage.

If a species is actually rare, there is some risk (though likely low) that management 

activities would have a significant negative impact on a species population or even 

extirpate it from the NWFP area ecosystem. The likelihood of direct impact is discussed 

in the Survey and Manage Species section later in this chapter. That analysis indicates if a 

species truly exists on only 1 or 2 sites, the likelihood of intersecting the entire population 

with timber management activities is about 3 percent or 1/10th of one percent per decade 

respectively (and even then, the possibility of that impact actually eliminating the sites 

depends on the nature of the habitat and the resilience of the species). If the species 

exists on 4 or 5 separate sites, the possibility of timber management activities impacting 
143

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

all of them rapidly approaches zero. The analysis makes it quickly apparent that only 

species making up much less than 1 percent of the biomass of late-successional forest 

ecosystems are at any risk of direct impacts at all.

Setting aside the intrinsic importance of individual species for the Survey and Manage 

Species section later in this chapter, the question important to this section of the analysis 

is whether such species are important to the functionality of the ecosystems in which 

they live. Actually rare species (the ones clearly making up less than one percent of 

the biomass of their ecosystem) are by definition so uncommon as to not appear at all 

on most sites. While their site-specific ecosystem contribution or function is generally 

apparent, research has not suggested a unique functional role for species so rare. Lyons 

et al. (2005) and Schwartz et al. (2000) examined research efforts to link biodiversity and 

rare species to ecosystem function. 

Lyons et al. (2005) noted few examples of even uncommon species (defined in Lyons 

et al. as approximately 1 to 5 percent of the biomass of the ecosystem studied) playing 

significant roles. Nevertheless, some cases did occur. For example, removal of mountain 

lions led to significantly increased deer numbers, resulting in a variety of vegetation 

and human interaction issues. A suite of Equisetum species in Alaskan shrub wetlands 

making up less than 5 percent of the above and below ground biomass made substantial 

contributions to phosphorus, potassium, and calcium in litter and soil nutrient pools. 

Similarly, Lyons et al. identified instances where aggregations of uncommon species fill 

ecosystem roles. For example, early seral species may be poorly represented in latesuccessional forest ecosystems, but are important in pioneering disturbed sites after large 

fires or other disturbances, providing soil stability and sometimes providing significantly 

high levels of nitrogen and other nutrients. Less common species played important roles 

in nutrient cycling in an alpine meadow in part, because they were able to be active in 

slightly different times of the season than other species present on the site. Bees too, 

fall in this latter group; and less common species helped stabilize population variations. 

Indeed, the role of uncommon species in helping to buffer population variations is the 

only benefit of uncommon species Schwartz et al. (2000) confidently identified. 

None of these studies uncovered a role for actually rare species, defined as species 

truly extant on only a few sites, and comprising less than 1 percent of the biomass in 

an ecosystem. In fact, the Schwartz et al. (2000) examination of 94 literature references 

found the majority of biodiversity-ecosystem function studies indicated that most 

ecosystem function is achieved with relatively few species, and that “evidence in support 

of a linear dependence of ecosystem function on diversity such that even the rare species 

contribute to function is practically non-existent” (Schwartz et al. 2000). Schwartz et 

al. (2000) found “little support for the hypothesis that there is a strong dependence of 

ecosystem function on the full compliment of diversity within sites.”

Anecdotal observations support application of these findings in Northwest forest 

ecosystems. For example, lichens in the genus Bryoria make up nearly 100 percent of the 

winter food for the northern flying squirrel, a prey species for the Northern Spotted Owl 

and an important distributor of mycorrhizal fungi. However, other species in the Bryoria

genus are common, and the biomass of the three Survey and Manage Bryoria species are 

an immeasurably tiny fraction of the genus. There are examples of single species upon 

which entire ecosystems rely (e.g., coral in atolls and krill in the North Sea). However, 

there do not appear to be similar examples for Pacific Northwest forests. Indeed, 

pollen deposition studies in the Pacific Northwest dating back 10,000 years indicate 

significant changes in major forest species dominance every 2 to 3 thousand years. The 

current suite of forest species did not evolve together, and there is no evidence they are 

irrevocably interrelated in function and thus potentially singularly dependent upon one 

another. Considerable functional similarity (redundancy) has evolved or migrated here. 

Researchers estimate, for example, there are approximately 2,000 species of mycorrhizal 
144

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

fungi associated with Douglas-fir roots alone (Trudell et al. 2006). Although different 

ones perform different functions in space and time, there is no reasonable probability that 

the extirpation of some of these species would threaten the existence of the Douglas-fir 

forests. The role of such mycorrhizal fungi in facilitating water and nutrient uptake and 

other functions would continue to be played by the many such species still remaining.

No actually rare species has been identified as serving as a system catalyst, keystone, or 

gatekeeper. They are simply too rare to be critical to current ecosystem processes; no 

system could survive if it was dependent on an actually rare and vulnerable species. If 

such a role existed, fluctuating climate or fire would not only affect it, but would remove 

the whole ecosystem as well. Very rare species exist naturally, because of limited habitat 

or historic circumstances. The previously cited research does not support the notion that 

ecosystem function relies upon them.

Although the above line of reasoning and research indicates the Pacific Northwest 

forest ecosystem is not dependent upon actually rare species, it cannot be concluded 

that rare species have no role in ecosystem function. Much remains to be evaluated 

before any conclusions can be made. While rare species currently do not have known

roles as system catalysts, keystones, or gatekeepers in Pacific Northwest ecosystems, 

they provide diversity that can potentially allow these ecosystems to adapt to climate 

and vegetation change, and indeed evolutionary processes, into the future. Because the 

species have no apparent critical role today does not mean they will not in the future. 

The point here is not to suggest Survey and Manage species do not matter, however, or 

that a real risk of extirpation should be ignored. The point is that the likelihood a species 

plays a significant or unique role in late-successional forest ecosystems increases with 

its abundance, but such an increase in abundance correspondingly reduces the risk the 

species might be extirpated by management activities in the NWFP area. Thus, there 

appears to be no measurable or significant risk to forest ecosystems brought about by the 

apparently small risk of extirpating a species under the proposed action when compared 

to the No-Action Alternative.

There are some unusual and limited ecosystems within the NWFP area, such as 

Darlingtonia bogs, where rare species might potentially serve a much larger ecosystem 

role in such geographically limited systems. No such role has been identified for Survey 

and Manage species. These systems are appropriately protected through Agencies’ 

Special Status Species Programs or other policies other than Survey and Manage. 

Moreover, the Endangered Species Act recognizes the importance of, and need to protect, 

rare species.

The value of individual populations of species, as well as the species as a whole, is 

acknowledged (Luck et al. 2003), as well as the fact that species can appear redundant 

locally but have functions at different scales (Peterson et al. 1998). The lack of 

information on rare species is also acknowledged:

At this time, biotic and abiotic interactions of a majority of species on the planet are 

unknown or poorly understood. Our survey suggests this is doubly true for rare and 

less common species. In the short-term, widespread ignorance warrants a precautionary 

approach regarding taxa with putatively less ecosystem impact (Lyon et al. 2005).

These aspects of biodiversity are not in conflict with the provisions of the Northwest 

Forest Plan, nor of this document. The Plan has strong provisions for the conservation of 

species at multiple scales, and there is little evidence that Survey and Manage species are 

at significantly greater risk by the removal of Survey and Manage provisions. 

Individual species outcomes notwithstanding, an analysis of the odds of impacting 

species sites coupled with the above examination of the potential role of rare species 

in ecosystem function points to a general conclusion there is very little risk of species 
145

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

extirpation unless species are actually rare or face a serious threat from disease or other 

forces (see Survey and Manage Species section later in this chapter). Further, and in spite 

of ecosystems being more complex than will likely ever be known or understood, it can 

be said with a reasonable level of confidence that if a species were so rare as to be at 

actual risk of extirpation, it would be too rare for its loss to have a detectable effect on the 

function of the late-successional forest ecosystem. 

Global Climate

The conclusion of the Northwest Forest Plan Final SEIS was that management activities 

under the Northwest Forest Plan would cause a change in global atmospheric carbon 

dioxide of less than 0.01 percent of the total (USDA, USDI 1994a:3&4-46, and 3&4-50 

through 51). The 2000 Survey and Manage Final SEIS concluded that this increase would 

be even less because of the lower harvest levels than originally anticipated (USDA, 

USDI 2000a:203). Although these changes are intended to represent contributions to the 

atmosphere from Northwest Forest Plan-level activities, opposite effects are as likely. 

Since the U.S. demand for wood products continues to increase, each decrease in harvest 

levels to accommodate other management objectives 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 product to U.S. markets. 

 

As indicated in the most recent summary from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change (IPCC) (2007), temperatures worldwide are expected to increase with the greatest 

change in the higher latitudes; precipitation regimes are also expected to change, with 

some areas becoming more arid and some becoming wetter. Weather is expected to 

become more variable with extreme events, such as heat waves and heavy precipitation, 

occurring more frequently (IPCC 2007). The most recently available projections for 

the northwestern United States are that winters will become warmer and wetter and 

summers will become warmer and drier, although these projections have a higher level of 

certainty east of the Cascade crest than west (Leung et al. 2004, Mote et al. 2005). 

Projections for temperature have a much higher level of certainty than those for 

precipitation (IPCC 2007, Leung et al. 2004, Mote et al. 2005). Further, current climate 

projections remain very coarse, usually 10 km resolution or coarser. Several models that 

address known feedback links between vegetation and climate are under development, 

but these also remain relatively coarse, functioning at the level of general ecosystems, 

such as ponderosa pine forest, rather than specific sites. Climatologists are unable 

to project how climate might change in a local area, such as the individual ecological 

provinces within the NWFP area, much less at the scale of stands or microsites.

Several studies have documented shifts in the ranges of some species and in spring 

phenologies consistent with those expected under a warming climate (Parmesan and 

Yohe 2003, Root et al. 2003, Walther et al. 2002). However, species are what migrate, 

not communities, with range changes occurring at different rates. The differential 

changes mean that we can expect new plant and animal communities to develop, but 

we do not know what form those communities may take, at what rate the changes 

will occur, or when more-or-less stable communities will redevelop. We do not know 

at what rate current communities may ‘destabilize’ either. A recent report from the 

National Academy of Sciences (Williams et al. 2007) indicated that we can expect to lose 

communities that depend on cold climates at the upper elevations of many mountain 

ranges and at the high latitudes. The species covered by the Northwest Forest Plan are 

not cold climate obligates. This report also states that we can expect the development of 

new climates; however, as with new ecosystems, the current science is unable to predict 

what new climates will develop where and when.
146

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Other factors that compound the uncertainties in estimating potential effects on 

individual species are interactions between increasing carbon dioxide levels and 

changing temperature and precipitation regimes as they affect plant species responses, 

and the recently identified impacts of Asian pollution on Pacific storm tracks (Zhang et 

al. 2007). All these uncertainties make it impossible to estimate the potential impacts of 

climate change on the persistence probabilities of any given taxa. They do increase the 

level of uncertainty concerning projected outcomes, but we cannot say how much that 

uncertainty increases or whether the increase is the same for all taxa. Where specific 

concerns are identified, they are noted in the individual species sections.

Locally, the best approach to increasing carbon sequestration in forests is to exclude fire 

and other disturbances (Tilman et al. 2000, Thornley and Cannell 2000, Houghton 2003). 

However, this approach has proven infeasible and unsustainable. Many other studies 

indicate the issue of carbon storage and sequestration is complex. Globally and within 

the conterminous United States, the expected net ecosystem productivity in temperate 

forests resulting from both carbon fertilization and various land use practices would 

sequester about 10 percent of anthropogenically (human caused) emitted carbon dioxide 

(Hamilton et al. 2000, Woodbury et al. 2007). Nearly half the carbon dioxide uptake is 

in short-lived tissues such as foliage, with little of that transferred to soil carbon stocks 

during the decay process (Schlesinger and Lichter 2001). While the trees of the Pacific 

Northwest account for a significant portion of the carbon stocks of the conterminous 

United States, a significant portion of those carbon stocks are also contained in wood 

products, including wood in landfills (Woodbury et al. 2007). The temperate forests of 

the North America and Europe are currently net carbon sinks, but this is largely due to 

the effects of fire exclusion (Houghton 2003). The maximum rate of carbon accumulation 

attributable to land use changes was reached around 1980 with less than half this uptake 

in forests (Houghton et al. 2000). Total ecosystem carbon storage and the fraction of 

carbon stored in above ground wood in dry forests increases rapidly for 150-200 years 

and then levels off (Law et al. 2003). Law et al. (2001, 2003) found that net ecosystem 

productivity, a measure of carbon uptake, in ponderosa pine forests was highest in 

mature forests (95-106) years old and next to lowest in old forests (190+ years old) and 

that young forests switch from being a net carbon source to a net carbon sink 10-20 

years after a stand-replacing disturbance, either natural or anthropogenic. Most of the 

carbon emitted from very young forests appears to be the result of increased metabolic 

rates in soil organisms exposed to increased temperatures and moisture (Law et al. 

2001). Thornley and Cannell (2000) found that undisturbed forests store more carbon 

overall but that management regimes that retain canopy cover and mimic regular natural 

disturbances are likely to achieve a reasonable amount of carbon storage and wood yield.

Hence, there are few if any negative effects to global climate expected by increases in 

timber harvest and other activities expected from the proposed action when compared 

to the No-Action Alternatives. The ability to better conduct fuels treatments under the 

proposed action would be expected to benefit global climate. All alternatives result 

in fewer acres harvested than were anticipated in the Northwest Forest Plan analysis 

however.

Air Quality

Affected Environment

The federal Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990, is designed to reduce air pollution, 

protect human health, and preserve the Nation’s air resources. To protect air quality, 

the Clean Air Act requires federal agencies to comply with all federal, state, and local 

air pollution requirements (Section 118). The regulating of prescribed fire activity 
147

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

is delegated to the states and county level air pollution control districts. Prescribed 

fire can be used as a tool for treating logging residue from regeneration harvest, for 

restoring ecosystem processes, and for hazardous fuel reduction. Wildland Fire Use 

is management of naturally ignited fire to meet resource objectives (see Wildland and 

Prescribed Fire), and protection of air quality is a primary concern when Wildland Fire 

Use is employed. 

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued the Regional Haze Rule (EPA 1999), 

intended to protect visibility in Federal Mandatory Class I Wilderness areas8, and the 

Particulate Mater standard (EPA 2006) for particles 2.5 microns (PM 2.5) or less in size. 

Prescribed fire, wildfire, and Wildland Fire Use all have a direct impact on visibility 

protection and human health. Over 70 percent of the smoke emission from all sources is 

PM 2.5. 

The level of smoke emission varies based on the type of burning and the amount of 

available fuel. Wildfires produce the highest amount of emission because of their size 

and intensity during the summer months. Prescribed fire emission vary based on season 

of burn, the prescribed fire activity (i.e. underburn, broadcast burn, and pile burn), and 

the amount of available fuel. 

Ecosystem restoration burning and some hazardous fuel burning (e.g. under-burning) 

are typically cooler or lower intensity and the majority of the emission remains on-site. 

Pile burning usually takes place in the fall and winter months after significant rainfall or 

snow. Burning piles is more efficient - thereby reducing total emission. Broadcast burns 

create the most emission and are controlled by dispersion and avoidance techniques. 

 The Northwest Forest Plan Final SEIS estimated PM10 levels under Alternative 9, 

aggregated across climatic groups (moist, dry, or intermediate), to be 35-40 percent of 

historic PM10 levels (1985-1992) (USDA, USDI 1994b:3&4-96).

EPA standards for PM10 changed in 1997, and a standard from PM2.5 was initiated. 

Trend monitoring by EPA shows PM standards are being met throughout the NWFP area 

based on prescribed fire activity type and the number of acres treated.

Environmental Consequences 

The acres to be burned for prescribed fire, Wildland Fire Use for and wildfire for each 

alternative would be less than the 476,000 annual acres that were projected under 

Alternative 9 of the Northwest Forest Plan. None of the alternative would exceed the 

level of impacts analyzed in the Northwest Forest Plan. Under all alternatives, 80,000 

annual acres of hazardous fuel treatment are projected, with 38 percent of that expected 

to be prescribed fire (for further discussion, see the Wildland and Prescribed Fire section 

later in this chapter) and 40-50 percent of the remainder is the more efficient pile burning. 

Strict adherence to the local smoke management plans is the best and most successful 

mitigation for reducing smoke emission impacts on local populations and maintaining 

visibility protection in Class I Wilderness Areas and National Parks.

As discussed in the Wildland and Prescribed Fire section later in this chapter, virtually no 

acres are planned for Wildland Fire Use in the foreseeable future. Wildfire within the 

NWFP area has averaged about 220,000 acres per year since 1994.

8

Class I Area: as defined in the Clean Air Act, the following areas that were in existence as of August 7, 1977: national parks over 

6,000 acres, national wilderness areas and national memorial parks over 5,000 acres, and international parks.
148

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Water Quality

Affected Environment

Water flowing from forested areas administered by the Agencies has a number of 

beneficial uses. The Clean Water Act directs federal agencies to comply with state water 

quality requirements to restore and maintain water quality necessary to protect beneficial 

uses. The Agencies are the designated management agencies within the range of the 

Northern Spotted Owl, charged with implementing and enforcing natural resource 

management programs for the protection of water quality on lands they administer. The 

four major components of the Northwest Forest Plan’s Aquatic Conservation Strategy 

are Riparian Reserves, Key Watersheds, Watershed Analysis, and Watershed Restoration. 

These provide for maintaining and improving water quality. 

Environmental Consequences 

None of the alternatives change the provisions of the Northwest Forest Plan that 

provide for restoring and maintaining water quality on federally managed lands in the 

NWFP area. None of the alternatives change the analysis or outcomes for water quality 

described in the Northwest Forest Plan Final SEIS.

Soil Productivity

Affected Environment

The combined influences of time, parent material, climate, living organisms, and the 

topography of a site interact to form soils with unique sets of physical and chemical 

properties that determine the productivity of each soil type. Soil productivity is a 

soil’s ability to produce vegetation. Long-term forest soil productivity is the capacity 

or suitability of a soil to establish and grow a plant species and community over time, 

primarily through nutrient availability and available soil moisture. Ecosystem structures 

and functions ultimately depend on productive soils. 

Environmental Consequences 

Forest management practices have the potential to reduce natural productivity if certain 

operating guidelines are not followed. Under all alternatives, implementation of soil 

management prescriptions and best management practices would prevent unacceptable 

degradation of the soil resource and related productivity (USDA, USDI 1994a:3&4-111). 

None of the alternatives change the provisions of the Northwest Forest Plan that provide 

for maintaining soil productivity. Some of the Survey and Manage fungi are agents of 

soil productivity, but soil fungi are generally not one raising persistence concerns and 

their functions are generally redundant. Therefore, none of the alternatives change the 

analysis or outcomes for soil productivity described in the Northwest Forest Plan Final 

SEIS.
149

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wildland and Prescribed Fire

Affected Environment

Wildfire and the Ecosystem

Late-successional forest ecosystems in the NWFP area are dynamic and have historically 

experienced varying levels of disturbance by fire (Agee 1990, 1993). Historical fire 

regimes have generally ranged from frequent, low-severity in the dry, southern and 

eastern provinces, to mixed-severity in the Klamath, Siskiyou and some Cascade regions 

(Atzet 1991, Frost and Sweeney 2000, Taylor and Skinner 2003, Odion et al. 2004), to less 

frequent high-severity fire regimes in the northern provinces (Hessburg et al.2005, Baker 

2006, Brown et al. 2004, Noss et al. 2006). Because fuels were maintained at relatively 

low levels by fire, fire intensity and severity was typically lower in frequent fire regimes. 

Historically, these regimes were typical of eastern ponderosa pine and some southern 

and central mixed conifers forests. Areas of varied terrain and topography, along with 

diverse species composition and irregular levels of forest cover and density, generally 

resulted in a mixed-severity fire regime, typical of the southern, central and some eastern 

mixed conifer forests (Brown 1995, Beaty and Taylor 2001, Odion et al. 2004, Hessburg 

et al. 2005, Baker et al. 2006). In more moist forests, typical of most coastal and some 

western, and high elevation forests, fire was less frequent but typically burned at higher 

intensity resulting in a high severity fire regime (Agee 1990, 1993, Frost and Sweeney 

2000, Beaty and Taylor 2001). These fire regimes have shaped Northwest Forest Plan 

landscapes and influenced the habitats and the species that live there (Spies and Franklin 

1989, Agee 1990). In the low and mixed-severity fire regimes, fires reduced surface fuel 

and created a mosaic of vegetation patches of differing ages, species, and structural 

attributes. Fires in high severity fires regimes also resulted in patch diversity, but at 

a much larger scale. These natural forest patches contribute to the diversity of the 

broader landscape (Pickett and White 1985, Spies 1991a, b, Spies and Franklin 1991). In 

aggregate, patchiness is integral to landscape function, providing habitats for diverse 

populations of species. With the absence of fires that generate seral diversity, forest 

stands become more homogeneous in terms of stand structure, species, and habitat, 

resulting in reduced biological diversity within and throughout landscapes (Parson and 

DeBenedettii 1979, Peterson et al. 2005). In frequent and mixed severity fire regimes, fire 

exclusion has often interrupted the natural role of fire in reducing fuels, permitting vast 

areas to accumulate uncharacteristically higher levels of flammable debris and ladder 

fuels leading to an increased risk of high-severity, stand-replacing fire, damaging insects, 

and disease. Therefore, in these ecosystems, the alteration of natural fire regimes by 

fire exclusion affects species composition, diversity, structure, and sometimes species 

persistence (Petraitis et al.1989; Brown 1995; USDA, USDI 1994a:3&4-83). 

Although the effects of climate change are uncertain, it may significantly increase fire 

severity, frequency, and extent (McKenzie et al. 2004, Turner and Roome 2004, Makundi 

1997, Flannigan et al. 2000). Increased spring and summer temperatures and earlier 

spring snow melt, as a result of climate change, has been linked to an increase in 

Western U.S. wildfire activity (Westerling et al. 2006). McKenzie et al. (2004) concluded 

that the effects of climate change will partially depend on the extent to which resource 

management modifies vegetation structure and fuels, reinforcing the need for fuel 

reduction and restoration of fire adapted ecosystems.

Fuel Hazard Reduction for the Protection of Property, Structures, and 

Public Safety 

In addition to the ecological necessity for treating excessive levels of fuel, there is an 

urgent and sizable need to reduce the vulnerability of homes, structures and ultimately 

the safety of those living in the wildland urban interface from uncontrollable wildfire. 
150

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

The protection of life and property is a paramount goal of the National Fire Plan (NFP 

2000) (see National Fire Plan section below).

Small communities and other developed private lands adjacent to federally managed 

lands can be directly affected by fuel conditions on those federal lands. Threats posed by 

fuel accumulations are realized almost annually when wildfires affect urban areas (e.g. 

wildfires in northern California 1999, throughout western states 2002, large wildfires in 

southern Oregon 2003, large wildfires in southern California 2003, 2005, 2006)

The wildland urban interface (WUI) is the area where houses meet or intermingle with 

undeveloped wildland vegetation. The WUI is thus a focal area for human/environment 

conflicts, such as the destruction of homes by wildfires, habitat fragmentation, 

introduction of exotic species, and biodiversity decline (Macdonald et al. 2006, Radeloff 

et al. 2005).

The analysis presented here uses the WUI definition developed by the SILVIS group at 

the University of Wisconsin. This is the only consistently mapped WUI available to cover 

the entire Northwest Plan area. WUI areas defined in Community Wildfire Protection 

Plans are expected to be used in actual project-level planning and implementation.

As defined by the SILVIS group, the WUI is comprised of both interface and intermix 

communities. In both interface and intermix communities, housing density exceeds one 

structure per 40 acres. Intermix communities are places where housing and vegetation 

intermingle, with vegetation being more than 50 percent and continuous. Interface 

communities are areas with housing in the vicinity of contiguous vegetation. Interface 

areas have more than 1 house per 40 acres, with less than 50 percent vegetation, and are 

within 1.5 mi of areas larger than 1,325 acres that are more than 75 percent vegetated. 

The minimum size limit ensures that areas surrounding small urban parks are not 

classified as interface WUI (SILVIS 2006). The adequate protection of communities at risk 

within the WUI requires a buffer or adjacent area where fuel is treated in order to reduce 

the risk of undesirable impacts from wildfire.

National Fire Plan

To address the issue of increased fire size and intensity throughout the west, as reflected 

in the more than 8 million acres burned nationally in 2000, Congress initiated a National 

Fire Plan (USDA, USDI 2000b). Activities such as firefighting, rehabilitation and 

restoration, hazardous fuels reduction, community assistance, and research are included 

in the plan. The National Fire Plan proposes aggressive hazardous fuels reduction 

activities to protect communities and at-risk landscapes. In the 2001 appropriations bill, 

Congress also directed completion of the Forest Service’s Cohesive Strategy for Fuels 

Management and the 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy, which also included direction 

for implementation and accountability. The related Federal Cohesive Strategy for Fuels 

Management was released in February 2006.

The Evaluation of Fire Risk and Ecological Conditions

Because of the spatial and temporal variability of natural fire events, the 

influences of climatic fluctuations, and the uncertainties associated with the use of 

dendrochronological analysis for fire history dating, an accurate assessment of the 

amount of acres that historically burned annually is extremely difficult to derive (Veblen 

2002:11-13). Fire history reconstructions are very rough estimates and the accuracy and 

precision of the estimates can only provide relative trends or fire regimes. Using an 

estimate of historic fire size and frequencies, the 2000 Survey and Manage Final SEIS (p. 

210) approximated that, on average, 476,000 acres burned annually. This number was 

used as the basis for approximating the ecological goal for annual fuel treatment in the 

2004 FSEIS (p. 136). Regularly updated and in the absence of other tools, this information 
151

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

was valuable for inferring ecological needs. Recent severe fire years beg the question 

of applicability of previous trends. Because of this inherent uncertainty, this Final 

Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS uses a different approach, incorporating new technology 

previously unavailable.

Since 2000, over $12 billion has been allocated and expended on fire related planning, 

fire ecology research, and fuel reduction programs nationwide under the auspices of the 

National Fire Plan (http://www.fireplan.gov/resources/reference_library.html). Beginning 

before the National Fire Plan, the federal interagency Joint Fire Science research program 

has made major contributions to fire related research and technology (http://jfsp.nifc.

gov/), including technology and tools to assess landscape scale vegetation structure, 

fuels, and fire regimes (LANDFIRE 2006, Hann et al. 2005). The purposes of these 

tools are to 1) Develop an interagency methodology for identifying, quantifying, and 

reporting ecological departure; 2) Develop capability for mapping the attributes needed 

for fire behavior modeling; and 3) Develop mapping using a consistent methodology to 

portray both the ecological departure and fire behavior variables. Ecological departure 

is portrayed with a landscape metric known as Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC). 

FRCC essentially compares the similarity or lack of similarity of existing conditions 

of seral stages, fire frequency, and fire severity to modeled historic conditions of these 

variables. Mapping of FRCC is provided in both the LANDFIRE Rapid Assessment (RA) 

and in LANDFIRE National. For both products, workshops with local experts were held 

throughout the country to model the reference conditions needed; LANDFIRE National 

supplements this with ground data to build the vegetation layers used in the FRCC 

analyses. 

Fire Regime Conditions Classes classify ecosystems into categories that reflect the degree 

to which a vegetative community is at risk of undesired effects from wildfire. FRCC is 

an interagency, standardized tool for determining the degree of departure from reference 

condition vegetation, fuels and disturbance regimes, and is specifically mentioned in 

the Healthy Forests Restoration Act to determine ecological departure for fuel treatment 

needs. Assessing FRCC can help in setting management objectives, identify needs, and 

assist in determining the location and priorities for fuel treatments (Hann and Strohm 

2003). The Rapid Assessment layers include FRCC, a map of historic fire regimes, the 

current mix of seral stages, and a potential vegetation layer. The scientific basis for all 

processes, analyses, methods, and data have undergone peer review and are available at 

http://www.frcc.gov, http://www.landfire.gov/, and http://www.fireplan.gov/.

Fire Regimes and Departure from Reference Conditions (FRCC)

A natural fire regime is a general classification of the role fire would play across a 

landscape in the absence of modern human mechanical intervention (Agee 1993). 

Burning by aboriginal peoples has been documented to have influenced Northwest 

landscapes for hundreds, perhaps thousands, of years and is considered an inseparable 

factor influencing fire ecology (LaLande 2003, Williams 2002). Coarse-scale definitions 

for natural (historical) fire regimes have been developed (Schmidt et al. 2002), and 

interpreted for fire and fuels management (Hann and Bunnell 2001). The five natural 

(historical) fire regimes are classified based on approximations of the average number of 

years between fires (fire frequency) combined with the severity (amount of replacement) 

of the fire on the dominant overstory vegetation. Fire regimes are approximations 

that reflect inherent variability in historic fire frequency, however they provide useful 

information for understanding and evaluating the extent that landscapes and ecosystems 

are related, adapted, and dependent on the frequency of fire. These five natural regimes 

are:

I 0-35 year frequency and low (surface fires most common) to mixed severity (less 

than 75 percent of the dominant overstory vegetation replaced)
152

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

II 0-35 year frequency and high (stand replacement) severity (greater than 75 percent 

of the dominant overstory vegetation replaced)

III 35-100+ year frequency and mixed severity (less than 75 percent of the dominant 

overstory vegetation replaced)

IV 35-100+ year frequency and high (stand replacement) severity (greater than 75 

percent of the dominant overstory vegetation replaced)

V 200+ year frequency and high severity (stand replacement)

Reference conditions are the range of seral stages, fire frequency, and fire severity 

characteristic of pre-settlement (for the Northwest, generally prior to 1850) landscapes, 

and relate directly to the natural fire regimes. Fire regime condition class (FRCC) is an 

estimate of the amount of departure from natural (typically historic) reference conditions 

(Hann and Bunnell 2001) (Table 3&4-1). This departure is evident as changes to one 

or more of the following ecological components: vegetation characteristics (species 

composition, structural stages, stand age, canopy closure, and mosaic pattern); fuel 

composition; fire frequency, severity, and pattern; and other associated disturbances 

(e.g. insect and disease mortality, grazing, and drought). For ease of communication, 

departure is aggregated into classes: Condition Class I (low) (0 to <33 percent departure); 

Condition Class II (moderate) (33 percent to <67 percent departure); and Condition Class 

III (high) (67 percent-100 percent departure) (Hardy et al. 2002, Schmidt et al. 2002, Hann 

et al. 2005). Low departure is considered to be within the natural (historical) range of 

variability, while moderate and high departures are outside.

Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) is used as a measure of ecological resilience 

and sustainability. Ecosystems functioning within a natural range are less likely to 

experience uncharacteristically severe fires, for example. Note, however, that FRCC is an 

Table 3&4-1. Fire Regime Condition Class Degree of Departure

Condition 

Classes Description Potential Risks

Condition 

Class I

Within the natural (historical) 

range of variability of vegetation 

characteristics; fuel composition; 

fire frequency, severity and 

pattern; and other associated 

disturbances.

Fire behavior, effects, and other associated disturbances 

are similar to those that occurred prior to fire exclusion 

(suppression) and other types of management that do not 

mimic the natural fire regime and associated vegetation 

and fuel characteristics. Composition and structure of 

vegetation and fuels are similar to the natural (historical) 

regime. Risk of loss of key ecosystem components (e.g. 

native species, large trees, and soil) is low.

Condition 

Class II

Moderate departure from the 

natural (historical) regime of 

vegetation characteristics; fuel 

composition; fire frequency, 

severity and pattern; and other 

associated disturbances.

Fire behavior, effects, and other associated disturbances are 

moderately departed (more or less severe). Composition 

and structure of vegetation and fuel are moderately 

altered. Uncharacteristic conditions range from low to 

moderate.

Condition 

Class III

High departure from the natural 

(historical) regime of vegetation 

characteristics; fuel composition; 

fire frequency, severity and 

pattern; and other associated 

disturbances. 

Fire behavior, effects, and other associated disturbances 

are highly departed (more or less severe). Composition 

and structure of vegetation and fuel are highly altered. 

Uncharacteristic conditions range from moderate to high. 

Risk of loss of key ecosystem components is high.
153

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

ecological measure, not a direct measure of fire risk. Forests can have high fuel loads and be 

functioning within the historic range, particularly in longer interval regimes. Variables 

such as crown base height and crown bulk density are used to determine fire risk (Scott 

and Reinhardt 2001), not FRCC.

Social and economic considerations must also be made in forest planning. Further, there 

are cases where a departure might need to be maintained (e.g., an overabundance of 

late seral closed forest) for the benefit of endangered species. Reducing FRCC (moving 

towards the natural range of variation) is therefore not necessarily the same as the 

desired future condition. It is, however, an indicator of sustainability, particularly in the 

high fire frequency (short fire return interval) fire regimes.

The Fire Regime Condition Class analysis process was undertaken for the Northwest 

Forest Plan to evaluate the approximate extent of fuel reduction needs and priorities. 

Although there are about 6.5 million acres of FRCC III in the NWFP area indicating an 

immediate ecological risk, there are an additional 14 million acres is classified as FRCC II, 

indicating a growing future problem as these FRCC II areas further deteriorate to FRCC 

III (Table 3&4-2). In addition, about 2.5 million acres of the Wildland Urban Interface 

is classified as FRCC III posing the highest and most immediate risk to communities. 

Currently, it is estimated that there are approximately 4.7 million acres in FRCC II and 

9.4 million acres in FRCC III accessible for treatment. Of these, over 8.2 million acres 

on federal land are within the WUI that may pose an immediate danger to nearby 

communities and property (Table 3&4-3). An additional 8 million acres in condition class 

III is on private, state, and county owned land within the WUI. Altogether, there are 

over 21 million acres of federal and private land in condition class II and III within the 

WUI within the NWFP area. These figures are indicative of the scale of the fire hazard 

throughout the West. This analysis underscores the importance, urgency, and enormity 

of the current fuel hazard reduction issue.

The ecological setting for the drier areas of the NWFP area (short fire return internal) 

and fire exclusion policies has resulted in a recognized departure from the historic range 

of conditions (see previous The Evaluation of Fire Risk and Ecological Conditions section). 

The implications of this departure include potential for loss of late-successional forest to 

severe wildfire (Moeur et al. 2005), with associated impacts on late-successional species, 

as well as potential adverse effects on communities and their municipal watersheds. 

Treatment of fuel accumulations through thinning, prescribed burning, and other 

Table 3&4-2. Federal Acres of Fire Regime Condition Classes in Northwest Forest Plan

Land Use Allocation Condition Class II Condition Class III

Matrix and Adaptive Management Areas (AMA) 4,987,928 2,389,823

Late-Successional Reserves 4,460,361 2,279,756

Withdrawn (non-available) - Wilderness 4,609,743 1,831,299

Total 14,058,032 6,500,878

Table 3&4-3. Acres of Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) Fire Regime Condition Classes

Wildland Urban Interface Condition Class II Condition Class III

WUI communities at risk 99,934 78,778

WUI communities at risk buffer 5,561,626 2,444,721

Total 5,661,560 2,523,499
154

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

methods is necessary to alter wildfire behavior and severity to protect biodiversity and 

important habitat (Omi and Martinson 2002, Skinner et al. 2006, Graham et al. 2004, Agee 

and Skinner 2005, Ohlson et al. 2005, Raymond and Peterson 2005).

Hazardous Fuels Reduction Treatment Programs 

The President’s Healthy Forest Initiative and the Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 

December 3, 2003 established policy and funding for federal agencies to undertake fuel 

hazard reduction programs to better care for forests and rangelands, reduce the risk 

of catastrophic fire to communities, help save the lives of firefighters and citizens, and 

protect threatened and endangered species (http://www.healthyforests.gov/, http://www.

whitehouse.gov/infocus/healthyforests/). As a result, both the Forest Service and the 

Bureau of Land Management have made hazardous fuel reduction a high priority, and 

have been expanding their programs to meet the growing problem that hazardous 

fuels present. The two Agencies are currently treating approximately 80,000 acres of 

hazardous fuels on federal land within the NWFP area annually (after adjustment for 

projects where more than one treatment per acre may have been necessary). In most 

places, fuel has accumulated beyond the point where prescribed burning can be used 

without first reducing the amount of existing hazardous fuel to a level at which fire 

behavior can be controlled and resource damage minimized. For example, hand-piling 

and burning of fuel concentrations is often performed prior to broadcast burning.

Because the need for fuel reduction is much greater than what is currently being treated, 

the Agencies could expand their hazardous fuels reduction programs by as much as 

100 percent to achieve both ecosystem restoration objectives and community wildfire 

protection goals, particularly within the WUI, commensurate with increased funding and 

capability. However, the program capability is constrained by implementation logistics 

including, weather, permitted smoke emissions (air quality), operational windows, social, 

and other issues (Harbert, S. pers. comm., Fish, W. pers. comm.).

Environmental Consequences

Wildland Fire Use

Wildland Fire Use (WFU) is the management of naturally ignited fires to achieve resource 

benefits, such as ecological and fuel reduction objectives. WFU may include fires with 

minimal or delayed suppression actions, when and where the fire does not pose an 

unacceptable threat to resource values or have the potential to escape the identified WFU 

manageable area. Wildland fires can be used to mimic historic disturbance patterns, 

sizes, and intensities (Miller 2003; USDA, USDI 2003e). Where and when conditions 

permit, taking advantage of naturally ignited fires has great potential for achieving 

resource and ecological objectives at low cost. However, the use of WFU necessitates 

pre-ignition identification of specific areas in approved management plans. Because 

many factors are involved in the undertaking of successful WFU (weather, smoke 

considerations, adjacent private lands and homes, and available fire fighting resources) 

opportunities for WFU may be limited. Because BLM-administered lands are mostly 

dispersed among private property at lower elevations, WFU on BLM-administered land 

is not authorized at this time in the area addressed by this analysis. To date, few WFU 

plans have been implemented on National Forests in the NWFP area. Because few acres 

of WFU have occurred in the NWFP area in recent years, and because of the numerous 

constraints on its use, the number of acres predicted to be treated with this method in the 

foreseeable future is considered insignificant to this analysis.

Pre-disturbance surveys are not required for WFU in any land allocation (subject to 

conditions described in Appendix 1, Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines). 
155

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Under all alternatives, WFU would remain unaffected. None of the alternatives change 

the acres available for WFU or affect annual costs.

Regeneration Harvesting and Hazardous Fuel Reduction Treatments

Regeneration harvests are generally conducted in mature forests likely having latesuccessional characteristics. Slash (harvest-generated fuels) treatments associated with 

commercial regeneration harvesting in late-successional forest stands are funded and 

administered through sale contract requirements. Such treatments are not considered 

part of the hazardous fuel reduction program for this analysis. Because pre-disturbance 

surveys are conducted prior to harvesting (and are thus evaluated in the Timber Harvest

section), subsequent fuel treatments at the same location do not require additional 

surveys or incur additional costs. Because the hazardous fuels treatment need far 

exceeds program capability, and because not all acres of regeneration harvest are in 

need of a fuel reduction treatment, fuels treated as part of regeneration harvesting do 

not reduce the acres expected to be treated by the Agencies’ hazardous fuels reduction 

program. 

Hazardous Fuel Reduction Treatments

There is broad consensus that active management through thinning and fire is urgently 

needed in many forests of the western United States (Brown et al. 2004). Activity 

fuel treatments include silvicultural practices such as thinning, creating fuel breaks, 

controlling bark beetle infestations, and hazardous fuel treatments. Hazardous fuel 

treatments include the use of machines to mulch fuel (mechanical treatment), cutting, 

hand-piling, and then burning of fuel (manual treatment), and prescribed fire (human 

ignited and controlled underburning of forest stands to reduce fuel) (Kauffman 1990). In 

some cases, a mechanical or manual treatment is necessary prior to prescribed burning to 

reduce prescribed fire severity to a manageable and safe level (DellaSala et al. 2004). 

Numerous studies have shown the benefits of fuel treatment (including thinning, 

reducing ladder fuel, and prescribed fire) to post-wildland fire tree survival in coniferous 

forests (Weatherspoon and Skinner 1995, Scott and Reinhardt 2001, Gorman 2003, Agee 

and Skinner 2005, Kaufmann et al. 2005, Ohlson et al. 2005, Stephens and Moghaddas 

2005, Raymond and Peterson 2005). In the Lassen National Forest (Northern California), 

the 2002 Cone Fire demonstrated that thinned and prescribed-burned forests could 

survive an intense wildland fire, while adjacent untreated stands burned at high severity 

(Skinner et al. 2006). Pollet and Omi (2002) clearly demonstrated the benefits of fuel 

treatments to reduce crown fire in ponderosa pine ecosystems.

In response to the National Fire Plan, Survey and Manage species Management 

Recommendation amendments were developed with the intent of allowing greater fuel 

treatment flexibility around identified “communities at risk.” The amendments were 

designed to allow for fuel reduction activities in known sites of those species occurring 

within shorter fire return interval areas. Some risk to individual site occupancy was 

considered acceptable, if this risk would not impair overall species management 

objectives. These Management Recommendation amendments became effective in 2003 

(IM-OR-2003-062, IM-OR-20030-O45, http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/surveyandmanage), 

within a year of the Agencies removing the Survey and Manage Standards and 

Guidelines in March 2004. Thus, the full extent of their benefits or shortcomings is 

unknown. However, for some species, the amendments allow for prescribed fire and 

other hazardous fuels treatments to be used on and around some Survey and Manage 

species known sites. For other species, the Management Recommendations allow for 

very little risk to the site, and prohibit many fuel reduction activities within or near the 

site. 
156

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Evaluation of Alternatives

The evaluation of the environmental consequences considers how implementation of 

the alternatives may impede, or contribute to, the potential for achieving goals in the 

following areas (Noss et al. 2006):

1. Restoring landscapes to improve, restore, and maintain fire dependent landscapes, 

communities and habitat diversity, or treating fuels to reduce the probability of 

undesirable ecological effects from high-severity wildfire. 

2. Providing for public safety and the protection of life and property within the wildland 

urban interface (Cohen 1991).

Because the number of acres in need of fuel treatment far exceed the hazardous fuel 

reduction treatment capacity of the Agencies, it is important to strategically locate 

treatments where they will be most effective. It has been demonstrated that the location 

and type of fuel treatment can substantially influence the rate of spread, intensity and the 

overall effects of a fire at the landscape scale (Graham and McGaffrey 2003). Carefully 

planned and strategically placed fuel treatment can moderate undesirable impacts even 

beyond the treatment area itself (Stratton 2004). Therefore, fuel treatment size, location, 

method, timing, and relative position on the landscape are important factors in planning 

and achieving fuel and fire management objectives (Finney 2005). The flexibility to do 

this varies by alternative. Because the effectiveness of fuel treatments is so dependent 

on these strategic considerations, especially relative to WUI treatments, the effects of the 

alternatives are described below as reductions to treatment acres and reduced treatment 

effectiveness (Cohen 1991, Stratton 2004). The difference in effects of the alternatives is 

largely focused on how they would constrain fuel treatments on late-successional forest 

acres considered for fuel reduction projects each year.

Comparison of Effects of Alternatives 

As described in the Key Assumption for Non-Species-Specific Effects Analyses for Alternative 

4 section earlier in this chapter, an analysis assumption for Alternative 4 is that if this 

alternative is adopted, a revised species review process would begin, and changes 

previously adopted during the 2001, 2002, and 2003 Annual Species Reviews would 

most likely be reinstituted. As a result, Alternative 4 would end up looking very much 

like Alternative 1 within two years, and effects to fuels management for implementation 

of Alternative 4 are predicted to be the same as for Alternative 1. In the short term, 

while that analysis is being conducted (one to two years), the additional (and generally 

more common) species included in Alternative 4 would reduce fuels treatments by an 

additional 10 percent (approximately) of the levels described for Alternative 1. 

Alternatives 1 and 4 continue Survey and Manage. Existing Survey and Manage 

requirements for species surveys and management of known sites would continue to 

apply to hazardous fuel treatments. The most effective fuel hazard reduction treatments 

require contiguous blocks of treated areas planned at the landscape scale. Interruptions 

in treated areas can create areas of vulnerability, reducing treatment efficacy and 

cost effectiveness. However, recent modeling and wildfire simulation (Treatment 

Optimization Model) suggests strategically placed treatments can improve effectiveness 

where continuity cannot be achieved (http://fire.org/, Finney 2005). Pre-disturbance 

surveys and the marking and buffering of known sites require time (one to two years) 

and funding. The narrow “window” for surveys is problematic because individual 

treatment units may span several survey windows because of changes in aspect or 

elevation, requiring two or more visits by the same surveyors in order to comply with 

survey protocols for all Survey and Manage species with potential habitat in the project 

area.
157

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Since about one-third of the NWFP area is late-successional forest, approximately 26,400 

of the 80,000 acres treated annually would be late-successional forest. As described in 

the Timber Harvest section, managed species sites are projected to occupy 15 percent or 

3,960 acres of the late-successional portion of the acres proposed for treatment (although 

all actual sites and required surveys are not necessarily limited to such stands) (see 

Projections of Acres of Managed Sites in the Timber Harvest section later in this chapter). 

This estimate of species site acreage matches the rates found in actual projects. Annually, 

approximately 62 percent of fuel treatments use mechanical methods, thus would 

require approximately 2,460 acres to be managed as known Survey and Manage species 

sites. Prescribed fire constitutes 38 percent of fuels treatments, thus would require 

approximately 1,500 acres to be managed as known sites. However, burning conditions 

around some known sites would necessitate additional buffering. On average, this 

additional buffering would prohibit burning on three times more acres than would 

actually be contained in known sites. For hazardous fuel treatments using prescribed 

fire, it is estimated that 4,500 acres of the acres proposed for treatment annually would 

be left untreated to mitigate negative impacts to known sites. Thus under Alternatives 1 

and 4, it is projected that approximately 6,960 total acres would be managed for known 

sites (Table 3&4-4). This level of known site management (8.7 percent of the average 

treatment area), especially in the WUI, would reduce efficiency and efficacy of hazardous 

fuel treatments by compromising the placement and methods available for treatment, 

although the likelihood of using mechanical treatments (with smaller site buffers) in WUI 

areas would decrease this slightly.

Under Alternative 2, the acres of fuel treatment would be reduced by the need to 

manage known sites for Special Status Species Program goals. However, fewer species 

are included in the Special Status Species Programs compared to Survey and Manage. 

In addition, local managers could identify some known sites as not needed to meet 

Special Status Species Program goals (with the latitude to focus on those most difficult to 

protect).

Since about one-third of the NWFP area is late-successional forest, approximately 26,400 

of the 80,000 acres to be treated annually would be late-successional forest. As described 

in the Timber Harvest section, managed species sites are projected to occupy five percent 

or 1,330 acres of the late-successional portion of the acres proposed for treatment 

(although all actual sites and required surveys are not necessarily limited to such stands). 

Annually, approximately 820 acres within mechanical treatment areas and 510 acres 

within prescribed burning fuel treatment areas (62 and 38 percent respectively), prior to 

buffering, would be managed as known sites.

For hazardous fuel treatments that employ prescribed fire, burning conditions around 

some known sites would necessitate additional buffering to protect known sites. 

However, additional buffering would be less under Alternative 2 than under Alternatives 

1 and 4 due to flexibility in local management decisions. On average, this additional 

buffering would prohibit burning on one and a half times more acres than would 

actually be contained in known sites, or 765 acres would be managed as known sites and 

additional buffering. Thus under Alternative 2, it is projected that approximately 1,600 

total acres would be managed for known sites (Table 3&4-4). This level of known site 

management (2.0 percent of the average treatment area) is generally compatible with 

accomplishment of fuel treatment and protection objectives. The level substantially 

improves the potential efficiency and efficacy of hazardous fuel treatments when 

compared with Alternatives 1 and 4 (and to a lesser degree, Alternative 3), by providing 

more flexibility in treatment location method and timing. This is particularly important 

in the WUI where gaps in fuel treatments increased risk of fire spread to structures 

(Cohen 1991, Cohen and Wilson 1995). 
158

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Additionally, more flexible pre-project clearance protocols and site management options 

reduces both survey and planning lead time, reducing cost and logistical problems when 

compared to Alternative 1 and 4 and to a lesser degree, Alternative 3.

Under Alternative 3, the acres of fuel treatment would be reduced by the need to manage 

known sites for Category A, B, and E species and, with more flexibility for, 28 Special 

Status Species Program species (23 in all of their NWFP area range, and 5 in part). For 

the Special Status Species Program species, local managers could identify some known 

sites as not needed to meet Special Status Species Program goals (prevent listing under 

the Endangered Species Act and, for the Forest Service, meet the Forest Service viability 

and diversity requirements). Fifty-three species would not be included in Survey and 

Manage or Special Status Species Programs (43 species in all of their NWFP area range, 

and 10 in part), generally those with the most known sites, and 271 species (256 in all of 

their NWFP area range, and 15 in part) would remain on Survey and Manage.

Since about one-third of the NWFP area is late-successional forest, approximately 26,400 

of the 80,000 acres to be treated annually would be late-successional forest. As described 

in the Timber Harvest section, managed species sites are projected to occupy seven 

percent, or 1,850 acres, of the late-successional acres proposed for treatment (although 

all actual sites are not necessarily limited to such stands). Annually, approximately 1,150 

acres within mechanical treatment areas and 700 acres within prescribed burning fuel 

treatment areas (62 and 38 percent respectively), prior to buffering, would be managed as 

Survey and Manage known sites.

For hazardous fuel treatments that employ prescribed fire, burning conditions around 

some known sites would necessitate additional buffering to protect known sites. On 

average, this additional buffering would prohibit burning on two times more acres 

than would actually be contained in known sites, or 1,410 acres would be managed as 

known sites and additional buffering. Thus under Alternative 3, it is projected that 

approximately 2,560 total acres would be managed for known sites (Table 3&4-4). This 

level of site management (3.2 percent) is greater than in Alternative 2, but substantially 

less than Alternative 1. This level is generally compatible with fuel treatment and 

protection objectives, although site concentration areas are likely to create efficacy 

problem areas. Alternative 3 improves the potential efficiency and efficacy of hazardous 

fuel treatments when compared with Alternative 1 and 4. 

Additionally, more flexible pre-project clearance protocols and site management options 

for the Special Status Species Program portion of the species, and the reduced number 

of Survey and Manage species, reduces both survey and planning lead time, reducing 

cost and logistical problems when compared to Alternative 1 and 4, but not as much as 

Alternative 2.

Survey Costs

The cost of surveys and fuels treatments was analyzed in 2003 for the 2004 FSEIS. Partly 

because the Agencies did not conduct Survey and Manage in most of 2004 and 2005, there 

is little additional experience with which to update these costs. The costs in this section, 

Table 3&4-4. Acres of Hazardous Fuel Treatment 

Alternative 1 & 4 Alternative 2

(Un-Mitigated)

Alternative 3

(Un-Mitigated)

Proposed annual fuel treatment 80,000 80,000 80,000

Known site mitigation -6,960 -1,600 -2,560

Actual fuel treatment =73,040 =78,400 =77,440
159

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

like other costs in this SEIS, were converted to 2006 dollars using the gross domestic 

product (GDP) implicit price deflator. The overall increase in costs is about 4.68 percent.

Under Alternatives 1 and 4, pre-disturbance survey costs are estimated at $73.13 per 

acre (see Cost of Management section). Because portions of projects are abandoned or 

deferred during the planning process, the Agencies survey about 10 percent more acres 

than what is proposed for treatment. With annual surveys covering 88,000 acres (80,000 

acres + 10 percent), total pre-disturbance survey costs for hazardous fuel treatments 

under Alternatives 1 and 4, would be $6.4 million annually. When the total survey cost is 

divided by the actual treatment acres, the cost is $88.11 per acre (see Table 3&4-5).

Under Alternative 2, pre-project clearance survey costs would be $31.81 per acre (see 

Cost of Management section). Because portions of projects are abandoned or deferred 

during the planning process, the Agencies survey about 10 percent more acres than what 

is proposed for treatment. With annual surveys covering 88,000 acres (80,000 acres + 10 

percent), total pre-project clearance survey costs for hazardous fuel treatments under 

Alternative 2 would be approximately $2.8 million annually. When the total survey cost 

is divided by the actual treatment acres, the cost is $35.70 per acre (Table 3&4-5).

Under Alternative 3, pre-disturbance survey costs would be $66.40 per acre (see Cost of 

Management section). Management activities in non-late-successional stands would be 

exempt from survey and manage species pre-disturbance surveys, so 67 percent of the 

treatment area would not require surveys. Because portions of projects are abandoned or 

deferred during the planning process, the Agencies survey about 10 percent more acres 

than what is proposed for treatment. With annual surveys covering 29,040 acres (80,000 x 

.33 + 10 percent ), total pre-disturbance survey costs for hazardous fuel treatments under 

Alternative 3 would be approximately $1.9 million annually. When the total survey cost 

is divided by the actual treatment acres, the cost is $24.90 per acre (Table 3&4-5).

Under all alternatives, treatment costs per acre vary from $50 to $160 for prescribed 

fire and from $420 to $630 for mechanical treatments. Treatment costs are generally 

higher around known Survey and Manage sites because treatment methods are limited, 

additional mitigation is often required, and treatments are more labor intensive, 

thus costs associated with implementation around known sites are higher even 

where prescribed fire is used. In addition, around known sites, treatments prior to 

underburning are usually required to prevent undesirable fire effects on habitat. For 

example, it is often necessary to hand pile and burn excess fuel around known sites 

prior to underburning. Treatment costs would increase $575.50 per acre for known 

sites where prescribed fire is used. Under Alternatives 1 and 4, based on the amount of 

late-successional forest and site detection rates described in the Timber Harvest section 

(in the acres actually treated annually with prescribed fire), each year an estimated 1,374 

acres would have these increased costs. This would result in a total increased cost of 

approximately $0.8 million annually. Averaged across all the acres treated, this would 

result in an increased cost of $10.83 per acre ($790,737 divided by 73,040 acres). 

Table 3&4-5. Costs of Hazardous Fuel Treatments – Surveys 

Alternative 1 & 4 Alternative 2

(Un-Mitigated)

Alternative 3

(Un-mitigated)

Survey cost per acre $73.13 $31.81 $66.40

Total acres surveyed x 88,000 x 88,000 x 29,040

Total cost = $6,435,440 = $2,799,280 = $1,928,256

Acres of treatment / 73,040 / 78,400 / 77,440

Survey costs per treated acre = $88.11 = $35.70 = $24.90
160

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Under Alternative 2, based on the amount of late-successional forest and projected 

known sites (in the acres actually treated annually with prescribed fire), it is estimated 

that each year 492 acres would have these increased costs. This would result in a 

total increased cost of approximately $0.3 million annually. Averaged across all the 

acres treated, this would result in an increased cost of $3.61 per acre ($282,976 divided 

by 78,400 acres). As noted in the previous section, there would also be additional 

unquantified savings simply from shortening the required planning lead-time for the 

Special Status Species Program species.

Under Alternative 3, based on the amount of late-successional forest and projected 

known sites (in the acres actually treated annually with prescribed fire), it is estimated 

that each year 680 acres would have these increased costs. This would result in a total 

increased cost of approximately $0.4 million annually. Averaged across all the acres 

treated, this would result in an increased cost of $5.05 per acre ($391,503 divided by 

77,440 acres). As noted in the previous section, there would be additional unquantified 

savings simply from shortening the required planning lead-time for the Special Status 

Species Program species.

These increased costs, added to survey costs and multiplied by total treatment acres, 

result in total costs to the fuels program to manage Survey and Manage or Special Status 

Species Program species (Table 3&4-6).

Wildland Urban Interface

In addition to the financial costs of species surveys and working around known sites, 

known site management can create logistical constraints on placement of treatments. 

Since current policy on these treatments emphasizes the importance of carefully 

placed landscape treatments (Finney 2005) to modify fire behavior, rather than random 

placement, effective treatments could be constrained by species site locations or delayed 

by species surveys, as discussed above. This concern is even more evident in the WUI 

where treatments (or lack of treatments) have implications for protecting communities.

There are approximately 4.7 million acres of FRCC II and III in the WUI available for fuel 

treatment (Table 3&4-7). Of these approximately 1,548,958 acres, or one-third, is latesuccessional, and 34 percent and 22 percent of the late-successional forest in WUI is in 

FRCC III and II respectively. 

Based on calculations above, Alternatives 1 and 4 are projected to have approximately 

8.7 percent of the WUI managed as known sites. Although exceptions and additional 

flexibility is provided by Management Recommendations in some situations for some 

species (http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/surveyandmanage/), and mechanical treatments 

can often be emphasized in these areas, reducing untreated areas, untreated sites can 

compromise fuel break continuity and place communities at greater risk and vulnerable 

Table 3&4-6. Summary Comparison of Fuel Treatment Acres and Total Costs 

Alternative 1 & 4 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Hazardous fuel treatment (annual acres) 73,040 78,400 77,440

Survey cost (per treated acre) $88.11 $35.70 $24.90

Additional treatment costs to manage sites (average 

per treated acre) $10.83 $3.61 $5.05

Total per acre survey and increase burning costs $98.94 $39.31 $29.95

Total costs for Survey and Manage or Special Status 

species $7,226,578 $3,081,904 $2,319,328
161

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

to wildfire control and escape. Areas left untreated across the landscape can contribute 

to uncontrollable wildfire behavior and amplify the risk to communities as well as create 

an increase in suppression costs and a danger to fire fighters. The potential for spotting 

(the term used to describe embers spreading ahead of a fire when a fire burns intensely 

in untreated areas), is greatest under Alternatives 1 and 4. Such spotting is considered 

the primary ignition source for homes and other structures that catch on fire during 

a wildfire (Cohen 1991, Cohen and Wilson 1995, Cohen and Saveland 1997). Because 

known site management would be reduced under Alternatives 2 and 3 to 2 and 3.2 

percent respectively, they provide greater flexibility for successful treatments in WUI.

Environmental Consequences Summary

Given that needed fuel treatments greatly exceed program capability, cost differences 

between alternatives can reasonably be converted to potential additional acres treated 

for comparison purposes. (Actual treatment levels may be constrained by other factors.) 

Projected treatment acres are 73,040, 78,400, and 77,440 for Alternatives 1 and 4, 2, and 

3 respectively (Table 3&4-8). Survey and known site management costs by alternative, 

as well as the cost “savings” for Alternatives 2 and 3 when compared to Alternatives 1 

and 4, are shown in Table 3&4-8. If this cost saving were available for hazardous fuels 

reduction, it could possibly fund upwards of 8,000 acres and 9,000 additional acres of 

treatment, respectively. 

Given the disparity between treatment needs and capabilities, WUI and ecological goals 

will likely be achieved only at the local or watershed level for the foreseeable future 

regardless of the alternative selected. Nevertheless, these local achievements can be very 

worthwhile in protecting communities, maintaining habitats, and restoring fire regimes.

Table 3&4-7. Fire Regime Condition Class and Late-successional Forests Within the 

Wildland Urban Interface 

FRCC II FRCC III

Matrix and Adaptive Management Areas 1,824,314 851,616

Late-Successional Reserves 1,309,712 708,170

Total available acres for hazardous fuel reduction 3,134,026 1,559,786

Unavailable or withdrawn (1,939,695) (963,712)

Percent of late-successional forest in each FRCC Class 23 34

Table 3&4-8. Summary Comparison of Fuel Treatment Acres Potentially Forgone

Alternative 1 & 4 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Projected treatment acres (Table 3&4-4) 73,040 78,400 77,440

Total costs for Survey and Manage or Special Status 

species (from Table 3&4-6) $7,226,578 $3,081,904 $2,319,328

Annual cost savings over Alternative 1 $4,144,674 $4,907,250

Potential acres treated with cost savings

(at $525.00 per acre treatment cost)1 7,895 9,347

Relative difference between alternatives expressed as 

projected plus potential treatment acres 73,040 86,295 86,787

1

$525.00 is the mid-point of mechanical hazardous fuel reduction cost range $400.00 to $ 650.00. 
162

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Survey and Manage Species

Affected Environment

New Information about Survey and Manage Species

Following adoption of the Survey and Manage Program, the Agencies’ combined known 

location data from extensive searches in herbaria and museums with data from agency 

files, individuals, and publications to develop the first known site database for the 

Program. When assembled in 1998, the database had approximately 19,000 records; 

half were lichens from a Forest Service regional air-quality study. By January 2005, the 

Agencies had collected more high quality information on a wide variety of rare and 

uncommon species than had ever been attempted by the federal government. Species 

site data had increased to 68,000 records. Records for some taxa doubled, increased 

approximately fourfold for fungi, fivefold for bryophytes, and nearly fourfold for 

mollusks, constituting an unprecedented data set on these poorly known taxa. The 

Agencies now have a better understanding of the distributions, abundances, and habitat 

associations of species associated with mature and old-growth forests (Molina et al. 

2006). Species site databases are accessible to over 250 users including specialists at each 

administrative unit. 

Draft or Final Management Recommendation documents are available for over 300 

species. Management Recommendations for each species provide detailed information 

on natural history (taxonomy, descriptions, biology, ecology, distribution, habitat, and 

abundance), current species status (threats, distribution relative to land allocations), 

and guidelines to maintain suitable habitat for species persistence at the site scale and 

suggested research and information needs to better understand species ecology and site 

management and monitoring needs to address status and trends (Molina et al. 2006). 

These documents are now available to assist management of these species, whether 

they are under the Survey and Manage Program or the Agencies’ Special Status Species 

Programs (SSSPs) (http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/surveyandmanage/mr.htm). Some have 

already been revised as Special Status Species Program Conservation Assessments and 

are available at http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/planning-documents/assessments.

shtml

From the beginning of the Survey and Manage Program, extensive and general regional 

surveys were required for 354 of the 404 species. These surveys were considered the key 

approach to gathering new information on the conservation needs and distribution of 

each species within the 24.4 million acre NWFP area. Following redesign of the Survey 

and Manage Standards and Guidelines in 2001, which lumped extensive and general 

regional surveys into “Strategic Surveys” and assigned the requirement to every species, 

Molina and others developed a Strategic Survey framework that described an iterative 

adaptive management process for acquiring data and managing species (Molina et al. 

2003). The framework called for evaluating and prioritizing information needs on all 

species, designing and implementing Strategic Surveys, and analyzing surveys results 

relevant to species and habitat management. This approach addressed high-priority 

questions, especially distribution in reserves or association with late-successional forest 

habitat (Molina et al. 2006).

Strategic Surveys took several approaches depending upon the objective and the 

information needs of the species. Because the information from these surveys would 

assist future management of these species (including decisions about assignment to, 

and management under, the Agencies’ SSSPs), RMS Survey and other Strategic Surveys 

were completed (at a cost of over $8 million) even though a decision had been made to 

eliminate the Survey and Manage Program. Analysis of collected data is nearly complete, 
163

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

and results are now beginning to be published. The statistical analysis of the RMS 

Survey is included in Table 3&4-16 near the end of this chapter. This task helps address 

the FEMAT’s only recommendation about these species, that “Investigation of these taxa 

should receive priority attention...” (USDA et al. 1993:II-34).

Four hundred eighty-two RMS detections were recorded for 111 of the 278 Alternative 

1 species surveyed, and 1,435 detections were recorded for 145 of the 319 Alternative 4 

species surveyed (even though surveys were reduced for species removed by the 2001 

Annual Species Review). (Several species are on Survey and Manage in only a portion of 

the NWFP area, being deemed common or secure in other areas. The detections include 

only those in areas where the species is included in Survey and Manage.) Two-thirds 

of the detections were fungi, and one-fifth were lichens. Results showed, however, 

that three-quarters (of the species detected) occurred on 5 or fewer RMS plots, half 

occurred on only 1 or 2 plots, and half of the Alternative 1 Survey and Manage species 

were not detected on any plot (Table 2-13) (vascular plants and most vertebrates were 

excluded from this survey). The results confirmed expectations that this broad-scale 

type of RMS Survey was not likely to detect extremely infrequent species (Molina et 

al. 2006). The primary inference that can be drawn from the results relates to overall 

expected occurrences. A single detection estimates, on average, from 7,000 to over 

200,000 occupied sites within the NWFP area (depending upon the stratification of the 

survey plots), although 95% confidence limits surrounding one to four detections usually 

includes zero (see RMS Survey discussion in the Background for Effects Analysis section). 

Species with RMS Survey detections are estimated to occur on hundreds of thousands 

of plots (depending upon plot or site size), and the 295 Alternative 1 species in total 

have at least several thousand times more estimated occurrences than currently known 

sites9. Species with fewer than 3,500 to 100,000 actual sites (depending on the stratum 

they occurred in) within the NWFP area; however, essentially had less than a 50 percent 

chance of being detected at all with this survey. Some of these estimated occurrences 

are likely underestimates of the true number of occurrences because in spite of thorough 

searches by specialists, sampling errors would have tended to be those of “omission”, 

that is, failure to detect species even though actually present.

The RMS Survey has succeeded in shedding new light on Survey and Manage species. 

Until now, many observers assumed low known site numbers meant species are indeed 

rare, and low site numbers tended to equate to adverse outcomes regardless of the 

Survey and Manage category to which they are assigned. More than 50 percent of Survey 

and Manage species are known from fewer than 19 sites, 40 percent are known from 10 

or fewer sites, and 30 percent known from 5 or fewer sites. As many predicted, however, 

the RMS Survey results imply many species to be more numerous than previously 

known. A single RMS detection implies, on average, thousands of occurrences (0 to over 

200,000 at the 95% confidence interval), often for species previously known on none 

or few sites. For example, two species detected on the RMS Survey previously had no 

confirmed sites in the NWFP area. Another four species detected were previously known 

from only one site. Two other species detected were previously known from only two 

sites, and another five previously had only three known sites. One species previously 

known from only 3 sites had 14 RMS detections, implying hundreds of thousands of 

occurrences. Ones previously known from 9 and 10 sites each had 18 RMS detections10, 

also implying hundreds of thousands of occurrences. Each of these examples are for 

Category B species, ones for which characteristics of the species makes them impractical 

to find during pre-disturbance surveys (e.g. they are too small to be detected, don’t show 

themselves regularly and predictably, can’t be separated from other species outside of a 

lab, etc.), so they are understandably rare in Agencies’ databases. 

9

The reader is cautioned that the estimated occurrences displayed for each species in Table 3&4-16 are “plot-sized”, thus representing .01 to 

1 hectare areas for each occurrence, depending upon the taxon; existing known sites may be larger (or possibly smaller). Known sites were 

generally dropped from this analysis if they appeared in Agency databases within 100 meters of another site for the same species. Thus a 

single “known site” might be synonymous with several “estimated occurrences”, and direct comparisons must be made with care.

10This is not to imply the total number of known sites is increased by 18. The sample could have overlapped with previously known sites.
164

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Low known site numbers can be at least partially attributed to them not being looked 

for. This is evidenced by comparing site numbers for species which can be detected 

in practical pre-disturbance surveys, Survey and Manage Categories A and C, against 

those that cannot, Categories B, E, F, and most species in Category D. Categories A and 

C species average 115 known sites per species, while the non-survey categories average 

30 (discounting former survey species now in Category D). Similarly, the rarest 1/3 of 

the Categories A and C species are known from 15 or fewer sites, while the rarest 1/3 of 

the non-survey categories are known from 5 or fewer sites. Thirty percent of non-survey 

species are known from 1 or fewer sites, compared to only 5 percent of Categories A and 

C species. It is clear that apparent rarity for some species is at least partly a function of 

the difficulty of detecting them during surveys.11

It is true, however, that RMS Survey detections were less common for species known only 

from five or fewer sites. While there are species with only 6, 7, and 8 known sites with 3 

RMS Survey detections, the likelihood of one of the 97 species with 5 or less known sites 

being detected during an RMS Survey was only 19 percent (18 of 97). Conversely, the 97 

most numerous species (those with 76 known sites or more) had a 72 percent likelihood 

of being detected by the RMS Survey (70 of 97). While the Agencies have learned 

that many Survey and Manage species are not actually rare, many others on Survey 

and Manage appear to at least be so rare as to have population sizes below the tens of 

thousands needed to expect a RMS Survey detection. A zero detection only tells us, at 

the 95% confidence level, species occurrence would not be expected to exceed 0.5 percent 

of the NWFP area or 122,000 acres. Although it is understood classic sampling designs 

are not efficient for rare species (Yoccoz et al. 2001), the samples allow us to draw some 

inferences about the “group” of Survey and Manage species assumed to be associated 

with terrestrial late-successional forest ecosystems (as opposed to those with specialized 

habitats and limited ranges).

Even with completed statistical analysis of the RMS Survey data (Table 3&4-16), species 

writers remained concerned about connectivity, distribution, whether the species are in 

the reserves, and other parameters needed to meet the Survey and Manage “sufficient 

habitat” as defined. Of the 53 species in this Supplement with insufficient habitat caused 

by Alternative 2 in all or part of their range within the Northwest Forest Plan, the lichen 

Pseudocyphellaria rainierensis has 298 known sites and 6 RMS Survey detections. The 

lichen Nephroma occultum has 217 known sites and 4 RMS Survey detections. The fungus 

Ramaria rubripermanens (in Oregon) has 160 and 10, and the fungus Rameria araiospora

has 122 and 11. However, using outcome definitions provided earlier in this chapter 

(see Background for Effects Analysis), species effects writers have determined these species 

meet the definitions for “insufficient habitat to support stable populations” for at least a 

portion of their range.

Environmental Consequences 

There are 337 Survey and Manage species considered in this Supplement. New 

information (including newly discovered sites) published or recorded since the 2004 

FSEIS has been incorporated into the individual species analyses in the following 

sections. Where new information indicates a change in outcome from the 2004 analysis, 

those changes have been made and affected tables and conclusions have been revised 

and included in this Supplement. 

Agency taxa specialists have determined species outcomes based on numerous factors 

including (1) the extent of the reserve system; (2) Matrix and Adaptive Management Area 

Standards and Guidelines; (3) provisions for species management under the Survey

11These differences are not a surprise to the Agencies. The 2000 SEIS considered an alternative requiring pre-disturbance surveys for all 

species but the $31 million per year cost for the additional surveys (USDA, USDI 2000a;417) was deemed too high for expected gain. However, 

even if surveys had been conducted for Category B species, detection rates would still be lower because the species are simply hard to find or 

identify.
165

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

and Manage or SSSPs; (4) species range, distribution, and populations; (5) species life 

history and habitat needs; and, (6) the number and location of known sites. Information 

from FEMAT; the Northwest Forest Plan Final SEIS; the 2000 Survey and Manage 

Final SEIS; the Annual Species Reviews; and the Agencies’ species sites databases, 

along with the professional knowledge of biologists and botanists was used to make 

the determination. Since each species has different life histories, ranges, distributions, 

and habitat needs, it is nearly impossible to devise precise thresholds for determining 

outcomes. Determinations are based on the evaluation of experts and tend to be more 

qualitative than quantitative in nature (see Comparison of Alternatives for the SEIS earlier in 

this chapter). 

The uncertainty surrounding Survey and Manage species and the emphasis that a 

strategy ensures protection of various resources has generally led to a high level of 

caution when the long-term effects of various management strategies (alternatives) 

are considered. The outcomes in this SEIS borrow from those used in the 2000 Survey 

and Manage FSEIS (USDA, USDI 2000a:189-193). Guidance for the determination of 

outcomes includes:

1. For species with relatively few, highly isolated sites or populations, with little to no 

potential for gene flow between them – may be known from a single site – loss of any 

sites might be considered a dire condition and the species assessed as becoming not 

well distributed.

2. For species distributed as groups or clusters of occurrences or subpopulations, with 

some potential for dispersal and/or gene flow within the groups but little potential 

for dispersal or gene flow between isolated clusters, loss of single sites, multiple sites, 

or clusters that serve a significant role for population persistence or in the species’ 

biological diversity might result in a determination of not well distributed.

3. Species in groups or clusters of occurrences or subpopulations (some as strings of 

sites) with intra-cluster connectivity and some potential (based on species-specific 

spatial scale or configuration, over appropriate time periods) for connectivity among 

isolated sites or isolated site clusters, would be determined not well distributed if 

they lose sites or clusters that affect overall population persistence, such as source 

subpopulations, those within connectivity areas, or loss of genetic and biological 

diversity of the populations. Loss of a cluster for species with few clusters, relative 

to species range, distribution, and effective population size, could result in a species 

becoming not well distributed.

4. For species with multiple avenues of connectivity among sites and clusters, it might 

be possible for species to remain well distributed with numerous losses of nonsignificant sites and connections among sites and some gaps in distribution. However, 

fragmentation could be a serious risk to population stability and the projected 

distribution pattern need not completely change to the limited connectivity category 

for it to become not well distributed.

Species Outcomes

The analysis (as updated by this Supplement) now indicates that under all alternatives, 

132 species are determined to have insufficient habitat to support stable populations in 

the NWFP area, 1 (red tree vole) has insufficient habitat in a portion of its range not due 

to federal actions, and 20 species and 4 arthropod functional groups have insufficient 

information to determine an outcome (Table 3&4-9).
166

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Under Alternative 2, 147 species have sufficient habitat 

to support stable populations in the NWFP area in all or 

part of their NWFP area range. Under Alternative 2, 38 

species are projected to have insufficient habitat to support 

stable populations in all of their range, and another 15 have 

sufficient habitat range-wide but insufficient habitat in a 

portion of their range due to actions under the alternatives 

(Table 3&4-9).

The analysis required effects writers to consider and assign 

outcomes only to the portion of the species range within the 

Northwest Forest Plan. For species endemic to the NWFP 

area, the stated outcome is applicable to the species’ range. 

For species whose ranges include areas outside the Northwest 

Forest Plan, analysis of the portion of a species range within 

the Northwest Forest Plan may depict only a localized 

concern for persistence. 

Because the legal questions relevant to this analysis are 

whether diversity and viability regulations are met (on the 

National Forests) and whether management actions are 

causing a trend toward listing (under ESA) (see Relationship 

of Outcome Determinations to ASR Species Removal Criteria 

and Legal Requirements earlier in this chapter), a further 

examination of management and the species statuses 

at different geographic scales for these 38 species with 

insufficient habitat in all of their range within the NWFP 

area and 15 species with insufficient habitat in part of their 

range is included here. Pertinent to this discussion are SSSP 

assignments. The requirements for inclusion in each of the 

Agencies’ SSSPs are discussed in detail in Appendix 2 and in 

the description of Alternative 2. In general, SSSP inclusion 

Table 3&4-9. Species Outcomes Summarized by Taxa

TAXA 

GROUP

Sufficient 

Habitat 

Under all 

Alternatives 

- Outcomes 1 

and 2

Insufficient 

Information 

to Determine 

an Outcome 

- Outcome 4

Insufficient Habitat1 - Outcome 3

Not caused 

by Federal 

Action

With the 

Removal 

of Survey 

and Manage 

under Alt. 1

With the 

Removal 

of Survey 

and Manage 

under Alt. 2

With the 

Removal 

of Survey 

and Manage 

under Alt. 3

Fungi 65 3 115 0 25 (3)3 23

Lichens 20 10 17 0 (11) 2 (3) 2 (1)

Bryophytes 10 6 0 0 1 0

Vertebrates 7 0 0 (1) 0 0 (6) 0 (5)

Mollusks 33 1 0 0 10 (2) 0

Vascular 

Plants 12 0 0 0 (1) 0 (1) 0 (1)

Arthropods 

Groups 0 4 0 0 0 0

Total: 1472 24 132 (1) 0 (2) 38 (15) 4 (7)

1

 Parentheses show Species with sufficient habitat range wide in the NWFP area but with insufficient habitat in a portion of the range. These are included in 

the “sufficient habitat” count.

2

 Includes species with sufficient habitat range wide, but insufficient habitat in a portion of the range. These are also indicated in parens in the 

“Insufficient Habitat columns”

3

 While these fungi have insufficient habitat range-wide when removed from Survey and Manage, they have sufficient habitat in the portion of the range that is 

protected by SSSPs

ORNHIC Lists

summarized from Appendix 3

1 = taxa that are threatened with extinction or presumed to be extinct throughout their entire range.

2 = taxa that are threatened with extirpation or presumed to be extirpated from 

the state of Oregon. These are often peripheral or disjunct species, which are 

of concern when considering species diversity within Oregon’s borders. 

3 = species for which more information 

is needed before status can be determined, but which may be threatened or 

endangered in Oregon or throughout 

their range.

4 = taxa which are of conservation concern, but are not currently threatened or 

endangered. This includes taxa which 

are very rare, but are currently secure, 

as well as taxa which are declining in 

numbers or habitat but are still too common to be proposed as threatened or endangered. 
167

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

for BLM is most influenced by Oregon Natural Heritage 

Information Center (ORNHIC - see Appendix 3 for more 

information) listings, and inclusion for the Forest Service 

is most influenced by the state rankings (Table 3&4-10). 

Whether the Agency has habitat where management could be 

affected by inclusion is also considered.

Fungi

For the 28 fungi with insufficient habitat under Alternative 

2 in all or a portion of their range, only 3 have fewer than 

20 known sites (17, 19, and 19). Five of these fungi have at 

least 100 or more known sites within the NWFP area. These 

numbers are significant because they all are Category B or 

D species for which pre-disturbance surveys have not been 

conducted (Table 2-13), and most are underground and do not 

visibly fruit annually or predictably. Sixteen of the 28 species 

were detected on RMS Survey plots, with 9 of these having 

3 detections or more and 2 having 10 detections or more (see 

Table 3&4-16 and the Background for Effects Analysis section 

earlier in this chapter for more information about the RMS 

Survey). 

All 28 are on one or more of the Agencies’ SSSPs, where 

they all have sufficient habitat in that portion of their range. 

Fungi have not generally been included in California and 

Washington Heritage rankings, so fungi are not normally 

included in SSSPs in those states. Of the 28, only Phaeocollybia 

californica is on ORNHIC List 1 (see text box for definitions), 

which means it is included in the Oregon BLM SSSP. It is 

S2? for Oregon, so it is included in SSSP in Forest Service 

Region 6 (Oregon and Washington). It is also included in SSSP for BLM in California. It 

has over 40 known federal sites and over 50 known total sites in the Agencies’ databases, 

but previous taxonomic confusion has led ORNHIC to recently discount most of these 

sites. The range is now described as Jedediah Smith Redwoods State Park (just north 

of Crescent City) to McKinleyville, and east to Castle Crags State Park, all in California. 

The Global Rank is G2? and California State rank is S1?. As an ectomycorrhizal fungus 

(underground in association with tree roots) in 65 year old-plus stands, probably with 

oaks and tanoak, and with irregular fruiting, additional (unknown) sites are suspected 

(ORNHIC, California Status Factors). It receives Outcome 3 on Forest Service lands in 

California. There is abundant apparent habitat, and most of the few known sites are not 

on federal lands.

The only other G2 (G2G3?) fungus is Phaeocollybia dissiliens, which is ORNHIC List 3 

and State ranked S2S3 in Oregon. Agency databases show 20 federal sites; Oregon 

State Ranking factors show “about 20” occurrences, all in Oregon. In addition, as 

an ectomycorrhizal fungus, it cannot be identified underground, visibly fruits only 

sporadically (not annually), and produces fairly scattered fruiting bodies. Habitat is 

moist, low-elevation late-successional conifer forests with soils saturated in the fall, either 

on flood plains, swampy areas, or up to 2,000 feet in the coast range. The Global Ranking 

is affected by at least half of known sites being in large reserves, where it would be 

expected to be protected from extirpation (ORNHIC, Oregon Status Factors). 

Two of the 28 fungi are ORNHIC List 2: Gyromitra californica and Ramaria amyloidea. 

The Gyromitra californica has 38 known federal sites and 4 RMS detections in the NWFP 

area, and is a false morel known from the Pacific Northwest and the Rockies. It is 

sometimes commercially collected. It had a FEMAT rating of 70-30-0-0 (see Background 

Global (G) and 

State (S) Rank

summarized from Appendix 3

1 = Critically imperiled because of 

extreme rarity or because it is 

especially vulnerable to extinction or extirpation. Typically 5 

or fewer occurrences.

2 = Imperiled because of rarity or 

because other factors demonstrably make it very vulnerable 

to extinction (extirpation). Typically 6-20 occurrences.

3 = Rare, uncommon, or threatened. 

Not immediately imperiled. 

Typically 21-1,000 occurrences.

4 = Not rare and apparently secure 

with cause for long-term concern. Usually more than 100 

occurrences.

5 = Demonstrably widespread, 

abundant, and secure.

? = Not yet ranked, or assigned 

rank is uncertain.
168

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines Table 3&4-10. Compilation of information about 53 species with insufficient habitat in all or part of their range caused by management under Alternative 2 TAXA GROUP Species1 Category Assignment2 for each Alternative Outcome3,8 Special Status Species Programs4 Known Sites during the last ASR or 2004 FSEIS Additional Known Sites since the last ASR or the 2004 FSEIS9 RMS Sites5,6 Global Rank State Rank ORNHIC List Alt

1

Alt

2

Alt

3

Alt

4

Off 

S&M

On 

S&M

BLM 

OR

BLM 

CA

FS 

R67

FS 

R57

Federal 

Land 

Only

Total

Federal 

Land 

Only

Total WA OR CA

Species with insufficient habitat within the NWFP area or sub-region of the NWFP area

FUNGIAlbatrellus ellisii B off B 313 1 - SS SS-W - 39 41 7 7 0 G4 S2? S2S3 S2 4Clavariadelphus ligula B off B 313 1 - SS - - 41 47 4 4 4 G5 S3 S4 S2 NLClavariadelphus sachalinensis B off B 313 1 - - SS-W - 29 34 1 1 0 G5 S2? S3 SU 3Cudonia monticola B off B 313 1 - - SS SS 12 12 11 14 6 G3 S2 S2S3 S1 3Gomphus kauffmanii E off E B 313 1 - - SS - 43 54 16 16 2 G2G4 S3? S3? S3? 3Gyromitra californica B off B 313 1 - - SS - 22 22 16 16 4 G4 S3 S2 S2 2Phaeocollybia californica B off B 313 1 SS SS SS-O - 39 44 9 9 0 G2? NONE S2? S1? 1Phaeocollybia dissiliens B off B 313 1 - - SS-O - 16 18 4 4 0 G2G3 NONE S2S3 NONE 3Phaeocollybia fallax

D off

D 313 1 - - SS-W - 61 88 25 27 2 G4? S4? S4? S3 NL

Phaeocollybia piceae B off B 313 1 - SS SS - 41 46 11 11 0 G3? S3? S3? S1S2 4Phaeocollybia pseudofestiva B off B 313 1 - SS SS - 21 31 14 14 0 G3 S2 S3? S2S3 3Phaeocollybia scatesiae B off B 313 1 - SS SS - 13 13 6 6 0 G3? S2? S3? S2? 3Phaeocollybia sipei B off B 313 1 - - SS-O - 38 42 11 11 1 G3? SU S3? NONE 3Phaeocollybia spadicea B off B 313 1 - SS SS - 41 56 24 24 3 G3G4 S2 S3? S2? 3Polyozellus multiplex B off B 313 1 - SS - - 53 55 10 10 0 G4 S3 S3 S1 4Ramaria amyloidea B off B 313 1 - SS SS - 14 15 4 4 1 G3 S2? S2? S2S3 2Ramaria araiospora B off B 313 1 - - SS-W - 80 89 29 33 11 G4 S2S3 S4 S2S3 NLRamaria aurantiisiccescens B off B 313 1 - SS SS - 22 25 4 4 0 G3 S2 S3 S2 4Ramaria cyaneigranosa B off B 313 1 - SS SS-W - 21 27 9 10 0 G4 S3 S4 S2 NLRamaria largentii B off B 313 1 - SS SS - 8 10 7 7 0 G3 S3 S2? S3 3Ramaria rubrievanescens B off B 313 1 - - SS-W - 42 46 9 13 3 G4 S3 S4 S3 NLRamaria stuntzii B off B 313 1 - - SS-W - 73 76 23 24 1 G4 S2S3 S4 S1S2 NLSarcodon fuscoindicus B off B 313 1 - SS SS-W - 27 40 2 2 6 G3 S2 S2S3 S2 3Sowerbyella rhenana B off B 313 1 - SS SS SS 58 68 5 5 0 G3G4 S1 S3 S2 3Sparassis crispa

D off

D 313 1 - SS - - 59 60 18 19 1 G4 S4 S4 S2S4 NL

LICHENSNephroma occultum

C off B 3 1 - - SS - 168 168 48 49 4 G4 S1 S3 NONE 4

Pseudocyphellaria rainierensis

A off

A 3 1 - - SS - 167 167 101 101 6 G3G4 S3 S3 NONE 4

BRYOPHYTESMarsupella emarginata var. aquatica B off B 3 1 - - - - 1 1 1 1 0 G5T3 NONE S1 NONE 2
169

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3&4-10. Compilation of information about 53 species with insufficient habitat in all or part of their range caused by management under Alternative 2

TAXA GROUP

Species1

Category Assignment2

for each Alternative Outcome3,8 Special Status Species Programs4

Known Sites 

during the last 

ASR or 2004 

FSEIS

Additional 

Known Sites 

since the last 

ASR or the 2004 

FSEIS9

RMS 

Sites5,6

Global 

Rank

State Rank

ORNHIC 

List

Alt

1

Alt

2

Alt

3

Alt

4

Off 

S&M

On 

S&M

BLM 

OR

BLM 

CA

FS 

R67

FS 

R57

Federal 

Land 

Only

Total

Federal 

Land 

Only

Total WA OR CA

MOLLUSKSFluminicola n. sp. 15

A off

A 3 1 - - - - 0 4 0 G1 NONE NONE S1 ND

Fluminicola n. sp. 16

A off

A 3 1 - - - - 0 17 0 G1 NONE NONE S1 ND

Fluminicola n. sp. 17

A off

A 3 1 - - - - 0 2 0 G1 NONE NONE S1 ND

Fluminicola n. sp. 18

A off

A 3 1 - - - - 1 3 0 G1 NONE NONE S1 ND

Fluminicola n. sp. 19

A off

A 3 1 - - - - 0 1 0 G1 NONE NONE S1 ND

Fluminicola n. sp. 20

A off

A 3 1 - - - - 0 2 0 G1 NONE NONE S1 ND

Fluminicola potemicus

A off

A 3 1 - - - - 3 12 0 G1G2 NONE NONE S1S2 ND

Juga (O) n. sp. 3

A off

A 3 1 - - - - 0 4 0 G1G2 NONE NONE S1S2 ND

Lyogyrus n. sp. 3

A off

A 3 1 - - - - 0 1 0 G1 NONE NONE S1 ND

Vorticifex n. sp. 1 E off E 3 1 - - - - 0 2 0 G1 NONE NONE S1 ND

Species with sufficient habitat range-wide, but with insufficient habitat in a portion of their range

FUNGIAlbatrellus flettii 2 1

- SS - - G4 S3 S4 S2 NL Washington and California B off B 313 1 39 43 0 0 1

Oregon off B 1 1 57 67 16 16 1

Gymnopilus punctifolius 2 1

- SS - - G3G4 S3 S3 S2? 3 California B off B 313 1 0 5 1 1 0

Oregon and Washington off B 1 1 63 63 18 18 4

Ramaria rubripermanens 2 1

- - SS-W - G4 S1S3 S4 S2S3 NL Washington and California B off B 313 1 10 11 3 5 1

Oregon

D off B 1 1 113 124 20 20 9

LICHENSBryoria tortuosa 2 1

- SS - - G5 S3 S5 S2 NL

 WA Olympic Peninsula, WA Western Lowlands, WA Western Cascades, OR Western Cascades, OR Coast Range, OR Willamette Valley and CA Coast Range Physiographic Provinces

off

A 3 1 3 18

113 114 2

 WA Eastern Cascades, OR Eastern Cascades, OR Klamath, CA Klamath, and CA Cascades Physiographic Provinces

off

D 1 1 650 650
170

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines Table 3&4-10. Compilation of information about 53 species with insufficient habitat in all or part of their range caused by management under Alternative 2 TAXA GROUP Species1 Category Assignment2 for each Alternative Outcome3,8 Special Status Species Programs4 Known Sites during the last ASR or 2004 FSEIS Additional Known Sites since the last ASR or the 2004 FSEIS9 RMS Sites5,6 Global Rank State Rank ORNHIC List Alt

1

Alt

2

Alt

3

Alt

4

Off 

S&M

On 

S&M

BLM 

OR

BLM 

CA

FS 

R67

FS 

R57

Federal 

Land 

Only

Total

Federal 

Land 

Only

Total WA OR CA

Dendriscocaulon intricatulum 2 1

- SS SS-W - G3G4Q S2 S4 S1 NL

 In all of Washington and Oregon except Coos, Douglas, Curry, Josephine, and Jackson Counties

A off

A B 2 1

23 6 6 1

 California E off E B 1 1 101 105 2 Oregon in Coos, Douglas, Curry, Josephine, and Jackson Counties off B 1 1 526 526 117 117 0Platismatia lacunosa 2 1

- - SS-W - G3G4 S2 S3 S1 4

 Except in Oregon Coast Range physiographic province E off E C 2 1 37 21 22 3 Oregon Coast Range physiographic province off

C 1 1 14 59 39 41 18

VERTEBRATESLarch Mountain salamander Plethodon larselli

A off

A 2 1 As - SS - 88 88 15 16 - G3 S3 S2 NONE 2

Shasta salamander Hydromantes shastae

A off

A 2 1 - SS - SS 56 56 22 22 - G1 NONE NONE S1 ND

Siskiyou Mountains salamander Plethodon stormi 2 1

SS - SS-O SS G2G3 NONE S2 S1S2 1 South Range

A off

A

C 2 1 30 30 19 20 -

 North Range

D off

C 2 1 143 143 182 185 -

Van Dyke’s salamander Plethodon vandykei

A off

A 2 1 - - SS - 23 29 17 21 - G3 S3 NONE NONE ND

Great Gray Owl Strix nebulosa

A off

A

C 2 1 - - SS-W SS 103 114 15 17 - G5 S2B S3 S1 4

Oregon Red Tree Vole Arborimus longicaudus 2 2

SS11 - SS11 - G3G4 NONE S3S4 S1 4 Xeric and Northern Mesic

C off

C 2 2 346 346 201 204 1812

 Mesic off

C 1 1 404 405 81 84 6212

MOLLUSKSFluminicola seminalis

A off

A 2 1 - - - SS 5 15 0 G2 NONE SP S1S2 ND

Monadenia chaceana B off B 2 1 SS SS SS-O - 110 125 96 98 210 G2 NONE S1S2 S2 1
171

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3&4-10. Compilation of information about 53 species with insufficient habitat in all or part of their range caused by management under Alternative 2

TAXA GROUP

Species1

Category Assignment2

for each Alternative Outcome3,8 Special Status Species Programs4

Known Sites 

during the last 

ASR or 2004 

FSEIS

Additional 

Known Sites 

since the last 

ASR or the 2004 

FSEIS9

RMS 

Sites5,6

Global 

Rank

State Rank

ORNHIC 

List

Alt

1

Alt

2

Alt

3

Alt

4

Off 

S&M

On 

S&M

BLM 

OR

BLM 

CA

FS 

R67

FS 

R57

Federal 

Land 

Only

Total

Federal 

Land 

Only

Total WA OR CA

VASCULAR PLANTSCypripedium montanum 2 1

- SS - SS G4 S4 S3S4 S4.2 4

Entire range except WA Eastern Cascades physiographic province

C off

C 2 1 393 424 180 184 -

WA Eastern Cascades physiographic province off

C 3 1 274 247 21 21 -

1 Current taxonomic name. Any differences between these and previous NWFP documents are displayed in Table 3&4-18.2 See Table 2-3 (Alt. 1), Table 2-6 (Alt. 3), or Table 2-7 (Alt. 4) for information about Management Requirements for Category Assignments3 Outcomes: 1 - Sufficient Habitat 2 - Sufficient Habitat but Insufficient Habitat in a Portion of their Range 3 - Insufficient Habitat 4 - Insufficient Information to Determine and Outcome4 Actual SSSP assignments. Supplement text uses “assumed” assignments because managers have the discretion to add or remove species outside of the SEIS process. SSSP placement applies to entire states (except in the case of the red tree vole), not just the NWFP area. SSSP Codes: ss Bureau Sensitive or Forest Service Sensitive as Bureau Assessment ss-o Sensitive in Oregon ss-w Sensitive in Washington 5 RMS sites: Please see Table 3&4-16 for more information about the Random Multi-Species Surveys.6 Species removed from Survey and Manage during the process of the 2001 Annual Species Review may not be accurately represented in the RMS Surveys, as surveys may not have been completed.7 FS R-5: Forest Service, Region 5 (California); FS R-6: Forest Service, Region 6 (Oregon and Washington).8 Species outcomes are shown for each species range subdivision made in Survey and Manage. If a species is in two categories (or “off”) in different parts of its range, outcomes are included for both areas. In these cases, outcomes are combined (averaged) for the entire species range (shown as shaded blocks) for use in various summary tables (e.g. 2-9). (Assumed ratings for averaging purposes are also shaded.)9 Additional sites since the last ASR or the 2004 FSEIS. For species with new sites since their last ASR , the known site numbers are the result of a data call with a cutoff date of 11/22/06. For all other species, the data entry deadline was 09/29/06.10 Surveyed as part of the GOBIG2K Survey. See Table 3&4-16 for more information.11 The Red Tree Vole is included in SSSP in the northwestern Oregon Coast area only (North of Highway 20, west of the Willamette Valley).12 Surveyed as part of the Random Double Sample Survey. See Table 3&4-11 for more information.13 Insufficient habitat range-wide, but sufficient habitat in the portion of the range where the species in on one or more SSSP.14 For more information on ORNHIC lists and Global and State Rank, see text boxes earlier in this chapter, or Appendix 3.Note: Site numbers and outcomes are for the NWFP area unless a smaller area is specified with the species name.
172

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

for Effects Analysis for definitions); high for Survey and Manage, but there was concern 

for commercial overuse. It has a Global Rank of G4, but a State Rank of S2 in Oregon and 

California. Fruiting bodies are easy to spot however, so low reported numbers indicate 

that it is likely rarer than other fungi with similar known site numbers that are harder 

to find. The species depends on large quantities of coarse woody debris near seeps, 

trickles, or small streams, most or all of which should be protected in Riparian Reserves. 

Ramaria amyloidea has 19 sites in Agency databases and 1 RMS detection. It has a global 

rank of G3 and State Ranks of S2? in Oregon and Washington and S2S3 in California. 

It is a mycorrhizal late-successional forest associate with 50 percent of known sites in 

reserves. The species is endemic to the NWFP area, and found in all three states. The 

outcome is sufficient habitat on BLM California and Forest Service Region 6 (Oregon and 

Washington) where it is included in SSSP, and insufficient habitat elsewhere.

Three of the 28 fungi are Outcome 2, being secure in the Oregon portion of their range 

and wherever they are on SSSP in Washington or California, but have “insufficient 

habitat” in a portion of their range. These three species have 2, 4, and 10 RMS detections 

respectively. These are G3G4 or G4. Two are not on the ORNHIC List and one is 

included on ORNHIC List 3. 

The remaining 21 fungi are all ORNHIC List 3 or better and Global Rank G3 or better, 

although some are S2 within individual states (Table 3&4-10). Three of these 21 are S1 

within individual states: Cudonia monticola with 26 known sites and 6 RMS detections 

in the NWFP area is S1 in California where it is included in SSSP on Forest Service. Its 

habitat is spruce needle mats and coniferous debris at all elevations. Polyozellus multiplex

with 56 known sites in the NWFP area is S1 in California where it is included in the BLM 

SSSP. It is a chanterelle known from California to southeast Alaska, and is sometimes 

commercially collected with other chanterelles. Sowerbyella rhenana, with 73 known sites 

in the NWFP area, is S1 in Washington where it is included in Forest Service SSSP.

Lichens

Under Alternative 2, two lichens are predicted to have insufficient habitat in all of the 

NWFP area (Outcome 3), and three others are predicted to have sufficient habitat rangewide in the NWFP area, but insufficient habitat in a portion of the NWFP area (Outcome 

2). These five each have over 200 known sites, have 2 or more RMS Survey detections, 

and are on one or more of the Agencies’ SSSPs under Alternative 2 (Table 3&4-10).

Nephroma occultum has over 200 known sites and 4 RMS detections in the NWFP area. It 

is ORNHIC List 4, and Global Rank G4. According to the British Columbia COSEWIC 

(Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada) rating, there appear to 

be several disjunct population areas ranging from Alaska to southern Oregon (where 

the preponderance of known sites are located). Major concerns for the species include 

that it is a poor competitor, it is dispersal limited because of large spores, and it needs 

low elevation moist late-successional forests to maintain a suitable microclimate. On 

this last point, Rosso et al. (2000) in southern Oregon found that attempting to protect 

this species with site buffers would not maintain sufficient microclimates and dispersal 

opportunities, and the species would be best managed in large reserves. It is S1 in 

Washington and S3 in Oregon, and included on SSSP for the Forest Service in Oregon 

and Washington.

Pseudocyphellaria rainierensis has over 250 known sites, and 6 RMS detections indicating 

over 200,000 sites (95% confidence bound 20,000 to 450,000 sites). The distribution, 

requirements, and concerns for this species are very similar to Nephroma occultum

(above). It is usually found in stands more than 400 years old, and in those stands, 

understory trees are so critical to reproductive success that even the Survey and Manage 

requirements of Alternative 3 are considered inadequate to protect them. As with N. 

occultum, however, Rosso et al. found conditions at Survey and Manage-type protected 
173

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

sites not conducive to long-term persistence or dispersal. This species is on ORNHIC List 

4, Global Rank G3G4, and is State Ranked S3 in Oregon and Washington where it is SSSP 

on Forest Service lands.

Three lichens have Outcome 2, sufficient habitat throughout the NWFP area, but 

insufficient habitat in a portion of their NWFP area range. Bryoria tortusa has over 700 

known sites spread from the Olympic Peninsula to the California Coast Range and 2 RMS 

detections, but is rare in the dryer portions of the NWFP area (from eastern Washington 

to the California Cascades) where it is not associated with late-successional forests 

and has an insufficient habitat outcome. It has a Global Rank G5, State Rank S3, S5, 

and S2 in Washington, Oregon, and California respectively, and is not ORNHIC listed. 

Dendriscocaulon intricatulum has Outcome 2 in Washington and Oregon outside of five 

southern Oregon counties, with 6 known sites and 1 RMS detection. It has sufficient 

habitat in Washington where it is included in SSSP, but does not have sufficient habitat 

in Oregon where it is not included on a SSSP. In the five southern Oregon counties 

and California, it has over 700 known sites and 2 RMS detections, and has Outcome 

1. It has Global Rank G3G4Q, Oregon State Rank of S4, and is not ORNHIC Listed. It 

is S1 in California, but Agencies’ databases show over 100 sites from there. Platismatia 

lacunosa has over 150 total known sites range-wide and 21 RMS detections (indicating 

626,000 sites plus or minus 40,000 at the 95% confidence bounds). It is sometimes but 

not necessarily associated with riparian areas where it often grows on alders. However, 

with only 20 known sites in Oregon outside of the Oregon Coast Range province (but 

3 RMS detections), and not included on SSSP in Oregon, it has insufficient habitat for 

this portion of its range. It has sufficient habitat in Washington and in the Oregon 

Coast Range. This species is Global Rank G3G4, ORNHIC List 4, and S2, S3, and S1 in 

Washington, Oregon, and California respectively.

Bryophytes

One bryophyte has Outcome 3 under Alternative 2. Marsupella emarginata var. aquatica

is known from only two known 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, pre-disturbance surveys not practical. Its global distribution includes Europe, 

northeastern United States, and it has been reported from British Columbia and Alaska 

(USDA, USDI 1997). Its Global Rank is G5T3. It is ORNHIC List 2, and S1 for Oregon 

and unranked in Washington and California, being unknown there. Its Survey and 

Manage status under Alternative 1 is presumed to have the potential to protect this site/

species from the multiple-use reservoir activities upstream.

Vertebrates

Under Alternative 2, six vertebrate species have Outcome 2, habitat (including known 

sites) is sufficient to support stable populations range-wide in the NWFP area, although 

there is insufficient habitat to support stable populations in a portion of the NWFP area.

The red tree vole, a Northwest Forest Plan endemic, has insufficient habitat in a portion 

of its range under all alternatives, and insufficient habitat in an even larger portion of its 

range under Alternative 2. It has over 1,000 known sites and 80 random double-sample 

(RDS) grid detections indicating 320,000 sites plus or minus about 30,000 at the 95% 

confidence bound. In the Xeric Biological Zone, one of the places determined to have 

insufficient habitat, RDS indicates 46,000 plus or minus 13,000 sites. The population 

thins farther in the larger Northern Mesic Biological Zone, with 36,000 sites indicated, 

plus or minus 9,000. The red tree vole is a poor disperser and particularly susceptible to 

predation. They do, however, nest in unthinned plantations over 30 to 40 years old, as 

well as in older stands, and roughly 80 percent of their range is in reserves. It is Global 

Rank G3G4, S3S4 in Oregon, S1 in California, and ORNHIC List 4; it is currently included 
174

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

in the SSSPs for the Forest Service and BLM only in the North Coast range of the 

Northern Mesic Biological Zone, where there is little federal land but about 93 percent 

of that receives Late-Successional Reserve-type management. A September 2006 red tree 

vole status review by the Agencies confirms and adds details for the concerns described 

in the Red Tree Vole section (Mellen-McLean et al. 2006).

The great gray owl, with about 118 known nest sites in the NWFP area (all in Oregon) is 

protected as a raptor in all Forest Service and BLM land management plans for units on 

which it is known to occur, but receives Outcome 2 (sufficient habitat across its NWFP 

area range, but insufficient in a portion of its range) because plan direction “varies from 

very specific direction to general direction...” and is “dated, inconsistent, and do not 

provide any means of detecting sites where protections would be applied.” However, 

much of the apparently suitable habitat in the Matrix/AMA portion of the NWFP area 

has been surveyed, and the owl is very detectable if present, so the issue creating the 

Outcome 2 is the potentially inadequate site management direction. It is Global Rank G5, 

ORNHIC List 4, and S2B, S3, and S1 for Washington, Oregon, and California respectively. 

It is included in the Forest Service SSSPs in Washington and California where it has been 

observed within the NWFP area, but is not known to nest there. The NWFP area is at 

the edge of its range; it is more common throughout eastern Washington, Oregon, and 

California, as well as Alaska, Canada, Europe, and Asia. 

Four salamanders (Larch Mountain, Shasta, Siskiyou Mountains, and Van Dyke’s) have 

Outcome 2 primarily because, under the Agencies’ SSSPs (which essentially cover the 

entire range of each), “there is some uncertainty regarding inadvertent site losses or 

localized population losses created by discretionary procedures [under SSSP], and they 

would have habitat sufficient to provide stable populations in the NWFP area, with 

potential gaps.” Individual species discussions indicate concerns for discrete genetic 

populations, but the analysis also recognizes management flexibility under SSSPs “is 

constrained by policy objectives that include maintaining viable populations in habitats 

throughout their geographic range on National Forest Systems lands and ensuring that 

actions do not contribute to the need to list under the Endangered Species Act.” The 

Shasta salamander’s range only includes California and the Global rank is G1 and State 

rank S1. The Siskiyou Mountains salamander only occurs in Oregon and California. Its 

Global rank is G2G3 and is on ORNHIC List 1, and is State rank S1S2 and S2 in California 

and Oregon, respectively. The Larch Mountain salamander occurs in Washington and 

Oregon and has a Global rank of G3, is on ORNHIC List 2, and is S2 in Oregon and S3 

in Washington. The Van Dyke’s salamander occurs only in Washington and is Global 

rank G3, State rank S3 and the Olympic Peninsula portion of its range is not included in 

Survey and Manage. For all but the Siskiyou Mountains salamander (and the Van Dyke’s 

if all of the range is counted) known sites number about 100 or less.

Mollusks

Ten mollusks received Outcome 3, insufficient habitat across the NWFP area, under 

Alternative 2 (Table 3&4-10). Only two (current records) or three (FEMAT records) have 

known sites on federal lands in the NWFP area, either on the Shasta National Forest 

and/or Redding BLM Resource Area. All ten are rare aquatic snails associated with cold 

springs in the upper Sacramento and/or Pitt River drainages in north-central California, 

and are assumed to be provided significant protection by the Aquatic Conservation 

Strategy if they occur within the NWFP area. Only two have more than four known 

sites, and only one (Fluminicola potemicus) has new sites since 1994, in spite of all being 

Category A, pre-disturbance surveys required. Historical distribution is unknown. 

None are on SSSP, in part because Region 5 (California Forest Service) does not include 

unnamed species (Fluminicola potemicus was only recently published, having been 

Fluminicola n. sp. 14 in previous analyses), although all are Global Rank G1 or G1G2, and 

S1 or S1S2 for California. In the absence of new information, the outcomes generally date 

from the FEMAT, who acknowledged their apparent rarity but also qualified mollusks 
175

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

ratings with “The mollusk experts acknowledged that past agency performance was 

a consideration in their judgments. While this is not an inappropriate consideration, 

it is inconsistent with the effort to compare management options” and “Those species 

currently confined to refugia because of habitat history and species life history were 

judged unlikely to expand their range and were rated accordingly. Therefore, in even 

the most favorable situations such species were judged unlikely to be well-distributed” 

(USDA et al. 1993:iv-135).

It is significant that the Benefits of Mitigation section for most of these species in 

Appendix J2 begins with “Proper implementation of [riparian] buffer strips will provide 

considerable protection for known and newly discovered sites and significantly improve 

the original ratings.” That proper implementation has happened, as indicated by ten 

years of annual Northwest Forest Plan implementation monitoring, and these species 

can expect significant benefits from the Aquatic Conservation Strategy provisions if they 

occur on federal lands in the NWFP area.

Two mollusks, Fluminicola seminalis and Monadenia chaceana, have Outcome 2, sufficient 

habitat range-wide but insufficient habitat in a portion of the NWFP area. Fluminicola 

seminalis is an aquatic snail with five federal known sites, all on the Shasta National 

Forest in California where it is on SSSP, and another ten known sites on non-federal 

lands, all within the upper reaches of the Sacramento River. The non-federal range is 

believed to have been reduced 95% by recent human-caused and natural events12. It is 

Global Rank G2 and S1S2 for California. Although there is concern because of greatly 

reduced range, the Aquatic Conservation Strategy and SSSP management should provide 

good protection on the Shasta National Forest portion of its range.

Monadenia chaceana is a terrestrial snail widely scattered in shaded areas in the drier areas 

of southwestern Oregon and northwestern California, primarily Siskiyou County. It is 

dependent on coarse woody debris, and is sensitive to spring broadcast burning because 

it can be near the ground surface in the spring. It is Global Rank G2, ORNHIC List 1, and 

S1S2 and S2 for Oregon and California respectively. It is included in the SSSP for Forest 

Service and BLM in Oregon, and for the BLM in California. It receives an outcome of 

insufficient habitat for the portion of the range on National Forests in California, because 

most known sites are in California, and 88 percent of its known federal sites in California 

are on National Forest, where it is not assigned to SSSP. However, there are over 200 

known sites in the Agencies’ databases in spite of it being Category B, pre-disturbance 

surveys not practical; there were two RMS detections, and about 80 percent of the range 

is in reserves.

Vascular Plants

One vascular plant, Cypripedium montanum, has sufficient habitat range-wide, but 

insufficient habitat in a portion of its range because it has small, scattered populations 

that are declining. Its range is split; in the Washington Eastern Cascades province where 

it has nearly 300 known sites, this species was removed from Survey and Manage in the 

2001 ASR because it was determined not to be closely associated with late-successional 

forest. Because canopy cover less than 60 percent is detrimental and 88 percent of known 

sites are in the Matrix, the outcome for this portion of the range is insufficient habitat. In 

the remainder of the range (extending into California), the outcome is sufficient habitat 

range-wide but insufficient in a portion of its range, primarily because of declining 

populations and 75 percent of known sites are in Oregon where it is not included in SSSP, 

and within Oregon 78 percent of known sites are in Matrix. It is on SSSP in California for 

BLM and Forest Service. However, this species has over 850 known sites in the NWFP 

area (the RMS Survey was not completed for vascular plants). As a Survey and Manage 

Category C species (uncommon, pre-disturbance surveys practical), it is not surprising 

12Events like construction of dams, the spill of the herbicide metam sodium (Vapam) in the Cantara spill of 1991, and the Burney fire of 1992 

and subsequent salvage logging have caused significant impacts to the population.
176

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

such a high percentage of known sites are in Matrix since that is where most predisturbance surveys have been conducted. It was not added to SSSP because it is Global 

Rank G4, ORNHIC List 4, and S4 and S3S4 in Washington and Oregon respectively. 

NatureServe describes it 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. 

Summary

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. With 87 percent of the late-successional forest and the entire 

aquatic habitat in reserves, and with the level of management activity predicted, 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.

In addition to the 53 species discussed above, there are 20 species (6 bryophytes, 3 

fungi, 1 mollusk, and 10 lichens) and 4 functional arthropod groups with insufficient 

information to determine an outcome, and 133 species (115 fungi, 17 lichens, and the red 

tree vole in part of its range) projected to have insufficient habitat under any alternative 

(Table 3&4-9). These species may, because of management or stochastic events, develop 

gaps or be extirpated in all or part of their range in the NWFP area. While the potential 

for such an event may increase with the removal of Survey and Manage, there is no 

way to predict that increase. Most of these species cannot be found with practical predisturbance surveys. 

Assessing Ecological or Species Risk

As noted in the Late-Successional Forest Ecosystems section of the 2000 Final SEIS, risk is 

a function of four essential elements: value, susceptibility, hazard, and exposure. The 

removal of any of these elements alters the risk landscape. Removing the Survey and 

Manage provisions does not automatically create risk. Removing pre-disturbance 

surveys (for Categories A and C species), and removing known site management, 

increases exposure to hazards (management activities). If species are resistant to that 

hazard (susceptibility), for example if the species lives in talus slopes or persists in down 

logs, they are less susceptible (USDA, USDI 2000a:204). Finally, the significance of risk 

is related to value. In the case of species, there are perhaps three identifiable values; the 

value society (as embodied in laws and regulations) puts on not losing any species; the 

value of species to the process and function of ecosystems in which they live; and, the 

potential value outlying species have in providing genetic diversity for future adaptation.

The background discussion for the species outcomes identifies each of the above points, 

and others, as sources of uncertainty in the expert assessments (outcomes). Uncertainty 

is identified to come from:

1. Limited knowledge of species life history including habitat relationships, reproductive 

characteristics, survival, and dispersal characteristics.

2. Limited knowledge of the historical status of species.

3. Limited knowledge of the current status or trend of species populations other than 

information on known sites.

4. Uncertainty concerning the effects of habitat-disturbing activities on species.
177

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

5. Uncertainty surrounding the exact type and location of activities that would be 

conducted on federally managed lands.

6. Uncertainty concerning activities on non-federal lands.

7. Uncertainty about the type, location, timing, and intensity of natural disturbances 

(USDA, USDI 2000a:192).

Specifically, species effects writers have generally assumed that unprotected known sites 

in Matrix would not remain occupied, however actual disturbance from timber sales or 

other management activities may be decades away or may not happen at all. West of the 

Cascades, Riparian Reserves making up over 50 percent of the landscape significantly 

reduce the likelihood that a species site of any size would be entirely affected by a 

management activity. Further, if disturbances do happen, they may not extirpate the 

species from the site. For example, many prescribed fire treatments occur in ecosystems 

where frequent fire is normal (albeit seasonally different), and all types of treatments 

are required by standards and guidelines to minimize soil disturbances. Such activities 

do not necessarily eliminate a species from the project area, even though, for analytical 

purposes, the species effects writers may have made the presumption that such species 

cannot tolerate such disturbances. Even regeneration harvest units are limited in 

size, are often adjacent to riparian or other reserves, and are required to retain certain 

levels of green trees, snags, and down logs, precisely for the purpose of retaining local 

populations of relatively non-mobile life forms. Thus, both exposure and hazard may be 

over-estimated.

Species effects writers have been hesitant to assume there are more actual sites than those 

currently documented. For most species, there are actually more species sites extant 

than can be discovered in strategic or pre-disturbance surveys, because many species are 

very small or show themselves (break the surface) only seasonally. Indeed only 63 of the 

295 Alternative 1 Survey and Manage species can be detected by practical field surveys. 

Further, survey protocols generally call for sampling transects, not 100 percent coverage, 

in order to maintain practicality and because searches seek detectable populations, not 

necessarily individuals. The magnitude of this issue is demonstrated with the RMS 

Survey plots. At these plots, experts used rakes to thoroughly search for hypogeus fungi 

on 658 0.01 hectare plots. The results included 13 detections for a species previously 

known only from 7 other federal sites, and 3 detections for a species known only from 6 

other total sites. These species have previously been assumed to be rare because so few 

sites were known.

Species effects writers have been hesitant to make population assumptions in reserve 

land allocations. Although pre-disturbance surveys within proposed harvest units 

to date have covered about 16 percent of the Matrix and have detected thousands of 

sites, most detections come from non-random sampling in Matrix. This information is 

limited in its usefulness, because no accurate populations can be estimated nor habitat 

associations determined from non-random sampling. Statisticians warn against using 

such data to make population inferences to nearby reserves – even where sites are known 

on either side of a reserved area. Because of this, and because most known sites are in 

Matrix where they are assumed to be at risk from management activities, experts often 

conclude species with dozens to hundreds of known sites are not adequately protected. 

Fifteen of the 53 species with insufficient habitat because of management under 

Alternative 2 are known from more than 100 sites, with four of these known from over 

750 sites. The results of the RMS Survey have helped resolve this issue somewhat, by 

providing a basis for estimating population size. However, statistical analysis may not 

answer all of the connectivity questions, for example, raised by previous analyses.

Species effects writers have assumed many species are simply at greater danger from 

current conditions and stochastic events. Harvesting has made Pacific Northwest 

late-successional forests less inter-connected than during most prehistoric times, so 
178

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

there are legitimate concerns about the long-term prospects for certain rare species. 

Human-caused pollution and the threat of unnaturally hot wildfires because of recent 

suppression of natural fire events may also be threats. However, fluctuations in climate 

over the last 10,000 years (see Late-Successional Forest Ecosystems section), related changes 

in forest structure, and severe fire years that affected hundreds of thousands of acres 

raises questions about threat predictions based on minor disturbances or temperature 

fluctuations. 

Vertebrates and vascular plants aside, the possibility of a Survey and Manage species 

being extirpated from the NWFP area is a potential risk, and is a risk whether Survey and 

Manage is retained or not. There are, after all, 10 species on Survey and Manage with no 

known sites on federal lands within the area, and another 21 with only one known site. 

While the majority of these are probably represented outside the NWFP area as well, they 

may not all be. And while all may be actually extant on numerous but as yet undetected 

sites, it is probable one or more are actually very rare, or at least rare enough that 

additional habitat disturbance places them at some risk of extirpation. The magnitude 

of that risk, however, may not be quantifiable. The species most suspected of being truly 

limited to very few sites are generally aquatic.

As noted elsewhere in the analysis, factors affecting species outcomes are numerous 

and include the potential to lose connecting populations, habitat connectivity between 

reserves, the effect of activities on adjacent microclimates, and so forth. The possibility 

of direct impacts to individual sites is a primary element of species outcomes, and 

because that element may be quantifiable, the following discussion is relevant to an 

understanding of risk. 

At full Northwest Forest Plan implementation, timber harvest is projected at 247,000 

acres of late-successional forest, or about 3 percent of late-successional forest in the 

NWFP area, per decade (See Assumptions and Information Common to All Alternatives earlier 

in this chapter). If a species is so rare as to exist at only one forested location, and if the 

occupied area is smaller than the average timber sale unit size, the risk of the harvest 

directly intersecting its entire habitat is around 3 percent per decade. If it is limited to 

two such sites, that risk drops to less than 1/10th of 1 percent (.03 times .03, or 3 percent 

of 3 percent). Similarly, if there are two different such species extant on only one such 

site each, the likelihood of intersecting them both is less than 1/10th of 1 percent. These 

are worst-case scenarios. If the harvest unit only partially catches the occupied area, or if 

part of the occupied area falls within the required retention area for each harvest unit, the 

actual risk of intersecting the species is less. If there are three or more such sites, the risk 

is exponentially less. “Intersecting” is used here, because so far the discussion is only 

about exposure. Whether those intersections are significant even at the site scale depends 

upon susceptibility.

For negative impacts to occur, the species must also be susceptible. On most 

regeneration harvest timber sale units, for example, the harvest activity would leave a 

certain percentage of the largest oldest trees, down logs, and snags within the harvest 

unit. Timber sale contracts include requirements to minimize soil disturbance. These 

provisions are specifically designed to retain remnants of local non-mobile organisms 

such as fungi and invertebrates. The level of potential negative impact, or risk, is 

affected by the species sensitivity to the treatment; these retention elements would 

certainly conserve some Survey and Manage species but not others, as evidenced by 

the requirements to do pre-disturbance surveys for some species in young regenerated 

stands with relic large logs

Fuel treatments are expected to take place within 270,000 acres of late-successional forest 

per decade (since about one-third of the landscape is late-successional), mostly in the dry 

provinces. Much of this treatment would be prescribed fire, or mechanical treatments 

preparing for prescribed fire. Some Survey and Manage species are susceptible to these 
179

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

treatments, although most species in these provinces should be adapted to some level 

of natural fire, albeit at different seasons13. At least one Survey and Manage mollusk 

species, Helminthoglypta talmadgei, appears to favor recently burned sites (Agee 2001). 

Natural fire return interval in these dry provinces is generally 0 to 35 years. The 

mechanical fuel treatments preparing for prescribed fires may pose a bigger hazard for 

most species in these provinces than the burning itself.

Most species, and arguably any species having a significant ecosystem role, would be 

present at more than one site. The odds that timber harvest activities over a decade 

(administrative units plans cover about 15 years) might noticeably affect any of the 53 

species determined to be at risk under Alternative 2 was examined statistically and 

in detail. The examination ranged from considering a species so rare as to exist on 

only one site, and odds are calculated as above. Noting, however, that nearly half of 

these 53 species had at least one detection in the approximately 750 RMS Survey plots 

(actual number of plots varied by taxa), the risk to population sizes down to 1/100th of a 

detection on these same RMS Survey plots was examined (e.g. the assumption that 75,000 

1⁄2-acre RMS Survey plots would result in a single detection). The odds that a decade 

of Agencies’ timber harvest would intersect at least 20 percent of such a population 

were determined. A single detection on 75,000 survey plots translates (on average) 

to approximately 375 occupied acres. If such a species was clustered into one area of 

late-successional forest in the Matrix, the odds were about 5 percent. If the species was 

spread into at least 5 separated clusters distributed across all land use allocations, the 

odds of intersecting 20 percent or more with harvest activities drops to 3 or 4 hundredths 

of a percent. Twenty percent was used in this analysis to represent a lower threshold for 

where negative impacts to very rare species might begin to cause gaps or otherwise affect 

population function. The likelihood of intersecting 80 or 90 percent of a species’ sites is 

exponentially smaller (Alegria et al. 2006). Depending upon susceptibility and actual 

disturbance exposure, such intersection would not necessarily extirpate the species from 

the site.

The risk that any of the 53 species with insufficient habitat in all or a portion of their 

range under Alternative 2 would have 20 percent of its population intersected in a 

decade, using the detection estimates for those detected on the RMS Survey plots, and 

1/100th of a detection for all others, was estimated. 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. The odds of 

intersecting an entire population under the above scenario is several orders of magnitude 

lower (Alegria et al. 2006). And as above, whether intersection results in extirpation 

at a site is a function of susceptibility and exposure. The actual odds are substantially 

less because 42 of the 53 are on one or more of the Agencies’ SSSPs (and 9 of the 11 

that are not are un-named mollusks). Given that 31 of these species are in Survey and 

Manage categories not requiring pre-disturbance surveys and are therefore likely to go 

undetected at harvest and other management activity sites, these odds of avoiding such 

intersections under Alternative 1 may not be substantially better.

In the 1992 U.S. District Court decision that led in large part to FEMAT’s thorough 

examination of all identifiable late-successional forest associated species, Judge William 

Dwyer rejected the Forest Service’s adoption of the Interagency Scientific Committee’s 

Northern Spotted Owl plan saying in part, the Forest Service cannot adopt a plan which 

they know or believe will probably cause the extirpation of other native vertebrate 

species in the planning area (Seattle Audubon Society, et al. v. Moseley et al., No. C92-

479WC (SAS v. Moseley)). At issue were projections by some biologists that the adopted 

plan would have only a low to medium-low likelihood of providing for the viability of 

32 vertebrate species specifically identified in the Forest Service’s 1992 Environmental 

13Adaptation to fire is helpful but does not always make a species immune to prescribed fire. Species life cycles often put them underground 

by the fall natural fire season, and spring burning for fuel-hazard reduction can catch them on the surface at a vulnerable time.
180

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Impact Statement for Management of the Northern Spotted Owl (USDA 1993 unpub.; 

USDA, USDI 1994a:3&4-258).

The 1982 NFMA regulations at 36 CFR 219.19 require management of sufficient habitat to 

maintain viable populations of existing native and desired non-native vertebrate species 

in the planning area (see Elements Common to All Alternatives, Chapter 2). That is, well 

distributed habitat sufficient to support, at least, a minimum number of reproductive 

individuals and the habitat must be well distributed so those individuals can interact 

with each other. For the reasons discussed above and elsewhere in this analysis, all 

alternatives appear to meet this standard for the vertebrates in this analysis. 

The 1982 regulation at 219.27(g) requires preservation and enhancement of plant and 

animal diversity so that it is at least as great as that which would be expected in a natural 

forest, where appropriate and to the extent practicable. Reductions may be prescribed 

only where needed to meet overall multiple-use objectives. For reasons discussed 

above, all alternatives appear to meet this standard. Many management activities 

reduce diversity temporarily and on a limited geographic scale; the regulation is clearly 

not intended to prohibit such perturbations. The risk to completely losing a species is 

very low, as described above. The risk of extirpating a species at all is only quantifiable 

for actually rare species, and that is low. That such a loss would be acceptable is not 

proposed here; if a species were to be actually extirpated it would be unknowingly 

extirpated. Nevertheless, extirpation of an actually rare species would not itself violate 

this provision. First, it is not reasonable to provide for multiple use and human activity 

while maintaining a risk-free environment. Second, to the degree an increase in risk is 

the result of a need to meet other multiple-use objectives (and that risk is recognized), the 

provision expressly permits it. 

The NFMA regulations regarding viability and diversity do not apply to BLM lands.

Agencies’ SSSPs and other policies require management of species to preclude listing 

under the Endangered Species Act. It can be assumed that additional SSSP assignments 

will be made if such a threat is indicated. “Insufficient habitat” outcomes, for the reasons 

discussed above, do not necessarily predict a trend toward listing. 

At some evolutionary scale, excessive application of the precautionary principle is not 

practical. There are several hundred thousand microarthropods in a square meter of 

temperate forest floor (Madson 2003 citing Wallwork 1970, Norton 1990). Although some 

species of microarthropods are identified, they are generally considered as functional 

groups. As life forms become smaller, subterranean, or dispersal-limited, their numbers 

of apparent species within taxa rises dramatically. Researchers estimate there are 2,000 

mycorrhizal fungi species associated with Douglas-fir roots alone (Trudell et al. 2006), 

and while groups of these are active at different points or during different seasons, no 

single species is identified as irreplaceable or uniquely critical to facilitating water and 

nutrient uptake and other functions. Tiny mollusk species such as some on Survey and 

Manage can be very localized because, in drier climates, they remain restricted to habitats 

close to their natal area (USDA et al. 1993). A stochastic event or a management activity 

could extirpate them from one or more of these sites. 

Given that knowledge of actually rare species is limited, that management activities affect 

only a small percentage of the late-successional forest each decade, that species may not 

be extirpated from sites by management activities, that 87 percent of the late-successional 

forests are in reserves, and the other factors discussed above, the risk of extirpating a 

species appears low and may not vary significantly between alternatives.
181

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Bryophytes

Affected Environment 

Bryophytes are a distinct group of spore-bearing, nonvascular plants that include mosses, 

hornworts, and liverworts. They reproduce by producing spores, which are usually 

wind dispersed, or through specialized asexual structures. Although they are especially 

vulnerable to disturbance, they have managed to colonize a wide variety of habitats 

throughout the world. 

Bryophytes are important components in the forest canopy and understory habitats 

of late-successional and old-growth forests. They contribute to the species diversity, 

primary productivity, and biomass of these stands. Old-growth forests may be essential 

to the continued existence of some bryophytes (USDA et al. 1993:IV-101).

Habitat components important to some bryophytes include live, old-growth trees, 

decaying wood, riparian zones, and generally the habitat characteristics achieved by 

more extensive and interconnected late-successional and old-growth forested conditions. 

Snags, shaded rock outcrops, rotten logs, and stumps also provide suitable substrate for 

numerous bryophyte species. 

Since 1994, new information has been acquired on the occurrence and distribution of 

bryophyte species from strategic and pre-disturbance surveys, herbaria, literature, field 

units, and taxonomic experts. This knowledge had been used during the Annual Species 

Review (ASR) process to move species between categories and to remove some species 

from the Survey and Manage mitigation measure for Alternative 1.

Environmental Consequences 

Under Alternative 1, 15 of the 17 bryophyte species included in this analysis would be 

included in Survey and Manage; 13 in all of their NWFP area range, and two in part of 

their NWFP area range14. Alternative 1 includes management of all known sites and 

Strategic Surveys for all 15 of these species, and pre-disturbance surveys for the three 

species included in Category A. There is one species assumed to be included in one 

or more of the Agencies’ Special Status Species Programs (SSSP)15. The remaining one 

species in all of its range and two species in part of their range would not be included in 

Survey and Manage or SSSP (see Table 2-13). 

Under Alternative 2, twelve bryophyte species are assumed to be included in one or more 

of the Agencies’ SSSPs in all or part or their range. The remaining five species would 

not be included in either the Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines or SSSP (see 

Table 2-13).

Under Alternative 3, there would be 15 bryophyte species included in the Survey and 

Manage Standards and Guidelines (Categories A, B, and E), 13 in all of their NWFP area 

range, and two in part of their NWFP area range. Management activities in non-latesuccessional and non-old-growth forest stands would be exempt from pre-disturbance 

surveys for the three species included in Category A. The remaining one species in all 

of its range and two species in part of their range would not be included in Survey and 

Manage or SSSP (see Table 2-13). 

Under Alternative 4, all of the 17 bryophyte species discussed would be included in the 

14Summary only addresses species ranges included in this analysis. One species described as included in “all of its range” was removed from 

Survey and Manage in the Oregon and Washington portion of its range in 2001.

15Species also on Survey and Manage are not part of this total.
182

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines (Categories A, B, D, and E). Alternative 

4 includes Strategic Surveys for all species, management of all known sites for the 15 

species in Categories A, B, and E, management of high-priority sites for the 2 species in 

Category D and pre-disturbance surveys for the three species included in Category A (see 

Table 2-13).

Under all alternatives, bryophytes receive protection under the network of reserves. The 

Northwest Forest Plan Final SEIS concluded that several of the alternatives analyzed, 

including Alternative 9, were most favorable to bryophytes because they provide the 

set of allocations and management practices that best produces habitat components for 

bryophytes (USDA, USDI 1994a:3&4-133). 

Brotherella roellii

This Pacific Northwest endemic species is known from the lower mainland area of British 

Columbia and five historical sites in Washington. It is currently unknown if Brotherella 

roellii is still extant at these five sites. 

Under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4, this species would be included in Category E, which 

requires Strategic Surveys and management of all known sites. Given the uncertainty 

regarding the status of this species in the NWFP area, there is insufficient information to 

determine how these alternatives would affect distribution and stability of this species 

(USDA, USDI 2000a:223). There is insufficient information to determine an outcome 

under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4.

Under Alternative 2, this species is assumed not to be included in any of the Agencies’ 

SSSPs. Known sites would no longer be managed and Strategic Surveys would not occur. 

Given the uncertainty regarding the status of this species in the NWFP area, there is 

insufficient information to determine how the alternative would affect distribution and 

stability of this species. There is insufficient information to determine an outcome under 

Alternative 2.

Buxbaumia viridis (Oregon and Washington only)

The 2001 ASR determined Buxbaumia viridis to be secure in Oregon and Washington 

because it had a moderate to high number of known sites, a significant number of sites 

in reserves, a high likelihood of additional sites and suitable habitat reserves, and the 

known sites were well distributed within its range (USDA, USDI Species Review Panel 

2001). The 2001 ASR documentation also notes that the species is found in young stands 

as well as in late-successional and old-growth stands. At that time, there were 637 

known sites in Oregon and Washington, 536 of which were on federal land. Since that 

time, an additional 202 sites have been reported (GeoBOB/ISMS database). Nineteen 

additional detections were identified in the Oregon and Washington RMS Survey data. 

This data projects that there would be approximately 750,100 (SE = 204,500) expected 0.2 

ha detections in Oregon and Washington (Table 3&4-16). This is probably a conservative 

estimate because data may not have been consistently collected for this species after the 

2001 ASR removed it from Survey and Manage in Oregon and Washington. This new 

information collected since 2001 is consistent with the findings from the ASR. 

Under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3, this species is removed from Survey and Manage and 

not assumed to be in the Agencies’ SSSPs in Oregon or Washington. However, because 

it has a large number of known and projected sites, a significant number of known 

sites in reserves, a high likelihood of additional sites and suitable habitat reserves, well 

distributed sites within its range, and the suitable habitat is not entirely restricted to latesuccessional/old-growth stands, habitat (including known sites) is sufficient to provide 

for stable populations for this species under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 in Oregon and 

Washington.
183

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Under Alternative 4, this species would be included in Category D, which includes 

management of high-priority sites and Strategic Surveys. For the reasons listed for 

Alternatives 1, 2, and 3, habitat (including known sites) is sufficient to provide for stable 

populations for this species under Alternative 4 in Oregon and Washington.

Buxbaumia viridis (California only)

The 2004 FSEIS showed Buxbaumia viridis known from four federal sites in northern 

California, three of which occur on National Forest System lands outside of reserves. 

Two new sites have been found in California since the 2004 FSEIS. Given the low 

number of known sites, loss of any site could affect populations to the point of leading 

to insufficient habitat in northern California. Although this species has a broad global 

distribution (USDA, USDI 2000a:235), it is widely scattered elsewhere and it is listed as 

vulnerable on the European Red List (Hallinback 1998).

Under Alternatives 1 and 3, this species would be included in Category E, which requires 

Strategic Surveys and management of all known sites. Under Alternative 4, this species 

would be included in Category D, which requires Strategic Surveys and management 

of high-priority sites, which all known federal sites in California are assumed to be. 

The 2000 FSEIS found, under Category D, Buxbaumia viridis would stabilize in a pattern 

similar to its reference distribution (USDA, USDI 2000a:237). Due to protection of known 

sites, habitat (including known sites) is sufficient to provide for stable populations under 

Alternatives 1, 3, and 4. 

Under Alternative 2, this species is assumed to be included in the SSSPs for the Forest 

Service and BLM in California. Due to inclusion in the Agencies’ SSSPs where known 

sites would be managed, habitat (including known sites) is sufficient to provide for stable 

populations under Alternative 2. Under Alternative 2 without SSSP, loss of habitat and 

sites would be expected to occur. Therefore, because of the low number of known sites, 

there is insufficient habitat (including known sites) to support stable populations in the 

California portion of the NWFP area under Alternatives 2 without SSSP. 

Diplophyllum albicans

The 2002 ASR documentation (USDA, USDI Species Review Panel 2002) indicates that 

Diplophyllum albicans shows closer ties to moist, cool microsites than to late-successional 

forest. While the species is documented to occur in LSOG, it does not appear to require 

LSOG habitat components. While it is known to occur on organic substrates such as 

decaying logs and trunks of living trees, it also is found on north-facing talus slopes, 

crevices in rock outcrops, west-facing road cut-banks, trail soil banks, cliff faces and 

stream banks. It has also been found in a bog. There are numerous sites along the coast, 

where higher moisture is a shared condition, but location in late-successional stands is 

not. The Matrix downed log and green tree retention standards together contribute to 

the persistence of this species.

There are a relatively high number of known sites for this species, and the Annual 

Species Review record shows approximately 45 percent are in Late-Successional or 

Congressional Reserves. This species is widely distributed, and is found in five provinces 

within western Washington and western Oregon north of the Klamath Province. It 

appears to be well distributed throughout the Coast Range and along the western slope 

of the Cascades in Washington and Oregon. There are 25 detections from Random MultiSpecies Surveys. Based on this number of detections, it is projected that there are at least 

1,218,800 occurrences (standard error = 298,100) of this species within the NWFP area 

(Table 3&4-16). The species is likely under-represented in Agency databases because predisturbance surveys have not been required.
184

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3, this species is removed from Survey and Manage and 

not assumed to be in the Agencies’ SSSPs. However, because of the high number of 

documented and projected sites, the number of known sites and potential habitat in 

reserves, and its wide ecological amplitude, habitat (including known sites) is sufficient 

to provide for stable populations for this species under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 across the 

NWFP area.

Under Alternative 4, this species would be included in Category D, which includes 

management of high-priority sites and Strategic Surveys. For the reasons listed for 

Alternatives 1, 2, and 3, habitat (including known sites) is sufficient to provide for stable 

populations for this species under Alternative 4 across the NWFP area.

Diplophyllum plicatum 

Between the 2000 Final SEIS and the 2004 FSEIS, information from pre-disturbance 

and proposive surveys had increased the known sites for this species to approximately 

80. Little change has occurred in these site numbers since the 2004 FSEIS. These sites 

are primarily restricted to two cluster populations on Coos Bay BLM and the Olympic 

Peninsula. While most of the known sites on Coos Bay BLM are in reserve allocations, 

not all of the known sites on the Olympic Peninsula are in reserves. There are scattered 

occurrences in between these two clusters. The one RMS Survey detection provides little 

new information about rarity or land allocation. This species is not currently known 

from California.

Under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4, this species would be included in Category B, which 

requires management of all known sites and Strategic Surveys. With a high level of 

uncertainty due to low numbers and spotty distribution, Diplophyllum plicatum would 

stabilize in a pattern similar to its reference distribution (USDA, USDI 2000a:227). Due to 

management of known sites, habitat (including known sites) is sufficient to provide for 

stable populations for this species under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4. 

Under Alternative 2, Diplophyllum plicatum would have habitat (including known sites) 

sufficient to support stable populations. This is because this species is assumed to 

be included as Bureau Assessment on BLM managed lands in Oregon where known 

sites would be managed. This species is assumed not to be included as Forest Service 

Sensitive in Washington and Oregon. In locations where the species is not included 

under the SSSPs and is not protected by reserves, loss of habitat and populations would 

limit the gene flow and dispersal capability for this species especially between the two 

larger cluster populations. Because under Alternative 2, a prediction of habitat sufficient 

for stable populations was based on the combination of habitat and known sites in 

reserves and inclusion in the Oregon BLM SSSP, Alternative 2 without SSSP would likely 

lead to habitat (including known sites) that is insufficient to support stable populations in 

the NWFP area. 

Encalypta brevicolla var. crumiana

The 2002 ASR determined that Encalypta brevicolla var. crumiana was not associated with 

late-successional and old-growth habitats (USDA, USDI Species Review Panel 2002). 

At that time, this species was known from only two locations in the world. There is an 

historic location in Mt Rainier National Park from 1937 and a site at Squirrel Peak on the 

Siskiyou National Forest that was relocated as part of a 2002 purposive survey. Three 

additional sites were subsequently discovered on the Siskiyou National Forest in 2005 on 

other open rock outcrops in Curry and Coos Counties. 

Under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3, this species is assumed to be on the Forest Service 

Sensitive list in Oregon. Under Alternative 4, this species would be included in Category 
185

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

B, which includes management of known sites, equivalent-effort surveys until Strategic 

Surveys are completed, and Strategic Surveys. The 2000 FSEIS found that because of low 

known site numbers, there was insufficient information to determine an outcome. That 

remains the case under all alternatives including Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 without SSSP.

Herbertus aduncus

This species extends from Alaska to Oregon where it reaches the southern edge of 

its range in western North America. Recent proposive surveys have located several 

additional populations in the Columbia Gorge and on the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie 

National Forest. Current information indicates that this species is rare and limited in 

distribution (USDA, USDI 2000a:230). 

Under Alternatives 1 and 3, this species would be included in Category E, which 

requires management of all known sites and Strategic Surveys. Under Alternative 4, 

this species would be included in Category B, which requires management of known 

sites, equivalent-effort surveys until Strategic Surveys are determined to be completed, 

and Strategic Surveys. The 2000 FSEIS found that because of low number of known 

sites, there was insufficient information to determine how any alternative would 

affect distribution and stability of this species (USDA, USDI 2000a:230). There is still 

insufficient information to determine an outcome under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4.

Under Alternative 2, this species is assumed to be Bureau Assessment on BLM managed 

lands in Oregon where known sites would be managed. It is assumed not to be included 

as Forest Service Sensitive. Known sites on Forest Service managed lands would no 

longer be managed and Strategic Surveys would not occur. Under Alternative 2 with 

or without SSSP, there is the potential for loss of some known sites (most of the known 

sites are in State or National Parks). However, there remains insufficient information to 

determine an outcome under Alternative 2 with or without SSSP. 

Iwatsukiella leucotricha

Prior to 2002, there were only two known sites of this species in the continental U.S. Both 

sites were on non federal land in Oregon. There are at least 9 known sites of this species 

now documented on federal land as well as another 4 known sites occurring on state 

lands in Washington and Oregon. At least five of these new sites are located within LateSuccessional Reserves. Current information continues to indicate that this species is rare 

and of limited distribution. 

Under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4, this species would be included in Category B, which 

requires management of all known sites and Strategic Surveys. Due to protection of sites 

in reserves and management of known sites, habitat (including known sites) is sufficient 

to support stable populations in the NWFP area under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4. 

Under Alternative 2, Iwatsukiella leucotricha would have habitat (including known sites) 

sufficient to support stable populations. This is because, this species is assumed to be 

included as Bureau Assessment on BLM managed lands in Oregon and as Sensitive on 

Forest Service managed lands in Washington and Oregon. This inclusion provides for 

management of all known sites on federal land and the anticipation that habitat and 

known sites would be sufficient for stable populations. Because under Alternative 2, 

a prediction of habitat sufficient for stable populations was based on the combination 

of habitat and known sites in reserves and inclusion in BLM and Forest Service SSSPs, 

Alternative 2 without SSSP would likely lead to habitat (including known sites) that is 

insufficient to support stable populations in the NWFP area. 
186

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Kurzia makinoana

This species has been reported from Washington, Oregon, and California. Currently 

there are four known sites. One new site has been found since the 2004 FSEIS, and 

there is no new information indicating that the species is other than rare and of limited 

distribution within the NWFP area. Nomenclature of this taxon is in question, so it is 

difficult to fully understand the range and distribution of this species within the NWFP 

area

Under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4, this species would be included in Category B, which 

requires management of all known sites and Strategic Surveys. There is insufficient 

information to determine how these alternatives would affect distribution and stability 

of this species. There is insufficient information to determine an outcome under 

Alternatives 1, 3, or 4.

Under Alternative 2, this species is assumed to be included as a Bureau Assessment 

species on Oregon BLM managed lands where known sites would be managed. It 

is assumed not to be included as Forest Service Sensitive in Washington, Oregon, 

or California, or in the BLM SSSP in California. With the exception of sites on BLM 

managed lands in Oregon, known sites would no longer be managed. Due to lack of 

information for this species, there is insufficient information to determine an outcome 

under Alternative 2, with or without inclusion in SSSPs.

Marsupella emarginata var. aquatica

This aquatic species grows attached to rocks in streams. Until recently, the only known 

site for this species was on the Willamette National Forest. Recent proposive surveys 

located one additional site on the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest. There has been 

taxonomic confusion over the acceptance of this taxon as a valid variety (USDA, USDI 

2000a:225).

Under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4, this species would be included in Category B, which 

requires management of all known sites and Strategic Surveys. Since this variety is 

restricted to aquatic habitats, Riparian Reserves may provide additional protection of 

habitat for this species. Habitat (including known sites) is sufficient to provide for stable 

populations for this species under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4. 

Under Alternative 2, this species is assumed not to be included in the BLM SSSP in 

California or Oregon. 

While all known sites of this species occur on lands managed by the Forest Service, 

it is assumed that this species would not be included in the Forest Service SSSP. The 

predicted outcome in the 2004 FSEIS under Alternative 2 was based on presumed 

protection of known sites due to their inclusion within Riparian Reserves. However, 

there are recent studies (Paavola et al. 2003, Muotka and Laasonen 2002) indicating 

that stream management directed toward habitat improvement for fish or aquatic 

macroinvertebrates may have negative effects on aquatic bryophytes and that key 

physical factors in the stream environment differ among aquatic bryophytes, fish, and 

aquatic macroinvertebrates. These studies suggest that management decisions affecting 

in-stream environments that do not include consideration of aquatic bryophytes may 

result in loss of aquatic bryophyte habitat and sites. This new information, coupled with 

knowledge that one of the two known sites of this species occur in the drainage from 

a lake that serves as a multiple-use recreational destination, suggests that Alternative 

2 could result in habitat insufficient to support stable populations of this species in the 

NWFP area. 
187

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Orthodontium gracile

This species occurs in southern Oregon and northern California. Current information 

indicates this species occurs predominately in coastal redwood forests, most of which are 

located in reserves, state parks, or National Parks.

Under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4, this species would be included in Category B, which 

requires management of all known sites, equivalent-effort surveys until Strategic Surveys 

are determined to be complete. Due to current information that this species is limited to 

coastal redwood forests, most of which are protected, habitat (including known sites) is 

sufficient to provide for stable populations for this species under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4. 

Under Alternative 2, this species is assumed to be included as Sensitive on California 

BLM managed lands. The species is assumed to not be included as Forest Service 

Sensitive in California. Because the habitat is already largely protected, inclusion on the 

BLM SSSP in California is not considered to be critical to provide for stable populations. 

Therefore, habitat (including known sites) is sufficient to provide for stable populations 

for this species under Alternative 2 with or without SSSP. 

Ptilidium californicum (California only)

This species has a North Pacific distribution (USDA, USDI 2000a:219). It reaches the 

southern extent of its range in northern California. Previously known only from the 

literature in California, there are now nearly 300 known sites. Abundance of Ptilidium 

californicum is low at most recorded sites, although local concentrations of known sites 

indicate that it may be thinly spread over large areas in appropriate habitat. This species 

was detected on three plots on California forests during the RMS Survey project. This 

results in an estimated 141,600 (Standard Error (SE) = 80,800) expected 0.2 ha detections 

in California. It was also located on a Rogue River National Forest plot in California 

from a separate, independent sample population. All four of the detections occurred 

in late-successional old-growth stands in reserved land allocations. The high SE with 

the estimate is too high to provide a satisfactorily accurate estimation of occurrence 

in California. However, the RMS Survey results, together with the steadily increasing 

numbers of known sites from other sources suggest that the species is not uncommon in 

old-growth forests in reserved land allocations. Roughly an equal percentage of the sites 

are in reserve and non-reserve allocations (GeoBOB/ISMS database). 

Under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4, this species would be included in Category A in 

California, which requires pre-disturbance surveys, management of all known sites, and 

Strategic Surveys. Under Alternative 3, management activities in non-late-successional 

and non-old-growth forest stands would be exempt from pre-disturbance surveys. 

Under Alternative 2, this species is assumed to be included as Sensitive for the California 

BLM and as Sensitive by the Forest Service in California. 

Although there is potential for damage to individual known sites, even in reserves, 

particularly from fuels reduction projects, there are enough known sites distributed 

over a large enough area to provide a reasonable assurance of resiliency to the species 

in California within the present climatic regime. Habitat (including known sites) is 

sufficient to provide for stable populations under all alternatives with or without SSSP. 

Racomitrium aquaticum

Most of the western North American material of this species has been proposed for a 

name change to Racomitrium ryszardii. It is a recent proposal that has not had time to be 

evaluated by the North American bryological community (USDA, USDI 2002b). This 

is a taxonomically difficult genus, and this species is often misidentified or overlooked 

when collections are made. Contrary to this species’ name (aquaticum), it is not an aquatic 
188

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

species (Harpel 2003 pers. comm.). It has been recently determined that California 

material previously identified as this species may be neither R. aquaticum nor R. ryszardii 

(Norris and Shevock 2004).

At least 31 known sites, including 6 RMS Survey detections, are now documented within 

the NWFP area. Based on the number of RMS Survey detections, it is projected that 

there are at least 287,200 occurrences (standard error = 120,500) of this species within the 

NWFP area. The apparent contradiction between the relatively small number of known 

sites and the large number of projected occurrences is likely, in part, due to undercollection associated with the great difficulty in recognizing this species in the field. With 

the assumption that Oregon and Washington material currently identified as R. aquaticum

represents no more than a single taxonomic entity, there now appears to be sufficient 

information to determine outcome for this species. 

Under Alternatives 1 and 3, this species would be included in Category E, which requires 

management of all known sites and Strategic Surveys. Under Alternative 2, this species is 

removed from Survey and Manage and not assumed to be in the Agencies’ SSSPs within 

the NWFP area. Under Alternative 4, this species would be included in Category B, 

which requires management of all known sites, equivalent-effort surveys until Strategic 

Surveys are completed, and Strategic Surveys. While this species has only a moderate 

number of documented sites, the combination of difficult specimen identification and 

the very large number of projected occurrences indicates that, under all alternatives, 

Racomitrium aquaticum has habitat (including known sites) that is sufficient to support 

stable populations in the NWFP area. 

 

Rhizomnium nudum (outside of Washington)

Within the NWFP area, most documented sites of Rhizomnium nudum occur within 

Washington. A smaller number of sites occur in Oregon, and no sites are currently 

documented in California. At least 37 known sites, all on lands managed by the Forest 

Service, are now documented in Oregon. Seventeen of these sites occur in reserve 

allocations. There were three detections of this species during RMS Survey within 

Oregon. Statistically based population estimates based on RMS Survey detections 

have not been completed for the Oregon portion of the NWFP area. Hence, biological 

inferences using RMS Survey data cannot be made with confidence. The majority of 

known sites occur on Mt. Hood and Willamette National Forests, where they are rather 

evenly distributed among reserve and non-reserve allocations. Because this species 

typically occurs in higher and moister plant communities where management actions 

are generally low in frequency and intensity, the species is subject to relatively low risk 

due to forest management activities. In addition, the Oregon RMS Survey detections of 

this species, along with the generally low frequency of project-related bryophyte surveys 

within suitable habitat, suggest that the species is likely underreported within its Oregon 

range. 

Under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4, this species would be included in Category B outside of 

Washington State. This requires management of all known sites and Strategic Surveys. 

Because known site management will contribute to providing for stable populations 

of this species, Rhizomnium nudum would stabilize in a pattern similar to its reference 

distribution (USDA, USDI 2000a:227). Habitat (including known sites) is sufficient to 

provide for stable populations for this species under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4. 

Under Alternative 2, this species is removed from Survey and Manage but assumed to 

be included as Bureau Assessment for the BLM in Oregon and Forest Service Sensitive in 

Oregon. For reasons noted above, such as moderate number of known sites, moderate 

representation within reserves, relatively even distribution, habitats with relatively low 

risk of disturbance, and the likelihood of under-reporting, it is anticipated that with or 
189

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

without inclusion in BLM or Forest Service SSSPs, habitat is sufficient to provide for 

stable populations of this species under Alternative 2.

Rhizomnium nudum (Washington only)

The 2002 ASR reports that Rhizomnium nudum is well distributed within the eastern and 

western Cascades of Washington and on the Olympic Peninsula (USDA, USDI Species 

Review Panel 2002). Well over 200 sites are now documented within the state, with more 

than 50 percent of these included within reserve allocations or their equivalent. There 

are 21 RMS Survey detections for this species in Washington. Analysis including these 

detections plus another three in Oregon projects at least 1,372,000 occurrences (standard 

error = 333,000) of this species within the NWFP area (Table 3&4-16).

Under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3, this species is removed from Survey and Manage. Under 

Alternative 4, this species would be included in Category B, which requires protection 

of all known sites and Strategic Surveys (which have been completed). Given the 

documentation that, in Washington, this species is numerous, well-distributed, and wellrepresented in reserves, Rhizomnium nudum has habitat (including known sites) that is 

sufficient to support stable populations in Washington under all alternatives. 

Schistostega pennata

This species occurs in Washington and Oregon with most of the known sites found 

on the Olympic Peninsula, and in the Gifford Pinchot, Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie, and Mt. 

Hood National Forests. It is known as far south as the Umpqua National Forest in 

Oregon. New information indicates this species is found in a variety of habitats and 

is not restricted to riparian areas (Harpel 2003 pers. comm.). Known occurrences are 

mostly small and are restricted to substrates that are temporary (i.e. the soil on the 

underside of upturned roots of fallen conifers). It is unknown what the population trend 

at these sites is or whether the sites are even still extant since this species occupies such a 

transitory substrate. The absence of detection of this species in the RMS Survey Analysis 

is consistent with a species that is rare on the landscape.

Under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4, this species would be included in Category A, which 

requires pre-disturbance surveys, management of all known sites, and Strategic Surveys. 

Under Alternative 3, management activities in non-late-successional and non-old-growth 

forest stands would be exempt from pre-disturbance surveys. Due to management 

of known sites, habitat (including known sites) is sufficient to provide for stable 

populations for this species under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4. 

Under Alternative 2, this species is assumed to be included as Forest Service Sensitive 

in Oregon and Washington. It is assumed to be Bureau Assessment on BLM managed 

lands in Oregon. Due to management of known sites, habitat (including known sites) 

is sufficient to provide for stable populations for this species under Alternative 2. 

Alternative 2 without inclusion into SSSP would result in habitat (including known sites) 

insufficient to support stable populations in the NWFP area.

Tetraphis geniculata

This species occurs in Oregon and Washington and is suspected to occur in coastal 

California. Most of the known sites for this species occur in Washington on the Gifford 

Pinchot National Forest and the Olympic Peninsula. This species appears to be fairly 

well-distributed within the appropriate habitat on Gifford Pinchot National Forest but 

not elsewhere in the NWFP area. A substantial number of these sites occur outside of 

reserves. Only three locations are known to occur in Oregon. The one RMS Survey 

detection provides little new information about rarity or association with land allocation. 

Because this species in the Pacific Northwest is dependent on decaying coarse woody 
190

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

debris, it is important to maintain these components within non-late-successional and 

non-old-growth forest stands. 

Under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4, this species would be included in Category A, which 

requires pre-disturbance surveys, management of all known sites, and Strategic Surveys. 

Under Alternative 3, management activities in non-late-successional and non-old-growth 

forest stands would be exempt from pre-disturbance surveys. Due to management of 

known sites and surveys, habitat (including known sites) is sufficient to provide for 

stable populations for this species under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4. 

Under Alternative 2, this species is assumed to be included as Sensitive on BLM managed 

lands in California and as Bureau Assessment on BLM managed lands in Oregon. It is 

also assumed to be included as Forest Service Sensitive in Oregon and Washington. Due 

to inclusion in the Agencies’ SSSPs where known sites would be managed and pre-project 

clearances would be completed, habitat (including known sites) is sufficient to provide 

for stable populations for this species under Alternative 2. 

Because the known sites are concentrated within a relatively small portion of the NWFP 

area and there is limited protection from the reserve network, Alternative 2 without 

inclusion into SSSP would result in habitat (including known sites) insufficient to support 

stable populations in the NWFP area

Tritomaria exsectiformis

Previously this species was thought to occur only on the eastside of the Cascade 

Mountains. New information from proposive surveys expanded the known range of 

the species on the eastside and to the Olympic National Forest on the west side of the 

Cascades. Currently, all known sites occur on National Forest System lands. 

Under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4, this species would be in Category B, which requires 

management of all known sites and Strategic Surveys. Due to few known sites and lack 

of information, there is insufficient information to determine how any alternative would 

affect the distribution and stability of Tritomaria exsectiformis (USDA, USDI 2000a:227). 

There is insufficient information to determine an outcome under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4.

Under Alternative 2, this species is assumed to be included as Bureau Assessment by the 

BLM in Oregon where known sites would be managed. It is assumed not to be included 

in the Forest Service Sensitive Species Programs or in the BLM SSSP in California. 

Known sites would no longer be managed on National Forest System lands or on BLMmanaged lands in California. Strategic Surveys would not occur. Although loss of sites 

could occur where not included in the Agencies’ SSSPs, there is insufficient information 

to determine how the alternative would affect distribution and stability of this species. 

There is insufficient information to determine an outcome under Alternative 2, including 

the scenario of Alternative 2 without SSSP.

Tritomaria quinquedentata 

This species is known from few sites and current information indicates it is rare and 

limited in distribution (USDA, USDI 2000a:230). Most known sites for this species are 

in Washington; one is in Oregon. Nearly all occur on federally managed lands. Several 

recent collections on the eastside of the Cascade Mountains have expanded the range 

from the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest to the Okanogan National Forest in 

Washington. The association of this species with late-successional or old-growth forests 

is uncertain (USDA, USDI Species Review Panel 1999).

Under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4, this species would be included in Category B, which 

requires management of all known sites and Strategic Surveys. Because there are so 
191

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

few sites, there is insufficient information to determine how these alternatives would 

affect the distribution and stability of this species (USDA, USDI 2000a:230). There is 

insufficient information to determine an outcome under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4.

Under Alternative 2, this species is assumed not to be included in the Forest Service 

Sensitive Species Program or the BLM SSSP in California or Oregon. Known sites 

would no longer be managed on National Forest System lands or on BLM- managed 

lands. Strategic Surveys would not occur. Because it is unknown how well the current 

information reflects species’ distribution and there are so few sites, there is insufficient 

information to determine an outcome under Alternative 2.

Summary

Under all alternatives, habitat (including known sites) is sufficient to provide for stable 

populations for ten species. 

Under all alternatives, there is insufficient information to determine an outcome for six 

species. 

The remaining one species would have habitat (including known sites) sufficient to 

provide for stable populations under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4, where the species is on 

Survey and Manage, but would have insufficient habitat under Alternative 2, where the 

species is off of Survey and Manage.

Under Alternative 2, 12 of these species would be on one or more SSSP. Under the 

scenario that they were removed from SSSP, there would be insufficient information to 

determine an outcome for 4 species, there would be sufficient habitat for 3 species, there 

would be sufficient habitat range-wide, but insufficient in a portion of its range for one 

species, and there would be insufficient habitat for 4 species.

Fungi

Affected Environment

Fungi are neither plants nor animals but are recognized as a separate kingdom of 

organisms, both in structure and function. Estimates indicate there are at least six 

species of fungi for every vascular plant species in a given temperate ecosystem 

(Hawksworth 1991). The fungal flora of the Pacific Northwest is extremely diverse. Of 

the approximately 500 species of fungi that were evaluated as closely associated with 

late-successional and old-growth forests, approximately 100 are known to be endemic to 

the Pacific Northwest. 

Most macrofungi (mushrooms, truffles, and allies) produce fruiting structures or 

sporocarps that are short-lived and ephemeral, seasonal in occurrence, and annually 

variable. Richardson (1970) estimated that sampling every 2 weeks would fail to detect 

about 50 percent of macrofungal species fruiting in a season. On the average, less than 

10 percent of species were detected in each of 2 consecutive years at any one of eight 

sites (O’Dell et al. 1999). The reasons for annual and seasonal variation are not fully 

understood, and predicting when, or under what conditions, a species would fruit is not 

possible at present. 

Another poorly understood facet of fungi is their population biology. Dispersal, 

reproduction, and connectivity are not well understood for any of the fungi considered in 

this SEIS. 
192

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Current taxonomic names are used in this section. Any differences between these and 

names in previous Northwest Forest Plan documents are displayed in Table 3&4-18.

Environmental Consequences

Under Alternative 1, 186 of the 208 fungi species included in this analysis would be 

included in Survey and Manage; 181 in all of their NWFP area range, and five in part 

of their NWFP area range. There would be 2 species included in one or more of the 

Agencies’ Special Status Species Programs (SSSP). The remaining 20 species in all of their 

range and five species in part of their range would not be included Survey and Manage 

or SSSP. Under Alternative 2, 67 fungi species would be included in one or more of the 

Agencies’ SSSPs in all or part or their range. The remaining 141 species would not be 

included in either the Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines or SSSP. Under 

Alternative 3, there would be 172 fungi species included in the Survey and Manage 

Standards and Guidelines (Categories A, B, and E); 166 in all of their range and 6 in 

part of their range. Six species would be included in one or more of the Agencies’ SSSP, 

including in the part of its range not included in Survey and Manage. The remaining 31 

species would not be included in the Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines or 

SSSP. Under Alternative 4, all of the 208 fungi species discussed would be included in the 

Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines (see Table 2-13).

Habitat components important to fungi include dead, down wood; standing dead trees; 

and live, old-growth trees; as well as a diversity of host species (including trees and 

underbrush) and microhabitats. Also important for fungi is a well-distributed network 

of late-successional forest. Small forest fragments can function as refugia where fungi 

may persist until suitable habitat conditions become available in adjacent stands. The 

analyses of environmental consequences of Option 9 in FEMAT and Alternative 9 in 

the Northwest Forest Plan Final SEIS concluded that alternatives, such as Alternative 9, 

which provide for more extensive and interconnected late-successional and old-growth 

forest conditions, would minimize the risks to these species (USDA, USDI 1994a:3&4-

136). 

For most fungi species there is scant information regarding geographic range, habitat, 

or habitat range. Few systematic surveys for fungi have been performed, even within 

the NWFP area. Lack of detection does not necessarily indicate lack of presence. 

Therefore, there is incomplete knowledge regarding the true geographic range of 

Survey and Manage fungi species. Many fungi species are widespread but locally rare 

(large geographic range, but small, isolated populations). This may be due to broad 

macrohabitat (forests), yet restricted and specialized microhabitat requirements (specific 

hosts, local conditions). There currently are no methods to predict where specialized 

habitat occurs for most Survey and Manage fungi. Existing habitat information is 

confined to generalities and hypothesis, based on species that are more common. This 

makes it difficult to evaluate habitat for Survey and Manage fungi species.

The 2000 Survey and Manage Final SEIS acknowledged this high degree of uncertainty 

regarding the biological distribution of fungi. This uncertainty has been reduced for 

some species because of a variety of efforts including Strategic Surveys implemented 

under the Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines. Consequently, the 

environmental consequences analysis in this SEIS was able to reach conclusions for some 

species that previously lacked sufficient information to determine how any alternative 

would affect distribution and stability. For other species, conclusions were modified 

from the 2000 Final SEIS because of additional information. A primary source of 

information regarding the distribution and number of known sites used in the analysis of 

these species was the GeoBOB/ISMS database. 
193

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Species are grouped for the purpose of comparing environmental consequences. The 

groupings are not intended to imply that this certain aspect of the analysis is the 

only criteria by which the alternatives would be judged. Previous analyses, either 

incorporated by reference or supplemented by this SEIS, contain relevant information 

regarding the alternatives. 

Group 1

Although historic locations delineate potential species ranges, the following 27 species 

have not been recorded since institution of the Survey and Manage fungi lab in 1996. 

Under all alternatives, for the following 27 species, habitat (including known sites) 

is insufficient to support stable populations in the NWFP area. The reasons for this 

outcome include the fact that many of these species have not been observed in the NWFP 

area in more than 30 years, many may already be extirpated from the NWFP area, and all 

alternatives would provide insufficient habitat to maintain these species (USDA, USDI 

2000a). This outcome is not due to federal action.

Asterophora parasitica (B)

Cortinarius depauperatus (B)

Cortinarius speciosissimus (B)

Cortinarius umidicola (B)

Cystangium idahoensis (B)

Cystangium lymanensis (B)

Destuntzia fusca (B)

Destuntzia rubra (B)

Dichostereum boreale (B)

Endogone acrogena (B)

Endogone oregonensis (B)

Gastroboletus imbellus (B)

Gastrosuillus umbrinus (B)

Gautieria magnicellaris (B)

Gautieria otthii (B)

Glomus radiatum (B)

Gymnomyces fragrans (B)

Hebeloma olympianum (B)

Hydnotrya subnix (B)

Hygrophorus vernalis (B)

Mythicomyces corneipes (B)

Octavianina macrospora (B)

Pholiota albivelata (B)

Rhizopogon inquinatus (B)

Sedecula pulvinata (B)

Stagnicola perplexa (B)

Zelleromyces papyracea (B)

Macowanites lymanensis was transferred to the genus Cystangium as Cystangium lymanensis

(Trappe et al. 2002). Martellia fragrans was transferred to the genus Gymnomyces as 

Gymnomyces fragrans (Trappe et al. 2002). Martellia idahoensis was transferred to the 

genus Cystangium as Cystangium idahoensis (Trappe et al. 2002). Octavianina papyracea was 

transferred to the genus Zelleromyces as Zelleromyces papyracea (Trappe et al. 2002).

Under Alternatives 1, 3 and 4, all 27 species would be included in Category B (as 

indicated by the B in parens following the species name) which requires management of 

known sites and Strategic Surveys. 

Under Alternative 2, 23 of these 27 species are assumed not to be included in any of the 

Agencies’ SSSPs. Sites would no longer be managed and Strategic Surveys would no 

longer be required. The remaining 4 species: Destuntzia rubra, Gastroboletus imbellus, 

Gymnomyces fragrans, and Octavianina macrospora are assumed to be included as Sensitive 

on BLM managed lands in Oregon. Pre-project clearances would be conducted and sites 

would be managed if site loss would contribute to the need to list. General inventories 

may be conducted. Under the scenario of Alternative 2 without SSSP, for these four 

species, the outcome is also habitat (including known sites) is insufficient to support 

stable populations across the NWFP area.

Group 2

Under all alternatives, the following 88 species would not maintain stable populations 

largely due to the very low number of occurrences (most have had only 1 to 10 sites 

discovered since 1996). For all alternatives, habitat (including known sites) is insufficient 
194

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

to support stable populations in the NWFP area (USDA, USDI 2000a:244-245). This 

outcome is not due to federal action. For some species with a somewhat higher number 

of known sites, this outcome is also due to habitat requirements or life history. For 

example, Bridgeoporus nobilissimus has approximately 100 known sites and while predisturbance surveys are conducted and known sites are managed, there is still a high 

probability that populations will not remain stable. The only host for this species is true 

Fir (Abies spp., usually Abies procera). Known site survey data indicates that the majority 

of sites are located in second growth stands, with the most common substrate being 

Abies stumps or snags. In many of these stands, Abies is either not present, or negligibly 

present in the regeneration. Therefore, host populations may not be adequate to provide 

for continuity of Bridgeoporus nobilissimus over time, leading to unstable populations. 

Acanthophysium farlowii (B)

Albatrellus avellaneus (B)

Albatrellus caeruleoporus (B)

Alpova alexsmithii (B)

Alpova olivaceotinctus (B)

Arcangeliella camphorata (B)

Arcangeliella crassa (B)

Arcangeliella lactarioides (B)

Asterophora lycoperdoides (B)

Baeospora myriadophylla (B)

Balsamia nigrens (B)

Boletus haematinus (B)

Bridgeoporus nobilissimus (A)

Catathelasma ventricosa (B)

Chamonixia caespitosa (B)

Choiromyces alveolatus (B)

Choiromyces venosus (B)

Chroogomphus loculatus (B)

Chrysomphalina grossula (B)

Clavariadelphus subfastigiatus (B)

Clitocybe senilis (B)

Clitocybe subditopoda (B)

Cordyceps ophioglossoides (B)

Cortinarius boulderensis (B)

Cortinarius cyanites (B)

Cortinarius magnivelatus (B)

Cortinarius valgus (B)

Cortinarius variipes (B)

Cortinarius verrucisporus (B)

Cortinarius wiebeae (B)

Cyphellostereum laeve (B)

Dermocybe humboldtensis (B)

Elaphomyces anthracinus (B)

Elaphomyces subviscidus (B)

Entoloma nitidum (B)

Fayodia bisphaerigera (B)

Fevansia aurantiaca (B)

Galerina sphagnicola (E)

Gastroboletus vividus (B)

Gymnomyces abietis (B)

Gymnomyces nondistincta (B)

Helvella crassitunicata (B)

Hydnotrya inordinata (B)

Hydropus marginellus (B)

Hygrophorus caeruleus (B)

Hypomyces luteovirens (B)

Leucogaster microsporus (B)

Macowanites chlorinosmus (B)

Macowanites mollis (B)

Marasmius applanatipes (B)

Mycena hudsoniana (B)

Mycena quinaultensis (B)

Neolentinus adhaerens (B)

Octavianina cyanescens (B)

Otidea smithii (B)

Phaeocollybia gregaria (B)

Podostroma alutaceum (B)

Pseudaleuria quinaultiana (B)

Ramaria botrytis var. aurantiiramosa (B)

Ramaria claviramulata (B)

Ramaria concolor f. tsugina (B)

Ramaria coulterae (B)

Ramaria gracilis (B)

Ramaria hilaris var. olympiana (B)

Ramaria lorithamnus (B)

Ramaria maculatipes (B)

Ramaria rainierensis (B)

Ramaria rubella var. blanda (B)

Ramaria rubribrunnescens (B)

Ramaria spinulosa var. diminutiva (B)

Ramaria suecica (B)

Ramaria thiersii (B)

Ramaria verlotensis (B)

Rhizopogon abietis (B)

Rhizopogon atroviolaceus (B)

Rhizopogon brunneiniger (B)

Rhizopogon chamaleontinus (B)

Rhizopogon ellipsosporus (B)

Rhizopogon evadens var. subalpinus (B)

Rhizopogon exiguus (B)

Rhizopogon flavofibrillosus (B)

Rhodocybe speciosa (B)

Russula mustelina (B)

Thaxterogaster pavelekii (B)

Tricholoma venenatum (B)

Tricholomopsis fulvescens (B)

Tuber asa (B)

Tuber pacificum (B) 
195

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4, all but one of these species would be included in Category 

B or E (as indicated by the letter in parens) which requires management of known 

sites and Strategic Surveys. Bridgeoporus nobilissimus would be included in Category 

A, which requires management of known sites, pre-disturbance surveys, and Strategic 

Surveys. Management under Alternative 3 is similar to Alternatives 1 and 4, except predisturbance surveys would no longer be required for Bridgeoporus nobilissimus in nonlate-successional and non-old-growth stands. Elimination of pre-disturbance surveys 

in non-late-successional and non-old-growth stands would further increase the habitat 

risk for Bridgeoporus nobilissimus by greatly reducing the probability of discovering and 

protecting new sites, since the majority of known sites are currently located in non-latesuccessional and non-old-growth stands (with large stumps and snags). 

Under Alternative 2, 66 of these 88 species are assumed not to be included in any of 

the Agencies’ SSSPs. Known sites would no longer be managed and Strategic Surveys 

would no longer be required. The remaining 22 species are assumed to be included in 

one or more of the Agencies’ SSSPs. Pre-project clearances would be conducted and sites 

would be managed if site loss would contribute to need to list. General inventories may 

be conducted. Albatrellus caeruleoporus, Boletus haematinus, Choiromyces venosus, Clitocybe 

subditopoda, Cordyceps ophioglossoides, Entoloma nitidum, Hydropus marginellus, and Mycena 

quinaultensis are assumed to be included as Sensitive on California BLM managed 

lands. Dermocybe humboldtensis is assumed to be included as a Sensitive Species by BLM 

California and BLM Oregon. Alpova alexsmithii, Arcangeliella camphorata, Gymnomyces 

nondistincta, Phaeocollybia gregaria, Ramaria spinulosa var. diminutiva, Rhizopogon 

chamaleontinus, Rhizopogon ellipsosporus, Rhizopogon exiguous, and Thaxterogaster pavelekii

are assumed to be included as Sensitive on BLM managed lands in Oregon. Bridgeoporus 

nobilissimus is assumed to be included as a Sensitive Species by the Forest Service in 

Regions 5 and 6 and BLM in Oregon. Albatrellus avellaneus is assumed to be included 

as a Sensitive Species by the Forest Service in Oregon and Washington and the BLM in 

Oregon. Otidea smithii is assumed to be included as a Sensitive Species by the Forest 

Service in Regions 5 and 6. Tricholomopsis fulvescens is assumed to be included as a 

Sensitive Species by the Forest Service in Region 5 (California). For the 22 species that 

are on SSSP, under the scenario of Alternative 2 without SSSP, the outcome would still be 

habitat (including known sites) insufficient to support stable populations in the NWFP 

area. 

Cortinarius boulderensis had 7 RMS detections but few other known sites. The historic 

sites are predominately in the Olympic National Park and the Warm Springs Indian 

Reservation. The RMS detections were inside the known range and occurred exclusively 

along the Cascade Mountains at high elevation under Tsuga spp. (hemlock). These RMS 

detections confirm that this species is restricted to a narrow elevation range above 4000 ft. 

Leucogaster microsporus had 5 RMS detections and few other known sites. This species 

is a sequestrate hypogeous fungus and belongs to a genus that has a demonstrated 

preference to fruit in the dry part of the season. Traditionally the collection of fungi 

occurs during the rainy wet season as fungi have relatively high demands for available 

water. Because it fruits beneath the soil surface it is not exposed to the drying winds or 

temperatures that limits fruiting of most other macrofungi . The cryptic nature of the 

fruiting body also makes it hard to detect when present on site. The high number of RMS 

detections may be an artifact of the collecting season that was conducive to fruiting and 

the timing of the RMS Survey. The range of expected detections at the 95% confidence 

interval includes a low estimated percent of Northwest Forest Plan occupied. The 

estimated number of .001 ha plots with detections is between 256,000 - 8,773,200. 

The RMS Survey provides no new information on the rarity of Marasmius applanatipes (3 

RMS detections) and Mycena hudsoniana (3 RMS detections) because the range of expected 

detections at the 95% confidence interval includes 0. Both species have few total known 

sites. 
196

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Group 3

For the following three species, there is insufficient information to determine how the 

alternatives would affect distribution and stability or to determine an outcome (USDA, 

USDI 2000a:247). 

Cortinarius tabularis (B)

Gastrosuillus amaranthii (E)

Ramaria concolor f. marrii (B)

Under Alternatives 1, 3 and 4, all three of these species are included in Categories B or 

E, which both require management of known sites and Strategic Surveys. Category 

designations are indicated by the letter in parens. Under Alternative 2, none of these 

species are assumed to be included in the Agencies’ SSSPs. Known sites would no longer 

be managed and Strategic Surveys would no longer be required.

Group 4

Under all alternatives, the following 63 species, (60 in all of their range and 3 in part 

of their range) would maintain stable populations largely due to the high number of 

occurrences, or because a substantial number of known sites are located in reserves. 

These species would stabilize in a pattern similar to or different from their reference 

distribution. For all alternatives, habitat (including known sites) is sufficient to support 

populations in the NWFP area (all species are off Survey and Manage in Alt. 2).

Albatrellus flettii in OR (Alts 1&3: off, Alt 4: B) 

Boletus pulcherrimus (B)

Bondarzewia mesenterica in OR 

(Alts 1&3: off, Alt 4: B) 

Bondarzewia mesenterica in WA and CA (B) 

Cantharellus subalbidus in WA and CA (D), 

Cantharellus subalbidus in OR 

(Alts 1&3: off, Alt 4: D)

Chalciporus piperatus (D)

Chromosera cyanophylla (Alts 1&3: off, Alt 4: B)

Clavariadelphus occidentalis (B)

Clavariadelphus truncatus

(Alt 1: D, Alt 3: off, Alt 4: B)

Clavulina castanopes var. lignicola (B)

Collybia bakerensis (Alt 1: F, Alt 3: off, Alt 4: B)

Collybia racemosa (B)

Cordyceps capitata (Alts 1&3: off, Alt 4: B)

Craterellus tubaeformis (Alts 1&3: off, Alt 4: D)

Cortinarius olympianus (B)

Galerina cerina (B)

Galerina heterocystis (E)

Galerina atkinsoniana (Alts 1&3: off, Alt 4: B)

Galerina vittaeformis (Alts 1&3: off, Alt 4: B)

Gastroboletus ruber (B)

Gastroboletus subalpinus (B)

Gastroboletus turbinatus (B)

Gelatinodiscus flavidus (B)

Gomphus clavatus (Alt 1: F, Alt 3: off, Alt 4: B)

Gymnopilus punctifolius in OR and WA 

(Alts 1&3: off, Alt 4: B) 

Gyromitra esculenta (Alts 1&3: off, Alt 4: F)

Gyromitra infula (Alts 1&3: off, Alt 4: B)

Gyromitra melaleucoides (Alts 1&3: off, Alt 4: B)

Gyromitra montana (Alts 1&3: off, Alt 4: F)

Helvella elastica (B)

Helvella maculata (Alts 1&3: off, Alt 4: B)

Hygrophorus saxatilis (B)

Hydnum umbilicatum

(Alts 1&3: off, Alt 4: B)

Leucogaster citrinus (B)

Mycena monticola (Alts 1&3: off, Alt 4: B)

Mycena overholtsii

(Alt1: D, Alt 3: off, Alt 4: B)

Mycena tenax (B)

Neolentinus kauffmanii (B)

Neournula pouchetii (Alts 1&3: off, Alt 4: B)

Nivatogastrium nubigenum in OR Eastern 

Cascades and CA Cascades 

Physiographic provinces 

(Alts 1&3: off, Alts 4: B)

Nivatogastrium nubigenum in the 

remainder of the range (B)

Otidea leporina (Alts 1: D, Alt 3: off, Alt 4: B)

Otidea onotica (Alts 1&3: off, Alt 4: F)

Phaeocollybia attenuata (D)

Phaeocollybia kauffmanii (D)

Phaeocollybia olivacea in WA and CA 

(Alts 1&3: E, Alt 4: B)

Phaeocollybia olivacea in OR 

(Alt 1: F, Alt 3: off, Alt 4: B)

Phaeocollybia oregonensis (B)

Phellodon atratus (B)

Pithya vulgaris (Alts 1&3: off, Alt 4: D)

Plectania melastoma (Alts 1&3: off, Alt 4: F)

Plectania milleri (Alts 1&3: off, Alt 4: B)

Ramaria abietina (B)

Ramaria celerivirescens (B)

Ramaria conjunctipes var. sparsiramosa (B)
197

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Ramaria rubripermanens in OR 

(Alt 1: D, Alt 3: off, Alt 4: B) 

Rhizopogon truncatus (D)

Rickenella swartzii (B)

Sarcodon imbricatus (Alts 1&3: off, Alt 4: B)

Sarcosoma latahense (Alts 1&3: off, Alt 4: B)

Sarcosoma mexicana (Alts 1&3: off, Alt 4: F)

Sarcosphaera eximia (Alts 1&3: off, Alt 4: B)

Spathularia flavida (B)

Tremiscus helvelloides

(Alt 1: D, Alt 3: off, Alt 4: B)

Turbinellus floccosus (Alts 1&3: off, Alt 4: F)

Tylopilus porphyrosporus (D)

Hygrophorus karstenii is presently known as Hygrophorus saxatilis (Castellano et al. 2003). 

Gomphus bonarii is a synonym of Turbinellus floccosus (Schwein) Earle, which is the correct 

name for Gomphus floccosus (Giachini 2004).

Chomosera cyanophylla, Cordyceps capitata, Galerina vittaeformis, Gyromitra esculenta, 

Gyromitra influa, Gyromitra melaleucoides, Gyromitra montana, Helvella maculate, Hydnum 

umbilicatum, Mycena monticola, Neournula pouchettii, Otidea onotica, Pithya vulgaris, Plectania 

melastoma, Plectania milleri, Sarcosoma latahense, Sarcosoma mexicana, and Sarcosphaera 

eximia were removed from the Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines during the 

2001-2003 Annual Species Review process because they were found to be not associated 

with LSOG forest. They would have sufficient habitat to support stable populations 

without species-specific management. 

Albatrellus flettii (in OR), Bondarzewia mesenterica (in OR), Cantharellus subalbidus (in OR), 

Craterellus tubaeformis, Galerina atkinsoniana, Gymnopilus punctifolius (in OR and WA), 

Nivatogastrium nubigenum (in OR Eastern Cascades and CA Cascades Physiographic 

provinces), and Sarcodon imbricatus were removed from the Survey and Manage 

Standards and Guidelines during the 2001-2003 Annual Species Review process because 

they were found to have sufficient habitat to support stable populations without speciesspecific management. 

Clavariadelphus truncates, Collybia bakerensis, Gomphus clavatus, Mycena overholtsii, Otidea 

leporine, Phaeocollybia olivacea, Ramaria rubripermenans (in OR), and Tremiscus helvelloides

moved from being managed under Category B (Alternative 4) into management under 

Categories D, E or F (Alternative 1) during the 2001-2003 Annual Species Review process. 

All four categories require Strategic Surveys. In addition, Categories B and E require 

managing all known sites, while Category D requires managing high-priority sites. 

Under Alternative 1, 39 of these species, (35 in all of their range and 4 in part of their 

range) would be included in Categories B, D, E, or F as indicated by the letter in parens. 

All four categories require Strategic Surveys. In addition, Categories B and E require 

managing all known sites, while Category D requires managing high-priority sites. The 

remaining species (5 in part of their range and 22 in all of their range), would be off 

Survey and Manage. Cordyceps capitata and Mycena monticola are assumed to be included 

as a Sensitive Species by the Forest Service in Region 6 (Oregon and Washington). Preproject clearances would be conducted and known sites would be managed if loss of the 

site would contribute to a trend toward listing. General inventories may be conducted. 

Under the scenario of Alternative 1 without SSSP, the outcome for Cordyceps capitata and 

Mycena monticola is also habitat (including known sites) is sufficient to support stable 

populations across the NWFP area. 

Under Alternative 2, 53 of these 63 species are assumed not to be included in any of the 

Agencies’ SSSPs. Known sites would no longer be managed and Strategic Surveys would 

no longer be required. The remaining 10 species are assumed to be included in one or 

more of the Agencies’ SSSPs. Pre-project clearances would be conducted and known 

sites would be managed if loss of the site would contribute to a trend toward listing. 

General inventories may be conducted. Leucogaster citrinus is assumed to be included 

as a Sensitive Species by the Forest Service in Region 6 (Oregon and Washington) and 
198

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

the BLM in California. Boletus pulcherrimus is assumed to be included as a Sensitive 

Species by the Forest Service in Regions 5 and 6, and the BLM in Oregon. Phaeocollybia 

oregonensis is assumed to be included as a Sensitive Species by the Forest Service in 

Region 6 (Oregon and Washington) and the BLM in Oregon. Cordyceps capitata, Mycena 

monticola, and Phaeocollybia attenuata are assumed to be included as a Sensitive Species by 

the Forest Service in Region 6 (Oregon and Washington). Phaeocollybia olivacea is assumed 

to be included as a Sensitive Species by the Forest Service and BLM in California and 

Oregon. Spathularia flavida is assumed to be included as a Sensitive Species by the Forest 

Service in Washington and the BLM in California. Clavariadelphus occidentalis is assumed 

to be included as a Sensitive Species by the Forest Service in Washington. Clavulina 

castanopes v. lignicola is assumed to be included as a Sensitive Species by the BLM in 

California. Collybia racemosa is assumed to be included as a Sensitive Species by the BLM 

in California and the Forest Service in Region 5 (California). 

Under the scenario of Alternative 2 without SSSP, the outcome for Boletus pulcherrimus, 

Collybia racemosa, Phaeocollybia olivacea (in OR) and Ramaria rubripermanens is habitat 

(including known sites) is insufficient to support stable populations across the NWFP 

area. Clavariadelphus occidentalis, Clavulina castanopes v. lignicola, Cordyceps capitata, 

Leucogaster citrinus, Mycena monticola, Phaeocollybia olivacea (in CA and WA), and 

Spathularia flavida would have an outcome of habitat (including known sites) is sufficient 

to support stable populations across the NWFP area.

Under Alternative 3, 22 species in all of their range and 8 species in part of their range 

would be included in Category B, and 1 species in part of its range would be in Category 

E, as indicated by the letter in parens. Three species and the “off” part of a fourth are 

assumed to be included in SSSPs. Cordyceps capitata, Mycena monticola, and Phaeocollybia 

attenuata are assumed to be included as a Sensitive Species by the Forest Service in 

Region 6 (Oregon and Washington). Phaeocollybia olivacea in Oregon is assumed to 

be included as a Sensitive Species by the Forest Service in Region 6 and the BLM in 

Oregon. Pre-project clearances would be conducted and known sites would be managed 

if loss of the site would contribute to a trend toward listing. General inventories may 

be conducted. Under the scenario of Alternative 3 without SSSP, the outcome for these 

species is also habitat (including known sites) is sufficient to support stable populations 

across the NWFP area. The remaining 13 species would not be included in Survey and 

Manage and are assumed not to be included in any of the Agencies’ SSSPs

Under Alternative 4, all 63 species would be included in Categories B, D, E, or F as 

indicated by the letter in parens. All four categories require Strategic Surveys. In 

addition, Categories B and E require managing all known sites, while Category D 

requires managing high-priority sites. 

Clavariadelphus occidentalis had 9 RMS detections. This species is widespread and 

well distributed in Oregon and California portions of the NWFP area; it is much less 

common in Washington. It is a saprobic species that decomposes humus material so the 

expectation is that is has broad habitat requirements. It fruits earlier in the wet season 

than other fungi, which means it has probably gone under-represented in the historic 

record. This new evaluation indicates the species is not as uncommon, and is better 

distributed than previously thought. Seven of the 9 RMS detections were on reserve 

lands. It was not particularly associated with LSOG (6 LSOG, 3 non-LSOG detections) 

further supporting its broad habitat requirements. 

Galerina heterocystis had 18 RMS detections but had previously been known only from 

a few sites. This species is a relatively indistinct little fragile mushroom of low stature 

that is easily overlooked. It also belongs to a fungal genus that is problematic at best 

to identify to species. Most collectors of macrofungi overlook or disregard little brown 

mushrooms, as they are extremely numerous and a time-sink to identify correctly. This 

species is probably underrepresented in the historic record. It is a saprobic species that 
199

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

decomposes humus material so the expectation is that is has broad habitat requirements. 

The small fragile saprobic mushrooms also fruit early in the wet season usually before 

the larger macrofungi. The RMS data reveal that this species is mostly associated with 

LSOG. This new understanding indicates the species is not as uncommon as, and is 

better distributed than, previously thought. Populations are mostly in reserve lands. 

Leucogaster citrinus had an unusually high number of RMS detections (33) but is 

otherwise known only from a few sites. The RMS data reveal that this species is mostly 

associated with reserve LSOG lands. This species is a sequestrate hypogeous fungus 

that belongs to a genus that has a demonstrated preference to fruit in the dry part of 

the season. Traditionally the collection of fungi occurs during the rainy wet season as 

fungi have relatively high demands for available water. Because it fruits beneath the 

soil surface, it is not exposed to the drying winds or temperatures that limit most other 

macrofungi from fruiting. The cryptic nature of the fruiting body also makes it hard to 

detect when present on site. The high number of RMS detections may be an artifact of 

the collecting season that was conducive to fruiting and the timing of the RMS. These 

new findings indicate the species is not as uncommon as, and is better distributed than, 

previously thought. Populations are mostly in reserve lands. 

Rhizopogon truncates had 15 RMS detections. This species is typically associated with 

Pinus lambertiana in western North America and is found predominately in southern 

Oregon and the extreme north portion of northern California. While it is also a 

sequestrate hypogeous species it forms an extensive, dense, bright yellow mycelial 

network in the soil that help locate potential colonies so it is one of the easier sequestrate 

species to determine if it is present on site. This new understanding indicates the species 

is not as uncommon as, and is better distributed than, previously thought. Known 

populations are mostly in reserve lands. 

Spathularia flavida had 9 RMS detections, but few other known sites. This species is 

widespread and well-distributed across the NWFP area. It is a saprobic species that 

decomposes humus material so the expectation is that is has broad habitat requirements. 

This relatively small mushroom fruits earlier in the wet season than other fungi, 

which means it has probably gone under-represented in the historic record. This new 

evaluation indicates the species is not as uncommon, and is better distributed in Oregon 

than previously thought. Seven of the 9 RMS detections were on reserve lands. It 

was not particularly associated with LSOG (5 LSOG, 4 non-LSOG detections) further 

supporting its broad habitat requirements. 

The RMS Survey has provided new information about other species, which indicate that 

the species are not as uncommon, and are better distributed than previously thought. 

Phaeocollybia attenuata had 6 RMS detections, and five of the six RMS detections were 

on reserve lands. Ramaria celerivirescens had 14 RMS detections. Most of the RMS 

detections were on reserve lands and all but one was associated with LSOG. Ramaria 

rubripermanens, in Oregon, had 9 RMS detections and eight of the nine RMS detections 

were on reserve lands. 

Group 5

The following 9 species (8 in all of the NWFP area range, and one in part of its NWFP 

area range) are not endemic to the NWFP area. Under Alternatives 1 and 4, these 9 

species would be included in Categories B or D. Both categories require Strategic 

Surveys. Category B requires management of known sites. Category D requires 

management of high-priority sites. For these species, management under the Survey 

and Manage Standards and Guidelines would allow these species to stabilize in a pattern 

similar to their reference distribution. Habitat (including known sites) is sufficient to 

support stable populations in the NWFP area. However, within the NWFP area, due to 

overall low numbers of known sites and low numbers of known sites located in reserves, 
200

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

these species have limited potential for connectivity or gene flow between sites or 

clusters of sites.

Albatrellus ellisii (B)

Albatrellus flettii in CA & WA (B) 

Clavariadelphus ligula (B)

Clavariadelphus sachalinensis (B)

Polyozellus multiplex (B)

Ramaria cyaneigranosa (B)

Ramaria rubrievanescens (B)

Sowerbyella rhenana (B)

Sparassis crispa (D)

Under Alternative 2, all of these species would receive management of known sites 

through the SSSPs. Pre-project clearances would be conducted and known sites would 

be managed if loss of the site would contribute to a trend toward listing. General 

inventories may be conducted. Sowerbyella rhenana is assumed to be included as 

a Sensitive Species by the Forest Service Washington, and the BLM in California. 

Albatrellus ellisii and Ramaria cyaneigranosa are assumed to be included as a Sensitive 

Species by the Forest Service in Regions 5 and 6, and the BLM in California. Albatrellus 

flettii, Clavariadelphus ligula, Polyozellus multiplex, and Sparassis crispa are assumed to be 

included as a Sensitive Species by the BLM in California. Clavariadelphus sachalinensis

and Ramaria rubrievanescens are assumed to be included as a Sensitive Species by the 

Forest Service Washington. SSSPs provide similar protection for these species, and where 

the species is on a SSSP, habitat (including known sites) would be sufficient to support 

stable populations. However, in areas where the species is not on a SSSP, because the 

known sites of these species are not otherwise substantially protected by reserves, habitat 

(including known sites) would be insufficient to support stable populations in the NWFP 

area. This is due to soil disturbance and/or significant loss of host species (USDA, USDI 

2000a:243; GeoBOB/ISMS database). Although Matrix Standards and Guidelines provide 

for minimizing soil and litter disturbance, there is a lack of knowledge about how much 

disturbance can be tolerated by these species. Loss of even a few known sites could 

adversely impact persistence within the NWFP area. Under the scenario of Alternative 2 

without SSSP, habitat (including known sites) would also be insufficient to support stable 

populations in the NWFP area

Alternative 3 would require management of known sites for 8 of these 9 species. Under 

Alternative 3, these 8 species would stabilize in a pattern similar to their reference 

distribution. Habitat (including known sites) would be sufficient to support stable 

populations in the NWFP area. Under Alternative 3, Sparassis crispa would not be 

included in Survey and Manage. Sparassis crispa is assumed to be included as a Sensitive 

Species by the BLM in California, which would provide similar protection to Survey and 

Manage. Pre-project clearances would be conducted and known sites would be managed 

if loss of the site would contribute to a trend toward listing. General inventories may be 

conducted. Where Sparassis crispa is on a SSSP, habitat (including known sites) would 

be sufficient to support stable populations. However, in areas where the species is not 

on a SSSP, because the known sites of Sparassis crispa is not otherwise substantially 

protected by reserves, habitat (including known sites) would be insufficient to support 

stable populations in the NWFP area due to soil disturbance and/or significant loss 

of host species (USDA, USDI 2000a:243; GeoBOB/ISMS database). Although Matrix 

Standards and Guidelines provide for minimizing soil and litter disturbance, there is a 

lack of knowledge about how much disturbance can be tolerated by these species. Loss 

of even a few known sites could adversely impact persistence within the NWFP area. 

For Sparassis crispa, under the scenario of Alternative 3 without SSSP, habitat (including 

known sites) would be insufficient to support stable populations in the NWFP area

The RMS Survey provided some new information for Clavariadelphus ligula (4 RMS 

detections) and Ramaria rubrievanescens (3 RMS detections). The range of expected 

detections at the 95% confidence interval includes 0. All these species have relatively few 

total known sites.
201

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Group 6

The following 21 species (19 in all of their range, and 2 in part of their range) are endemic 

to the NWFP area or the Pacific Northwest. Under Alternatives 1 and 4, these species 

would be included in Categories B, D, or E, as indicated by the letter in parens following 

the species name. Categories B and E require management of known sites and Strategic 

Surveys. Category D requires management of high-priority sites and Strategic Surveys. 

These species would stabilize in a pattern similar to their reference distribution. Habitat 

(including known sites) is sufficient to support stable populations in the NWFP area. 

However, due to overall low numbers of known sites and low numbers of sites located in 

reserves, these species have limited potential for connectivity or gene flow between sites 

or clusters of sites. 

Cortinarius barlowensis (B)

Cudonia monticola (B)

Gomphus kauffmanii (Alts 1&3: E, Alt 4: B)

Gymnopilus punctifolius in CA (B) 

Gyromitra californica (B)

Phaeocollybia californica (B)

Phaeocollybia dissiliens (B)

Phaeocollybia fallax (D)

Phaeocollybia piceae (B)

Phaeocollybia pseudofestiva (B)

Phaeocollybia scatesiae (B)

Phaeocollybia sipei (B)

Phaeocollybia spadicea (B)

Ramaria amyloidea (B)

Ramaria araiospora (B)

Ramaria aurantiisiccescens (B)

Ramaria gelatiniaurantia (B)

Ramaria largentii (B)

Ramaria rubripermanens in WA and CA (B) 

Ramaria stuntzii (B)

Sarcodon fuscoindicus (B)

Under Alternative 2, all of these species would receive management of known sites 

through the SSSPs. Pre-project clearances would be conducted and known sites 

would be managed if loss of the site would contribute to a trend toward listing. 

General inventories may be conducted. Phaeocollybia piceae, Phaeocollybia pseudofestiva, 

Phaeocollybia scatesiae, Phaeocollybia spadicea, Ramaria amyloidea, Ramaria aurantiisiccescens, 

and Ramaria largentii are assumed to be included as a Sensitive Species by the Forest 

Service in Region 6 (Oregon and Washington) and the BLM in California. Cudonia 

monticola is assumed to be included as a Sensitive Species by the Forest Service in 

Regions 5 and 6. Gomphus kauffmanii, Gyromitra californica, and Ramaria gelatiniaurantia

are assumed to be included as a Sensitive Species by the Forest Service in Region 6 

(Oregon and Washington). Phaeocollybia californica is assumed to be included as a 

Sensitive Species by the Forest Service in Oregon and the BLM in California and Oregon. 

Cortinarius barlowensis, Phaeocollybia dissiliens, and Phaeocollybia sipei are assumed to be 

included as a Sensitive Species by the Forest Service in Oregon. Sarcodon fuscoindicus is 

assumed to be included as a Sensitive Species by the Forest Service in Washington and 

BLM in California. Phaeocollybia fallax, Ramaria araiospora, Ramaria rubripermanens, and 

Ramaria stuntzii are assumed to be included as a Sensitive Species by the Forest Service 

in Washington. Gymnopilus punctifolius is assumed to be included as a Sensitive Species 

by BLM in California. SSSPs provide similar protection for these species, and where 

the species is on a SSSP, habitat (including known sites) would be sufficient to support 

stable populations. However, in areas where the species is not on a SSSP, because the 

known sites of these species are not otherwise substantially protected by reserves, habitat 

(including known sites) would be insufficient to support stable populations in the NWFP 

area. This is due to soil disturbance and/or significant loss of host species (USDA, 

USDI 2000a:243; GeoBOB/ISMS database). Although Matrix Standards and Guidelines 

provide for minimizing soil and litter disturbance, there is a lack of knowledge about 

how much disturbance can be tolerated by these species. Loss of even a few known sites 

could adversely impact persistence within the NWFP area. Cortinarius barlowensis and 

Ramaria gelatiniaurantia would be protected range-wide by SSSPs, and would have habitat 

(including known sites) would be sufficient to support stable populations under all 

alternatives. Under the scenario of Alternative 2 without SSSP, habitat (including known 

sites) would be insufficient to support stable populations in the NWFP area
202

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Under Alternative 3, 20 of these species would be included in Category B or E, as 

indicated by the letter in parens following the species name. Categories B and E require 

management of known sites and Strategic Surveys. These species would stabilize in a 

pattern similar to their reference distribution. Habitat (including known sites) would 

be sufficient to support stable populations in the NWFP area. Under Alternative 3, 

Phaeocollybia fallax would not be included on Survey and Manage. Phaeocollybia fallax is 

assumed to be included as a Sensitive Species by the Forest Service in Washington, which 

would provide similar protection to Survey and Manage. Pre-project clearances would 

be conducted and known sites would be managed if loss of the site would contribute 

to a trend toward listing. General inventories may be conducted. Where Phaeocollybia 

fallax is on a SSSP, habitat (including known sites) would be sufficient to support stable 

populations. However, in areas where the species is not on a SSSP, because known 

sites of Phaeocollybia fallax are not otherwise substantially protected by reserves, habitat 

(including known sites) would be insufficient to support stable populations in the NWFP 

area. This is due to soil disturbance and/or significant loss of host species (USDA, 

USDI 2000a:243; GeoBOB/ISMS database). Although Matrix Standards and Guidelines 

provide for minimizing soil and litter disturbance, there is a lack of knowledge about 

how much disturbance can be tolerated by these species. Loss of even a few known sites 

could adversely impact persistence within the NWFP area. For Phaeocollybia fallax, under 

the scenario of Alternative 3 without SSSP, habitat (including known sites) would be 

insufficient to support stable populations in the NWFP area.

Cortinarius barlowensis had 17 RMS detections and was previously known from few 

sites. This tripling of sites is inexplicable for the most part. This species is a fairly 

stout mushroom but could be easily confused with some other species in the genus 

Cortinarius. It seems to be restricted in distribution to true fir (Abies spp.) in the Mt. Hood 

area in Oregon and high elevation sites in the Olympic National Park and the Cascades 

Mountains of Washington. Numerous RMS detections were very close to previously 

known sites. Most RMS detections are on reserve lands or those with LSOG. 

The RMS Survey provided some new information for Phaeocollybia spadicea (3 RMS 

detections) and Ramaria araiospora (11 RMS detections). The range of expected detections 

at the 95% confidence interval includes 0. Both species have relatively few total known 

sites. 

Cudonia monticola had six RMS detections but the 95% confidence level for the estimated 

range of 0.1 ha detections is 66,300-2,147,500. Gyromitra californica had four RMS 

detections but the 95% confidence level for the estimated range of 0.1 ha detections is 

3,800-879,000. Sarcodon fuscoindicus had six RMS detections but the 95% confidence level 

for the estimated range of 0.1 ha detections is 2,000-663,200. For these species, the low 

range of occupancy coupled with the low number of additional known sites indicates 

habitat insufficient to support stable populations when they are not protected by either 

Survey and Manage nor SSSPs.

Summary and Mitigation

Under all alternatives, there is insufficient information to determine an outcome for 3 of 

the 208 species.

Under all alternatives, for 115 of the 208 fungi species, habitat (including known sites) is 

insufficient to support stable populations in the NWFP area. This is due to factors other 

than federal action. 

Under all alternatives, for 62 species in all of their range and 3 in a portion of their range, 

habitat (including known sites) is sufficient to support stable populations in the NWFP 

area.
203

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

For those 62 species in all of their range, and 3 in a portion of their range, under the 

scenario of Alternative 2 without SSSP, 5 species in all of their range and 2 in a portion of 

their range would have habitat (including known sites) is insufficient to support stable 

populations in the NWFP area. The remaining 58 species in all of their range and 1 in 

a portion of its range would have habitat (including known sites) sufficient to support 

stable populations in the NWFP area.

Under Alternatives 1 and 4, the remaining 25 species in all of their range, and 3 species 

in a portion of their range (of the 208 fungi species) would stabilize in a pattern similar 

to their reference distribution. Habitat (including known sites) is sufficient to support 

stable populations in the NWFP area.

Under Alternative 2, the remaining 25 species in all of their range, and 3 species in a 

portion of their range habitat (including known sites) would be insufficient to support 

stable populations in the NWFP area, except in areas where they would be protected by 

SSSPs. Those portions of the range would have habitat (including known sites) sufficient 

to support stable populations. Under the scenario of Alternative 2 without SSSP, the 

outcome would be habitat (including known sites) would be insufficient to support stable 

populations in the NWFP area.

Under Alternative 3, 23 of the remaining 25 species in all of their range, and 3 species in a 

portion of their range would stabilize in a pattern similar to their reference distribution. 

Habitat (including known sites) would be sufficient to support stable populations in 

the NWFP area. For the other two species, habitat (including known sites) would be 

insufficient to support stable populations in the NWFP area except in areas where they 

would be protected by SSSPs. Those portions of the range would have habitat (including 

known sites) sufficient to support stable populations. Under the scenario of Alternative 

2 without SSSP, the outcome would be habitat (including known sites) would be 

insufficient to support stable populations in the NWFP area.

Lichens

Affected Environment

Lichens are symbiotic organisms made of members of at least two, and sometimes three, 

biological kingdoms. All lichens consist of a photosynthetic component (either a green 

algae or a cyanobacterium, and occasionally both) and a fungal component (usually an 

ascomycete). 

The distribution of many lichens is dispersal limited (USDA et al. 1993). Overall, lichens 

disperse and grow more slowly than vascular plants. Many of the lichens in the Survey 

and Manage Standards and Guidelines have narrow ecological amplitude. Many of 

the forest species are epiphytic, growing directly on trees and shrubs, but some grow 

on downed wood or soil, or are aquatic and are partially submerged at least part of the 

year. Lichens often occupy late-successional and old-growth components that provide 

continuity in younger stands, such as legacy trees, wolf trees, well-developed hardwood 

gaps, and dynamic riparian areas with an old alder component. Some of the Northwest 

Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, such as green tree retention and riparian buffers, 

can be effective for lichens, if clumps of colonized trees are retained to act as “seed” 

sources when habitat conditions become suitable again. FEMAT states that riparian 

buffers on all orders of streams are important for riparian and aquatic lichens (USDA et 

al. 1993:IV-97). 

At the time of the Northwest Forest Plan Final SEIS (1994), there was little information 

about the distribution, number of sites, and habitat requirements for most of the lichens. 
204

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

New information has contributed substantially to the understanding of many species’ 

frequency and distribution throughout the NWFP area. Most of this information is a 

direct result of pre-disturbance and Strategic Surveys, statistical analyses of data from 

Oregon National Forests in the NWFP area and the Gifford Pinchot National Forest in 

Washington (Edwards et al. 2002), and the Coastal Lichen Study (Glavich et al. 2002). 

The historic distribution of these species is unknown and can only be inferred.

Additional information regarding the affected environment for lichens is found in the 

2000 Final SEIS, the Northwest Forest Plan Final SEIS, and FEMAT.

Lichen Functional Groups

In the Option 9 and Alternative 9 analyses, lichens were grouped into 12 functional 

groups based on ecological relationships. Some of these groups were subdivided by their 

degree of rarity (USDA et al. 1993:IV-92). Additional information since these analyses has 

further refined membership within functional groups, and has also indicated that some 

functional affinities might not be as strong as once suspected. Although lichens are not 

analyzed by functional groups here, a brief description of the modified functional groups 

is presented below. This is not intended as a formal definition of functional groups, a 

task that is beyond the scope of this analysis. Each species is analyzed individually.

Forage Lichens

The forage lichens are a group of long, pendulous species that includes Bryoria tortuosa.

Coastal Lichens

The coastal lichen group includes Bryoria pseudocapillaris, Bryoria subcana, Bryoria 

spiralifera, Buellia oidalea, Heterodermia sitchensis, Hypotrachyna revoluta, Niebla cephalota, 

Pannaria rubiginosa, Pyrrhospora quernea,Teloschistes flavicans, and Usnea hesperina.

Information from the Coastal Lichen Study (Glavich et al. 2002) and the GeoBOB/

ISMS database confirm earlier information that all of the coastal lichens are rare and 

have narrow ecological amplitudes in limited habitat. None of these species are well 

represented in the reserves. Additional publications (Geiser et al. 2004, Geiser and 

Neitlich 2006, Glavich et al. 2005a, b, Lesher et al. 2003, Mote et al. 2003), and one report 

(Glavich et al. 2006), provide evidence corroborating previous concepts of these species 

and expand understanding of distribution, number of populations in reserves, habitat 

requirements, and potential vulnerability to climate change.

Riparian Lichens

The riparian lichen group includes Cetrelia cetrarioides, Collema nigrescens, Ramalina 

pollinaria and Ramalina thrausta.

Recent information indicates some riparian enhancement projects, especially hardwood 

removal to promote conifer development, may disturb habitat for riparian lichens 

(USDA, USDI 2003c). Riparian hardwoods can be an important substrate for these 

species.

Ambiguous Riparian Association Lichens 

This group includes lichens whose riparian association is in question. The ambiguous 

riparian association lichens include Leptogium cyanescens, Leptogium teretiusculum, 

Platismatia lacunosa, and Usnea longissima.
205

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Aquatic Lichens

The aquatic lichen group includes Dermatocarpon meiophyllizum and Leptogium rivale.

Aquatic lichens are truly aquatic and are submerged at least part of the year. The Aquatic 

Conservation Strategy was designed to address all elements of the aquatic and riparian 

ecosystem. FEMAT states that riparian buffers on all orders of streams are important for 

the riparian and aquatic lichens (USDA et al. 1993:IV-97). Riparian enhancement projects 

may disturb habitat for aquatic lichens (Derr 1998).

Rare and Uncommon Nitrogen-Fixing Lichens

This group includes Dendriscocaulon intricatulum, Lobaria linita, Lobaria oregana, Nephroma 

bellum, Nephroma isidiosum, Nephroma occultum, Peltigera pacifica, Pseudocyphellaria perpetua, 

and Pseudocyphellaria rainierensis.

These cyanolichens fix atmospheric nitrogen and make it usable to other components of 

the ecosystem.

Pin Lichens

The pin lichen group includes Calicium abietinum, Calicium adspersum, Calicium glaucellum, 

Calicium viride, Chaenotheca chrysocephala, Chaenotheca ferruginea, Chaenotheca furfuracea, 

Chaenotheca subroscida, Chaenothecopsis pusilla, Microcalicium arenarium, and Stenocybe 

clavata.

This is a group of small, easily overlooked species. Strategic Surveys have yielded new 

information on the rarity, distribution, and habitat association for many of these species.

Recent publications include (Rikkenen 2003) that expands the understanding of 

distribution and habitat requirements for the pin lichen group. 

Decaying Wood Lichens

This group includes species that occur only on decaying wood, and includes Cladonia 

norvegica.

Other Lichens 

Four species did not fit into any of the other groupings. They are Hypogymnia duplicata, 

Hypogymnia oceanica, Hypogymnia vittata, and Tholurna dissimilis.

Lichens of Taxonomic Concern

Two lichens, Fuscopannaria (Pannaria) saubinetii (a coastal lichen) and Leptogium burnetiae

var. hirsutum, are lichens with taxonomic concerns.

Environmental Consequences

Under Alternative 1, there are 40 lichen species in the Survey and Manage Standards and 

Guidelines; 36 in all of their NWFP area range, and 4 in part of their NWFP area range. 

An additional five species are assumed to be included in one or more of the Agencies’ 

Special Status Species Programs (SSSP) including one for part of its range where the 

other part of its range is on Survey and Manage. The remaining 5 species would not be 

included in Survey and Manage or SSSP.
206

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Under Alternative 2, there are 31 lichen species assumed to be included in the Agencies’ 

SSSPs (see Table 2-13). 

Under Alternative 3, 37 lichen species would be included in the Survey and Manage 

Standards and Guidelines; 32 in all of their NWFP area range and 5 in part (Categories A, 

B, or E). An additional nine species are assumed to be included in the Agencies’ SSSPs, 

including two for part of their range where the other part of their range is on Survey 

and Manage. Management activities in non-late-successional and non-old-growth forest 

stands would be exempt from pre-disturbance surveys for 11 species in Survey and 

Manage Category A. Late-successional and/or old-growth legacy components in these 

stands provide important refugia and propagule sources to re-colonize these stands. 

While surveys for these 11 species would not be completed in non-late-successional and 

non-old-growth stands, existing Northwest Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines for 

Matrix management (USDA, USDI 1994b:C-39 through C-48) provide for retention of 

these legacy components. The remaining five species would not be included in Survey 

and Manage or SSSP.

Under Alternative 4, 49 species would be included in the Survey and Manage Standards 

and Guidelines.

Under all alternatives, some of the lichen species would receive protection under the 

network of reserves provided by the Northwest Forest Plan. The level of protection 

varies by species, depending on how many sites and what proportions of the known 

sites are in reserves. Few statistical analyses have been done on the association between 

reserve allocations and lichens. Eight lichens (Bryoria spiralifera, Buellia oidalea, Lobaria 

oregana, Nephroma isidiosum, Nephroma occultum, Peltigera pacifica, Pseudocyphellaria

rainierensis, and Stenocybe clavata) are Pacific Northwest endemics. FEMAT stated that 

“extirpation of these species in the region would equate to the extinction of the species” 

(USDA et al. 1993:IV-90). Two lichen species, Hypogymnia vittata and Nephroma isidiosum, 

are suspected but not documented in the NWFP area. The first record of Heterodermia

sitchensis in the NWFP area was recently detected in coastal Oregon (McHenry and 

Tønsberg 2002).

The Northwest Forest Plan Final SEIS concluded that several alternatives including 

Alternative 9 were most favorable to lichens because they provided the set of allocations 

and management practices that best produce habitat components for lichens (USDA, 

USDI 1994a:3&4-145). In the Matrix, management that could provide suitable habitat for 

lichens includes clumping leave trees within managed stands and retaining old-growth 

fragments where little exists (USDA et al. 1993:IV-97). Colonized forest fragments act as 

refugia for lichens that become future propagule sources as suitable habitat conditions 

develop in the surrounding managed stand. Several of the late-successional and oldgrowth forest related lichens, including Hypogymnia duplicata, Nephroma occultum, and 

Pseudocyphellaria rainierensis are dispersal limited. 

For some species, the following discussions group proximal or assemblages of known 

sites into fewer “populations” or “sites” than displayed on Table 2-13.

Bryoria pseudocapillaris

Recent information for Bryoria pseudocapillaris further clarifies its distribution and ecology. 

A recent study suggests that its world distribution is limited to within 16 km (10 miles) 

of the California, Oregon, and Washington coastlines (with just one, small population 

outside the NWFP area) (Glavich et al. 2005a). This study identified 14 populations on 

federal land, ten of which were new (Geiser et al. 2004). Of these 14 populations, only 

two are in reserves. The species was found to be statistically associated with non-reserve 

land allocations (Glavich et al. 2005a). The habitat for this species was recently defined 

by late-seral coastal forests in regions of moderate precipitation and winter temperatures 
207

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

(Glavich et al. 2005b). Because temperature is an important factor in the habitat of Bryoria 

pseudocapillaris, this species is likely vulnerable to climate change.

Under Alternatives 1 and 3, Bryoria pseudocapillaris would be included in Category A, 

which requires pre-disturbance surveys, management of known sites, and Strategic 

Surveys. Under Alternative 3, pre-disturbance surveys are limited to late-successional 

and old-growth habitat. Under Alternative 4, this species would be included in 

Category B, which requires management of known sites, equivalent-effort surveys 

until Strategic Surveys are completed, and Strategic Surveys. The 2000 FSEIS found 

this species would not maintain stable populations and/or distributions in Category B 

(USDA, USDI 2000a:293). Due to limited potential habitat, few populations on federally 

managed lands, and the potential for stochastic events, habitat (including known sites) 

is insufficient to provide for stable populations under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4. This 

outcome is not due to federal action.

Under Alternative 2, Bryoria pseudocapillaris is assumed to be included in the Agencies’ 

SSSPs as Bureau Sensitive on BLM managed lands in Oregon and California and 

Sensitive on Forest Service managed lands in Oregon and Washington. Known sites 

would be managed and pre-project clearances would be conducted. General inventories 

may be conducted. The species is assumed not to be included as Sensitive for the Forest 

Service in California where there is suitable habitat at only one location. This species 

would not maintain stable populations and/or distributions under Alternative 2 due to 

limited potential habitat, few populations on federally managed lands, and the potential 

for stochastic events. Habitat (including known sites) is insufficient to provide for stable 

populations under Alternative 2, with or without SSSP. This outcome is not due to 

federal action.

Bryoria spiralifera

Recent information for Bryoria spiralifera further clarifies its distribution and ecology. 

A recent study suggests that its world distribution is limited to within 1.6 km (1 mile) 

of the California, Oregon, and Washington coastlines (with just one, small population 

outside the NWFP area) (Glavich et al. 2005a). This study identified 11 populations on 

federal land, five of which were new (Geiser et al. 2004). Although the detection sample 

was too small to test association, none of the 11 populations were in reserves (Glavich et 

al. 2005a). The habitat for this species was recently defined by late-seral coastal forests 

in regions of moderate precipitation and winter temperatures (Glavich et al. 2005b). 

Because temperature is an important factor in the habitat of B. spiralifera, this species is 

likely vulnerable to climate change. The two RMS detections do not demonstrate this 

species is secure.

Under Alternatives 1 and 3, Bryoria spiralifera would be included in Category A, which 

requires pre-disturbance surveys, management of known sites, and Strategic Surveys. 

Under Alternative 3, pre-disturbance surveys are limited to late-successional and oldgrowth habitat. Under Alternative 4, this species would be included in Category B, 

which requires management of known sites, equivalent-effort surveys until Strategic 

Surveys are completed, and Strategic Surveys. The 2000 FSEIS found this species 

would not maintain stable populations and/or distributions in Category B (USDA, 

USDI 2000a:293). Due to limited potential habitat, few populations on federally 

managed lands, and the potential for stochastic events, habitat (including known sites) 

is insufficient to provide for stable populations under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4. This 

outcome is not due to federal action.

Under Alternative 2, Bryoria spiralifera is assumed to be included in the Agencies’ SSSPs 

as Bureau Sensitive on BLM managed lands in Oregon and California and Sensitive on 

Forest Service managed lands in Oregon. Known sites would be managed and preproject clearances would be conducted. General inventories may be conducted. This 
208

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

species would not maintain stable populations and/or distributions under Alternative 2 

due to limited potential habitat, few populations on federally managed lands, and the 

potential for stochastic events. Habitat (including known sites) is insufficient to provide 

for stable populations under Alternative 2 with or without SSSP. This outcome is not due 

to federal action.

Bryoria subcana

Bryoria subcana, which was previously thought to be strictly coastal (USDA, USDI 1994a), 

is now also known to occur in the Oregon Western Cascades (Glavich et al. 2002). This 

species is still considered to be rare with only one site in a reserve. New information 

for Bryoria subcana since the 2004 FSEIS has reduced the number of verified populations 

to four, all in the Oregon Coast Range and Oregon Western Cascades physiographic 

provinces. The lichen has not been found, so far, in Washington, and there have been 

no updates on the condition of historic sites just south of the NWFP area in San Mateo 

and Santa Clara Counties, CA since the 1970s. There are no other known sites in western 

North America. Because of the low number of known sites, there is still very little 

information about the habitat requirements of this lichen in the NWFP area.

Under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4, Bryoria subcana would be included in Category B, which 

requires management of known sites and Strategic Surveys. This species would not 

maintain stable populations and/or distributions (USDA, USDI 2000a:293). Due to 

limited potential habitat, few populations on federally managed lands, and the potential 

for stochastic events, habitat (including known sites) is insufficient to provide for stable 

populations under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4. This outcome is not due to federal action.

Under Alternative 2, Bryoria subcana would be removed from Survey and Manage. It 

is assumed to be included as a Bureau Assessment species on BLM managed lands in 

Oregon. Known sites would be managed and pre-project clearances would be conducted 

subject to limitations in funding or positions. Currently, only one of the four known sites 

occurs on BLM managed land. Habitat (including known sites) is insufficient to provide 

for stable populations under Alternative 2 for the same reason listed under Alternatives 

1, 3, and 4. For Alternative 2 without SSSP on BLM managed lands, habitat remains 

insufficient to support stable populations. This outcome is not due to federal action. 

Bryoria tortuosa (WA Olympic Peninsula, WA Western Lowlands, WA Western 

Cascades, OR Western Cascades, OR Coast Range, OR Willamette Valley, and CA 

Coast Range)

Within this portion of the species’ range, the 2002 Annual Species Review indicates 

there are a low number of known sites and that they are poorly distributed, and that the 

species is not associated with LSOG (USDA, USDI Species Review Panel 2002). At the 

time, a total of 18 sites were known. Since the 2002 ASR, one new site has been reported.

Under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3, B. tortuosa is removed from Survey and Manage. It is 

assumed to be included in the SSSP on BLM managed lands in California. Due to the 

low number of known sites and poor distribution, habitat (including known sites) is 

insufficient to provide for stable populations. Under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 without 

SSSP on BLM managed lands in California, habitat is insufficient to provide for stable 

populations for the reasons listed.

Under Alternative 4, this species would be included in Category A, which requires 

management of all known sites and pre-disturbance surveys. Because known sites would 

be managed and pre-disturbance surveys conducted, there is sufficient habitat to provide 

for stable populations under Alternative 4.
209

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Bryoria tortuosa (WA Eastern Cascades, OR Eastern Cascades, OR Klamath, CA 

Klamath, and CA Cascades Provinces) 

Information from the 2002 Annual Species Review indicates that within this portion of 

the species’ range, Bryoria tortuosa has a moderate to high number of known sites, is well 

distributed, occurs in a wide range of habitat types, and is typically found in open, “welllit” forest stands. A total of 650 sites were known at the time of the 2002 ASR (USDA, 

USDI Species Review Panel 2002). Since the 2002 ASR, 114 additional sites have been 

reported.

Under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3, B. tortuosa is removed from Survey and Manage within 

this portion of its range. It is assumed to be included in the SSSP on BLM-managed lands 

in California. Because the species is relatively common, has a wide range of habitats, and 

occurs in younger forest stands, habitat (including known sites) under Alternatives 1, 2, 

and 3 is sufficient to provide for stable populations with or without SSSP.

Under Alternative 4, B. tortuosa would be included in Category D, which requires 

management of high-priority sites and Strategic Surveys. For the reasons listed under 

Alternatives 1, 2, and 3, habitat is sufficient to provide for stable populations.

Buellia oidalea

Recent attempts to survey for B. oidalea support conclusions that this species is rare; it 

was not detected during the Coastal Lichen Study (Glavich et al. 2002). There is high 

concern for this species due to low numbers of known sites, low number of individuals, 

limited distribution, and narrow ecological amplitudes (USDA et al. 1993; USDA, USDI 

1994a:J2; USDA, USDI 2000a; USDA, USDI Species Review Panel 1999). 

Under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4 Buellia oidalea would be included in Category E, which 

requires management of known sites and Strategic Surveys. This species would not 

maintain stable populations and/or distributions (USDA, USDI 2000a:307). Due to low 

numbers of known sites, low number of individuals, limited distribution, and narrow 

ecological amplitude, habitat (including known sites) is insufficient to provide for stable 

populations under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4. This outcome is not due to federal action.

Under Alternative 2, Buellia oidalea is assumed not to be included in the Agencies’ SSSPs. 

Known sites would not be managed and general inventories would not be required. This 

species would not maintain stable populations and/or distributions under Alternative 2 

due to low numbers of known sites, low number of individuals, limited distribution, and 

narrow ecological amplitude. Habitat (including known sites) is insufficient to provide 

for stable populations under Alternative 2. This outcome is not due to federal action.

Calicium abietinum

Calicium abietinum occurs in all three states. Information is still limited on the 

distribution, ecology, and abundance of this species in the NWFP area (USDA, USDI 

Species Review Panel 1999; 2000). New information since the 2004 FSEIS includes the 

report of one new site and information from proposive surveys.

Under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4, C. abietinum would be included in Category B, which 

requires management of known sites and Strategic Surveys. There is insufficient 

information to determine how distribution and stability of this species would be affected 

(USDA, USDI 2000a:290). Proposive surveys searching high probability habitat in 

western Oregon found this species to be infrequent (Rikkenen 2003). Due to limited 

information on the distribution, ecology, and abundance of this species in the NWFP area, 

there is insufficient information to determine an outcome under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4.
210

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Under Alternative 2, C. abietinum is removed from Survey and Manage. It is assumed 

not to be included in the Agencies’ SSSPs. Known sites would not be managed and 

general inventories would not be required. There is insufficient information to determine 

how the alternative would affect distribution and stability of this species due to limited 

information on its distribution, ecology, and abundance in the NWFP area. There is 

insufficient information to determine an outcome under Alternative 2.

Calicium adspersum

Calicium adspersum is still poorly known in the NWFP area (USDA, USDI 2000a:301). 

New information for this species since the 2004 FSEIS includes a report of the first site 

on federal land, located during proposive surveys (Rikkenen 2003) conducted in high 

probability habitat in western Oregon.

Under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4, Calicium adspersum would be included in Category E, 

which requires management of known sites and Strategic Surveys. Because only one site 

is known from federal lands in the NWFP area, there is insufficient information about 

this species to determine how distribution and stability would be affected (USDA, USDI 

2000a:303). There is insufficient information to determine an outcome under Alternative 

1, 3 or 4.

Under Alternative 2, Calicium adspersum is removed from Survey and Manage. It is 

assumed to be included in the Agencies’ SSSPs as Bureau Assessment for the BLM in 

Oregon and as Sensitive for the Forest Service in California. Known sites would be 

managed on BLM managed lands in Oregon and Forest Service managed lands in 

California. Pre-project clearances would be conducted and general inventories may be 

completed on Forest Service managed lands in California. General inventories may be 

conducted. There is insufficient information about this species to determine how the 

alternative would affect distribution and stability. There is insufficient information to 

determine an outcome under Alternative 2. For Alternative 2 without SSSP on BLM 

managed lands in Oregon and Forest Service managed lands in California, there is 

insufficient information to determine an outcome for the reasons listed.

Calicium glaucellum 

Information from the 2002 Annual Species Review indicates that this species is more 

common than previously known. It has a moderate to high number of known sites and 

a high proportion of those sites are likely to occur within reserves (USDA, USDI Species 

Review Panel 2002). The ASR records show 55 new known sites since the previous 

species review in 2000. In addition to the new sites, C. glaucellum had 35 RMS detections 

at that time. Since 2002, the total number of RMS detections has increased to 71, or 8 

percent of the total number of plots in the study area. Since the 2002 ASR, proposive 

surveys conducted in high probability habitat in western Oregon found C. glaucellum to 

be frequent and broadly distributed in the OR Coast Range, OR Willamette Valley, and 

OR Western Cascade Range Provinces (Rikkenen 2003). 

Under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3, C. glaucellum is removed from Survey and Manage and 

assumed not to be assigned to any Agency SSSP. Because current information indicates 

that this species is relatively common, widely distributed within the NWFP area, and that 

a large proportion of sites are expected to occur within reserves where it is afforded some 

protection, habitat (including known sites) is sufficient to provide for stable populations 

across the NWFP area.

Under Alternative 4, C. glaucellum would be included in Category F, which requires 

Strategic Surveys. Under this alternative, habitat is sufficient to provide for stable 

populations for the reasons listed under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3.
211

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Calicium viride 

Information from the 2002 Annual Species Review indicates that this species is more 

common than previously known (USDA, USDI Species Review Panel 2002). The ASR 

records show 119 known sites, 45 of which were new since the previous species review 

in 2000. It was also reported on 18 RMS plots at that time. Since the 2002 ASR, 57 new 

sites have been reported and the total number of RMS detections has increased to 45. 

Since the 2002 ASR, proposive surveys conducted in high probability habitat in western 

Oregon found C. viride to be frequent in the Willamette Valley and Cascade Range 

(Rikkenen 2003). 

Under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3, C. viride is removed from Survey and Manage and 

assumed to be Bureau Sensitive on BLM managed lands in California where known sites 

would be managed. Because current information indicates that this species is relatively 

common and a large proportion of sites are expected to occur within reserves where they 

are afforded some protection, habitat is sufficient to provide for stable populations under 

Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 with or without SSSP. 

Under Alternative 4, C. viride would be included in Category F, which requires Strategic 

Surveys. Under this alternative, habitat (including known sites) is sufficient to provide 

for stable populations across the NWFP area for the reasons listed under Alternatives 1, 

2, and 3.

Cetrelia cetrarioides

Cetrelia cetrarioides is a riparian lichen that frequently occurs on large, old riparian 

hardwoods. It is considered rare and is found in Washington and Oregon. It is assumed 

to be protected by Riparian Reserves; however, riparian enhancement projects that 

remove large, old hardwoods may disturb habitat for this lichen. New information for C. 

cetrarioides since the 2004 FSEIS includes two detections from the RMS Survey. The range 

of expected detections at the 95% confidence interval (0 – 364,900) does not provide new 

information on the rarity of this species. A total of 24 new sites have been reported.

Under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4, Cetrelia cetrarioides would be included in Category E, 

which requires management of known sites and Strategic Surveys. This species would 

maintain stable populations and/or distributions (USDA, USDI 2000a:305). Due to 

management of known sites, and protection by reserves, habitat (including known sites) 

is sufficient to provide for stable populations under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4. 

Under Alternative 2, Cetrelia cetrarioides is removed from Survey and Manage. It is 

assumed to be included in the SSSP for the Forest Service in Washington. This species 

would maintain stable populations and/or distributions under Alternative 2 due to 

management of known sites and pre-project clearances in the Washington portion of 

the range, and protection by reserves. Habitat (including known sites) is sufficient to 

provide for stable populations under Alternative 2. Under Alternative 2 without SSSP 

on Forest Service managed lands in Washington, habitat is sufficient to provide for 

stable populations within the NWFP area, however, because there are comparatively few 

known sites in Washington, removal of these from SSSP results in habitat insufficient to 

support stable populations within this portion of the NWFP area.

Chaenotheca chrysocephala

Chaenotheca chrysocephala was reported to be rare with only limited information on the 

distribution, ecology, and abundance of this species in the NWFP area (USDA, USDI 

Species Review Panel 1999; 2000). New information for C. chrysocephala since the 

2004 FSEIS includes 14 detections from the RMS Survey, 18 new sites reported, and 

information from proposive surveys.
212

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4, Chaenotheca chrysocephala would be included in Category 

B, which requires management of known sites and Strategic Surveys. The RMS Survey 

data indicates a significant number of the sites would occur within reserve land 

allocations. Proposive surveys (Rikkenen 2003) conducted in high probability habitats 

in western Oregon found this species to be well distributed in both the Coast Range and 

Cascade Mountains. From this information it can be inferred that this species is relatively 

common, is well distributed within its range, and a moderate proportion of sites are 

likely to occur within reserve allocations where they are afforded some protection. 

Based on this information, habitat is sufficient to provide for stable populations under 

Alternatives 1, 3, and 4. 

Under Alternative 2, C. chrysocephala is removed from Survey and Manage. It is assumed 

not to be included in the Agencies’ SSSPs. Known sites would not be managed and 

general inventories would not be required. Because the species is likely to be relatively 

common, and a moderate proportion of known sites would occur within reserve land 

allocations, habitat is sufficient to provide for stable populations under Alternative 2.

Chaenotheca ferruginea

Chaenotheca ferruginea was considered to be rare with only limited information on the 

distribution, ecology, and abundance of this species in the NWFP area (USDA, USDI 

Species Review Panel 1999; 2000). New information for the species since the 2004 FSEIS 

includes three detections from the RMS Survey and the addition of 98 new sites. Most 

of the new sites are on lands managed by the BLM in southwest Oregon and the Forest 

Service in the Columbia River Gorge. Proposive surveys conducted in high probability 

habitats in western Oregon (Rikkenen 2003) found locations of C. ferruginea to be well 

distributed in montane conifer forests in the Coast Range and Cascade Mountains, as 

well as the foothills of the Willamette Valley

Under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4, C. ferruginea would be included in Category B, which 

requires management of known sites and Strategic Surveys. Because of the relatively 

large number of new sites and proposive surveys reporting the species to be well 

distributed in the Oregon Coast Range, Oregon Cascades and Willamette Valley foothills, 

it can be inferred that C. ferruginea is likely more common than previously known. 

For these reasons, Alternatives 1, 3, and 4, habitat is sufficient to provide for stable 

populations.

Under Alternative 2, C. ferruginea is assumed not to be included in the Agencies’ SSSPs. 

Known sites would not be managed and general inventories would not be required. For 

the reasons stated for Alternatives 1, 3, and 4, habitat is sufficient to provide for stable 

populations under Alternative 2. 

Chaenotheca furfuracea 

Information from the 2003 Annual Species Review indicates that this species is more 

common than previously known (USDA, USDI Species Review Panel 2003). The ASR 

records show 153 known sites and 25 detections from the RMS Survey. Since the 2003 

ASR, an additional 181 new sites have been reported and RMS detections have increased 

to 28, 82 percent of which are within reserves. Proposive surveys conducted in high 

probability habitat in western Oregon since the 2003 ASR found C. furfuracea to be 

frequent and broadly distributed in the OR Coast Range, OR Willamette Valley and OR 

Cascade Range Provinces (Rikkenen 2003). 

Under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3, C. furfuracea is removed from Survey and Manage and 

not assumed to be assigned to any Agency SSSP. Because current information indicates 

that this species is relatively common, a large proportion of sites are expected to be 
213

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

within reserves where it is afforded some protection, and it is widely distributed, habitat 

(including known sites) is sufficient to provide for stable populations across the NWFP 

area.

Under Alternative 4, C. furfuracea would be included in Category F, which requires 

Strategic Surveys. Under this alternative, habitat is sufficient to provide for stable 

populations for the reasons listed under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3.

Chaenotheca subroscida

Formerly, Chaenotheca subroscida was poorly known in the NWFP area and it was 

unknown if the species was even present (USDA, USDI 2000a:301). This species has 

now been confirmed in the NWFP area. New information for C. subroscida since the 2004 

FSEIS includes four detections from the RMS Survey and eight new sites, for a total of 13 

sites now known from the NWFP area. 

Under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4, C. subroscida would be included in Category E, which 

requires management of known sites and Strategic Surveys. The range of expected 

detections from the RMS Survey at the 95% confidence interval (0 - 472,400 detections) 

does not provide additional information on the rarity of this species. This species would 

not maintain stable populations and/or distributions (USDA, USDI 2000a:303). Due to 

the low number of sites, limited distributions and populations, or limited suitable habitat 

on federally managed land, habitat (including known sites) is insufficient to provide 

for stable populations under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4. This outcome is not due to federal 

action.

Under Alternative 2, C. subroscida is assumed to be included as Sensitive on Forest Service 

managed lands in Oregon and Washington. Known sites would be managed and preproject clearances would be conducted. General inventories may be conducted. This 

species would not maintain stable populations and/or distributions under Alternative 2 

due to the low number of sites, limited distributions and populations, or limited suitable 

habitat on federally managed lands. Habitat (including known sites) is insufficient 

to provide for stable populations under Alternative 2. This outcome is not due to 

federal action. Alternative 2 without SSSP on Forest Service managed lands in Oregon 

and Washington would also have an outcome of insufficient habitat to support stable 

populations for the reasons listed under Alternative 2.

Chaenothecopsis pusilla

Formerly, Chaenothecopsis pusilla was poorly known in the NWFP area and it was 

unknown if these species were even present (USDA, USDI 2000a:301). This species 

has now been confirmed in the NWFP area. Information in 2004 indicated that this 

species has low site numbers, limited distributions and populations, few populations 

on federally managed lands, or limited suitable habitat on federally managed lands. 

However, proposive surveys conducted in high probability habitats in western Oregon 

(Rikkinen 2003) found C. pusilla to occur in a range of forest habitats and elevations 

within the Oregon Coast Range, Willamette Valley, Western Cascades, Eastern Cascades, 

and Klamath Physiographic Provinces. This new information indicates that the species is 

more common and widely distributed than was previously known.

Under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4, C. pusilla would be included in Category E, which 

requires management of known sites and Strategic Surveys. Because new information 

has determined that this species occurs more frequently, and in a wider range of habitats 

than was previously known, habitat is sufficient to provide for stable populations under 

Alternatives 1, 3 and 4. 
214

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Under Alternative 2, C. pusilla is assumed not to be included in the Agencies’ SSSPs. 

Known sites would not be managed and general inventories are not required. Based on 

new information from proposive surveys that found the species to be widely distributed 

across western Oregon in habitats as diverse as low-elevation coastal forest, Willamette 

Valley foothill woodlands and sub-alpine forest on the Cascade Crest, it can be inferred 

that C. pusilla is likely more common than previously known. For these reasons, habitat 

is sufficient to provide for stable populations under Alternative 2. 

Cladonia norvegica

Information from the 2003 Annual Species Review shows C. norvegica is well distributed 

in the NWFP area and known from 70 sites, of which 53 percent are in reserves. RMS 

detections were reported to be 37 (USDA, USDI Species Review Panel 2003). Since the 

2003 ASR, the total number of RMS detections for the species has been reduced to 28.

Under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3, C. norvegica is removed from Survey and Manage and not 

assumed to be on any Agency SSSPs. Because current information indicates that this 

species is relatively common and a large proportion of sites are expected to be within 

reserves where it is afforded some protection, habitat (including known sites) is sufficient 

to provide for stable populations across the NWFP area.

Under Alternative 4, C. norvegica would be included in Category B, which requires 

management of known sites, equivalent-effort surveys until Strategic Surveys are 

completed, and Strategic Surveys. Under this alternative habitat is sufficient to provide 

for stable populations for the reasons listed under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3.

Collema nigrescens

Collema nigrescens is a riparian lichen. It occurs primarily on deciduous trees and shrubs 

and occasionally mossy rock, mainly west of the Cascades (McCune and Geiser 1997; 

USDA, USDI Species Review Panel 1999). It is included in the Survey and Manage 

Standards and Guidelines only for Washington and Oregon (except for the Oregon 

Klamath Physiographic Province) where there are relatively few documented sites 

(USDA, USDI 2000a:269). Elsewhere (Oregon and California Klamath Provinces and 

California Coast Range Province) the number of known sites increased from 2 to 474, 

with many sites in reserve allocations (USDA, USDI 2000a:269). In this part of its range 

where it is more common, there is a reasonable assurance of persistence as indicated 

by its widespread distribution, abundance, and by the number of known sites and 

availability of potential habitat in reserve land allocations (USDA, USDI Species Review 

Panel 1999). New information for Collema nigrescens since the 2004 FSEIS includes five 

detections from the RMS Survey and seven new sites reported. The total number of sites 

within the Survey and Manage portion of the range is 35.

Under Alternatives 1 and 4, C. nigrescens would be included in Category F which requires 

Strategic Surveys that could provide information to determine if the species is closely 

associated with late-successional or old-growth forest, whether reserve allocations 

provide for the species, and what is the appropriate management to provide for stable 

populations on federal lands (USDA, USDI 2000a:271). Until Strategic Surveys are 

completed, there is insufficient information to determine whether habitat (including 

known sites) is sufficient to support stable populations in the NWFP area under 

Alternatives 1 and 4.

Under Alternatives 2 and 3, C. nigrescens is removed from Survey and Manage. It is 

assumed to be Sensitive on Forest Service managed lands in Washington where sites will 

be managed and pre-project clearances completed. In Oregon, (except for the Oregon 

Klamath Province) sites will not be managed and pre-project clearances will not be 

conducted. Because Strategic Surveys have not been completed, there is insufficient 
215

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

information to determine how these alternatives affect distribution and stability for the 

same reasons listed under Alternatives 1 and 4. Under Alternatives 2 and 3 without SSSP 

on Forest Service managed lands in Washington, sites will no longer be managed and 

pre-project clearances will not be conducted. The outcome for this scenario is insufficient 

information to determine how the alternatives affect distribution and stability for the 

same reasons listed under Alternatives 1 and 4.

Dendriscocaulon intricatulum (Washington, and Oregon except Coos, Douglas, Curry, 

Josephine, and Jackson Counties)

Habitat preferences and the distribution of Dendriscocaulon intricatulum within this 

portion of its range differ from that in southwest Oregon and California. The 2002 

Annual Species Review indicates that the species is rare (with 16 sites at that time), is 

poorly distributed, and the majority of sites occur in late-successional Douglas-fir and 

western hemlock communities. Most of the sites have a suppressed understory of silver 

fir under a canopy of late-successional and old-growth trees that provide moist, cool 

conditions (USDA, USDI Species Review Panel 2002). D. intricatulum most frequently 

occurs on the lower branches and dead twigs of suppressed, understory western hemlock 

and Pacific silver fir, which can be quite old. This is in contrast to the remainder of the 

range in southwest Oregon and California, where the majority of known sites occur 

in habitat less likely to include late-successional and old-growth components. New 

information since the ASR includes six new sites within this portion of the range.

Under Alternatives 1 and 3, D. intricatulum would be included in Category A, which 

requires management of known sites and pre-disturbance surveys. Under Alternative 3, 

pre-disturbance surveys are limited to late-successional and old-growth habitat. Because 

all known sites would receive protection, there is sufficient habitat (including known 

sites) to provide for stable populations under Alternatives 1 and 3.

Under Alternative 2, D. intricatulum would be removed from Survey and Manage. It 

is assumed to be a Forest Service Sensitive Species on Forest Service managed lands in 

Washington where known sites would be managed. Because this species is rare and 

poorly distributed within this portion of the range, the potential loss of the Oregon sites 

(which receive no protection) results in habitat insufficient to provide stable populations 

under Alternative 2 in Oregon. Habitat (including known sites) is sufficient to support 

stable populations, but is insufficient to support stable populations in a portion of the 

area. Under Alternative 2 without SSSP on Forest Service managed lands in Washington, 

habitat is insufficient to provide for stable populations for the reasons stated.

Under Alternative 4, D. intricatulum is included in Category B, which requires 

management of known sites, equivalent-effort surveys until Strategic Surveys are 

completed, and Strategic Surveys. Because all known sites would receive protection, 

there is sufficient habitat (including known sites) to provide for stable populations under 

Alternative 4.

Dendriscocaulon intricatulum (California)

Recent information for D. intricatulum within the California portion of its range includes 

two detections from the RMS Survey and the report of 101 new sites on Forest Service 

managed lands in California. Under Alternatives 1 and 3, Dendriscocaulon intricatulum

would be included in Category E, which requires management of known sites and 

Strategic Surveys. Because of the increase in the number of known sites in California, 

there is sufficient habitat to provide for stable populations under Alternatives 1 and 3. 

Under Alternative 2, D. intricatulum is removed from Survey and Manage. The species 

is assumed to be included in the SSSP on BLM managed lands in California where sites 

would be managed. Because of the increase in the number of reported sites and because 
216

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

the species appears to be more common than previously known within this portion of its 

range, under Alternative 2 with or without SSSP, habitat is sufficient to provide for stable 

populations. 

Under Alternative 4, D. intricatulum would be included in Category B, which requires 

management of known sites, equivalent-effort surveys until Strategic Surveys are 

completed, and Strategic Surveys. Under this alternative, habitat is sufficient to provide 

for stable populations for the reasons listed under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3.

Dendriscocaulon intricatulum (Oregon in Coos, Douglas, Curry, Josephine, and 

Jackson Counties)

Information from the 2002 Annual Species Review indicates that this species is more 

common than previously known in southwest Oregon (USDA, USDI Species Review 

Panel 2002). A total of 489 new sites were reported since the previous species review in 

2001, representing an 800 percent increase in known sites. Information also indicated 

that the species is well distributed across this portion of its range. Since the 2002 ASR, 

117 additional sites have been reported.

Under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3, D. intricatulum is removed from Survey and Manage 

within this portion of the range and not assumed to be on SSSP in this area. Because 

current information indicates that this species is relatively common and well distributed, 

habitat (including known sites) is sufficient to provide for stable populations under 

Alternatives 1, 2, and 3. 

Under Alternative 4, D. intricatulum would be included in Category B, which requires 

management of all sites, equivalent-effort surveys until Strategic Surveys are completed, 

and Strategic Surveys. Under this alternative, habitat is sufficient to provide for stable 

populations for the reasons listed under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3.

Dermatocarpon meiophyllizum (luridum)

New information for the aquatic lichen that had been known as Dermatocarpon luridum

within the NWFP area shows that the species had been misidentified (Glavich and Geiser 

2004). Of 12 historic D. luridum populations in the NWFP area that were relocated and 

re-identified, all proved to be D. meiophyllizum, not D. luridum. Dermatocarpon luridum

does exist in the U.S., but has not yet been found in Oregon, Washington, or California 

(Glavich pers. observation). Dermatocarpon meiophyllizum is well known in Western 

Europe (Heiðmarsson 2001), but it was only recently discovered in North America 

(Glavich and Geiser 2004). Prior to a recent study of aquatic lichens in the NWFP area, 

D. meiophyllizum was known from only nine sites in North America. An additional 22 

populations of D. meiophyllizum have been discovered on Forest Service and BLM lands 

in all three states of the Northwest Forest Plan (Glavich and Geiser 2004). Populations 

occurred in the Klamath, Siskiyou, Coast, and Cascade Mountain Ranges. 

Because this lichen is aquatic, and although some enhancement projects within Riparian 

Reserves can disturb habitat for this species (culvert removal, in-stream structure 

placement), it is assumed that the Aquatic Conservation Strategy would lower the risk of 

loss of sites (USDA, USDI 2000a:297).

Under Alternatives 1 and 3, this lichen would be included in Category E, which 

requires management of known sites and Strategic Surveys. Under Alternative 4, 

this species would be included in Category B, which requires management of known 

sites, equivalent-effort surveys until Strategic Surveys are completed, and Strategic 

Surveys. The 2000 FSEIS found this species would maintain stable populations and/or 

distributions in Category B (USDA, USDI 2000a:297). Due to management of known 
217

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

sites, and protection by the Riparian Reserve network, habitat (including known sites) is 

sufficient to provide for stable populations under Alternative 1, 3, and 4. 

Under Alternative 2, this species is assumed to be Sensitive on Forest Service managed 

lands in Oregon and Washington. This species would maintain stable populations 

and/or distributions under Alternative 2 due to management of known sites, pre-project 

clearances, and protection by the Riparian Reserve network. Habitat (including known 

sites) is sufficient to provide for stable populations under Alternative 2. Because preproject clearances and management of known sites is critical to maintaining stable 

populations, the scenario of Alternative 2 without SSSP would lead to habitat insufficient 

to support stable populations in the NWFP area. 

Fuscopannaria (Pannaria) saubinetii

Fuscopannaria (Pannaria) saubinetii was formerly thought to be a common, widespread 

species. The taxonomy of North American lichens in the family Pannariaceae has 

recently been revised, including lichens in the genus Pannaria (Jorgensen 2000). Some 

material formerly called Pannaria saubinetii has been moved to the genus Fuscopannaria

(Jorgensen 2000). Fuscopannaria saubinetii is a rare species and only a few correctly 

identified specimens have been located to date (Jorgensen 2000). Although once believed 

to be a coastal species, examination of this material may prove otherwise. Until the 

taxonomic ambiguities can be resolved for Fuscopannaria (Pannaria) saubinetii, sites with 

voucher confirmation in progress continue to be managed as known sites. 

Under Alternatives 1 and 3, this species would be included in Category E, which requires 

management of known sites and Strategic Surveys. Although the 2000 SEIS determined 

that this species would maintain stable populations and/or distributions due to species 

abundance (USDA, USDI 2000a:309), new information indicates this is a rare species. 

Due to low numbers, habitat (including known sites) is insufficient to provide for stable 

populations under Alternatives 1 and 3. This outcome is not due to federal action.

Under Alternative 2, this species is assumed not to be included in the Agencies’ SSSPs. 

Known sites would not be managed. This species would not maintain stable populations 

and/or distributions under Alternative 2 due to low numbers. Habitat (including known 

sites) is insufficient to provide for stable populations under Alternative 2. This outcome 

is not due to federal action.

Under Alternative 4, F. saubinettii would be included in Category F, which requires 

Strategic Surveys. Habitat is insufficient to provide for stable populations for reasons 

listed under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3.

Heterodermia sitchensis

Heterodermia sitchensis has recently been detected at a single site in the NWFP area 

(McHenry and Tønsberg 2002). This species could occur at other sites along the 

immediate coast, but it was not detected on Coastal Lichen Study plots (Glavich et al. 

2002). It is still uncertain whether this species is closely associated with late-successional 

or old-growth forests (USDA, USDI 2000a:299). However, the new site at Cape Lookout 

State Park is associated with old-growth Sitka spruce and western hemlock (McHenry 

and Tønsberg 2002). 

Under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4, Heterodermia sitchensis would be included in Category E, 

which requires management of known sites and Strategic Surveys. There is insufficient 

information about this species to determine how distribution and stability would 

be affected by management activities (USDA, USDI 2000a:301). There is insufficient 

information to determine an outcome under Alternatives 1, 3 or 4.
218

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Under Alternative 2, Heterodermia sitchensis is assumed to be included in the BLM SSSP as 

Bureau Assessment in Oregon. Known sites would be managed on BLM managed lands 

in Oregon. Pre-project clearances would be conducted subject to limitations in funding 

or positions. General inventories may be conducted. There is insufficient information 

about this species to determine how the alternative would affect distribution and 

stability. There is insufficient information to determine an outcome under Alternative 2.

Hypogymnia duplicata 

Hypogymnia duplicata is endemic to the Pacific Northwest. It occurs from Alaska to 

northwestern Oregon. There are relatively high numbers of sites on the Mt. BakerSnoqualmie National Forest. Concerns for this species have decreased in northern 

Washington because of the increase in number of known sites, although it is still 

restricted to specific habitat conditions and considered to be poorly distributed and rare 

(USDA, USDI 2000a). Most sites known in Washington are in reserves (GeoBOB/ISMS 

database). Populations known in 2002 were clustered and not well distributed across 

the landscape (Lesher 2002 pers. comm.), and it was rare in the rest of its range. Recent 

information includes 8 detections from the RMS Survey and 85 reported sites, most in 

Washington. Of the 8 RMS Survey detections, two were within the Oregon portion of 

its range, where the species is still considered rare. There are several known sites on 

BLM managed lands in Oregon. These sites fall within Areas of Critical Environmental 

Concern where management activity is limited.

Under Alternative 1, Hypogymnia duplicata would be included in Category C, which 

requires management of high-priority sites, pre-disturbance surveys, and Strategic 

Surveys. This species would maintain stable populations and/or distributions (USDA, 

USDI 2000a:282). Due to the high number of sites in reserves, habitat (including known 

sites) is sufficient to provide for stable populations under Alternative 1. 

Under Alternatives 2 and 3, Hypogymnia duplicata is assumed to be Sensitive on Forest 

Service managed lands in Oregon. This species would maintain stable populations and/

or distributions under Alternatives 2 and 3 due to protection by reserves and Areas of 

Critical Environmental Concern. Habitat (including known sites) is sufficient to provide 

for stable populations under Alternatives 2 and 3. Under Alternatives 2 and 3 without 

SSSP on Forest Service managed lands in Oregon, habitat is sufficient to provide for 

stable populations because it is expected that a large proportion of sites in Oregon as well 

as Washington will likely occur within reserves where they are afforded some protection.

Under Alternative 4, H. duplicata would be included in Category A, which requires 

management of all known sites and pre-disturbance surveys. Because of the high 

number of sites in reserves, habitat (including known sites) is sufficient to provide for 

stable populations under Alternative 4.

Hypogymnia oceanica

Information from the 2001 Annual Species Review indicates that this species is well 

distributed and more common than previously known (USDA, USDI Species Review 

Panel 2001). Of the 472 known sites at that time, 272 sites were newly reported since the 

2000 species review. The species was also reported to have 17 detections from the RMS 

Survey. Since the 2001 ASR, seven additional sites have been reported.

Under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 H. oceanica is removed from Survey and Manage and 

not assumed to be on SSSP. Because current information indicates that this species is 

relatively common and is well distributed, habitat is sufficient to provide for stable 

populations.
219

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Under Alternative 4, H. oceanica would be included in Category F, which requires 

Strategic Surveys. Under this alternative, habitat is sufficient to provide for stable 

populations for reasons listed under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3.

Hypogymnia vittata

Hypogymnia vittata occurs in southern British Columbia and in forested habitat in 

southeast Alaska (Geiser et al. 1998) that is similar to habitat in the NWFP area. It is 

suspected to occur in the North Cascades, and could be present in other parts of the 

NWFP area. Because it is not yet known here, little is known of this species in the NWFP 

area and its status is undetermined. In addition, it is uncertain if this species is closely 

associated with late-successional or old-growth forests (USDA, USDI 2000a:299).

Under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4 Hypogymnia vittata would be included in Category E, 

which requires management of known sites and Strategic Surveys. There is insufficient 

information about this species to determine how distribution and stability would be 

affected (USDA, USDI 2000a:301). There is insufficient information to determine an 

outcome under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4.

Under Alternative 2, Hypogymnia vittata is assumed not to be included in the Agencies’ 

SSSPs. Known sites would not be managed and general inventories are not required. 

There is insufficient information about this species to determine how the alternative 

would affect distribution and stability. There is insufficient information to determine an 

outcome under Alternative 2.

Hypotrachyna revoluta

Hypotrachyna revoluta was not rated by the FEMAT lichen panel because there was 

insufficient information at that time (USDA et al. 1993; USDA, USDI 2000a:299). This 

species was included in the Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines because of 

persistence concerns since it was thought to be rare (USDA, USDI 1994a:J2). Since then, 

new information from a coastal lichen study found this species at only 2 percent of the 

129 randomly selected sites (Glavich et al. 2005a). This study identified a total of seven 

sites on federal land, two of which were new (Geiser et al. 2004). Although the sample 

was too small to test association, only one of the seven sites was in reserves (Glavich 

et al. 2005a). This study also better documents its limited range, mostly occurring in 

northern coastal Oregon, which include four sites on Oregon State managed lands. This 

new information suggests that this species is rare across the NWFP area and has few 

populations and limited suitable habitat on federally managed lands.

Under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4, Hypotrachyna revoluta would be included in Category E, 

which requires management of known sites and Strategic Surveys. This species would 

not maintain stable populations and/or distributions (USDA, USDI 2000a:301). Due 

to extremely low numbers, limited distributions and populations, few populations 

on federally managed lands, or limited suitable habitat on federally managed lands, 

habitat (including known sites) is insufficient to provide for stable populations under 

Alternatives 1, 3, and 4. This outcome is not due to federal action.

Under Alternative 2, Hypotrachyna revoluta is assumed to be included as Sensitive for 

the Forest Service in Oregon and Washington and as Bureau Assessment by the BLM 

in Oregon. Known sites would be managed and pre-project clearances would be 

conducted. General inventories may be conducted. This species would not maintain 

stable populations and/or distributions under Alternative 2 due to extremely low 

numbers, limited distributions and populations, few populations on federally managed 

lands, or limited suitable habitat on federally managed lands. Habitat (including known 

sites) is insufficient to provide for stable populations under Alternative 2. This outcome 

is not due to federal action.
220

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Leptogium burnetiae var. hirsutum 

For Leptogium burnetiae var. hirsutum, pre-disturbance surveys have yielded vouchers that 

are taxonomically indistinct, based on current keys and species descriptions. This species 

is known from few sites on federally managed land (USDA, USDI 2000a:283).

Under Alternatives 1 and 3, Leptogium burnetiae var. hirsutum would be included in 

Category E, which requires management of known sites and Strategic Surveys. There is 

insufficient information about this species to determine how distribution and stability 

would be affected (USDA, USDI 2000a:305). There is insufficient information to 

determine an outcome under Alternatives 1 and 3.

Under Alternative 2, Leptogium burnetiae var. hirsutum is assumed to be included as 

Sensitive for the Forest Service in Washington and Oregon. Known sites would be 

managed and pre-project clearances would be conducted. General inventories may be 

conducted. There is insufficient information about this species to determine how the 

alternative would affect distribution and stability. There is insufficient information to 

determine an outcome under Alternative 2. Under Alternative 2 without SSSP on Forest 

Service managed lands in Washington and Oregon, the outcome is also insufficient 

information to determine an outcome for the reasons already stated.

Under Alternative 4, L. burnetiae var. hirsutum would be included in Category A, 

which requires management of all known sites and pre-disturbance surveys. There is 

insufficient information to determine an outcome under Alternative 4 for the reasons 

listed under Alternative 1 and 3.

Leptogium cyanescens

Leptogium cyanescens is rare and occurs in all three states. Because it is known from few 

sites on federally managed land, there is a high concern for this species (USDA, USDI 

2000a:283). In 2004, available information increased the number of known sites from 

one (USDA, USDI 1994a:J2-239) to 10 (GeoBOB/ISMS database). New information since 

the 2004 FSEIS includes a re-examination of voucher specimens from the NWFP area 

(Stone and Ruchty 2006). It now appears that this species is more limited than previously 

thought, with five confirmed sites in the NWFP area.

Under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4, Leptogium cyanescens would be included in Category A, 

which requires management of known sites, pre-disturbance surveys, and Strategic 

Surveys. Under Alternative 3, management activities in non-late-successional and nonold-growth forest stands would be exempt from pre-disturbance surveys. This species 

would not maintain stable populations and/or distributions (USDA, USDI 2000a:284). 

Due to extremely low numbers, habitat (including known sites) is insufficient to provide 

for stable populations under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4. This outcome is not due to federal 

action.

Under Alternative 2, Leptogium cyanescens is removed from Survey and Manage. It is 

assumed to be included as Sensitive on Forest Service managed lands in Washington 

and Oregon. Known sites would be managed and pre-project clearances would be 

conducted. General inventories may be conducted. This species would not maintain 

stable populations and/or distributions under Alternative 2 due to low site numbers. 

Habitat (including known sites) is insufficient to provide for stable populations under 

Alternative 2. This outcome is not due to federal action. Under Alternative 2 without 

SSSP on Forest Service managed lands in Washington and Oregon, the outcome is also 

insufficient habitat to determine an outcome for the reasons listed under Alternative 2. 
221

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Leptogium rivale

New populations of Leptogium rivale continue to be found on Forest Service and BLM 

lands, mostly in Oregon, but also in California and Washington from the Siskiyou, Coast, 

and Cascade Mountain Ranges. 

Leptogium rivale occurs in all three states. It is an aquatic lichen that was thought to 

be endemic to North America until its recent discovery in Poland, the Czech Republic 

(Guttová 2000), and Portugal (van den Boom 2002). New research suggests this species 

is more common than once thought (with 26 percent frequency on aquatic lichen study 

plots across the NWFP area), occurring in many watersheds in several National Forests 

and BLM lands, and that it is more associated with LSOG forest stands (Glavich 2006, 

Glavich and Geiser 2007). Although Glavich (2006) found that L. rivale was neither more 

nor less likely to be associated with Congressional and Late-Successional Reserves, the 

aquatic habitat of this species would likely be protected in Riparian Reserves. Most 

known sites are on federally managed lands within Riparian Reserves (USDA, USDI 

2000a:296). Although some enhancement projects within Riparian Reserves can disturb 

habitat for this species (culvert removal, in-stream structure placement), the Riparian 

Reserves and other elements of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy (USDA, USDI 1994b:

B-9 through B-34) would lower the risk of loss of sites (USDA, USDI 2000a:297).

Under Alternatives 1 and 3, Leptogium rivale would be included in Category E, which 

requires management of known sites and Strategic Surveys. Under Alternative 4, 

this species would be included in Category B, which requires management of known 

sites, equivalent-effort surveys until Strategic Surveys are completed, and Strategic 

Surveys. The 2000 FSEIS found this species would maintain stable populations and/or 

distributions under Survey and Manage (USDA, USDI 2000a:297). Due to increased 

numbers of sites and protection by Riparian Reserves, habitat (including known sites) is 

sufficient to provide for stable populations under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4. 

Under Alternative 2, Leptogium rivale is assumed not to be included in the Agencies’ 

SSSPs. This species would maintain stable populations and/or distributions under 

Alternative 2 due to protection by Riparian Reserves. Habitat (including known sites) is 

sufficient to provide for stable populations under Alternative 2.

Leptogium teretiusculum 

Leptogium teretiusculum is rare and occurs in Oregon and California only. It is poorly 

known in the NWFP area (USDA, USDI 2000a:303). It is uncertain if it is closely 

associated with late-successional or old-growth forests (USDA, USDI 2000a:303). 

Information from 2004, based on broad regional surveys increased the number of known 

sites from one (USDA, USDI 1994a:J2-240) to eight (GeoBOB/ISMS database). New 

information for this species includes three detections from the RMS Survey and 25 new 

sites reported. This new information suggests that this species is rare with limited 

distribution and populations, few populations on federally managed lands, or limited 

suitable habitat on federally managed lands. 

Under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4, L. teretiusculum would be included in Category E, which 

requires management of known sites and Strategic Surveys. The three detections 

from the RMS Survey, results in a range of expected detections at the 95% confidence 

interval (0 - 681,400) that is too large to provide any new information on the species’ 

rarity. This species would not maintain stable populations and/or distribution (USDA, 

USDI 2000a:305). Due to rarity, limited distribution, and populations, few populations 

on federally managed lands, and limited suitable habitat on federally managed lands, 

habitat (including known sites) is insufficient to provide for stable populations under 

Alternatives 1, 3, and 4. This outcome is not due to federal action.
222

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Under Alternative 2, L. teretiusculum is removed from Survey and Manage. It is assumed 

not to be included in the Agencies’ SSSPs. Known sites would not be managed and 

general inventories would not be required. This species would not maintain stable 

populations and/or distributions under Alternative 2 due to rarity, limited distribution 

and populations, few populations on federally managed lands, and limited suitable 

habitat on federally managed lands. Habitat (including known sites) is insufficient to 

provide for stable populations under Alternative 2. This outcome is not due to federal 

action.

Lobaria linita (Oregon and Washington except Washington Western Cascades North of 

Snoqualmie Pass and Washington Olympic Peninsula Province) 

Lobaria linita occurs sporadically in northern Europe and Asia, and is known to occur in 

North America from Alaska to Oregon (USDA, USDI 2000a:280). The majority of known 

sites in the NWFP area are in northwest Washington (USDA, USDI 2000a:280), most of 

which are on the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest. These populations reflect the 

results of several years of field tests of a predictive model. Populations are clustered 

and not well distributed across the landscape. The numbers of individuals at most sites 

is low (Lesher 2002 pers. comm.). Lobaria linita is uncommon in Washington north of 

Snoqualmie Pass where most sites are in reserves on the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National 

Forest. It is rare south of the pass and its presence in reserve allocation in this part of 

its range is unknown. New information for L. linita since the 2004 FSEIS includes 2 

detections from the RMS Survey within this portion of the range.

Under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4, L. linita is included in Category A within this portion of 

the range. It would receive management of known sites, pre-disturbance surveys, and 

Strategic Surveys. Under Alternative 3, management activities in non-late-successional 

and non-old-growth forest stands would be exempt from pre-disturbance surveys. This 

species would maintain stable populations and/or distributions (USDA, USDI 2000a:282). 

Due to management of known sites, pre-disturbance surveys, Strategic Surveys, and 

protection by reserves, habitat (including known sites) is sufficient to provide for stable 

populations under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4. 

Under Alternative 2, L. linita is removed from Survey and Manage. It is assumed to 

be included as Sensitive by the Forest Service in Oregon and as Bureau Assessment on 

BLM managed lands in Oregon and Washington. This species would maintain stable 

populations and/or distributions under Alternative 2 due to protection by reserves, 

management of known sites, and pre-project clearances. Habitat (including known sites) 

is sufficient to provide for stable populations under Alternative 2. Under Alternative 2 

without SSSP on Forest Service and BLM managed lands, there is insufficient habitat to 

support stable populations because of its rarity in this portion of the range.

Lobaria linita (WA Western Cascades north of Snoqualmie Pass, and WA Olympic 

Peninsula Provinces)

Information from the 2002 Annual Species Review indicates that this species is more 

common than previously known in this portion of the range, and that a high proportion 

of known sites are within reserves (USDA, USDI Species Review Panel 2002). Of the 119 

known sites reported, 102 were within reserves. In addition, 10 of 12 RMS detections for 

the species occur within this portion of its range. Since the 2002 ASR, 28 additional sites 

have been reported.

Under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3, Lobaria linita is removed from Survey and Manage and not 

assumed to be included in SSSPs in Washington. Because the species is well distributed 

and a large proportion of known sites are within reserves where they are protected, 

habitat is sufficient to provide for stable populations. 
223

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Under Alternative 4, L. linita would be included in Category A, which requires 

management of all known sites and pre-disturbance surveys. Habitat is sufficient 

to provide for stable populations under Alternative 4 for the reasons listed under 

Alternatives 1, 2, and 3. 

Lobaria oregana (California)

Lobaria oregana is endemic to western North America (Goward et al. 1994, McCune and 

Geiser 1997). It is currently included in the Survey and Manage mitigation measure in 

California where it is rare and reaches the southern extent of its range. There is a high 

concern for this species in California because it is restricted in distribution and known 

from few sites (USDA, USDI 2000a:273). New information for L. oregana since the 2004 

FSEIS includes two detections from the RMS Survey in California and a total of 19 new 

sites reported. The two detections from the RMS Survey, results in a range of expected 

detections at the 95% confidence interval (0 - 304,700) that is too large to provide any new 

information on the species’ rarity. 

Under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4, L. oregana would be included in Category A in California, 

which requires management of known sites, pre-disturbance surveys, and Strategic 

Surveys. Under Alternative 3, management activities in non-late-successional and nonold-growth forest stands would be exempt from pre-disturbance surveys. This species 

would not maintain stable populations and/or distributions (USDA, USDI 2000a:274). 

Due to restricted distribution and low site numbers, habitat (including known sites) is 

insufficient to support stable populations in the NWFP area of northern California under 

Alternatives 1, 3 and 4. This outcome is not due to federal action. 

Under Alternative 2, L. oregana is removed from Survey and Manage. It is assumed to be 

included in the BLM SSSP in California. Known sites would be managed and pre-project 

clearances would be conducted on BLM managed lands in California. This species is not 

included in the Forest Service Sensitive Species Program in California where it is rare 

and known sites occur on National Forest System lands. Known sites on Forest Service 

managed lands in California would not be managed and general inventories would not 

be required. This species would not maintain stable populations and/or distributions 

under Alternative 2 due to restricted distribution and extremely low numbers. Habitat 

(including known sites) is insufficient to support stable populations within this portion 

of the range under Alternative 2. This outcome is not due to federal action. Under 

Alternative 2 without SSSP on BLM managed lands, habitat is insufficient to support 

stable populations for the same reasons already listed.

Microcalicium arenarium

Prior to 2004, Microcalicium arenarium was known from one site in Washington not on 

federally managed lands. There is still limited information on the distribution, ecology, 

and abundance of most pin lichens in the NWFP area (USDA, USDI Species Review 

Panel 1999; 2000). New information since the 2004 FSEIS includes the location of the first 

two sites of this species on federal land and the results of proposive surveys conducted 

in high probability habitat in western Oregon (Rikkenen 2003). Known sites are shaded 

rock cliffs. There is uncertainty regarding its association with late-successional or oldgrowth forests.

Under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4, M. arenarium would be included in Category B, which 

requires management of known sites and Strategic Surveys. There is insufficient 

information about this species to determine how distribution and stability would be 

affected (USDA, USDI 2000a:290). There is insufficient information to determine an 

outcome under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4.
224

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Under Alternative 2, M. arenarium is removed from Survey and Manage. It is assumed to 

be included as a Bureau Assessment species for the BLM in Oregon. Known sites would 

be managed. Pre-project clearances would be conducted subject to limitations in funding 

or positions. General inventories may be conducted. There is insufficient information 

about this species to determine how the alternative would affect distribution and 

stability. There is insufficient information to determine an outcome under Alternative 2. 

Under Alternative 2 without SSSP on BLM managed lands in Oregon, there is insufficient 

information to determine an outcome for the reasons already listed.

Nephroma bellum (OR Klamath, OR Willamette Valley, OR Eastern Cascades, WA 

Western Cascades (outside of Gifford Pinchot NF), WA Eastern Cascades, and WA 

Olympic Peninsula)

Nephroma bellum has a broad, global distribution and is well distributed west of the 

Cascade crest (USDA, USDI Species Review Panel 1999). Current information indicates 

that it may be common in the NWFP area, although it is rare within this portion of its 

range. Recent information for Nephroma bellum includes six detections from the RMS 

Survey within this portion of its range and an increase in known sites for a total of 33 on 

federal lands. One site has been reported but has not been verified for California; this 

site does not occur on federally managed lands. The 2000 SEIS found this species would 

maintain stable populations and/or distributions range-wide managed under Survey and 

Manage Category F (USDA, USDI 2000a:309). 

Under Alternatives 1 and 3, Nephroma bellum would be included in Category E, which 

requires management of known sites and Strategic Surveys. Due to management of 

known sites, protection by reserves, and species abundance in some NWFP areas, habitat 

(including known sites) is sufficient to provide for stable populations under Alternatives 

1 and 3. 

Under Alternative 2, Nephroma bellum is removed from Survey and Manage. It is 

assumed to be included in the Agencies’ SSSP for the Forest Service in Washington. 

Habitat is sufficient to support stable populations under Alternative 2 because known 

sites on Forest Service managed lands in Washington would be protected and pre-project 

clearances will be conducted. In Oregon, where the species would not have SSSP status, 

a large proportion of sites are likely to occur within reserves where they are afforded 

some protection. Habitat (including known sites) is sufficient to provide for stable 

populations under Alternatives 2. 

Alternatives 2 without SSSP on Forest Service managed lands in Washington will have 

sufficient habitat to provide for stable populations, however because this species is still 

considered to be rare in the Olympic Peninsula Province in Washington, Alternative 2 

without SSSP would result in insufficient habitat to support stable populations in this 

portion of the range. 

Under Alternative 4, N. bellum would be included in Category F, which requires Strategic 

Surveys. It is also assumed to be included in the Agencies’ SSSP for the Forest Service 

in Washington where sites would be managed and pre-project clearances conducted. 

Habitat is sufficient to provide for stable populations. Under Alternative 4 without SSSP 

on Forest Service managed lands in Washington, known sites would not be managed 

and surveys would not be conducted. Habitat would be sufficient to provide for 

stable populations range-wide, but is insufficient to provide for stable populations in 

the Olympic Peninsula Province portion of the range for the reasons described under 

Alternative 2.
225

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Nephroma bellum (OR Western Cascades, OR Coast Range, and WA Western Cascades 

in Gifford Pinchot NF)

Information from the 2001 Annual Species Review indicates that this species was more 

common than previously known, with a total of 173 sites within this portion of the range, 

including 15 detections from the RMS Survey (USDA, USDI Species Review Panel 2001). 

Since the 2001 ASR, 11 additional sites have been reported and the total number of RMS 

detections has increased to 23.

Under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3, N. bellum is removed from Survey and Manage in this 

portion of its range. It is assumed to be included in the Agencies’ SSSP for the Forest 

Service in Washington where known sites will be managed and pre-project clearances 

would be conducted. Because current information indicates that this species is relatively 

common, and a large proportion of sites are expected to occur within reserves, habitat is 

sufficient to provide for stable populations with or without SSSP.

Under Alternative 4, N. bellum is included in Category F, which requires Strategic 

Surveys. Under this alternative, habitat is sufficient to provide for stable populations 

because the species is relatively common and a large proportion of sites are expected to 

occur within reserves. 

Nephroma isidiosum

Nephroma isidiosum occurs in southern British Columbia and in forested sites in Alaska, 

and is suspected to occur in the North Cascades. Strategic Survey results for Nephroma 

isidiosum since the 2004 FSEIS provide additional evidence that this lichen is suspected 

to occur in the NWFP area, but so far, it has not been located. Because it is not yet 

known from the NWFP area, nothing is known of this species here and its status is 

undetermined. In addition, it is uncertain if this species is closely associated with latesuccessional or old-growth forests (USDA, USDI 2000a:299).

Under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4, N. isidiosum would be included in Category E, which 

requires management of known sites and Strategic Surveys. There is insufficient 

information about this species to determine how distribution and stability would be 

affected (USDA, USDI 2000a:301). There is insufficient information to determine an 

outcome under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4.

Under Alternative 2, N. isidiosum is removed from Survey and Manage. It is assumed 

not to be included in the Agencies’ SSSPs. Known sites would not be managed and 

general inventories are not required. There is insufficient information about this species 

to determine how the alternative would affect distribution and stability. There is 

insufficient information to determine an outcome under Alternative 2.

Nephroma occultum 

Nephroma occultum is endemic to western North American, occurring from British 

Columbia to southern Oregon (USDA, USDI 2000a). Almost all known sites are on 

federally managed land and about 30 percent occur in reserves (USDA, USDI Species 

Review Panel 2000). It occurs on large, old lateral limbs of conifers (USDA, USDI 

2000a:293). Although there are a moderate number of known sites, persistence concerns 

are based on the species’ dispersal limitations, the low number of individuals at known 

sites, and the patchy distribution in the NWFP area. Nephroma occultum is known to be 

dispersal limited (Rosso et al. 2000, Sillett et al. 2000, Sillett and Goward 1998), is closely 

associated with very old old-growth habitat (Sillett and Goward 1998), and is not well 

distributed across the landscape (it occurs in isolated patches). The species has four 

detections from the RMS Survey. The range of expected detections at the 95% confidence 

interval (0 – 493,800 expected detections) does not provide new information on the rarity 
226

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

of this species. Recent site detections have pushed the number of known federal sites 

over 200.

Under Alternative 1, Nephroma occultum would be included in Category C, which 

requires management of high-priority sites, pre-disturbance surveys, and Strategic 

Surveys. Because known sites would be managed and pre-disturbance surveys would be 

completed, habitat (including known sites) is sufficient to provide for stable populations 

under Alternative 1. 

Under Alternatives 2 and 3, Nephroma occultum is assumed to be included as Sensitive for 

the Forest Service in Washington and Oregon. There is a high risk of loss of sites outside 

of reserves on BLM managed lands in Oregon. Although some legacy components are 

retained based on Matrix Standards and Guidelines, these Standards and Guidelines 

may not be sufficient because not all habitat components are included. For example, 

some suppressed understory conifers can be very old, and are known to be a source for 

propagules of Nephroma occultum and other old-growth lichens. In many cases, these 

suppressed understory trees are not protected because they do not appear to be oldgrowth components (USDA, USDI 2003c). The removal of these components greatly 

reduces the likelihood that refugial populations of Nephroma occultum will remain 

across the landscape. The single most important action promoting the accumulation 

of old-growth associated epiphytic lichens is the retention of propagule sources, and 

maintaining an adequate local source of propagules is critical to the resilience of 

dispersal limited species in a managed forested landscape (Sillett et al. 2000). Most of 

the known global sites occur in Oregon where the species reaches the southern extent 

of its range. A combination of factors, including the potential loss of inoculum sources 

in younger stands across its entire range in the NWFP area and the lack of protection of 

non-reserve sites on BLM managed lands in Oregon results in habitat (including known 

sites) insufficient to support stable populations in the NWFP area under Alternatives 2 

and 3. Alternatives 2 and 3 without SSSP on Forest Service managed lands in Oregon 

and Washington could lead to the loss of some sites. This, in combination with the 

factors already stated, also results in an outcome of insufficient habitat to support stable 

populations.

Under Alternative 4 N. occultum would be included in Category B, which requires 

management of known sites, equivalent-effort surveys until Strategic Surveys are 

completed, and Strategic Surveys. Under this alternative, habitat is sufficient to provide 

for stable populations for the reasons listed under Alternative 1.

Niebla cephalota

Niebla cephalota occurs from Baja California to Washington in coastal fog belt areas 

(McCune et al. 1997). New research provides a better understanding of its distribution 

and ecology in the NWFP area. In the NWFP area, its primary range is the California 

coastline; it occurs on the Oregon and Washington coastlines but is rare in these states 

(Glavich et al. 2005a). Most of the federal land populations were on non-reserve land 

use allocations, but most of the habitat exists in State Parks (Glavich et al. 2005a). Its 

habitat in the NWFP area was recently defined primarily by climate (relatively lower 

precipitation), proximity to the coastline, and Sitka spruce forest, and no late-seral 

association was found (Glavich et al. 2005a, b). This lichen is still considered to be rare in 

the NWFP area, and has a low number of known sites, low number of individuals at each 

site, limited distribution, and narrow ecological amplitude (USDA, USDI 2000a:285).

Under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4, Niebla cephalota would be included in Category A, which 

requires management of known sites, pre-disturbance surveys, and Strategic Surveys. 

Under Alternative 3, management activities in non-late-successional and non-old-growth 

forest stands would be exempt from pre-disturbance surveys. This species would not 

maintain stable populations and/or distributions (USDA, USDI 2000a:286). Due to 
227

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

limited potential habitat, few populations on federally managed lands, and the potential 

for stochastic events, habitat (including known sites) is insufficient to provide for stable 

populations under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4. This outcome is not due to federal action.

Under Alternative 2, Niebla cephalota is assumed to be included in the Agencies’ SSSPs as 

Bureau Assessment on BLM managed lands in Oregon, as Sensitive on BLM managed 

lands in California, and Sensitive on Forest Service managed lands in Oregon and 

Washington. Known sites would be managed and pre-project clearances would be 

conducted. General inventories may be conducted. This species would not maintain 

stable populations and/or distributions under Alternative 2 due to low number of 

known sites, low number of individuals at each site, limited distribution, and narrow 

ecological amplitude. Habitat (including known sites) is insufficient to provide for stable 

populations under Alternative 2. This outcome is not due to federal action. Under the 

scenario of Alternative 2 without SSSP, the outcome is also insufficient habitat. 

Pannaria rubiginosa

Pannaria rubiginosa, a coastal lichen, has a broad, global distribution, but is considered 

rare in the NWFP area. There is high concern for this species due to low numbers of 

known sites, low number of individuals, limited distribution, and narrow ecological 

amplitudes (USDA et al. 1993; USDA, USDI 1994a:J2; USDA, USDI 2000a; USDA, USDI 

Species Review Panel 1999). New research further supports the rarity of this species in 

the NWFP area. Surveys of randomly selected sites along the NWFP area coastline did 

not detect P. rubiginosa (Glavich et al. 2005a). One new site, for a total of four (none in 

California), was discovered in the NWFP area by selectively searching potential habitat 

(Glavich et al. 2005a).

 Under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4, this species would be included in Category E, which 

requires management of known sites and Strategic Surveys. With a high degree of 

uncertainty due to low numbers of known sites, low number of individuals, limited 

distribution, and narrow ecological amplitudes, this species would not likely maintain 

stable populations and/or distributions (USDA, USDI 2000a:307). Due to limited 

potential habitat, few populations on federally managed lands, and the potential for 

stochastic events, habitat (including known sites) is insufficient to provide for stable 

populations under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4. This outcome is not due to federal action.

Under Alternative 2, Pannaria rubiginosa is assumed to be included in the SSSPs except for 

the Forest Service in California, where there is even less suitable habitat. Due to a low 

number of known sites, low number of individuals at most sites, limited distribution, and 

narrow ecological amplitude, there is insufficient habitat to maintain stable populations 

and/or distributions under Alternative 2, with or without SSSP.

Peltigera pacifica

Peltigera pacifica occurs in Washington and Oregon and is a Pacific Northwest endemic. 

It occurs primarily in riparian forests and hardwood stands, but also in moist forests at 

low to mid-elevation (McCune and Geiser 1997) and in a range of stand ages (USDA, 

USDI Species Review Panel 1999). This species is widespread in the NWFP area west of 

the Cascade crest (McCune and Geiser 1997; USDA, USDI Species Review Panel 1999; 

2000). A portion of its population may be provided for by the reserve land allocation, 

particularly the riparian buffers under the Aquatic Conservation Strategy. The 

contribution of the Riparian Reserves and other reserve allocations to provide for stable 

populations of this species is unknown (USDA, USDI 2000a:304). New information for P. 

pacifica since the 2004 FSEIS includes 12 detections from the RMS Survey and the addition 

of 91 new sites on federal lands within the NWFP area. 
228

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4, P. pacifica would be included in Category E, which requires 

management of known sites and Strategic Surveys. This species would maintain stable 

populations and/or distributions (USDA, USDI 2000a:305). There is new information 

including 85 new sites and 12 RMS detections. This information indicates that a large 

number of occurrences are likely to occur within reserves, where they are afforded some 

protection. Habitat (including known sites) is sufficient to provide for stable populations 

under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4. 

Under Alternative 2, P. pacifica is removed from Survey and Manage. It is assumed to be 

included as Sensitive by the Forest Service in Oregon and Washington where sites would 

be managed and pre-disturbance surveys conducted on Forest Service managed lands. 

However, due to sites and protection by reserves, this species would maintain overall 

stable populations and/or distributions under Alternative 2. Habitat (including known 

sites) is sufficient to support stable populations range-wide in the NWFP area. Under 

Alternative 2 without SSSP on Forest Service managed lands in Oregon and Washington, 

habitat is sufficient to provide for stable populations of P. pacifica for the same reasons. 

Platismatia lacunosa (Except Oregon Coast Range)

Platismatia lacunosa occurs in Washington and Oregon. It is common in the Oregon Coast 

Range and rare in the rest of its range. A high proportion of known sites, most of which 

are in the Oregon Coast Range, are protected by reserves (GeoBOB/ISMS database). It 

is sometimes, but not necessarily, associated with riparian areas where it often grows 

on alders. This species occurs primarily at lower elevations and it is unknown at this 

time how much potential habitat exists on federally managed lands (USDA, USDI 

2000a:299). Although riparian enhancement projects that remove hardwoods within 

Riparian Reserves can disturb habitat for this species, the Riparian Reserve Standards 

and Guidelines and other elements of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy lower the risk of 

loss of sites. Late-Successional and other reserves may also provide some protection of 

known sites (USDA, USDI 2000a:299). The 2000 SEIS found this species would maintain 

stable populations and/or distributions range-wide in Survey and Manage Category C 

(USDA, USDI 2000a:299). Known site numbers have nearly doubled to over 50 in recent 

years. There are three detections from the RMS Survey. 

Under Alternatives 1 and 3, P. lacunosa would be included in Category E, which requires 

management of known sites and Strategic Surveys. Due to management of known sites, 

habitat (including known sites) is sufficient to provide for stable populations under 

Alternative 1 and 3.

Under Alternative 2, P. lacunosa is removed from Survey and Manage. It is assumed 

to be included as Sensitive on Forest Service managed lands in Washington. Due to 

management of known sites and pre-project clearances under the Forest Service Sensitive 

Species Program in Washington, this species would maintain stable populations and/or 

distributions under Alternative 2 in Washington. There are fewer than 20 Oregon sites 

within this portion of the range, occurring in the Oregon Klamath, Western Oregon 

Cascades, and Willamette Valley Provinces. Because the species is rare and not well 

distributed within these physiographic provinces, habitat is insufficient to provide for 

stable populations under Alternative 2 for the Oregon portion of the range. Therefore 

habitat (including known sites) is sufficient to support stable populations, but insufficient 

to support stable populations in a portion of its range. Under Alternatives 2 without 

SSSP on Forest Service managed lands in Washington, habitat is also insufficient to 

provide for stable populations within this portion of the range for the reasons listed and 

because Washington sites would no longer receive management. 

Under Alternative 4, P. lacunosa would be included in Category C, which includes 

management of high-priority sites and pre-disturbance surveys. Under this alternative, 
229

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

habitat (including known sites) is sufficient to provide for stable populations because of 

known site management.

Platismatia lacunosa (Oregon Coast Range)

Information from the 2002 Annual Species Review indicates that this species is more 

common within this portion of its range than previously known (USDA, USDI Species 

Review Panel 2002). It was reported that 19 of 21 RMS detections occurred within the 

Oregon Coast Range Province, inferring that the species was relatively common there. 

New information since the 2002 ASR includes 39 new federal sites reported and a 

correction to 18 RMS detections.

Under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3, P. lacunosa is removed from Survey and Manage within 

this portion of its range and is not included in SSSP in Oregon. Because current 

information indicates that this species is relatively common and is well distributed within 

the physiographic province, habitat is sufficient to provide for stable populations.

Under Alternative 4, P. lacunosa would be included in Category C, which requires 

management of high-priority sites, pre-disturbance surveys, and Strategic Surveys. 

Under this alternative, habitat (including known sites) is sufficient to provide for stable 

populations for reasons listed under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3.

Pseudocyphellaria perpetua

New research indicates that the Northwest Forest Plan population locus for 

Pseudocyphellaria perpetua is in the central Oregon Coast Range, and that it is rare 

elsewhere. It has also been found in the Olympics in Washington and the western 

foothills of the Oregon Cascades (Glavich et al. 2005a). The 49 new sites reported since 

the 2004 FSEIS that supports the current understanding of P. perpetua’s distribution were 

discovered by searching recently accessioned specimens from the herbaria of Oregon 

State University (OSC), University of Washington (WTU), Olympic National Park, and 

Bruce McCune, as part of the coastal lichen study (Geiser et al. 2004, Glavich et al. 2005a, 

GeoBob/ISMS database). Many of the recently accessioned specimens were new because 

questionable voucher specimens were re-evaluated and then correctly identified. There 

was, until recently, taxonomic uncertainty for this lichen. FEMAT (USDA et al. 1993) 

and the Northwest Forest Plan Final SEIS (USDA, USDI 1994a) erroneously applied the 

name Pseudocyphellaria mougeotiana. Because of the erroneous name, the Survey and 

Manage Final SEIS (USDA, USDI 2000a) and Lichen Management Recommendations 

(USDA, USDI 2000c) identified this entity as Pseudocyphellaria sp. 1 while acknowledging 

taxonomic work was underway. In the 2000 Survey and Manage Final SEIS (USDA, USDI 

2000a:293) there was insufficient information about this taxonomic entity to determine 

effects. Since that time, sufficient new information clarified taxonomic uncertainty, 

habitat association, and rarity within the NWFP area. The taxonomic uncertainty was 

resolved when the new name, Pseudocyphellaria perpetua, was published by Miadlikowska 

et al. (2002). New research found low detection rates in the random sample that 

prevented statistical inference of old-growth and land use allocation association, but P. 

perpetua occurred in forest stands of 25 to 114 years-old with a median of 80 years, and 7 

of 20 known populations on federal land are in reserves (Glavich et al. 2005a, b). 

Under Alternatives 1and 3, Pseudocyphellaria perpetua would be included in Category 

A, which requires management of known sites, pre-disturbance surveys, and Strategic 

Surveys. Under Alternative 3, pre-disturbance surveys are limited to late-successional 

and old-growth habitat. Under Alternative 4, this species would be included in Category 

B, which requires management of known sites, equivalent-effort surveys until Strategic 

Surveys are completed, and Strategic Surveys. Due to its rarity and narrow ecological 

amplitude, habitat (including known sites) is insufficient to support stable populations in 

the NWFP area under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4. This outcome is not due to federal action. 
230

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Under Alternative 2, Pseudocyphellaria perpetua is assumed not to be included in the 

Agencies’ SSSPs. Known populations on Forest Service and BLM managed lands 

in Oregon have increased from 7 to 20 (Glavich et al. 2005a). Although seven of the 

populations on federally managed lands are in reserves, their occurrence in stands 

under 80 years old would be at risk of being impacted by thinning. This and the 

remaining populations being in non-reserve land allocations, places populations at 

risk under Alternative 2 because known sites would no longer be managed. General 

inventories would not be required. Although there have been additional populations 

discovered recently, P. perpetua is still considered to be rare. Due to its rarity and narrow 

ecological amplitude, habitat (including known sites) is insufficient to provide for stable 

populations under Alternative 2. This outcome is not a result of federal action. 

Pseudocyphellaria rainierensis

Pseudocyphellaria rainierensis is a Pacific Northwest endemic. It is known to occur from 

southeastern Alaska to southern Oregon, west of the Cascade Crest (USDA, USDI Species 

Review Panel 2000). It is rare in Washington and throughout most of the rest of its range, 

although several large, scattered populations exist in large tracts of suitable habitat on 

the Willamette National Forest in Oregon. Although there are a moderate number of 

known sites, persistence concerns are based on the species’ dispersal limitations, the low 

number of individuals at known sites, and the patchy distribution of this species in the 

NWFP area. This species occurs primarily in the oldest stands on the landscape and is 

rarely found in stands less than 400 years old (USDA, USDI 2000a; Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie 

NF Ecology Program data files). New information for P. rainierensis since the 2004 FSEIS 

includes six detections from the RMS Survey in the NWFP area. The number of expected 

detections at the 95% confidence interval is 19,900 – 451-500, supporting previous 

information that this species has a moderate number of sites.

Under Alternatives 1 and 4, P. rainierensis would be included in Category A, which 

requires management of known sites, pre-disturbance surveys, and Strategic Surveys. 

Habitat (including known sites) is sufficient to provide for stable populations under 

Alternative 1 since known sites would be protected and pre-disturbance surveys would 

be completed. 

Under Alternative 3, P. rainierensis would be included in Category A, which requires 

management of known sites, pre-disturbance surveys in late-successional and oldgrowth habitat and Strategic Surveys. Management activities in non-late-successional 

and non-old-growth forest stands would be exempt from pre-disturbance surveys. 

Late-successional, old-growth legacy components in younger stands provide important 

refugia and propagule sources to re-colonize younger stands. Pseudocyphellaria 

rainierensis is a dispersal limited species (Rosso et al. 2000, Sillett et al. 2000, Sillett and 

Goward 1998) and the loss of populations in legacy components surrounded by younger 

stands could further restrict the establishment, distribution, and persistence of this poorly 

distributed species. Although some legacy components are retained based on Matrix 

Standards and Guidelines, these Standards and Guidelines may not be sufficient for 

this species because not all legacy components are immediately apparent. For example, 

some suppressed understory conifers can be very old, and can provide propagules of P. 

rainierensis and other old-growth lichens. In many cases, these suppressed understory 

trees are not protected because they do not appear to be old-growth components 

(USDA, USDI 2003c). The removal of these components greatly reduces the likelihood 

that refugial populations of P. rainierensis will remain across the landscape. The single 

most important action promoting the accumulation of old-growth associated epiphytic 

lichens is the retention of propagule sources, and maintaining an adequate local source of 

propagules is critical to the resilience of dispersal limited species in a managed forested 

landscape (Sillett et al. 2000). The removal of refugial populations in isolated legacy 

components of younger stands would lead to habitat (including known sites) insufficient 

to support stable populations in the NWFP area under Alternative 3.
231

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Under Alternative 2, P. rainierensis is removed from Survey and Manage. It is assumed to 

be included in the Forest Service Sensitive Species Program in Oregon and Washington. 

In areas of its range not included in the Agencies’ SSSPs, there is a high risk of loss of 

sites where not protected by reserves. Pseudocyphellaria rainierensis is a dispersal limited 

species (Rosso et al. 2000, Sillett et al. 2000, Sillett and Goward 1998) and loss of these 

sites could affect stability and distribution of populations and result in insufficient 

habitat as described for alternative 3. A combination of factors, including the potential 

loss of innoculum sources in younger stands across its entire range in the NWFP area and 

the lack of protection of known sites outside of Forest Service managed lands in Oregon 

and Washington would lead to habitat (including known sites) insufficient to support 

stable populations in the NWFP area under Alternative 2. Under Alternative 2 without 

SSSP on Forest Service managed lands in Oregon and Washington, there is insufficient 

habitat to support populations for the reasons already listed under Alternative 2. 

Pyrrhospora quernea

The 2000 FSEIS indicated that the coastal lichen Pyrrhospora quernea was known only 

from 11 sites in the NWFP area and that old-growth forest association was uncertain. 

A recent study has found this species at a frequency of 21 percent of the 129 randomly 

selected sites along the NWFP area coastline, with most sites occurring in Oregon. The 

Washington populations are mostly limited to state lands in the Puget Sound area 

(Glavich et al. 2005a). For the sites on federal land, this species was found significantly 

associated with reserve land allocations (Glavich et al. 2005a). This species was not found 

to be associated with stand age, and though it can occur in other coastal habitats, its 

primary habitat has been defined by Sitka spruce and shore pine-dominated coastal dune 

forests in a climate of moderate rainfall (100 to 150 days per year) (Glavich et al. 2005a, b).

Under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3, this species is removed from Survey and Manage and 

assumed to be in the Agencies’ SSSPs for Forest Service in Oregon and Washington. The 

majority of its populations occur in the dune forest region of Siuslaw National Forest 

in Oregon; therefore, under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 it is assumed that the Forest Service 

SSSP would manage these P. quernea populations. However, due to its narrow ecological 

amplitude, habitat (including known sites) is insufficient to support stable populations in 

the NWFP area under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 with or without SSSP. This outcome is not 

due to federal action. 

Under Alternative 4, this species would be included in Category E, which requires 

management of known sites and Strategic Surveys. For the reasons listed for Alternatives 

1, 2, and 3, habitat (including known sites) is insufficient to provide for stable 

populations for this species under Alternative 4. This outcome is not due to federal 

action. 

Ramalina pollinaria

The 2000 FSEIS indicated that the coastal lichen Ramalina pollinaria was known only 

from 9 sites in the NWFP area and that old-growth forest association was uncertain. 

The Coastal Lichen Study has found this species at a frequency of 9 percent of the 129 

randomly selected sites along the NWFP area coastline, with most sites occurring in 

California (Glavich et al. 2005a). Most of these sites are in State Parks, and the five sites 

on federal land in the study occurred in non-reserve land allocations. This species was 

not found to be associated with stand age, and the habitat was primarily defined by low 

elevation (< 116 meters) coastal forests with moderate rainfall (100 to 150 days per year) 

(Glavich et al. 2005a, b).

Under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3, this species is removed from Survey and Manage and 

is assumed to be in the Agencies’ SSSPs as Bureau Sensitive on BLM managed lands 

in Oregon and California, and Sensitive on Region 6 (Oregon and Washington) Forest 
232

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Service lands. Due to its narrow ecological amplitude, limited distribution, and few 

sites on federal land, habitat (including known sites) is insufficient to support stable 

populations in the NWFP area under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3, with or without SSSP. This 

outcome is not due to federal action. 

Under Alternative 4, this species would be included in Category E, which requires 

management of known sites and Strategic Surveys. For the reasons listed for Alternatives 

1, 2, and 3, habitat (including known sites) is insufficient to provide for stable 

populations for this species under Alternative 4. This outcome is not due to federal 

action. 

Ramalina thrausta

Information from the 2003 Annual Species Review found that 295 new sites for R. thrausta

had been reported since the previous ASR in 2002, including 15 detections from the RMS 

Survey, bringing the total number of sites known at that time to 327, one-third of which 

were in reserves (USDA, USDI Species Review Panel 2003). The indication was that this 

species is more common than previously known and is likely well represented within 

reserves. Since the 2003 ASR, 391 new federal sites have been reported.

Under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3, R. thrausta is removed from Survey and Manage and 

assumed not to be on the Agencies’ SSSPs. Because current information indicates that 

this species is relatively common and some portion of sites are likely to be represented 

within reserves where they are afforded some protection, habitat (including known sites) 

is sufficient to provide for stable populations across the NWFP area.

Under Alternative 4, R. thrausta would be included in Category A, which requires 

management of all sites, pre-disturbance surveys, and Strategic Surveys. Under this 

alternative habitat is sufficient to provide for stable populations for the reasons listed 

under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3.

Stenocybe clavata

Stenocybe clavata is a Pacific Northwest endemic where its distribution is unknown. It is 

still poorly known in the NWFP area (USDA, USDI 2000a:301). Habitat data are limited 

and it is uncertain if it is closely associated with late-successional or old-growth forests 

(USDA, USDI 2000a:301). New information for S. clavata since the 2004 FSEIS includes 

four detections from the RMS Survey and a report of three new sites from proposive 

surveys conducted in high probability habitats in western Oregon (Rikkenen 2003). 

Because the range of expected detections from the RMS Survey at the 95% confidence 

interval is 0 – 280,300, an inference of the species’ rarity cannot be made.

Under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4, S. clavata would be included in Category E, which requires 

management of known sites and Strategic Surveys. There is insufficient information 

about this species to determine how distribution and stability would be affected (USDA, 

USDI 2000a:303). There is insufficient information to determine an outcome under 

Alternatives 1, 3 or 4.

Under Alternative 2, S. clavata is assumed not to be included in the Agencies’ SSSPs. 

Known sites would not be managed and general inventories would not be required. 

There is insufficient information about this species to determine how the alternative 

would affect distribution and stability. There is insufficient information to determine an 

outcome under Alternative 2.
233

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Teloschistes flavicans

In the 2000 FSEIS, Teloschistes flavicans was considered rare in the NWFP area where there 

were a low number of known sites, and it was known for having a limited distribution 

and a narrow ecological amplitude (USDA, USDI 2000a:285). A recent study found that 

T. flavicans remains rare in the NWFP area, where this species was not detected in the 

random sample of the NWFP area coastline (Glavich et al. 2005a). Eleven sites were 

detected in this study by surveying known sites, potential habitat, and herbaria; five of 

these sites were in State Parks, including the only large Northwest Forest Plan population 

at Cape Lookout State Park, and five of the six sites on federal lands were in reserves.

Under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4, Teloschistes flavicans would be included in Category A, 

which requires management of known sites, pre-disturbance surveys, and Strategic 

Surveys. Under Alternative 3, management activities in non-late-successional and nonold-growth forest stands would be exempt from pre-disturbance surveys. This species 

would not maintain stable populations and/or distributions (USDA, USDI 2000a:286). 

Due to low number of known sites, low number of individuals, limited distribution, and 

narrow ecological amplitude, habitat (including known sites) is insufficient to provide 

for stable populations under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4. This outcome is not due to federal 

action.

Under Alternative 2, Teloschistes flavicans is assumed to be included in the Agencies’ SSSPs 

as Bureau Assessment on BLM managed lands in Oregon, as Sensitive on BLM managed 

lands in California, and as Sensitive on Forest Service managed lands in Oregon. Known 

sites would be managed and pre-project clearances would be conducted. General 

inventories may be conducted. This species would not maintain stable populations 

and/or distributions under Alternative 2 due to low number of known sites, low number 

of individuals, limited distribution, and narrow ecological amplitude. Habitat (including 

known sites) is insufficient to provide for stable populations under Alternative 2. The 

outcome is the same without SSSP. This outcome is not due to federal action. 

Tholurna dissimilis (South of the Columbia River)

Tholurna dissimilis is rare in Oregon where there are few known sites. It occurs on subalpine and alpine conifers. Potential habitat is limited in extent in this part of its range 

(USDA, USDI 2000a:276). It was removed from Survey and Manage in Washington 

in 2001 because it is more common there, its tree line habitat is not very likely to be 

disturbed, and many sites are in Congressional Reserves, New information about T. 

dissimilis since the 2004 FSEIS includes the discovery of a site in the upper canopy of a 

Douglas-fir tree at relatively low elevation. Previous habitat information only included 

windswept trees at higher elevations. Because there are still only a few known sites 

within the Oregon portion of its range, the parameters of the species’ habitat and 

distribution cannot yet be determined.

Under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4, T. dissimilis would be included in Category B in Oregon 

(it is unknown in California), which requires management of known sites and Strategic 

Surveys. There is insufficient information about this species to determine if distribution 

and stability would be affected (USDA, USDI 2000a:276). There is insufficient 

information to determine an outcome under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4.

Under Alternative 2, T. dissimilis is removed from Survey and Manage. It is assumed 

to be included as Bureau Assessment on BLM managed lands in Oregon and as Forest 

Service Sensitive in Washington and Oregon. Known sites would be managed and 

pre-project clearances would be conducted. Pre-project clearances on BLM managed 

lands are subject to limitations in funding and positions. General inventories may be 

conducted. There is insufficient information about this species to determine how the 

alternative would affect distribution and stability. There is insufficient information 
234

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

to determine an outcome under Alternative 2. Under Alternative 2 without SSSP on 

BLM managed lands and Forest Service managed lands in Oregon, there is insufficient 

information to determine an outcome for the reasons listed.

Usnea hesperina

Usnea hesperina is rare in the NWFP area, with low number of known sites, low numbers 

of individuals, limited distribution, and narrow ecological amplitude. New research 

confirms U. hesperina to be rare (found at 5 percent of 129 randomly selected sites) across 

the coastline of the NWFP area; it was primarily found along the Oregon and Washington 

coastline, but was most common in Washington (Glavich et al. 2005a). The 31 new sites 

reported since the 2004 FSEIS came primarily from field surveys conducted for the 

coastal lichen study and the Region 6 (Oregon and Washington) air quality program, 

and some came from the Olympic National Park herbarium (Geiser et al. 2004, Glavich 

et al. 2005a, GeoBob/ ISMS database). Nearly all of these new sites are located within 

the previously known geographic range for U. hesperina. This species was not found to 

be more or less associated with Congressional and Late-Successional Reserves, but there 

was suggestive evidence that it is associated with late-seral forests. The habitat for U. 

hesperina has recently been defined by wet (> 150 days of rain) western hemlock forest in 

the coastal fog belt (Glavich et al. 2005b).

Under Alternatives 1 and 3, Usnea hesperina would be included in Category E, which 

requires management of known sites and Strategic Surveys. Under Alternative 4, this 

species would be included in Category B, which requires management of known sites, 

equivalent-effort surveys until Strategic Surveys are completed, and Strategic Surveys. 

This species would not maintain stable populations and/or distributions (USDA, 

USDI 2000a:293). Due to low number of individuals, limited distribution, and narrow 

ecological amplitude, habitat (including known sites) is insufficient to provide for stable 

populations under Alternative 1, 3, and 4. This outcome is not due to federal action.

Under Alternative 2, Usnea hesperina is assumed not to be included in the Agencies’ 

SSSPs. Known sites would not be managed and general inventories are not required. 

This species would not maintain stable populations and/or distributions under 

Alternative 2 due to low number of individuals, limited distribution, and narrow 

ecological amplitudes. Habitat (including known sites) is insufficient to provide for 

stable populations under Alternative 2. This outcome is not due to federal action. 

Usnea longissima (entire range)

Usnea longissima in Oregon (except in Curry, Josephine, and Jackson Counties and in 

Washington) is uncommon. It can be locally abundant in all of its range. Although this 

species was once thought to be riparian, it is now known to occur on ridge tops (Keon 

and Muir 2002) and at other non-riparian sites. In California and in Oregon’s Curry, 

Josephine, and Jackson Counties, this species is rare and is apparently associated 

with old-growth. New information for Usnea longissima since the 2004 FSEIS includes 

11 detections from the RMS Survey within the Oregon Coast Range Province, and 2 

detections from the Oregon Cascades. From this new information, it can be inferred that 

U. longissima is not rare in the Coast Range Province. 

Under Alternative 1, 3, and 4, U. longissima would be included in Category A in California 

and in Oregon’s Curry, Josephine, and Jackson Counties which requires pre-disturbance 

surveys, management of known sites, and Strategic Surveys. Under Alternative 3 in 

this portion of the range, pre-disturbance surveys are limited to late-successional and 

old-growth habitat. This species would be included in Category F in Oregon outside 

of Curry, Josephine, and Jackson Counties, which requires Strategic Surveys. This 

species would maintain stable populations and/or distributions under Alternative 1 
235

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

(USDA, USDI 2000a:278). Due to pre-disturbance surveys and management of known 

sites in California and Oregon’s Curry, Josephine, and Jackson Counties, and due to 

high site numbers in the rest of Oregon, and Washington, habitat (including known 

sites) is sufficient to provide for stable populations throughout the NWFP area under 

Alternatives 1, 3, and 4.

Under Alternative 2, U. longissima is removed from Survey and Manage. It is assumed to 

be included in the Agencies’ SSSPs throughout its range except for the BLM in Oregon. 

Due to management of known sites and pre-project clearances, this species would 

maintain stable populations and/or distributions under Alternative 2. Habitat (including 

known sites) is sufficient to provide for stable populations under Alternative 2. Because 

there were no RMS Survey detections in the Category A portion of its range, where 

there are still a comparatively low number of known sites, an inference can be made 

that the species is rare there. Alternative 2 without SSSP for Forest Service managed 

lands in Curry, Josephine, and Jackson Counties, Oregon and BLM and Forest Service 

managed lands in California, could lead to a loss of sites and an outcome of insufficient 

habitat to support populations. Within the remainder of the species’ range in Oregon 

and Washington there is sufficient habitat to support stable populations without SSSP on 

Forest Service managed lands. Overall, for the scenario of Alternative 2 without SSSP, 

habitat (including known sites) is sufficient to support stable populations range-wide in 

the NWFP area, although there is insufficient habitat to support stable populations in a 

portion of the NWFP area.

Summary and Mitigation

Under all alternatives, for 17 of 49 lichen species, habitat (including known sites) is 

insufficient to support stable populations in the NWFP area. This outcome is not a result 

of federal actions.

Under all alternatives, for 20 of 49 lichen species, habitat (including known sites) is 

sufficient to support stable populations in the NWFP area. However, for three of these 

20 species (Dendriscocaulon intricatulum, Bryoria tortuosa, and Platismatia lacunosa) under 

alternatives where the species is removed from Survey and Manage, habitat (including 

known sites) is sufficient to support stable populations range-wide in the NWFP area, 

but is insufficient habitat to support stable populations in a portion of the NWFP area. 

Mitigation could include management of known sites not protected by reserves or the 

Agencies’ SSSPs. In addition, for Dendriscocaulon intricatulum mitigation could also 

include pre-project clearances. These mitigations would eliminate the adverse effects of 

Alternative 2 for Dendriscocaulon intricatulum and Platismatia lacunosa in portions of its 

range, and the adverse effects of Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 for Bryoria tortuosa in portions of 

its range. See Chapter 2 for a detailed description of mitigation.

Under all alternatives, 10 of 49 lichen species have insufficient information to determine 

an outcome.

Under Alternatives 1 and 4, two lichen species (Nephroma occultum and Pseudocyphellaria 

rainierensis) would have habitat (including known sites) sufficient to support stable 

populations, but under Alternatives 2 and 3, habitat (including known sites) is 

insufficient to support stable populations in the NWFP area. For Nephroma occultum,

mitigation of these effects under Alternatives 2 and 3 could include management of 

known sites not protected by reserves or the Agencies’ SSSPs, and pre-project clearances. 

For Pseudocyphellaria rainierensis, under Alternative 2, mitigation of these effects could 

include management of known sites and pre-project clearances where not protected 

by reserves or the Agencies’ SSSPs. For Pseudocyphellaria rainierensis under Alternative 

3, mitigation for this species could be to conduct pre-project clearances in all suitable 
236

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

habitat, not just late-successional and old-growth stands. These mitigations would 

eliminate the adverse effects of Alternatives 2 and 3 for these two species. See Chapter 2

for a detailed description of mitigation.

Vascular Plants

Affected Environment 

Vascular plants create the structure of the forest and function as the primary producers, 

capturing sunlight through photosynthesis and converting their energy to foods 

consumed by animals and fungi. They include seed-bearing plants (flowering plants and 

conifers) and spore-bearing forms such as ferns, horsetails, and club mosses. Ranging 

from dominant conifers to the delicate fern, vascular plants are defined as those that 

contain conducting or vascular tissue (USDA et al. 1993:IV-111).

In general, vascular plants provide substrate and habitat for other organisms, influence 

microclimate, and provide forage, hiding, and thermal cover for vertebrate and 

invertebrate species. They produce litter fall that contributes to organic matter and soil 

development (USDA et al. 1993:IV-111).

The habitat components important to vascular plants are those that generally increase 

amounts of late-successional, riparian, and old-growth habitat. The Northwest Forest 

Plan Final SEIS concluded that several alternatives, including Alternative 9, provided an 

intermediate level of the habitat conditions important to vascular plants (USDA, USDI 

1994a:3&4-155). 

Elements of the Northwest Forest Plan that are important to vascular plants include the 

system of reserves, introduction of prescribed fire, and retention of late-successional, oldgrowth, and riparian habitat components in the Matrix (retaining coarse woody debris, 

green trees, snags, and old-growth remnants where little remains) (USDA, USDI 1994a).

Field surveys, research, and monitoring have provided additional information on the 

abundance, distribution, and range for most of these species (USDA, USDI Species 

Review Panel 1999). 

Current taxonomic names are used in this section. Any differences between these and 

names in previous Northwest Forest Plan documents are displayed in Table 3&4-18.

Environmental Consequences

Under Alternatives 1 and 4, there would be 12 species of vascular plants included under 

the Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines. Alternative 1 would include six in all 

of their NWFP area range, and six in part of their NWFP area range. Alternative 4 would 

include eight in all of their NWFP area range and four in part of their NWFP area range.

Under Alternative 2, 10 species are assumed to be included in one or more of the 

Agencies’ Special Status Species Programs (SSSPs).

Under Alternative 3, there would be eight species included under the Survey and 

Manage Standards and Guidelines, all in Category A. Management activities in non-latesuccessional and non-old-growth forest stands would be exempt from pre-disturbance 

surveys for these eight species. Late-successional and old-growth legacy components 

in younger stands provide important refugia and propagule sources to re-colonize 

younger stands. While surveys in these legacy components in younger stands would 
237

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

not be completed for these eight species, existing Northwest Forest Plan Standards and 

Guidelines for Matrix (USDA, USDI 1994b:C-39 through C-48) provide for retention 

of legacy components. Under Alternative 3, two species would also be included in the 

Agencies’ SSSPs. 

Under all alternatives, vascular plants would receive protection under the network of 

reserves. 

Arceuthobium tsugense ssp. Mertensianae (Washington)

A majority of sites occur in reserve land allocations (USDA, USDI 2000a:318). 

Additionally, retention of old-growth fragments in the Matrix where little exists provides 

benefit to this species (USDA, USDI 1994a:3&4-156). The species is also present in 

Oregon and California in the NWFP area.

Under Alternatives 1 and 4, this species would be included in Category F in Washington, 

which requires Strategic Surveys. Since a majority of known sites would be protected 

under reserve land allocations, Alternatives 1 and 4 would provide sufficient habitat 

to allow the species to stabilize in a pattern similar to its reference distribution (USDA, 

USDI 2000a:318). Habitat (including known sites) is sufficient to provide for stable 

populations of this species under Alternatives 1 and 4. 

Under Alternatives 2 and 3, A. tsugense ssp. mertensianae is removed from Survey and 

Manage. It is assumed not to be included in the Agencies’ SSSPs. Since a majority of 

known sites would be protected under reserve land allocations, habitat (including known 

sites) is sufficient to provide for stable populations of this species under Alternatives 2 

and 3. 

Bensoniella oregana (California)

This species has a restricted range and small populations in California. It is more 

common in Oregon. It does not occur in Washington. Cumulative effects of actions on 

nonfederal lands are impacting this species. Harvest, grazing, fire suppression, and 

road construction have impacted sites. This species has potential habitat in reserve land 

allocations (USDA, USDI 2000a:317). 

Under Alternatives 1, 3 and 4, this species would be included in Category A in the 

California portion of its range. In this portion of its range, management of known sites, 

pre-disturbance surveys, and Strategic Surveys would be required. Under Alternative 

3, management activities in non-late-successional and non-old-growth forest stands 

would be exempt from pre-disturbance surveys. The management efforts identified 

for this species would provide sufficient habitat (including known sites) to allow it 

to stabilize in a pattern similar to its reference distribution (USDA, USDI 2000a:317). 

Due to management of known sites, pre-disturbance surveys, and potential habitat in 

reserve land allocations, habitat (including known sites) is sufficient to provide for stable 

populations of this species under Alternatives 1, 3 and 4.

Under Alternative 2, this species is assumed to be included in the SSSPs for the Forest 

Service in Oregon and California and for the BLM in Oregon. Since habitat is known to 

occur in reserve land allocations and this species is included in the Agencies’ SSSPs where 

known sites are managed and pre-project clearances are completed, habitat (including 

known sites) is sufficient to provide for stable populations of this species under 

Alternative 2. Because the California portion of the species’ range is represented by 

only two known sites that are separated by 110 miles from the more numerous Oregon 

populations, habitat would be insufficient to provide for stable populations under 

Alternative 2 without SSSP on BLM and Forest Service managed lands in California. 
238

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Botrychium minganense (Oregon and California) and Botrychium montanum

Botrychium minganense is one of the most widespread moonworts in North America. 

In the NWFP area, it is known from Washington, Oregon, and California. Botrychium 

minganense is less common in Oregon and California where it is known from less than 20 

sites. Botrychium minganense no longer meets one of the The Basic Criteria for Survey and 

Manage in Washington because of the number of sites found in reserve land allocations 

(USDA, USDI 1998; USDA, USDI Species Review Panel 1999). Botrychium montanum is 

found in western North America. Most of the known occurrences have been reported 

from Oregon, Montana, and Washington. New information for these species includes 

the report of two new sites for Botrychium minganense and 39 new sites for Botrychium 

montanum.

Under Alternatives 1, 3 and 4, these species would be included in Category A, which 

requires management of known sites, pre-disturbance surveys, and Strategic Surveys. 

Under Alternative 3, management activities in non-late-successional and non-old-growth 

forest stands would be exempt from pre-disturbance surveys; however, potential habitat 

is known to occur in reserve land allocations that would not be typically subject to 

pre-disturbance surveys (USDA, USDI 2000a:317). Management efforts would provide 

sufficient habitat to allow these species to stabilize in a pattern similar to reference 

distribution (USDA, USDI 2000a:317). Habitat (including known sites) is sufficient to 

provide for stable populations of these species under Alternatives 1, 3 and 4. 

Under Alternative 2, Botrychium minganense is removed from Survey and Manage and is 

assumed to be included in the Sensitive Species Program for the Forest Service in Oregon 

and California. Botrychium montanum is removed from Survey and Manage and is 

assumed to be included in the SSSPs for the Forest Service in Oregon and California and 

the BLM in Oregon. Since habitat is known to occur in reserve land allocations and these 

species are included in the Agencies’ SSSPs where they receive management of known 

sites and pre-project clearances, habitat (including known sites) is sufficient to provide 

for stable populations of these species under Alternative 2. Because of the low number of 

known sites for Botrychium minganens, 60 percent of which are in the Matrix, there would 

be insufficient habitat to support stable populations under the scenario of Alternative 

2 without SSSP on Forest Service managed lands in Oregon and California. Because 68 

percent of Botrychium montanum known sites are within reserve allocations, there would 

be sufficient habitat to support stable populations under the scenario of Alternative 

2 without SSSP on Forest Service managed lands in Oregon and California and BLM 

managed lands in Oregon.

Coptis asplenifolia and Coptis trifolia

Coptis asplenifolia reaches the southern extent of its range in northern Washington west of 

the Cascades. Coptis trifolia occurs from Greenland across North America to Alaska. It 

also occurs in northeast Asia to northern Japan. There are two disjunct populations in the 

western United States, in Washington and Oregon. New information for these species 

includes one new site reported for Coptis trifolia and five new sites for Coptis asplenifolia.

Under Alternatives 1, 3 and 4, these species would be included in Category A, which 

requires management of known sites, pre-disturbance surveys, and Strategic Surveys. 

Under Alternative 3, management activities in non-late-successional and non-old-growth 

forest stands would be exempt from pre-disturbance surveys; however, these species 

are known to have potential habitat in reserve land allocations that would not typically 

be subject to pre-disturbance surveys (USDA, USDI 1998; USDA, USDI Species Review 

Panel 1999). Management of known sites, pre-disturbance surveys, Strategic Surveys, 

and reserves would provide sufficient habitat to allow these species to stabilize in a 

pattern similar to reference distribution under Alternative 1 (USDA, USDI 2000a:317). 
239

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Habitat (including known sites) is sufficient to provide for stable populations of these 

species under Alternatives 1, 3 and 4. 

Under Alternative 2, C. asplenifolia is removed from Survey and Manage. It is assumed 

to be included in the Sensitive Species Program for the Forest Service in Washington. C. 

trifolia is removed from Survey and Manage and is assumed to be included in the SSSPs 

for the Forest Service in Oregon and the BLM in Oregon. Since habitat is known to occur 

in reserve land allocations and these species are included in the Agencies’ SSSPs where 

they receive management of known sites and pre-project clearances, habitat (including 

known sites) is sufficient to provide for stable populations of these species under 

Alternative 2. Known sites for C. asplenifolia all occur within reserve land use allocations, 

where they are afforded some protection. Under the scenario of Alternative 2 without 

SSSP on Forest Service managed lands in Washington, there would be sufficient habitat 

to provide for stable populations of Coptis asplenifolia. 

Coptis trifolia is only known from three sites on federal land within the NWFP area. 

Without active management, there may be a loss of one or more sites. Under Alternative 

2 without SSSP on Forest Service managed lands in Oregon and Washington and BLM 

managed lands in Oregon, there would be insufficient habitat to provide for stable 

populations.

Corydalis aquae-gelidae

This species is restricted to the western Cascades of Skamania and Clark Counties in 

Washington, and Clackamas, Lane, Linn, Marion, and Multnomah Counties in Oregon. 

Almost all known occurrences are on National Forest System lands and within Riparian 

Reserves. New information for Corydalis aquae-gelidae includes an updated Conservation 

Assessment (USDA, USDI 2005c), further characterization of habitat requirements for the 

species (McShane 2003), a monitoring plan for a hydroelectric project area (PGE 2006), 

and the location of 26 new sites. Because a high percentage of the newly reported sites 

occur within proximity to areas that were known to have C. aquae-gelidae populations 

(Scott 2006 pers. comm., Ruchty 2006 pers. comm.), the new sites are considered to be 

part of existing populations. An investigation to further define the habitat requirements 

of this species determined that C. aquae-gelidae in the Clackamas River drainage in Oregon 

occurs on stream reaches that have a mean gradient of 3-4 percent, and are downstream 

of structures or land features that either moderated flows or diverted flows away from 

plants (McShane 2003). Recognition of these narrow habitat requirements may help to 

explain why the species has a patchy distribution pattern. 

Under Alternatives 1 and 3, this species would be included in Category A, which requires 

management of known sites, pre-disturbance surveys, and Strategic Surveys. The 

2000 FSEIS found, for an equivalent alternative, management of known sites and predisturbance surveys would provide sufficient habitat to allow this species to stabilize in a 

pattern similar to its reference distribution (USDA, USDI 2000a:318). Habitat (including 

known sites) is sufficient to provide for stable populations of this species under 

Alternatives 1 and 3.

Under Alternatives 2, C. aquae-gelidae is removed from Survey and Manage. It is assumed 

to be included in the SSSPs for the Forest Service and BLM in Oregon and Washington. 

Known sites would be managed and pre-project clearances would be completed. Habitat 

(including known sites) is sufficient to provide for stable populations of this species 

under Alternative 2. Because the largest concentrations of C. aquae-gelidae in Oregon 

occur within river reaches used by two hydroelectric projects, they are potentially 

vulnerable to inundation and dewatering. Fish habitat improvement and thinning 

projects also have the potential to adversely impact sites throughout the species’ range. 
240

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

For these reasons, Alternative 2 without SSSP on BLM and Forest Service managed 

lands in Oregon and Washington would result in habitat insufficient to support stable 

populations. 

Under Alternative 4, C. aquae-gelidae would be in Category C, which requires the 

management of high-priority sites and pre-disturbance surveys. Habitat is sufficient to 

support stable populations for the reasons listed under Alternative 1.

Cypripedium fasciculatum (Excluding the Washington Eastern Cascades)

This species is known from Washington, Oregon, and California. This species has small 

and scattered populations that are declining. Effects of habitat fragmentation, trampling, 

collection for horticultural purposes, and lack of fire have reduced populations and 

habitat (USDA, USDI 1994a:J2-275). New information for Cypripedium fasciculatum since 

the 2004 FSEIS includes the addition of 374 sites on federal lands within the NWFP area.

Under Alternatives 1 and 4, this species would be included in Category C, which requires 

management of high-priority sites, pre-disturbance surveys, and Strategic Surveys. Since 

this species receives management of known sites and pre-disturbance surveys, habitat 

(including known sites) is sufficient to provide for stable populations of this species 

under Alternatives 1 and 4.

Under Alternatives 2 and 3, C. fasciculatum is removed from Survey and Manage. It is 

assumed to be included in the SSSPs for the BLM and Forest Service in Washington, 

Oregon, and California. Since this species is included in the Agencies’ SSSPs where 

it receives management of known sites and pre-project clearances, habitat (including 

known sites) is sufficient to support stable populations in the NWFP area under 

Alternatives 2 and 3. Despite the large number of new sites reported, the total number 

of plant stems these sites represent is disproportionately low. Seventy-two percent of all 

known sites in the NWFP area have fewer than 10 stems per site and essentially all (96 

percent) have fewer than 50 stems per site (USDA, USDI 2005a). In addition, 84 percent 

of known sites occur within the Matrix, where management activities that result in the 

reduction of canopy cover or disturb the soil and duff layer could result in the decline the 

site. Under Alternatives 2 and 3 without SSSP on BLM and Forest Service managed lands 

in California, Oregon, and Washington, there would be insufficient habitat to support 

stable populations throughout the NWFP area. 

 

Cypripedium fasciculatum (Washington Eastern Cascades)

Information from the 2002 Annual Species Review indicates that C. fasciculatum is not 

closely associated with late-successional and old-growth habitat within this portion of 

its range (USDA, USDI 2003a). It was also acknowledged that concerns for the species’ 

persistence exist for the 147 then-known sites because of the low to moderate number of 

individuals at most sites, poor distribution, and a low number of sites within reserves 

(USDA, USDI Species Review Panel 2002). Since the 2002 ASR, new information includes 

33 additional sites reported. 

Under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3, C, fasciculatum is removed from Survey and Manage. It 

is assumed to be a Forest Service Sensitive Species on Forest Service managed lands. 

Known sites would be managed and pre-project clearances would be conducted. Because 

of site management and pre-project clearances, habitat is sufficient to provide for stable 

populations under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3. Under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 without SSSP 

on Forest Service managed lands, habitat is insufficient to provide for stable populations 

because only 14 percent of sites are within reserves, sites are not well distributed, and 

there tends to be a low number of individuals per known site.
241

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Under Alternative 4, C. fasciculatum would be included in Category C, which requires 

management of high-priority sites and pre-disturbance surveys. Under this alternative, 

habitat is sufficient to provide for stable populations because of known site management 

and pre-disturbance surveys.

Cypripedium montanum (Excluding the Washington Eastern Cascades Province) 

This species is known from Washington, Oregon, and California. It has small and 

scattered populations that are declining. Effects of logging, collection for horticultural 

use, loss of habitat on private land, and lack of fire have reduced populations and habitat 

(USDA, USDI 1994a:J2-281). New information for Cypripedium montanum since the 2004 

FSEIS includes the addition of 255 known sites on federal lands within the NWFP area.

Under Alternative 1 and 4, this species would be included in Category C, which requires 

management of high-priority sites, pre-disturbance surveys, and Strategic Surveys except 

in the Washington Eastern Cascades. Applying the Survey and Manage Standards and 

Guidelines to the entire range of C. montanum within the NWFP area would improve the 

chance for it to stabilize in a pattern similar to its reference distribution (USDA, USDI 

2000a:319). Habitat (including known sites) is sufficient to provide for stable populations 

of this species under Alternative 1.

Under Alternatives 2 and 3, C. montanum is removed from Survey and Manage. It is 

assumed to be included in the SSSPs for the BLM and the Forest Service in California. It 

is assumed not to be included in the SSSPs for the BLM or Forest Service in Washington 

and Oregon where pre-disturbance inventory or site protection would not occur. Longterm monitoring of C. montanum in southwest Oregon looked at populations in clearcut, 

shelterwood and unmanaged forest sites comparing population trend, reproduction, 

dormancy and plant growth. C. montanum abundance, size and reproduction varied 

substantially from year to year but over the 15 year study, the clearcut site performed 

the worst, the shelterwood site the best, and sites in unmanaged forest intermediate in 

performance. The clearcut population lost over 85 percent of its stems between 1985 

and 1998, had relatively short stems and few flowers after the first seven years of the 

study, and went from more than 60 percent of stems flowering in 1985, to less than 30 

percent by 1998. This population also had dramatically lower overall fruit-set than 

the other populations, with 10 percent of the flowers forming fruits compared to 30-50 

percent at the other sites. Incongruities between the clearcut population and the others 

could reflect differences in habitat not associated with timber harvest, or they could be 

explained by the competitive pressure exerted on C. montanum plants by re-colonizing 

trees and shrubs (Kaye 1999). The majority of occurrences (75 percent) for C. montanum

are in Oregon and Washington where sites would not be SSSP and, therefore, not 

managed. Populations of C. montanum tend to be small and scattered, which makes them 

vulnerable to extirpation (USDA, USDI 1998). The loss of small, isolated populations due 

to activities such as timber harvest, road and trail construction, soil and litter disturbance, 

and a decrease of canopy closure to less than 60 percent have been identified as threats 

to this species (USDA, USDI 1994a; USDA, USDI 1998). The more fragmentation within 

the range of a species, the more likely it is to be adversely affected. Seventy-eight percent 

of C. montanum sites occur in Matrix (GeoBOB/ISMS database) within this portion of 

the range. Matrix Standards and Guidelines, such as 15 percent green tree retention, 

would not provide 60 percent or greater canopy cover in areas where habitat-disturbing 

activities occur. There could be negative impacts to these small populations from loss of 

canopy cover and changes in interior habitat conditions and microclimate (USDA, USDI 

1998). Because of the potential loss of small sites due to management activities, and the 

small proportion of sites in reserves, habitat (including known sites) is insufficient to 

support stable populations for C. montanum on Forest Service and BLM managed lands 

in Oregon. Under Alternatives 2 and 3, since this species is included in the Agencies’ 

SSSPs in California where it receives management of known sites and pre-project 

clearances, habitat (including known sites) is sufficient to support stable populations 
242

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

range-wide in the NWFP area. Under Alternatives 2 and 3 without SSSP on BLM and 

Forest Service managed lands in California, there would be insufficient habitat to support 

stable populations throughout this portion of the species’ range the reasons listed under 

Alternatives 2 and 3, and because long-term monitoring of sites in northern California 

has indicated declining population trends (USDA 2005a).

Cypripedium montanum (Washington Eastern Cascades)

Information from the 2001 Annual Species Review indicates that C. montanum is not 

closely associated with late-successional and old-growth habitat within this portion of its 

range. At that time, the species was known from 274 sites (USDA, USDI Species Review 

Panel 2001). Since the 2001 ASR, 21 additional sites have been reported. 

Under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3, C. montanum is removed from Survey and Manage. It is 

not assumed to be in a SSSP for the BLM or Forest Service and known sites would not be 

managed. Populations of C. montanum tend to be small and scattered, which makes them 

vulnerable to extirpation (USDA, USDI 1998). The loss of small, isolated populations due 

to activities such as timber harvest, road and trail construction, soil and litter disturbance, 

and a decrease of canopy closure to less than 60 percent have been identified as threats to 

the species (USDA, USDI 1994a; USDA, USDI 1998). Because 88 percent of known sites 

within this portion of the range occur within the Matrix (GeoBOB/ISMS database) where 

management activities may result in the loss of sites, habitat is insufficient to provide 

for stable populations under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3. Possible mitigation includes 

management of high-priority sites and pre-disturbance surveys in likely habitat.

Under Alternative 4, C. montanum would be included in Category C, which requires 

management of high-priority sites and pre-disturbance surveys. Under this alternative, 

habitat is sufficient to provide for stable populations because of known site management 

and pre-disturbance surveys.

Eucephalus vialis

This species is known from Oregon and California. There is currently a single known 

site in California which is protected on National Forest System lands. This species has 

potential habitat in reserve land allocations (USDA, USDI 2000a:317). New information 

since the 2004 FSEIS includes the report of 79 new known sites and the update of a 

Conservation Assessment (USDA, USDI 2005b). 

Under Alternatives 1, 3 and 4, this species would be included in Category A, which 

requires management of known sites, pre-disturbance surveys, and Strategic Surveys. 

Under Alternative 3, management activities in non-late-successional and non-old-growth 

forest stands would be exempt from pre-disturbance surveys. Management identified 

would allow E. vialis to stabilize. Due to management of known sites, pre-disturbance 

surveys, and potential habitat in reserve land allocations, habitat (including known sites) 

is sufficient to provide for stable populations of this species under Alternatives 1, 3 and 4.

Under Alternative 2, E. vialis is assumed to be included in the SSSPs for the BLM and 

the Forest Service in Oregon. Management efforts under Alternative 2 would allow 

Eucephalus vialis to stabilize in a pattern different from its reference distribution. Due to 

management of known sites, pre-project clearances, and potential habitat in reserve land 

allocations, habitat (including known sites) is sufficient to provide for stable populations 

of this species under Alternative 2. Potential threats for this species include habitat 

fragmentation and inbreeding depression, road construction and maintenance, offhighway vehicle use, plantation development where young stands approach 100 percent 

canopy closure, and fire suppression (USDA, USDI 2005b). Invasive plant competition 

is also seen as a threat to known sites (Sawtelle, N. pers. comm.). Preliminary genetics 
243

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

work indicates that populations may be susceptible to the loss of genes, or random 

genetic drift, because of fragmented habitat and because the species is an obligate outcrosser. Subsequent generations of crossing among low numbers of related breeding 

individuals could result in breeding depression (USDA, USDI 2005b). Because of these 

concerns, and because only 3 percent of known sites are within reserve land allocations, 

there would be insufficient habitat to support stable populations under Alternative 2 

without SSSP on BLM and Forest Service managed lands in Oregon. 

Galium kamtschaticum (Olympic Peninsula, Washington Eastern Cascades, Oregon 

and Washington Western Cascades physiographic provinces, south of Snoqualmie 

Pass)

The current known range of this species within the NWFP area is limited to the Olympic 

and Cascades Mountains north of Snoqualmie Pass in the State of Washington (USDA, 

USDI 2000a:317). It is not a concern in the WA Western Cascades Physiographic 

Province of the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest because a high number of healthy 

populations occur in reserves spanning an array of geographic locations and habitats 

(USDA, USDI 1998; USDA, USDI Species Review Panel 1999), and it was removed from 

Survey and Manage in the Washington Western Cascades physiographic provinces, 

north of Snoqualmie Pass, in the 2001 Survey and Manage Record of Decision. New 

information for Galium kamtschaticum since the 2004 FSEIS includes the report of four new 

sites on federal land and the update of a Conservation Assessment (USDA, USDI 2004c).

Under Alternatives 1, 3 and 4, this species would be included in Category A, which 

requires management of known sites, pre-disturbance surveys, and Strategic Surveys. 

Under Alternative 3, management activities in non-late-successional and non-old-growth 

forest stands would be exempt from pre-disturbance surveys. Management efforts 

would provide sufficient habitat to allow this species to stabilize in a pattern similar to 

its reference distribution (USDA, USDI 2000a:317). Because virtually all known sites and 

much of the habitat in this area is in reserves, there would be habitat (including known 

sites) sufficient to provide for stable populations of this species under Alternatives 1, 3 

and 4. 

Under Alternative 2, G. kamtschaticum is removed from Survey and Manage. It is 

assumed to be included in the Sensitive Species Program for the Forest Service in 

Oregon and Washington. Due to management of known sites, pre-project clearances, 

and potential habitat in reserve land allocations, habitat (including known sites) is 

sufficient to provide for stable populations of this species under Alternative 2. The major 

threat identified for G. kamtschaticum is a change in hydrology caused by management 

activities. The majority of known sites are located within reserve allocations where they 

are afforded some protection from this threat. Within the Washington Western Cascades 

province (including the area off of Survey and Manage, north of Snoqualmie Pass), 91 

percent of the 77 known sites from Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest are within 

reserves. For the Olympic Peninsula province, where there is a greater concern for 

species persistence because of lower sites numbers, all 8 sites from the Olympic National 

Forest are located in reserves (USDA, USDI 2004c). Because a large proportion of known 

sites occur within reserves where they are likely protected from identified threats, habitat 

is sufficient to support stable populations under Alternative 2 without SSSP on Forest 

Service managed lands in Washington.

Platanthera orbiculata var. orbiculata

This species occurs throughout Canada, south to South Carolina and Tennessee in the 

east and Oregon to Wyoming in the west. There is a moderate to high likelihood of 

sites occurring in reserves (USDA, USDI 1998; USDA, USDI Species Review Panel 1999). 

Additionally, retention of old-growth fragments in the Matrix where little remains 
244

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

provides benefit to this species (USDA, USDI 1994a:3&4-156). New information for P. 

orbiculata var. orbiculata since the 2004 FSEIS includes the report of 68 new sites on federal 

lands.

Under Alternatives 1 and 4, this species would be included in Category C, which requires 

management of high-priority sites, pre-disturbance surveys, and Strategic Surveys. 

Alternatives 1 and 4 would provide sufficient habitat to allow this species to stabilize in 

a pattern similar to its reference distribution (USDA, USDI 2000a:318). Since habitat is 

known to occur in reserve land allocations, habitat (including known sites) is sufficient to 

provide for stable populations of this species under Alternatives 1 and 4. 

Under Alternatives 2 and 3, P. orbiculata var. orbiculata is removed from Survey and 

Manage. It would not be included in the Agencies’ SSSPs. Habitat (including known 

sites) is sufficient to provide for stable populations of this species under Alternatives 2 

and 3 for the reason stated for alternatives 1 and 4.

Summary and Mitigation

Under all alternatives, habitat (including known sites) is sufficient to provide for stable 

populations for 12 species. However, for one of these species (Cypripedium montanum), 

habitat (including known sites) is sufficient to support stable populations range-wide in 

the NWFP area, but there is insufficient habitat to support stable populations in a portion 

of the NWFP area under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3. Mitigation could include management 

of known sites not protected by reserves or the Agencies’ SSSPs. In addition, mitigation 

could include pre-project clearances. These mitigations would eliminate the adverse 

effects of Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 for this species in a portion of its range. See Chapter 2

for a detailed description of mitigation.

Arthropods

Affected Environment

Arthropods, invertebrates with jointed legs, a segmented body, and an exoskeleton, 

constitute more than 85 percent of the biodiversity in late-successional forests (Asquith et 

al. 1990) and play a vital role in ecosystem processes (Wilson 1987). They include insects, 

mites, crustaceans, spiders, and myriapods. Four functional groups of arthropods (out 

of 15 functional groups considered by FEMAT) were included in the Survey and Manage 

Standards and Guidelines because there was not sufficient information to determine 

necessary levels of protection for them. They are: (1) litter and soil dwellers; (2) coarse 

woody debris chewers; (3) understory and forest gap herbivores; and, (4) canopy 

herbivores, all south range. Some species of arthropods are included in the Agencies’ 

Special Status Species Programs. For example, the Mardon Skipper Butterfly is listed as 

Sensitive by the Forest Service in Region 6 (Oregon and Washington).

Arthropods inhabit virtually every part of the coniferous forest ecosystem, including 

coarse woody debris, litter and soil layers, understory vegetation, canopy foliage, tree 

trunks, snags, and the aquatic system. The litter and soil of the forest floor is the site of 

some of the greatest biological diversity found anywhere (USDA et al. 1993:IV-137). The 

structure and function of temperate forest soils are largely determined by the feeding 

habits of soil arthropods. They are the basic consumers of the forest floor where they 

ingest and process massive quantities of organic litter and debris, from large logs to 

bits of moss (Lattin and Moldenke 1992). While the richness of arthropod species in 

late-successional and old-growth forests suggests a great number of different processes 

and functions, relatively little is known about how arthropods interact, survive, and 
245

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

contribute to ecosystem function (USDA et al. 1993:IV-137). It has been estimated that 

there are between 20,000 and 25,000 described species of arthropods within the NWFP 

area, and as many or more not yet described (USDA, USDI 2000a).

For the FEMAT analysis, arthropod species were aggregated into functional groups 

because it is not possible to monitor all arthropods as individual species. For Alternative 

9 of the Northwest Forest Plan Final SEIS, ratings for the four arthropod functional 

groups showed an 80 percent or greater likelihood of achieving outcomes A and/or B: 

providing habitat of sufficient quality, distribution, and abundance to support stable 

populations either well distributed when measured against their historic range or 

distributed with gaps in their historic distribution on federally managed lands. Risk of 

extirpation varied between 2 and 6 percent for the four functional groups (USDA, USDI 

1994a:3&4-161). The four groups were divided into northern and southern ranges. Only 

the southern portions of their ranges were subject to additional analysis for inclusion 

in Survey and Manage (USDA, USDI 1994a:3&4-160). While there is a low risk that an 

entire functional group, encompassing thousands of species, would face extirpation, 

individual species are at greater risk. 

There is concern regarding the persistence of arthropods for several reasons. First, many 

of the species are flightless, so their dispersal capabilities are limited. Second, their 

flightless condition is believed to reflect habitat stability and permanence; therefore, they 

are Sensitive to habitat disturbance. Third, many of the old-growth forest associated 

species have disjunct distributions and are endemic to undisturbed conifer forests of the 

Pacific Northwest. Fourth, arthropods are key to ecosystem function and may serve as 

indicators of ecosystem health. Last, many of the species native to this region have not 

been described or named and the number of known species probably represents fewer 

than half the species estimated to exist (Lattin and Moldenke 1992). In a recent survey, 

10 percent of the beetle species found were new to science (O’Keefe and Rappaport, 

unpublished). 

New research has shown that fire can reduce soil arthropod biodiversity (particularly 

the forest floor arthropods: soil/litter dwellers) more than expected (Rappaport et al. in 

press and Camann et al. in press). In these two studies in the southern Cascade Range, 

soil arthropod species richness and diversity continued to decline for 2 years following 

fire, but late-successional stand characteristics mitigated the negative effects of fire. Even 

2 years after the fire, there was no consistent sign of recovery of soil arthropods. This 

new information raises questions about the persistence of soil arthropods when subjected 

to fire, particularly high-intensity wildfire. Management that reduces fuel loads to 

minimize high-intensity wildfires will likely increase the probability of persistence of soil 

arthropods. 

Environmental Consequences 

Under Alternatives 1 and 4, the four arthropod functional groups would be included in 

the Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines in Category F, which requires Strategic 

Surveys. 

Under Alternatives 2 and 3, the four arthropod functional groups are assumed not 

to be included in the Agencies’ Special Status Species Programs; however, individual 

arthropods, like species in any other taxonomic grouping, might qualify for the Special 

Status Species Programs. Under Alternatives 2 and 3, Strategic Surveys for arthropods 

would no longer be conducted. 

New information gathered since 1994 does not substantially alter the basic assumptions 

or conclusions of the Northwest Forest Plan Final SEIS that expressed a concern that their 

ecological functions may not persist in the south range. However, there continues to be 
246

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

insufficient information upon which to determine an outcome for these four functional 

groups (USDA, USDI 2000a:321). 

In summary, new information gathered since 1994 increases concern about the effect 

of fire on two arthropod functional groups (soil/litter dwellers). However, there 

is insufficient information to determine an outcome in the NWFP area for the four 

arthropod functional groups under all alternatives. 

The determination of whether habitat (including known sites) is sufficient to support 

stable populations which was made for other taxa in this analysis, is not applicable here 

because it is not practical to make those determinations for entire functional groups 

which consist of thousands of individual species. 

Mollusks

Affected Environment

Mollusk species that inhabit Northwest forests include land snails, slugs, aquatic snails, 

and bivalves. Many mollusks have restricted geographic ranges and narrow ecological 

requirements. All 44 of the mollusk species below are either endemic to the NWFP area 

or have ranges that lie mostly within the NWFP area 

Several different factors contribute to rarity and concerns for persistence in these animals. 

Some of the species are confined to very narrow ranges in which subpopulations appear 

relatively well-connected demographically and genetically. However, habitat sufficiency 

is a serious concern due to habitat alteration or catastrophic events. Other species are 

found widely scattered over a large range, so range-wide habitat concerns are low, but 

likelihood of loss of some populations, connectivity among populations, and normal 

biological function is high. 

Several factors make prediction of occupation rates of suitable habitat difficult. While 

the understanding of suitable habitat has improved since 1994 (although some of these 

species have never been the subject of even basic studies), habitat definitions remain 

general. Habitat suitability for many species appears to depend on microsite conditions 

that are difficult or impossible to map. Because of the extremely limited dispersal ability 

of these animals and their sensitivity to environmental conditions like temperature and 

humidity, recolonization of unoccupied habitat is extremely slow, and historical factors 

leave their signature in current distributions. Suitable habitat may remain unoccupied 

for indefinite periods of time. As a result, the analysis of occupation of different land 

allocations, association with habitat types, and extent or pattern of distribution relies on 

data from known sites more than on predictive approaches

Current taxonomic names are used in this section. Any differences between these and 

names in previous Northwest Forest Plan documents are displayed in Table 3&4-18.

Additional information regarding the affected environment for mollusks is found in the 

2000 Final SEIS, the Northwest Forest Plan Final SEIS, and the FEMAT Report.

Environmental Consequences 

Under Alternative 1, 36 of the 44 mollusk species included in this analysis would be 

included in Survey and Manage; 34 in all of their NWFP area range, and two in part 

of their NWFP area range. Alternative 1 includes Strategic Surveys for all 36 species. 

Thirty-four species have management of all known sites and the remaining 2 would 
247

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

have management of high-priority sites. Twenty-nine species (28 in category A, and 

one in category C) would receive pre-disturbance surveys. There would be five species 

included in one or more of the Agencies’ Special Status Species Programs (SSSP) 

including one in the part of its range not included in Survey and Manage. The remaining 

four species would not be included Survey and Manage or SSSP (see Table 2-13). 

Under Alternative 2, thirty mollusk species would be included in one or more of the 

Agencies’ SSSPs in all or part or their range. The remaining 14 species would not be 

included in either the Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines or SSSP (see Table 

2-13).

Under Alternative 3, there would be 34 mollusk species included in the Survey and 

Manage Standards and Guidelines; 33 in all of their NWFP area range and 1 in part of 

its NWFP area range (Categories A, B, and E), and seven included in one or more of the 

Agencies’ SSSP. Management activities in non-late-successional and non-old-growth 

forest stands would be exempt from pre-disturbance surveys for the three species 

included in Category A. The remaining species would not be protected by the Survey 

and Manage Standards and Guidelines or by SSSP (see Table 2-13). 

Under Alternative 4, all of the 44 mollusk species discussed would be included in the 

Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines (Categories A, B, C, E, and F). Alternative 

4 includes Strategic Surveys for all species, management of all known sites for the 41 

species in Categories A, B, and E, management of high-priority sites for the 2 species in 

Category C, and pre-disturbance surveys for the 32 species included in Category A (see 

Table 2-13).

Under Alternatives 1 and 4, the outcome for these 44 mollusk species would be habitat 

sufficient to allow the species to stabilize in a pattern either similar to reference 

distribution or altered from reference distribution with some limitations on biological 

function and species interactions (USDA, USDI 2000a:173 and 191; USDA, USDI 

2001a:14). Table outcomes (in Chapter 2) display the category assignments for each of the 

44 mollusk species analyzed here.

Analyses relevant to Alternative 2 include the FEMAT report, which judged Option 

9, and the Northwest Forest Plan Final SEIS, which judged Alternative 9, among the 

alternatives that were generally the most favorable to mollusks (USDA, USDI 1994a:3&4-

165). However, the options in FEMAT and alternatives in the Northwest Forest Plan 

Final SEIS were judged less effective in providing for mollusks than any of the other 

species groups (USDA et al. 1993:IV-132). Of 102 species assessed, 97 species were 

rated low enough that they failed to pass the screen in the Northwest Forest Plan Final 

SEIS (USDA, USDI 1994a) and required additional analysis. All 44 species analyzed 

in this SEIS had combined likelihood scores in Outcomes C and D greater than 20 (see 

Background for Effects Analysis, FEMAT, earlier in this chapter). All but one species had at 

least some likelihood of Outcome D (USDA, USDI 1994a). Rarity, localized distribution, 

habitat specialization, and lack of information played an important role in the FEMAT 

rating for most of these species. Those species currently confined to refugia because of 

habitat history and species life history were judged unlikely to expand their range and 

were rated accordingly. “Therefore, in even the most favorable situations such species 

were judged unlikely to be well distributed” (USDA et al. 1993:IV-135). 

In the Northwest Forest Plan Final SEIS, most of the mollusk species analyzed here were 

judged to be strongly or partly associated with riparian areas, or to have all or most sites 

in Late-Successional Reserves, Administratively Withdrawn Areas, or Congressionally 

Reserved Areas (USDA, USDI 1994a). Data collected since the Northwest Forest Plan 

Final SEIS provides substantial new information on the association of these species 

with riparian areas and other reserves. The 2004 FSEIS found that all but one species 

(Fluminicola n. sp. 11, known from two sites) currently have a majority of their known 
248

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

sites outside of Late-Successional Reserves, Administratively Withdrawn Areas, or 

Congressionally Reserved Areas (GeoBOB/ISMS database). However, recent reports 

found, through Strategic Surveys, that terrestrial mollusks were found in Riparian 

Reserves more than expected (Dunk et al. 2002, 2004, 2006). The 2004 FSEIS indicated 

that of the 25 terrestrial species, only 8 (Ancotrema voyanum, Cryptomastix hendersoni, 

Deroceras hesperium, Monadenia fidelis minor, Pristiloma arcticum crateris, Vertigo n. sp. 1, 

Vespericola pressleyi, and Vespericola shasta) were believed to be associated with riparian 

areas in at least part of their range (USDA, USDI 2003b; USDA, USDI 2004a). However, 

Dunk et al. (2002) found that the NWFP area system of Riparian Reserves provided 

protection for terrestrial mollusks.

The remaining 19 species are aquatic snails. The analysis completed in 2000 and the 

2001 Annual Species Review considered the protection provided to all of these species 

by the reserve network including Riparian Reserves. These reviews determined that for 

34 species “The reserve system and other Standards and Guidelines of the Northwest 

Forest Plan do not appear to provide for a reasonable assurance of species persistence.” 

However, Dunk et al. (2006) found that estimating persistence within these taxa is a 

difficult task, and that although species richness was not optimal, existing reserves 

provide conservation value for terrestrial mollusks. A study of 26 rare (less than 2 known 

sites) mollusks, 15 occurred exclusively in reserved lands, while only four occurred 

exclusively in unreserved lands (Dunk et al. 2006).

Under Alternative 3, pre-disturbance or equivalent-effort surveys for the 31 species 

requiring them would no longer be required in non-late-successional and non-oldgrowth forest stands. All 31 species are believed to be closely associated with latesuccessional and old-growth forest as defined in USDA, USDI (2001a:55-56). In many 

cases, these species appear more closely associated with old-growth forest components, 

such as down wood, than with forest stands of a particular age, although the forest stand 

may provide critical microhabitat conditions (USDA, USDI 2003b). Species may often be 

found in younger stands that contain some of these components, and sites in these areas 

may provide important connectivity corridors among populations in fragmented oldgrowth stands that were once part of more contiguous habitat in the species’ reference 

distribution. Lack of surveys could result in inadvertent loss of undiscovered sites in 

these stands. The potential environmental consequences to these mollusk species are 

discussed in more detail below. 

Ancotrema voyanum

Information from the 2003 Annual Species Review (ASR) indicates that the terrestrial 

snail Ancotrema voyanum is common. There are several hundred known sites and 

numerous detections from Strategic Surveys. The ASR also found that 62 percent of 

known sites and 48 percent of potential habitat is within reserves (USDA, USDI Species 

Review Panel 2003). Since the 2003 ASR, the number of known sites has continued to 

increase. The species was not included in all pre-disturbance surveys, so it is possible 

that the actual abundance has been underestimated. New information provides more 

clarity of this species habitat association, suggesting it is more frequently associated with 

late-successional forests and sites within close proximity to streams (Dunk et al. 2004).

Under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3, Ancotrema voyanum is removed from Survey and Manage 

and not assumed to be on SSSP. Under Alternative 4, this species would be included in 

Category E, which requires management of all known sites and Strategic Surveys. This 

species also requires equivalent-effort surveys as a mitigation measure “for as long as 

[it] remains in Categories B or E” (see Chapter 2). Because of the high number of known 

sites, and apparent habitat in reserves, association with Riparian Reserves, and its wide 

ecological amplitude, habitat (including known sites) is sufficient to provide for stable 

populations across the NWFP area under all alternatives.
249

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Cryptomastix devia

Cryptomastix devia is known from a moderate numbers of known sites spread across 

a broad range. Under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4, it is included in Category A, which 

requires management of known sites, pre-disturbance surveys, and Strategic Surveys. 

Cryptomastix devia was predicted to have habitat sufficient to “stabilize in a pattern 

altered from reference distribution with some limitations on biological functions and 

species interactions” with moderate uncertainty (USDA, USDI 2000a). Under Alternative 

3, the removal of the pre-disturbance survey requirement in non-late-successional and 

non-old-growth forest stands could result in loss of some sites. This could result in some 

minor loss of population connectivity and interaction. However, based on the protection 

of known sites, under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4, habitat (including known sites) is sufficient 

to support stable populations in the NWFP area.

Under Alternative 2, this species would be included in both Agencies’ SSSPs for all of 

its range. Known sites and suitable habitat on federally managed lands (in the Survey 

and Manage portion of its range) occur almost exclusively on National Forest System 

lands (GeoBOB/ISMS database). Some known sites may be lost as site management 

requirements and management strategies are evaluated at a local scale. Site losses 

allowed under the SSSPs are constrained by policy objectives ensuring that actions do 

not contribute to the need to list under the Endangered Species Act. Under Alternative 

2, habitat (including known sites) is sufficient to support stable populations in the NWFP 

area. Due to lack of species-specific management under the scenario of Alternative 2 

without SSSP, habitat (including known sites) is insufficient to support stable populations 

in the NWFP area.

Cryptomastix hendersoni

This snail has few known sites confined to a narrow range around the Columbia River. 

Under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4, it is included in Category A, which requires management 

of known sites, pre-disturbance surveys, and Strategic Surveys. Cryptomastix hendersoni

was predicted to have habitat sufficient to “stabilize in a pattern altered from reference 

distribution with some limitations on biological functions and species interactions” 

with moderate uncertainty (USDA, USDI 2000a). Under Alternative 3, the removal of 

the pre-disturbance survey requirement in non-late-successional and non-old-growth 

forest stands could result in loss of some sites. This could result in some minor loss of 

population connectivity and interaction. However, based on the protection of known 

sites, under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4, habitat (including known sites) is sufficient to 

support stable populations in the NWFP area.

Under Alternative 2, this species would be included in the Agencies’ SSSPs as Sensitive 

on Forest Service managed lands in Oregon and Washington. Known sites and suitable 

habitat on federally managed lands (in the Survey and Manage portion of its range) occur 

almost exclusively on National Forest System lands (GeoBOB/ISMS database). Some 

known sites may be lost as site management requirements and management strategies 

are evaluated at a local scale. Site losses allowed under the SSSPs are constrained 

by policy objectives ensuring that actions do not contribute to the need to list under 

the Endangered Species Act. Under Alternative 2, habitat (including known sites) is 

sufficient to support stable populations in the NWFP area. Due to lack of species-specific 

management under the scenario of Alternative 2 without SSSP, habitat (including known 

sites) is insufficient to support stable populations in the NWFP area. 

Deroceras hesperium

This slug is very rare, known from only a few sites scattered across a relatively broad 

range. Since 1994, the understanding of the range has changed; the species has been 

found in southern Oregon, although it was previously considered to occur only 
250

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

in northwestern Oregon and western Washington (USDA, USDI 1994a:J2). Under 

Alternatives 1, 3 and 4, it is included in Category B, which requires management of 

known sites and Strategic Surveys. For this species, equivalent-effort surveys apply 

as a mitigation measure “for as long as it remains in Category E or B” – see Chapter 2. 

Deroceras hesperium was predicted to have habitat sufficient to “stabilize in a pattern 

altered from reference distribution with some limitations on biological functions and 

species interactions” with moderate uncertainty, with the additional mitigation of 

equivalent-effort surveys (USDA, USDI 2000a; USDA, USDI 2001a). Under Alternative 

3, the removal of the pre-disturbance survey requirement in non-late-successional and 

non-old-growth forest stands could result in loss of some sites. This could result in some 

minor loss of population connectivity and interaction. However, based on the protection 

of known sites, under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4, habitat (including known sites) is sufficient 

to support stable populations in the NWFP area.

Under Alternative 2, this species would be included in the Agencies’ SSSPs as Bureau 

Sensitive on BLM managed lands in Oregon and Sensitive on Forest Service managed 

lands in Oregon and Washington. Known sites and suitable habitat on federally 

managed lands occur almost exclusively on National Forest System lands (GeoBOB/

ISMS database). Some known sites may be lost as site management requirements and 

management strategies are evaluated at a local scale. Site losses allowed under the SSSPs 

are constrained by policy objectives ensuring that actions do not contribute to the need 

to list under the Endangered Species Act. Under Alternative 2, habitat (including known 

sites) is sufficient to support stable populations in the NWFP area. Due to lack of speciesspecific management under the scenario of Alternative 2 without SSSP, habitat (including 

known sites) is insufficient to support stable populations in the NWFP area.

Fluminicola n. sp. 1

Information from the 2001 ASR indicates that the aquatic snail Fluminicola n. sp. 1 is not 

closely associated with late-successional or old-growth forests, as the majority of known 

sites are not near forests. Of the 27 known sites, 25 are in or around Upper Klamath 

Lake; the remaining are within the California Cascades. All known sites occur on rocky 

bottoms of lakes and streams with some water flow as from spring influx (USDA, USDI 

Species Review Panel 2001). Since the 2001 ASR, detections include two sites outside of 

large reserves and three sites outside of Forest Service or BLM lands. 

Under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3, Fluminicola n. sp. 1 is removed from Survey and Manage 

and assumed to be on SSSP for BLM in Oregon and Washington and the Forest Service 

in Oregon. Under Alternative 4, this species would be included in Category A, which 

requires management of all known sites, pre-disturbance surveys, and Strategic Surveys. 

Habitat for this species is not associated with forestlands, suggesting a very low risk of 

harm from timber harvest or other management activities. Because of site protection 

by Riparian Reserves and other elements of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy, habitat 

(including known sites) is sufficient to provide for stable populations for this species 

under all alternatives with or without SSSP.

Fluminicola n. sp. 2

Information from the 2001 ASR indicates that the aquatic snail Fluminicola n. sp. 2 is 

not closely associated with late-successional or old-growth forest (USDA, USDI Species 

Review Panel 2001). It is known from only one aquatic site in Oregon (not on Forest 

Service or BLM lands). The 2000 Final SEIS outcome for Alternative 1 (Alternative 4 in 

this SEIS) was “sufficient habitat.” Other suitable habitats within the vicinity have been 

thoroughly surveyed with no additional detections. Efforts were made to find additional 

sites and no new information has come about since 2000. 
251

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3, Fluminicola n. sp. 2 is removed from Survey and Manage 

and assumed to be on SSSP for Forest Service in Oregon. Under Alternative 4, this 

species would be included in Category A, which requires management of all known sites, 

pre-disturbance surveys, and Strategic Surveys. If sites exist on Forest Service or BLM 

lands they would be offered protection by Riparian Reserves and other elements the 

Aquatic Conservation Strategy. Therefore, habitat (including known sites) is sufficient to 

provide for stable populations under all alternatives with or without SSSP. 

Fluminicola n. sp. 3

Fluminicola n. sp. 3 is an aquatic snail known from one cluster of sites in southern 

Oregon (USDA, USDI 1994a:J2). Although two sites have been recorded for this species 

in California, these records are most likely the result of confusion from inconsistent 

numbering schemes for undescribed species in this genus. Under Alternatives 1, 3 

and 4, it is included in Category A, which requires management of known sites, predisturbance surveys, and Strategic Surveys. Fluminicola n. sp. 3 was predicted to 

have habitat sufficient to “stabilize in a pattern similar to reference distribution” with 

moderate uncertainty (USDA, USDI 2000a). Under Alternative 3, the removal of the 

pre-disturbance survey requirement in non-late-successional and non-old-growth 

forest stands could result in loss of some sites. This could result in some minor loss of 

population connectivity and interaction. However, based on the protection of known 

sites and protection by Riparian Reserves, under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4, habitat 

(including known sites) is sufficient to support stable populations in the NWFP area.

Under Alternative 2, this species would be included in the Agencies’ SSSPs as Bureau 

Sensitive on BLM managed lands in Oregon and Sensitive on Forest Service managed 

lands in Oregon. Known sites and suitable habitat on federally managed lands occur 

almost exclusively on National Forest System lands (GeoBOB/ISMS database) and are 

protected by Riparian Reserves. Under Alternative 2, habitat (including known sites) is 

sufficient to support stable populations in the NWFP area. Rarity, limited distribution, 

and narrow range could mean that the loss of sites could result in habitat insufficient 

to support stable populations. Due to lack of species-specific management under the 

scenario of Alternative 2 without SSSP, habitat (including known sites) is insufficient to 

support stable populations in the NWFP area.

Fluminicola n. sp. 11

This aquatic snail is rare, known from only a few sites confined to a narrow range 

in the Klamath Basin. The known range has not changed substantially since 1994, 

despite pre-disturbance or equivalent-effort survey requirements (USDA, USDI 1994a:

J2; GeoBOB/ISMS database). Under Alternatives 1, 3 and 4, it is included in Category 

A, which requires management of known sites, pre-disturbance surveys, and Strategic 

Surveys. Fluminicola n. sp. 11, was predicted to have habitat sufficient to “stabilize in a 

pattern altered from reference distribution with some limitations on biological functions 

and species interactions” with moderate uncertainty (USDA, USDI 2000a; USDA, USDI 

2001a). Under Alternative 3, the removal of the pre-disturbance survey requirement 

in non-late-successional and non-old-growth forest stands could result in loss of some 

sites. This could result in some minor loss of population connectivity and interaction. 

However, based on the protection of known sites and protection by Riparian Reserves, 

under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4, habitat (including known sites) is sufficient to support 

stable populations in the NWFP area.

Under Alternative 2, Fluminicola n. sp. 11 would be listed as Bureau Sensitive in Oregon, 

covering most of the range for this species. The sites would be managed to avoid 

contributing to the need for listing under the Endangered Species Act. Under Alternative 

2, habitat (including known sites) is sufficient to support stable populations in the NWFP 

area. Rarity, limited distribution, and narrow range could mean that the loss of sites 
252

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

could result in habitat insufficient to support stable populations. Due to lack of speciesspecific management under the scenario of Alternative 2 without SSSP, habitat (including 

known sites) is insufficient to support stable populations in the NWFP area. 

Fluminicola n. spp. 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20

All six species in this group are aquatic snails known from a small number of sites 

in a narrow range. Number of known sites range from 1 (Fluminicola n. sp. 19) or 2 

(Fluminicola n. spp. 17 and 20) to 17 (Fluminicola n. sp. 16). There is no new information 

since 1994 that would alter the evaluation in the Northwest Forest Plan Final SEIS 

(USDA, USDI 1994a). All of these species have all of their known sites outside of 

Late-Successional Reserves, Administratively Withdrawn Areas, and Congressionally 

Reserved Areas. The known ranges of all of these species have not substantially 

changed since 1994, despite pre-disturbance and Strategic Survey requirements. The 

likelihood of significant undiscovered populations appears low (USDA, USDI 1994a:

J2; GeoBOB/ISMS database). As aquatic snails, these species receive protection from the 

Aquatic Conservation Strategy (USDA, USDI 1994a). However, concerns for persistence 

remain (USDA, USDI 1994a:J2; USDA, USDI 2000a). These concerns include factors that 

could directly or indirectly affect local populations while still meeting overall Aquatic 

Conservation Strategy goals, such as livestock grazing or activities outside the riparian 

buffer zone, particularly around small wetlands or springs where the riparian buffer 

covers only the extent of riparian vegetation. Local extirpation and species extinction of 

ecologically similar species in this family (Hydrobiidae) have been documented because 

of water diversion, livestock grazing, and groundwater withdrawal outside the riparian 

zone (Hershler and Sada 1987, USDA et al. 1993, Hershler and Frest 1996). 

Under Alternatives 1, 3 and 4, these species would be included in Category A, 

which requires management of known sites, pre-disturbance surveys, and Strategic 

Surveys. These species are expected to “stabilize in a pattern altered from reference 

distribution,” all with moderate uncertainty (USDA, USDI 2000a; USDA, USDI 2001a). 

Under Alternative 3, much of the habitat for these species may no longer require predisturbance surveys. The association of these species with late-successional and oldgrowth forest typically depends on stand conditions at a larger scale, which may not be 

considered in assessment of survey requirements. This may result in inadvertent loss of 

undiscovered sites or populations, although it is unlikely that significant undiscovered 

populations are extant. This could result in some minor loss of population connectivity 

and interaction. However, based on the protection of known sites, under Alternatives 1, 

3, and 4, habitat (including known sites) is sufficient to support stable populations in the 

NWFP area.

Under Alternative 2, these six species would not be included in the Agencies’ SSSPs. 

Known sites would not be managed and pre-disturbance and Strategic Surveys would 

not be completed. The loss of even a single site could result in habitat insufficient to 

support stable populations because of the rarity and narrow ranges of these species. Due 

to lack of management under Alternative 2, habitat (including known sites) is insufficient 

to support stable populations in the NWFP area.

Fluminicola potemicus

New information since the 2004 FSEIS includes the description of Fluminicola n. sp. 14 as 

Fluminicola potemicus (Hershler et al. in press). 

This aquatic snail is known from a small number of sites in a narrow range. Only one of 

the 12 sites is in a Late-Successional Reserve. There is no new information since 1994 that 

would alter the evaluation in the Northwest Forest Plan Final SEIS (USDA, USDI 1994a). 

The known range has not substantially changed since 1994, despite pre-disturbance and 

Strategic Survey requirements. The likelihood of significant undiscovered populations 
253

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

appears low (USDA, USDI 1994a:J2; GeoBOB/ISMS database). As an aquatic snail, 

this species would receive protection from the Aquatic Conservation Strategy (USDA, 

USDI 1994a). However, concerns for persistence remain (USDA, USDI 1994a:J2; USDA, 

USDI 2000a). These concerns include factors that could directly or indirectly affect 

local populations while still meeting overall Aquatic Conservation Strategy goals, such 

as livestock grazing or activities outside the riparian buffer zone, particularly around 

small wetlands or springs where the riparian buffer covers only the extent of riparian 

vegetation. Local extirpation and species extinction of ecologically similar species in 

this family (Hydrobiidae) have been documented because of water diversion, livestock 

grazing, and groundwater withdrawal outside the riparian zone (Hershler and Sada 

1987, USDA et al. 1993, Hershler and Frest 1996). It has been found on both BLM and 

Forest Service managed lands.

Under Alternatives 1, 3 and 4, it is included in Category A, which requires management 

of known sites, pre-disturbance surveys, and Strategic Surveys. Fluminicola potemicus

was expected to have sufficient habitat to “stabilize in a pattern similar to reference 

distribution” with moderate uncertainty (USDA, USDI 2000a). Under Alternative 3, 

much of the habitat for this species may no longer require pre-disturbance surveys. The 

association of this species with late-successional and old-growth forest typically depends 

on stand conditions at a larger scale, which may not be considered in assessment of 

survey requirements. This may result in inadvertent loss of undiscovered sites or 

populations, although it is unlikely that significant undiscovered populations are 

extant. This could result in some minor loss of population connectivity and interaction. 

However, based on the protection of known sites, under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4, habitat 

(including known sites) is sufficient to support stable populations in the NWFP area.

Under Alternative 2, this species would not be included in the Agencies’ SSSPs. Known 

sites would not be managed and pre-disturbance and Strategic Surveys would not be 

completed. The loss of even a single site could result in habitat insufficient to support 

stable populations because of the rarity and narrow range of this species. Due to lack 

of management under Alternative 2, habitat (including known sites) is insufficient to 

support stable populations in the NWFP area.

Fluminicola seminalis

This aquatic snail is characterized by a low number of known sites widely scattered 

over a somewhat limited range. Few sites have been discovered since 1994, despite 

pre-disturbance and Strategic Survey requirements (reports of new sites for Fluminicola 

seminalis discovered on National Forest System lands in southern Oregon were due 

to misidentification). The Northwest Forest Plan Final SEIS (USDA, USDI 1994a:J2) 

noted Fluminicola seminalis is “now about 95% extirpated from its former range in the 

Sacramento River.” As an aquatic snail, this species receives protection from the Aquatic 

Conservation Strategy. However, concerns for persistence remain (USDA, USDI 1994a:

J2; USDA, USDI 2000a). These concerns include factors that could directly or indirectly 

affect local populations while still meeting overall Aquatic Conservation Strategy goals, 

such as livestock grazing or activities outside the riparian buffer zone, particularly 

around small wetlands or springs where the riparian buffer covers only the extent of 

riparian vegetation. Local extirpation and species extinction of ecologically similar 

species in this family (Hydrobiidae) have been documented because of water diversion, 

livestock grazing, and groundwater withdrawal outside the riparian zone (Hershler and 

Sada 1987, USDA et al. 1993, Hershler and Frest 1996).

Under Alternatives 1, 3 and 4, it is included in Category A, which requires management 

of known sites, pre-disturbance surveys, and Strategic Surveys. Fluminicola seminalis

was predicted to have habitat sufficient to “stabilize in a pattern altered from reference 

distribution with some limitations on biological functions and species interactions” 

with moderate uncertainty (USDA, USDI 2000a). Under Alternative 3, much of the 
254

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

habitat for this species may no longer require pre-disturbance surveys. The association 

of this species with late-successional and old-growth forest typically depends on stand 

conditions at a larger scale, which may not be considered in assessment of survey 

requirements. This may result in inadvertent loss of undiscovered sites or populations, 

although it is unlikely that significant undiscovered populations are extant. This could 

result in some minor loss of population connectivity and interaction. However, based on 

the protection of known sites, under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4, habitat (including known 

sites) is sufficient to support stable populations in the NWFP area.

Under Alternative 2, Fluminicola seminalis would be listed as Forest Service Sensitive in 

California. There are no known sites on BLM managed lands in California (previous 

reports of sites for Fluminicola seminalis discovered on BLM lands in northern California 

were due to misidentification). In the California portion of the range, listing as Sensitive 

by the Forest Service would provide protection for some of the species’ populations. 

Because of the widely scattered distribution of this species, loss of any known sites 

would have a substantial effect on population interactions and the distribution of the 

species as a whole. This would lead to habitat insufficient to support stable populations 

from significant portions of the range in California (i.e. insufficient habitat in over 20 

percent of the area of the species range, and/or loss of genetically or ecologically distinct 

populations) although habitat (including known sites) is sufficient to support stable 

populations range-wide in the NWFP area. Due to lack of species-specific management 

under the scenario of Alternative 2 without SSSP, habitat (including known sites) is 

insufficient to support stable populations in the NWFP area.

Helminthoglypta hertleini

Information from the 2002 ASR indicates that the terrestrial snail Helminthoglypta hertleini

is not closely associated with late-successional or old-growth forest. The majority of 

known sites are in non-reserve stands less than 80 years old. The most common habitat 

features reported are talus, rock, cobble, and rock outcrops, while only one site record 

lists habitat as down woody debris (USDA, USDI Species Review Panel 2002). Since 

the 2002 Annual Species Review, there are nearly 100 new Oregon sites, mostly on BLM 

lands outside of reserves. Revision and refinement of the taxonomy of the land snail 

clade Helminthoglypta Ancey, 1887, is ongoing (Roth and Tupen 2004). In California, 

identification of exterior features caused confusion and incorrect identification of this 

species with Helminthoglypta cypreophila. DNA sequencing has clarified this matter. 

However, known sites and the rate of detection may be an underestimate of abundance. 

Within California, corrected records for this species indicate it range includes four 

counties (Shasta, Tehama, Siskiyou, and Humboldt), which suggests that it is well 

distributed.

Under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3, Helminthoglypta hertleini would be removed from 

Survey and Manage and assumed to be on SSSP for BLM in California and Oregon, 

and Forest Service in Oregon. Under Alternative 4, this species would be included in 

Category B, which requires management of known sites, equivalent-effort surveys as a 

mitigation measure, and Strategic Surveys. For this species, equivalent-effort surveys 

apply “for as long as it remains in Category E or B” – see Chapter 2. Based on the high 

number of known sites and rate of detection, wide ecological amplitude, elements of 

habitat management by Matrix Standard and Guides, and possible association to fire 

prone environments, habitat (including known sites) is sufficient to provide for stable 

populations for this species under all alternatives with or without SSSP.

Helminthoglypta talmadgei

This terrestrial snail is known from over 1000 sites scattered widely across its Californialimited range. There is evidence of genetically and ecologically distinct populations 

within this species (Roth 2002), each of which occupy relatively small ranges. Revision 
255

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

and refinement of the taxonomy of the land snail clade Helminthoglypta Ancey, 1887, is 

ongoing (Roth and Tupen 2004). This species has been reported to depend to some extent 

on woody debris of various decay classes (USDA, USDI 2003b). In the drier regions of 

California and southern Oregon where this species is found, canopy and understory 

reduction may alter the necessary microclimate conditions that allow populations to 

persist (USDA, USDI 2000d). In addition, prescribed burning usually takes place in the 

spring or fall, when this species is more likely to be active on the surface, compared to 

late summer wildfires to which this species are adapted, when individuals are typically 

aestivating (similar to hibernating) (USDA, USDI 2003b). However, Agee (2001) 

evaluated the association of mollusk to evidence of fire and Helminthoglypta talmadgei

was found more frequently on more recently burned plots. Dunk et al. (2004) found 

Helminthoglypta talmadgei detected in areas with less conifer canopy cover and basal area, 

more grass cover, younger trees, and on drier aspects than previously reported. There 

was also evidence that species habitat is not limited to late-successional forests, but is also 

closely associated with early seral forests (particularly Quercus hardwood forests). 

Under Alternative 1, Helminthoglypta talmadgei is included in Category D, which requires 

management of high-priority sites and Strategic Surveys. Under Alternative 1, habitat 

(including known sites) is sufficient to support stable populations in the NWFP area.

Under Alternatives 2 and 3, Helminthoglypta talmadgei is removed from Survey and 

Manage and assumed to be on SSSP on BLM lands in California, although almost none 

of the known sites are on BLM lands. Because of increasing numbers of sites and recent 

evidence of wide ecological amplitude, habitat (including known sites) is sufficient to 

support stable populations in the NWFP area with or without SSSP. 

Under Alternative 4, this species would be included in Category A, which requires 

management of all known sites, pre-disturbance surveys, and Strategic Surveys. In 

the 2000 FSEIS under this alternative, Helminthoglypta talmadgei was expected to have 

habitat sufficient to “stabilize in a pattern altered from reference distribution with some 

limitations on biological functions and species interactions” with moderate uncertainty 

(USDA, USDI 2000a). Because, of the high number of known sites, rate of detection and 

wide ecological amplitude, habitat (including known sites) is sufficient to support stable 

populations across the NWFP area. 

Hemphillia burringtoni

This slug is known from a low to moderate numbers of sites spread across its Olympic 

Peninsula range. It is associated with woody debris and leaf litter. The majority of 

known sites are not on BLM or Forest Service land, and those sites that are occur 

exclusively within reserves. 

Under Alternatives 1 and 3, Hemphillia burringtoni is included in Category E, which 

requires management of known sites and Strategic Surveys. Under Alternative 3, 

removal of the pre-disturbance survey requirement in non-late-successional and non-oldgrowth forest stands could result in loss of some sites. This could result in some minor 

loss of population connectivity and interaction. However, based on the protection of 

reserves, habitat (including known sites) is sufficient to support stable populations in the 

NWFP area under Alternatives 1 and 3.

Under Alternative 2, Hemphillia burringtoni is assumed to be on SSSP on the Forest 

Service in Washington, which includes most or all of its range. However, because of 

the protection of reserves, habitat (including known sites) is sufficient to support stable 

populations in the NWFP area with or without SSSP. 

Under Alternative 4, this species is included in Category A, which requires management 

of known sites, pre-disturbance surveys, and Strategic Surveys. In the 2000 FSEIS 
256

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

under this alternative, Hemphillia burringtoni was predicted to have habitat sufficient 

to “stabilize in a pattern altered from reference distribution with some limitations on 

biological functions and species interactions” with moderate uncertainty (USDA, USDI 

2000a). Based on protection afforded by the reserve network, habitat (including known 

sites) is sufficient to support stable populations in the NWFP area under Alternative 4.

Hemphillia glandulosa (In WA Western Cascades Physiographic Province)

This terrestrial slug is known from a moderate number of sites spread across a broad 

range. Known populations are adjacent to, and assumed to be in, reserve networks, 

which offer protection. It is associated with woody debris, moss, and leaf litter including 

that of alders. It is in Category E in Alternative 1 and 3 because of uncertainty about its 

LSOG association in this area.

Under Alternatives 1 and 3, Hemphillia glandulosa is included in Category E, which 

requires management of known sites and Strategic Surveys. Under Alternative 4, this 

species is included in Category C, which requires management of high-priority sites, predisturbance surveys, and Strategic Surveys. In Category C in the 2000 FSEIS, Hemphillia 

glandulosa was predicted to have habitat sufficient to “stabilize in a pattern altered 

from reference distribution with some limitations on biological functions and species 

interactions” with moderate uncertainty (USDA, USDI 2000a). For these alternatives, 

habitat (including known sites) is sufficient to support stable populations in the NWFP 

area

Under Alternatives 2, Hemphillia glandulosa in WA Western Cascades Province is assumed 

Sensitive for the Forest Service in Washington, which covers most or all of its range. 

However, based on the moderate rate of detection, the number of known sites, and 

protection within reserves, habitat (including known sites) is sufficient to support this 

species under all alternatives with or without SSSP.

Hemphillia glandulosa (In WA: Olympic Peninsula and OR: Coast Range)

Information from the 2001 ASR indicates that the terrestrial slug, Hemphillia glandulosa is 

not closely associated with late-successional or old-growth forest and is more common 

than once thought (USDA, USDI Species Review Panel 2001). Since the 2001 Annual 

Species Review, its rate of detection has increased; resulting in over a thousand known 

sites distributed between both reserve and non-reserve lands. The rate of detection is 

high and is supported by eight RMS detections. Much of Olympic National Forest is 

Late-Successional Reserve or Riparian Reserve, and the federal lands in the Oregon Coast 

Range are heavily reserved as well.

Under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 Hemphillia glandulosa would be removed from Survey and 

Manage in the WA Olympic Peninsula and OR Coast Range provinces and assumed to 

be on SSSP for Forest Service in Washington. Under Alternative 4, Hemphillia glandulosa 

would be included in Category C, which requires management of high-priority sites, 

pre-disturbance surveys, and Strategic Surveys. Based on a high number of known 

sites, high rate of detection, and protection in reserves, habitat (including known sites) is 

sufficient to support stable populations under all alternatives with or without SSSP.

Hemphillia malonei (Washington)

This terrestrial slug is known from moderate numbers of known sites spread across a 

broad range. Under Alternatives 1 and 4, this species is included in Category C, which 

requires management of high-priority sites, pre-disturbance surveys, and Strategic 

Surveys. Hemphillia malonei was predicted to have habitat sufficient to “stabilize in a 

pattern altered from reference distribution with some limitations on biological functions 

and species interactions” with moderate uncertainty (USDA, USDI 2000a). Under 
257

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Alternatives 1 and 4, habitat (including known sites) is sufficient to support stable 

populations in the NWFP area.

Under Alternatives 2 and 3, this species would be included as Sensitive on Forest Service 

lands in Washington. Known sites and suitable habitat on federally managed lands 

(in the Survey and Manage portion of its range) occur almost exclusively on National 

Forest System lands (GeoBOB/ISMS database). Some known sites may be lost as site 

management requirements and management strategies are evaluated at a local scale. 

Site losses allowed under the SSSPs are constrained by policy objectives ensuring that 

actions do not contribute to the need to list under the Endangered Species Act. However, 

known populations are adjacent to, and assumed to be in, reserves. Therefore, under 

Alternatives 2 and 3, habitat is sufficient to support stable populations with or without 

SSSP.

Hemphillia malonei (Oregon)

Information from the 2001 ASR indicates that the terrestrial slug Hemphillia malonei in 

Oregon is common, with more than 600 known sites, and is well distributed across its 

range (USDA, USDI Species Review Panel 2001). Over 300 additional sites have been 

recorded since the 2001 Annual Species Review, providing a clearer understanding of its 

current range. Eight RMS detections are consistent with known site numbers nearing 

1,000. A high proportion of known sites are within non-reserve land allocations.

Under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 Hemphillia malonei in Oregon would be removed from 

Survey and Manage and is assumed to be on SSSP for the Forest Service in Washington. 

Under Alternative 4, the species would be included in Category C, which requires 

management of high-priority sites, pre-disturbance surveys, and Strategic Surveys. 

Because of a high number of known sites, a high rate of detection, and protection by 

reserves, habitat (including known sites) is sufficient to provide for stable populations 

under all alternatives with or without SSSP.

Hemphillia pantherina

Hemphillia pantherina was known from only one historic site in a riparian zone, although 

it is unknown if this population is still extant. The historic site and the species’ 

presumed historic range lie entirely on National Forest System lands in the NWFP area 

in Washington. Surveys conducted at and in the vicinity of the single historic site have 

resulted in negative detections. 

Under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4, the species would be included in Category E, which 

requires management of known sites, equivalent-effort surveys as a mitigation measure, 

and Strategic Surveys. Under Alternative 2, this species is assumed to be included as 

Sensitive on Forest Service lands in Washington. If extant, analysis of the one historic site 

in riparian habitat does not provide sufficient information to determine an outcome for 

any alternative including the scenario of Alternative 2 without SSSP. 

Juga (O) n. sp. 2

This aquatic snail is known from a few number of sites confined to a narrow range at 

low elevations near the Columbia River. The known range and number of sites have not 

changed substantially since 1994, despite pre-disturbance or equivalent-effort survey 

requirements, so the likelihood of significant undiscovered populations appears low 

(USDA, USDI 1994a:J2; GeoBOB/ISMS database).

Under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4, the species would be included in Category A, which 

requires management of known sites, pre-disturbance surveys, and Strategic Surveys. 

Juga (O) n. sp. 2, was predicted to have habitat sufficient to “stabilize in a pattern altered 
258

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

from reference distribution with some limitations on biological functions and species 

interactions” with moderate uncertainty (USDA, USDI 2000a; USDA, USDI 2001a). 

Under Alternative 3, the removal of the pre-disturbance survey requirement in non-latesuccessional and non-old-growth forest stands could result in loss of some sites. This 

could result in some minor loss of population connectivity and interaction. However, 

based on the protection of known sites, under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4, habitat (including 

known sites) is sufficient to support stable populations in the NWFP area.

Under Alternative 2, this species is assumed to be included as Sensitive on Forest Service 

lands in Oregon. Known sites and suitable habitat on federally managed lands occur 

almost exclusively on National Forest System lands (GeoBOB/ISMS database). Some 

known sites may be lost as site management requirements and management strategies 

are evaluated at a local scale. Site losses allowed under the SSSPs are constrained by 

policy objectives ensuring that actions do not contribute to the need to list under the 

Endangered Species Act. Alternative 2 would provide sufficient habitat to support stable 

populations in the NWFP area. Due to lack of species-specific management under the 

scenario of Alternative 2 without SSSP, habitat (including known sites) is insufficient to 

support stable populations in the NWFP area. 

Juga (O) n. sp. 3

This aquatic snail is known from a small number of sites in a narrow range. None of the 

known sites are on federal land. There is no new information since 1994 that would alter 

the evaluation in the Northwest Forest Plan Final SEIS (USDA, USDI 1994a). The known 

range of this species has not substantially changed since 1994, despite pre-disturbance 

and Strategic Survey requirements. The likelihood of significant undiscovered 

populations appears low (USDA, USDI 1994a:J2; GeoBOB/ISMS database). As an aquatic 

snail, this species receives protection from the Aquatic Conservation Strategy (USDA, 

USDI 1994a). However, concerns for persistence remained (USDA, USDI 1994a:J2; 

USDA, USDI 2000a). These concerns included factors that could directly or indirectly 

affect local populations while still meeting overall Aquatic Conservation Strategy goals, 

such as livestock grazing or activities outside the riparian buffer zone, particularly 

around small wetlands or springs where the riparian buffer covers only the extent of 

riparian vegetation. Local extirpation and species extinction of ecologically similar 

species in this family (Hydrobiidae) have been documented because of water diversion, 

livestock grazing, and groundwater withdrawal outside the riparian zone (Hershler and 

Sada 1987, USDA et al. 1993, Hershler and Frest 1996). 

Under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4 this species would be included in Category A, which 

requires management of known sites, pre-disturbance surveys, and Strategic Surveys. 

This species is expected to “stabilize in a pattern altered from reference distribution,” 

all with moderate uncertainty (USDA, USDI 2000a; USDA, USDI 2001a). Under 

Alternative 3, much of the habitat for this species may no longer require pre-disturbance 

surveys. The association of this species with late-successional and old-growth forest 

typically depends on stand conditions at a larger scale, which may not be considered in 

assessment of survey requirements. This may result in inadvertent loss of undiscovered 

sites or populations, although it is unlikely that significant undiscovered populations are 

extant. This could result in some minor loss of population connectivity and interaction. 

However, based on the protection of known sites, under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4, habitat 

(including known sites) is sufficient to support stable populations in the NWFP area.

Under Alternative 2, this species would not be included in the Agencies’ SSSPs. Known 

sites would not be managed and pre-disturbance and Strategic Surveys would not be 

completed. The loss of even a single site could result in habitat insufficient to support 

stable populations because of the rarity and narrow range of this species. Due to lack 

of management under Alternative 2, habitat (including known sites) is insufficient to 

support stable populations in the NWFP area.
259

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Lyogyrus n. sp. 1

Lyogyrus n. sp. 1, an aquatic snail known north and south of the Columbia River in 

the Cascades, has moderate numbers of known sites confined to a narrow range. 

Under Alternatives 1, 3 and 4, this species is included in Category A, which requires 

management of known sites, pre-disturbance surveys, and Strategic Surveys. Lyogyrus

n. sp. 1 was predicted to have habitat sufficient to “stabilize in a pattern altered from 

reference distribution with some limitations on biological functions and species 

interactions” with moderate uncertainty (USDA, USDI 2000a). Under Alternative 3, the 

removal of the pre-disturbance survey requirement in non-late-successional and non-oldgrowth forest stands could result in loss of some sites. This could result in some minor 

loss of population connectivity and interaction. However, based on the protection of 

known sites, under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4, habitat (including known sites) is sufficient to 

support stable populations in the NWFP area.

Under Alternative 2, this species would be included as Sensitive on Forest Service lands 

in Oregon and Washington. Known sites and suitable habitat on federally managed 

lands (in the Survey and Manage portion of its range) occur almost exclusively on 

National Forest System lands (GeoBOB/ISMS database). Some known sites may be 

lost as site management requirements and management strategies are evaluated at a 

local scale. Site losses allowed under the SSSPs are constrained by policy objectives 

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

Act. Under Alternative 2, habitat (including known sites) is sufficient to support stable 

populations in the NWFP area. Due to lack of species-specific management under the 

scenario of Alternative 2 without SSSP, habitat (including known sites) is insufficient to 

support stable populations in the NWFP area.

Lyogyrus n. sp. 2

This aquatic snail is known from very few sites confined to a narrow range on and near 

the Wenatchee National Forest on Washington. The known range and number of sites 

have not changed substantially since 1994, despite pre-disturbance requirements, so the 

likelihood of significant undiscovered populations appears low (USDA, USDI 1994a:J2; 

GeoBOB/ISMS database). 

Under Alternatives 1, 3 and 4, this species is included in Category A, which requires 

management of known sites, pre-disturbance surveys, and Strategic Surveys. Lyogyrus 

n. sp. 2, was predicted to have habitat sufficient to “stabilize in a pattern altered 

from reference distribution with some limitations on biological functions and species 

interactions” with moderate uncertainty (USDA, USDI 2000a; USDA, USDI 2001a). 

Under Alternative 3, the removal of the pre-disturbance survey requirement in non-latesuccessional and non-old-growth forest stands could result in loss of some sites. This 

could result in some minor loss of population connectivity and interaction. However, 

based on the protection of known sites, under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4, habitat (including 

known sites) is sufficient to support stable populations in the NWFP area.

Under Alternative 2, this species would be included as Sensitive on Forest Service 

lands in Oregon and Washington. Known sites and suitable habitat on federally 

managed lands occur almost exclusively on National Forest System lands (GeoBOB/

ISMS database). Some known sites may be lost as site management requirements and 

management strategies are evaluated at a local scale. Site losses allowed under the SSSPs 

are constrained by policy objectives ensuring that actions do not contribute to the need 

to list under the Endangered Species Act. Under Alternative 2, habitat (including known 

sites) is sufficient to support stable populations in the NWFP area. Due to lack of speciesspecific management under the scenario of Alternative 2 without SSSP, habitat (including 

known sites) is insufficient to support stable populations in the NWFP area. 
260

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Lyogyrus n. sp. 3

This aquatic snail is known from one site in Northern California, which is located 

outside of reserves. There is no new information since 1994 that would alter the 

evaluation in the Northwest Forest Plan Final SEIS (USDA, USDI 1994a). The known 

range has not substantially changed since 1994, despite pre-disturbance and Strategic 

Survey requirements. The likelihood of significant undiscovered populations appears 

low (USDA, USDI 1994a:J2; GeoBOB/ISMS database). As an aquatic snail, this species 

receives protection from the Aquatic Conservation Strategy (USDA, USDI 1994a). 

However, concerns for persistence remain (USDA, USDI 1994a:J2; USDA, USDI 2000a). 

These concerns included factors that could directly or indirectly affect the site while 

still meeting overall Aquatic Conservation Strategy goals, such as livestock grazing or 

activities outside the riparian buffer zone, particularly around small wetlands or springs 

where the riparian buffer covers only the extent of riparian vegetation. Local extirpation 

and species extinction of ecologically similar species in this family (Hydrobiidae) have 

been documented because of water diversion, livestock grazing, and groundwater 

withdrawal outside the riparian zone (Hershler and Sada 1987, USDA et al. 1993, 

Hershler and Frest 1996). 

Under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4, this species would be included in Category A, which 

requires management of known sites, pre-disturbance surveys, and Strategic Surveys. 

It is expected to “stabilize in a pattern altered from reference distribution,” all with 

moderate uncertainty (USDA, USDI 2000a; USDA, USDI 2001a). Under Alternative 3, 

much of the habitat for this species may no longer require pre-disturbance surveys. The 

association of this species with late-successional and old-growth forest typically depends 

on stand conditions at a larger scale, which may not be considered in assessment of 

survey requirements. This may result in inadvertent loss of undiscovered sites or 

populations, although it is unlikely that significant undiscovered populations are 

extant. This could result in some minor loss of population connectivity and interaction. 

However, based on the protection of known sites, under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4, habitat 

(including known sites) is sufficient to support stable populations in the NWFP area.

Under Alternative 2, this species would not be included in the Agencies’ SSSPs. Known 

sites would not be managed and pre-disturbance and Strategic Surveys would not be 

completed. The loss of the single site would result in habitat insufficient to support 

stable populations because of the rarity and narrow range of the species. Due to lack 

of management under Alternative 2, habitat (including known sites) is insufficient to 

support stable populations in the NWFP area.

Megomphix hemphilli (entire range)

Information from the 2003 ASR indicates that the terrestrial snail Megomphix hemphilli has 

a high number of likely extant sites. Over 1,900 known sites occur in the NWFP area, and 

four RMS Survey detections. Seven percent of all known sites (143 sites) occur in reserves 

(USDA, USDI Species Review Panel 2003). Since the 2003 Annual Species Review, the 

high rate of detection continues.

Under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3, Megomphix hemphilli would be removed from Survey 

and Manage and not assumed to be on SSSP. Under Alternative 4, Megomphix hemphilli 

(North of south boundary of Lincoln, Benton, and Linn Counties, Oregon) would be 

included in Category A, which requires management of all known sites, pre-disturbance 

surveys, and Strategic Surveys. Megomphix hemphilli (South of south boundary of 

Lincoln, Benton, and Linn Counties, Oregon) would be included in Category F, 

which requires Strategic Surveys. This species also requires, as a mitigation measure, 

management of sites known as of September 30, 1999 “for as long as [it] remains in 

Category F” – see Chapter 2. Because of a high number of known sites, high amount 
261

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

of potential habitat and distribution across its range, habitat (including known sites) is 

sufficient to provide for stable populations for this species under all alternatives with or 

without SSSP.

Monadenia chaceana

This terrestrial snail is somewhat rare and is known from sites scattered widely across 

its Southwestern Oregon and northwestern California range. Revision and refinement 

of the taxonomy of the land snail clade Helminthoglypta Ancey, 1887, is ongoing (Roth 

and Tupen 2004). There is evidence of genetically and ecologically distinct populations 

within this species (Roth 2002), each of which occupy relatively small ranges. Several 

habitat components with which this species is associated may not be adequately 

provided by the Matrix Standards and Guidelines. This species depends, to some 

extent, on woody debris of various decay classes (USDA, USDI 2003b). Northwest 

Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines require retention of some level of woody debris. 

Carey et al. (1999) found that coarse woody debris amounts declined significantly as 

a result of variable density thinning, especially the higher decay classes, despite the 

intent of the treatment to leave all existing debris in place. While canopy shading may 

recover relatively quickly following harvest, large down wood takes much longer if 

sufficient levels were not maintained through disturbance (Harmon and Hua 1991). In 

the drier regions of California and southern Oregon where this species is found, canopy 

and understory reduction may alter the necessary microclimate conditions that allow 

populations to persist (USDA, USDI 2000d). Thinning and other management also shifts 

ground-level biomass from more shade-tolerant taxa, such as fungi or lichens, to primary 

producers like vascular plants (Carey 2000), altering the habitat and the food supply for 

this species. In addition, prescribed burning usually takes place in the spring or fall, 

when this species is more likely to be active on the surface, compared to late summer 

wildfires to which this species are adapted, when individuals are typically aestivating 

(similar to hibernating) (USDA, USDI 2003b). Since the 2004 FSEIS, there has been 

an increase in number of sites, nearly doubling those known in 2004, which expands 

the moderately large range, and increases the known site abundance within known 

populations. Negative detections from surveys, in and around the range, confirm the 

species is unpredictable in its distribution and there is insufficient information to define 

habitats critical to this species.

Under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4, Monadenia chaceana is included in Category B, which 

requires management of known sites and Strategic Surveys. For this species, equivalenteffort surveys apply “for as long as it remains in Category E or B” – see Chapter 

2. Monadenia chaceana, with the additional mitigation of equivalent-effort surveys, 

is expected to have habitat sufficient to “stabilize in a pattern similar to reference 

distribution” with moderate uncertainty (USDA, USDI 2000a; USDA, USDI 2001a). 

Under Alternative 3, the removal of the pre-disturbance survey requirement in non-latesuccessional and non-old-growth forest stands could result in loss of some sites. This 

could result in some minor loss of population connectivity and interaction. However, 

based on the protection of known sites, under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4, habitat (including 

known sites) is sufficient to support stable populations in the NWFP area.

Under Alternative 2, Monadenia chaceana would be listed as Sensitive by the BLM 

throughout its range and by the Forest Service only in Oregon. In the California portion 

of the species’ range (roughly one third of the total range), only 12 percent of the known 

sites are found on BLM managed land. Therefore, as described above, existing provisions 

of the Northwest Forest Plan and the addition of listing as Sensitive on BLM managed 

lands and on Forest Service–managed lands in Oregon, would not prevent or compensate 

for loss of known sites or population areas in the California Forest Service portion of its 

range. Because of the widely scattered pattern of populations for this species, loss of 

sites or population areas would reduce population interaction, connectivity, and normal 

biological function, and could result in habitat (including known sites) insufficient to 
262

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

support stable populations in significant portions of the species’ range in California 

although habitat (including known sites) is sufficient to support stable populations 

range-wide in the NWFP area under Alternative 2. Due to lack of species-specific 

management, under the scenario of Alternative 2 without SSSP, habitat (including known 

sites) is insufficient to support stable populations in the NWFP area.

Monadenia churchi

Information from the 2001 ASR indicates that the terrestrial snail Monadenia churchi is 

common, having extant known sites in excess of 2300, of which 2213 were on federal 

land. Detections within the Northwest Forest Plan appeared well distributed, with 

49 percent of the known sites within reserves. Strategic survey results confirm this 

species is common, having the highest rate of RMS Survey detections of any mollusks at 

55. Analysis suggests such high numbers indicates little-to-no concern for persistence 

(USDA, USDI Species Review Panel 2001). Since the 2001 Annual Species Review, new 

information provides more clarity of this species habitat association, suggesting that it is 

a habitat generalist (Dunk et al. 2004). 

Under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3, Monadenia churchi would be removed from Survey and 

Manage and not assumed to be on SSSP. Under Alternative 4, Monadenia churchi would 

be included in Category F, which requires Strategic Surveys. This species also requires 

management of sites known as of September 30, 1999 “for as long as [it] remains in 

Category F” – see Chapter 2. Based on the high number of known sites, rate of detection, 

protection by reserves, and broad range distribution, habitat (including known sites) is 

sufficient to provide for stable populations in the NWFP area under all alternatives.

Monadenia fidelis minor

Monadenia fidelis minor is a terrestrial slug with a moderate numbers of known sites 

within the NWFP area. Under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4, this species would be included 

in Category A, which requires management of known sites, pre-disturbance surveys, 

and Strategic Surveys. Monadenia fidelis minor was predicted to have habitat sufficient 

to “stabilize in a pattern altered from reference distribution with some limitations on 

biological functions and species interactions” with moderate uncertainty (USDA, USDI 

2000a). Under Alternative 3, the removal of the pre-disturbance survey requirement 

in non-late-successional and non-old-growth forest stands could result in loss of some 

sites. This could result in some minor loss of population connectivity and interaction. 

However, based on the protection of known sites, under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4, habitat 

(including known sites) is sufficient to support stable populations in the NWFP area.

Under Alternative 2, this species would be included as Sensitive on Forest Service lands 

in Oregon and Washington. Known sites and suitable habitat on federally managed 

lands (in the Survey and Manage portion of its range) occur almost exclusively on 

National Forest System lands (GeoBOB/ISMS database). Some known sites may be 

lost as site management requirements and management strategies are evaluated at a 

local scale. Site losses allowed under the SSSPs are constrained by policy objectives 

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

Act. Under Alternative 2, habitat (including known sites) is sufficient to support stable 

populations in the NWFP area. Due to lack of species-specific management under the 

scenario of Alternative 2 without SSSP, habitat (including known sites) is insufficient to 

support stable populations in the NWFP area. 

This species changed to Category E in the 2001 ASR, and back to Category A in the 

2002 ASR. Although the net effect of these changes on this analysis is nil, the two ASR 

summaries have been included in Appendix 9 for the information that they provide.
263

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Monadenia infumata ochromphalus

Information from the 2003 ASR indicates that the terrestrial snail, Monadenia infumata 

ochromphalus is more common than previously thought. Over 100 new sites and 

numerous detections during the RMS Survey suggest the species is common. Fifty-four 

percent of known sites occur in reserves and RMS Survey detections indicate additional 

occurrences in reserves. The rate of detection may be an underestimate of abundance 

because pre-disturbance surveys were not performed (USDA, USDI Species Review Panel 

2003). Since the 2003 Annual Species Review, new information provides some clarity of 

this species’ habitat association. It appears to be associated with many late-successional 

forest characteristics at the micro-scale and with plantations at the meso-scale (Dunk et 

al. 2004).

Under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3, Monadenia infumata ochromphalus would be removed 

from Survey and Manage and not assumed to be on SSSP. Under Alternative 4, this 

species would be included in Category B, which requires management of all known 

sites, equivalent-effort surveys, and Strategic Surveys. For this species, equivalent-effort 

surveys apply as a mitigation measure “for as long as it remains in Category E or B” – see 

Chapter 2. Based on a high number of known sites, rate of detection, amount of potential 

habitat, protection by reserves and good distribution across its range, habitat (including 

known sites) is sufficient to provide for stable populations in the NWFP area under all 

alternatives.

Monadenia troglodytes troglodytes and M. t. wintu

These terrestrial snails are very rare, known from few sites confined to a narrow range 

near Shasta Lake in northern California. The known range and number of sites have not 

changed substantially since 1994, despite pre-disturbance surveys (USDA, USDI 1994a:J2; 

GeoBOB/ISMS database). 

Under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4, these species would be included in Category A, which 

requires management of known sites, pre-disturbance surveys, and Strategic Surveys. 

Monadenia troglodytes troglodytes and M. t. wintu were predicted to have habitat sufficient 

to “stabilize in a pattern altered from reference distribution with some limitations on 

biological functions and species interactions” with moderate uncertainty (USDA, USDI 

2000a; USDA, USDI 2001a). Under Alternative 3, the removal of the pre-disturbance 

survey requirement in non-late-successional and non-old-growth forest stands 

could result in loss of some sites. This could result in some minor loss of population 

connectivity and interaction. However, based on the protection of known sites, under 

Alternatives 1, 3, and 4, habitat (including known sites) is sufficient to support stable 

populations in the NWFP area for these two species.

Under Alternative 2, these species would be included as Sensitive on Forest Service 

lands in California. Known sites and suitable habitat on federally managed lands 

for this species occur almost exclusively on National Forest System lands (GeoBOB/

ISMS database). Some known sites may be lost as site management requirements and 

management strategies are evaluated at a local scale. Site losses allowed under the SSSPs 

are constrained by policy objectives ensuring that actions do not contribute to the need 

to list under the Endangered Species Act. Under Alternative 2, habitat (including known 

sites) is sufficient to support stable populations in the NWFP area. Due to lack of speciesspecific management under the scenario of Alternative 2 without SSSP, habitat (including 

known sites) is insufficient to support stable populations in the NWFP area. 

Oreohelix n. sp. 1

Oreohelix n. sp. 1 is a terrestrial snail with a moderate numbers of known sites confined to 

a narrow range centered on the Wenatchee National Forest. Under Alternatives 1, 3, and 
264

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

4, this species would be included in Category A, which requires management of known 

sites, pre-disturbance surveys, and Strategic Surveys. Oreohelix n. sp. 1 was predicted 

to have habitat sufficient to “stabilize in a pattern similar to reference distribution” 

with moderate uncertainty, respectively (USDA, USDI 2000a). Under Alternative 3, the 

removal of the pre-disturbance survey requirement in non-late-successional and non-oldgrowth forest stands could result in loss of some sites. This could result in some minor 

loss of population connectivity and interaction. However, based on the protection of 

known sites, under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4, habitat (including known sites) is sufficient to 

support stable populations in the NWFP area.

Under Alternative 2, this species would be included as Sensitive on Forest Service 

lands in Washington. Known sites and suitable habitat on federally managed lands 

(in the Survey and Manage portion of its range) occur almost exclusively on National 

Forest System lands (GeoBOB/ISMS database). Some known sites may be lost as site 

management requirements and management strategies are evaluated at a local scale. 

Site losses allowed under the SSSPs are constrained by policy objectives ensuring that 

actions do not contribute to the need to list under the Endangered Species Act. Under 

Alternative 2, habitat (including known sites) is sufficient to support stable populations 

in the NWFP area. Due to lack of species-specific management under the scenario of 

Alternative 2 without SSSP, habitat (including known sites) is insufficient to support 

stable populations in the NWFP area. 

Pristiloma arcticum crateris

This terrestrial snail is known from moderate numbers of sites spread across a broad 

range. Pristiloma arcticum crateris is believed to be associated with riparian areas in at 

least part of its range (USDA, USDI 2003b). Detections are within close proximity to wet 

areas, helping affirm its association to riparian areas. Recent (2006) 25 percent increases 

in known sites makes Pristiloma arcticum crateris more common and better distributed 

than previously thought. Recent new sites suggest the range to be straddling the 

Cascades and having good continuity. 

Under Alternatives 1 and 3, Pristiloma arcticum crateris is included in Category A, which 

requires management of known sites, pre-disturbance surveys, and Strategic Surveys. 

Under Alternative 3, removal of the pre-disturbance survey requirement in non-latesuccessional and non-old-growth forest stands could result in loss of some sites. This 

could result in some minor loss of population connectivity and interaction. However, 

because of recent increases in known site numbers and its association with riparian 

habitats, under Alternatives 1 and 3, habitat (including known sites) is sufficient to 

support stable populations in the NWFP area.

Under Alternative 2, Pristiloma arcticum crateris would be included in both BLM and 

Forest Service SSSP in Oregon in most or all of its range. Known sites and suitable 

habitat on federally managed lands (in the Survey and Manage portion of its range) occur 

almost exclusively on National Forest System lands (GeoBOB/ISMS database). Because 

of recent increases in known site numbers and its association with riparian habitats, 

habitat (including known sites) is sufficient to support stable populations in the NWFP 

area with or without SSSP.

Under Alternative 4, this species is included in Category B, which requires management 

of known sites, equivalent-effort surveys, and Strategic Surveys. For this species, 

equivalent-effort surveys apply as a mitigation measure “for as long as it remains in 

Category E or B” – see Chapter 2. Habitat (including known sites) is sufficient to support 

stable populations in the NWFP area under Alternative 4 for the reasons noted for 

Alternatives 1, 2, and 3.
265

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Prophysaon coeruleum (Washington and California)

Although the California and Washington portions of the Prophysaon coeruleum range each 

represent less than 10 percent of the total range area, they may represent genetically or 

ecologically distinct populations or undescribed species (USDA, USDI 2000a). Under 

Alternatives 1, 3, and 4, this terrestrial snail would be included in Category A, which 

requires management of known sites, pre-disturbance surveys, and Strategic Surveys. 

Prophysaon coeruleum was predicted to have habitat sufficient to “stabilize in a pattern 

altered from reference distribution with some limitations on biological functions and 

species interactions” with moderate uncertainty (USDA, USDI 2000a). Under Alternative 

3, the removal of the pre-disturbance survey requirement in non-late-successional and 

non-old-growth forest stands could result in loss of some sites. This could result in some 

minor loss of population connectivity and interaction. However, based on the protection 

of known sites, under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4, habitat (including known sites) is sufficient 

to support stable populations in the NWFP area.

Under Alternative 2, this species would be included as Sensitive on Forest Service lands 

in Washington and California. Known sites and suitable habitat on federally managed 

lands (in the Survey and Manage portion of its range) occur almost exclusively on 

National Forest System lands (GeoBOB/ISMS database). Some known sites may be 

lost as site management requirements and management strategies are evaluated at a 

local scale. Site losses allowed under the SSSPs are constrained by policy objectives 

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

Act. Under Alternative 2, habitat (including known sites) is sufficient to support stable 

populations in the NWFP area. Due to lack of species-specific management under the 

scenario of Alternative 2 without SSSP, habitat (including known sites) is insufficient to 

support stable populations in the NWFP area. 

Trilobopsis roperi

Trilobopsis roperi is a terrestrial snail with a moderate numbers of known sites in a recently 

expanding range mostly in California. Under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4, this species would 

be included in Category A, which requires management of known sites, pre-disturbance 

surveys, and Strategic Surveys. Trilobopsis roperi, was predicted to have habitat sufficient 

to “stabilize in a pattern altered from reference distribution with some limitations on 

biological functions and species interactions” with moderate uncertainty (USDA, USDI 

2000a). Under Alternative 3, the removal of the pre-disturbance survey requirement 

in non-late-successional and non-old-growth forest stands could result in loss of some 

sites. This could result in some minor loss of population connectivity and interaction. 

However, based on the protection of known sites, under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4, habitat 

(including known sites) is sufficient to support stable populations in the NWFP area.

Under Alternative 2, this species would be included as Sensitive on Forest Service 

lands in California. Known sites and suitable habitat on federally managed lands (in 

the Survey and Manage portion of its range) occur almost exclusively on National 

Forest System lands (GeoBOB/ISMS database). Some known sites may be lost as site 

management requirements and management strategies are evaluated at a local scale. 

Site losses allowed under the SSSPs are constrained by policy objectives ensuring that 

actions do not contribute to the need to list under the Endangered Species Act. Under 

Alternative 2, habitat (including known sites) is sufficient to support stable populations 

in the NWFP area. Due to lack of species-specific management under the scenario of 

Alternative 2 without SSSP, habitat (including known sites) is insufficient to support 

stable populations in the NWFP area. 
266

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Trilobopsis tehamana

This terrestrial snail is very rare, known from only a few sites scattered across a relatively 

broad range. The known range and number of sites have not changed substantially since 

1994, despite pre-disturbance or equivalent-effort survey requirements, so the likelihood 

of significant undiscovered populations appears low (USDA, USDI 1994a:J2; GeoBOB/

ISMS database). 

Under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4, this species would be included in Category A, which 

requires management of known sites, pre-disturbance surveys, and Strategic Surveys. 

Trilobopsis tehamana was predicted to have habitat sufficient to “stabilize in a pattern 

similar to reference distribution” with moderate, high, and low uncertainty, respectively 

(USDA, USDI 2000a). Under Alternative 3, the removal of the pre-disturbance survey 

requirement in non-late-successional and non-old-growth forest stands could result in 

loss of some sites. This could result in some minor loss of population connectivity and 

interaction. However, based on the protection of known sites, under Alternatives 1, 3, 

and 4, habitat (including known sites) is sufficient to support stable populations in the 

NWFP area.

Under Alternative 2, this species would be included in the Agencies’ SSSPs in California 

as Sensitive on Forest Service and BLM lands. Known sites and suitable habitat 

on federally managed lands occur almost exclusively on National Forest System 

lands (GeoBOB/ISMS database). Some known sites may be lost as site management 

requirements and management strategies are evaluated at a local scale. Site losses 

allowed under the SSSPs are constrained by policy objectives ensuring that actions do 

not contribute to the need to list under the Endangered Species Act. Under Alternative 

2, habitat (including known sites) is sufficient to support stable populations in the NWFP 

area. Due to lack of species-specific management under the scenario of Alternative 2 

without SSSP, habitat (including known sites) is insufficient to support stable populations 

in the NWFP area. 

Vertigo n. sp. 1

The single known site for the terrestrial snail Vertigo n. sp. 1 lies on non-federal land 

adjacent to the Olympic National Forest, in an area subject to substantial timber 

harvest. Adjacent federally managed land is split between Late-Successional Reserve 

and Adaptive Management Area land allocations. The known range and number of 

sites have not changed since 1994, despite pre-disturbance or equivalent-effort survey 

requirements, so the likelihood of significant undiscovered populations appears low 

(USDA, USDI 1994a:J2; GeoBOB/ISMS database). 

Under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4, this species would be included in Category A, which 

requires management of known sites, pre-disturbance surveys, and Strategic Surveys. 

Vertigo n. sp. 1 was predicted to have habitat sufficient to “stabilize in a pattern similar 

to reference distribution” with moderate, high, and low uncertainty, respectively 

(USDA, USDI 2000a). Under Alternative 3, the removal of the pre-disturbance survey 

requirement in non-late-successional and non-old-growth forest stands could result in 

loss of some sites. This could result in some minor loss of population connectivity and 

interaction. However, based on the protection of known sites, under Alternatives 1, 3, 

and 4, habitat (including known sites) is sufficient to support stable populations in the 

NWFP area.

Under Alternative 2, this species would be included as Sensitive on Forest Service lands 

in Washington. Known sites and suitable habitat on federally managed lands occur 

almost exclusively on National Forest System lands (GeoBOB/ISMS database). Some 

known sites may be lost as site management requirements and management strategies 

are evaluated at a local scale. Site losses allowed under the SSSPs are constrained 
267

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

by policy objectives ensuring that actions do not contribute to the need to list under 

the Endangered Species Act. Under Alternative 2, habitat (including known sites) is 

sufficient to support stable populations in the NWFP area. Due to lack of species-specific 

management under the scenario of Alternative 2 without SSSP, habitat (including known 

sites) is insufficient to support stable populations in the NWFP area. 

Vespericola pressleyi

This terrestrial snail is known from a moderate number of sites confined to a narrow 

range in the Trinity National Forest area in Northern California. The known range and 

number of sites have not changed substantially since 1994, despite pre-disturbance or 

equivalent-effort survey requirements, so the likelihood of significant undiscovered 

populations appears low (USDA, USDI 1994a:J2; GeoBOB/ISMS database). 

Under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4, this species would be included in Category A, which 

requires management of known sites, pre-disturbance surveys, and Strategic Surveys. 

Vespericola pressleyi was predicted to have habitat sufficient to “stabilize in a pattern 

altered from reference distribution with some limitations on biological functions and 

species interactions” with moderate uncertainty (USDA, USDI 2000a; USDA, USDI 

2001a). Under Alternative 3, the removal of the pre-disturbance survey requirement 

in non-late-successional and non-old-growth forest stands could result in loss of some 

sites. This could result in some minor loss of population connectivity and interaction. 

However, based on the protection of known sites, under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4, habitat 

(including known sites) is sufficient to support stable populations in the NWFP area.

Under Alternative 2, this species would be included in the Agencies’ SSSPs in California 

as Sensitive in Forest Service and BLM lands. Known sites and suitable habitat 

on federally managed lands occur almost exclusively on National Forest System 

lands (GeoBOB/ISMS database). Some known sites may be lost as site management 

requirements and management strategies are evaluated at a local scale. Site losses 

allowed under the SSSPs are constrained by policy objectives ensuring that actions do 

not contribute to the need to list under the Endangered Species Act. Under Alternative 

2, habitat (including known sites) is sufficient to support stable populations in the NWFP 

area. Due to lack of species-specific management under the scenario of Alternative 2 

without SSSP, habitat (including known sites) is insufficient to support stable populations 

in the NWFP area. 

Vespericola shasta

Vespericola shasta has a moderate numbers of known sites confined to a narrow range. 

Under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4, this terrestrial snail would be included in Category A, 

which requires management of known sites, pre-disturbance surveys, and Strategic 

Surveys. Vespericola shasta was predicted to have habitat sufficient to “stabilize in a 

pattern altered from reference distribution with some limitations on biological functions 

and species interactions” with moderate uncertainty (USDA, USDI 2000a). Under 

Alternative 3, the removal of the pre-disturbance survey requirement in non-latesuccessional and non-old-growth forest stands could result in loss of some sites. This 

could result in some minor loss of population connectivity and interaction. However, 

based on the protection of known sites, under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4, habitat (including 

known sites) is sufficient to support stable populations in the NWFP area.

Under Alternative 2, this species would be listed as Sensitive by the Forest Service in 

California. Known sites and suitable habitat on federally managed lands (in the Survey 

and Manage portion of its range) occur almost exclusively on National Forest System 

lands (GeoBOB/ISMS database). Some known sites may be lost as site management 

requirements and management strategies are evaluated at a local scale. Site losses 

allowed under the SSSPs are constrained by policy objectives ensuring that actions do 
268

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

not contribute to the need to list under the Endangered Species Act. Under Alternative 

2, habitat (including known sites) is sufficient to support stable populations in the NWFP 

area. Due to lack of species-specific management under the scenario of Alternative 2 

without SSSP, habitat (including known sites) is insufficient to support stable populations 

in the NWFP area. 

Vorticifex klamathensis sinitsini

Information from the 2001 ASR indicates that the aquatic snail Vorticifex klamathensis 

sinitsini is not closely associated with late-successional or old-growth forests. It is known 

from only seven aquatic sites in Oregon, not on Forest Service or BLM lands and not near 

late-successional forests. The 2000 FSEIS outcome for Category E was “sufficient habitat” 

(USDA, USDI 2000a). No new information or detections have been obtained since the 

2001 Annual Species Review.

Under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3, Vorticifex klamathensis sinitsini is removed from Survey and 

Manage and assumed to be on SSSP for the Forest Service in Oregon. Under Alternative 

4, this species would be included in Category E, which requires management of all 

known sites and Strategic Surveys. If sites where discovered on Forest Service or BLM 

lands, the species would be offered protection by Riparian Reserves and other elements 

of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy. Therefore, habitat (including known sites) is 

sufficient to provide for stable populations in the NWFP area under all alternatives with 

or without SSSP.

Vorticifex n. sp. 1

This aquatic snail is known from two sites located outside of large reserves in Shasta 

County, northern California. There is no new information since 1994 that would alter 

the evaluation in the Northwest Forest Plan Final SEIS (USDA, USDI 1994a). The known 

range has not substantially changed since 1994, despite pre-disturbance and Strategic 

Survey requirements. The likelihood of significant undiscovered populations appears 

low (USDA, USDI 1994a:J2; GeoBOB/ISMS database). As an aquatic snail, this species 

receives protection from the Aquatic Conservation Strategy (USDA, USDI 1994a). 

However, concerns for persistence remain (USDA, USDI 1994a:J2; USDA, USDI 2000a). 

These concerns include factors that could directly or indirectly affect the site while 

still meeting overall Aquatic Conservation Strategy goals, such as livestock grazing or 

activities outside the riparian buffer zone, particularly around small wetlands or springs 

where the riparian buffer covers only the extent of riparian vegetation. Local extirpation 

and species extinction of ecologically similar species in this family (Hydrobiidae) have 

been documented because of water diversion, livestock grazing, and groundwater 

withdrawal outside the riparian zone (Hershler and Sada 1987, USDA et al. 1993, 

Hershler and Frest 1996). 

Under Alternative 1, 3, and 4, this species would be included in Category E, which 

requires management of all known sites and Strategic Surveys. This species also requires 

equivalent-effort surveys “for as long as [it] remains in Categories B or E” (see Chapter 

2). Vorticifex n. sp. 1 is expected to have sufficient habitat to “stabilize in a pattern similar 

to reference distribution” with moderate uncertainty. Under Alternative 3, much of the 

habitat for this species may no longer require pre-disturbance surveys. The association 

of this species with late-successional and old-growth forest typically depends on stand 

conditions at a larger scale, which may not be considered in assessment of survey 

requirements. This may result in inadvertent loss of undiscovered sites or populations, 

although it is unlikely that significant undiscovered populations are extant. This could 

result in some minor loss of population connectivity and interaction. However, based on 

the protection of known sites, under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4, habitat (including known 

sites) is sufficient to support stable populations in the NWFP area.
269

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Under Alternative 2, this species would not be included in the Agencies’ SSSPs. Known 

sites would not be managed and pre-disturbance and Strategic Surveys would not be 

completed. Habitat (including known sites) is insufficient to support stable populations 

in the NWFP area.

Summary and Mitigation

Thirty-one of the 44 species would have habitat (including known sites) sufficient to 

support stable populations in the NWFP area under all alternatives. 

Two of the 44 species (Fluminicola seminalis and Monadenia chaceana) would have habitat 

(including known sites) sufficient to support stable populations range-wide in the 

NWFP area under all alternatives, although there is insufficient habitat to support stable 

populations in a portion of the NWFP area under Alternative 2. These species tend to 

have widely scattered known sites or populations and would not be included in the 

SSSPs throughout some of their range under Alternative 2. Loss of sites or population 

areas would reduce population interaction, connectivity, and normal biological function, 

and could result in habitat (including known sites) insufficient to support stable 

populations in the NWFP area from significant portions of the species range. Mitigation 

under Alternative 2 could include management of known sites not protected by reserves. 

Mitigation could also include pre-project clearances for Fluminicola seminalis. Mitigation 

would apply to National Forest System lands in California for the Monadenia chaceana, 

and to BLM managed lands in California for Fluminicola seminalis. Mitigation would 

eliminate the adverse effects of Alternatives 2. See Chapter 2 for a detailed description of 

mitigation.

Ten of the 44 species would have habitat (including known sites) sufficient to support 

stable populations in the NWFP area under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4. Under Alternative 

2, because of the rarity and narrow ranges of these species and lack of inclusion in the 

SSSPs, these species would have habitat (including known sites) insufficient to support 

stable populations in the NWFP area. Mitigation of these effects under Alternative 2 

could include management of known sites not protected by reserves, and pre-project 

clearances. Mitigation would apply to National Forest System lands in California for 

all 10 of these species, and to BLM managed lands in California for 6 of these species 

(Fluminicola n. spp. 14, 18, 19, and 20; Lyogyrus n. sp. 3; and Vorticifex n. sp. 1). Mitigation 

would eliminate the adverse effects of Alternative 2. See Chapter 2 for a detailed 

description of mitigation.

One species has insufficient information to determine an outcome for any alternative.

Amphibians

Affected Environment

Under Alternative 1, four salamanders are included in the Survey and Manage Standards 

and Guidelines: Larch Mountain, Shasta, Siskiyou Mountains, and Van Dyke’s in the 

Cascade Range. Under Alternative 4, one additional species is included in Survey and 

Manage, the Del Norte salamander. Under Alternative 2, these five salamanders are 

included in the Agencies’ Special Status Species Programs (see Table 2-13), and three of 

five species are included across their full range on federally managed lands. The Larch 

Mountain salamander is Bureau Assessment in the Oregon BLM and is Sensitive in Forest 

Service Region 6 (Oregon and Washington). The Shasta salamander is Bureau Sensitive 

in the California BLM and is included as Forest Service Sensitive in Region 5 (California). 

The Siskiyou Mountains salamander is Bureau Sensitive in BLM Oregon and Sensitive in 
270

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Oregon in Forest Service Region 6 and Sensitive in Forest Service Region 5 (California). 

The Van Dyke’s salamander is Sensitive in Washington in Forest Service Region 6. The 

Del Norte salamander is Sensitive only in Oregon in Forest Service Region 6. Under 

Alternative 3, four salamanders would be retained under the Survey and Manage 

Standards and Guidelines similar to Alternative 1: Shasta salamander, Van Dyke’s 

salamander, Larch Mountain salamander, and Siskiyou Mountains salamander South 

Range. Under Alternative 3, the Siskiyou Mountains salamander North Range and the 

Del Norte would be included in the Agencies’ Special Status Species Programs (SSSPs) as 

in Alternative 2. The Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines and the Agencies’ 

SSSPs have similar strategies; they both provide for management of sites and surveys.

These five salamanders are found in terrestrial environments without an aquatic life 

history stage. Populations of interacting individuals may be comprised of numerous 

sites. Knowledge regarding the known sites and range of these species has increased 

since 1994. For example, during this time, the known range of these species has increased 

51 percent for the Shasta salamander, 5 percent for the Van Dyke’s salamander, 155 

percent for the Larch Mountain salamander, and 91 percent for the Siskiyou Mountains 

salamander.

Although these five salamanders meet criteria for late-successional and old-growth 

forest associations, such association does not preclude their occurrence in younger 

stands. Terrestrial salamander habitat associations are often a mix of microhabitat to 

landscape-scale parameters, which may include an array of environmental variables in 

addition to late-successional and old-growth forests. They may have greater abundances 

in late-successional and old-growth forest and/or be associated with elements of latesuccessional and old-growth forest that may be retained in legacy conditions in younger 

stands. Furthermore, they may occur in non-late-successional and non-old-growth forest 

stands if other site conditions are lessening the deleterious effects of past disturbances 

(e.g., cooler surface microclimates of north facing slopes and deep rocky substrates, or 

wetter conditions of local surface hydrology). 

The knowledge gained about the Shasta, Van Dyke’s, Larch Mountain, Siskiyou 

Mountains, and Del Norte salamanders’ biology, distributions, and habitats from predisturbance surveys, Strategic Surveys, and various research efforts has been used 

in adaptive management. This has resulted in improved survey protocols having a 

greater likelihood of detecting animals, reducing the inadvertent loss of sites. Improved 

knowledge of species’ distributions and habitat associations has resulted in a perceived 

risk reduction for some salamanders. 

These five salamander species’ habitat associations with older forest stands or stand 

conditions suggest loss of these habitat conditions could adversely affect them (Blaustein 

et al. 1995). For example, disturbances such as regeneration timber harvest or stand 

replacement fires, which significantly remove canopy and/or disturb substrates, 

likely affect these salamanders. These vegetation or ground disturbances likely affect 

thermal and hydrological regimes and ground interstitial spaces, with concurrent 

effects on salamander summer/winter refugia, foraging, dispersal, and reproduction. 

Site occupancy or relative abundance could be affected. This conceptual model is an 

empirical information gap because there are no specific studies of these disturbance 

treatments on the salamanders considered here. However, some retrospective surveys 

and site monitoring supports these contentions. For example, Herrington and Larsen 

(1985) reported no Larch Mountain salamanders at a cut over site while they occurred at 

an adjacent intact area, and Clayton et al. (2005) reported loss of the Siskiyou Mountains 

salamander from a site for several years following clearcut harvest. Several studies on 

congeners demonstrate adverse effects of timber harvest activities (Clayton et al. 2005). 

In contrast, other reports document salamander occurrences in disturbed areas, hence, 

there is some uncertainty regarding these disturbance effects. There may be context-
271

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

dependent effects, for example with spatial habitat heterogeneity ameliorating effects 

in some areas (e.g., northerly aspects, deep talus slopes, high precipitation area) and 

magnifying effects elsewhere (south-facing slopes, compacted soils, rainshadow). 

Shasta Salamander (Hydromantes shastae)

Shasta salamander, Hydromantes shastae, occurs only in California near Shasta Lake. The 

current range extends over 250,000 acres. There are 78 known sites of Shasta salamanders 

on federally managed lands. Sixty-eight percent of federal sites occur in reserved land 

allocations, and 32 percent of federal sites occur in Matrix. Of the 78 total federal sites, 

22 have been found since 2004, 28 percent of the total known at this time. Federally 

managed lands are primarily National Forest System lands and comprise 68 percent 

of the range. Less than 1 percent of the range occurs on BLM managed lands. Habitat 

includes limestone outcrops, other rock sources, and non-rock habitats (USDA, USDI 

2000d; Lewendal 1995; Lindstrand 2000; Nauman and Olson 2002; North State Resources, 

Inc. 2002). Potential habitat has not been well surveyed (USDA, USDI 2000e). Divergent 

genetic lineages have been detected in this species, with genetic levels of diversification 

analogous to those used to recognize other plethodontid salamander species (Bingham 

2004, 2006). However, at this time the Shasta salamander is considered a species-complex 

with multiple discrete populations. Distribution of these discrete populations within 

federal land allocations is not available.

Van Dyke’s Salamander (Plethodon vandykei)

The Van Dyke’s salamander, Plethodon vandykei, occurs in Washington on the Olympic 

Peninsula, in southwestern Washington, and in the Cascade Range. Only the populations 

in the Cascade Range are included in the Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines. 

There are 40 known sites of Van Dyke’s salamanders on federally managed lands in the 

Cascades. About 65 percent of federal sites occur in reserves, and 35 percent of federal 

sites are in Matrix or Adaptive Management Areas. Of the 40 total federal sites, 17 new 

sites have been found since 2004, 42.5 percent of the current total. The distribution of the 

species is not well known. Although habitat is broad, including caves, talus, streams, 

and lakes, this species appears to have a strong association with riparian environments, 

occurring in association with streams and seeps, and including apparent affinities for 

high gradient and headwater areas. Sites are known up to an elevation of 5,200 feet.

Larch Mountain Salamander (Plethodon larselli) 

Although originally thought to be restricted to the Columbia River Gorge, the range 

of the Larch Mountain salamander now extends 135 miles in length, north and south 

along the Cascade Range, and 40 miles wide, east to west. Since 1980, the total area 

encompassed by known sites has increased almost 10-fold (Nauman and Olson 1999). 

Of 103 sites of Larch Mountain salamanders known on federal lands, about 70 percent 

occur in reserves, with 30 of 103 (29 percent) in Matrix or Adaptive Management Areas. 

These 103 sites include 15 new federal sites that have been found since 2004. Known 

sites occur to an elevation of 4,200 feet (Krupka et al. 2006). The fact that relatively few 

sites have been identified since 1993 despite survey efforts (i.e., 461 negative surveys, 

GeoBOB/ISMS database) supports either the rarity of this animal (USDA, USDI Species 

Review Panel 2001) or inadequate knowledge of its specific habitat associations. This 

animal occurs in a variety of habitat types including talus and rocky slopes within a 

dense conifer overstory (Herrington and Larsen 1985). The majority of known sites for 

this species reflect narrow habitat and microclimate requirements. Known sites occur to 

an elevation of 4,100 feet. Divergent genetic lineages representing discrete populations 

have been identified within this species.
272

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Del Norte Salamander (Plethodon elongatus) 

The Del Norte salamander, Plethodon elongatus, occurs across 1.9 million hectares (ha), of 

which 1.3 million ha (70 percent) is on federal lands distributed entirely within the area 

of the Northwest Forest Plan (Clayton et al. 2005). The range includes or intersects part 

of 269 6th-field watersheds (= hydrologic unit code), of which almost half (127 of 269) 

were >90 percent federally managed (Nauman et al. unpub. 2002). By 6th field watershed, 

about one-third (77 of 269) of the watersheds had <10 percent large federal reserves 

by area, a quarter (62 of 269) had >90 percent federal reserves and the remainder were 

evenly distributed in the 8 intermediate classes by 10 percent increments (e.g., about 

10-20 watersheds in each class: 11-20 percent reserves, 21-30 percent, etc.; Nauman et 

al. unpub. 2002). Within the species’ range on federal lands, the large blocks of federal 

reserved lands occupy a distinct north-to-south core area of the range, with reduced large 

reserve coverage in portions of the federal range, specifically in the north and northeast 

portion of the range in Oregon and parts of the southernmost range in California. Not 

included in these large reserves are the Riparian Reserves and other smaller reserves such 

as the known spotted owl activity centers, within which these animals may occur if their 

habitat coincides with those areas.

Welsh et al. (2006) modeled P. elongatus habitat in California, comparing occurrences in 

reserved and non-reserved lands. They found that their best habitat model estimated 

occupancy rates to be greater for reserved lands, suggesting that reserved lands had 

higher habitat quality than non-reserved lands. Habitat in Oregon has not been assessed, 

however recent large-scale stand replacement fires may have altered some critical 

components of habitat in Oregon, including parts of the species’ range in reserves (e.g., 

Biscuit fire).

Compilation of site data for this species has encountered quality control issues such as 

duplicate records, making the actual known site number difficult to assess. While about 

1800 site records were compiled as of 2001, it was estimated that these likely represent 

between 700 and 1000 sites (USDA, USDI Species Review Panel 2001). An analysis that 

combined records within 100 meters of each other to eliminate duplicates resulted in 

885 unique localities on federal and non-federal lands (Nauman et al. unpub. 2002). The 

100-meter criterion was an estimate chosen due to limited salamander dispersal ability 

such that this distance may distinguish individuals or subpopulations. Over 350 records 

were not mappable due to locality imprecision. The 885 unique sites included 171 from 

museum records, 119 records from private land managers, and 595 records from federal 

researchers and land managers. Since the 2001 compilation of data for this species 

(USDA, USDI Species Review Panel 2001), 317 new site records have been reported, 

although a 100-meter proximity criterion has not been applied to these data and whether 

these overlap previous records is not known. 

In a sampling effort at CVS/FIA plots in California allowing inference to the sampled 

population, the Del Norte salamander was detected at 35 of 307 plots (11.4 percent); 

preliminary results estimated this salamander to occur across a total of 230,000 (± 67,000) 

plots throughout the sampled range of the species in California (USDA, USDI Species 

Review Panel 2001). However, there were uncertainties expressed regarding this brief 

2-page report because, for example, methods were not detailed. 

Three discrete populations for Plethodon elongatus have been described using 

mitochondrial DNA techniques (Mahoney 2004). The largest of these populations 

(northern group) occurs in both Oregon and California, encompassing 206-214 6th-field 

watersheds and 1.3 million ha; half of these watersheds were >90 percent federally 

managed, with large reserved land allocations occurring in a north-south band down the 

center of this area (Nauman et al. unpub. 2002). The two southern genetic groups are 

more closely related (Mahoney 2004), and are poorly delineated geographically due to 

fewer samples, but together potentially occur across 68,000 to 548,000 ha and, depending 
273

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

on how range decisions are made, intersecting 6 to 69 6th-field watersheds (Nauman et al. 

unpub. 2002). The proportion of these watersheds with >90 percent federal lands ranges 

from 28 percent to 42 percent for the different estimated areas. Large blocks of federal 

reserved lands occur in the northeastern portion of this estimated area (Nauman et al. 

unpub. 2002). The “Lonesome Ridge” population is defined by only 3 sites (Mahoney 

2004, Nauman et al. unpub. 2002), but these appear to be in an area with large federal 

reserves (Nauman et al. unpub. 2002, comparison of Mahoney 2004 Figure 1 and 

Nauman et al. unpub. 2002 Figure 4). The southernmost group is described from about 

10 sites and appears to occur on fewer large federal reserves. 

A recent study (Karraker and Welsh 2006) in California found that combined numbers 

of both Ensatina eschscholtzii and P. elongatus were lower in clearcuts than in late-seral 

forests. Their data suggest that P. elongatus was more affected by clearcuts than Ensatina. 

Ensatina was four times more abundant than P. elongatus across all sites, but six times 

more abundant in clearcuts. In contrast, in a different study in Oregon, Biek et al. (2002) 

did not see an effect of clearcutting on P. elongatus, relative to intact stands, attributing 

their result to the down wood left at the site post-harvest. These recent studies add 

to the body of literature already existing for P. elongatus, which has documented oldgrowth forest associations (e.g. Welsh and Lind 1988, 1991, 1995, see review in Blaustein 

et al. 1995) and their occurrence in young managed stands along the Mesic coastal area 

(Diller and Wallace 1994). Caution should be used when applying results from each of 

these case study areas to the species range-wide; direct inference is not valid and it is not 

clear if detectability of animals may have affected results. Nevertheless, some data now 

accumulating for P. elongatus suggests that timber harvest may reduce abundances in 

some circumstances but not necessarily eliminate the species from sites, especially where 

they occur in a landscape mosaic of stand ages.

Karraker and Welsh (2006) also found 5 recaptured marked P. elongatus had moved, 

on average, 26.5 m (range 15 to 45 m), which has implications for potential response to 

timber harvest in non-reserved lands. If habitat were to become unsuitable, they may 

not be able to move to new areas due to their low mobility. However, with small home 

ranges, these animals may be able to persist in small protected areas such as riparian 

areas or owl cores; whether such areas can retain persistent populations is unknown.

Siskiyou Mountains Salamander (Plethodon stormi)

The known range of the Siskiyou Mountains salamander is limited to a small area 

near the Oregon-California border, and known sites have increased substantially from 

1993. There are 374 total federal known sites of Siskiyou Mountains salamanders, 

including 201 (54 percent of total) new federal sites detected since 2004, many of which 

were detected during pre-disturbance surveys for mollusks, or Strategic Surveys for 

salamanders. The high number of recent sites may be explained by the use of different 

site definitions by different surveyors. Sites identified by mollusk surveys may indicate 

locations of individual salamanders (Reilly 2006 pers. comm.), whereas sites identified 

by amphibian surveys are based on the polygon of contiguous habitat within which an 

individual was found and may include more than one individual salamander’s location 

(Clayton et al. 2005). Only 47 sites were known in 1993, just 13 percent of the current 

number. Habitat is forested, rocky substrates under a closed canopy that provides cool, 

moist microclimates (Ollivier et al. 2001). Additionally, certain tree species and lower 

elevations were associated with salamander occurrence in a recent landscape-scale 

habitat model for this species north of the Siskiyou crest (Suzuki et al. 2006). The species 

can occur in all seral stages but the majority of sites are in older forests (mature and oldgrowth) and abundances are higher in older forests (USDA, USDI Species Review Panel 

2000; Nussbaum 1974). 

Because ecology and biological diversity of this animal appears to differ north and 

south of the Siskiyou crest near the Oregon-California border, the range for this species 
274

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

has been split for management considerations (USDA, USDI Species Review Panel 

2001). On federal lands north of the crest, there are 325 known sites. South of the crest, 

there are 49 known sites on federal lands. In the north, only about 13 percent of known 

federal sites are in reserves, with 86 percent occurring in Adaptive Management Areas 

or Matrix. A landscape-level habitat model and habitat suitability map developed for 

the north group shows patchy occurrence of habitat for salamanders across the northern 

landscape, with clusters of sites in these modeled habitat patches (Suzuki et al. 2006). 

In the south, 21 of 49 (43 percent) known federal sites occur in Matrix, and 28 of 49 (57 

percent) occur in federal reserves. A probability sampling effort conducted south of 

the Siskiyou crest addressed estimated occupancy at randomly selected grid cells (0.4 

x 0.4 km) across federal reserves and non-reserves at lower elevations (Nauman and 

Olson 2006). There was an equitable estimated occupancy rate between the two land 

allocations (reserves: 409 (SE 153) occupied grid cells; non-reserves: 443 (SE 136) occupied 

grid cells). However, there were significantly fewer captures at grid cells in reserves 

than non-reserves, likely due to the distribution of non-reserves in the wetter portion 

(likely optimal habitat) of the landscape. Hence, this infers there is an estimated lower 

abundance (salamanders per area) across reserved federal lands. 

Two genetically distinct lineages have been identified (Mahoney 2004, DeGross 2004, 

Mead et al. 2005). One occurs across the range of the north group and into part of the 

south group, along its central and eastern area south of the Siskiyou crest. The second 

lineage occurs only along the south and western portion of the south group (DeGross 

et al. 2006). Occurrences of these two populations in the south group appear to fall in 

both federal reserve and non-reserve land allocations, but estimates of number of sites 

or proportion of range per population occurring in each type of federal land allocation is 

not available at this time. 

At the southernmost extent of the species range, genetic and morphological analyses 

have revealed another distinct population that is a completely separate lineage recently 

recognized as a new species (Scott Bar salamander, Plethodon asupak; Mead et al. 2005, 

Mead 2006). This population is considered together with the Siskiyou Mountains 

salamander. This species is not broken out for a separate and complete analysis of 

effects in this document because it is not a Survey and Manage species. To be added to 

the list of species managed as Survey and Manage requires an evaluation to determine 

whether it meets the requisite criteria; such evaluations are conducted during the Survey 

and Manage Program’s Annual Species Review process. However, it continues to be 

managed by the local unit following the Siskiyou Mountains salamander direction. 

Seventeen locations are genetically confirmed as Plethodon asupak (Mead 2006). Of 

these 17 sites, 14 occur on federal lands, with 3 (21 percent of federal sites) occurring on 

reserve and 11 (79 percent) on non-reserve land allocations. This species has one of the 

smallest ranges for a plethodontid salamander in North America (Mead 2006), extending 

about 20 km (12 mile) along its north-south axis and about 17 km (10 mile), east-to-west. 

Additional Plethodon species sites are documented within the area of these 17 genetically 

confirmed locations and are assumed to be this species (Williams 2006 pers. comm., 

Woodridge 2006 pers. comm.).

Environmental Consequences

Shasta Salamander

The Shasta salamander was given a FEMAT rating of 0-40-40-20 (see Background for Effects 

Analysis section). The rating reflected an extremely localized distribution and risk of 

extirpation due to small population sizes (USDA, USDI 1994a:J2-426). The rating was not 

primarily a result of alternative design or federal management (USDA, USDI 1994a:3&4-

175). No standards and guidelines could be devised that would fully eliminate the risks 

of extirpation from federally managed lands (USDA, USDI 1994a:3&4-176). The Shasta 
275

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

salamander did not meet the Survey and Manage persistence criterion to maintain stable, 

well-distributed populations (USDA, USDI 2001a:Attachment 1-3) from implementation 

of other elements of the Northwest Forest Plan (e.g., land allocations, down wood). 

Most of the federal range of the Shasta salamander occurs on National Forest System 

lands (more than 99 percent) and about 66 percent occurs in Matrix with 33 percent 

occurring in Administratively Withdrawn Areas (Nauman and Olson 1999). These 

Administratively Withdrawn Areas are the Shasta Lake National Recreation Area, where 

vegetation-altering activities such as timber harvest do not generally occur, although 

fuels reduction activities such as prescribed burning for wildlife habitat do occur. 

Since 1971, the State of California has listed this species as State Threatened, which offers 

additional oversight and protections for this salamander on federal, state, and private 

lands. A Memorandum of Understanding with the State of California is required for 

collecting this species, and incidental take permits are reviewed for projects within its 

range or priority habitat areas. In addition, a “Comprehensive Species Management 

Plan” is maintained by the Shasta-Trinity National Forest (Bogener and Brouha 1979). 

The Comprehensive Species Management Plan includes maintaining known sites and 

populations. Although the comprehensive plan includes an adaptive management 

provision, it does not include a specified process to fill information gaps (e.g., discrete 

population boundaries, species range, habitat associations), and it has not been 

periodically revised as originally envisioned. The outdated habitat definition and survey 

procedures included in the comprehensive plan create some uncertainty in predicting 

environmental consequences. The State Threatened status and National Forest 

Comprehensive Species Management Plan are independent of all alternatives and SSSP 

scenarios considered here.

Under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4, this species would be included in Survey and Manage 

Category A, which requires pre-disturbance surveys, Strategic Surveys, and management 

of all known sites. Alternatives 1 and 4 likely would provide sufficient habitat (including 

known sites) to allow the Shasta salamander to stabilize in a pattern similar to reference 

distribution on federally managed lands in the NWFP area (USDA, USDI 2000a:340-357). 

Under Alternatives 1 and 4, habitat (including known sites) is sufficient to support stable 

populations in the NWFP area. 

Under Alternative 3, pre-disturbance surveys would not be conducted in non-latesuccessional and non-old-growth forest. Lack of pre-disturbance surveys in non-latesuccessional and non-old-growth forest stands increases the risk of inadvertent loss 

of such sites. Losses of highly-localized populations or subpopulations are possible. 

There is uncertainty regarding the extent that this would affect stable, well-distributed 

populations. The spatial pattern of identified sites, and possibly populations, which is 

then managed, may be reduced under Alternative 3; some gaps in the species distribution 

may result. Under Alternative 3, habitat (including known sites) is sufficient to support 

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

support stable populations in a portion of the NWFP area.

Under Alternative 2, the Shasta salamander is assumed to be included in the Agencies’ 

SSSPs as Bureau Sensitive and Forest Service Sensitive in California (see Table 2-13). 

Discretion in survey methodology and in the management of known sites under the 

SSSPs results in uncertainty whether all sites would be detected and managed. This, in 

turn, creates some uncertainty in the analysis of environmental consequences because the 

inadvertent loss of undetected sites, and possibly localized populations, may reduce the 

overall spatial pattern of managed sites and populations and may affect the maintenance 

of stable, well-distributed populations. Some gaps in the species distribution may 

result. Such gaps could be greater than those developing under Alternative 3 due to the 

discretionary nature of surveys in all habitat types, not just lack of surveys in younger 

stands. The management discretion in the SSSPs is constrained by policy objectives that 

include maintaining viable populations in habitats throughout their geographic range 
276

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

on National Forest System lands and ensuring that actions do not contribute to the 

need to list under the Endangered Species Act. Alternative 2 does not have a specified 

process (i.e. Strategic Surveys) to improve knowledge of the species that would facilitate 

adaptive management. 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. 

Under Alternative 2 without SSSP, the Shasta salamander would still be managed 

under the Shasta-Trinity National Forest “Comprehensive Species Management Plan.” 

As described above, this Plan maintains known sites and populations, although there 

is some uncertainty in predicting environmental consequences due to its outdated 

habitat definition and survey procedures. In addition, this species’ occurrence on 

federal reserved land allocations should be considered. At present, 19 of 63 (30 percent) 

federal known sites occur on non-reserved land and 44 of 63 (70 percent) federal sites 

occur in Administratively Withdrawn or Late-Successional Reserve allocations. This 

suggests most federal sites would not be at risk of disturbance or loss because of land 

management activities in non-reserves, which have priorities for other resource values 

such as wood production. However, it is unknown how discrete populations align 

with federal land allocations, and it is possible that clustered Matrix lands central to the 

species range (Nauman and Olson 1999) are coincident with one or more of these discrete 

lineages. In addition, the effects on these salamanders or their habitats of fire or fuels 

treatments to reduce fire risk are not known, and these treatments may occur in reserves. 

In particular, this species uses small pieces of down wood on the forest floor as cover 

(Olson and Lewendal 1999), and loss of these microhabitats is a concern, as is any loss of 

canopy closure, specifically in areas with little surface rock. Under Alternative 2 without 

SSSP, the Shasta salamander would have habitat (including known sites) sufficient to 

support most stable populations range-wide in the NWFP area, although there would 

be insufficient habitat to support stable populations in a portion of the NWFP area. 

Potential gaps in distribution could result in loss of discrete genetic populations in the 

NWFP area under this scenario. 

Van Dyke’s Salamander

The Van Dyke’s salamander (Cascades populations, Plethodon vandykei) was given a 

FEMAT rating of 0-20-58-23 (see Background for Effects Analysis section). The rating 

reflected the species’ naturally patchy distribution and it was thought that additional 

habitat protection would not increase its score (USDA, USDI 1994a:J2-420). The Van 

Dyke’s salamander did not meet the persistence criterion to maintain stable, welldistributed populations (USDA, USDI 2001a:Attachment 1-3). Due to the few known 

sites of this animal, loss of sites may pose a risk to maintaining the species’ reference 

distribution pattern, with potentially cascading effects on maintenance of stable, welldistributed populations throughout the species range. Current information suggests that 

Riparian Reserves under the Northwest Forest Plan provide mitigation for this species in 

areas where it occurs along stream banks. 

Under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4, this species would be included in Category A, which 

requires pre-disturbance surveys, Strategic Surveys, and management of all known 

sites. Alternatives 1 and 4 likely would provide sufficient habitat (including known 

sites) to allow the Van Dyke’s salamander to stabilize in a pattern similar to reference 

distribution on federally managed lands in the NWFP area (USDA, USDI 2000a:340-357). 

Under Alternatives 1 and 4, habitat (including known sites) is sufficient to support stable 

populations in the NWFP area. 

Under Alternative 3, pre-disturbance surveys would not be conducted in non-latesuccessional and non-old-growth forest stands that may lead to inadvertent loss of some 
277

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

sites. However, Riparian Reserves are likely to benefit animals at stream-associated sites. 

Losses of highly localized populations or subpopulations are possible at sites where 

Riparian Reserves or other habitat protection measures do not occur. There is uncertainty 

regarding the frequency of non-stream associated sites. This, in turn, creates some 

uncertainty in the analysis of environmental consequences because inadvertent loss of 

undetected sites or localized populations may affect stable, well-distributed populations, 

especially since this species has relatively few known sites on federal lands. Some gaps 

in the species distribution may result. Under Alternative 3, habitat (including known 

sites) is sufficient to support stable populations range-wide in the NWFP area, although 

there is likely insufficient habitat to support stable populations in a portion of the NWFP 

area. 

Under Alternative 2, Van Dyke’s salamander is assumed to be included in the SSSP 

as Forest Service Sensitive in Washington. Under Alternative 2, discretion in survey 

methodology and in the management of known sites under the SSSPs results in 

uncertainty whether all sites would be detected and managed. This, in turn, creates some 

uncertainty in the analysis of environmental consequences because the inadvertent loss 

of undetected sites may affect the maintenance of stable, well-distributed populations. 

Some gaps in the species distribution may result. Such gaps could be greater than those 

developing under Alternative 3 due to the discretionary nature of surveys in all habitat 

types, not just lack of surveys in younger stands. The management discretion in the 

SSSPs 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. Alternative 2 does not have a specified process to improve knowledge of the species 

that would facilitate adaptive management. Under Alternative 2, due to inclusion in 

the Sensitive Species Program and benefits provided by the Riparian Reserves, the Van 

Dyke’s salamander would have habitat (including known sites) sufficient to support 

stable populations range-wide in the Cascade Range in the NWFP area, although there 

would be insufficient habitat to support stable populations in a portion of the NWFP 

area. 

Under Alternative 2 without assignment as Forest Service Sensitive in Washington, the 

reserved land allocations of the Northwest Forest Plan would afford the Van Dyke’s 

salamander some protection. At present, 20 of 31 (65 percent) federal known sites in 

the Cascade Range occur on reserved land allocations. This suggests over half of the 

known sites are likely at reduced risk from land management activities such as timber 

production. However, these salamanders may be vulnerable to site-specific losses from 

some management activities that occur on federal reserved lands. Of those sites on 

federal non-reserved lands (11 sites), it is currently unknown how many of them fall 

within Riparian Reserves or other locations likely to remain undisturbed. However, 

due to the primary habitats of this salamander to include seeps and streamside 

areas, many are likely to fall within Riparian Reserves. Hence, while there is some 

uncertainty regarding the maintenance of all of these sites, many could be protected 

from anthropogenic disturbance. However, with only 31 known sites on federal lands, 

this is one of the rarest vertebrates on federal lands in the region. Alternative 2 without 

SSSP has limited mechanisms to improve knowledge of this species’ distribution, and 

few additional sites could be found unless independent studies were conducted. Risk 

to persistence could be reduced if additional sites were known and managed. Current 

sites are often small, isolated, fragmented habitat patches and may be subject to natural 

disturbances, effects of global climate change or stochastic processes affecting their 

persistence. Hence, additional site losses and hence gaps in the species’ distribution are 

likely to accrue over time, although their extent is uncertain. Alternative 2 without SSSP 

likely would maintain some stable Van Dyke’s salamander populations on federal lands, 

but with insufficient habitat to support stable populations in a portion of the NWFP 

area. Potential gaps in species distribution are likely to be coincident with both federal 

reserved and non-reserved land allocations. 
278

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Larch Mountain Salamander

The Larch Mountain salamander was given a FEMAT rating of 75-20-5-0 (see Background 

for Effects Analysis section). The rating was based on the fact that under Option 9 in 

FEMAT the species: (1) was provided protection buffers; (2) was rare and locally 

endemic; (3) might be a relict species susceptible to extirpation through catastrophic 

events; and, (4) distribution was very poorly known (USDA, USDI 1994a:J2-423). The 

Larch Mountain salamander did not meet the Survey and Manage persistence criterion 

to maintain stable, well-distributed populations from implementation of other elements 

of the Northwest Forest Plan (e.g., land allocations, down wood) (USDA, USDI 2001a:

Attachment 1-3). Due to the few known sites of this animal, and their patchy distribution 

away from the Columbia River Gorge, loss of sites may pose a risk to maintaining the 

species’ reference distribution, with potentially cascading effects on maintenance of 

stable, well-distributed populations throughout the species range. 

Under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4, this species would be included in Category A, which 

requires pre-disturbance surveys, Strategic Surveys, and management of all known sites. 

Alternatives 1 and 4 likely would provide sufficient habitat (including known sites) 

to allow the Larch Mountain salamander to stabilize in a pattern similar to reference 

distribution on federally managed lands in the NWFP area (USDA, USDI 2000a:340-357). 

This result is analogous to Outcome A from FEMAT; thus, if a similar rating process 

were conducted now, this species would have a preponderance of points in Outcome A. 

Under Alternatives 1 and 4, habitat (including known sites) is sufficient to support stable 

populations in the NWFP area. 

Under Alternative 3, pre-disturbance surveys would not be conducted in non-latesuccessional and non-old-growth forest stands, which may lead to inadvertent loss of 

some sites and populations. Losses of highly-localized populations or subpopulations 

are possible. There is uncertainty regarding the extent that this would affect persistence; 

there is a risk that this would affect the maintenance of stable, well-distributed 

populations in the patchy part of the species’ range, north of the Columbia River Gorge. 

Some gaps in the species distribution may result. Under Alternative 3, habitat (including 

known sites) is sufficient to support stable populations range-wide in the NWFP area, but 

with insufficient habitat to support stable populations in a portion of the NWFP area. 

Under Alternative 2, the Larch Mountain salamander is assumed to be included in the 

SSSPs as Forest Service Sensitive in Region 6 (Oregon and Washington) and Bureau 

Assessment in Oregon (there are no BLM Northwest Forest Plan lands in Washington) 

(see Table 2-13). Discretion in survey methodology and in the management of known 

sites under the SSSPs results in uncertainty whether all sites, and potentially localized 

populations, would be detected and managed. This, in turn, creates some uncertainty in 

the analysis of environmental consequences because the inadvertent loss of undetected 

sites may affect the maintenance of stable, well-distributed populations. Some gaps in 

the species distribution may result. Such gaps could be greater than those developing 

under Alternative 3 due to the discretionary nature of surveys in all habitat types, not 

just lack of surveys in younger stands. The management discretion in the SSSPs 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. 

Alternative 2 does not have a specified process to improve knowledge of the species 

that would facilitate adaptive management. Under Alternative 2, due to inclusion in 

the SSSPs and the extent of federally managed sites and potential range in reserve land 

allocations, the Larch Mountain salamander would have habitat (including known 

sites) sufficient to support range-wide stable populations in the NWFP area, but with 

insufficient habitat to support stable populations in a portion of the NWFP area. 
279

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Under Alternative 2 without SSSP, the federal reserved land allocations of the Northwest 

Forest Plan would afford the Larch Mountain salamander some protection. At present, 

73 of 103 (71 percent) federal known sites occur on reserved land allocations. The spatial 

patterns of both sites and reserves across the species’ range are patchy. Scattered sites 

are coincident with intermixed large blocks of federally reserved and non-reserved 

land. North of the Columbia River Gorge, past survey efforts have revealed that suitable 

habitat appears to be patchy in distribution and occupancy rates of apparently suitable 

habitat appears to be low. In addition, these salamanders may be vulnerable to sitespecific losses from some management activities that occur on federal reserved lands. 

Of those sites on federal non-reserved lands (30 sites, 29 percent of total), management 

activities may compromise their persistence and it is unknown how many of these sites 

fall within locations likely to remain undisturbed. This is not a riparian-associated 

species; hence, Riparian Reserves would benefit them only if such areas transected their 

occupied upslope. In addition, some sites are small, isolated, fragmented habitat patches 

and may be subject to natural disturbances, effects of global climate change or stochastic 

processes affecting their persistence. 

Alternative 2 without SSSP would maintain some stable Larch Mountain salamander 

populations on federal lands range-wide in the NWFP area, although there likely is 

insufficient habitat to support stable populations in a portion of the NWFP area. In 

particular, areas north of the Columbia River Gorge, which covers the largest extent of 

the species’ range, may be vulnerable to losses. 

Del Norte Salamander

The Del Norte salamander, Plethodon elongatus, was given a FEMAT rating of 90-10-0-

0. These results appear to have assumed occupied sites would be protected with the 

protection buffer provisions that were part of the FEMAT’s Option 9 before the rating 

panels were conducted. Although site numbers had not been compiled in 1993, a 

retrospective analysis by survey date suggests at least 481 had been detected at that time 

(Nauman and Olson 1999). In 1999, there were 882 sites known across 1.9 million ha 

(Nauman and Olson 1999) and the species was assigned to Category D in the 2001 Record 

of Decision (USDA, USDI 2001a). Later that year, the species was determined to be welldistributed across federal reserve allocations (USDA, USDI Species Review Panel 2001); 

a criterion for inclusion in Survey and Manage is that reserves and other elements of the 

Northwest Forest Plan do not provide for persistence. 

Under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3, this species is removed from Survey and Manage, and 

is assumed to be in the SSSP for the Forest Service in Oregon. The high number of 

sites, occupancy in reserves across its range, and large extent of reserved lands in its 

range suggests the species would be retained in a central core area along its entire 

north-to-south extent. There is risk to persistence in portions of its range (e.g., 6thfield watersheds) with few large federal reserves, due to the apparent sensitivity of 

these animals to clearcut timber harvest and their low mobility, which likely affects 

their recolonization of disturbed areas. Riparian areas and other small areas of intact 

habitat likely contribute to local areas of persistence within federal Matrix and Adaptive 

Management Areas; however, it is uncertain to what degree such areas contribute to 

stable populations or offer population resiliency to disturbances. For its sister species, 

the Siskiyou Mountains salamander, the role of Riparian Reserves and other small 

habitat areas were evaluated in the draft conservation strategy (Olson et al. 2005); the 

outcome was a recommendation to identify additional high-priority sites to ensure welldistributed populations within and among 6th-field watersheds. 

The distribution of genetically discrete populations also requires consideration. In 

California, where this species is not included within the Agencies’ SSSP, the northern 

population is likely at reduced risk due to its larger spatial distribution and occurrence 

on large blocks of federal reserves. Uncertainty of effects is greater for the southern two 
280

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

populations because their spatial distribution relative to land ownerships and allocations 

is unknown. However, their distributions appear considerably smaller than for the 

northern group and likely overlap large federal reserves. More information about the 

distribution of these two populations is needed to adequately assess them.

In Oregon, where this is a SSSP species and only one genetic population occurs, it 

is highly likely to persist on the extensive federal lands within its range. However, 

there are 6th-field watersheds along the margins of the species range where Del Norte 

salamanders appear at greater risk due to predominance of non-reserved lands, for 

example, along northern and the eastern extent. It is possible that some of these portions 

of the species range would be subject to losses in Oregon due to site-specific management 

discretion permitted by the SSSP direction. Similarly, in Oregon without SSSP under 

Alternative 2, there would likely be marginal portions of the species range subject to 

increased risk of losses. 

However, under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3, and under Alternative 2 without SSSP, there is 

sufficient habitat to provide stable populations range-wide in the NWFP area, although 

there is uncertainty relative to the southernmost two genetic populations. 

Under Alternative 4, this species would be included under Category D, which requires 

Strategic Surveys and management of high-priority sites. It is assumed that all sites 

would be managed until management recommendations were developed. It is likely that 

the distribution of habitat and all three discrete populations relative to federally reserved 

and non-reserved lands would be taken into consideration in this process. Therefore, 

under Alternative 4, there is sufficient habitat to provide stable populations range-wide 

in the NWFP area.

Siskiyou Mountains Salamander

The Siskiyou Mountains salamander, Plethodon stormi, was given a FEMAT rating of 

50-30-15-5. The rating reflected its naturally patchy distribution and was not primarily 

a result of alternative design or federal management (USDA, USDI 1994a:J2-426). The 

species has an extremely small range. Because of its small population size, there was 

expected to be some risk of extirpation regardless of protective measures undertaken 

(USDA, USDI 1994a:3&4-177 and J2:427). The Siskiyou Mountains salamander did not 

meet the Survey and Manage persistence criterion to maintain stable, well-distributed 

populations from implementation of other elements of the Northwest Forest Plan 

without Survey and Manage (e.g., land allocations, down wood) (USDA, USDI 2001a:

Attachment 1-3; USDA, USDI 2002a). In the north, most of the federal range occurs 

within an Adaptive Management Area, where programmed timber harvest activities can 

occur. Less than 10 percent of the high quality habitat is in reserves and much of this 

range is suitable habitat for the species (Clayton et al. 2005). In the south, the species is 

patchier in distribution, with fewer sites. In addition, a new genetic population has been 

identified (DeGross 2004), so maintenance of distinct populations is important. 

Under Alternatives 1 and 3, this species would be included in Category A in the south 

range, which requires pre-disturbance surveys, Strategic Surveys, and management 

of all known sites. In Alternative 3 pre-disturbance surveys would be limited to latesuccessional and old-growth forests, which could lead to the loss of undiscovered sites. 

In Alternative 1 it would be included in Category D in the north range, which requires 

Strategic Surveys and management of high-priority sites. Under Alternative 4, this 

species would be included in Category C range-wide, which requires pre-disturbance 

surveys, Strategic Surveys, and management of all known sites. The 2000 FSEIS 

found that its Alternative 1 (Alternative 4 here) likely would provide sufficient habitat 

(including known sites) to allow the Siskiyou Mountains salamander to stabilize in a 

pattern similar to reference distribution on federally managed lands in the NWFP area 

(USDA, USDI 2000a:340-357). This result is analogous to Outcome A from FEMAT; thus, 
281

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

if a similar rating process were conducted now, this species would have a preponderance 

of points in Outcome A. Under Alternatives 1 and 4, habitat (including known sites) 

is sufficient to support stable populations in the NWFP area, for both the northern 

and southern ranges. Under Alternative 3 for Siskiyou Mountains salamander in the 

south range, habitat (including known sites) is sufficient to support stable populations 

range-wide in the NWFP area, although there is insufficient habitat to support stable 

populations in a portion of the NWFP area. With two genetic subunits in the south 

group, in addition to the population now known as the Scott Bar salamander, there is a 

particular concern in the south for site-specific losses that may affect genetic population 

stability. While it has been estimated that there are about 800 occupied grid cells in the 

south, it is unknown how those are apportioned between the genetic populations. In 

addition to anthropogenic disturbances, natural disturbances, effects of global climate 

change or stochastic processes may affect their persistence. 

Under Alternative 2 range-wide, and Alternative 3 in the north range, the Siskiyou 

Mountains salamander is assumed to be Forest Service Sensitive in Oregon and Region 

5 (California), and Bureau Sensitive in Oregon. Discretion in survey methodology 

and in the management of known sites under the SSSPs results in uncertainty whether 

all sites would be detected and managed. Lack of detection and subsequent losses of 

highly localized populations or subpopulations are possible, especially in the southern 

portion of the species range where multiple genetic lineages have been detected. This, 

in turn, creates some uncertainty in the analysis of environmental consequences because 

the inadvertent loss of undetected sites may affect the maintenance of stable, welldistributed populations, particularly in the southern range. Some gaps in the species 

distribution may result. With two genetic subunits south of Siskiyou crest, in addition 

to the population now known as the Scott Bar salamander, there is a particular concern 

in the south for site-specific losses that may affect genetic population stability. While 

it has been estimated that there are about 800 occupied grid cells in the south, it is 

unknown how those are apportioned between the genetic populations. In addition to 

anthropogenic disturbances, natural disturbances, effects of global climate change or 

stochastic processes may affect their persistence. The management discretion in the 

SSSPs 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. The SSSPs do not have a specified process to improve knowledge of the species that 

would facilitate adaptive management. 

Under Alternative 2, and Alternative 3 in the north range, the Siskiyou Mountains 

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

populations range-wide in the NWFP area, although there would be insufficient habitat 

to support stable populations in a portion of the NWFP area. In particular, the Scott Bar 

salamander population in the south may be particularly vulnerable to gaps within its tiny 

range. There are only 3 (21 percent) confirmed known sites occurring on federal reserved 

lands, and 11 sites on non-reserved federal lands, hence both management activities and 

natural disturbances are concerns for these few localities. The Agencies’ SSSPs would 

help provide a reasonable assurance of maintaining stable, well-distributed populations 

if occupied sites were managed for site persistence, and in the south, surveys to detect 

occupied areas and delineation of genetic populations were conducted. 

Under Alternative 2, and Alternative 3 in the north range, without SSSP, the Siskiyou 

Mountains salamander likely would benefit by reserved land allocations of the federal 

Northwest Forest Plan. However, for the northern range, 84 percent of known sites occur 

on federal non-reserved lands. Federal reserved lands are clustered towards the southern 

boundary of this north group at the Siskiyou crest. It is likely that higher elevation areas, 

coincident with these reserves, do not provide optimal habitat for this species (Suzuki 

et al. 2006). Additionally, this species may be vulnerable to some land management 

practices on federal reserved lands, and to natural disturbances on this landscape such 
282

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

as fire, both of which may result in site-specific losses. In addition, global climate change 

and stochastic processes may affect this species on any land allocation. Of those sites on 

federal non-reserved lands, it is currently unknown as to how many of them fall within 

locations likely to remain undisturbed. Incidental benefits to this species would occur 

as owl, botanical, riparian, or retained habitat intersects salamander-occupied habitats. 

However, the extent of this overlap and whether such patches would protect salamander 

populations is uncertain. On non-reserved federal lands, while the negative effects on 

this species of land management activities is a particular concern, natural disturbances 

also may affect site-level species persistence. Hence, there is uncertainty regarding the 

maintenance of sites on non-reserved lands. For the southern range, federal reserved 

lands are in greater proportion and from random surveys, an estimated 400 occupied 0.4 

x 0.4 km grid cells in reserves. However, abundance of salamanders in reserve grid cells 

is estimated to be lower than in non-reserves. In addition, it is unknown how reserves 

are apportioned between the two genetic populations of this species south of the Siskiyou 

crest. Hence, there is uncertainty regarding potential losses specific to these populations 

and the Scott Bar salamander. 

Under Alternatives 2 (and 3 in the north range) without SSSP, the Siskiyou Mountains 

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

populations range-wide in the NWFP area, although there would be insufficient habitat 

to support stable populations in a portion of the NWFP area. Potential gaps on federal 

lands may be coincident with non-reserves or reserves due to anthropogenic and natural 

disturbances, effects of global climate change and stochastic processes. Due to its small 

range and few known sites on federal lands, the Scott Bar salamander is particularly 

vulnerable to losses.

Decision on Petition to List Siskiyou Mountains and Scott Bar Salamanders

On March 29, 2007, and upon reconsideration of an earlier (April 2006) finding vacated 

by the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of California, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service announced a 90-day finding on a petition to list the Siskiyou Mountains and Scott 

Bar salamanders as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. The 

Service found that the petition and additional information available indicated listing may 

be warranted, and initiated a 12-month review to determine if listing was needed.

The Federal Register notice of the decision (72 Federal Register 14750) discussed five 

listing factors, including the fact that both species were being managed under the 

current Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines, and that the Siskiyou Mountains 

salamander was listed as a threatened species under the California Endangered Species 

Act and the Scott Bar salamander was being similarly managed. The finding noted the 

BLM and Forest Service were proposing to remove Survey and Manage protections and 

were expected to implement a decision in the fall of 2007. The finding also noted that 

the California Department of Fish and Game had submitted a petition to de-list, and a 

decision on that petition is expected from the California Fish and Game Commission in 

the fall of 2007. In regard to both of these actions, the finding states that if either action 

takes place, the adequacy of remaining protections should be evaluated at that time. 

There were other factors discussed in the finding, such as the mixed research findings 

regarding the persistence of the salamanders within harvested timber harvest units.

Because the finding includes additional discussion of available research, and has 

potential implications to the decision about Survey and Manage, the entire text of the 

March 29 Finding as it appeared in the Federal Register is included in Appendix 10. 
283

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Summary and Mitigation

For the Shasta, Van Dyke’s, Larch Mountain, Del Norte and Siskiyou Mountains 

salamander, Alternatives 1, 3, and 4 would achieve stable, well-distributed populations, 

and would provide specified mechanisms to improve knowledge of the species 

that would facilitate adaptive management. Some site losses and possibly gaps in 

distributions of these species are expected under Alternative 3; however, the extent that 

this would affect stable, well-distributed populations is uncertain. Similarly, Alternative 

2 for all five species 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. 

Under Alternative 1 and 4, all of the five salamander species would have habitat 

(including known sites) sufficient to support stable populations in the NWFP area. 

Under Alternatives 2 and 3, four salamander species (all but the Del Norte salamander) 

would have habitat (including known sites) sufficient to support stable populations 

range-wide, with potential gaps, in the NWFP area. The Del Norte salamander would 

have habitat (including known sites) sufficient to support stable populations range-wide.

Improved knowledge of these populations (e.g., distribution, abundance, and habitat) 

through Strategic Surveys, under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4 may alter the current perception 

of its risk.

Late-Successional Birds

Affected Environment

The Northwest Forest Plan Final SEIS and its supporting documents addressed the 

habitat needs of 36 bird species that were identified as closely associated with latesuccessional and old-growth forests (USDA, USDI 1994a). Additional discussion of 

affected environment is contained in FEMAT and the 2000 Survey and Manage Final 

SEIS. 

Environmental Consequences

Analyses and conclusions relevant to all alternatives in this SEIS include the Northwest 

Forest Plan Final SEIS finding that Alternative 9 adequately provides for the majority of 

these species (USDA, USDI 1994a:Table 3&4-29 and 3&4-179). These positive assessments 

for late-successional bird species were due to the provision of Congressionally Reserved 

Areas, Late-Successional Reserves, Riparian Reserves, watershed analysis, and the 

retention of green trees, snags, and coarse woody debris in areas of timber harvest in 

Matrix and Adaptive Management Area land allocations. None of these 36 bird species 

were originally included as Survey and Manage species. The conclusion of FEMAT 

regarding Option 9 and the Northwest Forest Plan Final SEIS regarding Alternative 9 

was that these late-successional birds would be stable and well distributed on federally 

managed lands throughout the NWFP area. 

The original analysis did not anticipate managed Survey and Manage species sites would 

be numerous enough to significantly contribute to the needs of late-successional birds, 

and thus release of a portion of those sites by one of the action alternatives does not alter 

that analysis.
284

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Great Gray Owl

Affected Environment

Under Alternatives 1, 3 and 4, the great gray owl is included in the Survey and Manage 

Standards and Guidelines. Under Alternative 2, the great gray owl is assumed to 

be Forest Service Sensitive in Washington and California. The Survey and Manage 

Standards and Guidelines and the Agencies’ SSSPs have similar strategies that include 

both pre-disturbance surveys or pre-project clearances and management of known sites. 

It is not included on Agencies’ SSSPs in Oregon, where all the known nest sites within the 

Northwest Forest Plan are located.

There has been an increase in the known range of the great gray owl since the Northwest 

Forest Plan Final SEIS. At the time of the Northwest Forest Plan Final SEIS, the great 

gray owl was documented as nesting in an area along the central Cascade Mountains of 

Oregon and in a small area southwest of Medford, Oregon. Published data (Hayward 

and Verner 1994) and the results of surveys indicate that the range is likely much greater. 

Great gray owls have been documented over much of the Cascade Range in Oregon 

and Washington, although nesting has not been confirmed in some of these new areas. 

In addition to increasing the geographic area of known and expected great gray owl 

nesting, recent information indicates that the great gray owl uses elevations below 3000 

feet (Huff et al. 1996; USDA, USDI Species Review Panel 1999). Current Survey Protocols 

require surveys down to 500 feet.

Originally, great gray owl locations were classified as either an “Activity Center” or a 

“Nest Site.” An activity center is the point that best describes the focal area of use by a 

territorial owl. It spans from active nest to diurnal location of a pair/single to nocturnal 

location of pair/single. A nest site is the known nest tree and the immediate area 

surrounding it.

The final survey protocol defines a great gray owl known site as:

1. A male and female are heard and/or observed in proximity (less than 0.1 mile apart) to 

each other on the same outing during the day.

2. A male takes prey to a female.

3. A female is seen on a nest.

4. Young are observed and can be determined as the correct species by the presence of an 

adult great gray owl or other means that is defensible (USDA, USDI 2004d).

According to this definition, there are currently 119 known great gray owl sites within 

the NWFP area (GeoBOB/ISMS database), mostly outside of large reserves. Although 

the great gray owl is found in eastern Washington, Oregon, and California, as well as 

Alaska, Canada, Europe and Asia, it has a spotty distribution throughout the NWFP area 

and the current population there is considered low. While there are sightings throughout 

the NWFP area dating back to 1967, incidental observations of great gray owls are not 

considered sites.

Recent information better clarifies the owl’s habitat needs. The 2002 ASR Summary 

describes habitat as highly specialized, requiring juxtaposition of late-successional and 

early seral forest/meadows. This habitat is limited within the range of the species within 

the NWFP area. The ephemeral nature of early seral forests and the encroachment of 

brush and conifer into natural meadow habitats further limit the amount of available 

suitable habitat (USDA, USDI Species Review Panel 2002). Timber harvest activities are 

sometimes known to enhance nest sites by providing or maintaining the three required 
285

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

stand conditions; protection of nest sites does not necessarily preclude moderate 

harvesting during the non-nesting season. 

Environmental Consequences

Many raptors are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Implementation of 

the Migratory Bird Treaty Act is handled differently by each agency. Generally, the 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act provides little additional protection for the great gray owl. 

Raptors, in general, are handled differently by each administrative unit’s land and 

resource management plan. Protection measures vary from simple buffers of active nest 

sites to consideration as a Management Indicator Species, which requires some analysis 

of impacts and associated mitigation measures. These protection measures do not vary 

between the alternatives.

FEMAT rated the great gray owl as having an 83 percent likelihood of Outcome A 

(habitat sufficient to be stable, well distributed across federally managed lands), a 17 

percent likelihood of habitat sufficient to be stable with significant gaps in its historic 

distribution on federally managed lands, and a 0 percent likelihood of continued 

existence only in refugia or extirpation from federally managed lands (USDA et al. 1993:

IV-166), however these results appear to have assumed occupied sites would be protected 

with “protection buffer” provisions that were part of the FEMAT’s Option 9 before the 

rating panels were conducted. One of the action alternatives (Alternative 8) considered 

in the Northwest Forest Plan Final SEIS did not include protection buffer provisions 

for the great gray owl, provided for less reserve, and generally provided less favorable 

habitat conditions (USDA, USDI 1994a:2-56 through 2-59 and 3&4-178). While this less 

protective alternative projected a 100 percent likelihood of providing habitat of sufficient 

quality, distribution, and abundance to allow the great gray owl populations to stabilize, 

it estimated a slightly higher likelihood of resulting in significant gaps in the historic 

distribution across federally managed lands (USDA, USDI 1994a:3&4-181). 

The best available science continues to support the Northwest Forest Plan conclusion 

that the continued persistence of this species relies on the ability to find and protect 

available nest sites during management activities (Bull and Henjum 1990). Hayward 

and Verner (1994) stated that the loss of nesting habitat in central and eastern Oregon 

has been identified as the most immediate threat to great gray owl persistence in that 

region. Therefore, determined management of nesting habitat and the detection of great 

gray owls is needed to determine where to apply nest protections (Bull and Henjum 1990, 

Wahl 2006 pers. comm., Blow 2006 pers. comm.). Much of the apparently suitable habitat 

in the Matrix/AMA portion of the NWFP area has been surveyed, and the owl is very 

detectable if present.

Under Alternatives 1 and 3, this species would be included in Category A, which requires 

management of all known sites, pre-disturbance surveys, and Strategic Surveys. Under 

Alternative 4, this species would be included in Category C, which requires management 

of high-priority sites, pre-disturbance surveys, and Strategic Surveys. All known sites 

would be managed until high-priority management recommendations are developed. 

The 2000 FSEIS found that because of the protection of known sites, all alternatives 

provided sufficient habitat (including known sites) to allow the species to stabilize in a 

pattern similar to its reference distribution (USDA, USDI 2000a:367). Alternatives, 1, 3, 

and 4 would provide sufficient habitat to support stable populations in the NWFP area.

Under Alternative 2, this species is not included in either Agencies’ Sensitive Species 

Program in Oregon where all the known sites are located. Forest Service Land and 

Resource Management Plans, and BLM District plans in Oregon within the range of the 

great gray owl provide for the protection of raptor nest sites, of which great gray owls are 

included. These protection measures vary from very specific direction (e.g. Deschutes 
286

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Land and Resource Management Plan16) to general direction (e.g. Medford District 

Resource Management Plan17). While these guidelines provide some protection, they are 

dated (1989 to 1995), inconsistent, and do not provide any means of detecting sites where 

protections would be applied. Thus, Alternative 2 would result in an outcome of habitat 

(including known sites) is likely sufficient to support stable populations range-wide in 

the NWFP area, although there is insufficient habitat to support stable populations in a 

portion of the NWFP area.

Late-Successional Mammals

Affected Environment

Additional discussion of affected environment is contained in FEMAT, the Northwest 

Forest Plan Final SEIS, and the 2000 Survey and Manage Final SEIS. 

The Northwest Forest Plan Final SEIS listed 14 mammal species associated with latesuccessional forests. Important habitat components for these species were dead standing 

wood, dead down wood, live old-growth trees, and riparian zones (USDA, USDI 

1994a:3&4-182 through 185). 

Management of Riparian Reserves, Congressionally Reserved Areas, and LateSuccessional Reserves has occurred as anticipated in the Northwest Forest Plan Final 

SEIS (USDA et al. 2002). The most common activities in Late-Successional Reserves are 

silvicultural thinning of young stands (not currently of appropriate age and structural 

characteristics to be classified as late-successional forest) to accelerate the development of 

late-successional forest structural and functional conditions, and fuels reduction through 

prescribed fire in drier forest types. Thinning similar to that in the Late-Successional 

Reserves has occurred in Riparian Reserves to further achievement of Aquatic 

Conservation Strategy objectives.

Although new information is constantly being gained and old information is being 

refined, there has been no new information or changed circumstances that would alter 

the basic scientific understanding of these species or that would alter, for these species, 

the conclusions of the Northwest Forest Plan Final SEIS. 

Environmental Consequences 

In addition to the Survey and Manage mitigation measure, the assessments of Option 9 in 

FEMAT and Alternative 9 in the Northwest Forest Plan Final SEIS did not include seven 

other mitigations that were added late in the Northwest Forest Plan Final SEIS process 

including an increase in Riparian Reserves. The increase in the size of Riparian Reserves 

has implications for improving connectivity for the red tree vole (USDA, USDI 1994a:

J2-475).

A conclusion relevant to all alternatives is that Alternative 9 of the Northwest Forest Plan 

Final SEIS was judged to be among the alternatives most favorable to mammals because 

it provides the set of allocations and management practices that best produce habitat 

components for mammals (USDA, USDI 1994a:3&4-183).

16From the Deschutes Land and Resource Management Plan: “Habitat suitable for 8 great gray owl nesting pairs will be provided on the 

forest; nest sites protected by maintaining forested stand of at least 30 acres; maintain at least 300 feet of forest between the nest and opening.”

17From the Medford District Resource Management Plan, specific to raptors: “Raptor nest site and habitat would be protected. Disturbance 

would be avoided during nesting season.”
287

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

The acreage of protected known sites for Survey and Manage species under Alternatives 

1, 3, and 4 occurs as scattered, small patches that provide little overall contribution to 

the maintenance of late-successional forest associated mammal species when compared 

to the contribution of Congressionally Reserved Areas, Late-Successional Reserves, and 

Riparian Reserves. If the protection of the known sites was permanent, they could play a 

role in providing refugia for certain species; however, the protection of these sites varies 

as new information refines management prescriptions for Survey and Manage species.

The conclusion of the Northwest Forest Plan Final SEIS was that 13 of the 14 species 

of mammals that were associated with late-successional forest would be stable, welldistributed on federally managed lands throughout the NWFP area without any 

anticipated contribution from the Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines. The 

exception was the Oregon red tree vole. There is no new information or changed 

circumstances to alter these conclusions for any of the alternatives.

The relatively small difference in habitat acreage between the alternatives resulting from 

managed known sites is inconsequential to the maintenance of these species compared 

to the millions of acres of late-successional forest habitat contained in the reserves 

under all alternatives. Because the differences in habitat between the alternatives 

are inconsequential, they do not represent “gains” or “losses” of habitat essential to 

Northwest Forest Plan Final SEIS conclusions (USDA, USDI 2000a:371). 

Oregon Red Tree Vole (Arborimus longicaudus)

Affected Environment 

The red tree vole is the most arboreal mammal in the Pacific Northwest and is endemic to 

moist coniferous forests of western Oregon and extreme northwestern California (Hayes 

1996). The geographic range of the red tree vole includes approximately 16.3 million 

acres across all land ownerships. More than 70 percent of known sites and 47 percent 

of the known and suspected range is on federally managed lands (USDA, USDI Species 

Review Panel 2000). Because of concerns that red tree voles were less common in some 

regions, management of the species was subdivided into biological zones in the 2000 and 

2004 FSEISs. The Northern Mesic Biological Zone includes the North Coast and North 

Cascades ranges in Oregon, the Mesic Biological Zone includes the central Cascades and 

Coast Ranges in Oregon, and the Xeric Biological Zone includes the dry interior regions 

of southwest Oregon and northwest California. 

The red tree vole (Arborimus longicaudus) is the only mammal included in the Survey 

and Manage Standards and Guidelines. Under Alternative 1, it is included in Category 

C in the Northern Mesic and Xeric portions of its range, and not included in Survey 

and Manage in the Mesic Biological Zone. Under Alternatives 2 and 3, it is included in 

the Forest Service and BLM Special Status Species Programs (SSSPs) in the North Coast 

range of Oregon north of Highway 20, but receives no other species-specific protection 

elsewhere. Under Alternative 4, it is in Category C in its entire range. 

Recent new information about the tree vole includes the publication of a new paper 

on population structure (Miller et al. 2006), a thesis on home ranges, movements, and 

survival rates (Swingle 2005), and a draft report on habitat associations and probability of 

occurrence of tree voles in different forest types and land allocations (Dunk and Hawley 

2007). Two papers cited as “in preparation” in the 2004 FSEIS have been fully analyzed 

and published, including a publication on the taxonomic relationships of tree voles and 

their relatives (Bellinger et al. 2005), and a publication on the range limits and relative 

abundance of the red tree vole in different regions (Forsman et al. 2004). There is also 

additional information on tree vole distribution and abundance from pre-disturbance 
288

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

surveys, Random Double Sample (RDS) Surveys (Table 3&4-12), and retrospective 

surveys (GeoBOB/ISMS database, Forsman and Swingle unpub). Known sites (recently 

active tree vole nests) have been confirmed at 598 locations in the Northern Mesic and 

Xeric Biological Zones, including sites reported in the GeoBOB/ISMS database, and sites 

documented by Forsman and Swingle (unpub) during studies of tree vole ecology or 

distribution (Figures 3&4-5, 3&4-6, and 3&4-7). Recently active vole nests have been 

confirmed at 551 locations in the Mesic Biological Zone including 547 on federal lands 

and 4 on non-federal lands (Table 3&4-12).

Forsman et al. (2004) examined the proportion of tree voles in spotted owl pellets as one 

index of the distribution and relative abundance of tree voles in different parts of Oregon. 

They found that tree voles were most common in the diet in the central and southern 

Coastal regions of Oregon and were least common in the diet in the North Coast ranges, 

North Cascades, and the dry interior region of SW Oregon. Based on their analysis 

they concluded, “Although our data indicate that tree voles are widespread in Oregon, 

and fairly common in some regions, it is likely that tree vole populations have declined 

in areas where logging, fire, and human development have produced landscapes 

dominated by young forests.” These authors also qualified their data, by pointing out 

that theirs was not a random sample, and that the areas in which their samples were 

collected were mostly in old forests. So they strongly emphasized that their data could 

not be used to infer the occurrence of tree voles in areas where the majority of old forests 

had been converted to young forests. 

A recent study of radio-collared tree voles (Swingle 2005) confirmed previous speculation 

that tree voles have relatively small home ranges, are relatively weak dispersers, and use 

interconnected limbs to travel from tree-to-tree in the forest canopy (Hayes 1996, Carey 

1996). There was no evidence that any of the radio-collared voles used terrestrial nests, 

although they did occasionally move between trees by traveling on the ground. Swingle 

(2005) suggested that thinning in young stands could remove the types of trees used by 

tree voles for nesting. He also suggested that some young forests may provide important 

habitat for tree voles, and should not necessarily be considered unsuitable habitat.

Swingle (2005) found that radio-collared juveniles typically dispersed less than 100 m 

before settling. This finding supports previous speculation that tree voles are relatively 

weak dispersers (USDA, USDI 2000a:377). However, this needs to be qualified with the 

statement that even species that typically disperse short distances can move considerable 

distances over multiple generations if suitable habitat is available. Currently available 

samples are too small to determine the influence of forest age on dispersal, although 

Swingle (2005) did observe dispersal in forests that were 35-60 years old. The role of 

young forests in the population dynamics of red tree voles is not well understood (USDA, 

USDI 2000a:378, Dunk and Hawley 2007). 

Moeur et al. (2005) found that the amount of older forest on federal lands within the area 

of the Northwest Forest Plan increased by about 1.9 percent per year in the period 1994-

2003. However, that change was mainly due to increases in the area of forest at the lower 

end of the diameter range used to define old forest (i.e., relatively young forests on old 

burned areas or harvest units). Whether this in-growth is the ecological equivalent of the 

very old forests that were cut or burned during the same time interval is unclear, at least 

in terms of the effects on tree voles. Moeur et al. (2005) also reported that connectivity 

between patches of old forest was “strong” on federal lands within the range of the tree 

vole. This is certainly encouraging from the standpoint of a weak disperser like the 

tree vole. However, it does not necessarily equate with a high probability of tree vole 

persistence on federal lands in the Xeric and Northern Mesic Biological Zones, especially 

in areas like the northern Oregon Coast Ranges and foothills of the Northern Oregon 

Cascades where federal lands are uncommon and often isolated in small patches. 
289

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Miller et al. (2006) examined population structure in the red tree vole and found a genetic 

discontinuity between tree voles in northern and southern Oregon, and a slightly weaker 

genetic discontinuity between tree voles on opposite sides of the Willamette Valley. 

These discontinuities reflect a non-random distribution of genetic haplotypes in the 

population. The line separating the north-south discontinuity occurs near the southern 

end of the Willamette Valley, and may represent a zone of secondary contact between 

populations that were isolated during the last ice age about 12,000 years ago. Further 

work is needed to determine if any of these discontinuities are sufficient to warrant subspecific status. Bellinger et al. (2005) also cautioned that more work is needed to further 

evaluate subspecific and specific taxonomic relationships in the red tree vole. 

A subspecies of the red tree vole (Arborimus longicaudus silvicolus) was believed to 

occur in the North Coast range of Oregon, primarily on nonfederal lands (USDA, USDI 

1994a:3&4-185). A recent genetic study (Bellinger et al. 2005) found no clear difference 

between Arborimus longicaudus silvicolus and Arborimus longicaudus longicaudus. Previous 

Oregon Natural Heritage Information Center ranking of Arborimus longicaudus silvicolus

as a subspecies has been dropped. The red tree vole is included in Agencies’ Special 

Status Species Programs in the North Oregon Coast range portion of the red tree vole’s 

range based in part on the previous Heritage rankings. 

Recent pre-disturbance surveys, RDS surveys and retrospective surveys indicate that tree 

voles are uncommon or absent in much of the Northern Mesic Biological Zone (USDA, 

USDI 2000a; GeoBOB/ISMS database; Forsman et al. 2004; Forsman and Swingle unpub). 

For example, RDS Surveys conducted on the Salem District of the BLM and Mt. Hood 

National Forest revealed evidence of recently occupied tree vole nests at only 7 percent 

and 8 percent of the locations surveyed, respectively. In this region, there are only 170 

sites with detections of recently occupied tree vole nests, most of which are concentrated 

in the western Cascades south of Salem (Figure 3&4-5). Data from owl pellets also 

suggest that tree voles are uncommon in the North Coast and North Cascades ranges 

(Forsman et al. 2004) but the sample from this study was based on known owl territories 

as opposed to a random sample, and included data collected over a 33 year time span 

(1970-2003). The known range of the tree vole has been better documented since 2004 

based on recent surveys in the Columbia Gorge (Forsman and Swingle unpub) and an 

analysis of tree vole occurrence in diets of spotted owls (Forsman et al. 2004). The new 

surveys in the Columbia Gorge demonstrate that tree voles occur at least as far east in the 

gorge as Mitchell Point, about 2 miles west of Hood River. This represents an eastward 

extension of the known range of 10 miles from any previously known locations in the 

gorge.

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). South of Grants Pass in 

Oregon, the eastern range limit is the Applegate River. North of Grants Pass the eastern 

range limit runs ENE on a line paralleling the Jackson County line to a few miles east of 

Prospect, and then NNE on a line paralleling Hwy 230, about 5 miles east of the highway 

(Figure 3&4-6). In California, Zentner (1977) located tree vole nests at three locations 

at the eastern edge of the Xeric Biological Zone, but all other surveys conducted to date 

have indicated that tree voles are either absent or extremely rare in much of this region 

(Figure 3&4-6). It is unclear if the locations reported by Zentner (1977) represent red 

tree voles or Sonoma tree voles (Arborimus pomo), as the range limits of the two species 

are still poorly documented in northern California (Bellinger et al. 2005). More surveys 

are needed along the eastern edge of the range limits in the Xeric Biological Zone in both 

Oregon and California to better elucidate the limits of the range. 
290

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

The available data suggest that tree voles are patchily distributed on federal lands 

throughout most of the Mesic Biological Zone. They usually are found at elevations 

below about 3,600 feet, and are uncommon or rare at higher elevations in this zone. 

There are a moderate-to-high number of likely extant sites in the Mesic Biological Zone 

(USDA, USDI Species Review Panel 2003). The tree vole Taxa Team involved with the 

2003 Annual Species Review estimated that the proportion of potential habitat in large 

reserves in the Mesic Biological Zone was 35 percent. Based on these results, they 

concluded that the proportion of sites and habitat in reserves was not high but that there 

was a high probability that potential habitat in reserves would be occupied. The Team 

also suggested that the longer rotation ages required in BLM Connectivity Blocks might 

allow for retention of tree voles within the connectivity blocks and re-colonization of 

habitat as the distribution of suitable habitat changes over time (USDA, USDI Species 

Review Panel 2003). Additionally, Riparian Reserves comprise 40 to 50 percent of the 

Mesic Biological Zone. 

Analyses of the Random Double Sample (RDS) Survey data indicate that, on federal 

lands within the range of the red tree vole, tree voles are strongly associated with old 

forests (Dunk and Hawley 2007), and that there was evidence of occupancy by tree voles 

in 38 percent of the 2-ha plots surveyed. These results suggest that tree voles are still 

present in much of their historic range, but are patchily distributed in all parts of their 

range, particularly in the Northern Mesic and Xeric Biological Zones, where only 10-11 

percent of the plots surveyed had evidence of recent occupancy by tree voles. Within the 

Mesic Biological Zone, there was evidence of recent occupancy in 30 percent of the 2-ha 

plots surveyed (Table 3&4-11). If anything, this probably underestimates the number of 

plots with vole nests (because some nests were probably not detected), but it is unclear if 

it underestimates the number of plots with recently occupied nests because of the criteria 

used to classify nests. Nests were classified as “recent” if they had green- or tan-colored 

Douglas-fir resin ducts or cuttings in nest structures (USDA, USDI 2000f; USDA, USDI 

2002c), as opposed to counts of nests that were actually occupied by voles. While this 

protocol was the best available at the time it was done, subsequent experience at many 

sites indicates resin ducts stay green for months when they are stored inside the nest out 

of the sunlight, and they can be tannish or orangish for more than a year if they are inside 

the nest. Thus, it is possible that the number of recently occupied nests may have been 

biased high in the RDS surveys. In a more recent study (Swingle 2005) suggested that the 

only way to determine if nests are occupied is to physically probe each nest. Even this 

method does not always work because some voles vacate their nests before the climber 

reaches the nest, and others are difficult to chase from their nests. In addition, tree voles 

use multiple nests and many nests are not occupied at any given time (Swingle 2005), 

so estimates based on the number of recently used nests may overestimate the number 

of plots that are actually occupied by voles. It is also important to recognize that the 

estimates of the percent of the NWFP area occupied by tree voles in Table 3&4-11 are not 

comparable to estimates for the other species in Table 3&4-16. The estimates for the tree 

vole were based only on the area surveyed (lower elevations in western Oregon and NW 

California), whereas the estimates for all other species were based on the entire area of 

the Northwest Forest Plan. 

Although the results of the RDS survey suggest that tree vole nests are more abundant in 

old forests than in young forests, Swingle (2005) and Dunk and Hawley (2007) cautioned 

against the blanket assumption that young forests are always unsuitable habitat for tree 

voles. A number of researchers have found relatively high densities of tree voles in some 

young forests (Clifton 1960, Maser 1966, Thompson and Diller 2002, Swingle 2005), and 

considerable numbers of tree vole nests were also found in some young forests during 

pre-disturbances surveys (GeoBOB/ISMS database). Thus, earlier unqualified statements 

that young forests are always unsuitable habitat for red tree voles (Aubry et al. 1991) are 

not consistently supported by the data. 
291

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Environmental Consequences 

The FEMAT assessment panel gave the red tree vole a rating of 73-25-2-0 for Outcomes 

A, B, C, and D, respectively. Because of this rating, the red tree vole failed to pass the 

screen for additional species analysis in the Northwest Forest Plan Final SEIS (less than 

80 percent Outcome A, the likelihood of stable, well distributed across federally managed 

lands). However, the panel judged that there was a 0 percent likelihood that this species 

would be extirpated from federally managed lands, a 2 percent likelihood that the habitat 

would only allow continued species existence in refugia, and a 73 percent likelihood that 

the population of this species would be stable, well distributed across federally managed 

lands in the NWFP area (USDA, USDI 1994a:J2). 

The red tree vole failed to pass the screens because of its apparent association with oldgrowth forest, its limited dispersal capabilities, and concern about the extent to which 

information was lacking on the distribution, habitat requirements, and population 

status of the vole in 1994 when the evaluation was conducted. The species rating also 

reflected concerns that the provisions of Alternative 9 in the Northwest Forest Plan Draft 

SEIS might not adequately provide for connectivity among late-successional patches 

for dispersal and gene flow. Although the evidence from RDS surveys and from pitfall 

trapping indicates that red tree voles are most abundant in older forests or in forests 

with remnant old trees, there is still uncertainty about the role of young forests in the 

population ecology of red tree voles (USDA, USDI 2000a:378). Red tree voles begin to 

reinvade young stands when the trees become big enough to support arboreal nests; 

however, there is considerable uncertainty regarding the ability of tree voles to persist 

in landscapes dominated by young forests. Wildlife biologists have found many red 

tree voles and their nests in young stands, including many nests occupied by breeding 

females (Howell 1926, Clifton 1960, Maser 1966, Swingle 2005, GeoBOB/ISMS database). 

It is unclear whether red tree voles in these situations can persist over long periods or 

are ephemeral populations that contribute little to overall population persistence (USDA, 

USDI 2000a:378). Some (e.g. Aubry et al. 1991) have suggested that young forests do 

not provide suitable habitat for tree voles, and others have suggested that repeated 

clear-cutting or thinning at short intervals will isolate and eventually eliminate tree vole 

populations (Maser et al. 1981, Carey 1991).

Mitigation identified in the Northwest Forest Plan Final SEIS Appendix J2 and adopted 

in its Record of Decision was judged to raise the rating under Outcome A, stable, welldistributed across federally managed lands, above 80 percent (USDA, USDI 1994a:

J2-55). This mitigation included the Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines and 

the application of Riparian Reserve Scenario 1 (wider Riparian Reserves on intermittent 

streams outside of key watersheds). There would be a zero percent likelihood of 

extirpation from federally managed lands (USDA, USDI 1994a:3&4-183 and J2-473 

through 475). The 2000 FSEIS found that red tree vole in Category C throughout its range 

(Alternative 4 in this SEIS) would allow the species to stabilize in a pattern similar to its 

reference distribution except in the North Coast range (USDA, USDI 2000a:390-391). 

The cumulative effects assessment in the Northwest Forest Plan Final SEIS indicated that 

federally managed lands would likely provide for large, well-distributed populations of 

tree voles, except in the North Coast ranges of Oregon and the foothills of the Willamette 

Valley, where there is little federally managed land (USDA, USDI 1994a:J2-474). Recent 

surveys of vole nests and the presence of tree vole skulls in pellets of spotted owls 

indicate that tree voles are still present on some federally managed lands in the North 

Coast ranges, but the number of detections is small (Forsman et al. 2004, GeoBOB/ISMS 

database). Although 93 percent of federally managed lands in the North Coast range are 

in Late-Successional Reserves or Late-Successional Reserve-like in their management, 

land management practices on nonfederal lands reduce the potential connectivity 

between the blocks of federally managed lands (USDA, USDI 2000a:391). Riparian 
292

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Reserves and Matrix Standards and Guidelines provide additional levels of protection for 

red tree voles on federally managed lands, but do not eliminate the high risk that there is 

insufficient habitat in this particular area. Since there is so little federally managed land 

and so few animals here, every site is critical for persistence. In this portion of its range, 

under Alternative 1 and 4, the red tree vole would be included in Survey and Manage as 

Category C, which requires pre-disturbance surveys, management of high-priority sites 

and Strategic Surveys. In this portion of its range under Alternatives 2 and 3, it would be 

included in the Agencies’ SSSPs. 

There are few known sites, little federally managed land, and limited connectivity in this 

area. This would result in habitat (including known sites) insufficient to support stable 

populations in this portion of its range under all alternatives. 

Summary 

The information reviewed herein suggests that tree voles are uncommon and irregularly 

distributed on Federal lands in the North Coast and North Cascades ranges of Oregon 

and in the Xeric Biological Zone of southwest Oregon and northern California, and are 

most abundant in the Mesic Biological Zone. Under Alternatives 1 & 4, pre-disturbance 

surveys and management of known sites in the Northern Mesic and Xeric Biological 

Zones increase the odds that populations will stabilize in those regions. The main 

difference between Alternatives 1 & 4 relative to tree voles is that Alternative 1 removes 

the vole from Survey and Manage in the Mesic Biological Zone, whereas Alternative 

4 does not. Thus, the odds that tree vole subpopulations will become genetically or 

demographically isolated in the Mesic Biological Zone are reduced with Alternative 4.

Under Alternatives 2 and 3, with the inclusion of Riparian Reserve Scenario 1, the 

rating for the red tree vole was improved by an undetermined amount above 73 percent 

likelihood of sufficient habitat to provide for stable, well-distributed populations across 

federally managed lands and 0 percent likelihood of extirpation in the NWFP area. In 

addition, the red tree vole is included in the Agencies’ SSSPs in the North Coast range 

of Oregon under both alternatives. Habitat (including known sites) is thus sufficient 

to support stable populations range-wide (Mesic Biological Zone and in a portion of 

the Northern Mesic), but is insufficient to support stable populations in a portion of the 

range (the Xeric Biological Zone and the North Cascades and North Coast ranges of the 

Northern Mesic Biological Zone). Mitigation to stabilize red tree vole populations in 

the Xeric and Northern Mesic Biological Zones under Alternatives 2 and 3 would be to 

require pre-project clearances and management of known sites in the Xeric Biological 

Zone and in the Northern Mesic Biological Zone north of Highway 22 in the Cascades. 

Under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 in the Mesic Biological Zone, with its larger Riparian 

Reserves than those prescribed by FEMAT, the rating for the red tree vole was improved 

by an undetermined amount above 73 percent likelihood of sufficient habitat to provide 

for a stable, well-distributed population on federal lands and 0 percent likelihood of 

extirpation in the NWFP area. Under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3, there are no requirements 

to do pre-project clearances for tree voles in the Mesic Biological Zone. This results 

in some risk that subpopulations of tree voles in Late-Successional Reserves, Riparian 

Reserves, and late-successional patches in the Mesic Biological Zone may become 

genetically or demographically isolated under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3. Although 

Alternative 4 would reduce this risk because it requires pre-disturbance surveys and 

protection of known sites, it is not clear that the reduced risk of genetic or demographic 

isolation associated with Alternative 4 is needed to achieve stable populations in the 

Mesic Biological Zone. Because of the large size of Late-Successional Reserves and the 

connectivity provided by Riparian Reserves, all alternatives would have a high likelihood 

of providing sufficient habitat (including known sites) to provide for stable populations 

of tree voles on federal lands within the Mesic Biological Zone. 
293

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3&4-11. Red Tree Vole RDS3 Survey: Estimated Number of 2-ha Plots With 

Evidence of Recent Occupancy by Red Tree Voles in Different Biological Zones of 

Western Oregon

Sub-region1

Number of 

plots surveyed

Plots with 

Recent 

Occupancy

Percent of Survey Plots 

with evidence of recent 

RTV occupancy

Estimated Number of plot-sized 

areas with evidence of recent 

RTV occupancy2

Mean

Standard 

Error (SE) Mean

95% Confidence 

Interval (CI)

Range-wide 368 81 20.9 0.8 319,900 295,100 - 344,700

Xeric Zone 83 10 11.6 1.7 46,000 32,800 - 59,200

Mesic Zone 200 62 30.6 1 237,600 221,400 - 253,800

Northern Mesic Zone 85 9 10.1 1.2 36,400 27,600 - 45,200 1 This survey was conducted solely within, or adjacent to, the known range of the red tree vole. The sampling area was restricted to 3,062,862 hectares (about 7.6 million acres) of 

lower elevation areas in western Oregon from the Columbia River south to around the Klamath River in northern California. The RTV probability sampling survey plots were 2-hectare 

polygons. Detection in these surveys indicated at least one recently-used red tree vole nest was detected on a plot (old nests may also have been detected but not displayed here).

2 Estimates were derived by extrapolating from the sample plots to all potential plots in each region.

3

 Random Double Sample

Table 3&4-12. Red Tree Vole: Known Site Numbers and Summary of Outcomes and 

Program Assignments by Biological Zone and Sub-Zone Discussed in the Narrative

Oregon Red Tree Vole 

Arborimus longicaudus

Biological zone/subzone

Category 

Assignment for 

each Alternative Outcomes1, 3

Special 

Status 

Species 

Programs2,7

Outcomes1

without 

SSSP4

Known Sites 

during the last 

ASR or 2004 

FSEIS

Additional 

Known 

Sites since 

the last 

ASR or 

the 2004 

FSEIS6

RDS 

Sites5

Alt 

1

Alt 

2

Alt 

3

Alt 

4

Alt 

1

Alt 

2

Alt 

3

Alt 

4

BLM 

OR

FS 

R68

Alt 

2

Alt 

3

Fed. 

Land 

Only Total

ASR 

Year

Fed. 

Land 

Only Total

Range-wide 2 2 2 2 - - - - 81

 Xeric

C off C

1 3 3 1 - - - -

346 346 201 204

10

 Northern Mesic 2 2 2 2 - - - -

9 North Coast 3 3 3 3 SS SS 3 3

 North Cascades 1 3 3 1 - - - -

 Remainder 1 1 1 1 - - - -

 Mesic off C 1 1 1 1 - - - - 404 405 2003 81 84 62 1

 Outcomes:

 1 - Sufficient Habitat

 2 - Sufficient Habitat but Insufficient Habitat in a Portion of the Range

 3 - Insufficient Habitat

2

 SS = Bureau Sensitive or Forest Service Sensitive. The Red Tree Vole is included in SSSP in the northwestern Oregon Coast area only (North 

of Highway 20, west of the Willamette Valley).

3 Outcomes are shown for each species range subdivision made in Survey and Manage. If a species is in two categories (or “off”) in different 

parts of its range, outcomes are included for both areas. In these cases, outcomes are combined (averaged) for the entire species range (shown 

as shaded blocks).

4

 Applies only to area where species is assumed to be on one or more SSSP, and only to alternatives where species is “off” Survey and 

Manage.

5

 RDS sites: Please see Table 3&4-11 for more information about the Random Double Sample Survey Results.

6

 Additional sites since the last ASR or the 2004 FSEIS. For the area with new sites since the last ASR (as indicated by the year in the ASR year 

column), the known site numbers are the result of a data call with a cutoff date of 11/22/06. For the remaining area, the data entry deadline 

was 09/29/06.

7

 Actual SSSP assignments. Supplement text uses “assumed” assignment because managers have the discretion to add or remove species 

outside of the SEIS process.

8

 FS R-6: Forest Service, Region 6 (Oregon and Washington)
294

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Figure 3&4-5. Red Tree Vole Surveys in the Northern Mesic Biological Zone.

Symbols indicate presence or absence of vole nests at locations surveyed during project clearance surveys (circles) and RDS Surveys (squares) 

in 1995-2006. 
295

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Figure 3&4-6. Red Tree Vole Surveys in the Xeric Biological Zone. 

Symbols indicate presence or absence of vole nests at locations surveyed during project clearance surveys (circles) and RDS Surveys (squares), 

1995-2006. Approximate range limits of the tree vole in the Xeric Biological Zone in California reflect uncertainty regarding persistence of 

voles at historic sites reported by Zentner (1977) (triangles) as well as uncertainty regarding species taxonomy in this region. 
296

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Figure 3&4-7. Red Tree Vole Surveys in the Mesic Biological Zone.

Symbols indicate presence or absence of vole nests at locations surveyed during project clearance surveys (circles) and RDS Surveys (squares) 

in 1995-2006. 
297

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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. If these steps are 

taken, and no voles are found in the area east of the recent tree vole locations, then the 

range limits of the species in northern California could be reevaluated within just a few 

years. 

Species Associated with Early-Successional Forest

Affected Environment

The Northwest Forest Plan was developed to address federal land management related to 

late-successional forest associated species. Despite this emphasis, the Northwest Forest 

Plan Final SEIS, the 2000 Survey and Manage Final SEIS, and this SEIS examined the 

expected effects of the alternatives on early-successional forest associated species. Earlysuccessional forest associated species, as a group, are generally widespread, and occur 

throughout the NWFP area. Individual species may be distributed in a small geographic 

range, and occur in a more limited area within that general geographic range. These 

species are adapted to a variety of early-successional habitats (USDA, USDI 2000a:396).

The assumed availability on a landscape scale of early-successional habitat is unlikely 

to substantially differ from that occurring under historic natural disturbance processes. 

The Northwest Forest Plan was found acceptable for sustaining adequate populations of 

species dependent upon young-forest habitat (USDA, USDI 2000a:396). 

Environmental Consequences

The primary sources of early-successional habitat are timber harvest and natural 

disturbance processes. The Northwest Forest Plan anticipated an annual harvest level of 

958 million board feet (MMBF) of timber. Actual harvest levels have been less (see Timber 

Harvest section). Under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3, known sites for some Survey and Manage 

species would continue to be managed through the Special Status Species Programs. 

Relevant to Alternatives 1, 3, and 4, the 2000 Final SEIS concluded that Survey and 

Manage Standards and Guidelines would not result in significant changes to the 

abundance and distribution of species associated with early-successional habitat that 

were anticipated in the Northwest Forest Plan SEIS. This is due to the large extent 

of early-successional habitat currently available, and the reasonable expectation that 

federally managed and nonfederal lands will continue to be harvested and natural 

disturbances will continue throughout the NWFP area (USDA, USDI 2000a:397). Because 

these assumptions apply to all alternatives, under all alternatives, early-successional 

species are expected to remain distributed in a pattern similar to their historic 

distribution within the NWFP area. 

Threatened and Endangered Species

This section discusses the expected effects to terrestrial and inland aquatic species listed 

as threatened, endangered, or proposed for listing under the Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended. See the Aquatic Ecosystem section for a discussion of fish species in 

the NWFP area listed as threatened or endangered. Refer to Appendix 5 for the Forest 

Service’ Biological Evaluation which includes effects to species currently included in the 
298

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Sensitive Species Programs in Regions 5 (California) and 6 (Washington and Oregon), 

as well as a discussion of BLM Special Status Species. The Biological Evaluation also 

includes an in-depth analysis of effects to federally listed species.

Effects to listed species associated with late-successional and old-growth forests in the 

NWFP area (i.e. the action area) are discussed in detail. 

Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina)

Affected Environment

Management of the Northern Spotted Owl and its habitat on federally managed lands 

was an important consideration in the design of the Northwest Forest Plan. This species 

received extensive attention in the Northwest Forest Plan Final SEIS and its supporting 

documents. The Biological Opinion for the Draft of the Northwest Forest Plan 

concluded: 

“...the adoption of Alternative 9, as modified, is not likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any listed species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of any 

designated critical habitat for those species. The late-successional and riparian reserve 

features of Alternative 9 are particularly important contributions to the conservation of the 

spotted owl and marbled murrelet” (USDA, USDI 1994a:Appendix G-3).

The Survey and Manage mitigation measure was not a component of the Northwest 

Forest Plan Draft SEIS. The addition of the Survey and Manage mitigation measure 

would have an insignificant effect on the maintenance of spotted owl populations 

(USDA, USDI 2000a:398). This was due to the small scale and isolated nature of the 

resultant late-successional and old-growth forest areas outside of reserves.

The Northwest Forest Plan concluded that the anticipated rate of timber harvest in 

Matrix and Adaptive Management Areas would occur in a manner that would allow 

the habitat to recover and spotted owl populations to stabilize in the Late-Successional 

Reserves and Congressionally Reserved Areas.

The 2000 Final SEIS concluded that neither the original basis for the assessment nor the 

conclusion of the effects to the Northern Spotted Owl as presented in the Northwest 

Forest Plan would be affected by the Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines. 

Environmental Consequences

Reserves protect about 80 percent of the federally managed lands within the NWFP 

area. Eighty-seven percent of the remaining late-successional and old-growth forests are 

in these reserves. The remaining 13 percent is available for regularly scheduled timber 

harvest. The Northwest Forest Plan projected that less than 2.5 percent of the latesuccessional forest would be harvested per decade. Actual harvest has been well below 

that rate. The reduced rate of harvest is due primarily to greater than expected Riparian 

Reserve coverage, the effects of the Survey and Manage mitigation measure, and legal 

challenges. Harvest of late-successional forest under any alternative would not exceed 

the rate anticipated in the Northwest Forest Plan Final SEIS.

Neither of the No-Action Alternatives nor either of the two action alternatives will 

affect the original basis for the assessment or the conclusions of the effects to spotted 

owls as presented in the Northwest Forest Plan Final SEIS. Congressionally Reserved 

Areas and Late-Successional Reserves will continue to be managed for late-successional 

habitat in the NWFP area and provide for spotted owl breeding clusters. Because 

Congressionally Reserved Areas, Late-Successional Reserves, and the Riparian Reserve 
299

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

system are intertwined or in close proximity, adequate dispersal habitat for spotted 

owls will continue to be provided. The potential difference between alternatives has 

little effect on the spotted owl habitat management strategy because it results in only 

negligible and minor losses in the amount of habitat. The Northwest Forest Plan Final 

SEIS assumptions and conclusions relative to a spotted owl 4(d) rule and critical habitat 

remain valid as described above. Removal of the Survey and Manage Standards and 

Guidelines would result in the return of Survey and Manage known site management 

areas to the underlying management allocations. Most of the Survey and Manage species 

known sites consist of areas generally 1/2 to 2 acres in size. These size areas (given their 

scattered distribution across the NWFP area) do not generally provide significant benefit 

to spotted owls. However, one species, the red tree vole, requires site management of 10 

acres or more. The return of red tree vole known sites to the underlying management 

allocations effects spotted owl, as the size of these areas may provide some beneficial 

effect to foraging owls, and provide for structural diversity during adjacent stand 

development. 

The contribution of the red tree vole as prey varies in different portions of the range of 

the northern spotted owl, from a low of one percent (of total prey items) of the diet to a 

high of six percent (Biological Evaluation, Appendix 5), 

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.

Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus marmorata)

Affected Environment

Management of the marbled murrelet and its habitat on federally managed lands was 

an important consideration in the design of the Northwest Forest Plan. This species 

received extensive attention in the Northwest Forest Plan Final SEIS and its supporting 

documents. The Biological Opinion for the Draft of the Northwest Forest Plan 

concluded: 

“...the adoption of Alternative 9, as modified, is not likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any listed species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of any 

designated critical habitat for those species. The late-successional and riparian reserve 

features of Alternative 9 are particularly important contributions to the conservation of the 

spotted owl and marbled murrelet” (USDA, USDI 1994a:Appendix G-3).

The management strategy for Marbled Murrelets in the Northwest Forest Plan includes 

two primary components: (1) protection and development of marbled murrelet nesting 

habitat inside the large reserves near the coast, and (2) retention of all current and future 

known marbled murrelet nest sites in all land allocations.

Environmental Consequences

Under Alternatives 1 and 4, the level of protection for currently occupied marbled 

murrelet habitat would not be changed; all known and future nest sites would be 

protected.

The primary difference between the two action alternatives would be the number of 

species removed from the Survey and Manage Program and the subsequent acres 

removed from managed known site direction, much of which is outside the range of the 

marbled murrelet. In addition, much of the range of this species is protected by large 
300

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

block Late-Successional Reserves. Despite eliminating protection for Survey and Manage 

sites in the future, the level of protection for habitat currently occupied by marbled 

murrelet would not be reduced, since marbled murrelet surveys and habitat protection 

measures would remain in place regardless of Survey and Manage species locations. All 

nest sites located would be protected under existing Northwest Forest Plan Standards 

and Guidelines for the murrelet. The determination for all alternatives is no effect for 

marbled murrelet and its critical habitat.

Bald Eagle (Halieatus leucocephalus)

Affected Environment

The Agencies survey extensively for bald eagles. Management of the bald eagle includes 

preparation of site-specific management plans and providing protection zones and 

management areas, as needed, to the species and its habitat.

Environmental Consequences

All alternatives in this SEIS would have similar effects on bald eagle habitat management. 

Removal of species from Survey and Manage will not change the environmental baseline 

for the bald eagle or result in changes to impacts to this species that were not anticipated 

in the original analysis of the Northwest Forest Plan and subsequent analyses. The 

current requirements to conduct specific surveys and develop site management plans for 

bald eagles greatly reduces any potential effect from changes in the Survey and Manage 

Standards and Guidelines. None of the alternatives in this SEIS will affect the original 

basis for the assessment of the effects to bald eagles and conclusions in the Northwest 

Forest Plan Final SEIS. Therefore, for the three alternatives, the determination is no effect

for bald eagles. No critical habitat has been designated for bald eagles. 

Canada Lynx (Lynx canadensis)

Affected Environment

The Canada lynx was listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as a threatened species 

within the conterminous United States, effective April 24, 2000. Concurrent with the 

listing process, a national interagency Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy was 

developed to provide a consistent and effective approach to conservation of Canada 

lynx on federally managed land in the conterminous United States. This conservation 

agreement was entered into by the Forest Service, BLM, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. The Forest Service and BLM agreed to consider conservation measures in 

the Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy when designing and implementing 

activities that might affect lynx. 

Environmental Consequences

Removal of species from Survey and Manage will not change the environmental baseline 

for the lynx or result in changes to impacts to this species that were not anticipated in 

the analysis of the Northwest Forest Plan and subsequent analyses. Future activities 

including, but not limited to, timber harvest, road construction, or application of 

prescribed fire, might be proposed on these “returned” sites, but would be evaluated for 

their direct and indirect effects to lynx under the auspices of the Endangered Species Act. 

All alternatives are expected to have no effect on the Canada lynx. No critical habitat has 

been designated for lynx. 
301

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Gray Wolf (Canis lupus)

Affected Environment

The range of the gray wolf includes portions of the NWFP area, including the northern 

Cascade Range in Washington. Gray wolves are not closely associated with latesuccessional forest, but use a variety of open and forested habitat that support deer, elk, 

and other species that are their primary prey, as well as areas supporting small mammal 

populations. 

Environmental Consequences

All alternatives would have nearly identical effects on gray wolf habitat. Because gray 

wolves are not dependent on late-successional forest, loss of the small, isolated patches of 

late-successional forest that would be managed under the Survey and Manage Standards 

and Guidelines would have no effect on habitat for this species. None of the alternatives 

would affect the original basis for the assessment of the effects and conclusions in the 

Northwest Forest Plan Final SEIS. All alternatives are expected to have no effect on the 

gray wolf. 

Grizzly Bear (Ursus arctos)

Affected Environment

The range of the threatened grizzly bear includes portions of the NWFP area, including 

the National Forests of the Cascade Range in Washington. While grizzly bears are not 

closely associated with late-successional forests, they use a variety of habitat, including 

forested areas for hiding and cover. 

Environmental Consequences

All alternatives would have nearly identical effects on grizzly bear habitat. Because 

grizzly bears are not dependent on late-successional forest, the small, isolated patches of 

late-successional forest that would be managed under the Survey and Manage Standards 

and Guidelines would have no effect on habitat for this species. None of the alternatives 

would affect the original basis for the assessment of the effects and conclusions in the 

Northwest Forest Plan Final SEIS. All alternatives are expected to have no effect on the 

grizzly bear. 

Listed or Proposed Plant Species Associated with LateSuccessional Forests 

Affected Environment

There are no species in the NWFP area that fit into this category.

Other Species

The following terrestrial or inland-aquatic listed species occur within the NWFP area, 

but are not associated with late-successional and old-growth forests. The Survey and 

Manage Standards and Guidelines were developed to address concerns for species 

associated with late-successional forest. Any habitat protected by the Survey and 
302

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Manage Standards and Guidelines is likely to be late-successional conifer forest. 

Therefore, any changes to the Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines are not 

expected to affect these species or the conclusions of the Northwest Forest Plan Final 

SEIS.

Vascular Plants

Sonoma alopecurus Alopecurus aequalis var. sonomensis

MacDonald’s rockcress Arabis macdonaldiana

Marsh sandwort Arenaria paludicola

Applegate’s milkvetch Astragalus applegatei

Clara Hunt’s milkvetch Astragalus clarianus

Tiburon paintbrush Castilleja affinis ssp. neglecta

Golden paintbrush Castilleja levisecta

Howell’s spineflower Chorizanthe howellii

Sonoma spineflower Chorizanthe valida

Baker’s larkspur Delphinium bakeri

Yellow larkspur Delphinium luteum

Willamette daisy Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens

Menzies’ wallflower Erysimum menziesii

Gentner’s fritillary Fritillaria gentneri

Marin dwarf-flax Hesperolinon congestum

Showy stickseed Hackelia venusta

Water howellia Howellia aquatilis

Beach layia Layia carnosa

Burke’s goldfields Lasthenia burkei

Contra costa goldfields Lasthenia cojugens

Western lily Lilium occidentale

Large-flowered wooly meadowfoam Limnanthes floccosa ssp. grandiflora

Bradshaw’s desert-parsley Lomatium bradshawii

Cook’s lomatium Lomatium cookii

Kincaid’s lupine Lupinus sulphereus ssp. kincaidii

Clover lupine Lupinus tidestromii

Many-flowered navarretia Navarretia leucocephala ssp. plieantha

Slender orcutt grass Orcuttia tenuis

Yreka phlox Phlox hirsuta

Rough popcorn flower Plagiobothrys hirtus

Calistoga allocarya Plagiobothrys strictus

Napa bluegrass Poa napensis

Nelson’s checkermallow Sidalcea nelsoniana

Wenatchee Mountain checkermallow Sidalcea oregana var. calva

Kenwood Marsh checkermallow Sidalcea oregana ssp. valida

Ute ladies’-tresses Spiranthes diluvialus

Kneeland Prairie penny-cress Thlaspi californicum (montanum var. californicum)

Showy Indian clover Trifolium amoenum

Invertebrates

Conservancy fairy shrimp Branchinecta conservatio

Vernal pool fairy shrimp Branchinecta lynchi

Valley elderberry longhorn beetle Desmocerus californicus dimorphus

Mission blue butterfly Icaricia icarioides missionensis

Fender’s blue butterfly Icaricia icarioides fenderi

San Bruno elfin butterfly Incisalia mossii bayensis

Vernal pool tadpole shrimp Lepidurus packardi

Lotis blue butterfly Lycaeides argyrognomon lotis

Shasta (placid) crayfish Pacifastacus fortis

Callippe silverspot butterfly Speyeria callippe callippe

Behren’s silverspot butterfly Speyeria zerene behrensii
303

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Oregon silverspot butterfly Speyeria zerene hippolyta

Myrtle’s silverspot butterfly Speyeria zerene myrtleae

California freshwater shrimp Syncaris pacifica

Fish

Tidewater goby Eucyclogobius newberryi

Delta smelt Hypomesus transpacificus

Oregon chub Oregonichthys (Hybopsis) crameri

Birds

Western snowy plover Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus

 (coastal populations) 

Brown pelican Pelcanus occidentalis

California clapper rail Rallus longirostris obsoletus

Mammals

Point Arena mountain beaver Aplodontia rufa nigra

Steller’s (northern) sea lion Eumetopias jubatus

Columbian white-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus leucurus

Salt marsh harvest mouse Reithrodontomys raviventris

The Agencies survey for listed and proposed species in the vicinity of proposed projects. 

These surveys are designed to have a high likelihood of locating populations of such 

species irrespective of whether surveys are also done for Survey and Manage species. 

Since surveys for listed or proposed species will discover and subsequently protect these 

species with or without the Survey and Manage mitigation measure, there would be no 

difference between the alternatives. 

All projects proposed on BLM or Forest Service administered lands must meet the 

Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives of the Northwest Forest Plan. As proposed 

projects are designed and analyzed for effects to listed fish, needs of the fish species 

and habitat elements required to meet Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives will be 

identified. Alternatives 2 and 3 would not alter this assessment process; therefore, there 

would be no change in effect as a result of the removal or modification of the Survey and 

Manage Standards and Guidelines when compared to Alternatives 1 and 4. 

California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii)

Affected Environment

The most important habitat for California red-legged frog is aquatic and riparian. This 

species is known to sometimes move through moist forest habitat during dispersal. 

Within the NWFP area, the listed range of the species may include some portions of the 

Mendocino and Shasta-Trinity National Forests and the BLM Redding Resource Area. 

This area has poor quality potential habitat (lack of narrow, incised channels and pools, 

dry chaparral/knobcone pine habitat, etc.). Few historical sightings for this species have 

been recorded in its limited potential range in the NWFP area. The Recovery Plan for the 

California red-legged frog was released on May 28, 2002. The Recovery Plan identified 

reasons for decline and threats to survival. It established Core Areas for recovery of the 

species, none of which are within the NWFP area.

Environmental Consequences

Under all alternatives, the Agencies would survey for listed species in the vicinity of 

proposed projects. These surveys are designed to have a high likelihood of locating 

populations of California red-legged frogs irrespective of whether surveys are also done 
304

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

for Survey and Manage species. In addition, the species habitat will be provided a high 

level of protection through implementation of Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives 

and the reserve land allocations. None of the areas identified for recovery of the species 

are within the NWFP area. Implementation of any alternative will have no effect on the 

California red-legged frog or its critical habitat.

Costs of Management

In the 2000 Survey and Manage Final SEIS (p. 417), the Agencies estimated that the 

Survey and Manage Program would cost approximately $28.6 million per year based 

on implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan. This total includes $9.8 million for 

Strategic Surveys and other regional-level tasks such as the maintenance of databases and 

the development of management recommendations. The total also includes $18.8 million 

for pre-disturbance surveys that would occur prior to activities such as timber sales ($8.2 

million) and prescribed burning ($10.3 million). These estimates were based on predicted 

levels of timber sales, prescribed burning projects, and other habitat-disturbing activities.

Since 2000, the actual levels of habitat-disturbing activities have fallen short of that 

anticipated. As a result, the actual amount spent in Fiscal Year 2002 for the Survey and 

Manage Program was $16 million.

Comparison of Alternatives

These cost estimates used in the following discussion are for comparative purposes only. 

Actual implementation costs will vary. The costs are based on experience implementing 

the Northwest Forest Plan. The values in the following comparisons are stated in 2006 

dollars. Previous cost estimates, primarily from 2003, are converted using the gross 

domestic product (GDP) implicit price deflator. The overall increase in costs is about five 

percent.

It is assumed for all alternatives that eligible species would be added to the Agencies’ 

Special Status Species Programs. These programs cover entire states, so species would 

be added outside the NWFP area. The costs outside the NWFP area were not calculated; 

however, they would be the same under all alternatives.

As described in the Key Assumption for Non-Species-Specific Effects Analyses for Alternative 

4 section earlier in this chapter, an analysis assumption for Alternative 4 is that if this 

alternative is adopted, a revised species review process would begin, and changes 

previously adopted during the 2001, 2002, and 2003 Annual Species Reviews would most 

likely be reinstituted. As a result, Alternative 4 would end up looking very much like 

Alternative 1 within two years. Except for an estimated $0.5 million in the first two years 

to conduct the species review and related analysis and minor but inestimable one-to-two 

year implementation costs for the additional species (when compared with Alternative 1),

costs for implementation of Alternative 4 are predicted to be the same as for Alternative 1.

Alternative 1 and 4

Alternative 1 and 4 would cost approximately $21.0 million per year to implement. This 

cost is less than predicted in 2000 because actual program management and Strategic 

Survey costs from Fiscal Year 2003 were used. These costs had a downward trend 

between 2001 and 2003. This estimated cost also reflects a savings accomplished by 

the removal of some species from Survey and Manage and elimination of requirements 

to conduct pre-disturbance surveys for some species through the Annual Species 

Reviews. The estimated cost is also lower because in spite of need, fuels treatment acres 
305

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

are estimated to be lower, primarily because of other government funding priorities. 

There were increased costs in pre-disturbance surveys compared to the 2000 Survey 

and Manage Final SEIS because acres thinned through the timber program are no 

longer considered complete fuel reduction projects, which adds to the fuel treatment 

program. No estimate has been made for equivalent-effort surveys required if Strategic 

Surveys are not completed. If completing Strategic Surveys is delayed, costs could rise 

significantly, up to double the pre-disturbance survey costs. The total cost of Alternative 

1 and 4 includes $6.1 million for pre-disturbance surveys for timber; $6.4 million for predisturbance surveys for fuel treatment; $0.3 million for pre-disturbance surveys for other 

activities; $0.8 million for additional fuel treatment cost; and $7.4 million for Strategic 

Surveys, program management, training, data management, and other costs. Totals are 

not exact due to rounding. Pre-disturbance surveys costs are estimated at $73.13 per acre, 

and total cost per fuels-treated acre is $98.94. Long-term (5-10 years) costs would decline 

by approximately 35 percent as Strategic Surveys are completed and recommendations 

are made for management of high-priority sites. 

Alternative 2

Alternative 2 would cost approximately $7.9 million per year without mitigation and 

$8.3 per year with mitigation to implement. The total cost of Alternative 2 includes 

$2.7 million for pre-project surveys for timber; $2.8 million for pre-project surveys for 

fuel treatments; $0.1 million for pre-project surveys for other activities; $0.3 million 

for additional fuel treatment cost; and $2.0 million for general surveys, program 

management, conservation strategies, training, data management, and other costs. Preproject surveys would cost approximately $31.81 per acre, and total cost per fuels-treated 

acre is $39.31. As with Alternatives 1 and 4, costs may decline over time as information 

is gained on the species in the Special Status Species Programs. It is estimated that 5 

percent savings would accrue over time as knowledge is gained about species. 

Alternative 2 differs from Alternative 1 in several key ways that affect cost. 

•	 Reduced pre-project surveys 

	 	Twelve species that would have pre-disturbance surveys with Alternative 1 are 

assumed not to be included in the Agencies’ Special Status Species Programs under 

Alternative 2. This includes one lichen, one bryophyte, one vascular plant, and nine 

mollusks. There would be little or no cost saving because these taxa groups would 

have other species included in the Agencies’ Species Status Species Programs that 

would still receive surveys. The red tree vole is included in the Agencies’ Special 

Status Species Programs under Alternative 2 in a small part of its range (the North 

Coast range of Oregon). Elsewhere, the red tree vole (and great gray owl in Oregon) 

would not be included in the Special Status Species Programs. This would result in 

cost savings since surveys would no longer be completed outside the area where it 

is included in the Special Status Species Programs. Unlike the other species noted 

above, the red tree vole and great gray owl receive their own surveys. Red tree vole 

surveys are particularly expensive if tree climbing is involved. 

	 	Many other species would only be surveyed in a portion of their range under 

Alternative 2. For example, a species may be added to the Special Status Species list 

for BLM managed lands in California, but not for nearby National Forest System 

lands.

	 	For Sensitive Species that are currently in Survey and Manage Category A or C, 

pre-project clearances can include various tools besides surveys (see description 

of Alternative 2 in Chapter 2). Pre-project clearances will likely include surveys for 

non-fungal botanical species due to the lack of large-scale analysis tools for many of 

these species. In addition, many of the botanical taxa are relatively easy to survey 

for, so surveys are a useful and efficient tool for assessing potential project impacts. 

However, some of these species are more common, so there would likely be some 
306

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

use of tools other than surveys for more common species. It is assumed surveys 

would be completed for non-fungal botanical species 85 percent of the time. Preproject clearances for fungi would normally use other tools (than surveys) due to 

the infeasibility of surveys. Most of the fungi are unpredictable fruiters, and may 

not be discovered even after 5 years of survey effort. In addition, the time period 

in which surveys may be effective can be limited. Larger-scale analysis tools are a 

more efficient and effective means of assessing project impacts. It is assumed there 

would be no survey cost for fungi species, except for one fungus. This fungus can 

be identified during surveys and the cost of surveys for this species is included 

with other botanical surveys. For wildlife species, pre-project clearances will likely 

include tools other than surveys most of the time due to the complexity of survey 

methodology. Where the species has specific habitat parameters, habitat avoidance 

during project design is an effective way of eliminating survey need. Habitat 

avoidance will likely occur for many of the amphibians and some of the mollusks, 

where more refined definitions of habitat are known. Where a species has more 

general habitat characteristics, larger-scale tools, coupled with some surveys, may 

be used. In other cases, unsurveyed habitat may be assumed to be occupied by the 

species, and the impacts of the project upon that habitat assessed, by looking at 

overall impact to habitat. It is assumed surveys would be completed for wildlife 

species 25 percent of the time. 

	 	For the Bureau Assessment category, pre-project clearances are completed subject to 

limitations in funding or positions. It is likely that methods other than field surveys 

would be used for these clearances due to funding and staffing limitations.

•	 Increased pre-project surveys 

	 	There are 87 species that would be added to the Special Status Species Programs 

under Alternative 2 that do not currently (Alternative 1) require pre-disturbance 

surveys (because they are in Categories B, D, E, or F). With Alternative 2, local land 

managers would decide what level of survey, if any, to apply to these species. It is 

assumed, for the purpose of cost analysis, that there would be little increase in preproject surveys because methods other than direct surveys would usually be used 

to determine “clearance” (see Key Assumptions for Pre-Project Surveys/Clearances and 

Known Site Management earlier in this chapter). 

•	 Reduced Strategic Surveys 

	 	With Alternative 2, there would be general surveys where needed to determine 

species distribution and to identify trends, but the cost of these general surveys 

would be far less than Strategic Surveys under Alternatives 1 and 4.

	 	With Alternative 2, arthropod studies would be eliminated because these functional 

groups are not included in the Special Status Species Programs.

•	 Miscellaneous costs and overhead 

	 	It is assumed that other program management costs such as maintaining databases 

(similar to the GeoBOB and ISMS databases), updating survey protocols and 

field guides, developing conservation strategies, and overhead would occur 

with Alternative 2, but at a reduced level when compared to Alternatives 1 and 

4. This reduction would be a result of elimination of the large overhead in place 

to administer the Survey and Manage Program, while existing overhead for the 

Special Status Species Programs would suffice with some additions to accommodate 

increased workload. Some costs might shift from regional to local levels. For 

example, at local units, environmental assessments and biological evaluations would 

require additional documentation to incorporate the species added to Special Status 

Species Programs.
307

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Measures could be used to mitigate the adverse environmental impacts for species under 

Alternative 2. Mitigation of these effects under Alternative 2 could include management 

of known sites not protected by reserves or the Agencies’ Special Status Species 

Programs. In addition, mitigation for some of these species could include pre-project 

clearances. The cost of possible mitigation under Alternative 2 for species would be $0.4 

million. 

Alternative 3

Alternative 3 would cost approximately $10.7 million per year without mitigation and 

$10.8 per year with mitigation to implement. The total cost of Alternative 3 includes 

$2.0 million for pre-disturbance surveys for timber; $1.9 million for pre-disturbance 

surveys for fuel treatments; $0.2 million for pre-disturbance surveys for other activities; 

$0.4 million for additional fuel treatment cost; $6.2 million for general surveys, program 

management, training, data management, and other costs. Pre-disturbance surveys 

would cost approximately $66.40 per acre, and total cost per treated acre is $29.95. Costs 

may decline over time as information is gained on the species in the Special Status 

Species Programs. It is estimated that 13 percent savings would accrue over time as 

knowledge is gained about species. 

Alternative 3 differs from Alternative 1 in several key ways that affect cost.

•	 Reduced pre-disturbance surveys 

	 	Pre-disturbance surveys would not be conducted in non-late-successional and nonold-growth stands. For timber projects, this amounts to an estimated reduction of 

50,000 acres of surveys per year (these are the acres involved in thinning projects). 

For fuel treatment projects, it is estimated that two-thirds of all projects would not 

need pre-disturbance surveys.

	 	Seven Category C species would be eliminated from the Survey and Manage 

mitigation measure; six of these species would continue to receive some surveys 

under the Agencies’ Special Status Species Programs. The primary cost savings 

would be from eliminating surveys for red tree voles except in the small portion of 

its range (North Coast range of Oregon) where it is included in the Agencies’ Special 

Status Species Programs. 

•	 Reduced Strategic Survey costs

	 	The elimination of Categories C, D, and F species would result in a savings of $1.2 

million per year compared to Alternative 1. Under Alternative 1, this amount would 

be spent on surveys and other studies to help define high-priority sites, rewrite 

Management Recommendations, and to answer questions about the species role in 

ecosystems. 

	 	As with Alternative 1, most Strategic Surveys would eventually be completed. In 

the long term, costs for Strategic Surveys under Alternative 3 would decline to 

approximately one-tenth the current level.

Measures could be used to mitigate the adverse environmental impacts for species under 

Alternative 3. Mitigation of these effects under Alternative 3 could include management 

of known sites not protected by reserves or the Agencies’ Special Status Species 

Programs. In addition, mitigation for some of these species could include pre-project 

clearances.

The cost of possible mitigation under Alternative 3 is $0.1 million.
308

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Timber Harvest

Affected Environment 

Each alternative would directly affect the level of timber available for harvest from lands 

administered by the Forest Service and BLM within the NWFP area. The purpose of this 

section is to display the effects of the alternatives on the Probable Sale Quantity (PSQ) 

at the Northwest Forest Plan scale (24.5 million acres) to provide a relative comparison 

between the alternatives. Effects at the administrative unit would vary from this 

regional-level analysis. This analysis is not intended to have the precision necessary for 

re-declaring the PSQ for the National Forests and BLM Districts. Further, the alternatives 

in this SEIS do not authorize timber sales or other habitat-disturbing activities. The 

decision to harvest timber is made in site-specific, project-level decisions that implement 

land and resource management plans of administrative units.

Changes in PSQ from 1994 to Present 

As noted in the 1994 Northwest Forest Plan Final SEIS, the PSQ is based only on those 

lands considered suitable for programmed, long-term, sustainable timber harvest. These 

lands are only in the Matrix and Adaptive Management Area land allocations. Riparian, 

Late-Successional, and other reserve allocations do not contribute to PSQ. 

The Northwest Forest Plan Final SEIS estimated the PSQ at 958 million board feet 

(MMBF), plus an additional 10 percent volume estimated in “other wood” (cull, 

submerchantable, firewood, and other products) for a total of 1.1 billion board feet 

(USDA, USDI 1994a:3&4-266 and 268). 

The 2000 Survey and Manage Final SEIS describes the changes in PSQ from 958 MMBF 

at the onset of the plan to the year 2000 level of 811 MMBF. In 2001, the Oregon 

Washington BLM State Director re-declared the Coos Bay and Eugene Districts PSQ (6 

MMBF reduction) in response to the transfer of lands to the Coquille Tribe and additional 

protection for late-successional forest as required by the Northwest Forest Plan. The 

current combined PSQ for the BLM and Forest Service is 805 MMBF (current baseline 

Table 3&4-13. Annual Cost (In millions of dollars1)

Cost Element (includes overhead) Alternatives 1 & 42 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Pre-disturbance surveys for Timber 6.1 2.7 2.0

Pre-disturbance surveys for Fuel Treatments 6.4 2.8 1.9

Pre-disturbance surveys for Other 0.3 0.1 0.2

Pre-disturbance surveys total 12.8 5.6 4.1

Additional Fuel Treatment Cost 0.8 0.3 0.4

Strategic Surveys/General Surveys/ 

Program Management/Training/

Data Management/Other Costs

7.4 2.0 6.2

Total Annual Cost (short term) 21.0 7.9 10.7

Total Annual Cost with Mitigation (short term) - 8.3 10.8

Long-term Annual Cost (10 years) 18.4 7.4 9.0

Long-term Annual Cost with mitigation (10 years) - 7.8 9.1

NOTE: Totals are not exact due to rounding.

1

2003 Oregon Employment Department wage rates stated in 2006 dollars, an increase of 4.68 percent.

2

Does not include first two-year cost of $0.5 million for Annual Species Review for Alternative 4.
309

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

PSQ for the Northwest Forest Plan). Management of known sites for Survey and 

Manage species identified since the beginning of the Northwest Forest Plan has not been 

incorporated into the PSQ.

Relationship of PSQ and Late-Successional Forest 

The PSQ for each administrative unit (National Forests and BLM Districts) is determined 

in their underlying Land and Resource Management Plans that were amended by, or 

adopted, the Northwest Forest Plan. The underlying plans identify “suitable” lands as 

lands upon which sustainable, regularly scheduled timber harvests can occur. There 

are nearly four million acres of suitable lands in the Matrix and Adaptive Management 

Areas. By policy, the PSQ level is currently no higher than the level that can be 

maintained in perpetuity.

Younger forest stands grow much faster than older stands, and the rotation age (the 

harvest age that maximizes average annual growth) in the Douglas-fir forest types 

is about 100 years for the average Northwest Forest Plan forest. If the suitable lands 

were occupied with a uniform distribution of age classes, all less than 100 years of age, 

a volume-driven harvest schedule would regenerate the 100-110 year age class each 

decade, while thinning some of the younger stands. The suitable lands are not, however, 

occupied by a uniform mix of age classes. While there are many stands on the suitable 

lands that are in the 60 to 100 year age class where regeneration harvesting would 

maximize volume production, most currently existing stands either are plantations 

created by regeneration harvesting that began 50-60 years ago and increased into the 

1980s, or are remnant late-successional and old-growth stands. On most administrative 

units, the PSQ is heavily dependent on harvesting the late-successional forest for 3 to 

5 decades until the younger stands begin to mature and become available for harvest. 

Because of this dependence, harvest schedules indicate about 90 percent (709 MMBF 

annually) of PSQ over the early decades of the Plan is dependent on harvest of latesuccessional forest. This is the difference between the Northwest Forest Plan-calculated 

PSQs for Alternative 1, which reserved all late-successional stands, and the selected 

Alternative 9, which left 1.1 million acres of late-successional forest in the non-reserved 

lands (Matrix and some of the AMAs) and thus available for harvest. The relationship 

between PSQ and late-successional forest was noted in the PSQ modeling for the 

Northwest Forest Plan as:

“Most of the harvest in Option 9 [the selected alternative] ... over the next decade will come 

from late-successional (over 80 years old) ... While Option 9 may reserve sizeable amount 

of late-successional forest on federal land, it does not escape the historic dependence on 

late-successional forest and old growth as the source of harvest volume ...” (Johnson et al. 

1993:22).

The percent of PSQ dependent upon late-successional forest decreases over succeeding 

decades, but this effect is negligible in the second (now current) decade because almost 

none of the existing plantations reached maturity in the first decade. There would be 

a slight increase in planned thinning for the second decade, but thinning generates 

less than ten to twenty percent of PSQ even in the later decades, and the effect would 

be much less for the existing, younger, plantations. Thus, the relationship between 

late-successional forest and PSQ has not significantly changed since 1994, and is still 

applicable to this analysis.

The harvest schedules used to calculate the PSQ on each administrative unit are based 

on stand inventories and growth models so that growth of existing and future stands is 

fully considered. At the start of the NWFP area, fourteen percent of the approximately 8 

million acres of the then-existing late-successional forest, or 1.1 million acres, was within 

the Matrix and Adaptive Management Area land allocations. These 1.1 million acres of 

late-successional forest were the primary source for harvest in support of the PSQ. The 
310

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

more than one-million acre increase in late-successional forest discussed in the LateSuccessional Forest Ecosystems section does not affect the original PSQ calculations (except 

that harvests not made in the first decade are still available), because in-growth on nonreserved lands has been consistent with previous PSQ modeling predictions.

Since a majority of Survey and Manage species sites are assumed to be in latesuccessional forests, managing species sites within the Matrix and Adaptive Management 

Areas has the effect of reducing the amount of late-successional forest that is available for 

harvest. Because of the PSQ’s reliance on older stands in the early decades of the Plan, 

this reduction in the amount of late-successional forest available for harvest has a direct 

and calculable effect on PSQ. Thus, reductions to the 1.1 million acres of late-successional 

forest available for harvest through management of known sites are assumed to have a 

direct, proportional effect to the 709 MMBF annual portion of the PSQ dependent on latesuccessional forests. For purposes of this analysis, the remaining 96 MMBF from earlysuccessional forests is assumed to be unaffected by the management of known sites, and 

is held constant across all alternatives.

Although known sites affect harvest of early-successional forest for some species, the 

Agencies’ known species site databases used for this analysis do not distinguish between 

early and late-successional forest at this time. Since Survey and Manage species are, by 

definition, closely associated with late-successional and old-growth forest, the calculated 

acreage effects are all assumed to occur on late-successional forest in this PSQ analysis. 

The 2000 Final SEIS provided a detailed explanation on the shift in late-successional 

forest between the Reserves and Matrix/Adaptive Management Areas as a result of 

the reductions in the PSQ since the beginning of the Northwest Forest Plan. The 

assumptions for late-successional forest acreage available for harvest are the same as in 

the 2000 Final SEIS. The 6 MMBF reduction in PSQ since 2000 has not been incorporated 

into the assumptions for lands available for harvest because of the relatively minor nature 

of the change.

Differences in Data since the 2000 Final SEIS 

For purposes of this analysis, the Agencies’ species site data are assumed to reflect survey 

results up though calendar year 2001. Since the Agencies thought they had removed 

Survey and Manage early in 2004, sites identified since that time would not represent the 

trends expected under Survey and Manage.

In the 2000 Survey and Manage Final SEIS, Geographic Information System (GIS) data 

was not available for the red tree vole or great gray owl and estimations were made 

without GIS analysis. GIS data are now available for these two species and was used in 

this analysis.

Methodology Used in Analysis of PSQ 

Estimating the effects to PSQ is dependent on determining the number of acres of 

late-successional forest that will ultimately be managed as known sites for Survey 

and Manage species. Projections are based on 4 years of experience conducting predisturbance surveys for most of the species requiring such surveys. Those 4 years 

of survey data, which has been entered into the Agencies’ databases, is the basis for 

estimating the current acreage of known sites and species detection rates.

In the 2000 Final SEIS and this analysis, it is assumed that it will take 25 years to survey 

the original 1.1 million acres of late-successional forest in the Matrix and Adaptive 

Management Areas based on input from the field units. For most species, predicting the 

eventual number of sites that might affect PSQ involves projecting the current known 

sites detection rate ahead for 25 years. Since the alternatives provide for removing 
311

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

species from Survey and Manage and/or Special Status Species Programs, some of 

the more numerous species were projected for a shorter period of time. Although the 

alternatives provide for adding species to Survey and Manage and Special Status Species 

Programs no estimation of effects was attempted for adding new species. Potential 

increases in species sites because of increases in late-successional forest acres could 

increase the acreage of known sites beyond projections. However, for the more numerous 

species, this may simply mean they are removed from Survey and Manage sooner.

The average number of acres managed at each site varies by taxa group and by species 

within the taxa groups, according to habitat requirements described in Management 

Recommendations for each species or taxa group. The same average number of acres 

managed at each site, for particular species, was held as a constant for the alternatives. 

GIS was used to apply buffers to each of the species sites, which have been identified 

within the Matrix and Adaptive Management Areas, to calculate the total acreage of 

current known sites. Additional adjustments were made to account for acreage that 

would become inoperable for harvest, sites within Riparian Reserves, and additional sites 

expected to be found with Strategic Surveys (Alternatives 1, 3 and 4).

Timber Sale Offerings

The Agencies’ annual timber sale offerings are shown in Figure 3&4-8. The Agencies’ 

harvest targets were 60 and 80 percent of PSQ during the start-up years of 1995 and 1996, 

respectively. Shortfalls in sales offered since 1998 are related to the implementation of the 

Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines and biological opinions related to certain 

harvests in watersheds with threatened or endangered anadromous fish (consultation 

issues associated with the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations et al. v. 

National Marine Fisheries Service lawsuits (commonly referred to as the PCFFA ruling)), 

protests/appeals on individual timber sales, and other factors. A portion of the increase 

after the Agencies thought they had removed Survey and Manage in 2004 can no doubt 

be attributed to that removal, but the proportion is unknown.

Figure 3&4-8. Annual Timber Sale Offerings in Relation to PSQ.
312

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Since the beginning of the Northwest Forest Plan, the Agencies have offered timber sales 

at about 61 percent of the PSQ on average. Prior to the litigation on the Survey and 

Manage Standards and Guidelines and the PCFFA ruling (fiscal years 1995-1998), the 

Agencies had offered 82 percent of the PSQ. Considering the start-up period anticipated 

by the Northwest Forest Plan, the Agencies were close to meeting the timber sale 

objectives during that timeframe. Since 1999, the Agencies’ offerings have been reduced 

to 50 percent of the PSQ.

Environmental Consequences 

The effect on PSQ is a direct result of the number of acres managed within the Matrix 

and Adaptive Management Areas for the species considered in the alternatives. These 

areas are not reserves; however, they are unavailable for harvest for several decades. 

Figure 3&4-9 reflects the estimated acreage associated with the species sites managed 

under each alternative, currently identified in the Agencies’ databases as being within the 

Matrix and Adaptive Management Areas. The sites in databases prior to 1998 reflect the 

number of sites identified prior to the implementation of pre-disturbance surveys. The 

acreage of sites identified after 1998 reflect sites identified with pre-disturbance surveys 

being conducted. This illustrates the relative acreage of sites associated with the species 

under the alternatives, as well as the rates of detection used in the projections of effects.

Additional Constraints on Timber Sale Offerings and Estimating 

Effects on PSQ 

The Agencies’ databases and existing acreage of sites illustrated in Figure 3&4-9 do not 

convey the full constraints on the implementation of timber sales for the management of 

known sites within the Matrix and Adaptive Management Areas. 

Figure 3&4-9. Acreage of Species Sites Identified Through 2001 

Under The Alternatives.
313

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Until 2004, the PCFFA ruling constrained timber sales in areas with Endangered Species 

Act-listed anadromous fish species to those that did not require formal consultation. As 

a result, there was additional emphasis on thinning of younger stands while some road 

construction, regeneration harvest, and density management silvicultural practices were 

deferred. 

With the implementation of the Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines, the 

PCFFA ruling, and protests and appeals, the Oregon BLM regeneration harvest timber 

sales sold during fiscal years 1999-2001 were reduced by 89 percent when compared to 

the fiscal year 1995-1998 timeframe. Regeneration harvest sales of stands 200 years and 

older was reduced by 88 percent during this timeframe. The 1995-1998 timber sales were 

22 percent less than the harvest assumptions under the Northwest Forest Plan (BLM 

Annual Program Summaries).

The environmental consequences need to be based in the context of fully implementing 

the baseline PSQ (805 MMBF/year) identified in the Northwest Forest Plan. With the 

reduced levels of timber sale offerings (35 percent of PSQ during the four years preceding 

this analysis) and limits on regeneration harvest of older forest and more emphasis on 

thinning of younger forest, the Agencies’ databases do not reflect the number of species/

sites that would be identified under the full PSQ. Also, with more implementation 

experience since the 2000 Survey and Manage Final SEIS, two additional effects have 

been identified that are not reflected in the site data-based calculation of acres for existing 

sites or in the 2000 Survey and Manage Final SEIS timber harvest projections.

•	 Avoidance - When initial sale reconnaissance indicates the presence of numerous 

Survey and Manage species sites, sale areas are abandoned and no specific sites may 

be recorded. The Agencies have sought to offer timber sales (thinning, avoidance of 

older forest) where it is less likely Survey and Manage species will encumber the sale.

•	 Abandonment - Red tree vole surveys provide an example of the trade-offs managers 

face in use of staff time and dollars for preparing timber sales. Pre-disturbance 

surveys indicate nest structures within the sale area but only those nest structures 

associated with red tree vole activity require protection. Each site associated with 

activity commonly receives a 10-acre management area. When managers are faced 

with numerous nest structures in the sale area, they must weigh the additional staff 

work for reconfiguring the sale, and the cost of climbing the trees versus abandonment 

of the sale area. This situation extends beyond red tree vole when identified sites are 

so numerous that it results in an infeasible sale.

Sale areas that are avoided or abandoned are not fully reflected in Agencies’ databases 

and the estimation of existing acreage of managed sites. 

Projection of Acres of Managed Sites

The Agencies’ databases were used to establish the number of acres associated with 

the management of Survey and Manage species within the Matrix and Adaptive 

Management Areas. The data for sites identified since 1998 is assumed to represent 4 

years of surveys. It is assumed that it will take 25 years to survey the 1.1 million acres of 

late-successional forest within the Matrix and Adaptive Management Areas. Projecting 

sites into the future is based upon taking the existing sites, identified over 4 years, and 

expanding that to what would continue to be found over the next 21 years. 

Additional factors were incorporated into the projection of effects to account for factors 

not reflected in the species site data:
314

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

•	 The four years of sale offerings preceding this analysis (35 percent of PSQ) do not 

reflect full implementation of PSQ.

•	 These sales placed an emphasis on thinning and partial cut harvest with less 

regeneration harvest.

•	 There was avoidance of harvest in older forest conditions.

•	 There was avoidance of areas where Survey and Manage species would likely 

encumber sales.

•	 The Survey and Manage mitigation measure resulted in abandonment of portions 

and/or entire sale areas.

The projected acreage was increased by 100 percent for Alternatives 1 and 418 to account 

for the factors listed above and to reflect the amount of sites what would be managed 

under full implementation of the PSQ under the Northwest Forest Plan. Given that there 

are fewer numbers of species under Alternatives 2 and 3, it is assumed that the degree of 

avoidance and abandonment would be less, so the projected acreage was increased by 50 

percent for these alternatives.

Those species with more than 100 acres in known sites within the Matrix and Adaptive 

Management Areas had projection caps applied in the 2000 Final SEIS to simulate the 

adaptive management process. These same assumptions were applied to the projections 

for the alternatives in this SEIS.

The existing sites under Survey and Manage which are assumed to have been 

implemented with timber sales but under Alternatives 2 and 3 are now “released” 

continue to have an effect on the PSQ. Acreage of existing sites established in timber 

sales in which regenerations harvest has occurred are unavailable for harvest for several 

decades and has a long-term effect on PSQ. Those existing sites implemented in thinning 

or partial cut harvest are available for harvest with the next entry, which has less of a 

long-term effect. To account for this PSQ effect, 50 percent of acreage of the existing 

sites which are “released” from future site management under Alternatives 2 and 3 are 

assumed to reduce the 1.1 million acres of late-successional forest available for harvest. 

A summary of the acres of late-successional forest in the Matrix and Adaptive 

Management Areas that are projected to be managed as known sites under each 

alternative is shown on Figure 3&4-10.

As previously described, the percent of late-successional forest projected for management 

of known sites has a corresponding effect on the 1.1 million acres of late-successional 

forest in the Matrix and Adaptive Management Areas that supports the PSQ. For 

example, the projection of sites under Alternatives 1 and 4 identified 15 percent of the 1.1 

million acres of existing late-successional forest would be managed for known sites. The 

15 percent of the 709 MMBF of PSQ associated with late-successional forests equates to 

the projected PSQ reduction of 105 MMBF (rounded to nearest 5 MMBF). The projected 

PSQ reduction from the current 805 MMBF PSQ baseline for each alternative is shown 

in Figure 3&4-11. Note: these projections provide the relative magnitude effect on the 

PSQ for purposes of comparing alternatives. This analysis is not intended to have the 

precision necessary for re-declaring the PSQ for the National Forests and BLM Districts. 

The current 805 MMBF PSQ baseline does not include the added 10 percent volume for 

“other wood” that was used in the Northwest Forest Plan Final SEIS estimate of timber 

harvest. 

18As described in the Key Assumption for Non-Species-Specific Effects Analyses for Alternative 4 section earlier in this chapter, an analysis 

assumption for Alternative 4 is that if this alternative is adopted, changes previously adopted by Annual Species Reviews would most likely 

be reinstituted within one to two years. As a result, Alternative 4 would end up looking very much like Alternative 1. PSQ effects (which are 

decadal) for Alternative 4 are predicted to be the same as for Alternative 1.
315

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Comparison of Effects of the Alternatives

The primary factor affecting the PSQ between the alternatives is the number of species 

and resulting acreage of known sites affecting the 1.1 million acres of late-successional 

forest within the Matrix and Adaptive Management Areas. 

The effect on PSQ of mitigating for adverse effects to species due to management under 

Alternatives 2 and 3 is included in Table 3&4-14 (mitigation for adverse effects for two 

species under Alternative 1 are negligible). For the 133 species that would have habitat 

(including known sites) insufficient to support stable populations in the NWFP area 

under all alternatives and the 20 species and 4 arthropod functional groups for which 

there is insufficient information to determine an outcome under all alternatives, there are 

less than 200 acres of known sites. The effect on PSQ is below the threshold of measuring 

any substantial effects; therefore, the effect is not shown in Table 3&4-14. 

Alternatives 1 and 4

Under Alternatives 1 and 4, there would be a 105 MMBF reduction in PSQ due to 

management of known sites.

Of the species and arthropod functional groups included in the Survey and Manage 

mitigation measure, there are 14 species with projected acres of more than 1,000 each that 

account for approximately 41 percent of the projected acres and resulting effect on PSQ.

Figure 3&4-10. Projected Acres of Survey and Manage Sites Affecting PSQ. 

The projected acreage of known sites affecting the 1.1 million acres of latesuccessional forest within the Matrix and Adaptive Management Areas for 

each alternative
316

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Table 3&4-14. Comparison of Timber Harvest Effects

Alternatives 1&41 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Number of Species/Functional Groups Included2 299 145 285

Number of Species identified in Matrix/

Adaptive Management Areas through Pre-Disturbance 

Surveys Since 1998

138 68 125

Existing Acreage of Sites in the Matrix and 

Adaptive Management Areas3 22,100 10,900 16,000

Projected Acreage of Sites in the Matrix and 

Adaptive Management Areas + Existing 166,000 53,000 75,000

Projected Acreage of Sites as a percentage of the 1.1 million 

acres of late-successional forest in the Matrix and 

Adaptive Management Areas

15% 5% 7%

Projected PSQ Reduction in MMBF 

(rounded to nearest 5 MMBF) 105 35 45

Projected PSQ Percentage Reduction from 805 MMBF baseline

(w/out mitigation) 13% 4% 6%

Reduction in MMBF for Mitigation - 2 4

Projected PSQ Reduction with Mitigation in MMBF 

(rounded to nearest 5 MMBF) - 35 50

Projected PSQ Percentage Reduction from 805 MMBF baseline

(with mitigation)

13% 4% 6%

1

 Alternative 4 values are for after the Annual Species Review expected, for analysis purposes, to take place immediately if this alternative is adopted.

2

 Not counting 15 species in all alternatives removed from Survey and Manage by the 2001, 2002, and 2003 ASRs and assigned to SSSP before the 2004 timber 

harvest analysis.

3 Existing at the time of the 2003 projection. Not updated because subsequent detection rate has been without Survey and Manage and thus does not apply.

Figure 3&4-11. Projected PSQ Reductions in Million Board Feet from 

the current 805 MMBF Baseline
317

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Alternative 2 

Under Alternative 2 without mitigation, there would be a 35 MMBF reduction in PSQ 

due to management of known sites. This is a 70 MMBF increase in PSQ compared to 

Alternatives 1 and 4.

Of the 145 species assumed to be included in the Special Status Species Programs 

(compared to Alternative 1), there are 8 species with projected acres of more than 1,000 

each that account for approximately 30 percent of the total projected acres and resulting 

effect on PSQ19.

Mitigation for the 53 species (see Table 2-13) that would have habitat insufficient to 

support stable populations in all or a portion of their range under Alternative 2, but 

would have habitat sufficient to support stable populations under Alternative 1, would 

require 2 MMBF for management of known sites. 

Under Alternative 2 with mitigation, the total PSQ reduction is 35 MMBF (rounded to 

the nearest 5 MMBF). This is an increase of 70 MMBF compared to Alternative 1. Note: 

the addition of the mitigation fell within the rounding unit of 5 MMBF in which the PSQ 

effects are expressed.

Alternative 3 

Under Alternative 3 without mitigation, there would be a 45 MMBF reduction in PSQ 

due to management of known sites. This would be a 60 MMBF increase in PSQ over 

Alternative 1. 

Of the 28719 species assumed to be included in Survey and Manage or the Agencies’ 

Special Status Species Programs in this alternative, there are 8 species with more than 

1,000 projected acres each that account for approximately 33 percent of the total projected 

acres and resulting effect on PSQ.

Mitigation for the 11 species that would have habitat insufficient to support stable 

populations in all or a portion of their range under Alternative 3, but would have habitat 

sufficient to support stable populations under Alternative 1, would require 4 MMBF for 

management of known sites. 

Under Alternative 3 with mitigation, the total reduction in PSQ is 50 MMBF (rounded to 

the nearest 5 MMBF). This would be a 55 MMBF increase in PSQ over Alternative 1. 

Northwest PSQ - Context and Cumulative Effects

The 1994 Northwest Forest Plan Final SEIS included a 6 MMBF reduction in the PSQ 

for the management of existing known sites under Survey and Manage. Since little was 

known about these species in 1994, the Agencies assumed that the effects on the PSQ 

would be minor since these species were thought to be relatively rare. Based on the 

analysis of effects in the 2000 Final SEIS and this SEIS, it has been demonstrated that the 

Survey and Manage mitigation measure within the Matrix and Adaptive Management 

Areas, under any of these alternatives, has affected PSQ to a greater extent than was 

anticipated in 1994. 

The Northwest Forest Plan PSQ is the combined result of the harvest levels as stated 

in the individual National Forest and BLM District land and resource management 

plans. Harvest levels are established based on a set of forest management assumptions 

19Twelve additional Alternative 4 species already on the Special Status Species Programs in Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 are not included in these 

calculations because effects are the same across all alternatives.
318

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

including the intensity of harvest, the acreage available for harvest, and the types of 

forest available. All of these harvest-level assumptions are based in the long-term context 

of decades of implementation and forest growth.

The projections of effects for alternatives to the current Survey and Manage Program can 

be quantified at the regional level to provide the relative effect on the PSQ in the long 

term. These effects are largely based on the reduction in land available for harvest as a 

result of managing species sites within Matrix and Adaptive Management Areas. The 

effects are based on full PSQ. If timber sale offerings are constrained by other factors, 

such as funding levels, the PSQ reductions described above would be proportionately 

reduced. 

Scale and Precision 

This analysis of PSQ has been done at the planning area scale and does not consider the 

exact effects of the changes in the lands available for harvest at smaller scales. Effects 

at the individual National Forests and BLM Districts would vary from this regionallevel analysis. This analysis is not intended to have the precision necessary for redeclaring the PSQ for the affected National Forests and BLM Districts. Actual PSQ 

will be affected by the number of sites that are found and future adaptive management 

decisions. Modifications to National Forest and BLM District level PSQ need to be based 

on the accumulation of specific, unit-level effects during individual land and resource 

management plan amendments or revisions. At the NWFP area-wide scale, the PSQ 

effects calculated here are reasonable estimates of both the magnitude of effects and of 

the differences between the alternatives.

Additional information about methodology and assumptions in this analysis is included 

in the administrative record and is available upon request.

Short-Term Effects to the Timber Sale Program

As described above and earlier in this chapter, PSQ effects (which are decadal) 

for Alternative 4 are expected, after conduct of an Annual Species Review, to be 

approximately the same are for Alternative 1. In the short term, for the one to two years 

potentially required to conduct any planning steps that may be identified by the abovereferenced reconsideration, Alternative 4 would have additional adverse effects on timber 

harvest and other potentially habitat-disturbing management activities including fuels 

management when compared to Alternative 1. Achievement of fiscal year 2007 and 2008 

timber sale targets would be reduced 80 to 100 million board feet per year (about 16 

percent of the 530-600 million board feet target) under Alternative 4 when compared to 

the effects under Alternative 1. If the analysis assumption described above proves to be 

incorrect, effects to timber harvest could occur for a longer period of time.

Socioeconomic Effects

Affected Environment

The Northwest Forest Plan Final SEIS addressed socioeconomic effects. The 2000 Survey 

and Manage Final SEIS examined alternative ways to change only one aspect, the Survey 

and Manage Standards and Guidelines of the Northwest Forest Plan. This SEIS also 

examines an alternative way to change only one aspect of the Northwest Forest Plan. 

Since it supplements the previous analyses, this SEIS does not repeat the analysis and 

conclusions in those documents that are unaffected by the proposals in this SEIS. The 
319

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

following analysis presents effects that would be different than those identified in the 

2000 Final SEIS. In many cases, effects are the same type previously identified, but vary 

in scope or extent as a result of alternatives analyzed in this SEIS. In these instances, the 

same assumptions used in the 2000 Final SEIS are used in this SEIS. 

Environmental Consequences

As described in the Key Assumption for Non-Species-Specific Effects Analyses for Alternative 

4 section earlier in this chapter, an analysis assumption for Alternative 4 is that if this 

alternative is adopted, a revised species review process would begin, and changes 

previously adopted during the 2001, 2002, and 2003 Annual Species Reviews would 

most likely be reinstituted. As a result, Alternative 4 would end up looking very much 

like Alternative 1 within two years, and effects resulting from the implementation of 

Alternative 4 are predicted to be the same as for Alternative 1. Short term (one to two 

year) reductions of the timber sale program of about 16 percent, and lesser reductions in 

fuels treatments and other habitat-disturbing activities would create additional shortterm socioeconomic effects when compared to Alternative 1.

Mineral Resources, Recreation Resources, and Special Forest 

Products

Impacts on these programs are correlated to the species requiring pre-disturbance 

surveys and projected known site management (USDA, USDI 2000a:420-422). The 

potential conflicts with these programs would be less under Alternative 2 compared to 

Alternatives 1, 3 and 4 because 157 species would be managed under the Special Status 

Species Programs under Alternative 2 compared to 299, 275 and 341 species/groups 

managed under Alternatives 1, 3 and 4, respectively. Pre-disturbance surveys would not 

be required for red tree voles under Alternatives 2 and 3 except in a small portion of its 

range. Under Alternative 1 and 4, the projected acreage of known sites is 166,000. Under 

Alternative 2, the projected acreage of known sites is 53,000. Under Alternative 3, the 

projected acreage of known sites is 75,000. 

Range/Grazing Resources 

As discussed in the 2000 Final SEIS (USDA, USDI 2000a:421), impacts to grazing are not 

discernibly different among the alternatives. Pre-disturbance surveys, management 

of known sites, and Strategic Surveys are not anticipated to change the conclusions of 

the Northwest Forest Plan Final SEIS regarding impacts to grazing. That document 

concluded, “... consequences to the industry would be small based on the relatively 

minor amount of range production on federally managed lands within the planning 

area. These modifications would likely have consequences, however, for individual 

permittees” (USDA, USDI 1994a:3&4-276). 

Commercial and Subsistence Fisheries Resources

None of the alternatives are anticipated to directly impact commercial or subsistence 

fisheries (USDA, USDI 2000a). 

Lumber and Wood Products Employment

Actual timber harvest, a primary driver of economic, community, and social effects, 

has lagged behind levels projected in the Northwest Forest Plan Final SEIS for a variety 

of reasons as stated in the 2000 Final SEIS (USDA, USDI 2000a:422). The Northwest 

Forest Plan Final SEIS estimated employment affected per million board feet of timber 

processed by subregion. A region-wide average was also estimated. Since no new 
320

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

information is available to revise these statistics, they continue to be used for analytical 

purposes within the NWFP area. An estimated 9.08 jobs are generated within the region 

per million board feet harvested and processed. 

The current (2000 annual average) employment in the lumber and wood products 

industry is approximately 56,900 people in Oregon, 48,927 people in Washington, and 

10,120 people in northern California counties. The employment figures for Oregon and 

Washington include the paper industry (Stevenson 2002, pers. comm.; State of California, 

Employment Development Department 2002; and Washington State Employment 

Security Department 2000).

Lumber and Wood Products employment changes have been close to the impacts 

projected in the Northwest Forest Plan Final SEIS (USDA, USDI 1994a). Actual 

employment declines between 1990, the baseline used by the Northwest Forest Plan 

Final SEIS, and the 2000 Survey and Manage Final SEIS have been about 8,460 jobs in 

Washington, 16,300 jobs in Oregon, and 3,780 jobs in northern California. Projected 

changes under the alternative selected in the Northwest Forest Plan Record of Decision 

(Alternative 9) were: 9,500 in western Washington, 16,700 in western Oregon, and 2,800 

in northern California.

All alternatives have an adverse effect on PSQ that was not anticipated in the Northwest 

Forest Plan Final SEIS (see Survey and Manage Final SEIS 2000:429). A comparison of 

annual employment and personal earnings associated with the alternatives is shown in 

Table 3&4-15. The full harvest level under the Northwest Forest Plan is currently 805 

MMBF, which would support 7,309 jobs.

Survey-Related Employment 

The Costs of Management section earlier in this chapter examines the estimated costs of 

implementing each alternative. The assumptions used to build those estimates include 

direct survey costs (such as labor, vehicles, equipment, and lab fees) and overhead. Labor 

costs were assumed to represent 46.8 percent of total costs. This represents 60 percent 

costs after deduction of overhead. The potential mitigation of Alternative 3 would not 

materially add to the costs of that alternative.

The methodology and assumptions used in the Survey and Manage Final SEIS (USDA, 

USDI 2000a:424) are used for this analysis. 

As in the 2000 Final SEIS the same three titles: (1) Biological, Agricultural, and Food 

Technicians; (2) Forest and Conservation Workers; and, (3) Surveying and Mapping 

Technicians are used. The weighted average median wage for these occupations was 

$11.42 per hour (Oregon Employment Department 2002 converted to 2006 dollars). For 

comparison, the weighted average median wage for the 22 major occupational titles in 

the Lumber and Wood Products industry was $16.34 per hour (Oregon Employment 

Department 2002 and Stevenson 2000, pers. comm., converted to 2006 dollars). 

The Northwest Forest Plan Final SEIS did not specifically anticipate employment 

associated with species surveys. Table 3&4-15 displays estimated annual survey-related 

employment and personal earnings by alternative.

The effect of mitigating for adverse effects to species due to management actions under 

Alternatives 2 and 3 is based on the effect on PSQ from the Timber Harvest section and the 

increased costs shown in Table 3&4-13 from the Cost of Management section. 
321

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Government Revenues

As stated in the 2000 Final SEIS, the analysis of impacts to government revenues in the 

Northwest Forest Plan Final SEIS did not include legislation that has provided a “special 

payment amount,” also known as safety net payments. Legislation, passed October 

30, 2000, provided for annual payments based on the average of the highest 3 years of 

payments between 1986 and 1999. It applied to the BLM “50-percent payments” and 

to the Forest Service “25-percent payments” through fiscal year 2006, and allowed for 

annual increases based on the Consumer Price Index. 

To the extent that the alternatives reduce federal timber harvest below levels anticipated 

in the Northwest Forest Plan Final SEIS, federal revenue sharing would also be reduced 

beginning in 2006. Reductions would be greatest under Alternative 1 and 4, followed by 

Alternative 3 and Alternative 2 (see Timber Harvest section). Effects of reduced payments 

to the counties would be the same type as those identified in the Northwest Forest Plan 

Final SEIS, but to a greater extent (USDA, USDI 2000a:426). 

Community Capacity

Community capacity involves the ability of residents, community institutions, 

organizations, and leadership (formal and informal) to meet local needs and expectations. 

None of the alternatives would change the capacity ratings assigned by the Northwest 

Forest Plan Final SEIS (USDA, USDI 2000a:426). 

People Coping with Change

Four factors of social and cultural disruption were noted in the Northwest Forest Plan 

Final SEIS (USDA, USDI 1994a:3&4-307). Alternatives 1, 3, and 4 include the Survey and 

Manage mitigation measure and would influence the first three of the following four 

factors. 

Table 3&4-15. Comparison of Annual Employment and Personal Earnings3

Alternatives 1 and 4:

953 Lumber/Wood-related jobs lost @ $16.34/hr2

360 Survey-related jobs gained @ $11.42/hr

Net loss in personal earnings

-$32.393.252

$8.554,272

-$23,838,980

Alternative 2:

318 Lumber/Wood-related jobs lost @ $16.34/hr2

142 Survey-related jobs gained @ $11.42/hr

Net loss in personal earnings

-$10,809,081

$3,380,577

-$7,428,504

Alternative 2 Mitigated:

336 Lumber/Wood-related jobs lost @ $16.34/hr2

149 Survey-related jobs gained @ $11.42/hr

Net loss in personal earnings

-$11,420,916

$3,537,085

-$7,883,831

Alternative 3:

409 Lumber/Wood-related jobs lost @ $16.34/hr2

172 Survey-related jobs gained @ $11.42/hr

Net loss in personal earnings

-$13,902,245

$4,087,496

-$9,814,749

Alternative 3 Mitigated:

445 Lumber/Wood-related jobs lost @ $16.34/hr2

173 Survey-related jobs gained @ $11.42/hr

Net loss in personal earnings

-$15,125,915

$4,119,430

-$11,006,485 1 Some jobs may be seasonal in nature, data has been annualized, and figures are based on a 2,080-hour work year. 2 Loss in jobs and earnings are in comparison to full Northwest Forest Plan harvest level (805 MMBF).

3 2003 Oregon Employment Department wage rates stated in 2006 dollars, an increase of 4.68 percent. 
322

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

•	 a shift from decentralized participatory forest land management that is oriented 

toward communities and workers to a centralized command and control for forests 

both public and private,

•	 the perception that the federal government has reneged on its commitment to 

maintain non-declining, even flow of timber from federal forests, 

•	 a social structure that is less likely to adapt to a permanent loss of employment, and

•	 the potential for conflict among different people in which the timber industry 

and workers, as well as other interested groups, are negatively stereotyped and 

stigmatized.

No change is anticipated in the level of controversy associated with public land 

management generally, and late-successional or old-growth forests specifically, 

because this SEIS also addresses only one of many issues associated with federal land 

management (USDA, USDI 2000a:426).

As stated in the Northwest Forest Plan Final SEIS “these factors can impose a significant 

emotional impact, and all can undermine individual and community efforts to 

successfully adapt to changes” (USDA, USDI 1994a:3&4-307).

Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations, February 11, 1994) requires that all federal 

agencies “make achieving Environmental Justice part of [their] mission by identifying 

and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations 

and low-income populations.”

Thirty-three of the 51 counties covered by the Northwest Forest Plan have poverty rates 

above the rate for the state in which they are located. Nine of the 51 counties covered 

by the Northwest Forest Plan have African American populations above the rate for the 

state in which they are located. Nine of the 51 counties under the Northwest Forest Plan 

have Asian populations above the rate for the state in which they are located. Thirty-four 

of the 51 counties under the Northwest Forest Plan have Pacific Islander populations 

above the rate for the state in which they are located. Five of the 51 counties covered by 

the Northwest Forest Plan have Hispanic (any race) populations above the rate for the 

state in which they are located. Twenty-nine of the 51 counties covered by the Northwest 

Forest Plan have Native American populations above the rate for the state in which they 

are located (USDA Economic Research Institute 2002, Bureau of Census 2000). There are 

25 federally recognized tribes in California and 36 in Oregon and Washington (USDA, 

USDI 1994a:3&4-314).

Under all alternatives, Native American subsistence uses (such as bark and root 

collecting) may be suspended or restricted until surveys can be completed for activities 

that are deemed habitat disturbing by the Agencies. 

Suspending or restricting subsistence uses may affect treaty-reserved rights and the 

Agencies’ ability to execute its trust responsibilities. The protection of tribal treaty rights 

and trust resources is addressed starting on page 54 of the Northwest Forest Plan ROD. 

Through the scoping and public involvement process on this SEIS there has been no 

specific identification of Survey and Manage species that are a particular concern of or 

used by Tribes.

There is high participation by minority and low-income populations in collecting special 

forest products. Permits for collecting wild plants, some mosses, bark, roots, and boughs 
323

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

could be restricted until surveys can be completed where such collections are deemed 

habitat disturbing by the Agencies.

The potential impacts to environmental justice described above would be less under 

Alternative 2 because there would be 157 species requiring surveys and/or management 

of sites, compared to 341 species/groups under Alternative 4, 311 species/groups under 

Alternative 1, and 298 species under Alternative 3.

Species Values 

As stated in the 2000 Final SEIS, the Survey and Manage species examined in this SEIS 

have no known consumptive use value to people. They are essentially not collected 

for food, shelter, or decoration. However, they have a variety of non-consumptive use 

values, which include ongoing and new scientific research, recreational observation, and 

photography (USDA, USDI 2000a:428).

Critical Elements of the Human Environment

Air Quality is addressed in the Air Quality section.

American Indian Religious Concerns: Projects that would occur as a result of this 

proposed action would receive site-specific analysis and clearances to ensure they would 

not restrict access to or ceremonial use of sacred sites by American Indian religious 

practitioners or adversely affect the physical integrity of such sacred sites per Executive 

Order 13007.

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern and Research Natural Areas: These areas are 

managed for the maintenance, protection, or restoration of important resource values 

or for the purpose of scientific study, research, and education. Projects that would 

occur as a result of this proposed action would receive site-specific analysis to ensure 

management activities were compatible with objectives for these areas as identified in 

land and resource management plans. 

Cultural Resources: Projects that would occur as a result of this proposed action would 

receive site-specific analysis and clearances to ensure cultural resources were not 

adversely affected.

Energy: Executive Order 13212 requires an analysis of direct or indirect adverse 

affects on energy development, production, supply, and/or distribution. New energy 

development projects such as pipelines and power corridors that are proposed in the 

NWFP area could be directly affected by the proposed action. For some Survey and 

Manage or Special Status species, surveys would be needed and/or known sites would 

be managed. This could delay a project or cause rerouting. It is also possible, although 

unlikely, that a project could be abandoned. There are fewer species included in the 

Special Status Species Programs or Survey and Manage Program under Alternatives 2 

and 3 when compared to Alternative 1 and 4. The adverse effects on energy development 

projects would be less under the action alternatives than under the no-action alternatives.

Environmental Justice is addressed in the Environmental Justice Section.

Prime Farmlands or Unique Land Characteristics: Prime farmlands and other unique 

federal land characteristics are required to be identified and restored as part of the 

Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1977. No federally managed land under the 

Northwest Forest Plan is currently designated as Prime Farmland. If any such lands 

were to be designated in the future, surface mining projects within the area of the 

Northwest Forest Plan would utilize the appropriate standards and guidelines from land 

and resource management plans to meet the requirements of this Act.
324

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Floodplains: Executive Order 11988, as amended, requires agencies to determine if a 

proposed action will occur in a floodplain and if the action will significantly affect the 

quality of the human environment. The objective of the law is to avoid adverse impacts 

associated with occupancy and modification of floodplains and to avoid floodplain 

development.

Projects resulting from the proposed action could occur in floodplains. These projects 

are not expected to adversely affect the quality of the human environment since they 

must adhere to the Aquatic Conservation Strategy. Projects should generally improve 

floodplains since they are targeted to maintaining functioning riparian areas or restoring 

degraded riparian areas. A thorough discussion can be found in the Aquatic Ecosystem

section.

Noxious Weeds and Invasive Nonnative Species: Projects would follow individual land 

and resource management plan provisions for preventing the introduction or spread 

of noxious and invasive nonnative species. It is possible that unintentional spread of 

noxious or invasive non-native species could occur with any project. The projected 

harvest of late-successional forest under Alternatives 1 and 4 would be 974,000 acres. 

The projected harvest of late-successional forest under Alternatives 2 and 3 would be 

1,087,000 and 1,065,000 acres, respectively. Adverse impacts would be less under the 

No-Action Alternatives than either of the action alternatives. However, under all four 

alternatives, the total acreage harvested would still be less than that projected in the 

Northwest Forest Plan Final SEIS. 

Threatened, Endangered, and Agency Sensitive Species are addressed in the Threatened 

and Endangered Species Section and in the Biological Evaluation (Appendix 5). 

Solid or Hazardous Waste: The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 and 

the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 

are laws that regulate hazardous waste that endangers public health or the environment. 

No adverse affects relating to solid or hazardous waste are expected. Projects resulting 

from the proposed action will follow land and resource management plan provisions for 

identifying, investigating, or removing hazardous waste. 

Water Quality (Ground and Surface): The Water Quality section addresses water quality 

and conformance with state water quality standards.

Wetlands and Riparian Zones: Executive Order 11990 requires federal agencies to 

avoid destruction or modifications of wetlands and to avoid undertaking or providing 

assistance for new construction located in wetlands. Projects resulting from the 

proposed action are not expected to destroy or modify wetlands or undertake/assist 

new construction located in wetlands. If projects near a wetland or in a riparian zone 

do occur, they would be completed in accordance with Aquatic Conservation Strategy 

objectives as well as follow individual land and resource management plan provisions 

for protecting wetlands and riparian zones. Projects should generally improve wetlands 

and riparian zones since they are targeted to maintaining functioning riparian areas or 

restoring degraded riparian areas. A thorough discussion can be found in the Aquatic 

Ecosystem section.

Wild and Scenic Rivers and Wilderness: Management of Wild and Scenic Rivers and 

Wilderness is guided by specific management plans or standards and guidelines. These 

are developed at the local level to maintain the wild character of these areas. The 

proposed action will not alter these specific plans or standards and guidelines. There are 

no expected adverse impacts to Wild and Scenic Rivers or Wilderness as a result of the 

proposed action.
325

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Other Environmental Consequences

It is important to bear in mind the context of this SEIS when considering the overall 

environmental impacts of this proposal. This SEIS supplements previous impact 

statements, which includes 28 Final Environmental Impact Statements for Forest Service 

and BLM land and resource management plans. These plans were amended by the 

Northwest Forest Plan Final SEIS (USDA, USDI 1994a). The Northwest Forest Plan 

Final SEIS addressed issues and environmental impacts dealing with a wide range of 

multiple uses on federally managed lands and led to sweeping decisions regarding 

timber management and resource conservation. The 2000 Final SEIS was narrowly 

focused on issues concerning implementation of the Survey and Manage Standards and 

Guidelines. This SEIS is also narrowly focused on the Survey and Manage Standards 

and Guidelines. The 2000 Final SEIS and this SEIS only address changes to the Survey 

and Manage Standards and Guidelines and do not change the fundamental decisions 

or substantially change environmental impacts disclosed in the previous environmental 

impact statements. 

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations require that the discussion 

of environmental consequences include “... any adverse environmental effects which 

cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented, the relationship between 

short-term uses of man’s environment and the maintenance and enhancement of longterm productivity, and any irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources which 

would be involved in the proposal should it be implemented” (40 CFR 1502.16). 

Adverse Environmental Effects Which Cannot Be Avoided

An agency does not have to avoid adverse effects, but must identify and disclose any 

adverse environmental, social, and economic effects in the impact statement. This 

SEIS incorporates by reference the Northwest Forest Plan SEIS and the 2000 Survey 

and Manage Final SEIS. Both of those Final SEISs included extensive discussions of 

effects, both beneficial and adverse. This SEIS supplements those Final SEISs and need 

not restate impacts disclosed in the previous impact statements. This SEIS addresses 

only those adverse effects caused by the alternatives herein. Adverse effects that 

cannot be avoided include habitat (including known sites) insufficient to support stable 

populations in the NWFP area for 133 species in all or part of their NWFP area range 

under all alternatives. These effects are not caused by the proposed action; no mitigation 

could be proposed that could change this outcome.

Relationship Between Short-term Uses of the Human 

Environment and Maintenance of Long-term Productivity

The Agencies’ land and resource management plans, as amended by the Northwest 

Forest Plan, committed National Forest System and BLM administered lands to multiple 

use, including commercial timber commodity production. The environmental analyses 

supporting those plans determined that the loss in long-term productivity of forest soils 

and other components necessary for a healthy forest environment would be minimal. 

All alternatives explored in this SEIS are projected to impact fewer acres than analyzed 

for the land and resource management plans and, as such, will have less impact on 

productivity than previously disclosed. 

Irreversible or Irretrievable Impacts 

Irreversible refers to a loss of non-renewable resources, such as mineral extraction and 

heritage (cultural) resources, or to those factors, which are renewable over long time 
326

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

spans such as soil productivity. Irretrievable commitment applies to losses that are 

temporary, such as loss of forage production in an area being used as a ski run or use of 

renewable natural resources. 

Old-growth forests would be harvested in the Matrix and Adaptive Management Areas 

under all alternatives. The Northwest Forest Plan considered the loss of old-growth to 

be irretrievable (USDA, USDI 1994a:3&4-321). The projected harvest of late-successional 

forest under Alternatives 1 and 4 would be 974,000 acres. The projected harvest of latesuccessional forest under Alternatives 2 and 3 would be 1,087,000 and 1,065,000 acres, 

respectively. However, the total acreage harvested would still be less than that projected 

in the Northwest Forest Plan Final SEIS. 

Elimination of habitat for species could be an irreversible or irretrievable impact 

depending on circumstances. In some cases, species may re-colonize an area following 

disturbance.

Conflicts with Other Plans

The CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1502.16) require a discussion of “possible conflicts between 

the proposed action and the objectives of Federal, regional, State, and local (and in the 

case of a reservation, Indian tribe) land use plans, policies and controls for the area 

concerned.” This SEIS incorporates by reference the discussion in the Northwest Forest 

Plan Final SEIS concerning conflicts with other plans (USDA, USDI 1994a:3&4-319 and 

320, and Appendix D). Removing the Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines as 

proposed in Alternative 2 would not alter the conclusion of the Northwest Forest Plan 

Final SEIS regarding the possible conflicts with other plans. Modifying the Survey and 

Manage Standards and Guidelines as proposed in Alternative 3 also would not alter the 

conclusion of the Northwest Forest Plan Final SEIS regarding conflicts with other plans.

The management direction in this SEIS applies only to federally managed lands where 

state and local land use plans, policies, and controls have little application. Similarly, 

none of the alternative in this SEIS apply to tribal and Indian-owned lands, with one 

exception. The Coquille Indian Tribe currently manages approximately 5,400 acres of 

forest lands (Coquille Forest) under the same standards and guidelines as the adjacent 

federal land management agency (Coos Bay District BLM). This places them in a unique 

position as the only tribe in the NWFP area that must comply with the Northwest Forest 

Plan Standards and Guidelines, including Survey and Manage. 

In recent years, western states have raised concerns about the occurrence of catastrophic 

wildfires. This sentiment led to formation of the National Fire Plan, a national multiagency policy designed to prevent catastrophic wildfires through broad-scale fuel 

treatment and improved suppression efforts. The National Fire Plan proposes aggressive 

hazardous fuel abatement activities around communities and at-risk landscapes. The 

2002 fire season was particularly problematic for the NWFP area. Complex management 

recommendations in the Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines have impeded 

the Agencies’ ability to meet National Fire Plan objectives. Conflicts between these 

policies and the Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines led, in part, to the 

proposed action. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 result in more acres available for hazardous fuel treatments at a 

lower cost than under Alternatives 1 and 4. Under Alternative 1 and 4, fuel treatment 

is precluded by species protection on about 7,000 acres per year. Under Alternative 2, 

about 1,600 acres would be precluded from treatment. Under Alternative 3, about 2,500 

acres would be precluded from treatment. Costs are similarly affected. Fuel treatment 

cost under Alternative 1 is approximately $99 per treated acre. Cost under Alternative 

2 would be approximately $39 per treated acre. Cost under Alternative 3 would be 

approximately $30 per treated acre.
327

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3&4-16. Probability Sampling Survey Results (RMS and GOBIG2K5)

TAXA GROUP

 Species1

NOTE: Results apply to NWFP area unless a 

smaller Survey Region2 is specified. Plots3

 with 

Detection8

Percent of Survey 

Plots with detections 

within the survey area

Estimated4 Number of plotsized3

 areas with detections 

within the survey area

Mean

Standard 

Error (SE) Mean

95% Confidence 

Interval (CI)

FUNGI6

Acanthophysium farlowii 0

Albatrellus avellaneus 0

Albatrellus caeruleoporus 1 0.13 0.13 110,400 0 - 331,200

Oregon/Washington survey region 1 0.23 0.23 110,400 0 - 331,200

Albatrellus ellisii 0

Albatrellus flettii 2 0.25 0.18 220,800 0 - 532,200

Oregon/Washington survey region 2 0.46 0.33 220,800 0 - 532,200

Alpova alexsmithii (Hypogeous) 0

Alpova olivaceotinctus (Hypogeous) 1 0.11 0.11 965,900 0 - 2,897,700

California survey region 1 0.39 0.39 965,900 0 - 2,897,700

Arcangeliella camphorata (Hypogeous) 2 0.36 0.27 3,144,800 0 - 7,785,400

Oregon/Washington survey region 2 0.66 0.48 3,144,800 0 - 7,785,400

Arcangeliella crassa (Hypogeous) 1 0.13 0.13 1,103,900 0 - 3,311,700

Oregon/Washington survey region 1 0.23 0.23 1,103,900 0 - 3,311,700

Arcangeliella lactarioides (Hypogeous) 1 0.23 0.23 2,040,900 0 - 6,122,700

Oregon/Washington survey region 1 0.43 0.43 2,040,900 0 - 6,122,700

Asterophora lycoperdoides 1 0.37 0.37 319,500 0 - 958,500

Oregon/Washington survey region 1 0.67 0.67 319,500 0 - 958,500

Asterophora parasitica 0

Baeospora myriadophylla 0

Balsamia nigrens (Hypogeous) 0

Boletus haematinus 0

Boletus pulcherrimus 0

Bondarzewia mesenterica 0

Bridgeoporus nobilissimus 0

Cantharellus subalbidus 33 3.01 0.57 2,627,700 1,636,100 - 3,619,300

California survey region 4 1.79 0.91 445,500 0 - 899,900

Gifford Pinchot survey region 6 6.29 3.08 319,000 6,400 - 631,600

Oregon Coast Range survey region 16 31.99 7.41 1,209,800 649,200 - 1,770,400

Oregon/Washington survey region 2 0.69 0.52 331,000 0 - 824,400

Umpqua Basin survey region 5 5.64 3.04 322,400 0 - 670,600

Catathelasma ventricosa 0

Chalciporus piperatus 0

Chamonixia caespitosa (Hypogeous) 3 0.38 0.22 3,311,700 0 - 7,114,100

Oregon/Washington survey region 3 0.69 0.40 3,311,700 0 - 7,114,100

Choiromyces alveolatus (Hypogeous) 1 0.25 0.25 2,206,500 0 - 6,619,500

Oregon/Washington survey region 1 0.46 0.46 2,206,500 0 - 6,619,500

Choiromyces venosus (Hypogeous) 0

Chromosera cyanophylla 7 0.78 0.30 676,800 148,800 - 1,204,800

California survey region 1 0.39 0.39 96,600 0 - 289,800

Gifford Pinchot survey region 1 0.56 0.56 28,300 0 - 84,900

Oregon/Washington survey region 5 1.15 0.51 551,900 63,900 - 1,039,900

Chroogomphus loculatus (Hypogeous) 0
328

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Table 3&4-16. Probability Sampling Survey Results (RMS and GOBIG2K5)

TAXA GROUP

 Species1

NOTE: Results apply to NWFP area unless a 

smaller Survey Region2 is specified. Plots3

 with 

Detection8

Percent of Survey 

Plots with detections 

within the survey area

Estimated4 Number of plotsized3

 areas with detections 

within the survey area

Mean

Standard 

Error (SE) Mean

95% Confidence 

Interval (CI)

FUNGI6

Chrysomphalina grossula 2 0.14 0.11 119,700 0 - 311,100

Gifford Pinchot survey region 2 2.36 1.89 119,700 0 - 311,100

Clavariadelphus ligula 4 0.72 0.42 631,700 0 - 1,365,700

Gifford Pinchot survey region 1 1.80 1.80 91,500 0 - 274,500

Oregon/Washington survey region 3 1.13 0.74 540,300 0 - 1,251,100

Clavariadelphus occidentalis 9 1.57 0.59 1,370,400 340,000 - 2,400,800

California survey region 1 0.63 0.63 155,800 0 - 467,400

Oregon/Washington survey region 7 2.48 1.02 1,185,800 205,400 - 2,166,200

Umpqua Basin survey region 1 0.50 0.50 28,800 0 - 86,400

Clavariadelphus sachalinensis 0

Clavariadelphus subfastigiatus 0

Clavariadelphus truncatus 2 0.07 0.05 57,700 0 - 138,100

Umpqua Basin survey region 2 1.01 0.70 57,700 0 - 138,100

Clavulina castanopes v. lignicola 13 1.01 0.36 879,600 258,200 - 1,501,000

Gifford Pinchot survey region 2 1.12 0.78 56,500 0 - 135,500

Oregon Coast Range survey region 6 4.69 1.95 177,400 30,200 - 324,600

Oregon/Washington survey region 5 1.35 0.63 645,600 47,000 - 1,244,200

Clitocybe senilis 3 0.69 0.46 606,500 0 - 1,404,100

California survey region 3 2.44 1.60 606,500 0 - 1,404,100

Clitocybe subditopoda 3 0.63 0.37 551,800 0 - 1,196,000

California survey region 1 0.63 0.63 155,800 0 - 467,400

Gifford Pinchot survey region 1 3.46 3.46 175,400 0 - 526,200

Oregon/Washington survey region 1 0.46 0.46 220,700 0 - 662,100

Collybia bakerensis 3 0.38 0.22 331,200 0 - 711,400

Oregon/Washington survey region 3 0.69 0.40 331,200 0 - 711,400

Collybia racemosa 4 0.54 0.32 469,800 0 - 1,028,800

California survey region 1 0.63 0.63 155,800 0 - 467,400

Oregon Coast Range survey region 2 2.47 1.90 93,400 0 - 237,200

Oregon/Washington survey region 1 0.46 0.46 220,700 0 - 662,100

Cordyceps capitata 3 0.34 0.22 292,600 0 - 678,000

California survey region 1 0.63 0.63 155,800 0 - 467,400

Oregon Coast Range survey region 1 0.70 0.70 26,500 0 - 79,500

Oregon/Washington survey region 1 0.23 0.23 110,400 0 - 331,200

Cordyceps ophioglossoides 1 0.13 0.13 110,400 0 - 331,200

Oregon/Washington survey region 1 0.23 0.23 110,400 0 - 331,200

Cortinarius barlowensis 17 2.77 0.75 2,423,100 1,122,300 - 3,723,900

Gifford Pinchot survey region 2 1.12 0.78 56,500 0 - 135,500

Oregon/Washington survey region 15 4.94 1.36 2,366,600 1,068,200 - 3,665,000

Cortinarius boulderensis 7 0.94 0.42 822,700 97,100 - 1,548,300

Gifford Pinchot survey region 2 2.82 2.33 142,700 0 - 378,500

Oregon/Washington survey region 3 0.92 0.56 441,400 0 - 981,400

Umpqua Basin survey region 2 4.17 3.70 238,500 0 - 661,700
329

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3&4-16. Probability Sampling Survey Results (RMS and GOBIG2K5)

TAXA GROUP

 Species1

NOTE: Results apply to NWFP area unless a 

smaller Survey Region2 is specified. Plots3

 with 

Detection8

Percent of Survey 

Plots with detections 

within the survey area

Estimated4 Number of plotsized3

 areas with detections 

within the survey area

Mean

Standard 

Error (SE) Mean

95% Confidence 

Interval (CI)

FUNGI6

Cortinarius cyanites 2 0.40 0.37 347,800 0 - 989,200

Gifford Pinchot survey region 1 0.56 0.56 28,300 0 - 84,900

Oregon/Washington survey region 1 0.67 0.67 319,500 0 - 958,500

Cortinarius depauperatus 0

Cortinarius magnivelatus (Hypogeous) 0

Cortinarius olympianus 5 0.33 0.17 286,700 0 - 588,900

Gifford Pinchot survey region 4 3.48 2.04 176,300 0 - 382,500

Oregon/Washington survey region 1 0.23 0.23 110,400 0 - 331,200

Cortinarius speciosissimus 0

Cortinarius tabularis 0

Cortinarius umidicola 0

Cortinarius valgus 0

Cortinarius variipes 1 0.13 0.13 110,400 0 - 331,200

Oregon/Washington survey region 1 0.23 0.23 110,400 0 - 331,200

Cortinarius verrucisporus (Hypogeous) 0

Cortinarius wiebeae (Hypogeous) 1 0.23 0.23 2,041,000 0 - 6,122,800

Oregon/Washington survey region 1 0.43 0.43 2,040,900 0 - 6,122,700

Craterellus tubaeformis 78 9.61 1.19 8,398,800 6,325,600 - 10,472,000

California survey region 6 3.04 1.24 757,000 140,200 - 1,373,800

Gifford Pinchot survey region 15 12.56 3.71 636,600 260,200 - 1,013,000

Oregon Coast Range survey region 5 13.83 1.34 522,800 421,400 - 624,200

Oregon/Washington survey region 41 12.68 2.01 6,074,200 4,153,800 - 7,994,600

Umpqua Basin survey region 11 7.13 2.44 408,100 128,700 - 687,500

Cudonia monticola 6 1.27 0.60 1,106,900 66,300 - 2,147,500

Oregon Coast Range survey region 1 0.70 0.70 26,500 0 - 79,500

Oregon/Washington survey region 5 2.26 1.09 1,080,400 41,000 - 2,119,800

Cyphellostereum laeve 2 0.36 0.27 314,500 0 - 778,500

Oregon/Washington survey region 2 0.66 0.48 314,500 0 - 778,500

Cystangium idahoensis (Hypogeous) 0

Cystangium lymanensis (Hypogeous) 0

Dermocybe humboldtensis 0

Destuntzia fusca (Hypogeous) 0

Destuntzia rubra (Hypogeous) 0

Dichostereum boreale 0

Elaphomyces anthracinus (Hypogeous) 0

Elaphomyces subviscidus (Hypogeous) 1 0.03 0.03 288,300 0 - 864,900

Umpqua Basin survey region 1 0.50 0.50 288,300 0 - 864,900

Endogone acrogena (Hypogeous) 0

Endogone oregonensis (Hypogeous) 0

Entoloma nitidum 2 0.44 0.31 385,100 0 - 931,900

Gifford Pinchot survey region 2 7.60 5.39 385,100 0 - 931,900

Fayodia bisphaerigera 0

Fevansia aurantiaca (Hypogeous) 0
330

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Table 3&4-16. Probability Sampling Survey Results (RMS and GOBIG2K5)

TAXA GROUP

 Species1

NOTE: Results apply to NWFP area unless a 

smaller Survey Region2 is specified. Plots3

 with 

Detection8

Percent of Survey 

Plots with detections 

within the survey area

Estimated4 Number of plotsized3

 areas with detections 

within the survey area

Mean

Standard 

Error (SE) Mean

95% Confidence 

Interval (CI)

FUNGI6

Galerina atkinsoniana 57 6.27 0.96 5,475,400 3,791,800 - 7,159,000

Gifford Pinchot survey region 24 22.22 4.65 1,126,600 655,200 - 1,598,000

Oregon Coast Range survey region 7 16.29 2.31 616,200 441,400 - 791,000

Oregon/Washington survey region 23 7.61 1.67 3,646,200 2,042,400 - 5,250,000

Umpqua Basin survey region 3 1.51 0.85 86,500 0 - 183,700

Galerina cerina 24 3.15 0.81 2,747,900 1,339,300 - 4,156,500

Gifford Pinchot survey region 4 3.93 2.45 199,300 0 - 447,300

Oregon Coast Range survey region 7 10.08 6.16 381,100 0 - 846,700

Oregon/Washington survey region 13 4.53 1.36 2,167,500 861,500 - 3,473,500

Galerina heterocystis 18 2.90 0.63 2,536,600 1,443,800 - 3,629,400

California survey region 9 5.56 2.06 1,382,800 358,200 - 2,407,400

Gifford Pinchot survey region 5 5.69 3.62 288,500 0 - 655,900

Umpqua Basin survey region 4 15.12 0.85 865,300 768,100 - 962,500

Galerina sphagnicola 1 0.13 0.13 110,400 0 - 331,200

Oregon/Washington survey region 1 0.23 0.23 110,400 0 - 331,200

Galerina vittaeformis 99 10.76 1.34 9,402,500 7,067,300 - 11,737,700

California survey region 10 6.34 2.10 1,578,500 533,100 - 2,623,900

Gifford Pinchot survey region 27 35.32 7.79 1,790,600 1,001,000 - 2,580,200

Oregon Coast Range survey region 35 53.92 9.74 2,038,800 1,302,400 - 2,775,200

Oregon/Washington survey region 17 6.75 1.72 3,231,200 1,585,000 - 4,877,400

Umpqua Basin survey region 10 13.34 6.08 763,400 67,800 - 1,459,000

Gastroboletus imbellus (Hypogeous) 0

Gastroboletus ruber (Hypogeous) 1 0.13 0.13 1,103,900 0 - 3,311,700

Oregon/Washington survey region 1 0.23 0.23 1,103,900 0 - 3,311,700

Gastroboletus subalpinus (Hypogeous) 0

Gastroboletus turbinatus (Hypogeous) 0

Gastroboletus vividus (Hypogeous) 0

Gastrosuillus amaranthii (Hypogeous) 0

Gastrosuillus umbrinus (Hypogeous) 0

Gautieria magnicellaris (Hypogeous) 0

Gautieria otthii (Hypogeous) 0

Gelatinodiscus flavidus 0

Glomus radiatus (Hypogeous) 0

Gomphus bonarii 0

Gomphus clavatus 11 1.48 0.56 1,291,000 309,600 - 2,272,400

Gifford Pinchot survey region 3 2.92 1.97 148,000 0 - 347,200

Oregon/Washington survey region 6 2.25 1.00 1,075,400 119,200 - 2,031,600

Umpqua Basin survey region 2 1.18 0.85 67,600 0 - 164,200

Gomphus kauffmanii 2 0.55 0.45 483,800 0 - 1,262,600

California survey region 1 1.50 1.50 373,400 0 - 1,120,200

Orego /Washington survey region 1 0.23 0.23 110,400 0 - 331,200

Gymnomyces abietis (Hypogeous) 0

Gymnomyces fragrans (Hypogeous) 0
331

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3&4-16. Probability Sampling Survey Results (RMS and GOBIG2K5)

TAXA GROUP

 Species1

NOTE: Results apply to NWFP area unless a 

smaller Survey Region2 is specified. Plots3

 with 

Detection8

Percent of Survey 

Plots with detections 

within the survey area

Estimated4 Number of plotsized3

 areas with detections 

within the survey area

Mean

Standard 

Error (SE) Mean

95% Confidence 

Interval (CI)

FUNGI6

Gymnomyces nondistincta (Hypogeous) 0

Gymnopilus punctifolius 4 0.51 0.25 441,600 3,800 - 879,400

Oregon/Washington survey region 4 0.92 0.46 441,600 3,800 - 879,400

Gyromitra californica 4 0.51 0.25 441,600 3,800 - 879,400

Oregon/Washington survey region 4 0.92 0.46 441,600 3,800 - 879,400

Gyromitra esculenta 21 2.43 0.68 2,126,000 941,400 - 3,310,600

Gifford Pinchot survey region 3 1.67 0.94 84,800 0 - 180,200

Oregon/Washington survey region 9 3.10 1.11 1,483,700 421,100 - 2,546,300

Umpqua Basin survey region 9 9.74 4.50 557,500 42,500 - 1,072,500

Gyromitra infula 8 0.76 0.34 666,600 73,400 - 1,259,800

Gifford Pinchot survey region 1 0.56 0.56 28,300 0 - 84,900

Oregon/Washington survey region 4 1.15 0.61 551,800 0 - 1,134,400

Umpqua Basin survey region 3 1.51 0.85 86,500 0 - 183,700

Gyromitra melaleucoides 7 1.49 0.62 1,301,200 217,200 - 2,385,200

Oregon/Washington survey region 7 2.72 1.13 1,301,200 217,200 - 2,385,200

Gyromitra montana 1 0.03 0.03 28,800 0 - 86,400

Umpqua Basin survey region 1 0.50 0.50 28,800 0 - 86,400

Hebeloma olympianum 0

Helvella crassitunicata 0

Helvella elastica 5 0.64 0.33 561,200 0 - 1,134,200

Gifford Pinchot survey region 2 2.36 1.89 119,700 0 - 311,100

Oregon/Washington survey region 3 0.92 0.56 441,400 0 - 981,400

Helvella maculata 1 0.37 0.37 319,500 0 - 958,500

Oregon/Washington survey region 1 0.67 0.67 319,500 0 - 958,500

Hydnotrya inordinata (Hypogeous) 0

Hydnotrya subnix (Hypogeous) 0

Hydnum umbilicatum 32 4.62 0.87 4,032,600 2,518,400 - 5,546,800

California survey region 5 2.65 1.18 660,400 73,200 - 1,247,600

Oregon Coast Range survey region 5 13.89 1.35 525,300 423,500 - 627,100

Oregon/Washington survey region 15 4.98 1.36 2,383,100 1,079,700 - 3,686,500

Umpqua Basin survey region 7 8.10 4.27 463,600 0 - 952,400

Hydropus marginellus 1 0.13 0.13 110,400 0 - 331,200

Oregon/Washington survey region 1 0.23 0.23 110,400 0 - 331,200

Hygrophorus caeruleus 0

Hygrophorus saxatilis 1 0.13 0.13 110,400 0 - 331,200

Oregon/Washington survey region 1 0.23 0.23 110,400 0 - 331,200

Hygrophorus vernalis 0

Hypomyces luteovirens 1 0.23 0.23 204,100 0 - 612,300

Oregon/Washington survey region 1 0.43 0.43 204,100 0 - 612,300

Leucogaster citrinus (Hypogeous) 33 4.23 0.92 20,973,500 - 52,943,500

California survey region 3 1.64 0.95 4,081,000 0 - 8,821,400

Gifford Pinchot survey region 6 3.35 1.28 1,696,100 403,100 - 2,989,100

Oregon Coast Range survey region 7 10.08 6.16 3,811,000 0 - 8,466,400
332

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Table 3&4-16. Probability Sampling Survey Results (RMS and GOBIG2K5)

TAXA GROUP

 Species1

NOTE: Results apply to NWFP area unless a 

smaller Survey Region2 is specified. Plots3

 with 

Detection8

Percent of Survey 

Plots with detections 

within the survey area

Estimated4 Number of plotsized3

 areas with detections 

within the survey area

Mean

Standard 

Error (SE) Mean

95% Confidence 

Interval (CI)

FUNGI6

Leucogaster citrinus (Hypogeous) (cont.)

Oregon/Washington survey region 15 5.22 1.45 11,136,600 - 38,834,200

Umpqua Basin survey region 2 4.17 3.70 2,385,000 0 - 6,618,000

Leucogaster microsporus (Hypogeous) 5 0.52 0.24 4,514,600 256,000 - 8,773,200

Gifford Pinchot survey region 1 1.80 1.80 914,600 0 - 2,743,800

Oregon/Washington survey region 3 0.69 0.40 3,311,700 0 - 7,114,100

Umpqua Basin survey region 1 0.50 0.50 288,300 0 - 864,900

Macowanites chlorinosmus (Hypogeous) 0

Macowanites mollis (Hypogeous) 1 0.23 0.23 2,040,900 0 - 6,122,700

Oregon/Washington survey region 1 0.43 0.43 2,040,900 0 - 6,122,700

Marasmius applanatipes 3 1.82 1.16 463,400 0 - 1,051,200

California survey region 2 1.81 1.48 450,700 0 - 1,184,900

Oregon/Washington survey region 1 0.23 0.23 110,400 0 - 331,200

Mycena hudsoniana 3 0.19 0.13 166,900 0 - 401,300

Gifford Pinchot survey region 2 1.12 0.78 56,500 0 - 135,500

Oregon/Washington survey region 1 0.23 0.23 110,400 0 - 331,200

Mycena monticola 11 2.59 0.86 2,259,900 752,900 - 3,766,900

California survey region 6 5.83 2.63 1,449,900 142,900 - 2,756,900

Gifford Pinchot survey region 1 3.46 3.46 175,400 0 - 526,200

Oregon/Washington survey region 3 0.89 0.54 424,900 0 - 938,300

Umpqua Basin survey region 1 3.67 3.67 209,700 0 - 629,100

Mycena overholtsii 3 0.38 0.22 331,200 0 - 711,400

Oregon/Washington survey region 3 0.69 0.40 331,200 0 - 711,400

Mycena quinaultensis 0

Mycena tenax 11 0.61 0.35 337,500 0 - 724,100

California survey region 7 3.75 1.70 933,700 89,300 - 1,778,100

Gifford Pinchot survey region 4 3.48 2.04 176,300 0 - 382,500

Mythicomyces corneipes 0

Neolentinus adhaerens 1 0.05 0.05 47,400 0 - 142,200

Oregon Coast Range survey region 1 1.25 1.25 47,400 0 - 142,200

Neolentinus kauffmanii 1 0.03 0.03 26,500 0 - 79,500

Oregon Coast Range survey region 1 0.70 0.70 26,500 0 - 79,500

Neournula pouchetii 16 2.73 0.81 2,381,800 962,800 - 3,800,800

California survey region 1 1.42 1.42 354,200 0 - 1,062,400

Gifford Pinchot survey region 3 1.67 0.94 84,800 0 - 180,200

Oregon/Washington survey region 10 3.56 1.20 1,704,400 553,800 - 2,855,000

Umpqua Basin survey region 2 4.17 3.70 238,500 0 - 661,700

Nivatogastrium nubigenum (Hypogeous) 1 0.25 0.25 2,206,500 0 - 6,619,500

Oregon/Washington survey region 1 0.46 0.46 2,206,500 0 - 6,619,500

Octavianina cyanescens (Hypogeous) 1 0.13 0.13 1,103,900 0 - 3,311,700

Oregon/Washington survey region 1 0.23 0.23 1,103,900 0 - 3,311,700

Octavianina macrospora (Hypogeous) 0

Otidea leporina 0
333

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3&4-16. Probability Sampling Survey Results (RMS and GOBIG2K5)

TAXA GROUP

 Species1

NOTE: Results apply to NWFP area unless a 

smaller Survey Region2 is specified. Plots3

 with 

Detection8

Percent of Survey 

Plots with detections 

within the survey area

Estimated4 Number of plotsized3

 areas with detections 

within the survey area

Mean

Standard 

Error (SE) Mean

95% Confidence 

Interval (CI)

FUNGI6

Otidea onotica 9 1.46 0.57 1,278,600 287,000 - 2,270,200

Oregon Coast Range survey region 2 2.47 1.90 93,400 0 - 237,200

Oregon/Washington survey region 6 2.25 1.00 1,075,400 119,200 - 2,031,600

Umpqua Basin survey region 1 1.92 1.92 109,800 0 - 329,400

Otidea smithii 0

Phaeocollybia attenuata 6 1.02 0.51 891,100 2,300 - 1,779,900

Oregon Coast Range survey region 2 1.40 0.98 53,000 0 - 127,000

Oregon/Washington survey region 4 1.75 0.93 838,100 0 - 1,723,900

Phaeocollybia californica 0

Phaeocollybia dissiliens 0

Phaeocollybia fallax 2 0.16 0.13 139,200 0 - 367,400

Oregon/Washington survey region 1 0.23 0.23 110,400 0 - 331,200

Umpqua Basin survey region 1 0.50 0.50 28,800 0 - 86,400

Phaeocollybia gregaria 0

Phaeocollybia kauffmanii 3 0.27 0.17 233,500 0 - 531,700

California survey region 1 0.39 0.39 96,600 0 - 289,800

Oregon Coast Range survey region 1 0.70 0.70 26,500 0 - 79,500

Oregon/Washington survey region 1 0.23 0.23 110,400 0 - 331,200

Phaeocollybia olivacea 0

Phaeocollybia oregonensis 0

Phaeocollybia piceae 0

Phaeocollybia pseudofestiva 0

Phaeocollybia scatesiae 0

Phaeocollybia sipei 1 0.03 0.03 26,500 0 - 79,500

Oregon Coast Range survey region 1 0.70 0.70 26,500 0 - 79,500

Phaeocollybia spadicea 3 0.09 0.05 79,500 0 - 168,900

Oregon Coast Range survey region 3 2.10 1.18 79,500 0 - 168,900

Phellodon atratus 0

Pholiota albivelata 0

Pithya vulgaris 5 0.41 0.21 360,100 1,300 - 718,900

California survey region 2 0.78 0.55 193,200 0 - 464,800

Gifford Pinchot survey region 2 1.12 0.78 56,500 0 - 135,500

Oregon/Washington survey region 1 0.23 0.23 110,400 0 - 331,200

Plectania melastoma 0

Plectania milleri 1 0.18 0.18 155,800 0 - 467,400

California survey region 1 0.63 0.63 155,800 0 - 467,400

Podostroma alutaceum 1 0.03 0.03 26,500 0 - 79,500

Oregon Coast Range survey region 1 0.70 0.70 26,500 0 - 79,500

Polyozellus multiplex 0

Pseudaleuria quinaultiana 0

Ramaria abietina 0

Ramaria amyloidea 1 0.13 0.13 110,400 0 - 331,200

Oregon/Washington survey region 1 0.23 0.23 110,400 0 - 331,200
334

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Table 3&4-16. Probability Sampling Survey Results (RMS and GOBIG2K5)

TAXA GROUP

 Species1

NOTE: Results apply to NWFP area unless a 

smaller Survey Region2 is specified. Plots3

 with 

Detection8

Percent of Survey 

Plots with detections 

within the survey area

Estimated4 Number of plotsized3

 areas with detections 

within the survey area

Mean

Standard 

Error (SE) Mean

95% Confidence 

Interval (CI)

FUNGI6

Ramaria araiospora 11 0.67 0.38 584,300 0 - 1,241,700

Oregon Coast Range survey region 9 6.24 1.90 235,900 92,300 - 379,500

Oregon/Washington survey region 1 0.67 0.67 319,500 0 - 958,500

Umpqua Basin survey region 1 0.50 0.50 28,800 0 - 86,400

Ramaria aurantiisiccescens 0

Ramaria botryis var. aurantiiramosa 0

Ramaria celerivirescens 14 1.62 0.53 1,411,800 485,800 - 2,337,800

California survey region 1 0.63 0.63 155,800 0 - 467,400

Gifford Pinchot survey region 4 2.23 1.07 113,100 4,500 - 221,700

Oregon Coast Range survey region 2 1.33 0.95 50,500 0 - 121,900

Oregon/Washington survey region 6 1.84 0.79 882,900 129,500 - 1,636,300

Umpqua Basin survey region 1 3.67 3.67 209,700 0 - 629,100

Ramaria claviramulata 0

Ramaria concolor f. marrii 0

Ramaria concolor f. tsugina 0

Ramaria conjunctipes var. sparsiramosa 7 1.12 0.45 979,500 201,700 - 1,757,300

California survey region 1 0.39 0.39 96,600 0 - 289,800

Oregon/Washington survey region 6 1.84 0.79 882,900 129,500 - 1,636,300

Ramaria coulterae 1 0.03 0.03 28,800 0 - 86,400

Umpqua Basin survey region 1 0.50 0.50 28,800 0 - 86,400

Ramaria cyaneigranosa 0

Ramaria gelatiniaurantia 0

Ramaria gracilis 0

Ramaria hilaris var. olympiana 0

Ramaria largentii 0

Ramaria lorithamnus 0

Ramaria maculatipes 0

Ramaria rainierensis 0

Ramaria rubella var. blanda 0

Ramaria rubribrunnescens 0

Ramaria rubrievanescens 3 0.38 0.22 331,200 0 - 711,400

Oregon/Washington survey region 3 0.69 0.40 331,200 0 - 711,400

Ramaria rubripermanens 10 1.53 0.52 1,336,600 425,400 - 2,247,800

Oregon/Washington survey region 9 2.73 0.95 1,307,700 398,300 - 2,217,100

Umpqua Basin survey region 1 0.50 0.50 28,800 0 - 86,400

Ramaria spinulosa var. diminutiva 0

Ramaria stuntzii 1 0.13 0.13 110,400 0 - 331,200

Oregon/Washington survey region 1 0.23 0.23 110,400 0 - 331,200

Ramaria suecica 1 0.37 0.37 319,500 0 - 958,500

Oregon/Washington survey region 1 0.67 0.67 319,500 0 - 958,500

Ramaria thiersii 1 0.37 0.37 319,500 0 - 958,500

Oregon/Washington survey region 1 0.67 0.67 319,500 0 - 958,500

Ramaria verlotensis 0
335

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3&4-16. Probability Sampling Survey Results (RMS and GOBIG2K5)

TAXA GROUP

 Species1

NOTE: Results apply to NWFP area unless a 

smaller Survey Region2 is specified. Plots3

 with 

Detection8

Percent of Survey 

Plots with detections 

within the survey area

Estimated4 Number of plotsized3

 areas with detections 

within the survey area

Mean

Standard 

Error (SE) Mean

95% Confidence 

Interval (CI)

FUNGI6

Rhizopogon abietis (Hypogeous) 0

Rhizopogon atroviolaceus (Hypogeous) 2 0.16 0.13 1,392,200 0 - 3,674,000

Oregon/Washington survey region 1 0.23 0.23 1,103,900 0 - 3,311,700

Umpqua Basin survey region 1 0.50 0.50 288,300 0 - 864,900

Rhizopogon brunneiniger (Hypogeous) 0

Rhizopogon chamaleontinus (Hypogeous) 0

Rhizopogon ellipsosporus (Hypogeous) 1 0.13 0.13 1,103,900 0 - 3,311,700

Oregon/Washington survey region 1 0.23 0.23 1,103,900 0 - 3,311,700

Rhizopogon evadens var. subalpinus 

(Hypogeous) 0

Rhizopogon exiguus (Hypogeous) 0

Rhizopogon flavofibrillosus (Hypogeous) 1 0.24 0.24 2,096,700 0 - 6,290,100

Umpqua Basin survey region 1 3.67 3.67 2,096,700 0 - 6,290,100

Rhizopogon inquinatus (Hypogeous) 0

Rhizopogon truncatus (Hypogeous) 15 2.09 0.64 6,981,500 - 29,469,900

California survey region 1 0.39 0.39 965,900 0 - 2,897,700

Oregon/Washington survey region 10 3.36 1.15 5,085,200 - 27,128,000

Umpqua Basin survey region 4 2.02 0.97 1,153,200 45,200 - 2,261,200

Rhodocybe speciosa 2 0.25 0.18 220,800 0 - 532,200

Oregon/Washington survey region 2 0.46 0.33 220,800 0 - 532,200

Rickenella swartzii 0

Russula mustelina 0

Sarcodon fuscoindicus 6 0.38 0.19 332,600 2,000 - 663,200

Gifford Pinchot survey region 2 1.12 0.78 56,500 0 - 135,500

Oregon Coast Range survey region 1 0.70 0.70 26,500 0 - 79,500

Oregon/Washington survey region 2 0.46 0.33 220,800 0 - 532,200

Umpqua Basin survey region 1 0.50 0.50 28,800 0 - 86,400

Sarcodon imbricatus 1 0.03 0.03 28,800 0 - 86,400

Umpqua Basin survey region 1 0.50 0.50 28,800 0 - 86,400

Sarcosoma latahense 1 0.13 0.13 110,400 0 - 331,200

Oregon/Washington survey region 1 0.23 0.23 110,400 0 - 331,200

Sarcosoma mexicana 8 0.87 0.36 763,100 132,100 - 1,394,100

California survey region 1 0.63 0.63 155,800 0 - 467,400

Gifford Pinchot survey region 1 0.56 0.56 28,300 0 - 84,900

Oregon Coast Range survey region 4 6.56 3.08 248,000 14,800 - 481,200

Oregon/Washington survey region 2 0.69 0.52 331,000 0 - 824,400

Sarcosphaera coronaria 7 0.66 0.29 573,400 72,400 - 1,074,400

California survey region 1 0.63 0.63 155,800 0 - 467,400

Oregon/Washington survey region 3 0.69 0.40 331,200 0 - 711,400

Umpqua Basin survey region 3 1.51 0.85 86,500 0 - 183,700

Sarcosphaera eximia 0

Sedecula pulvinata (Hypogeous) 0

Sowerbyella rhenana 0
336

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Table 3&4-16. Probability Sampling Survey Results (RMS and GOBIG2K5)

TAXA GROUP

 Species1

NOTE: Results apply to NWFP area unless a 

smaller Survey Region2 is specified. Plots3

 with 

Detection8

Percent of Survey 

Plots with detections 

within the survey area

Estimated4 Number of plotsized3

 areas with detections 

within the survey area

Mean

Standard 

Error (SE) Mean

95% Confidence 

Interval (CI)

FUNGI6

Sparassis crispa 1 0.25 0.25 220,700 0 - 662,100

Oregon/Washington survey region 1 0.46 0.46 220,700 0 - 662,100

Spathularia flavida 9 1.52 0.64 1,324,200 214,800 - 2,433,600

California survey region 2 1.81 1.48 450,700 0 - 1,184,900

Gifford Pinchot survey region 4 4.72 2.57 239,500 0 - 500,300

Oregon/Washington survey region 3 1.32 0.82 634,000 0 - 1,423,800

Stagnicola perplexa 0

Thaxterogaster pavelekii (Hypogeous) 0

Tremiscus helvelloides 3 0.32 0.21 281,200 0 - 652,200

California survey region 2 1.01 0.74 252,300 0 - 618,900

Umpqua Basin survey region 1 0.50 0.50 28,800 0 - 86,400

Tricholoma venenatum 1 0.13 0.13 110,400 0 - 331,200

Oregon/Washington survey region 1 0.23 0.23 110,400 0 - 331,200

Tricholomopsis fulvescens 0

Tuber asa (Hypogeous) 0

Tuber pacificum (Hypogeous) 0

Tylopilus porphyrosporus 0

Turbinellus floccosus 25 3.27 0.84 2,855,600 1,383,800 - 4,327,400

California survey region 3 2.28 1.60 566,600 0 - 1,361,200

Gifford Pinchot survey region 11 13.91 5.48 704,900 149,100 - 1,260,700

Oregon Coast Range survey region 1 5.94 5.94 224,600 0 - 673,800

Oregon/Washington survey region 7 2.28 0.96 1,092,100 174,900 - 2,009,300

Umpqua Basin survey region 3 4.67 3.73 267,300 0 - 694,300

Zelleromyces papyracea (Hypogeous) 0

LICHENS6

Bryoria pseudocapillaris 0

Bryoria spiralifera 0

Bryoria subcana 0

Bryoria tortuosa 2 0.38 0.28 162,900 0 - 406,100

Oregon/Washington survey region 2 0.69 0.51 162,900 0 - 406,100

Buellia oidalea 0

Calicium abietinum 1 0.14 0.14 60,700 0 - 182,100

Gifford Pinchot survey region 1 2.42 2.42 60,700 0 - 182,100

Calicium adspersum 0

Calicium glaucellum 70 8.47 1.19 3,653,600 2,623,200 - 4,684,000

California survey region 4 1.54 0.75 188,700 3,100 - 374,300

Gifford Pinchot survey region 9 10.02 3.73 250,900 64,300 - 437,500

Oregon Coast Range survey region 2 4.45 3.99 83,100 0 - 232,100

Oregon/Washington survey region 37 11.95 2.04 2,827,000 1,861,800 - 3,792,200

Umpqua Basin survey region 18 10.75 3.46 303,800 108,000 - 499,600

Calicium viride 45 5.04 0.92 2,175,500 1,380,100 - 2,970,900

California survey region 11 6.30 2.24 774,600 224,600 - 1,324,600

Oregon Coast Range survey region 6 6.40 4.10 119,600 0 - 272,600
337

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3&4-16. Probability Sampling Survey Results (RMS and GOBIG2K5)

TAXA GROUP

 Species1

NOTE: Results apply to NWFP area unless a 

smaller Survey Region2 is specified. Plots3

 with 

Detection8

Percent of Survey 

Plots with detections 

within the survey area

Estimated4 Number of plotsized3

 areas with detections 

within the survey area

Mean

Standard 

Error (SE) Mean

95% Confidence 

Interval (CI)

LICHENS6

Calicium viride (cont.)

Oregon/Washington survey region 18 4.73 1.14 1,119,500 582,500 - 1,656,500

Umpqua Basin survey region 10 5.73 2.40 161,800 26,400 - 297,200

Cetrelia cetrarioides 2 0.30 0.28 127,500 0 - 364,900

Oregon Coast Range survey region 2 6.83 6.36 127,500 0 - 364,900

Chaenotheca chrysocephala 15 1.70 0.54 734,800 272,400 - 1,161,200

Oregon/Washington survey region 7 2.26 0.89 534,500 112,300 - 956,700

Umpqua Basin survey region 8 7.09 3.34 200,300 11,300 - 389,300

Chaenotheca ferruginea 3 0.17 0.13 74,600 0 - 186,200

Oregon/Washington survey region 1 0.23 0.23 53,900 0 - 161,700

Umpqua Basin survey region 2 0.73 0.51 20,700 0 - 49,700

Chaenotheca furfuracea 28 3.24 0.73 1,397,800 767,200 - 2,028,400

California survey region 5 1.92 0.84 235,900 29,700 - 442,100

Oregon Coast Range survey region 4 8.90 4.02 166,200 16,000 - 316,400

Oregon/Washington survey region 11 3.61 1.18 854,100 296,700 - 1,411,500

Umpqua Basin survey region 8 5.01 2.61 141,600 0 - 289,000

Chaenotheca subroscida 4 0.51 0.29 219,000 0 - 472,400

Oregon/Washington survey region 3 0.88 0.53 208,700 0 - 461,300

Umpqua Basin survey region 1 0.37 0.37 10,400 0 - 31,200

Chaenothecopsis pusilla 0

Cladonia norvegica 28 4.33 0.97 1,867,400 1,031,200 - 2,703,600

Gifford Pinchot survey region 8 7.77 3.22 194,500 33,100 - 355,900

Oregon Coast Range survey region 2 4.36 3.98 81,400 0 - 230,200

Oregon / Washington survey region 16 6.62 1.70 1,566,000 759,800 - 2,372,200

Umpqua Basin survey region 2 0.90 0.65 25,400 0 - 62,000

Collema nigrescens 19 3.10 0.80 1,339,100 642,300 - 2,035,900

California survey region 12 6.37 2.05 783,300 279,100 - 1,287,500

Oregon/Washington survey region 4 1.82 0.95 429,800 0 - 880,400

Umpqua Basin survey region 3 4.46 2.97 126,100 0 - 294,100

Dendriscocaulon intricatulum 3 0.69 0.49 299,100 0 - 719,700

California survey region 2 1.99 1.65 244,800 0 - 651,200

Oregon / Washington survey region 1 0.23 0.23 53,900 0 - 161,700

Dermatocarpon meiophyllizum 0

Fuscopannaria saubinetii 0

Heterodermia sitchensis 0

Hypogymnia duplicata 8 1.00 0.30 431,400 132,400 - 730,400

Oregon/Washington survey region 8 1.82 0.63 431,400 132,400 - 730,400

Hypogymnia oceanica 17 1.84 0.52 792,000 346,000 - 1,238,000

Gifford Pinchot survey region 1 0.40 0.40 10,000 0 - 30,000

Oregon Coast Range survey region 1 0.49 0.49 9,100 0 - 27,300

Oregon/Washington survey region 11 2.94 0.92 695,200 261,400 - 1,129,000

Umpqua Basin survey region 4 2.75 1.77 77,800 0 - 177,600

Hypogymnia vittata 0
338

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Table 3&4-16. Probability Sampling Survey Results (RMS and GOBIG2K5)

TAXA GROUP

 Species1

NOTE: Results apply to NWFP area unless a 

smaller Survey Region2 is specified. Plots3

 with 

Detection8

Percent of Survey 

Plots with detections 

within the survey area

Estimated4 Number of plotsized3

 areas with detections 

within the survey area

Mean

Standard 

Error (SE) Mean

95% Confidence 

Interval (CI)

LICHENS6

Hypotrachyna revoluta 0

Leptogium burnetiae var. hirsutum 0

Leptogium cyanescens 6 0.89 0.44 383,900 2,100 - 765,700

Oregon/Washington survey region 5 1.58 0.81 373,500 0 - 754,900

Umpqua Basin survey region 1 0.37 0.37 10,400 0 - 31,200

Leptogium rivale 0

Leptogium teretiusculum 3 0.66 0.46 285,600 0 - 681,400

California survey region 2 1.99 1.65 244,800 0 - 651,200

Oregon/Washington survey region 1 0.23 0.23 53,900 0 - 161,700

Lobaria linita 12 1.40 0.40 603,200 255,000 - 951,400

Gifford Pinchot survey region 1 0.40 0.40 10,000 0 - 30,000

Oregon Coast Range survey region 0

Oregon/Washington survey region 11 2.51 0.74 593,200 245,600 - 940,800

Lobaria oregana 119 10.00 1.22 4,315,400 3,264,200 - 5,366,600

California survey region 2 1.01 0.73 124,100 0 - 304,700

Gifford Pinchot survey region 23 15.28 3.91 382,600 186,600 - 578,600

Oregon Coast Range survey region 43 35.94 7.40 671,500 395,100 - 947,900

Oregon/Washington survey region 37 11.10 1.86 2,627,300 1,745,900 - 3,508,700

Umpqua Basin survey region 14 18.04 7.53 509,800 84,400 - 935,200

Microcalicium arenarium 0

Nephroma bellum 29 2.45 0.64 1,055,800 501,600 - 1,610,000

Gifford Pinchot survey region 5 2.86 1.48 71,500 0 - 145,700

Oregon Coast Range survey region 5 2.44 1.05 45,600 6,400 - 84,800

Oregon/Washington survey region 9 2.92 1.07 691,200 185,600 - 1,196,800

Umpqua Basin survey region 10 8.76 3.73 247,400 36,600 - 458,200

Nephroma isidiosum 0

Nephroma occultum 4 0.53 0.31 227,200 0 - 493,800

Oregon/Washington survey region 3 0.92 0.56 216,900 0 - 482,700

Umpqua Basin survey region 1 0.37 0.37 10,400 0 - 31,200

Niebla cephalota 0

Pannaria rubiginosa 0

Peltigera pacifica 12 1.49 0.52 642,900 198,300 - 1,087,500

Gifford Pinchot survey region 3 2.38 1.68 59,500 0 - 143,500

Oregon Coast Range survey region 1 6.34 6.34 118,400 0 - 355,200

Oregon/Washington survey region 4 1.31 0.68 309,500 0 - 630,500

Umpqua Basin survey region 4 5.62 3.27 158,800 0 - 343,800

Platismatia lacunosa 21 1.45 0.46 626,200 231,200 - 1,021,200

California survey region 1 0.63 0.63 76,900 0 - 230,700

Oregon Coast Range survey region 18 21.21 7.64 396,200 110,800 - 681,600

Oregon/Washington survey region 2 0.65 0.48 154,700 0 - 383,300

Pseudocyphellaria perpetua 1 0.02 0.02 7,400 0 - 22,200

Oregon Coast Range survey region 1 0.40 0.40 7,400 0 - 22,200
339

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3&4-16. Probability Sampling Survey Results (RMS and GOBIG2K5)

TAXA GROUP

 Species1

NOTE: Results apply to NWFP area unless a 

smaller Survey Region2 is specified. Plots3

 with 

Detection8

Percent of Survey 

Plots with detections 

within the survey area

Estimated4 Number of plotsized3

 areas with detections 

within the survey area

Mean

Standard 

Error (SE) Mean

95% Confidence 

Interval (CI)

LICHENS6

Pseudocyphellaria rainierensis 6 0.55 0.25 235,700 19,900 - 451,500

Gifford Pinchot survey region 2 0.80 0.56 19,900 0 - 47,900

Oregon/Washington survey region 4 0.91 0.45 215,700 1,900 - 429,500

Pyrrhospora quernea 0

Ramalina pollinaria 1 0.37 0.37 157,800 0 - 473,400

Oregon/Washington survey region 1 0.67 0.67 157,800 0 - 473,400

Ramalina thrausta 15 2.23 0.78 960,100 283,100 - 1,637,100

Oregon Coast Range survey region 7 4.75 1.59 88,700 29,100 - 148,300

Oregon/Washington survey region 7 2.87 1.17 679,100 125,100 - 1,233,100

Umpqua Basin survey region 1 6.81 6.81 192,400 0 - 577,200

Stenocybe clavata 4 0.29 0.18 126,100 0 - 280,300

Oregon Coast Range survey region 2 0.98 0.68 18,200 0 - 43,800

Oregon/Washington survey region 2 0.46 0.32 107,900 0 - 259,900

Teloschistes flavicans 0

Tholurna dissimilis 1 0.07 0.07 31,600 0 - 94,800

Gifford Pinchot survey region 1 1.26 1.26 31,600 0 - 94,800

Usnea hesperina 0

Usnea longissima 13 0.60 0.27 257,300 23,700 - 490,900

Oregon Coast Range survey region 11 5.58 1.62 104,200 43,800 - 164,600

Oregon/Washington survey region 2 0.65 0.48 154,700 0 - 383,300

BRYOPHYTES6

Brotherella roellii 0

Buxbaumia viridis 19 1.74 0.47 750,100 341,100 - 1,159,100

California survey region 0

Gifford Pinchot survey region 4 4.13 2.49 103,400 0 - 228,000

Oregon Coast Range survey region 2 2.24 1.61 41,900 0 - 101,900

Oregon/Washington survey region 6 1.60 0.68 378,600 55,600 - 701,600

Umpqua Basin survey region 7 8.01 3.70 226,200 17,200 - 435,200

Diplophyllum albicans 25 2.82 0.69 1,218,800 622,600 - 1,815,000

Oregon Coast Range survey region 10 8.59 2.70 160,500 59,700 - 261,300

Oregon/Washington survey region 15 4.49 1.25 1,061,700 471,900 - 1,651,500

Diplophyllum plicatum 1 0.13 0.13 53,900 0 - 161,700

Oregon/Washington survey region 1 0.23 0.23 53,900 0 - 161,700

Encalypta brevicolla var. crumiana 0

Herbertus aduncus 0

Iwatsukiella leucotricha 0

Kurzia makinoana 0

Marsupella emarginata var. aquatica 0

Orthodontium gracile 0

Ptilidium californicum 181 18.25 1.40 7,875,700 6,667,300 - 9,084,100

California survey region 3 1.15 0.66 141,600 0 - 303,200

Gifford Pinchot survey region 54 44.86 4.41 1,123,400 902,400 - 1,344,400

Oregon Coast Range survey region 5 7.95 5.69 148,500 0 - 360,900
340

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Table 3&4-16. Probability Sampling Survey Results (RMS and GOBIG2K5)

TAXA GROUP

 Species1

NOTE: Results apply to NWFP area unless a 

smaller Survey Region2 is specified. Plots3

 with 

Detection8

Percent of Survey 

Plots with detections 

within the survey area

Estimated4 Number of plotsized3

 areas with detections 

within the survey area

Mean

Standard 

Error (SE) Mean

95% Confidence 

Interval (CI)

BRYOPHYTES6

Ptilidium californicum (cont.)

Oregon/Washington survey region 86 23.89 2.38 5,653,000 4,527,600 - 6,778,400

Umpqua Basin survey region 33 28.64 4.79 809,300 538,500 - 1,080,100

Racomitrium aquaticum 6 0.67 0.28 287,200 46,200 - 528,200

Oregon Coast Range survey region 1 0.94 0.94 17,600 0 - 52,800

Oregon/Washington survey region 5 1.14 0.50 269,600 31,200 - 508,000

Rhizomnium nudum 24 3.18 0.77 1,372,000 706,000 - 2,038,000

Gifford Pinchot survey region 6 2.39 0.93 59,800 13,200 - 106,400

Oregon/Washington survey region 17 5.54 1.41 1,310,200 641,600 - 1,978,800

Umpqua Basin survey region 1 0.37 0.37 10,400 0 - 31,200

Schistostega pennata 0

Tetraphis geniculata 1 0.07 0.07 31,600 0 - 94,800

Gifford Pinchot survey region 1 1.26 1.26 31,600 0 - 94,800

Tritomaria exsectiformis 0

Tritomaria quinquedentata 0

VERTEBRATES

RMS surveys were not done for Vertebrates. A similar survey (The RDS Survey) was completed for the red tree vole, and 

results are shown in Table 3&4-11.

MOLLUSKS6

Ancotrema voyanum7 0

Ancotrema voyanum (GOBIG2K - CA5) 24 7.37 1.44 171,900 104,700 - 239,100

Cryptomastix devia7 0

Cryptomastix hendersoni7 0

Deroceras hesperium7 0

Fluminicola n. sp. 17 0

Fluminicola n. sp. 27 0

Fluminicola n. sp. 37 0

Fluminicola n. sp. 117 0

Fluminicola n. sp. 157 0

Fluminicola n. sp. 167 0

Fluminicola n. sp. 177 0

Fluminicola n. sp. 187 0

Fluminicola n. sp. 197 0

Fluminicola n. sp. 207 0

Fluminicola potemicus7 0

Fluminicola seminalis7 0

Helminthoglypta hertleini7 1 0.51 0.51 31,900 0 - 95,700

Oregon/Washington survey region 1 0.67 0.67 31,900 0 - 95,700

Helminthoglypta hertleini

(GOBIG2K - CA5) 2 0.67 0.47 15,500 0 - 37,500

Helminthoglypta talmadgei7 0

Helminthoglypta talmadgei 

(GOBIG2K - CA5) 8 2.59 0.91 60,400 18,200 - 102,600
341

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3&4-16. Probability Sampling Survey Results (RMS and GOBIG2K5)

TAXA GROUP

 Species1

NOTE: Results apply to NWFP area unless a 

smaller Survey Region2 is specified. Plots3

 with 

Detection8

Percent of Survey 

Plots with detections 

within the survey area

Estimated4 Number of plotsized3

 areas with detections 

within the survey area

Mean

Standard 

Error (SE) Mean

95% Confidence 

Interval (CI)

MOLLUSKS6

Hemphillia burringtoni7 1 0.51 0.51 31,900 0 - 95,700

Oregon/Washington survey region 1 0.67 0.67 31,900 0 - 95,700

Hemphillia glandulosa7 11 2.05 0.71 128,200 40,000 - 216,400

Oregon Coast Range survey region 3 2.04 1.17 7,700 0 - 16,500

Oregon/Washington survey region 8 2.52 0.92 120,500 32,700 - 208,300

Hemphillia malonei7 9 2.31 0.84 144,500 39,500 - 249,500

Gifford Pinchot survey region 1 2.26 2.26 11,400 0 - 34,200

Oregon/Washington survey region 8 2.69 1.05 129,000 28,800 - 229,200

Hemphillia pantherina7 0

Juga (O.) n. sp. 27 0

Juga (O.) n. sp. 37 0

Lyogyrus n. sp. 17 0

Lyogyrus n. sp. 27 0

Lyogyrus n. sp. 37 0

Megomphix hemphilli7 4 1.15 0.34 71,900 29,300 - 114,500

Oregon Coast Range survey region 2 12.67 47,900 47,900 - 47,900

Oregon/Washington survey region 1 0.44 0.44 21,100 0 - 63,300

Umpqua Basin survey region 1 0.50 0.50 2,900 0 - 8,700

Monadenia chaceana7 2 0.39 0.27 24,000 0 - 58,000

Oregon/Washington survey region 1 0.24 0.24 11,400 0 - 34,200

Umpqua Basin survey region 1 2.20 2.20 12,600 0 - 37,800

Monadenia chaceana (GOBIG2K - CA5) 3 0.96 0.56 22,400 0 - 48,400

Monadenia churchi7 0

Monadenia churchi (GOBIG2K - CA5) 56 19.96 2.16 465,500 364,900 - 566,100

Monadenia fidelis minor7 0

Monadenia infumata ochromphalus7 0

Monadenia infumata ochromphalus 

(GOBIG2K - CA5) 16 4.65 1.12 108,400 56,400 - 160,400

Monadenia troglodytes troglodytes7 0

Monadenia troglodytes troglodytes 

(GOBIG2K - CA5) 0

Monadenia troglodytes wintu7 0

Monadenia troglodytes wintu 

(GOBIG2K - CA5) 0

Oreohelix n. sp. 17 0

Pristiloma articum crateris7 0

Prophysaon coeruleum7 27 4.21 1.12 263,000 122,600 - 403,400

Oregon Coast Range survey region 1 6.34 6.34 24,000 0 - 72,000

Oregon / Washington survey region 9 3.89 1.36 186,100 55,900 - 316,300

Umpqua Basin survey region 17 9.26 1.89 53,000 31,400 - 74,600

Prophysaon coeruleum (GOBIG2K - CA5) 1 0.37 0.37 8,600 0 - 25,800

Trilobopsis roperi7 0

Trilobopsis roperi (GOBIG2K - CA5) 1 0.37 0.37 8,600 0 - 25,800
342

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Table 3&4-16. Probability Sampling Survey Results (RMS and GOBIG2K5)

TAXA GROUP

 Species1

NOTE: Results apply to NWFP area unless a 

smaller Survey Region2 is specified. Plots3

 with 

Detection8

Percent of Survey 

Plots with detections 

within the survey area

Estimated4 Number of plotsized3

 areas with detections 

within the survey area

Mean

Standard 

Error (SE) Mean

95% Confidence 

Interval (CI)

MOLLUSKS6

Trilobopsis tehamana7 0

Trilobopsis tehamana (GOBIG2K - CA5) 2 0.59 0.42 13,800 0 - 33,200

Vertigo n. sp. 7 0

Vespericola pressleyi7 0

Vespericola pressleyi (GOBIG2K – CA5) 0

Vespericola shasta7 0

Vorticifex klamathensis sinitsini7 0

Vorticifex n. sp. 17 0

VASCULAR PLANTS6

RMS surveys not according to protocol (surveyed during non-flowering season), so no results for vascular plants

1

 Current taxonomic name. Any differences between these and previous NWFP documents are displayed in Table 3&4-18.

2 Survey Regions. Please see Figure 3&4-4 for more information

3 RMS Plot Size: Hectares (ha)

Bryophytes 0.2

Fungi – Epigeous 0.1

Fungi – Hypogeous 0.01

Lichens 0.2

Vascular Plants 0.2

Mollusks (RMS) 1

4 Estimates were derived by extrapolating from the sample plots to all potential plots in each region.

5 Surveyed as part of the GOBIG2K surveys. The GOBIG2K survey studied 308 plots only in CA and used a modified project level mollusk 

survey protocol. Estimates are within 2,400,000 ha in California. GOBIG2K protocol is 20 minute search in highest quality area and 40 

minute point searches at likely locations.

6 Number of Plots Surveyed

Fungi 658 plots

Bryophytes, Lichens, and Vascular Plants 750 plots

Mollusks - RMS in OR and WA 509 plots

Mollusks - GOBIG2K in CA 308 plots

7 Surveyed as part of a modified RMS Survey. The survey studied 509 plots in Oregon and Washington and it used a two visit (fall, spring) 

and two-stage mollusk survey protocol. Estimates are within 7,500,000 ha in Oregon and Washington. Stage 1 surveyed 18 microplots and 

stage 2 consisted of a minimum 2-hour intuitive search.

8 Species removed from Survey and Manage during the process of the 2001 Annual Species Review may not be accurately represented in the 

RMS Surveys, as surveys may not have been completed.
343

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3&4-17. Species Outcomes

TAXA GROUP

Species1

Sufficient 

Habitat Under 

all Alternatives -

Outcomes 1 and 2

Insufficient 

Information to 

Determine 

an Outcome - 

Outcome 4

Insufficient Habitat - Outcome 3

Not caused 

by Federal 

Action

Caused by 

Management 

Under Alt. 1

Caused by 

Management 

Under Alt. 2

Caused by 

Management 

Under Alt. 3

FUNGI

Acanthophysium farlowii x

Albatrellus avellaneus x

Albatrellus caeruleoporus x

Albatrellus ellisii x6

Albatrellus flettii x2

Alpova alexsmithii x

Alpova olivaceotinctus x

Arcangeliella camphorata x

Arcangeliella crassa x

Arcangeliella lactarioides x

Asterophora lycoperdoides x

Asterophora parasitica x

Baeospora myriadophylla x

Balsamia nigrens x

Boletus haematinus x

Boletus pulcherrimus x

Bondarzewia mesenterica x

Bridgeoporus nobilissimus x

Cantharellus subalbidus x

Catathelasma ventricosa x

Chalciporus piperatus x

Chamonixia caespitosa x

Choiromyces alveolatus x

Choiromyces venosus x

Chromosera cyanophylla x

Chroogomphus loculatus x

Chrysomphalina grossula x

Clavariadelphus ligula x6

Clavariadelphus occidentalis x

Clavariadelphus sachalinensis x6

Clavariadelphus subfastigiatus x

Clavariadelphus truncatus x

Clavulina castanopes v. lignicola x

Clitocybe senilis x

Clitocybe subditopoda x

Collybia bakerensis x

Collybia racemosa x

Cordyceps capitata x

Cordyceps ophioglossoides x

Cortinarius barlowensis x

Cortinarius boulderensis x

Cortinarius cyanites x

Cortinarius depauperatus x

Cortinarius magnivelatus x
344

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Table 3&4-17. Species Outcomes

TAXA GROUP

Species1

Sufficient 

Habitat Under 

all Alternatives -

Outcomes 1 and 2

Insufficient 

Information to 

Determine 

an Outcome - 

Outcome 4

Insufficient Habitat - Outcome 3

Not caused 

by Federal 

Action

Caused by 

Management 

Under Alt. 1

Caused by 

Management 

Under Alt. 2

Caused by 

Management 

Under Alt. 3

Cortinarius olympianus x

Cortinarius speciosissimus x

Cortinarius tabularis x

Cortinarius umidicola x

Cortinarius valgus x

Cortinarius variipes x

Cortinarius verrucisporus x

Cortinarius wiebeae x

Craterellus tubaeformis x

Cudonia monticola x6

Cyphellostereum laeve x

Cystangium idahoensis x

Cystangium lymanensis x

Dermocybe humboldtensis x

Destuntzia fusca x

Destuntzia rubra x

Dichostereum boreale x

Elaphomyces anthracinus x

Elaphomyces subviscidus x

Endogone acrogena x

Endogone oregonensis x

Entoloma nitidum x

Fayodia bisphaerigera x

Fevansia aurantiaca x

Galerina atkinsoniana x

Galerina cerina x

Galerina heterocystis x

Galerina sphagnicola x

Galerina vittaeformis x

Gastroboletus imbellus x

Gastroboletus ruber x

Gastroboletus subalpinus x

Gastroboletus turbinatus x

Gastroboletus vividus x

Gastrosuillus amaranthii x

Gastrosuillus umbrinus x

Gautieria magnicellaris x

Gautieria otthii x

Gelatinodiscus flavidus x

Glomus radiatum x

Gomphus clavatus x

Gomphus kauffmanii x6

Gymnomyces abietis x

Gymnomyces fragrans x

Gymnomyces nondistincta x
345

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3&4-17. Species Outcomes

TAXA GROUP

Species1

Sufficient 

Habitat Under 

all Alternatives -

Outcomes 1 and 2

Insufficient 

Information to 

Determine 

an Outcome - 

Outcome 4

Insufficient Habitat - Outcome 3

Not caused 

by Federal 

Action

Caused by 

Management 

Under Alt. 1

Caused by 

Management 

Under Alt. 2

Caused by 

Management 

Under Alt. 3

Gymnopilus punctifolius x2

Gyromitra californica x6

Gyromitra esculenta x

Gyromitra infula x

Gyromitra melaleucoides x

Gyromitra montana x

Hebeloma olympianum x

Helvella crassitunicata x

Helvella elastica x

Helvella maculata x

Hydnotrya inordinata x

Hydnotrya subnix x

Hydnum umbilicatum x

Hydropus marginellus x

Hygrophorus caeruleus x

Hygrophorus saxatilis x

Hygrophorus vernalis x

Hypomyces luteovirens x

Leucogaster citrinus x

Leucogaster microsporus x

Macowanites chlorinosmus x

Macowanites mollis x

Marasmius applanatipes x

Mycena hudsoniana x

Mycena monticola x

Mycena overholtsii x

Mycena quinaultensis x

Mycena tenax x

Mythicomyces corneipes x

Neolentinus adhaerens x

Neolentinus kauffmanii x

Neournula pouchetii x

Nivatogastrium nubigenum x

Octavianina cyanescens x

Octavianina macrospora x

Otidea leporina x

Otidea onotica x

Otidea smithii x

Phaeocollybia attenuata x

Phaeocollybia californica x6

Phaeocollybia dissiliens x6

Phaeocollybia fallax x6 x6

Phaeocollybia gregaria x

Phaeocollybia kauffmanii x

Phaeocollybia olivacea x
346

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Table 3&4-17. Species Outcomes

TAXA GROUP

Species1

Sufficient 

Habitat Under 

all Alternatives -

Outcomes 1 and 2

Insufficient 

Information to 

Determine 

an Outcome - 

Outcome 4

Insufficient Habitat - Outcome 3

Not caused 

by Federal 

Action

Caused by 

Management 

Under Alt. 1

Caused by 

Management 

Under Alt. 2

Caused by 

Management 

Under Alt. 3

Phaeocollybia oregonensis x

Phaeocollybia piceae x6

Phaeocollybia pseudofestiva x6

Phaeocollybia scatesiae x6

Phaeocollybia sipei x6

Phaeocollybia spadicea x6

Phellodon atratus x

Pholiota albivelata x

Pithya vulgaris x

Plectania melastoma x

Plectania milleri x

Podostroma alutaceum x

Polyozellus multiplex x6

Pseudaleuria quinaultiana x

Ramaria abietina x

Ramaria amyloidea x6

Ramaria araiospora x6

Ramaria aurantiisiccescens x6

Ramaria botryis var. 

aurantiiramosa x

Ramaria celerivirescens x

Ramaria claviramulata x

Ramaria concolor f. marrii x

Ramaria concolor f. tsugina x

Ramaria conjunctipes var. 

sparsiramosa x

Ramaria coulterae x

Ramaria cyaneigranosa x6

Ramaria gelatiniaurantia x

Ramaria gracilis x

Ramaria hilaris var. olympiana x

Ramaria largentii x6

Ramaria lorithamnus x

Ramaria maculatipes x

Ramaria rainierensis x

Ramaria rubella var. blanda x

Ramaria rubribrunnescens x

Ramaria rubrievanescens x6

Ramaria rubripermanens x2

Ramaria spinulosa var. diminutiva x

Ramaria stuntzii x6

Ramaria suecica x

Ramaria thiersii x

Ramaria verlotensis x

Rhizopogon abietis x
347

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3&4-17. Species Outcomes

TAXA GROUP

Species1

Sufficient 

Habitat Under 

all Alternatives -

Outcomes 1 and 2

Insufficient 

Information to 

Determine 

an Outcome - 

Outcome 4

Insufficient Habitat - Outcome 3

Not caused 

by Federal 

Action

Caused by 

Management 

Under Alt. 1

Caused by 

Management 

Under Alt. 2

Caused by 

Management 

Under Alt. 3

Rhizopogon atroviolaceus x

Rhizopogon brunneiniger x

Rhizopogon chamaleontinus x

Rhizopogon ellipsosporus x

Rhizopogon evadens var. subalpinus x

Rhizopogon exiguus x

Rhizopogon flavofibrillosus x

Rhizopogon inquinatus x

Rhizopogon truncatus x

Rhodocybe speciosa x

Rickenella swartzii x

Russula mustelina x

Sarcodon fuscoindicus x6

Sarcodon imbricatus x

Sarcosoma latahense x

Sarcosoma mexicana x

Sarcosphaera eximia x

Sedecula pulvinata x

Sowerbyella rhenana x6

Sparassis crispa x6 x6

Spathularia flavida x

Stagnicola perplexa x

Thaxterogaster pavelekii x

Tremiscus helvelloides x

Tricholoma venenatum x

Tricholomopsis fulvescens x

Tuber asa x

Tuber pacificum x

Turbinellus floccosus (California) x

Tylopilus porphyrosporus x

Zelleromyces papyracea x

LICHENS

Bryoria pseudocapillaris x

Bryoria spiralifera x

Bryoria subcana x

Bryoria tortuosa x4

Buellia oidalea x

Calicium abietinum x

Calicium adspersum x

Calicium glaucellum x

Calicium viride x

Cetrelia cetrarioides x

Chaenotheca chrysocephala x

Chaenotheca ferruginea x

Chaenotheca furfuracea x
348

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Table 3&4-17. Species Outcomes

TAXA GROUP

Species1

Sufficient 

Habitat Under 

all Alternatives -

Outcomes 1 and 2

Insufficient 

Information to 

Determine 

an Outcome - 

Outcome 4

Insufficient Habitat - Outcome 3

Not caused 

by Federal 

Action

Caused by 

Management 

Under Alt. 1

Caused by 

Management 

Under Alt. 2

Caused by 

Management 

Under Alt. 3

Chaenotheca subroscida x

Chaenothecopsis pusilla x

Cladonia norvegica x

Collema nigrescens 

(WA and OR, 

except in OR Klamath 

Physiographic province) x

Dendriscocaulon intricatulum x2

Dermatocarpon meiophyllizum x

Fuscopannaria saubinetii x

Heterodermia sitchensis x

Hypogymnia duplicata x

Hypogymnia oceanica x

Hypogymnia vittata x

Hypotrachyna revoluta x

Leptogium burnetiae var. hirsutum x

Leptogium cyanescens x

Leptogium rivale x

Leptogium teretiusculum x

Lobaria linita x

Lobaria oregana x

Microcalicium arenarium x

Nephroma bellum x

Nephroma isidiosum x

Nephroma occultum x x

Niebla cephalota x

Pannaria rubiginosa x

Peltigera pacifica x

Platismatia lacunosa x2

Pseudocyphellaria perpetua x

Pseudocyphellaria rainierensis x x

Pyrrhospora quernea x

Ramalina pollinaria x

Ramalina thrausta x

Stenocybe clavata x

Teloschistes flavicans x

Tholurna dissimilis

(south of Columbia River) x

Usnea hesperina x

Usnea longissima x

BRYOPHYTES

Brotherella roellii x

Buxbaumia viridis x

Diplophyllum albicans x

Diplophyllum plicatum x
349

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3&4-17. Species Outcomes

TAXA GROUP

Species1

Sufficient 

Habitat Under 

all Alternatives -

Outcomes 1 and 2

Insufficient 

Information to 

Determine 

an Outcome - 

Outcome 4

Insufficient Habitat - Outcome 3

Not caused 

by Federal 

Action

Caused by 

Management 

Under Alt. 1

Caused by 

Management 

Under Alt. 2

Caused by 

Management 

Under Alt. 3

Encalypta brevicolla var. crumiana x

Herbertus aduncus x

Iwatsukiella leucotricha x

Kurzia makinoana x

Marsupella emarginata var.

aquatica x

Orthodontium gracile x

Ptilidium californicum (California) x

Racomitrium aquaticum x

Rhizomnium nudum x

Schistostega pennata x

Tetraphis geniculata x

Tritomaria exsectiformis x

Tritomaria quinquedentata x

VERTEBRATES

Del Norte salamander 

Plethodon elongatus x

Larch Mountain salamander 

Plethodon larselli x3

Shasta salamander 

Hydromantes shastae x3

Siskiyou Mountains salamander 

Plethodon stormi x3

Van Dyke’s salamander 

Plethodon vandykei x3

Great Gray Owl 

Strix nebulosa x2

Oregon Red Tree Vole 

Arborimus longicaudus x5

MOLLUSKS

Ancotrema voyanum x

Cryptomastix devia x

Cryptomastix hendersoni x

Deroceras hesperium x

Fluminicola n. sp. 1 x

Fluminicola n. sp. 2 x

Fluminicola n. sp. 3 x

Fluminicola n. sp. 11 x

Fluminicola n. sp. 15 x

Fluminicola n. sp. 16 x

Fluminicola n. sp. 17 x

Fluminicola n. sp. 18 x

Fluminicola n. sp. 19 x

Fluminicola n. sp. 20 x

Fluminicola potemicus x

Fluminicola seminalis x2
350

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Table 3&4-17. Species Outcomes

TAXA GROUP

Species1

Sufficient 

Habitat Under 

all Alternatives -

Outcomes 1 and 2

Insufficient 

Information to 

Determine 

an Outcome - 

Outcome 4

Insufficient Habitat - Outcome 3

Not caused 

by Federal 

Action

Caused by 

Management 

Under Alt. 1

Caused by 

Management 

Under Alt. 2

Caused by 

Management 

Under Alt. 3

Helminthoglypta hertleini x

Helminthoglypta talmadgei x

Hemphillia burringtoni x

Hemphillia glandulosa x

Hemphillia malonei x

Hemphillia pantherina x

Juga (O) n. sp. 2 x

Juga (O) n. sp. 3 x

Lyogyrus n. sp. 1 x

Lyogyrus n. sp. 2 x

Lyogyrus n. sp. 3 x

Megomphix hemphilli x

Monadenia chaceana x2

Monadenia churchi x

Monadenia fidelis minor x

Monadenia infumata ochromphalus x

Monadenia troglodytes troglodytes x

Monadenia troglodytes wintu x

Oreohelix n. sp. x

Pristiloma arcticum crateris x

Prophysaon coeruleum

(Washington and California) x

Trilobopsis roperi x

Trilobopsis tehamana x

Vertigo n. sp. x

Vespericola pressleyi x

Vespericola shasta x

Vorticifex klamathensis sinitsini x

Vorticifex n. sp. 1 x

VASCULAR PLANTS

Arceuthobium tsugense 

mertensianae (Washington) x

Bensoniella oregana (California) x

Botrychium minganense 

(Oregon and California) x

Botrychium montanum x

Coptis asplenifolia x

Coptis trifolia x

Corydalis aquae-gelidae x

Cypripedium fasciculatum x

Cypripedium montanum x4

Eucephalus vialis x
351

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3&4-17. Species Outcomes

TAXA GROUP

Species1

Sufficient 

Habitat Under 

all Alternatives -

Outcomes 1 and 2

Insufficient 

Information to 

Determine 

an Outcome - 

Outcome 4

Insufficient Habitat - Outcome 3

Not caused 

by Federal 

Action

Caused by 

Management 

Under Alt. 1

Caused by 

Management 

Under Alt. 2

Caused by 

Management 

Under Alt. 3

Galium kamtschaticum 

(Olympic Peninsula, 

WA Eastern Cascades, 

OR & WA Western Cascades 

physiographic provinces, 

south of Snoqualmie Pass) x

Platanthera orbiculata var. 

orbiculata x 1

 Current taxonomic name. Any differences between these and previous NWFP documents are displayed in Table 3&4-18.

2

 While this species has sufficient habitat range-wide in the NWFP area, the species has insufficient habitat in a portion of its range under 

Alternative 2.

3

 While this species has sufficient habitat range-wide in the NWFP area, the species has insufficient habitat in a portion of its range under 

Alternatives 2 and 3.

4

 While this species has sufficient habitat range-wide in the NWFP area, the species has insufficient habitat in a portion of its range under 

Alternatives 1, 2, and 3.

5

 While this species has sufficient habitat range-wide in the NWFP area, the species has insufficient habitat in a portion of its range under all 

alternatives. Under Alternatives 2 and 3, a larger portion of its range would have insufficient habitat, while still having sufficient habitat 

range-wide.

6 While these fungi have insufficient habitat range-wide when removed from Survey and Manage, they have sufficient habitat in the portion of 

the range that is protected by SSSPs.
352

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Table 3&4-18. Species with Multiples Names

TAXA GROUP

Species

Where recent taxonomy work has changed a species’ name, the first 

column is the current accepted name used in this document. The second 

column is the name(s) used in one or more previous NWFP documents.

FUNGI

Acanthophysium farlowii syn. Aleurodiscus farlowii

Albatrellus caeruleoporus Misspelled as Albatrellus caeruleporus in ORNHIC documents

Arcangeliella camphorata Arcangeliella sp. nov. #Trappe 12382; Arcangeliella sp. nov. #Trappe 12359

Balsamia nigrens syn. Balsamia nigra, Balsamia nigrescens

Bondarzewia mesenterica syn. Bondarzewia Montana

Bridgeoporus nobilissimus syn. Oxyporus nobilissimus

Catathelasma ventricosa Catathelasma ventricosum

Chalciporus piperatus syn. Boletus piperatus

Chamonixia caespitosa Chamonixia pacifica sp. nov. #Trappe #12768

Chromosera cyanophylla syn. Mycena lilacifolia

Clavariadelphus occidentalis syn. Clavariadelphus pistillaris

Clavariadelphus truncatus syn. Clavariadelphus borealis

Clavulina castanopes v. lignicola syn. Clavulina ornatipes

Cortinarius barlowensis syn. Cortinarius azureus

Cortinarius depauperatus syn. Cortinarius spilomeus

Cortinarius speciosissimus syn. Cortinarius rainierensis

Cortinarius umidicola syn. Cortinarius canabarba

Cystangium idahoensis syn. Martellia idahoensis

Cystangium lymanensis syn. Macowanites lymanensis

Dichostereum boreale syn. Dichostereum granulosum

Entoloma nitidum syn. Rhodocybe nitida

Fayodia bisphaerigera syn. Fayodia gracilipes

Fevansia aurantiaca Alpova sp. nov. # Trappe 1966

Gastroboletus vividus Gastroboletus sp. nov. #Trappe 2897; Gastroboletus sp. nov. #Trappe 7515

Gastrosuillus amaranthii Gastrosuillus sp. nov. #Trappe 9608

Gastrosuillus umbrinus Gastroboletus sp. nov. #Trappe 7516

Gymnomyces abietis Gymnomyces sp. nov. #Trappe 1690, 1706, 1710; Gymnomyces sp. nov. #Trappe 

4703, 5576; Gymnomyces sp. nov. #Trappe 5052; Gymnomyces sp. nov. #Trappe 

7545; Martellia sp. nov. #Trappe 1700; Martellia sp. nov. #Trappe 311; Martellia

sp. nov. #Trappe 5903

Gymnomyces fragrans syn. Martellia fragrans

Gymnomyces nondistincta Martellia sp. nov. #Trappe 649

Gyromitra californica Pseudorhizina californica

Hebeloma olympianum syn. Hebeloma olympiana

Hydnotrya inordinata Hydnotrya sp. nov. #Trappe 787, 792

Hydnotrya subnix Hydnotrya subnix sp. nov. #Trappe 1861

Hydropus marginellus syn. Mycena marginella

Hygrophorus saxatilis syn. Hygrophorus karstenii

Mycena quinaultensis Mycena quiniaultensis

Octavianina cyanescens Octavianina sp. nov. #Trappe 7502, Octaviania cyanescens

Octavianina macrospora Octaviania macrospora

Phaeocollybia oregonensis syn. Phaeocollybia carmanahensis

Phellodon atratus syn. Phellodon atratum

Pholiota albivelata Stropharia albovelata

Ramaria conjunctipes var. sparsiramosa syn. Ramaria fasciculata var. sparsiramosa

Ramaria spinulosa var. diminutiva syn. Ramaria spinulosa
353

Chapter 3 & 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3&4-18. Species with Multiples Names

TAXA GROUP

Species

Where recent taxonomy work has changed a species’ name, the first 

column is the current accepted name used in this document. The second 

column is the name(s) used in one or more previous NWFP documents.

Rhizopogon chamaleontinus Rhizopogon sp. nov. #Trappe 9432

Rhizopogon ellipsosporus Alpova sp. nov. # Trappe 9730

Rickenella swartzii syn. Rickenella setipes

Sowerbyella rhenana syn. Aleuria rhenana

Thaxterogaster pavelekii Thaxterogaster sp. nov. #Trappe 4867, 6242, 7427, 7962, 8520

Tuber asa Tuber sp. nov. #Trappe 2302

Tuber pacificum Tuber sp. nov. #Trappe 12493

Turbinellus floccosus syn. Gomphus floccosus, G. bonarii

Tylopilus porphyrosporus syn. Tylopilus pseudoscaber

Zelleromyces papyracea syn. Octavianina papyracea

LICHENS

Dermatocarpon meiophyllizum misidentified as D. luridum in NWFP 1994, 2000, and 2004 FSEIS.

Fuscopannaria saubinetii taxanomic revision from Pannaria saubinetii

Hypogymnia duplicata syn. H. elongata

Hypogymnia vittata misspelled in FEMAT as Hygomnia vittiata

Leptogium burnetiae var. hirsutum syn. L. hirsutum

Leptogium rivale Misspelled as Leptogium rivulare in ORNHIC documents

Pseudocyphellaria perpetua misapplied name P. mougeotiana in FEMAT, NWFP 1994, and 2000 FSEIS. 

Also called Pseudocyphellaria sp. 1 in Management Recommendations 

(Lesher et al. 2000)

Pyrrhospora quernea syn. Lecidea quernea, Problastenia quernea

BRYOPHYTES

Encalypta brevicolla var. crumiana Also known as E. brevicollis

Racomitrium aquaticum Now known as Codriophorus ryszardii

MOLLUSKS

Fluminicola potemicus Fluminicola n. sp. 14

Monadenia infumata ochromphalus syn. M. fidelis klamathica and M. f. ochromphalus

VASCULAR PLANTS

Eucephalus vialis syn. Aster vialis

Platanthera orbiculata var. orbiculata syn. Habenaria orbiculata
354

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines
355

Glossary

Glossary

Accessioned - Something that has been acquired or added; an acquisition.

Acre - A land area measurement based on horizontal plane; 43,560 square feet; 1/640th of 

a square mile; approximately 4/10ths of a hectare; if square, nearly 209 feet on a side.

Actually rare - Phrase used to denote species that truly only exist in a few sites, as 

opposed to species considered rare (for example, under the Survey and Manage criteria) 

simply because very few sites are currently known. Thus “actually rare” is a subset of 

species classified as “rare” under Survey and Manage.

Adaptive management - A continuing process of action-based planning, monitoring, 

researching, evaluating, and adjusting with the objective of improving implementation 

and achieving the goals of the Standards and Guidelines (USDA, USDI 1994a).

Adaptive Management Areas - Land allocation under the Northwest Forest Plan; areas 

designated for development and testing of technical and social approaches to achieving 

desired ecological, economic, and other social objectives.

Administratively Withdrawn Areas - Areas removed from the suitable timber base 

through agency direction and land and resource management plans.

Alternative - One of several policies, plans, or projects proposed for making decisions 

(USDA, USDI 1994a).

Amphibians - Cold-blooded vertebrates, including frogs, toads, salamanders, and newts, 

having four limbs and glandular skin, tied to moist or aquatic habitats for all or at least 

part of their life cycle.

Annual Species Review (ASR) - Process conducted by a regional-level interagency 

group including taxa experts meeting at least annually to weigh new information about 

species against the three basic criteria for inclusion/retention in Survey and Manage, 

and make decisions about additions and deletions of species or moving them between 

categories. The process and the criteria to which the group must adhere are described 

in the Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines, Appendix 1, Section IV, Adaptive 

Management Process.

Anthropogenic - Involving the impact of humans on nature; effects or processes derived, 

induced or altered by the presence and activities of humans.

Arthropods - Invertebrates belonging to the largest animal phylum (more than 800,000 

species) including crustaceans, insects, centipedes, and arachnids. Characterized by a 

segmented body, jointed appendages, and an exoskeleton composed of chitin 

(USDA, USDI 1994a).

Assessment species - A Special Status Species Category established by Oregon/

Washington BLM. Assessment species include plant (vascular and non-vascular) and 

vertebrate species that are not presently eligible for official federal or state status but 

are of concern in Oregon or Washington and may, at a minimum, need protection or 

mitigation in BLM activities. These species will be considered as a level of special status 

species separate from Bureau Sensitive.

Biological Zone - Any area or zone designated for the purpose of describing biological 

processes. In this case, a subdivision of the red tree vole range delineated because of 

perceived differences in habitat conditions, species status, or health.
356

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Bryophytes - Plants of the phylum Bryophyta, including mosses, liverworts, and 

hornworts; characterized by the lack of true roots, stems, and leaves (USDA, USDI 1994a).

Candidate Species - Those plant and animal species that, in the opinion of the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (FWS) or NOAA Fisheries, qualify for listing as endangered or 

threatened. Candidates are taxa for which the FWS has on file sufficient information to 

support proposals for listing. 

Category - Survey and Manage groupings of species by relative rarity, practicality of predisturbance surveys, and information status. Management direction is generally the same 

for all species within a category and differs between categories.

Clade - A group of organisms, such as a species, whose members share homologous 

features derived from a common ancestor.

Clearance surveys - see Surveys Prior to Habitat-Disturbing Activities.

Coarse woody debris - Portion of a tree that has fallen or been cut and left in the woods. 

Usually refers to pieces at least 20 inches in diameter (USDA, USDI 1994a).

Congener - A member of the same kind, class, or group; an organism belonging to the 

same taxonomic genus as another organism.

Congressionally Reserved Areas - Areas that require Congressional enactment for their 

establishment, such as National Parks, Wild and Scenic Rivers, National Recreation 

Areas, National Monuments, and Wilderness. Also referred to as Congressional Reserves 

(USDA, USDI 1994a). Includes similar areas established by Executive Order such as 

National Monuments.

Conservation Agreement - A formal written document agreed to by federal agencies, 

tribes, state agencies, local governments, and/or the private sector to achieve the 

conservation of species through voluntary cooperation. It documents the specific actions 

and responsibilities for which each party agrees to be accountable. The objective of a 

Conservation Agreement is to reduce threats to a species and/or its habitat. An effective 

Conservation Agreement may lower listing priority or eliminate the need to list a species.

Conservation Assessment - A technical document that describes the current state of 

knowledge for the life history, habitat requirements, and management considerations for 

a species or group of species throughout its occupied range on the lands managed by the 

cooperating agencies. Habitat conservation assessments are often done as a forerunner to 

preparation of a conservation agreement.

Conservation Strategy - an interagency technical document based on the available 

scientific information for a species or group of species that discuss the biological and 

ecological factors of the species and determines if management actions are necessary for 

a species or group of species to persist over time. If actions are necessary, the strategy 

describes the actions land management agencies must take to maintain a species or group 

of species and usually include a monitoring plan. Conservation Strategies can also be 

known as Management Strategies.

Decay Class - Decaying logs are classified into five separate classes depending on their 

state of decay. The five classes are: 

Class 1: Intact, recently downed trees. Bark is intact and not loose. No invading roots 

are present. Log is structurally sound.

Class 2: There is some loose bark, but most bark is difficult to pull from log. No 

invading roots are present. Structurally, the sapwood is somewhat decayed while the 

heartwood is mostly sound.
357

Glossary

Class 3: Bark is easily pulled from the log or is absent. The stem is partly rotted. 

There are invading roots present only in the sapwood. The sapwood is decayed, but 

the heartwood is still mostly sound.

Class 4: The log is deeply decomposed with invading roots throughout. Bark has 

fallen off or is absent. Heartwood is rotten and branch stubs are easily pulled out.

Class 5: Hummocks of wood chunks and organic material. Bark has fallen off 

or is absent. Invading roots are present throughout wood chunks. There is no 

structural integrity.

Dendrochronological - process of analyzing tree rings to determine dates and the 

chronological order of past events.

Ecological amplitude - The breadth of the biological and environmental requirements of 

a species such as temperature, moisture, soil types, hosts, and stand ages.

Ecosystem approach - A strategy or plan to manage ecosystems to provide for all 

associated organisms, as opposed to a strategy or plan for managing individual species.

Effects - Effects, impacts, and consequences are synonymous. Effects may be direct, 

indirect, or cumulative and may fall in one of these categories: aesthetic, historic, 

cultural, economic, social, health, or ecological (such as effects on natural resources and 

on the components, structures, and functioning of affected ecosystems) (USDA USDI 

1994a).

Endemic or endemism - Unique to a specific locality or the condition of being unique to 

a specific locality. 

Endangered Species - A plant or animal identified and defined in accordance with the 

1973 Endangered Species Act and published in the Federal Register (USDA, USDI 1994a).

Endangered Species Act (ESA) - A law passed in 1973 to conserve species of wildlife and 

plants determined by the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service or the NOAA Fisheries 

to be endangered or threatened with extinction in all or a significant portion of its range. 

Among other measures, ESA requires all federal agencies to conserve these species and 

consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service or NOAA Fisheries on federal actions that may 

affect these species or their designated critical habitat.

Environmental analysis - An analysis of alternative actions and their predictable shortterm and long-term environmental effects, incorporating physical, biological, economic, 

and social considerations (USDA, USDI 1994a).

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) - A statement of the environmental effects of 

a proposed action and alternatives to it. It is required for major federal actions under 

Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and released to the public 

and other agencies for comment and review. It is a formal document that must follow the 

requirements of NEPA, the CEQ guidelines, and directives of the agency responsible for 

the project proposal. 

Equivalent-effort surveys - Pre-disturbance surveys for species whose characteristics, 

such as small size or irregular fruiting, prevent them from being consistently located 

during site-specific surveys.

Extant - Still present.
358

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Extirpate - To destroy or eliminate completely. Extirpate is not necessarily synonymous with 

extinction, since the term may be applied to certain populations or areas within the range of 

a given species. The elimination of a species from a particular area (USDA, USDI 1994a).

Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (FEMAT) - A 1993 interagency, 

interdisciplinary team of scientists, economists, and sociologists led by Dr. Jack Ward 

Thomas and chartered to review proposals for management of federal forests within the 

range of the northern spotted owl. The team produced a report assessing ten options in 

detail, which were used as a basis for developing the Northwest Forest Plan.

Fungi - Saprophytic and parasitic spore-producing organisms that lack chlorophyll and 

include molds, rusts, mildews, smuts, mushrooms, and yeasts.

GeoBOB (Geographic Biotic Observations) - A relational geodatabase used by the 

Oregon and Washington offices of the BLM, which stores spatial and attribute data on 

species of interest to the BLM and Region 6 of the Forest Service. This database currently 

holds legacy Survey and Manage species locations for both the BLM and the Forest 

Service. The data on Survey and Manage species on lands administered by the Forest 

Service are being moved to the Forest Service databases.

GOBIG2K - A random RMS-type survey for mollusks in California.

Habitat - Place or environment where a plant or animal naturally or normally lives and 

grows. For surveys: habitat specific to the species being surveyed, generally described in 

Survey Protocols or Management Recommendations.

Habitat Conservation Assessment - A comprehensive, state-of-knowledge technical 

document that describes life history, habitat requirements, and management 

considerations for a species or group of species throughout its/their occupied range on 

the lands managed by the cooperating agencies. 

Habitat-disturbing activity - Activities with disturbances likely to have a substantial 

negative impact on the species habitat, its life cycle, microclimate, or life support 

requirements. See additional detail in the Standards and Guidelines, Appendix 1.

Haplotype - A set of closely linked genetic markers present on one chromosome that tend 

to be inherited together (not easily separable by recombination).

Hazardous fuel treatments - A management activity that is designed to reduce fuel 

levels and reduce burn intensity. Hazardous fuel treatments include, but are not limited 

to, thinning tree stands, creating fuel breaks, controlling bark beetle infestations, and 

prescribed fire.

Hectare (ha) - 10,000 meters2 (about 2.5 acres)

High-priority sites - A site or group of sites deemed necessary for species persistence. 

High-priority sites may be identified as specific locations, sites meeting specific criteria, 

or as a distribution of populations or sites over a geographic area that may change over 

time. High-priority sites are designated through the Management Recommendations for 

the species. High-priority sites are generally a subset of known sites; however, in some 

cases, all known sites may be determined to be high-priority sites. High-priority sites are 

those deemed necessary to ensure species persistence.

Hypermaritime - Very wet maritime, typically restricted to lower elevations very near the 

coast (fog belt).
359

Glossary

In-growth - A growing inward (as to fill a void). Used herein, refers to acreage increases 

(as a result of aging or growth) of late-successional and old-growth forests within defined 

areas such as reserves.

Interagency Species Management System (ISMS) - An interagency database system 

that contains information about Survey and Manage species in the Northwest Forest Plan 

area, including known sites, species locations, and habitats.

Interdisciplinary team (ID team) - A group of individuals with varying areas of specialty 

assembled to solve a problem or perform a task. The team is assembled out of recognition 

that no one scientific discipline is sufficiently broad enough to adequately analyze the 

problem and propose action. 

Issue - A point, matter, or question of public discussion or interest to be addressed or 

decided through the planning process. 

Known site - Historic and current location of a species reported by a credible source, 

available to field offices, and that does not require additional species verification or 

survey by the Agency to locate the species. Known sites include those known prior to the 

signing of the Northwest Forest Plan Record of Decision (USDA, USDI 1994b), as well 

as sites located in the future. Known sites can be based on any documented and credible 

source (such as herbaria/museum records, published documents, Agency records, 

species expert records, and documented public information). Historic locations where 

it can be demonstrated that the species and its habitat no longer occur do not have to be 

considered known sites. A credible source is a professional or amateur person who has 

academic training and/or demonstrated expertise in identification of the taxon of interest 

sufficient for the Agency to accept the identification as correct. These can include Agency 

staff and private individuals.

The known site identification should be precise enough to locate the species by 

geographic coordinates, maps, or descriptions sufficient to design specific management 

actions or to be located by other individuals. Also see “site” for description of size or 

components. 

Land management - The intentional process of planning, organizing, programming, 

coordinating, directing, and controlling land use actions. 

Land allocation - Commitment of a given area of land or a resource to one or more 

specific uses (such as campgrounds or Wilderness). In the Northwest Forest Plan, one of 

the seven allocations of Congressionally Withdrawn Areas, Late-Successional Reserves, 

Adaptive Management Areas, Managed Late-Successional Areas, Administratively 

Withdrawn Areas, Riparian Reserves, or Matrix.

Landscape - A heterogeneous land area with interacting ecosystems repeated in similar 

form throughout (USDA, USDI 1994a).

Late-successional forests - Forest stands consisting of trees, structural attributes, 

supporting biological communities, and processes associated with old-growth and/or 

mature forests (USDA, USDI 1994a). Forest seral stages that include mature and oldgrowth age classes (USDA, USDI 1994a). These stands exhibit increasing stand diversity, 

patchy multi-layered canopy, trees of several age classes, larger standing dead trees 

(snags), large woody debris, and species that represent the potential natural community 

(FEMAT 1993). Age is not a defining characteristic but has been used as a proxy or 

indicator in the past. Minimum ages vary depending on the site quality, species, and rate 

of stand development.
360

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Late-Successional Reserve - Land allocation under the Northwest Forest Plan with the 

objective to protect and enhance conditions of late-successional and old-growth forest 

ecosystems that serve as habitat for late-successional and old-growth forest related 

species, including the northern spotted owl. Limited stand management is permitted, 

subject to review by the Regional Ecosystem Office (USDA, USDI 1994b).

Lichens - Organisms consisting of a fungus and a photosynthetic partner (green 

algae, cyanobacteria, or both) growing together in a mutually beneficial relationship. 

The composite form is strongly altered in appearance, physiology, reproduction, and 

chemistry, compared to free living fungi, algae, or bacteria.

Line officer - In the BLM and Forest Service, the individual managers in the direct chain 

of command. 

Listed Species - A plant or animal identified and defined in accordance with the 1973 

Endangered Species Act as threatened or endangered.

Listing - The designation of a species as threatened or endangered under the 1973 

Endangered Species Act. 

Macroinvertebrates - Any non-vertebrate organism that is large enough to been seen 

without the aid of a microscope.

Manage (as in manage known sites) - To maintain the habitat elements needed to 

provide for persistence of the species at the site. Manage may range from maintaining 

one or more habitat components such as down logs or canopy cover, up to complete 

exclusion from disturbance for many acres, and may permit loss of some individuals, 

area, or elements not affecting continued site occupancy.

Managed Late-Successional Areas - Land allocation under the Northwest Forest Plan; 

similar to Late-Successional Reserves, but identified for certain owl territories in the 

drier provinces where regular and frequent fire is a natural part of the ecosystem. 

Certain silvicultural treatments and fire hazard reduction treatments are allowed to help 

prevent large-scale disturbance such as fires of high intensity or severity, disease, and 

insect epidemics.

Management Recommendation - An interagency document that addresses how to 

manage known sites and that provides guidance to Agency efforts in conserving Survey 

and Manage species. They describe the habitat parameters that provide for maintaining 

the taxon at that site. They may also identify high-priority sites for uncommon species or 

provide other information to support management direction. See additional detail in the 

Standards and Guidelines, Appendix 1.

Management Strategy - see Conservation Strategy.

Matrix - Federal lands outside of reserves, withdrawn areas, Managed Late-Successional 

Areas, and Adaptive Management Areas (USDA, USDI 1994a).

Mature forest - A subset of late-successional forests. Mature forests are characterized by 

the onset of slowed height growth, crown expansion, heavier limbs, gaps, some mortality 

in larger trees, and appearance of more shade-tolerant species or additional crown layers 

(Adapted from USDA, USDI 1994b:B-2 and B-3).

Mesic - Of, characterized by, or adapted to a moderately moist habitat.
361

Glossary

Microclimate - The suite of climatic conditions measured in localized areas near the 

earth’s surface. Microclimate variables important to habitat may include temperature, 

light, wind speed, and moisture.

Mitigation - From NEPA implementing regulations: Avoiding, minimizing, rectifying, 

reducing, or compensating for adverse effects of a proposed action or alternatives. 

Mitigation measures - Modifications of actions taken to: (1) avoid impacts by not 

taking a certain action or parts of an action; (2) minimize impacts by limiting the degree 

or magnitude of the action and its implementation; (3) rectify impacts by repairing, 

rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; (4) reduce or eliminate impacts over 

time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action; or, (5) 

compensate for impacts by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments 

(USDA, USDI 1994a).

Mollusks - Invertebrate animals (such as slugs, snails, clams, or squids) that have a soft 

unsegmented body usually enclosed in a calcareous shell.

Monitoring - A process of collecting information to evaluate if objectives and anticipated 

or assumed results of a management plan are being realized or if implementation is 

proceeding as planned (USDA, USDI 1994a).

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) - An Act passed in 1969 to declare a National 

policy that encourages productive and enjoyable harmony between humankind and the 

environment, promotes efforts that prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and 

biosphere, stimulates the health and welfare of humanity, enriches the understanding of 

the ecological systems and natural resources important to the nation, and establishes a 

Council on Environmental Quality (USDA, USDI 1994a).

National Forest Management Act (NFMA) - A law passed in 1976 as an amendment to 

the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act, requiring preparation of 

Forest Plans and the preparation of regulations to guide that development (USDA, USDI 

1994a).

Non-vertebrate species - A species that does not have a backbone.

Northwest Forest Plan - Coordinated ecosystem management direction incorporated 

into land and resource management plans for lands administered by the BLM and 

the Forest Service within the range of the northern spotted owl. In April 1993, then 

President Clinton directed his cabinet to craft a balanced, comprehensive, and longterm policy for management of over 24 million acres of public land within the range of 

the northern spotted owl. A Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (FEMAT) 

was chartered to develop a series of options. These options were modified in response 

to public comment and additional analysis and then analyzed in a Final Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement (USDA, USDI 1994a). A Record of Decision was 

signed on April 13, 1994, by the Secretaries of the Department of Agriculture and the 

Department of the Interior to adopt Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land 

Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl 

(USDA, USDI 1994b). The Record of Decision, including the Standards and Guidelines

for Management of Habitat for Late-Successional and Old-Growth Forest Related Species 

Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl is referred to as the “Northwest Forest 

Plan.” The Northwest Forest Plan is not a “plan” in the agency planning regulations 

sense; the term instead refers collectively to the 1994 amendment to existing agency land 

and resource management plans or to the specific standards and guidelines for latesuccessional species incorporated into subsequent land and resource management plans.
362

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Odds Ratio - A measure of effect size particularly important in Bayesian statistics and 

logistic regression. It is defined as the ratio of the odds of an event occurring in one 

group to the odds of it occurring in another group, or to a data-based estimate of that 

ratio. An odds ratio of 1 indicates that the condition or event under study is equally likely 

in both groups.

Old-growth forest - An ecosystem distinguished by old trees and related structural 

attributes. Old-growth encompasses the later stages of stand development that typically 

differ from earlier stages in a variety of characteristics which may include tree size, 

accumulations of large dead woody material, number of canopy layers, species, 

composition, and ecosystem function. More specific parameters applicable to various 

species are available in the 1993 Interim Old-Growth Definitions (USDA Forest Service 

Region 6). The Northwest Forest Plan SEIS and FEMAT describe old-growth forest as a 

forest stand usually at least 180 to 220 years old with moderate-to-high canopy closure; a 

multi-layered, multi-species canopy dominated by large overstory trees; high incidence 

of large trees, some with broken tops and other indications of old and decaying wood 

(decadence); numerous large snags; and heavy accumulations of wood, including large 

logs on the ground (USDA, USDI 1994a).

Outcome - A reasoned determination of whether a particular species would be at high 

risk of extirpation. This determination was based on numerous factors including (1) the 

reserve system; (2) Matrix and Adaptive Management Area Standards and Guidelines; 

(3) provisions for species management under the Survey and Manage or Special Status 

Species Programs; (4) species range, distribution, and/or populations; (5) species life 

history and habitat needs; and, (6) number of known sites. Information from FEMAT; 

the Northwest Forest Plan Final SEIS; the 2000 Survey and Manage Final SEIS; the 2001, 

2002, and 2003 Annual Species Review; and the GeoBOB/ISMS database, along with 

the professional knowledge of taxa experts was used to make the determination. Since 

each species has different life histories, ranges, distributions, and habitat needs, it is 

impossible to devise a single set of precise thresholds for determining what constitutes a 

high risk. Determinations are based on the professional evaluation of experts and tend to 

be qualitative. The four potential outcomes used to inform management decisions are:

1. Habitat (including known sites) is sufficient to support stable populations in the 

Northwest Forest Plan area 

2. Habitat (including known sites) is sufficient to support stable populations range-wide

in the Northwest Forest Plan area, although there is insufficient habitat to support 

stable populations in a portion of the Northwest Forest Plan area.

3. Habitat (including known sites) is insufficient to support stable populations in the 

Northwest Forest Plan area.

4. There is insufficient information to determine an outcome.

The Oregon Natural Heritage Information Center - ORNHIC is part of the Oregon State 

University Institute for Natural Resources in the Research Office. Their mission is to 

identify the plant, animal, and ecological community resources of Oregon. As part of the 

Natural Heritage Network and NatureServe, the Oregon Natural Heritage Information 

Center contributes to an understanding of global biodiversity and provides tools for 

managers and the public to better protect vanishing species and communities.

Oregon Natural Heritage Program - The Oregon Natural Heritage Program is a 

cooperative, interagency effort to identify the animal and plant community resources of 

Oregon. The program is managed by the Oregon Natural Heritage Information Center, 

part of the Oregon State University’s Institute for Natural Resources, under a cooperative 

agreement with the Oregon Division of State Lands. The Natural Heritage Program was 

established by the Oregon Natural Heritage Act, and is overseen by the Natural Heritage 

Advisory Council, a board appointed by the Governor.
363

Glossary

Persistence (as in persistence objective for a species) - An abbreviated expression of the 

species management objectives for the Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines. 

Generally the persistence objective for vertebrates is based on the Forest Service viability 

provision in the regulations implementing NFMA. For non-vertebrates, it is a similar 

standard to the extent practicable. See “Species Persistence Objective” in the 2001 Survey 

and Manage Standards and Guidelines for more details. Use in the Standards and 

Guidelines such as “sites not needed for persistence” includes an understood “reasonable 

assurance of” or “to the extent practicable.”

Persistence (as in persistence at a site) - Continued occupancy by a species at a known site.

Physiographic province - A geographic area having a similar set of biophysical 

characteristics and processes due to effects of climate and geology that result in patterns 

of soils and broad-scale plant communities. Habitat patterns, wildlife distributions, and 

historical land use patterns may differ significantly from those of adjacent provinces 

(USDA, USDI 1994a). See Figure 1 in Appendix 1.

Planning area - All of the lands within a federal agency’s management boundary 

addressed in land management plans (USDA, USDI 1994a).

Practical surveys (relative to surveys prior to habitat-disturbing activities) - Surveys 

are practical if characteristics of the species (such as size, regular fruiting) and identifying 

features result in being able to reliably locate the species, if the species is present, 

within one or two field seasons and with a reasonable level of effort. Characteristics 

determining practicality of surveys include: individual species must be of sufficient 

size to be detectable; the species must be readily distinguishable in the field or with no 

more than simple laboratory or office examination for verification of identification; the 

species is recognizable, annually or predictably producing identifying structures; and the 

surveys must not pose a health or safety risk. See additional detail in the Standards and 

Guidelines, Appendix 1

Pre-disturbance surveys - see Surveys Prior to Habitat-Disturbing Activities.

Pre-project clearances - activities conducted to learn whether a species is present or 

potentially present in a geographic area. Pre-project clearances may include, but are not 

limited to, 

• clearance surveys; 

• field clearances; 

• field reconnaissance; 

• inventories; 

• habitat examinations; 

• habitat evaluation; 

• evaluation of species-habitat associations and presence of suitable or potential habitat; 

• review of existing survey records, inventories, and spatial data; 

• utilization of professional research, literature, and other technology transfer 

sources; or 

• use of expertise, both internal and external, that is based on documented, 

substantiated professional rationale.

Pre-project clearances are completed prior to habitat-disturbing activities to determine the 

presence of a species or its habitat and the effect of management actions on the species.
364

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Prescribed fire - Any fire ignited by management actions to meet specific objectives. A 

written, approved prescribed fire plan must exist, and NEPA requirements must be met, 

prior to ignition. 

Proposed species - Any plant or animal species that is proposed by the Fish and Wildlife 

Service or NOAA Fisheries in a Federal Register notice to be listed as threatened or 

endangered.

Proposive surveys - One type of landscape-scale or strategic survey, proposive surveys 

are focused searches conducted where taxa experts anticipate finding the target species. 

They are used to find sites of the rarest species, i.e. those that may not be picked up in 

random plots. Also referred to as purposive surveys. 

Provinces - Areas of common biological and physical processes. Unless otherwise stated, 

assumes the 12 Physiographic Provinces shown in Figure 1, Appendix 1.

Public Domain - The remnant 264 million acres (nation-wide) of the original federal 

lands after sales, homesteading, grants, designation as National Parks and Forests, 

and so forth, currently administered by the BLM under the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act (FLPMA), 1976. As opposed to O&C lands which were granted but 

re-vested by the O&C Act, which contains its own specific management requirements. 

FLPMA gives preference to the O&C Act in cases of conflicting direction.

Purposive surveys - see Proposive surveys.

Random Double Sample (RDS) - A two-phase random survey where a subset of the 

first-phase plots are randomly selected for more a detailed, or larger, examination. Used 

for red tree vole strategic surveys. 

Random Multi Species (RMS) Survey - A two-phase systematic random plot survey, 

stratified by forest age and reserve/non-reserve land allocation, done for most Survey and 

Manage species to provide information on species occurrence, distribution, range, and 

habitat, and refine habitat characterization. See broad-scale Strategic Surveys, Survey and 

Manage Standards and Guidelines, Appendix 1.

Range of the Northern Spotted Owl - Area generally comprised of lands in western 

portions of Washington, Oregon, and northern California (see Figure 1-1) 

(USDA, USDI 1994a).

Rare - A species is considered to be rare when there are a low number of extant known 

sites with low numbers of individuals present at each site and populations are not welldistributed within its natural range. “Low” numbers and “not well distributed” are 

relative terms that must be considered in the context of other criteria such as distribution 

of habitat, fecundity, and so forth. See complete list of criteria under “Relative Rarity” in 

Appendix 1.

Record (as applied in the GeoBOB/ISMS database) - A single database entry. There may 

be more than one record for a single location because the location was visited multiple 

times, the visit record was recorded more than once by multiple observers, or voucher 

specimens from the location were stored in several different locations.

Record of Decision - A document separate from, but associated with, an environmental 

impact statement that: (1) states the management decision; (2) states the reason for 

that decision; (3) identifies all alternatives including the environmentally preferable 

and selected alternatives; and (4) states whether all practicable measures to avoid 

environmental harm from the selected alternative have been adopted, and if not, why not 

(USDA, USDI 1994a).
365

Glossary

Reference distribution - Historic or inferred biological distribution pattern of a species 

(limited by historic potential) that serves as a baseline to compare current and future 

distribution. For purposes of this analysis, the reference distribution is considered to be 

“well distributed.”

Regeneration Harvest - Harvest of all or nearly all trees in mature stands and 

establishing a new stand (or major age group) by natural or artificial planting or seeding. 

As opposed to thinning or salvage harvests.

Regional Ecosystem Office (REO) - The office that provides staff work and support to 

facilitate decision making of the Regional Interagency Executive Committee (RIEC) and to 

prompt interagency issue resolution in support of implementing the Northwest Forest Plan 

Standards and Guidelines. The REO is also responsible for evaluating major modifications 

arising from the adaptive management process and coordinating the formulation and 

implementation of data standards. This office reports to the RIEC and is responsible for 

developing, evaluating, and resolving consistency and implementation issues with respect 

to specific topics under the Northwest Forest Plan (USDA, USDI 1994b).

Regional Interagency Executive Committee (RIEC) - This group consists of the Pacific 

Northwest federal agency heads of the Forest Service, BLM, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, NOAA Fisheries, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Environmental Protection Agency, 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Geological Survey (Biological Resource Division), 

Natural Resources Conservation Service, and the National Park Service. The RIEC 

serves as the senior regional entity to assure prompt, coordinated, and successful 

implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines.

Reserves - Congressionally Reserved Areas (such as Wilderness) and land allocations 

that were designated under the Northwest Forest Plan, including Late-Successional 

Reserves, Riparian Reserves, and Managed Late-Successional Areas. Reserves help to 

protect and enhance conditions of late-successional and old-growth forest ecosystems. 

Stand management actions are either prohibited or limited within these allocations. The 

likelihood of maintaining a connected, viable late-successional ecosystem was found to 

be directly related to the amount of late-successional forest in reserve status.

Responsible Official - The agency or department employee who has the delegated 

authority to make and implement a decision on a proposed action.

Riparian Reserves - Areas along live and intermittent streams, wetlands, ponds, lakes, 

and unstable and potentially unstable areas where riparian-dependent resources receive 

primary emphasis. Riparian Reserves are important to the terrestrial ecosystem as well, 

serving as dispersal habitat for certain terrestrial species (USDA, USDI 1994b).

Sensitive species - Those species that: (1) have appeared in the Federal Register as 

proposed for classification and are under consideration for official listing as endangered 

or threatened species; (2) are on an official state list; or, (3) are recognized by the 

implementing agencies as needing special management to prevent their being placed on 

federal or state lists (USDA, USDI 1994a).

Seral stages - The series of relatively transitory plant communities that develop during 

ecological succession from bare ground to the climax stage (USDA, USDI 1994a).

Site (as in occupied site) - The location where a specimen or population of the target 

species (taxonomic entity) was located, observed, or presumed to exist (occasionally used 

as a local option to pre-disturbance surveys for certain vertebrates) based on indicators 

described in the Survey Protocol or Management Recommendation. Also, the polygon 

described by connecting nearby or functionally contiguous detections at the same location.
366

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Site (as used in manage known sites) - The occupied site plus any buffer needed to 

maintain the habitat parameters described in the Management Recommendation.

Site management - Managing an occupied site to maintain the habitat elements needed 

to provide for persistence of the species at the site. Management may range from 

maintaining one or more habitat components such as down logs or canopy cover, up to 

complete exclusion from disturbance for many acres. Site management may allow loss of 

some individuals, areas, or elements not affecting continue site occupancy.

Skewness - Asymmetry in a frequency distribution.

South range (for arthropods) - The California Coast Range, the Oregon and California 

Klamath, and the California Cascades Physiographic Provinces (USDA, USDI 1994a:J-2 37).

Species - A class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities. In 

these Standards and Guidelines, synonymous with taxon, which may include subspecies, 

groups, or guilds.

Special Status Species - As used in this SEIS, the term “Special Status Species” refers 

only to the following species categories that are included under agency species 

conservation policies:

 Oregon/Washington BLM: Bureau Tracking, Bureau Assessment, and Bureau 

Sensitive (BLM Manual 6840; Instruction Memorandum No. OR-2003-054; and 

Instruction Memorandum No. OR-91-57).

 California BLM: Bureau Sensitive (BLM Manual 6840 and Manual Supplement 

6840.06, Plant Management).

 Forest Service Region 5: Sensitive (Forest Service Manual 2670).

 Forest Service Region 6: Sensitive (Forest Service Manual 2670).

Stable - A taxon that, over time, maintains population numbers, given inherent levels 

of population fluctuation and variability of habitats to which they are adapted. The 

species may become stable at a different population level than the current or (inferred) 

historical level.

Stand (tree stand) - An aggregation of trees occupying a specific area and sufficiently 

uniform in composition, age, arrangement, and condition to be distinguishable from the 

forest in adjoining areas (USDA, USDI 1994a).

Standards and guidelines - The rules and limits governing actions, as well as the 

principles specifying the environmental conditions or levels to be achieved and 

maintained (USDA, USDI 1994a).

Strategic Surveys - Survey and Manage surveys at the landscape, population, or sitespecific scale to address questions that relate to identified objectives for each category. 

May range from random plot surveys with broad statistical inference, to habitat-focused 

proposive surveys designed to locate species sites and confirm suspected habitats (v. predisturbance or clearance surveys).

 

Stochastic Event - random event, such as fire, landslide, hurricane, etc.

Substrate - Any object or material on which an organism grows or is attached 

(USDA, USDI 1994a).

Succession - A series of dynamic changes by which one group of organisms succeeds 

another through stages leading to a potential natural community or climax. An example 
367

Glossary

is development of a series of plant communities (called seral stages) following a major 

disturbance (USDA, USDI 1994a).

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) - As defined by the NEPA, 

a supplement to an existing Environmental Impact Statement is prepared when: (1) 

the agency makes substantial changes to the proposed action that are relevant to 

environmental concerns; (2) there are significant new circumstances or information 

relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts; or, 

(3) the agency determines that the purposes of NEPA would be furthered by doing so.

Survey and Manage - Mitigation measure adopted as a set of standards and guidelines 

within the Northwest Forest Plan Record of Decision and replaced with standards and 

guidelines in 2001 (Record of Decision) intended to mitigate impacts of land management 

efforts on those species that are closely associated with late-successional or old-growth 

forests whose long-term persistence is a concern. This mitigation measure applies to all 

land allocations and requires land managers to take certain actions relative to species 

of plants and animals, particularly some amphibians, bryophytes, lichens, mollusks, 

vascular plants, fungi, and arthropods, which are rare or about which little is known. 

These actions include: (1) manage known sites; (2) survey prior to habitat-disturbing 

activities; and, (3) conduct extensive and general regional (strategic) surveys.

Survey Protocol - Unless otherwise specified, Survey Protocols are for surveys prior to 

habitat-disturbing activities. These are interagency documents describing the survey 

techniques needed to have a reasonable chance of locating the species when it is present 

on the site, or needed to make an “equivalent-effort” of locating the species when it is 

present on the site. Survey Protocols also identify habitats needing surveys and may 

identify habitats or circumstances not needing surveys. Instructions for conducting 

strategic surveys may be prepared along with the Strategic Survey Implementation 

Guide and may be referred to as strategic survey protocols. 

Surveys Prior to Habitat-Disturbing Activities - Surveys conducted to determine if the 

species is present at a site proposed for habitat-disturbing activities. Includes “practical 

surveys” and “equivalent-effort surveys.” See additional detail in Appendix 1.

Taxa Expert - Taxa experts are scientists identified by interagency managers as the person 

responsible for taxonomic identification of specimens collected during field surveys, 

inventories, or incidental finds. The expert has advanced skills and/or education in 

the taxonomy, biology, ecology, and habitat needs as well as a strong knowledge and 

understanding of the research related to a species/taxa. Taxa experts provide scientific 

input in the preparation of management recommendations, surveys protocols, and 

during the annual species review.

Taxon - A category in the scientific classification system, such as a class, family, phylum, 

species, subspecies, or race.

Taxonomic entity - A unique species, subspecies, or variety.

Threatened species - Plant or animal species likely to become endangered throughout 

all or a significant portion of its range within the foreseeable future. A plant or animal 

identified and defined in accordance with the 1973 Endangered Species Act and 

published in the Federal Register (USDA, USDI 1994a).

Tracking species - A special status species category established by Oregon/Washington 

BLM. The purpose of tracking species is to enable an early warning for species which 

may become threatened or endangered in the future. BLM Districts in Oregon and 

Washington are encouraged to collect occurrence data on species for which more 

information is needed to determine status within the state or which no longer need active 
368

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

management. Until status of such species changes to federal or state listed, candidate or 

Assessment species, Tracking species will not be considered as special status species for 

management purposes.

Uncommon (species) - Species that do not meet the definition for rare, but where 

concerns for persistence remain. See criteria under “Relative Rarity” in Appendix 1.

Understory - The trees and other woody species growing under the canopies of larger 

adjacent trees and other woody growth (USDA, USDI 1994a).

Vascular plants - Plants that contain conducting or vascular tissue. They include seedbearing plants (flowering plants and trees) and spore-bearing plants (ferns, horsetails, 

and clubmosses). 

Vertebrate species - A species that has a backbone or spinal column (includes fish, 

amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals, all of which have a segmented bony or 

cartilaginous spinal column).

Viability - Ability of a wildlife or plant population to maintain sufficient size to persist 

over time in spite of normal fluctuations in numbers, usually expressed as a probability 

of maintaining a specific population for a specified period (USDA, USDI 1994a). 

Viability Provision - A provision contained in the National Forest System Land and 

Resource Management Planning Regulation of 1982, pursuant to the National Forest 

Management Act. This provision is found in 36 CFR 219.19 and reads as follows: “Fish 

and wildlife habitat shall be managed to maintain viable populations of existing 

native and desired non-native vertebrate species in the planning area. For planning 

purposes, a viable population shall be regarded as one which has the estimated 

numbers and distribution of reproductive individuals to insure its continued existence 

is well distributed in the planning area. In order to insure that viable populations will 

be maintained, habitat must be provided to support, at least, a minimum number 

of reproductive individuals and that habitat must be well distributed so that those 

individuals can interact with others in the planning area.”

Viable population - A wildlife or plant population that contains an adequate number 

of reproductive individuals appropriately distributed in the planning area to ensure the 

long-term existence of the species (USDA, USDI 1994a).

Voucher - a specimen of a plant or animal that is preserved and archived for long-term 

storage along with specific habitat, location, and, at times, identification information.

Well distributed - Distribution sufficient to permit normal biological function and 

species interactions, considering life history characteristics of the species and the habitats 

for which it is specifically adapted.

Wilderness - Areas designated by Congressional action under the 1964 Wilderness Act. 

Wilderness is defined as undeveloped federal land retaining its primeval character and 

influence without permanent improvements or human habitation. Wilderness areas are 

protected and managed to preserve their natural conditions, which generally appear to 

have been affected primarily by the forces of nature with the imprint of human activity 

substantially unnoticeable; have outstanding opportunities for solitude or for a primitive 

and confined type of recreation; include at least 5,000 acres or are of sufficient size to 

make practical their preservation, enjoyment, and use in an unimpaired condition; 

and may contain features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value as well as 

ecological and geologic interest (USDA, USDI 1994a).
369

Glossary

Wildland fire - Any non-structure fire, other than prescribed fire, that occurs in the 

wildland.

Wildland fire for resource benefits - A fire that results from natural ignition (i.e. 

lightning strike) and is permitted to burn because it is resulting in resource benefits, 

is consistent with the land and resource management plan, is consistent with the fire 

management plan, and is burning within prescription.

Xeric - Of, characterized by, or adapted to an extremely dry habitat.
370

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines
371

References

References

Some of the information cited below was obtained from internet sites by government 

agencies or other reliable sources. The internet citations (uniform resource locators 

or URLs) were accurate at the time the data was collected. However, websites change 

frequently due to changes in data availability or reorganization of information and the 

cited URLs may not work in the future. If this occurs, “backing up” to a less specific web 

address may allow retrieval of the information. 

Agee, James K. 1990. The historical role of fire in Pacific Northwest forests. In: Walstad, 

J.D., Radosevich, S.R., and Sandberg, D.V., editors. Natural and prescribed fire in Pacific 

Northwest forests. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press: 25-38.

Agee, James K. 1993. Fire ecology of Pacific Northwest forests. Washington, DC. Island 

Press. 493 p.

Agee, James K. 2001. GOBIG2K: An Analysis of Fire and Mollusk Species in California 

National Forests Covered by the Northwest Forest Plan. Klamath National Forest.

Agee, James K. and Carl N. Skinner. 2005. Basic principles of forest fuel reduction 

treatments. Article in Press. Forest Ecology and Management.

Alegria, J. Apple, C., and Turley, M. 2006. Species Intersection Probabilities. Draft.

Asquith, A., J.D. Lattin, and A.R. Moldenke. 1990. Arthropods: the invisible diversity. The 

Northwest Environmental Journal. 6(2):404-405.

Atzet, Thomas and Robert E. Martin. 1991. Natural disturbance regimes in the Klamath 

Province. In: Proceedings of the Symposium on Biodiversity of Northwestern California, 

October 28-30, 1991, Santa Rosa, CA. 

Aubry, Keith B., Mark J. Crites, and Stephen D. West. 1991. Regional patterns of small 

mammal abundance and community composition in Oregon and Washington. In 

Ruggiero, Leonard F., Keith B. Aubry, Andrew B. Carey, and Mark H. Huff, Wildlife and 

Vegetation of unmanaged Douglas-fir forests. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-285. Portland OR. 

Baker, Dave (ed). 2003. Implementation Monitoring. 2002 Annual Summary Report. 

Watershed Scale Assessment and Project Review of Compliance with Northwest Forest 

Plan Direction. March 2003.

Baker, W.L., T. T. Veblen, and R. L. Sheriff. 2006. Fire, fuels and restoration of ponderosa 

pine–Douglas fir forests in the Rocky Mountains, USA. Journal of Biogeography.

Baker, William L. 2006. Fire and restoration of sagebrush ecosystems. Wildlife Society 

Bulletin. 34(1): 177-185.

Beaty, R. Matthew and Alan H. Taylor. 2001. Spatial and temporal variation of fire 

regimes in a mixed conifer forest landscape, Southern Cascades, California, USA. Journal 

of Biogeography. 28(8): 955-966.

Bellinger, M. Renee, Susan M. Haig, Eric D. Forsman, and Thomas D. Mullins. 2005. 

Taxonomic relationships among Phenacomys voles inferred by cytochrome-b. Journal 

of Mammalogy.
372

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Biek, Roman, Funk, W. Chris, Maxell, Bryce A. & Mills, L. Scott. 2002. What Is Missing in 

Amphibian Decline Research: Insights from Ecological Sensitivity Analysis. Conservation 

Biology 16 (3), 728-734.doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.00433.x

Bingham, R. 2004. The phylogeography of Hydromantes shastae. On file with: Regional 

Ecosystem Office, P.O. Box 3623, Portland Oregon 97208. 4 pp

Bingham, R. 2006. Abstract: The phylogeography of Hydromantes shastae. Declining 

Amphibian Populations Task Force (DAPTF) California-Nevada Working Group.

Black, Hugh L. Data on file at Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 

Corvallis Forestry Sciences Lab. Corvallis, Oregon.

Blaustein, A.R., J.J. Beatty, D.H. Olson, and R.M. Storm. 1995. The Biology of amphibians 

and reptiles in old-growth forests in the Pacific Northwest. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR337. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, PNW. 98 p.

Blow, Mike. 2006. Personal communication. Notes contained in the 2004 FSEIS 

Administrative Record

Bogener, David J., and Paul Brouha. 1979. Comprehensive species management plan: 

Shasta salamander, Hydromantes shastae. Shasta-Trinity National Forest Report. Shasta 

Lake Ranger District. 36 p.

Brown, J.K. 1995. Fire regimes and their relevance to ecosystem management. In: 

Proceedings of Society of American Foresters National Convention, Sept. 18-22, 1994. 

Anchorage, AK: Society of American Foresters, Washington, DC: 171-178.

Brown, Richard T., James K. Agee, and Jerry F. Franklin. 2004. Forest restoration and 

fire: Principles in the context of place. Conservation Biology. 18(4): 903 – 912.

Bull, E.L., and M.G. Henjum. 1990. Ecology of the great gray owl . Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-265. Portland, OR. USDA Forest Service, PNW Res. Stn. 39 pp. http://www.fs.fed.

us/pnw/pubs/gtr265/gtr265.pdf

Camann, M.A., K.L. Lamoncha, and N.G. Rappaport. 2002. Intermediate duration effects 

of prescribed fire upon acarine community structure in the southern Cascade Range of 

California, USA. Submitted to Pedobiologia. 

Carey, A. B. 1991. The biology of arboreal rodents in Douglas-fir forests. USDA Forest 

Service. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-276. Pacific Northwest Research Station. 

Portland, Oregon.

Carey, A.B. 1996. Interactions of Northwest forest canopies and arboreal mammals. 

Northwest Science. 70:72-78.

Carey, A.B. 2000. Effects of new forest management strategies on squirrel populations. 

Ecol. Appl. 10: 248-257.

Carey, A.B., D.R. Thysell, and A. Brodie. 1999. The forest ecosystem study: background, 

rationale, implementation, baseline conditions, and silvicultural assessment. USDA 

Forest Service. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-457. Pacific Northwest Research 

Station. Portland, Oregon.
373

References

Castellano, M.A., Cazares, E., Fondrick, B., and Dreisbach, T. 2003. Handbook to 

additional fungal species of special concern in the Northwest Forest Plan. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. PNW-GTR-572. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station. 144 pp.

CDFG. 2004. Draft Status Review: Siskiyou Mountains Salamander (Plethodon stormi). 

California Department of Fish and Game, February 27, 2004. CDFG, Redding, 

California. 18 p.

CDFG. 2005. Petition to de-list Siskiyou Mountains Salamander (Plethodon stormi). 

California Department of Fish and Game, CDFG, Redding, California. 47 p.

Clayton, D.R., D.H. Olson, and R.S. Nauman. 2005. Conservation assessment for the 

Siskiyou Mountains salamander (Plethodon stormi), Version 1.3. USDA Forest Service, 

Region 6, and USDI Bureau of Land Management, Oregon, Interagecy Special-Status and 

Sensitive Species Program. Portland, OR. 

Available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/

Clifton, P. L. 1960. Biology and life history of the dusky tree mouse Phenacomys silvicola

(Howell). Walla Walla College, Washington. M.S. Thesis.

Cochran WG. 1977. Sampling Techniques 3rd edition, John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Cohen, Jack D. 1991. A site-specific approach for assessing the fire risk to structures 

at the wildland/urban interface. pp. 252-256 in: Nodvin, Stephen C., Waldrop, Thomas 

A., eds. Proceedings of fire and the environment: Ecological and cultural perspectives 

international symposium, 1990 March 20-24, Knoxville, TN. Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-GTR-69. 

Asheville, NC: USDA Forest Service Southeastern For. Exp. Sta.

Cohen, Jack D. and P. Wilson. 1995. Current results from Structure Ignition Assessment 

Model (SIAM) research. In: Tymstra, Cordy, ed. Proceedings of fire management in the 

wildland/urban interface: Sharing solutions symposium, October 2-4, 1994, Kananaskis 

Village, AB, Canada. Edmonton, AB: Partners in Protection: 120-132.

Cohen, J., and J. Saveland. 1997. Structure ignition assessment can help reduce fire 

damages in the W-UI. Fire Management Notes 57(4): 19-23.

Courtney, S.P., J.A. Blakesley, R.E. Bigley, M.L. Cody, J.P. Dumbacher, R.C. Fleischer, A.B. 

Franklin, J.F. Franklin, R.J. Gutiérrez, J.M. Marzluff, and L. Sztukowski. 2004. Scientific 

evaluation of the status of the Northern Spotted Owl. Sustainable Ecosystems Institute, 

Portland, Oregon. Prepared for the US Fish and Wildlife Service in their 5-year status 

review process. http://mtpi.sei.org/owl/finalreport/OwlFinalReport.pdf

Cram, Douglas S.; Baker, Terrell T.; Boren, Jon C. 2006. Wildland fire effects in 

silviculturally treated vs. untreated stands of New Mexico and Arizona. Research Paper 

RMRS-RP-55. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station. 28 p.

DeGross, D.J. 2004. Gene flow and the relationship of Plethodon stormi and P. elongatus

assessed with 11 Novel Microsatellite Loci. M. S. Thesis, Oregon State University, 

Corvallis. 53 pp.

DeGross, D.J., Arnold, S.J., Mead, L.S., Nauman, R.S., and Olson, D.H. 2006. Draft. 

Assesing gene flow and relatedness of the closely related species, Plethodon elongatus and 

P. stormi, along a contact zone. On file with: Regional Ecosystem Office, P.O. Box 3623, 

Portland Oregon 97208. 30 pp.
374

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

DellaSala DA, Williams JE, Williams CD, Franklin JF (2004) Beyond smoke and mirrors: A 

synthesis of fire policy and science. Conservation Biology 18, 976-986.

Derr, Chiska C. 1998. Transplanting and monitoring the aquatic lichen Hydrothyria venosa.

Proceedings at the Northwest Scientific Association and the American Bryological and 

Lichenological Society meetings in San Juan, Puerto Rico.

Diller, LV., Wallace, RL. 1994. Distribution and habitat of Plethodon elongatus on managed, 

young growth forests in north coastal California. Journal of Herpetology Vol. 28, no. 3, 

pp. 310-318.

DNR (Washington Department of Natural Resources), Washington State Department 

of Fish and Wildlife, Washington State Department of Ecology, USDI Fish and Wildlife 

Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, and the Environmental Protection Agency 

(Region 10). Forests and Fish Report. 1999. 

http://www.dnr.wa.gov/forestpractices/rules/forestsandfish.pdf

Dominick A. DellaSalla, Greg Nagle, James R. Karr, Rich Fairbanks, Dennis Odion, Jack 

E. Williams, Chris Frissel, and Timothy Ingalsbee. 2006. The Facts and Myths of PostFire Management: A Case Study of the Biscuit Fire, Southwestern Oregon. Unpub. report 

available online at http://forestpress.mediatools.org/objects/view.acs?object_id=8139

Dunk, J. R. Zielinski, W. J. West, K. Schmidt, K. Baldwin, J.; Perrochet, J. Schlick, K. Ford, 

J. 2002. Distributions of Rare Mollusks Relative to Reserved Lands in Northern California. 

NORTHWEST SCIENCE. 2002, VOL 76; PART 3, pages 249-256

Dunk, J.R., W. J. Zielinski, and H.K. Preisler. 2004. Predicting the occurrence of rare 

mollusks in northern California forests. Ecol. Applic. Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 713-729.

Dunk, Jeffrey R., William J. Zielinski, Hartwell H. Welsh Jr (2006) Evaluating reserves for 

species richness and representation in northern California. Diversity and Distributions 12 

(4), 434–442. doi:10.1111/j.1366-9516.2006.00263.x

Dunk, J. R., and J. J.V.G. Hawley 2007. Red tree vole habitat and reserve associations 

in Oregon and northern California. Unpubl. report submitted to USDA Forest Service, 

Portland, Oregon.

Edwards, T.C. Jr., D.R. Cutler, L. Geiser, J. Alegria, and D. McKenzie. 2002. Assessing 

rarity and seral stage association of species with low detectability: lichens in Western 

Oregon and Washington forests. In press, Ecological Applications.

Elmqvist T, Folke C, and Nyström M. et al. 2003. Response diversity, ecosystem change, 

and resilience. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 1: 488–94. 

Farber, S., R. Hawkins, and J. Whitaker. 2001. Habitat relationships of Siskiyou Mountain 

salamander (Plethodon stormi) on Timber Products forestlands in northern California. 

Report prepared for the California Department of Fish and Game during their status 

review of the Siskiyou Mountain salamander. December 15, 2001. Timber Products 

Company, Timberlands Office, 130 Phillipe Lane, Yreka, CA. 23 p.

Fettig, Christopher J.; Klepzig, Kier D.; Billings, Robert F.; Munson, Steven A.; Nebeker, 

T. Evan; Negron, Jose F.; Nowak, John T. 2007. The effectiveness of stand management 

practices for prevention and control of bark beetle infestations in coniferous forests of the 

western and southern United States. Forest Ecology and Management 238: 

Finney, Mark A. 2005. Spatial strategies for landscape fuel treatments. Rocky Mountain 

Research Station, Fire Science Laboratory, Missoula, Montana.
375

References

Fish, William. 2006. Personal communication. Fuels management specialist. Region and 

State office, Forest Service and BLM.

Fites, Jo Ann; Henson, Carol. 2004. Real-time evaluation of effects of fuel treatments 

and other previous land management activities on fire behavior during wildfires. Final 

Report of the Joint Fire Science Rapid Response Project. Available at http://www.

firescience.gov. 13 p.

Flannigan, M.D., B.J. Stocks, and B.M. Wotton. 2000. Climate change and forest fires. 

Science Total Environment. 262(3): 221-229.

Forsman and Swingle unpublished data. Data on file at Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station, Corvallis Forestry Sciences Lab. Corvallis, Oregon.

Forsman, E. unpublished data. The presence of tree vole skulls in pellets of spotted owls 

indicates that tree voles are still present on some federally managed lands in northern 

Oregon Coast Range. Data on file at Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 

Corvallis Forestry Sciences Lab. Corvallis, Oregon.

Forsman, E. D., E. C. Meslow, H. M. Wight 1984. Distribution and biology of the Spotted 

Owl in Oregon. Wildl. Monogr. 87.

Forsman, E. D., R. G. Anthony, and C. J. Zabel. 2004. Distribution and abundance of red 

tree voles in Oregon based on occurrence in pellets of northern spotted owls. Northwest 

Science 78:294-302.

Frest, J.T. and E.J. Johannes. 2000. A baseline survey of southwestern Oregon, with 

emphasis on the Rogue and Umpqua River drainages. Year 2000 Report prepared for 

Oregon Natural Heritage Program, Portland, Oregon. 403 pp.

Frost, E.J. and R. Sweeney. 2000. Fire regimes, fire history and forest conditions in the 

Klamath-Siskiyou region: An overview and synthesis-of-knowledge. Published by World 

Wildlife Fund, Klamath-Siskiyou regional program office, Ashland, OR. Available on-line 

at: http://www.worldwildlife.org/klamathsiskiyou/WPbibliography.html.

Geiser, L.H., K.L. Dillman, C.C. Derr, and M.C. Stensvold. 1998. Lichens and allied fungi 

of southeast Alaska. In: Lichenographia Thomsoniana: North American lichenology 

in honor of John W. Thomson. Eds: M.G. Glenn, R.C. Harris, R. Dirig, and M.S. Cole. 

Mycotaxon Ltd., Ithaca, NY.

Geiser, L.H., Glavich, D.A., Mikulin, A.G., Ingersoll, A.R., Hutten, M. 2004. New records 

of rare and unusual coastal lichens from the US Pacific Northwest. Evansia 21(3): 104-110.

Geiser, L.H.; Neitlich, P.N. 2006. Air pollution and climate gradients in western Oregon 

and Washington indicated by epiphytic macrolichens. Environmental Pollution (In Press).

Geographic Biotic Observations / Interagency Species Management System databases. 

2006. For species removed during the 2001, 2002, or 2003 ASR, the data cutoff dae was 

11/22/06. For all other species, the data cutoff was 9/29/06

Giachini, A. 2004. Systematics, phylogeny, and ecology of Gomphus sensu lato. Ph.D. 

thesis, Oregon State University, 466 pp. (Available from University Microfilms)

Glavich, D., L.H. Geiser, and A.G. Mikulin. 2002. Assessment of the old-growth forest 

association and habitat requirements of federally listed coastal lichens from northern 

California, Oregon and Washington, USA. Draft V. 1.1.
376

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Glavich, D.A. and L.H. Geiser. 2004. Dermatocarpon meiophyllizum Vainio in the Pacific 

Northwest. Evansia 21(3): 137-140.

Glavich, D.A., Geiser, L.H., Mikulin, G.A. 2005a. The distribution of some rare coastal 

lichens in the Pacific Northwest and their association with late-seral and federallyprotected forests. The Bryologist 108(2): 241-254.

Glavich, D.A., L.H. Geiser and A. G. Mikulin. 2005b. Rare epiphytic coastal lichen habitats, 

modeling, and management in the Pacific Northwest. The Bryologist 108(3): 377-390.

Glavich, D.A., Turley, M., Ponzetti, J., Lebo, D. 2006. Random Multi-Species Surveys for 

Lichens in the Pacific Northwest. Draft Report. 4/14/06.

Glavich, D.A. 2006. Distribution, Frequency, and Habitats of Three Aquatic Lichens in 

the Pacific Northwest. Draft Manuscript for submission to The Bryologist.

Glavich, D.A. and L.H. Geiser. 2007. New Records of Leptogium rivale and Peltigera 

hydrothyria in the US Pacific Northwest. Evansia: In Press.

Gorman, James. 2003. How a forest stopped a fire in its tracks – Oregon forest shows 

benefit of thinning and burning. Montana Associated Technology Roundtables 

(http://www.matr.net/article-7499.html).

Govindarajulu Z. 1999. Elements of Sampling Theory and Methods. Prentice-Hall, Inc. 

Upper Saddle River, New Jersey. 416 p.

Goward, T., B. McCune, and D. Meidinger. 1994. The lichens of British Columbia. 

Illustrated keys. Part 1: Foliose and Squamulose Species. Ministry of Forests Research 

Program, Victoria, BC. 181 p.

Graham, R.T., McCaffrey, S., Jain, T.B., 2003. Science Basis for Changing Forest Structure 

to Modify Wildfire Behavior and Severity. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep., RMRS-120. 

Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ogden, UT, 43 pp. 

Graham, Russell T. 2003. Hayman Fire case study. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-114. 

Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station. 396 p.

Graham, Russell T. and Sarah McCaffrey. 2004. Influence of forest structure on wildfire 

behavior and the severity of its effects: An overview. USDA, Forest Service. May 2003.

Green, RG, and RC Young. 1993. Sampling to detect rare species. Ecological Applications. 

3 (2): 351-356.

Gregoire TG. 1998. Design-based and model-based inference in survey sampling: 

appreciating the difference, Canadian Journal of Forestry 28:1429-1447.

Groves, C.R. 2003. Drafting a conservation blueprint. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Guttová, A. 2000. Three Leptogium species new to Europe. Lichenologist 32: 291-303

Hallinback, Tomas. 1998. The new IUCN threat categories tested on Swedish bryophytes. 

Lindbergia 23: 13-27.

Halpern, Charles B. and Thomas A. Spies Plant Species Diversity in Natural and 

Managed Forests of the Pacific Northwest Ecological Applications, Vol. 5, No. 4 (Nov., 

1995), pp. 913-934
377

References

Hamilton, Jason G.; DeLucia, Evan H.; George, Kate; Naidu, Shawna L.; Fina, Adrien C.; 

Schlesinger, William H. 2004. Forest carbon balance under elevated CO2. Oecologica 

131(2): 250-260.

Hann, Wendel J. and David L. Bunnell. 2001. Fire and land management planning and 

implementation across multiple scales. Int. J. Wildland Fire. 10(3&4): 389-403.

Hann, Wendel J. and Diane J. Strohm. 2003. Fire regime condition class and associated 

data for fire and fuels planning: methods and applications: 337-443. In: Omi, Philip N. 

and Linda A. Joyce, technical editors. Fire, fuel treatments, and ecological restoration: 

Conference proceedings, April 16-18, 2002. Fort Collins, CO. Proceedings RMRS-P29. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station. 475 p.

Hann, Wendel J., D. Havlina, A. Shlisky, et al. 2005. Fire Regime Condition Class 

handbook Ver. 1.2. USDA Forest Service, US Department of the Interior, The Nature 

Conservancy, and Systems for Environmental Management website http://frcc.gov.

Harbert, S.. 2006. Personal communication. Fuels management specialist. Region and 

State office, Forest Service and BLM.

Hardy, C., Schmidt, K. M., Menakis, J.P., Hann, W. J., Bunnell, DL., 2002, Development 

of Coarse-Scale Spatial Data for Wildand Fire and Fuel Management. GTB. #RNMRS-87, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station, USDA Forest Service, Fort Collins CO

Harmon, M.E., and C. Hua. 1991. Coarse woody debris dynamics in two old-growth 

ecosystems. Bioscience 41: 604-610.

Harpel, Judith. 2003. Personal Communication. Discussion of habitat requirements for the 

bryophyte species Racomitrium aquaticum and Schistostega pennata. Regional Interagency 

Bryologist, USDA Forest Service and USDI BLM. January 10, 2003.

Hawksworth, D.L. 1991. The fungal dimension of biodiversity: magnitude, significance, 

and conservation. Mycological Research. 95:641-655.

Hayes, J.P. 1996. Arborimus longicaudus. Mammalian Species 532:1-5

Haynes, Richard W.; Bormann, Bernard T.; Lee, Danny C.; Martin, Jon R., tech. 

eds. 2006. Northwest Forest Plan—the first 10 years (1994-2003): synthesis of monitoring 

and research results. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-651. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 292 p..

Hayward, G.D., and J.V. Verner. 1994. Flammulated, Boreal, and Great Gray Owls in the 

United States: A Technical Conservation Assessment. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. 

Rep. RM-253. 213 p.

Healthy Forests http://www.healthyforests.gov/ and http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/

healthyforests/

Heiðmarsson, S. 2001. The genus Dermatocarpon (Verrucariales, lichenized 

Ascomycotina) in the Nordic countries. Nordic Journal of Botany 20(5): 605-638.

Herrington, R.E., and J.H. Larsen, Jr. 1985. The current status, habitat requirements and 

management of the Larch Mountain salamander. Biological Conservation. 34:169-179.
378

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Hershler, R., and D.W. Sada. 1987. Springsnails (Gastropoda: Hydrobiidae) of Ash 

Meadows, Amargosa Basin, California-Nevada. Proceedings of the Biological Society of 

Washington 100: 776-843.

Hershler, R., and T.J. Frest. 1996. A Review of the North American freshwater snail genus 

Fluminicola (Hydrobiidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 583: 1-41.

Hershler, R., S.-P. Liu, T.J. Frest and E.J. Johannes. In press. Extensive diversification 

of pebblesnails (Lithoglyphidae: Fluminicola) in the upper Sacramento River basin, 

northwestern United State. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society of London.

Hessburg, P. F., R. B. Salter, and K. M. James. 2005. Evidence for the extent of mixedseverity fires in pre-management era dry forests of the Inland Northwest, USA. Pages 

89-104 in L. Taylor, J. Zelnick, S. Cadwallader, and B. Hughes, editors. Proceedings of 

the symposium on Mixed-Severity Fire Regimes: Ecology and Management, Spokane, 

Washington, November 17-19, 2004. The Association for Fire Ecology, Miscellaneous 

Publication 3. Davis, CA, USA.

Houghton, R.A.; Hackler, J.L.; Lawrence, K.T. 2000. Changes in terrestrial carbon 

storage in the United States. 2: The role of fire and fire management. Global Ecology and 

Biogeography 9(2): 145-170.

Houghton, R.A. 2003. Revised estimates of the annual net flux of carbon to the atmosphere 

from changes in land use and land management 1850-2000. Tellus B 55(2): 378-390.

Howell, A. B. 1926. Voles of the genus Phenacomys. USDA Bureau of Biological Survey, 

North American Fauna No. 48. 

Huff, M., J. Henshaw, and E. Laws. 1996. Great gray owl survey status and evaluation of 

guidelines for the Northwest Forest Plan. 47 p.

Hunter, M.L., Jr. 1991. Coping with ignorance: the coarse-filter strategy for maintaining 

biological diversity. pp. 266-281 in K. Kohm, ed. Balancing on the brink of extinction. 

Washington, DC: Island Press

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Climate change 2007: 

the physical science basis – summary for policy makers. Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC 

Secretariat. 18 p.

Iverson, C. 2001. Coarse filter/fine filter planning approaches to the conservation of 

biological diversity. Washington, DC: USDA For. Serv. Unpub. Rep., on the web at http://

www.fs.fed.us/emc/nfma/includes/coursefilter.pdf, 4 pp.

Jackson County et al. Jackson County Integrated Fire Plan. In prep. 

http://www.co.jackson.or.us/Page.asp?NavID=1864

Jiang, H., J. R. Strittholt, P. A. Frost, and N. C. Slosser. 2004. The classification of late seral 

forests in the Pacific Northwest, USA using Landsat ETM+ imagery. Remote Sensing and 

Environment 91:320–331.

Johnson, D. H. and T. A. O’Neil. 2001. Wildlife-Habitat Relationships in Oregon and 

Washington. OSU Press. 

Johnson, K.N., S. Crim, K. Barber, M. Howell, and C. Cadwell. 1993. Sustainable harvest 

levels and short-term timber sales for options considered in the Report of the Forest 

Ecosystem Management Assessment Team: methods, results, and interpretations. On file 

with: Regional Ecosystem Office, P.O. Box 3623, Portland, Oregon 97208. 102 p.
379

References

Jörgensen, P.M. 2000. Survey of the lichen family Pannariaceae on the American 

continent, north of Mexico. The Bryologist. 103:670-704.

Josephine County et al. Josephine County Integrated Fire Plan. 2004. 

http://www.co.josephine.or.us/sectionindex.asp?sectionid=158

Karraker, N.E. and H.H. Welsh, Jr. 2006 Long-term impacts of even-aged timber 

management on abundance and body condition of terrestrial amphibians in 

Northwestern California. Biological Conservation 131 (1), 132-140 .doi: doi:10.1016/

j.biocon.2006.02.013

Kauffman, J. Boone. 1990. Ecological relationships of vegetation and fire in Pacific 

Northwest forests. In: Walstad, J.D., Radosevich, S.R., and Sandberg, D.V., editors. 

Natural and prescribed fire in Pacific Northwest forests. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State 

University Press: 39-52.

Kaufmann, Merrill R., Ayn Shlisky, and Peter Marchand. 2005. Good fire, bad fire: how 

to think about forest management and ecological processes.

Kaye, T. 1999. Timber harvest and Cypripedium montanum: Results of a long-term study on 

the Medford District BLM. Institute for Applied Ecology. Corvallis, Oregon. Unpublished 

report. 25 pp.

Keon, D.B., and P.S. Muir. 2002. Growth of Usnea longissima across a variety of habitats in 

the Oregon Coast Range. The Bryologist. 105:233-242.

Knapp, Shannon M., Carola A. Hass, Douglas N. Harpole, and Roy L. Kirkpatrick. 

2003. Initial Effects of Clearcutting and Alternative Silvicultural Practices on Terrestrial 

Salamander Abundance. Conservation Biology. 17(3): 752-762.

Krupka, Jeff, P. Garvey-Darda, David Darda, Colin Leingang. 2006. Distribution, 

Abundance, and Habitat Associaition of the Larch Mountain Salamander (Plethodon 

larselli) in the Eastern Washington Cascades.

LaLande, Jeff. 2003. Review Essay: Native Americans and fire. Pacific Historical 

Review. 72(4): 617-622.

LANDFIRE. 2006. http://www.landfire.gov/

Lattin, J.D., and A.R. Moldenke. 1992. Ecologically sensitive invertebrate taxa of Pacific 

Northwest old-growth conifer forests. Report to the Northern Spotted Owl Recovery 

Team on the Other Species and Ecosystems Committee. USDI. Portland, Oregon. 42 p. 

+figures.

Law, B.E.; Thorton, P.E.; Irvine, J.; Anthoni, P.M.; Van Tuyl, S. 2001. Carbon storage and 

fluxes in ponderosa pine at different developmental stages. Global Change Biology 7(7): 

755-777.

Law, B.E.; Sun, O.J.; Campbell, J.; Van Tuyl, S.; Thorton, P.E. 2003. Changes in carbon 

storage and fluxes in a chronosequence of ponderosa pine. Global Change Biology 9(4): 

510-524.

Lesher, R.D. 2002. Personal communication. Ecologist. Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National 

Forest. Mountlake Terrace, Washington.

Lesher, R.D., Derr, C.C. and Geiser, L.H. 2003. Natural history and management 

considerations for Northwest Forest Plan Survey and Manage lichens based on 
380

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Information as of the year 2000. 2003. US Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Region Technical Publication R6-NR-S&M-TP-03-03.

Leung, L.R.; Qian, Y.; Bian, X.; Washington, W.W.; Han, J.; Roads, J.D. 2004. Mid-century 

ensemble regional climate change scenarios for the western United States. Climatic 

Change 62: 75-113.

Lewendal, Peter. 1995. Habitat-use by the Shasta salamander Hydromantes shastae. Report 

to: California Department of Fish and Game. Redding, California. 32 pp.

Lindstrand, Len, III. 2000. Discovery of Shasta salamanders in atypical habitat. California 

Fish and Game. 86(4): 259-261. 

Loreau, M., S. Naeem, P. Inchausti, J. Bengtsson, J. P. Grime, A. Hector, D. U. Hooper, M. 

A. Huston, D. Raffaelli, B. Schmid, D. Tilman, and D. A. Wardle. 2001. Biodiversity and 

ecosystem functioning: Current knowledge and future challenges. Science 294:804-808.

Luck, GW, Daily, GC, and P.R. Ehrlich. 2003. Population diversity and ecosystem services. 

Trends Ecol. Evol. 18:331–36

Lyons, K.G., Brigham, C.A., Traut, B.H., and Schwartz, M.W. 2005. Rare Species and 

Ecosystem Functioning. Conservation Biology Volume 19, no. 4: 1019-1024

Macdonald, Catherine, Steven Buttrick, and Michael Schindel. 2006. The condition of 

Oregon’s forests and woodlands: Implications for the effective conservation of biodiversity.

Madson, S.L. 2003. Response of soil microarthropods and microclimatic conditions 

to two-age regeneration in hardwood forests in the southern Appalachians. Doctoral 

Thesis, University of Georgia, Corvallis. References Wallwork 1970 and Norton 1990

Mahoney, Meredith J. 2004. Molecular systematics and phylogeography of the Plethodon 

elongatus species group: combining phylogenetic and population genetic methods to 

investigate species history. Molecular Ecology.

Makundi, Willy R. 1997. Global climate change mitigation and sustainable forest 

management – the challenge of monitoring and verification. Mitigation and Adaptation 

Strategies for Global Change. 2(2-3): 133-155. 

Maser, C.O. 1966. Life histories and ecology of Phenacomys albipes, Phenacomys longicaudus, 

Phenacomys silvicola. Oregon State University. Corvallis, Oregon. M.S. Thesis.

Maser, C., B. R. Mate, J. F. Franklin, and C. T. Dyrness. 1981. Natural history of Oregon 

coast mammals. USDA Forest Service. General Technical Report PNW-133. Pacific 

Northwest Research Station. Portland, Oregon. 

McCann, K.S. 2000. The diversity-stability debate. Nature 405:228-233 (11 May 2000)

McCune, B., and L. Geiser. 1997. Macrolichens of the Pacific Northwest. Oregon State 

University Press. Corvallis, Oregon. 386 pp.

McCune, B., R. Rosentreter, and A. DeBolt. 1997. Biogeography of rare lichens from 

the coast of Oregon. pp. 234-241. In: T.N. Kaye, A. Liston, R.M. Love, D.L. Luoma, R.J. 

Meinke, and M.V. Wilson (eds.). Conservation and management of native plants and 

fungi. Native Plant Society of Oregon. Corvallis, Oregon. 296 pp.

McHenry, G., and T. Tonsberg. 2002. Heterodermia sitchensis found in Oregon, U.S.A. 

Evansia. 19:158-160.
381

References

McKenzie, Donald, et al. 2004. Climate change, wildfire, and conservation. 

Conservation Biology. 18(4): 890-902

McShane, C. 2003. Cold Water Corydalis Draft Report: Clackamas River Hydroelectric 

Project. Unpublished report. On file with: Regional Ecosystem Office, P.O. Box 3623, 

Portland Oregon 97208. 35 pp

Mead, L.S., Clayton, D.R., Nauman, R.S., Olson, D.H., and Pfrender, M.E. 2005. Newly 

discovered populations of salamanders from Siskiyou County California represent a 

species distinct from Plethodon stormi. Herpetologica 61, No 2: 158-177

Mead, L. 2006. Plethodon salamanders of the Applegate, Klamath and Scott River areas: 

Report on genetic variation and species status. Unpublished report. On file with: 

Regional Ecosystem Office, P.O. Box 3623, Portland Oregon 97208. 27 pp

Mellon-McLean, K., Johnson, T., and Craig, D. 2006. Red Tree Vole Status Review - 

Report to the IMG. Step 2 Worksheet.

Miadlikowska, J., B. McCune, and F. Lutzoni. 2002. Pseudocyphellaria perpetua, a new 

lichen from Western North America. The Bryologist. 105: 1-10

Miller, C. Wildland fire use: a wilderness perspective on fuel management. 2003. 

Omi, PN, and Joyce, LA, tech. eds. Fire, fuel treatments, and ecological restoration: 

Conference proceedings

Miller, M. P., M. R. Bellinger, E. D. Forsman, and S. M. Haig. 2006. Effects of 

historical climate change, habitat connectivity, and vicariance on genetic structure and 

diversity across the range of the red tree vole (Phenacomys longicaudus) in the Pacific 

Northwestern United States. Molecular Ecology 15:145-159.

Moeur, Melinda; Spies, Thomas A.; Hemstrom, Miles; Martin, Jon R.; Alegria, James; 

Browning, Julie; Cissel, John; Cohen, Warren B.; DeMeo, Thomas E.; Healey, Sean; 

Warbington, Ralph. 2005. Northwest Forest Plan–The first 10 years (1994-2003): status 

and trend of late-successional and old-growth forest. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-646. 

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station. 142 pp.

Molina, R., D. McKenzie, R. Lesher, J. Ford, J. Alegria, and R. Culter. 2003. Strategic 

Survey Framework for the Northwest Forest Plan Survey and Manage Program. Pacific 

Northwest Research Center. 34 pp

Molina, R., Marcot, B.G., Lesher, R. 2006. Protecting Rare, Old-Growth, Forest Associated 

Species under the Survey and Manage Program Guidelines of the Northwest Forest Plan. 

Conservation Biology 20, No 2: 206-318

Mote, P.W. and 10 co-authors, 2003. Preparing for climatic change: the water, salmon, and 

forests of the Pacific Northwest. Climatic Change 61, 45-88.

Mote, P.; Salathé, E.; Peacock, C. 2005. Scenarios of future climate for the Pacific 

Northwest. Seattle, WA: University of Washington, Climate Impacts Group. 11pp.

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie NF Ecology Program data files. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/air/documents/dataset.pdf
382

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Muir P.S., Mattingly R.L., Tappeiner II J.C., Bailey J.D, Elliot W.E., Hagar J.C., Miller J.C., 

Peterson E.B. 2002. Managing for biodiversity in young Douglas-fir forests of western 

Oregon. Corvallis, OR: U.S. Geological Survey, Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science 

Center Biological Sciences Report USGS/BRD/BSR-2002–0006. 76 ppp

Muotka, T. and Laasonen, P. 2002. Ecosystem recovery in restored headwater streams: the 

role of enhanced leaf retention. Journal of Applied Ecology 39: 145-156

National Fire Plan (NFP). 2000. http://www.fireplan.gov/

Nauman, Richard S., and Deanna H. Olson. 1999. Survey and Manage salamander known 

sites. Chapter II, pp. 43-78. In: Olson, D.H. (ed.), Survey protocols for amphibians under 

the Survey and Manage provision of the Northwest Forest Plan, Version 3.0. Regional 

Ecosystem Office, Portland, Oregon. Interagency Publication 1920/2600 (FS)/1736-PFP 

(BLM)(931)P. 310 pp

Nauman, R., Olson, D.H., Clayton, D., DeGross, D., Ollivier., L, Welsh, H. Jr, 2002. The 

Status and Conservation of Del Norte/Siskiyou Mountain Salamander Complex: Genetics, 

Surveys and Federal Land Use Planning. unpub.

Nauman, Richard S., and Deanna H. Olson. 2002. Surveys for Hydromantes shastae and 

other amphibians in Shasta County, California. Submitted to Northwestern Naturalist.

Nauman, R.S. and Olson, D.H. 2006. Draft. Distribution and conservation of rare 

Plethodon salamanders on federal lands in Siskiyou County California. On file with: 

Regional Ecosystem Office, P.O. Box 3623, Portland Oregon 97208. 20 pp.

Nonaka, Etsuko And Thomas A. Spies. 2005. Historical Range Of Variability In 

Landscape Structure: A Simulation Study In Oregon, Usa Ecological Applications, 15(5), 

2005, Pp. 1727–1746.

Norris, D.H. and Shevock, J.R. 2004. Contributions towards a bryoflora of California: I. a 

speciem-based catalogue of mosses. Madroño 51: 121

North State Resources, Inc. 2002. Green Mountain Shasta Salamander Purposive Surveys. 

Report No. 12012. Available at Shasta Lake Ranger District. Redding, CA.

Noss, R.F. 1987. From plant communities to landscapes in conservation inventories: A 

look at the Nature Conservancy (USA). Biological Conservation 41:11-37.

Noss, R.F., and A.Y. Cooperrider. 1994. Saving nature’s legacy: Protecting and restoring 

biodiversity. Washington, DC: Island Press, 416 pp

Noss, R.F. (editor), J.F. Franklin, W.L. Baker, T. Schonnagel, and P.B. Moyle. 2006. 

Ecology and Management of Fire-prone Forests of the Western United States. Society for 

Conservation Biology Scientific Panel on Fire in Western U.S. Forests white paper.

Nussbaum, R.A. 1974. The distributional ecology and life history of the Siskiyou 

Mountain Salamander Plethodon stormi in relation to the potential impact of the proposed 

Applegate Reservoir on this species. 32 p +Supplemental Report. Report submitted to 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Portland Division, P.O. Box 2946, Portland, Oregon 97208.

O’Dell, T.E., J.F. Ammirati, and E.G. Schreiner. 1999. Ectomycorrhizal Basidiomycete 

Diversity and Abundance on a Moisture Gradient in the Tsuga heterophylla Zone. Can. J. Bot.
383

References

O’Keefe and Rappaport. Unpublished data. Recent surveys indicate 10 percent of beetle 

species found were new to science. On file at the Forest Service, Pacific Southwest 

Research Station. California.

Odion DC, Strittholt JR, Jiang H, Frost EJ, DellaSala DA, Moritz MA (2004) Patterns of 

fire severity and forest conditions in the Klamath mountains, Northwestern California. 

Conservation Biology 18, 927-936.

Office of Inspector General (OIG). 2006. Implementation of the Healthy Forests Initiative. 

Report No. 08601-6-AT. Sept 2006. http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/08601-6-AT.pdf

Ohlson, Dan W., et al. 2005. Multi-attribute evaluation of landscape-level fuel 

management to reduce wildfire risk. Forest Policy and Economics. 8(2006): 824-837.

Ollivier, L., H.H. Welsh, Jr., and D. Clayton. 2001. Habitat correlates of the Siskiyou 

Mountains salamander, Plethodon stormi (Caudata: Plethodontidae). Report to the 

California Department of Fish and Game, USDI Bureau of Land Management, Medford 

District, and USDA Forest Service, Rogue River National Forest.

Olson, D.H., and Lewendal, P.C. 1999. Survey protocol for the Shasta Salamander 

(Hydromantes shastae). On file with: Regional Ecosystem Office, P.O. Box 3623, Portland 

Oregon 97208. 79-124

Olson, D.H., Clayton, D.R., Reilly, E.C., Nauman, R.S. Devlin, B., Welsh, H.H. Jr, 2005. 

Conservation Stardegy for the Siskiyou Mountain Strategy for the Siskiyou Mountain 

Salamander (Plethodon stormi) Version 1.2

Omi, Philip N. and Erik J. Martinson. 2002. Final report: Effects of fuels treatment on 

wildfire severity. Submitted to the Joint Fire Science Program Governing Board March 

25, 2002. Western Forest Fire Research Center, Colorado State University.

Omi, Phillip N.; Martinson, Erik J.; Chong, Geneva W. 2006. Effectiveness of pre-fire fuel 

treatments. Final Report JFSP Project 03-2-1-07. Available at http://www.firescience.gov.

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. 1999. 

Website: http://www.waterquality.deq.state.or.us/wq/303dlist/303dStatistics.htm.

Oregon Employment Department. 2002. 

Website: http://www.qualityinfo.org/olmisj/OlmisZine.

Oregon Natural Heritage Information Center. 2007. Rare, Threatened And Endangered 

Species Of Oregon. http://oregonstate.edu/ornhic/2007_t&e_book.pdf

Paavola, R., Muotka, T., Vittanen, R., Heino, J. and Kreivi, P. 2003. Are biological 

classifications of headwater streams concordant across multiple taxonomic groups? 

Freshwater Biology 48: 1912-1923

Parmesan, C. and Yohe, G. 2003. A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change 

impacts across natural systems. Nature 421: 37-42.

Parson, D.J. and S.H. DeBenedettii. 1979. Impact of fire suppression on mixed-conifer 

forests. For. Ecol. and Management. 2:21-33.

Peterson, Garry, Craig R. Allen, C. S. Holling . 1998a. Ecological resilience, biodiversity, 

and scale. Ecosystems 1(1):6-18
384

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Peterson, David L.; Parker, V. Thomas, eds. 1998b. Ecological scale: theory and 

applications. New York: Columbia University Press. 615 pp

Peterson, David L., Morris C. Johnson, James K. Agee, Theresa B. Jain, Donald McKenzie, 

and Elizabeth D. Reinhardt. 2005. Forest structure and fire hazard in dry forests of the 

western United States. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-628. Portland, OR: US 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 30 pp

Petraitis, P.S., R.E. Latham, and R.A. Niessenbaum. 1989. The maintenance of species 

diversity by disturbance. Quarterly Review. 7(4): 1-44.

PGE. 2006. Settlement Agreement concerning the relicensing of the Clackamas River 

Hydroelectric Project - FERC Project 2195

Pickett, S.T.A. and P.S. White. 1985. The ecology of natural disturbance and patch 

dynamics. New York, NY: Academic Press: 472 pp

Pollet, Jolie and Philip Omi. 2002. Effect of thinning and prescribed burning on crown 

fire severity in ponderosa pine forests. International Journal of Wildland Fire. 11: 1-10.

Radeloff, V.C., R.B. Hammer, S.I. Stewart, J. Fried, S.S. Holcomb, and J.F. McKefry. 2005. 

The Wildland–Urban Interface in the United States, Ecological Applications. Ecological 

Society of America. 15(3): 799–805.

Rappaport, N.G., K.L. Lamoncha, and M.A. Camann. 2002. Response of forest soil Acari 

to prescribed fire following stand structure manipulation in the southern Cascade Range. 

Accepted by Pedobiologia.

Raymond, Crystal L. and David L. Peterson. 2005. Fuel treatments alter the effects of 

wildfire in a mixed-evergreen forest, Oregon, USA. Can. J. For. Res. 35: 2981-2995. 

Reilly, E. 2006. Personal communication. Biologist. Medford BLM.

Richardson, M.J. 1970. Studies on Russula emetica and other agarics in a scots pine 

plantation. Trans. Brit. Mycol. Soc. 55:217-229.

Rikkenen, J. 2003. Calicoid lichens and fungi in the forests and woodlands of western 

Oregon. Acta Bot. Fennica 175: 1-41.

Romme, W.H., T.T. Veblen, M.R. Kaufmann, R. Sherriff and C.M. Regan (2003). Ecological 

effects of the Hayman Fire Part 1: Historical (Pre-1860) and current (1860-2002) fire 

regimes. Pages 151-163 in: Hayman Fire Case Study Analysis. USDA Forest Service Tech. 

Rep. RMRS-GTR-114.

Root, T.L., Price, J.T., Hall, K.R., Schneider, S.H., Rosenzweig, C. and Pounds, J.A. 2003. 

Fingerprints of global warming on wild animals and plants. Nature 421: 57-60.

Rose, C.L., Marcot, B.G., Mellen, T.K., Ohmann, J.L., Waddell, K.L., Lindely, D.L., and 

B. Schrieber. 2001. Decaying Wood in Pacific Northwest Forests: Concepts and Tools for 

Habitat Management

Rosso et al. 2000. Nephroma occultum and Pseudocyphellaria rainierensis lichen research on 

Roseburg District BLM

Roth, B. 2002. Taxonomy and classification of Helminthoglypta. Memorandum 

submitted under BLM purchase order HAB020406. 13 pp
385

References

Roth, B., and J. Tupen. 2004. Revision of the systematic status of Helminthoglypta 

walkeriana morroensis (Hemphill, 1911) (Gastropoda: Pulmonata). Zootaxa 616:1- 23. 

Ruchty, Andrea. 2006. Personal communication. Botanist. Gifford Pinchot National Forest.

Sawtelle, Nancy. 2006. Personal communication. Botanist. Eugene BLM. 

Schlesinger, W.H.; Lichter, J. 2001. Limited storage in soil and litter of experimental 

forest plots under increased CO2. Nature 6836: 431-433.

Schmidt, Kirsten M., James P. Menakis, Colin C. Hardy, Wendall J. Hann, and David 

L. Bunnell. 2002. Development of coarse-scale spatial data for wildland fire and fuel 

management. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-87, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO. 41 pp plus CD.

Schoennagel, T., T.T. Veblen, W.H. Romme. 2004. The interaction of fire, fuels and climate 

across Rocky Mountain forests. BioScience 54(7): 661-676.

Schreuder, Hans T., Jin-Mann S. Lin, and John Teply. 2000. Estimating the Number of 

Tree Species in Forest Populations Using Current Vegetation Survey and Forest Inventory 

and Analysis Approximation Plots and Grid Intensities. USDA Forest Service Res. Note 

RMRS-RN-8.

Schwartz, M.W., Brigham, C.A., Hoeksema, J.D., Lyons, K.G., Mills, M.H, and van 

Mantgem, P.J. 1999. Linking biodiversity to ecosystem function: implications for 

conservation ecology. Oecologia (2000)122:297-305

Scott, J.H. and E.D. Reinhardt. 2001. Assessing crown fire potential by linking models 

of surface and crown fire behavior. Research Paper RMRS-RP-29, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO. 60 pp 

Scott, John. 2006. Personal communication. Botanist. Gifford Pinchot National Forest.

Sillett, S.C., and T. Goward. 1998. Ecology and conservation of Pseudocyphellaria 

rainierensis, a Pacific Northwest endemic lichen, pp. 377-388. n M.G. Glenn, R.C. 

Harris, R. Dirig, and M.S. Cole (eds), Lichenographica Thomsoniana: North American 

Lichenology in Honor of John W. Thomson. Mycotaxon Ltd. Ithaca, New York.

Sillett, S.C., J.E. Peck, T.R. Rambo, and A. Ruchty. 2000. Dispersal limitations of epiphytic 

lichens result in species dependent on old-growth forests. Ecological Applications 10: 

789-799.

SILVIS Forest Ecology and Management Laboratory 2006, Wildland Urban Interface 

(WUI), Spatial analysis for conservation and sustainability, University of Wisconsin, 

Madison, http://silvis.forest.wisc.edu/pubs.asp.

Skinner, Carl N. 2002. Personal communication. Presentation: Post Fire Analysis of Burn 

Severity on the Cone Fire, Lassen National Forest. California.

Snedecor, GW, and WG Cochran. 1989. Statistical Methods, 8th edition. Iowa State 

University Press. Blackwell Publishing. Ames, Iowa. 

Spies, Thomas A. and Jerry F. Franklin. 1989. Gap characteristics and vegetation response 

in coniferous forests of the Pacific Northwest. Ecology. 7(3): 543-545.

Spies, Thomas A. and Jerry F. Franklin. 1991. The structure of natural young, mature, and 

old-growth Douglas-fir forests in Oregon and Washington. In: Ruggiero, L.F., Aubry, 
386

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

K.B., Carey, A.B., and Huff, Mark H., technical coordinators. Wildlife and vegetation of 

unmanaged Douglas-fir forests. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-285. Portland, OR: 

US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 91-109.

Spies, Thomas A. 1991a. Fire history along an elevation gradient in the Siskiyou 

Mountains, Oregon. Northwest Science. 65: 188-199.

Spies, Thomas A. 1991b. Plant species diversity and occurrence in young, mature, and 

old-growth Douglas-fir stands in western Oregon and Washington. In: Ruggiero, 

L.F., Aubry, K.B., Carey, A.B., and Huff, Mark H., technical coordinators. Wildlife and 

vegetation of unmanaged Douglas-fir forests. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-285. 

Portland, OR: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station: 111-121.

State of California, Employment Development Department. 2002. Annual Average 

Industry employment, 1983-2001. 

Website: http://www.calmis.cahwnet.gov/htmlfile/subject/indtable.htm.

Stephens, S.L. and J. Moghoddas. 2005. Silvicultural and reserve impacts on potential 

fire behavior andforest conservation:Twenty five years of experience from Sierra Nevada 

mixed conifer forests. Biological Conservation.

Stevenson, Dwayne. 2000. Personal communication. Oregon Employment Department. 

Salem, Oregon. March 22, 2000.

Stone, D. and A. Ruchty. 2006. Leptogium cyanescens - a catchall name for gray isidiate 

Leptogium species in the Pacific Northwest? Interim report on file at http://fsweb.r6.fs.

fed.us/nr/Botany/inventory/leptogium-study-interim-report-Stone-Ruchty.doc

Stratton, Rick D. 2004. Assessing the effectiveness of landscape fuel treatments on fire 

growth and behavior. Journal of Forestry. October/November. 33-40.

Strittholt, James R., Dominick A. Dellasala,And Hong Jiang. 2006. Status of mature and 

old-growth forests in the Pacific Northwest. Conservation Biology 20(2):363-374.

Suzuki, N., Olson, D.H., Reilly, E.C. 2006. Draft. Developing landscape habitat models for 

endemic amphibian: an example using Siskiyou Mountains salamanders in the Western 

US. On file with: Regional Ecosystem Office, P.O. Box 3623, Portland Oregon 97208. 29 

pp.

Swingle, J. K. 2005. Daily activity patterns, survival, and movements of red tree voles 

(Arborimus longicaudus) in western Oregon. M. S. Thesis, Oregon State University, 

Corvallis. 118 pp.

Taylor, A.H., and C.N. Skinner. 2003. Spatial and temporal patterns of historic fire 

regimes and forest structure as a reference for restoration of fire in the Klamath 

Mountains. In: Ecological Applications

Thomas, Jack Ward. 2003. Northwest Forest Plan Review. Application of the Northwest 

Forest Plan in National Forests in California. Missoula, Montana. 15 p. 

Website: http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/nwfp/plans/nwfpapp.shtml.

Thomas, Jack Ward, Jerry F. Franklin, John Gordon, and K. Norman Johnson. 2006. 

The Northwest Forest Plan: Origins, Components, Implementation Experience, and 

Suggestions for Change. Conservation Biology Volume 20, no. 2: 277-287
387

References

Thompson, J. L., and L. V. Diller 2002. Relative abundance, nest site characteristics, 

and nest dynamics of Sonoma tree voles on managed timberlands in coastal northwest 

California. Northwestern Naturalist 83:91-100.

Thompson, S.K. 2002. Sampling, 2nd Edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York. 343 pp.

Thornley, J.H.; Cannell, M.G. 2000. Managing forests for wood yield and carbon storage: 

a theoretical study. Tree Physiology 20(7): 477-484.

Tilman, David; Reich, Peter; Phillips, Hope; Menton, Mary; Patel, Ami; Vos, Erin; 

Peterson, David; Knops, J. 2000. Fire suppression and ecosystem carbon storage. 

Ecology 81(10): 2680-2685.

Trappe, J.M., Lebel, T., and Castellano, M.A. 2002. Nomenclatural revisions in the 

sequestrate russuloid genera. Mycotaxon 81:195-214.

Trudell, S.A., Cline, E.T., Elliott, M., and Edmonds, R.L. 2006. Possible Role of 

Mycorrhizas in Resistance to Decline in Arbutus menziesii. 

Accessed online at http://soilslab.cfr.washington.edu/madrone/ch16_tr.pdf.

Turner, Monica G. and William H. Romme. 1994. Landscape dynamics in crown fire 

ecosystems. Landscape Ecology. 9(1): 59-77.

U.S. Bureau of Census. 2000. Website: http://www.quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.htm.

USDA Economic Research Institute. 2002. Website: http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/.

USDA Forest Service. 1993. Draft Supplement to the Environmental Impact Statement on 

Management for the Northern Spotted Owl in the National Forests. Unpub.

USDA Forest Service. 1999. Six Rivers National Forest Late-Successional Reserve 

Assessment. On file with: Regional Ecosystem Office, P.O. Box 3623, Portland Oregon 97208

USDA Forest Service. 2003a. Northwest Forest Plan Review. Pacific Southwest Region 

Findings. Pacific Southwest Region. Vallejo, California. 5 p. 

Website: http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/nwfp/plans/r5-findings.shtml.

USDA Forest Service. 2003b. Biscuit Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement, Josephine and Curry Counties, Oregon. Rogue River and Siskiyou National 

Forests. Medford, Oregon. 

USDA Forest Service. 2005a. Conservation Assessment for Cypripedium fasciculatum and 

Cypripedium montanum. Unpublished report. On file with: Regional Ecosystem Office, 

P.O. Box 3623, Portland Oregon 97208

USDA Forest Service. 2005b. Invasive Plant Final Environmental Impact Statement. 

Pacific Northwest Region. 

USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1992. Recovery plan for the northern Spotted Owl 

– Draft. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, DC 662 p. and maps.

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management Species Review Panel. 1999. 

Internal working document. Unpublished compilation. On file with: Regional Ecosystem 

Office, P.O. Box 3623, Portland, Oregon 97208.
388

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management Species Review Panel. 2000. 

Internal working document. Unpublished compilation. On file with: Regional Ecosystem 

Office, P.O. Box 3623, Portland, Oregon 97208.

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management Species Review Panel. 2001. 

Internal working document. Unpublished compilation. On file with: Regional Ecosystem 

Office, P.O. Box 3623, Portland, Oregon 97208.

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management Species Review Panel. 2002. 

Internal working document. Unpublished compilation. On file with: Regional Ecosystem 

Office, P.O. Box 3623, Portland, Oregon 97208.

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management Species Review Panel. 2003. 

Internal working document. Unpublished compilation. On file with: Regional Ecosystem 

Office, P.O. Box 3623, Portland, Oregon 97208.

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1994a. Final supplemental 

environmental impact statement on management of habitat for late-successional and oldgrowth forest related species within the range of the northern spotted owl (Northwest 

Forest Plan). Portland, Oregon. 2 vols.

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. 1997. Survey Stradegy to 

Protocol for Marsupella emarginata (Ehrh) Dum. var. aquatica (Lindb.) Dum. Version 2.0. 

Accessed online at http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/surveyandmanage/SP/Bryophytes/

marsupella.html

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1998. Management 

recommendations for vascular plants. Unpublished report. On file with: Regional 

Ecosystem Office, P.O. Box 3623, Portland, Oregon 97208.

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. 2000b. A Report to the 

President In Response to the Wildfires of 2000. September 8, 2000. Managing the Impact 

of Wildfires on Communities and the Environment. Washington, DC.

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2000c. Management 

recommendations for lichens. Version 2.0. IM OR2000-042 Transmittal IM. Unpublished 

report. On file with: Regional Ecosystem Office, P.O. Box 3623, Portland, Oregon 97208. 

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2000d. Management 

recommendations for Survey and Manage amphibians. Olson, D.H. (Ed.). Unpublished 

report. 211 p. On file with: Regional Ecosystem Office, P.O. Box 3623, Portland, Oregon 

97208.

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2000e. Management 

recommendations for the Shasta salamander (Hydromantes shastae). Olson, D.H. and 

P.C. Lewendal (eds.). Version 2.0. Unpublished report. 211 p. On file with: Regional 

Ecosystem Office, P.O. Box 3623, Portland, Oregon 97208.
389

References

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2000f. Survey Protocol for 

the Red Treet Vole. Biswell, B., Blow, M., Finley, L., Madsen, S., and Schmidt, K. (eds.). 

Version 2.0. Unpublished report. 211 p. On file with: Regional Ecosystem Office, P.O. Box 

3623, Portland, Oregon 97208.

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. 2 vols.

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2001b. Fiscal Year 2001 

Annual Status Report. Northwest Forest Plan. Survey and Manage. Portland, Oregon. 

Website: www.or.blm.gov/surveyandmanage.

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2002a. Memorandum 

on Implementation of 2001 Survey and Manage Annual Species Review. 2630(FS)/

1736PFP(BLM) (OR-935), June 14, 2002. Unpublished Report. On file with: Regional 

Ecosystem Office, P.O. Box 3623, Portland, Oregon 97208.

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2002b. Fiscal Year 2002 

Annual Status Report. Northwest Forest Plan. Survey and Manage. Portland, Oregon. 

Website: www.or.blm.gov/surveyandmanage.

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2002c. Survey Protocol 

amendments for the Red Tree Vole. Biswell, B., Blow, M., Breckel, R., Finley, L., and J. 

Lint. (eds.). Version 2.1. Unpublished report. 211 p. On file with: Regional Ecosystem 

Office, P.O. Box 3623, Portland, Oregon 97208.

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2003a. Memorandum 

dated March 14 to USDA Forest Service Forest Supervisors within the Area of the 

Northwest Forest Plan and USDI Bureau of Land Management District Managers and 

Field Managers. File Designation 1950 (FS)/1736 PFP (BLM)(OR-935)P. Implementation 

of 2002 Survey and Manage Annual Species Review. Instruction Memorandum No. 

OR-2003-050. 4 p. + enclosures. On file with BLM Oregon State Office, P.O. Box 2965, 

Portland, Oregon 97208 and Forest Service Regional Office, P.O. Box 3623, Portland, 

Oregon 97208.

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2003b. Survey protocol 

for terrestrial mollusk species from the Northwest Forest Plan. Version 3.0. Unpublished 

report. On file with: Regional Ecosystem Office, P.O. Box 3623, Portland, Oregon 97208.

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2003c. Survey protocol 

amendments for survey and manage lichens in the Northwest Forest Plan area. 

Document in review. Derr, C.C., R.D. Lesher, and L.H. Geiser (Eds.). On file with: 

Regional Ecosystem Office, P.O. Box 3623, Portland, Oregon 97208.

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2003d. Letter dated May 

16 to Neal Middlebrook, Chair, Survey and Manage Intermediate Managers Group. 

Delegation of Authority for Survey and Manage-Related Reviews. 2 p. On file with: 

Regional Ecosystem Office, P.O. Box 3623, Portland, Oregon 97208. 

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2003e. Letter dated July 31 

to Regional Interagency Executive Committee. Exception to Survey and Manage predisturbance survey requirements for wildland fire for resource benefits. 4p. On file with: 

Regional Ecosystem Office, P.O. Box 3623, Portland, Oregon 97208. 
390

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

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.

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2004b. Biscuit Fire Recovery 

Project Final Environmental Impact Statement, Josephine and Curry Counties, Oregon. 

Rogue River and Siskiyou National Forests. Medford BLM District. Medford, Oregon.

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2004c. Conservation 

Assessment for Galium kamtschaticum. Unpublished report. On file with: Regional 

Ecosystem Office, P.O. Box 3623, Portland Oregon 97208.

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2004d. Survey protocol for 

Great Gray Owl from the Northwest Forest Plan. Version 3.0. Unpublished report. On file 

with: Regional Ecosystem Office, P.O. Box 3623, Portland, Oregon 97208.

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2005a. Conservation 

Assessment for Cypripedium fasciculatum. Unpublished report. On file with: Regional 

Ecosystem Office, P.O. Box 3623, Portland Oregon 97208

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2005b. Conservation 

Assessment for Eucephalus vialis. Unpublished report. On file with: Regional Ecosystem 

Office, P.O. Box 3623, Portland Oregon 97208

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2005c. Conservation 

Assessment for Coptis trifolia. Unpublished report. On file with: Regional Ecosystem 

Office, P.O. Box 3623, Portland Oregon 97208.

USDA Forest Service, U.S. Department of Commerce (National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration), U.S. Department of Interior (Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land 

Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, Geological Survey, and National Park Service, ), 

and Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. Annual Report 2001 Interagency Regional 

Monitoring. R6-NWFP-TP-08-02.

USDA Forest Service, U.S. Department of Commerce (National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration), U.S. Department of 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. 

Available at: Regional Ecosystem Office, P.O. Box 3623, Portland, Oregon 97208.

US Environmental Protection Agency. 1999. Regional Haze Rule (RHR). 40 CFR Part 51. 

Posted in the Federal Register on July 1, 1999 by the Environmental Protection Agency. 

35714-35774

US Environmental Protection Agency. 2006. National Ambient Air Quality Standards for 

Particulate Matter; Final Rule. October 17, 2006. Published in the Federal Register. 40 

CFR Part 50

Van den Boom, P. 2002. Lichens in the upper belt of the Serra de Estrela (Portugal). 

Österreichische Zeitschrift für Pilzkunde 11: 1-28.

Veblen, Thomas T. Key issues in fire regime research for fuels management and 

ecological restoration. Pages 259-276 in: P. Omi and L. Joyce (technical eds.). Fire, fuel 

treatments, and ecological restoration: Conference proceedings: April 16-18, 2002. Fort 

Collins, CO. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station. 475 p.
391

References

Veblen, T.T., Key Issues in Fire Regime Research for Fuels Management and Ecological 

Restoration 2003 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-29

Wahl, Fred. 2006. Personal communication. Notes contained in the FSEIS 

Administrative Record.

Walther, G.-R., Post, E., Convey, P., Menzel, A., Parmesan, C., Beebee, T.J.C., Fromentin, 

J.-M., Hoegh-Guldberg, O. and Bairlein, F. 2002. Ecological responses to recent climate 

change. Nature 416: 389-395.

Washington State Employment Security Department. 2000. Industry, Employment and 

Wages - Annual Averages, 2000. 

Website: http://www.wa.gov/esd/lmea/download/00aastat.xls.

Weatherspoon, C. P., and C. N. Skinner. 1995. An assessment of factors associated with 

damage to tree crowns from 1987 wildfires in northern California. Forest Science 41: 430-451.

Welsh, HH., Dunk, JR., Zielinski, WJ., 2006 Developing and Applying Habitat Models 

Using Forest Inventory Data: An Example Using a Terrestrial Salamander. Journal of 

Wildlife Management: Vol. 70, No. 3 pp. 671–681

Welsh, HH., Stauffer, H., Clayton, D.R., Ollivier, L.M. Strategies for Modeling Habitat 

Relationships of Uncommon Species: An Example Using the Siskiyou Mountains 

Salamander (Plethodon stormi). Northwest Science, Vol. 81, No 1, 2007

Westerling, A. L., H. G. Hidalgo, D. R. Cayan, and T. W. Swetnam. 2006. Warming and 

Earlier Spring Increase Western U.S. Forest Wildfire Activity. (18 August 2006). Science 

313 (5789), 940.

Western Forestry Leadership Coalition. 2007. Western bark beetle assessment: a 

framework for cooperative forest stewardship. Available at http://www.wflcweb.org. 13 p.

Williams, B. 14 September 2006. Personal Communication. US FWS, Redding, CA.

Williams, Gerald W. 2002. References on the American Indian use of fire in ecosystems. 

US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington D.C. 

Williams, John W; Jackson, Stephen T., Kutzbach, John E. 2007. Projected distributions of 

novel and disappearing climates by 2100 AD. Proceedings of the National Academy of 

Science 104(14):S738-5742

Wilson, E.O. 1987. The little things that run the world: the importance and conservation 

of invertebrates. Conservation Biology. 1: 344-346.

Wilson, John D., and Michael E. Dorcas. 2003. Effects of Habitat Disturbance on Stream 

Salamanders: Implications for Buffer Zones and Watershed Management. Conservation 

Biology. 17(3): 763-771. 

Wimberly, Michael C., Thomas A. Spies, Colin J. Long, and Cathy Whitlock; “Simulating 

Historical Variability in the Amount of Old Forests in the Oregon Coast Range,” 

Conservation Biology, Pages 167-180, Volume 14, No. 1, February 2000; 

http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/journals/0010.pdf.

Woodbridge, B. 14 September 2006. Personal Communication. US FWS, Yreka, CA.

Woodbury, Peter B.; Smith, James E.; Heath, Linda S. 2007. Carbon sequestration in the 

U.S. forest sector from 1990 to 2010. Forest Ecology and Management 241: 14-27.
392

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Wuerthner, G. (ed.) 2006. Wildfire: A century of failed forest policy. Washington, DC: 

Island Press

Yoccoz, N.G., Nichols, J.D., and T. Boulinier. 2001. Monitoring of biological diversity in 

space and time. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 16(8) 446-453.

Zentner, P. L. 1977. The nest of Phenacomys longicaudus in northwestern California. M. A. 

Thesis, California State University, Sacramento.

Zhang, R.; Li, G.; Fan, J.; Wu, D.L.; Molina, M.J. 2007. Intensification of Pacific storm 

track linked to Asian pollution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 

104(13): 5295-5299.
393

List of Preparers

List of Preparers: 2006-2007

Following is a list of contributors to this 2007 Supplement to the 2004 Final Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage 

Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines.

EIS Core Team

Kathy Anderson: Contracting Officers Representative – March to October 2006. Kathy holds 

a B.S. degree in Fisheries Science from Oregon State University and a M.S. in Public 

Administration from Lewis and Clark College. She has more than 22 years in Federal 

service, 18 of which have been with the Forest Service. She has served in a variety of 

regional and state-level liaison and coordination positions, as a forest resource staff 

officer, and a forest fisheries biologist. In addition, she spent 5 years working as an 

environmental consultant. 

Ken Denton: Lead Author. Ken has a B.S. in Natural Resources from Humboldt State 

University. He served on the interdisciplinary teams for the Northwest Forest Plan SEIS 

(1994), the Forest Service EIS for the northern spotted owl (1992), the Survey and Manage 

SEIS (2000), the Survey and Manage SEIS (2004), and was Team Leader for the PortOrford-cedar SEIS (2004). As Regional Silviculturist for the Forest Service in Region 6 and 

member of the Regional Ecosystem Office Late-Successional Reserve Work Group, he 

helped implement the Northwest Forest Plan 1994-2002. He was with the Forest Service 

for 34 years, working in silviculture and planning in California, Idaho, and Oregon. 

Christine Denton: Database Coordinator – Writer/Editor. Christi graduated from Mills 

College with a B.A. in 2000, and got a graduate degree from CCMIX in France, in 2004. 

She worked as a database engineer for several software companies in the San Francisco 

Bay Area, and then as an administrator or logistician for NGOs and other non-profits.

Carol Hughes: Contracting Officers Representative – November 2006 to July 2007. Carol has a 

B.S. in Natural Resources with a major in Wildlife Management from Ohio State University. 

She is currently employed as a Wildlife Biologist with the Region 6 Forest Service Regional 

Office and the Oregon/Washington Bureau of Land Management State Office in Portland, 

Oregon working in the Interagency Special Status/Sensitive Species Program.

Specialists

James Alegria: Biometrician and Vegetation Inventory Lead. Jim received a B.S. in Forest 

Management from the University of Massachusetts and a M.S. in Forest Biometrics 

from the University of Washington. He has provided statistical consultation services for 

the BLM since 1990 and for the Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region since 2000 in 

addition to his vegetation inventory responsibilities. Jim has co-authored publications on 

the strategic survey framework for the Survey and Manage program, the sample design 

for the strategic survey framework, and trends of late-successional and old-growth 

forests within the Northwest Forest Plan area. In addition, he has conducted a risk 

assessment to marbled murrelets from ground disturbing activities in southwest Oregon 

in conjunction with personnel from the BLM, Forest Service, and USFWS.

Carol Apple: Mathematical Statistician. Carol received her B.S. in Forest Science from 

Pennsylvania State University and an M.S. in Forest Biometrics from the University 

of Minnesota. She has worked for the Forest Service since 1986, starting in Land 

Management Planning on the Salmon National Forest in Idaho and later the Tahoe 

National Forest in California. In 1990, she moved to the Pacific Northwest Regional 
394

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Office and as part of the Ecology, Range, Watershed, and Air Unit. There she provided 

coordination and support for a regional stream inventory application and database. In 2000, 

she joined the Oregon/Washington BLM and R6 Forest Service integrated Natural Resources 

Inventory Group. Her work involves statistical consultation for both agencies, analysis of 

the Current Vegetation Survey (CVS) plots, and involvement in application development.

Michael Castellano: Research Forester. Michael has a B.S. in Forest Management, a M.S. 

in Tree Physiology and a Ph.D. in Forest Ecology from Oregon State University. He 

is currently employed with the Forest Service at the Forestry Sciences Laboratory in 

Corvallis, Oregon. Michael has conducted research on forest fungi since 1980. He has 

been the Fungal Taxa Lead for both the Northwest Forest Plan and the Interior Columbia 

River Basin Assessment. The primary focus of his current research is biogeography, 

biodiversity, ecology, systematics, and taxonomy of forest fungi.

Thomas DeMeo: Regional Ecologist. Tom has a B.S. in Forest Science (Penn State 

University), a M.S. in Forest Science (Oregon State University), and a Ph.D. in wildlife 

biology (West Virginia University). An ecologist with the Forest Service since 1987, he 

has experience in ecological classification, mapping, monitoring, wetlands, old-growth, 

alternative silvicultural methods, conservation biology, landscape ecology, fire ecology, 

and wildlife habitat assessment. He also administers the ecology program for the Pacific 

Northwest Region. Since 2004, he has worked part-time for the National Interagency 

Fuels Technology Transfer team, and serves with this cadre providing FRCC and 

LANDFIRE training/support. He is a certified Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) 

instructor and leads the FRCC effort in the Region.

Rick Dewey: Botanist. Rick has a B.S. degree in Zoology from San Diego State University, 

B.S. and M.A. degrees in Natural Resources and Biology from Humboldt State University, 

and a Ph.D. in Botany from Texas A&M University. He was a member of the Survey and 

Manage bryophyte taxa team from its inception in 1998 to its dissolution in 2004. Rick has 

been a botanist on Deschutes National Forest since 1997. 

Eric Forsman: Research Wildlife Biologist. Eric has a Ph.D. in Wildlife Management from 

Oregon State University. He conducts research on spotted owls and other forest birds, 

and is also conducting a variety of studies on the distribution, genetics, and ecology of 

tree voles. He works at the Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station in Corvallis, 

Oregon, and was a member of FEMAT.

Bill Gaines: Forest Wildlife Ecologist. Bill has a B.S. and M.S. in Biology from Central 

Washington University and a Ph.D. in Wildlife Science from University of Washington. 

He has worked in the Eastern Cascades for most of his 21 years with the Forest Service, 

but has also worked on the Caribbean National Forest and on international projects in 

Pakistan and Ecuador. He now works on the Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests.

Linda Geiser: Ecologist. Linda has a Ph.D. in Plant Physiology from the University of 

California, Davis. She is an ecologist for the Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region Air 

Resource Management Program. She is a specialist in lichen biomonitoring and a coauthor of two books featuring regional lichen flora, “Lichens of Southeast Alaska” and 

“Macrolichens of the Pacific Northwest.” She has co-authored numerous Forest Service 

publications and scientific articles on the conservation and management of rare lichens 

in the Pacific Northwest. She was a member of the Survey and Manage lichen taxa team 

from 1994-2004. 

Doug Glavich: Lichenologist. Doug has a B.S. in Botany from Humboldt State University. 

He is currently a self-employed biologist and works on various projects for the U.S. 

Forest Service and U.S. National Parks. His current research interest and work for 

the National Park Service is developing lichen-based critical loads for air pollutant 

deposition. He has been working in the field of lichenology since 1997, which includes 
395

List of Preparers

research in his long-term interest of coastal lichen ecology. He has authored and coauthored scientific publications on the ecology of coastal and aquatic lichens.

Richard Helliwell: Botanist. Richard has a B.S. in Biology from Southern Oregon State 

College and a B.A. in Anthropology from the University of Maryland. He has been a 

botanist with the Forest Service since 1989, serving initially on the Mt. Hood and Ochoco 

National Forests. Since 1995, he has been the forest botanist on the Umpqua National 

Forest. From 2001-2004, he was the Survey and Manage bryophyte team lead for the 

Northwest Forest Plan Area. Richard was previously employed on the Warm Springs 

Indian Reservation doing ecological and ethnobotanical studies. 

Russ Holmes: Botanist. Russ holds both a B.S. and M.S. in Biology from East Carolina 

University. He has worked 27 years as a botanist, mostly for the BLM in Wyoming and 

Oregon and most recently as Regional Botanist for the U.S. Forest Service in Portland, OR 

since 2004.

Jeremy Hruska: GIS Specialist. Jeremy has a B.S. in Geography with a GIS option from 

Oregon State University and is working towards a M.S. degree in GIS through Penn 

State University. He has worked as a contractor for the BLM for over 5 years on various 

analysis projects and is the GIS Training Specialist for the OR/WA BLM state office.

Deanna H. Olson: Research Ecologist. Dede has a B.A. in Biology, with a concentration 

area in Population Biology, from the University of California at San Diego, and a Ph.D. 

in Zoology from Oregon State University. She has worked with the Forest Service Pacific 

Northwest Research Station since 1990. She serves as associate editor for Herpetological 

Review, co-chairs the Northwest regional working group of Partners for Amphibian and 

Reptile Conservation, and has courtesy faculty appointments at Oregon State University. 

She was the Northwest Forest Plan Survey and Manage amphibian taxa lead from 1994-

2000, and amphibian taxa expert 2001-2004. She was a member of the FEMAT amphibian 

panel, and contributed to the effects analyses of the 2000 and 2004 Survey and Manage 

SEISs. Her research addresses amphibian ecology and management in northwestern 

forest systems.

Richard Phillips: Economist. Richard has a M.S. in Forest Management and two years of 

graduate level studies in Economics and Operations Research Analysis from Colorado 

State University. He has worked as an economist for over 25 years primarily for the 

Forest Service. Richard currently serves as the Regional Economist for the Pacific 

Northwest Region. 

Adrienne Pilmanis: Regional GeoBOB Data Steward. Adrienne has a BS in Biology 

from the University of Colorado; an MS in Botany from Duke University, and is a 

PhD candidate in Biological Sciences at the University of Arkansas. Adrienne’s past 

research projects have included spatial analysis of the heterogeneity of soil nutrients 

and vegetation in disturbed Chihuahuan desert, nitrogen cycling under simulated 

global change scenarios in Colorado Plateau grasslands, and Holocene vegetation and 

fire history in northwestern Ontario. She has taught graduate and undergraduate level 

courses, and was previously employed by EG&G/EM, doing ecological studies on the 

Nevada Test Site.

Ed Reilly: GIS Analyst. Ed is currently an Environmental Coordinator and Planner with 

the BLM in Medford. He has worked extensively with Geographic Information Systems 

(GIS) and satellite image processing to map and analyze ecosystems in Southern Oregon. 

Ed served as a member of the Northwest Forest Plan Amphibian taxa team tasked with 

developing survey protocols, management recommendations, and conservation planning 

for salamander species of the Northwest region. He has participated in preparation of 

numerous local and regional analyses, most recently preparation of several community 

fire plans. Prior to his work for BLM, Ed worked for over twenty years as a natural 

resource manager for the Rogue River National Forest.
396

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Kary E. Schlick: Wildlife Biologist. Kary has a B.A. in Zoology and Biodiversity from 

Humboldt State University. She was on the Northwest Forest Plan Survey and Manage 

mollusk taxa team from 2001-2004 and spent seven years at the PSW Redwood 

Science Laboratory as a Herpetologist. Since 1998, she has overseen coordination and 

implementation of pre-project and strategic surveys for the Northwest Forest Plan. She 

currently works on the Six Rivers National Forest. 

Thomas S. Sensenig: Ecologist. Tom has a B.S. in Forest Science from West Virginia 

University, a M.S. in Forest Resources in forest entomology and pathology from 

University of Washington, and a Ph.D. in Forest Ecology from Oregon State University. 

He worked for the BLM as a forester, silviculturist, and ecologist for 23 years. Since 2004, 

Tom has been the Southwest Oregon Area Ecologist with the Forest Service.

Martin Stein: Botanist. Marty has a B.S. in Forestry from the University of Massachusetts. 

He has 22 years of experience with the Forest Service, the last 19 as a botanist in Oregon 

and Washington. He is currently the forest botanist on the Siuslaw National Forest.

Marianne Turley: Mathematical statistician. Marianne has a B.S. in Applied Mathematics 

from the University of Massachusetts and a M.S. and a Ph.D. in Quantitative Ecology and 

Resource Management from the University of Washington. Her research has focused on 

the methodology and application of quantitative assessments of ecological populations, 

processes, and theories using statistical and applied mathematical approaches. Marianne 

is working for the BLM and the Forest Service on the analysis, interpretation, and 

documentation of the Survey and Manage Random Multi-Species probability survey. 

She also provides other statistical support to aid managers and biologists in the use of 

quantitative information.

Kent Woodruff: Wildlife Biologist. Kent graduated in 1977 from Colorado State University 

in Fort Collins with a degree in Wildlife Biology. Kent has specialized in birds and bats for 

much of his career coordinating several projects to study the habitat requirements and life 

history of uncommon species. In 1978, he initiated a project to monitor great gray owl pairs 

in southeastern Idaho. In 1991, he and his wife documented the first nesting great gray 

owls in Washington and he continues to pursue further understanding of their ecology. In 

his job as a Forest Service District wildlife biologist, Kent has the opportunity to apply his 

nearly 30 years of previous experience to current challenges for species conservation.

Quentin Youngblood: Forest Wildlife and Botany Program Leader, Six Rivers NF.

Public Comment Analysis Team

PBS Engineering and Environmental employees Christy McDonough, Morgan Holen, 

Elisabeth Bowers, Jolanta Glabek, Jason Clark, Nikolai Barca-Hall, and Margaret Oscilia

Special Acknowledgements

Thanks to

Louisa Evers, for work on the Global Climate section, Jim Russell, for work on the Air 

Quality section, and Nancy Gillette, for her review of the Arthropod section.

Mike Hamel and Robyn Wicks for typesetting this document.

Janis VanWyhe, Adrienne Pilmanis, Carrie Sakai, Elisabeth Fano, and the rest of 

the GeoBOB team for all their hard work and countless hours spent collecting and 

maintaining species’ site information.
397

List of Preparers

Charley Martin and Mary Anne Sanford for all their help on the Wildland and Prescribed 

Fire section.

Paul Fyfield for putting together the final version of maps in this document.

Elizabeth Gayner for the artwork that graces the front cover of this Supplement.

Janet Braymen for coming to Portland on short notice to help with GIS requests from 

species effects writers.

Shannon Ayuyu for her help on the mailing list.

Also Debbie Pietrzak, Rob Huff, Sue Zike, Anita Bilbao, Leslie Frewing-Runyon, 

Janice Johnson, Darci Rivers-Pankratz, Philip Mattson, Kelli VanNorman, PBS 

Engineering and Environmental, and Eugene Kunze. 

List of Preparers: 2002-2004

The following is a list of contributors appeared in the 2004 Final Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage 

Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines. Experience and job locations may have 

changed, but this section is not updated because the information indicates the persons 

experience and assignment at the time they worked on the document. Preparers who also 

worked on the 2006-2007 team are so indicated. 

EIS Core Team

Anne Boeder - Assistant Effects Writer. Anne holds a B.A. in Cartography and Geography 

from the University of Wisconsin and a Master of Public Administration from the 

University of Utah. Anne has 19 years of government service including 13 years with 

the Forest Service and 4 years with the BLM. She currently serves as the Roseburg BLM 

Coordinator for the Little River Adaptive Management Area.

Ken Denton - Implementation Specialist. See 2006-2007

Katherine Farrell - Writer-Editor. Katherine has 15 years experience working for the 

Forest Service in planning. She has been involved in numerous planning efforts including 

timber sales, range allotment plans, Wild and Scenic River management plans, land 

exchanges, watershed analyses, and recreation projects. She is currently Writer-Editor for 

the Lookout Mountain Ranger District of the Ochoco National Forest. 

Chris Foster - Biologist. Chris is currently the District Wildlife Biologist for the Roseburg 

BLM District. He holds a B.S. in Forest and Wildlife Management from the University 

of Maine, and an M.S. in Wildlife Management from West Virginia University. Chris has 

more than 15 years experience working for the Forest Service and the BLM. Chris has 

held positions as a Wildlife Biologist and as a Forester specializing in watershed analysis 

and planning. 

Phil Hall - Lead Effects Writer. Phil holds a B.S. in Forestry and a B.S. in Conservation 

from North Carolina State University. He served on the interdisciplinary team for the 

Northwest Forest Plan SEIS (1994) and was a lead planner in developing the western 

Oregon resource management plans tiered to the Northwest Forest Plan. He has served 

on regional teams for the development of watershed analysis guides and monitoring and 

research. He has provided national level training for the National Environmental Policy 
398

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Act and Resource Management Planning. Phil has a broad understanding and familiarity 

of BLM programs and plans, including the Northwest Forest Plan and environmental 

impact statements. He has 30 years of federal service. Phil has been with the BLM since 

1976 and has worked on two BLM Districts, and several resource areas. He has served on 

special assignments to the Washington Office and to other BLM Districts in the western 

United States.

Rob Huff - Wildlife Biologist. Rob graduated in 1986 from Northwestern University in 

Evanston, Illinois with a degree in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology. Since 1987, he has 

worked as a wildlife biologist for the Forest Service and BLM in Oregon. He has held a 

variety of jobs, mainly dealing with rare species management: spotted owl field surveyor, 

Forest-level rare species survey coordinator, Forest-level Threatened, Endangered, and 

Sensitive species coordinator, District Wildlife Biologist and RDMA Staff, and Agency 

Representative for the Survey and Manage Program for Region 6 of the Forest Service. 

Currently, Rob is the Survey and Manage Agency Representative for the BLM.

Jerry Hubbard - Logistics Coordinator. Jerry has a B.S. in Forest Sciences from the 

University of Washington and an M.S. in Forestry (Silviculture) from Pennsylvania 

State University. Jerry has held a variety of positions in BLM in Oregon: Forester on 

the Roseburg District, Soils/Watershed Specialist on the Medford District, Public Affairs 

Specialist on the Vale District, and Management Analyst in the Oregon/Washington State 

Office. Additionally, as part of a management development curriculum, he produced a 

regional economic analysis of western Oregon’s timber and recreation economies for the 

period 1972-1986. 

Dick Prather - Team Leader. Dick is a 1968 graduate of the Northern Arizona University 

School of Forestry in Flagstaff, Arizona. He was the team leader for the Final SEIS for 

Survey and Manage in 2001. He is a 31-year veteran of the BLM. For the last 18 years, he 

was Field Manager in the Salem District. He has previously worked in Coeur d’Alene, 

Idaho and Coos Bay, Oregon. 

Craig Snider - Planner/NEPA Specialist. Craig holds a B.S. in Forestry from the University 

of California, Berkeley and a M.A in Spirituality from Holy Names College. Craig has 

23 years experience with the Forest Service including work on the Idaho Panhandle, 

Targhee, Dixie, Siskiyou, and Siuslaw National Forests. In recent years, he has served 

on the Regional Implementation Monitoring Team for the Northwest Forest Plan and 

as the Regional Environmental Coordinator for Region 6, Forest Service. He is also a 

Certified Silviculturist and a graduate of the Forest Engineering Institute at Oregon State 

University. He has held field positions of forester, silviculturist, timber management 

assistant, forest planner, and program manager. He is currently the Regional 

Environmental Coordinator for Region 5, Forest Service, in Vallejo, California.

Specialists

Chris Cadwell - Forester/Resource Analyst. Chris served on FEMAT in the estimation 

of Probable Sale Quantities. He has coordinated PSQ estimations and GIS analysis 

supporting development and implementation of the BLM resource management plans 

in western Oregon. He is co-author of the implementation guidance for the 15 percent 

standard and guideline. Chris served as co-lead in developing interagency vegetation 

standards and served on the team which developed interagency land allocation 

standards for the Northwest Forest Plan area. Chris has 22 years experience with the 

BLM in western Oregon and currently is employed by the BLM Oregon/Washington State 

Office. He holds a B.S. in Forest Management from Humboldt State University.

Thomas DeMeo - Ecologist. See 2006-2007
399

List of Preparers

Chiska Derr - Lichenologist. Chiska holds a B.A. in Biology from Western Washington 

University and an M.S. in Ecology from Oregon State University, where her research 

focused on lichen ecology in southeast Alaska and western Oregon. She has worked 

as a Botanist on the Gifford Pinchot National Forest for 6 years. She has also worked 

as an Ecologist conducting air quality biomonitoring and lichen inventory studies on 

the Chugach and Tongass National Forests for 4 years. Chiska has also worked as a 

Fishery Biologist for the State of Alaska. She is a co-author of the lichen Management 

Recommendations and lichen Survey Protocols, and has been part of the Survey and 

Manage lichen team since 1995.

Tina Dreisbach - Mycologist. Tina holds a B.S. in Plant Science and a M.S. in Plant 

Pathology from Pennsylvania State University and a Ph.D. in Botany and Plant Pathology 

from Oregon State University. Her professional experience includes the study of ecology, 

evolutionary relationships, and population biology of fungi. Since 1997, Tina has been 

employed by the Forest Service’ Pacific Northwest Research Station studying habitat 

relationships of forest fungi. In collaboration with scientists in the Pacific Northwest, Tina 

develops landscape and microscale habitat models for fungi and other rare organisms.

Eric Forsman - Research Wildlife Biologist. See 2006-2007

Nancy E. Gillette - Research Entomologist. Nancy earned a B.A. and Ph.D. in Forest 

Entomology at the University of California, Berkeley. Previous positions Nancy has held 

are: liaison between the Forest Health Protection staff and the Environmental Protection 

Agency Biopesticide Division; researcher with the Chemical Ecology of Forest Insects 

research team in Berkeley, California; and postdoctoral researcher at the Institut National 

de la Recherche, in Olivet, France. She has more than 20 years experience in pesticide 

bioassay and residue analysis. Nancy has authored more than 50 scientific publications 

dealing with forest entomology. Currently, Nancy is the Principal Research Entomologist 

at the Forest Service’ Pacific Southwest Research Station.

Richard Hardt - Ecologist. Richard has a B.A. in Natural Sciences from John Hopkins 

University, an M.L.A in Landscape Architecture from Harvard University, and a Ph.D. in 

Forest Resources from the University of Georgia. He has 9 years of experience working 

for the BLM and is currently employed at the Eugene District Office. Richard’s expertise 

is in forest ecology, planning, and NEPA.

Judith A. Harpel - Bryologist. Judy has a B.S. and an M.S. in Botany from California 

Polytechnic University, Pomona, and a Ph.D. in Botany from the University of British 

Columbia. She has 25 years of professional experience working with bryophyte 

systematics, ecology, and biogeography throughout North America and in the Russian 

Far East. For the last 6 years she has worked as the Regional Interagency Bryologist for 

the Forest Service and BLM under the Northwest Forest Plan.

Paul Hohenlohe - Malacologist. Paul holds a B.A. in Biology from Williams College and 

a Ph.D. in Zoology from the University of Washington. His research has focused on 

systematics, life history, ecology, and evolution of gastropod mollusks. He has served 

in an interagency position as the Regional Malacologist for the Survey and Manage 

Program since 2001. Paul is currently employed as the Regional Interagency Malacologist 

at the Forest Service’ Corvallis Forestry Sciences Laboratory.

William F. Hudson - Fishery Biologist. Bill has a B.S. in Wildlife Management and a M.S. 

in Biology (Fisheries) from Tennessee Technological University. He has worked for the 

BLM for 24 years in the Coos Bay District. Early in his career he worked as a resource area 

biologist covering fisheries and wildlife management. Currently, he is the Coos Bay District 

Fisheries Biologist and has spent the last 7 years working on various ESA consultations 

with NOAA Fisheries, including local project consultations and regional consultations at 

the plan level for the Interior Columbia Basin and the Northwest Forest Plan.
400

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Christina C. McElroy - Economist. Christina has a B.B.A. in Marketing with minors in 

both Economics and International Business from Boise State University. She has worked 

as a federal economist for 10 years for the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers. Christina currently works for the BLM as a Regional Economist for 

Oregon/Washington. 

Deanna H. Olson - Research Ecologist. See 2006-2007

James H. Perkins - Forester. Jay holds a B.S. in Forest Management with post-graduate 

studies in Fire Management from Colorado State University. He started his permanent 

career in Montana in 1980. He is currently the Forest Fire Management Officer for the 

Klamath National Forest, Yreka, California. Jay has been on the Klamath National Forest for 

18 years. Jay did the fire planning for the Klamath Land and Resource Management Plan as 

well as provided the technical fire assessment for the 2000 Survey and Manage SEIS.

Jim Roden - Forester. Jim has a B.S. in Forest Management from Northern Arizona 

University. He has worked for the Forest Service for 25 years in Wyoming, California, 

Idaho, and Oregon. He is a specialist in timber sale planning, geographic information 

systems, pomology, and economic analysis.

Joan Seevers - Botanist. Joan has a B.S. in Science/Math from Southern Oregon State College 

(now Southern Oregon University). She has worked as a botanist for the BLM for 25 years: 

22 years as Medford District Botanist and 3 years as the Oregon State Office Botanist.

David A. Sinclear - Fire Management Officer. Dave holds a B.A. in Biology. He started 

his permanent career in timber management on the Stanislaus National Forest, leaving 

his position as Assistant District Silviculturist to become a District Wildlife Biologist at 

the Modoc National Forest. Dave moved on to be a Fire Management Officer 18 years 

ago holding positions as District Fire Management Officer and Assistant Forest Fire 

Management Officer at the Modoc National Forest. Dave left the Forest Service to be a 

Fire Management Officer for the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service at the Klamath Basin 

National Wildlife Refuge Complex. After 3 years with the Fish and Wildlife Service, he is 

now the Forest Fire Management Officer at Mendocino National Forest. 

Special Acknowledgments

Thanks To:

Jeanne Hoxer - Biological Technician, BLM Oregon State Office. Thanks for countless 

hours of cutting and pasting information in tables and helping with managing 

information for the SEIS Team.

Cheryl Carrothers - District Wildlife Biologist, Hayfork District, Shasta Trinity National 

Forest. Thanks for coming to Portland on short notice to help compile information for 

the SEIS.

Thomas Jackson - GIS Specialist, Eugene BLM. Many thanks for the creation of the 

graphic products used to portray the Northwest Forest Plan land allocations, and the GIS 

analysis to calculate the acres of Survey and Manage species sites for the alternatives.

Ed Buursma - Forestry Technician, Clackamas Ranger District, Mt. Hood National Forest. 

Thanks for coordinating and helping to analyze the hundreds of letters and e-mails 

received during the scoping process. 

Elizabeth I. Gayner - Roseburg District BLM. Thanks for the artwork that graces the 

front cover of this EIS.
401

List of Preparers

The Special Status Species Program coordinators for the BLM and Forest Service in 

Washington, Oregon, and California, who so quickly analyzed the Natural Heritage 

Rankings and other pertinent species information to determine what species should be 

included in the Agencies’ Special Status Species Programs if an action alternative is selected.
402

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines
403

Distribution List

California

Senator Barbara Boxer

Senator Diane Feinstein

Representative Wally Herger

Representative Doris Matsui

Representative Mike Thompson

Representative Lynn Woolsey

Oregon

Senator Gordon Smith

Senator Ron Wyden

Representative Earl Blumenauer

Representative Peter DeFazio

Representative Darlene Hooley

Representative Greg Walden

Representative David Wu

Washington

Senator Maria Cantwell

Senator Patty Murray

Representative Brian Baird

Representative Norman Dicks

Representative Richard Hastings

Representative Jay Inslee

Representative Rick Larsen

Representative Jim McDermott

Representative Adam Smith

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

Dave Allen Fish & Wildlife Service

Kevin Birch Oregon Department of Forestry, 

Forest Resources Planning 

Cathy Bleier Resources Agency, State of California

Nolan C Colegrove California Indian Forest and 

Fire Management Council

Daniel Cothren Wahkiakum County

Mike Crouse National Marine Fisheries Service

Bruce Davies Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission

Dr Bov Eav Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station 

Tom Fontaine Environmental Protection Agency

Merv George Jr California Indian Forest and 

Fire Management Council 

Larry Giustina Oregon State Board of Forestry

Jim Golden Forest Service Region 6

Linda Goodman Forest Service Region 6 

Bob Graham Natural Resources Conservation Service

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee 

(including alternate members)

Elected Officials

David Herrera Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission 

Jon Jarvis National Park Service 

Chris Knopp Forest Service, Region 5 

Robert Lackey National Health and Environmental Effects 

Research Lab/ORD Western Ecology Division

Robert Lohn National Marine Fisheries Service 

Curt Loop US Army Corps of Engineers 

Tom Makowski Natural Resources Conservation Service

John Mankowski State of Washington 

Office of the Governor 

Garland Mason Forest Service, 

Pacific Southwest Research Station 

Al McKee Washington State Association of Counties 

Rocky McVay Association of Oregon & California Counties 

Donald Motanic Intertribal Timber Council 

Col Thomas E O’Donovan US Army Corps of Engineers 

Beth Pendleton Forest Service, Region 5 

Michael J Pool Bureau of Land Management, California 

Distribution List and Document Availability 

on the Internet 

This Final Supplement to the 2004 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) is being sent to the 

following individuals, groups, and organizations. The list includes elected officials; federal agencies; state, local, 

and county governments; American Indian Tribes and Nations; businesses; other organizations; libraries; and 

individuals. 

The 2007 Final Supplement will also be available on the internet at: http://www.reo.gov/s-m2006.
404

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Dave Powers Environmental Protection Agency, 

R-10 OR Operations 

Terry Rabot Fish & Wildlife Service 

Gil Riddell Association of Oregon Counties 

Socorro Rodriguez Environmental Protection Agency, 

R-10 OR Operations 

Paul Roush Bureau of Land Management

Carol Schuler US Geological Survey, Western Region, 

Biological Resources Division 

Jim Sedell Forest Service, 

Pacific Southwest Research Station 

Frank Shipley US Geological Survey, Western Region, 

Biological Resources Division 

Joan Smith Siskiyou County Economic 

Development Committee 

Federal Agencies

Winema National Forest

Washington

Gifford Pinchot National Forest

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest

Okanogan National Forest

Olympic National Forest

Wenatchee National Forest

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

U.S. Department of Commerce

NOAA Fisheries 

Northwest Regional Office

Southwest Regional Office

Washington State Habitat Office

Arcata Field Office

Roseburg Field Office

U.S. Department of Defense

 Air Force Deputy Asst. Secretary of Defense

Army Corps of Engineers

Northwest Division

PE PF

Seattle District

South Pacific

Walla Walla District

Naval Submarine Base Bangor

U.S. Department of Energy

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Environmental Review Division

Office of Community Planning & Development 

San Francisco Environmental Review Office

U.S. Department of Interior

Bureau of Indian Affairs

Environmental Coordinator

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

Bonneville Power Administration

Environmental Protection Agency

Operations Office

Federal Aviation Administration

NW Mountain Region

Western Pacific Region

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Portland Office

Regional Ecosystem Office

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

Forest Service

Pacific Northwest Regional Office

Pacific Southwest Regional Office

Pacific Northwest Research Station

Pacific Southwest Research Station

California

Klamath National Forest

Lassen National Forest

Mendocino National Forest

Modoc National Forest

Shasta-Trinity National Forest 

Six Rivers National Forest

Oregon

Deschutes National Forest

Mt. Hood National Forest

Rogue River National Forest

Siskiyou National Forest

Siuslaw National Forest

Umpqua National Forest

Willamette National Forest

George Smith Intertribal Timber Council 

Stan Speaks Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Paula Swedeen Washington Department of Fish and 

Wildlife 

Darrin Thome US Fish & Wildlife Service 

California/Nevada Operations Office 

Steve Thompson US Fish & Wildlife Service 

California/Nevada Operations Office 

Crawford Tuttle Resources Agency, State of California

Bernie Weingardt Forest Service Region 5 

Cindi West Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station

Rory Westberg National Park Service 

Alex Whistler Bureau of Indian Affairs 

John Woolley County of Humboldt
405

Distribution List

Aberdeen, WA Office

Portland Area Office

Bureau of Land Management

California

Arcata Field Office

Redding Field Office

State Office

Ukiah Field Office

Oregon

Coos Bay District

Eugene District

Lakeview District

Medford District

Roseburg District

Salem District

Bureau of Reclamation - Pacific NW Region

Fish and Wildlife Service

Oregon Office

Bend Field Office

Tulelake National Wildlife Refuge

Geological Survey

Biological Resources Division

Pacific Northwest District

National Park Service

Fort Vancouver National Historic Site

Olympic National Park

Pacific Northwest Region

Redwood National Park

Office of Environmental Policy & Compliance

Office of the Regional Solicitor

Regional Environmental Office

U.S. Department of Justice

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Highway Administration

Oregon Division

Western Division

Western Federal Lands Highway Division

U.S. Ecosystem Restoration Office

U.S. Small Business Administration

British Columbia

Ministry Of Water, Land & Air Protection

California

California Regional Water Quality

Caltrans

City of Yreka

Colusa County

Agricultural Department

County of Siskiyou

Del Norte County Board of Supervisors

Department of Fish and Game

Department of Forestry

Department of Forestry & Fire Protection

Department of Water Resources

EEL - Russian River Commission

Glenn County

Agricultural Department

Board of Directors

Board of Supervisors

U.C. Cooperative Extension

Humboldt County Board of Supervisors

Lake County Board of Supervisors

Mendocino County

Board of Supervisors

Planning Department

Water Agency

Board of Supervisors

U.C. Cooperative Extension 

North California Water Association

Office of the Governor

Resources Agency

Shasta County Board of Supervisors

Siskiyou County 

Administrators

Board of Supervisors

Sonoma County Conservation Action

State Clearinghouse

State Lands Commission

Tehama County

Board of Supervisors

Planning Department

Trinity County Board of County Supervisors

Colorado

San Miguel County

District of Columbia

Rural Utilities Service

Oregon

City of Cottage Grove

City of Klamath Falls 

City of Detroit City Hall

State, County, and Local Governments
406

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Coos County Board of Commissioners

Curry County Board of Commissioners

Department of Agriculture

Department of Energy

Department of Fish & Wildlife

Department of Forestry

Department of Geology and Mineral Industries

Department of Human Resources

Department of Revenue

Department of Transportation

District 17 Watermaster

Douglas County 

Board of Commissioners

Planning Department

Employment Department

Executive Department

Farm Bureau Federation

Hood River County

Jackson County Commissioners

Jefferson County Commissioners

Josephine County 

Courthouse

Forestry Department

Planning Department

American Indian Tribes and Nations

Klamath Basin Water Resources Advisory Committee

Klamath County Commissioners

Klamath Irrigation District

Klamath Soil & Water Conservation

Lake County

Lane County Commissioner

Meadows Drainage District

Mohawk Watershed Planning Group

Northwest Power Planning Council

ODA - Noxious Weed Control Program

Office of the Governor

Oregon State Public Interest Research Group

Parks and Recreation

Portland Chamber of Commerce

Portland Water Bureau

Rogue Institute of Economy and Ecology

Rogue Valley Council of Governments

Roseburg DEQ Office

Small Business Administration

Southeastern Advisory Council

State Historic Preservation Office

State Marine Board

State Police

Tillamook County Commissioner

Alturas Indian Rancheria

Bear River Band Rohnerville Rancheria

Big Lagoon Rancheria

Big Valley Band Pomo Indians Rancheria

Blue Lake Rancheria

Burns Paiute Tribe

Cahto Indian Tribe Laytonville Rancheria

Cher-Ae Heights Community Trinidad Rancheria

Cloverdale Rancheria of Pomo Indians

Colorado River Indian Tribes Reservation

Colville Business Council

Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation

Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians of Oregon

Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation

Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation 

Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua and 

Siuslaw Indians of Oregon

Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community 

of Oregon

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian 

Reservation

Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation 

of Oregon

Coquille Indian Tribes

Cortina Indian Rancheria of Wintun Indians

Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians

Cowlitz Indian Tribe

Coyote Valley Band of Pomo Indians

Dry Creek Rancheria of Pomo Indians

Elem Indian Colony Pomo Sulphur Bank Rancheria

Elk Valley Rancheria

Fort Bidwell Reservation

Grindstone Rancheria of Wintun-Wailaki Indians

Guidiville Band of Pomo Indians

Hoh Indian Tribe

Hoopa Valley Tribe

Hopland Band of Pomo Indians Rancheria

Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe of Indians

Kalispel Indian Community of the Kalispel Reservation

Karuk Tribe of California

Kashia Band Pomo Stewarts Point Rancheria

Klamath Indian Tribe of Oregon

Lower Elwha Tribal Community

Lummi Business Council

Lummi Tribe of the Lummi Reservation, Washington
407

Distribution List

Makah Indian Tribe of the Makah Indian Reservation

Manchester-Point Arena Band Pomo Indians Rancheria

Mechoopda Indian Tribe of Chico Rancheria

Middletown Rancheria Environmental Center

Middletown Rancheria of Pomo Indians

Mooretown Rancheria

Muckleshoot Indian Tribe

Nez Perce Tribe

Nisqually Indian Community

Nisqually Indian Community Council

Nooksack Indian Tribe

Paskenta Band of Nomlaki Indians

Pit River Tribe Environmental Office

Pit River Tribe of California

Point-No-Point Treaty Council

Port Gamble Band of S’Klallam Indians

Potter Valley Tribe

Puyallup Tribe of the Puyallup Reservation of the State 

of Washington

Quartz Vallen Indian Community Reservation

Quartz Valley Indian Community Reservation

Quileute Tribe of the Quileute Reservation

Quinault Indian Nation Business Committee

Redding Rancheria

Redwood Valley Rancheria of Pomo Indians

Resighini Rancheria (Coast Indian Community Yurok)

Round Valley Indian Reservation

Rumsey Indian Rancheria of Wintun Indians

Samish Indian Nation

Samish Tribal Council

Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe 

Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians

Sherwood Valley Rancheria of Pomo Indians

Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe of the Shoalwater Bay 

Indian Reservation

Skokomish Indian Tribe

Smith River Rancheria

Snoqualmie Tribal Organization

Squaxin Island Tribal Council

Squaxin Island Tribe

Stillaguamish Board of Directors

Suquamish Tribe of the Port Madison Reservation, 

Washington

Susanville Indian Rancheria

Swinomish Indian Tribal Community

Table Bluff Reservation-Wiyot Tribe

The Klamath Tribes

The Spokane Tribe

The Tulalip Tribes

Twin Rocks Inholders

Upper Lake Band of Pomo Indians Rancheria

Upper Skagit Tribal Council

Yurok Tribe

American Forest Resource Council

Amerititle

Armco

Associated Oregon Loggers, Inc.

Boise Cascade Corporation

Brecher & Volker LLP

Buse Timber & Sales Inc.

C & D Lumber Co.

Columbia Helicopters Inc.

Crystal Mountain

David Evans and Associates Inc.

Deixis Consultant

Douglas Timber Operators

Drjohnson Lumber Co

Freres Lumber Co., Inc.

Gerald Jenson Consulting

Haglund, Kirtley, Kelley and Horngren

Huffman & Wright Timber Corp

Industrex Unlimited

Land & Water Consulting Inc.

Lone Rock Timber Co.

Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc.

Mater Engineering Ltd

McFarland Cascade

Meridian Environmental

Mt Hood Meadows

Northwest Forest Resources

Pacific Analytics LLC

Pacific Northwest Ski Areas Association

Pacific Power and Light

PBS Environmental and Engineering

Roseburg Forest Products

Saltman and Stevens PC

Sequoia Associates

Simpson Door Co.

Siskiyou Coop Inc.

Starfire Lumber Co.

Swanson Group

T & E Inc.

The Nicholoff Company

Businesses
408

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Allegheny Defense Project

American Alpine Institute

American Lands Alliance

Arc-En-Ciel

BARK

Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project

Cascadia Wildlands Project

Center for Biological Diversity

Citizens Interested In Bull Run

Conservation Northwest

Epic - The Environmental Protection Information

 Center

Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics

Forest Unlimited

Friends of Hope Valley

Gifford Pinchot Task Force

Headwaters

Izaak Walton League of America

Kalmiopsis Audubon Society

Kitsap Audubon Society

Kittitas Audubon Society

Klamath Forest Alliance

Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Center

Northern California Society of American Foresters

Native Plant Society of Oregon

North Coast Recreation Coalition

Northcoast Environmental Center

Northwest Ecosystem Alliance

Oregon Mycological Society

Other Organizations

Oregon Wild

Oregon Wildlife Federation

Pacific Biodiversity Institute

Pacific Northwest 4 Wheel Drive

PEER

Provincial Interagency Executive Committees

California Coast

Deschutes

Eastern Washington Cascades

Klamath

Olympic Peninsula

Oregon Coast

Sacramento

Southwest Oregon

Western Washington Cascades

Willamette

Yakima

Public Lands Foundation

Seattle Lichen Guild

Siskiyou Project

Society of American Foresters

The Wilderness Society

Trails Club of Oregon

Umpqua Watersheds

Washington State Hi-Lakers

Washington Trout

Wildwest Institute

Willits Environmental Center

World Wildlife Fund

The Phoenix Zoo

Thinking Inc.

Timber Products Company

Timberland Logging

US Timberlands Klamath Falls LLC

Washington Contract Loggers Association

Washington Forest Law Center

Woolley Enterprises Inc.

Zip-O-Log Mills
409

Distribution List

Aberdeen Timberland Library

Albany City Library

Albina Library

Algona Pacific Library

Amanda Park Timberland Library

Applegate Branch Library

Arcata Branch Library

Ashland Public Library

Auburn Library

Bandon Public Library

Battleground Library

Bellevue Regional Library

Belmont Library

Bend Public Library

Black Diamond Library

Bleyhl Community Library

Blue Lake Branch Library

Bothell Regional Library

Boulevard Regional Library

Brownsville Public Library

Burien Library

Butte County Library

C Giles Hunt Memorial Library

California State University, Chico

Camas Public Library

Canyonville Branch Library

Capitol Hill Library

Carnation Library

Carpenter Memorial Library

Cascade Foothills Library

Cascade Locks Library

Cascade Park Library

Central Library

Central Washington University

Chemult Branch Library

Chetco Public Library

City Of Eugene Library

City Of Springfield Library

Clallam Bay Library

Clark College Cannell Library

Colorado State University Libraries

Columbia Gorge Community 

College Library

Coos Bay Public Library

Coquille Public Library

Corning City Library

Corvallis-Benton Public Library

Cottage Grove Public Library

Cottonwood Library

Covington Library

Curry County Public Library

Libraries, Schools, and Universities

Dallas Library

Del Norte County Library

Des Moines Library

Douglas County Library System

Dufur Community Library

Dunsmuir Library

Duvall Library

Ellensburg Library

Entiat Public Library

Eugene Public Library

Everett Public Library

Evergreen State College

Fairview Columbia Library

Fairwood Library

Fall City Library

Fall River Library

Federal Way 320th Library

Federal Way Regional Library

Ferndale Branch Library

Flora M Laird Memorial Library

Forks Library

Fortuna Branch Library

Foster Library

Ft Bragg Library

Ft Jones Branch Library

Ft Vancouver Regional Library

Garberville Branch

Glendale Branch Library

Gold Beach Public Library

Goldendale Library

Granger Library

Grants Pass Library

Gregory Heights Library

Gresham Library

Happy Camp Library

Harrah Library

Hazel M Lewis Library

Hillsdale Library

Holgate Library

Hollywood Library

Hood River County Library

Hoodsport Timberland Library

Hoopa Branch Library

Hoquiam Timberland Library

Humboldt County Library

Humboldt State University

Indiana University

Issaquah Library

Jackson County Library System

Jacksonville Public Library

Jefferson County Library

Jefferson Public Library

Josephine County Library

Keizer Reading Connection 

Library

Kenmore Library

Kent Regional Library

Kingsgate Library

Kirkland Library

Klamath County Library

Klamath Union High School

Lacey Timberland Library

Lake Forest Park Library

Lake Hills Library

Lakeport Library

Lakeview County Library

Land-Air-Water Law Center

Lane Community College Library

Lapine Public Library

Lebanon Library

Lyons Public Library

Mabton Library

Maple Valley Library

Mazama High School

Mccloud Branch Library

Mckinleyville Branch

Medford Library

Mercer Island Library

Middletown Library

Midland Library

Mildred Whipple Library

Mill City Public Library

Modoc County Library

Montague Branch Library

Mosier Public Library

Moxee Library

Mt Shasta Library

Myrtle Creek Branch Library

N Bonneville Library

N State Coop Library

Naches Library

Newport Way Library

Nile Library

North Bend Library

North Bend Public Library

North Central Regional Library 

System

North Portland Library

Northwest Library

Oak Run Community Library

Oakland Branch Library

Oakridge City Library
410

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Olympia Timberland Library

Oregon Institute of Technology

Oregon Natural Heritage 

Information Center

Oregon State University

Orland City Library

Parkdale Library

Peninsula College

Plumas County Library

Port Angeles Library

Port Townsend Library

Quinney Natural Resources 

Library

Red Bluff Library

Redbud Library

Redmond Public Library

Redmond Regional Library

Reedsport Branch Library

Richmond Beach Library

Riddle Branch Library

Ridgefield Library

Rio Dell Branch Library

Rockwood Library

Roseburg Library

Roslyn Library

Round Valley Public Library

Ruch Branch Library

Salem Public Library

Sammamish Library

Se Yakima Library

Seattle Public Library

Selah Library

Sellwood-Moreland Library

Sequiam Library

Shasta Bible College Library

Shasta College Library

Shasta County Library

Shasta Lake Gateway Library

Shelton Timberland Library

Shingletown Library

Shoreline Library

Simpson College

Siskiyou County Library

Sisters Public Library

Siuslaw Public Library Dist

Skykomish Library

Skyway Library

Snoualmie Library

Southern Oregon University

Springfield Public Library

St Johns Library

State of Illinois University

Stayton Public Library

Stevenson Library

Summit View Library

Sunnyside Library

Sunriver Area Public Library

Susanville Dist Library

Southwestern Community College 

Library

Sweet Home Public Library

Tehama County Library

Terrace Heights Library

The Dalles-Wasco County Library

Three Creeks Library

Tieton Library

Tillamook County Library

Toppenish Library

Trinidad Branch Library

Trinity County Library

Tukwila Library

Tulelake Library

Ukiah Library

Union Gap Library

University Of Tennessee

University Of Washington

University Of California

University Of Oregon

Upper Lake Library

Valley View Library

Vancouver Library

Vashon Library

Washington State University 

Library

Wapato Library

Washington Natural Heritage 

Program

Washougal Library

West Salem Library

White Center Library

White Salmon Valley Library

White Swan Library

Willits Library

Willow Creek Branch Library

Willows Public Library

Winston Branch Library

Woodinville Library

Woodland Library

Woodmont Library

Woodstock Library

Yakima Valley Regional Library

Yoncalla Branch Library

Yreka Library

Zillah Library

Individuals

Ritu Ahuja

George & Frances Alderson

Carol & Ken Ampel

Elizabeth Anderson

Pat Anderson

Susan Applegate

Elmer Bauer

Eli Blavin

Peg Boland

Gail Boness

Marc Bosch

Kathy Bowden

Thomas Brannian

Peter A Bray

Linda Brett

Kara Brinkman

Richard Brock

Beatrice E Brown

Herbert Browne

John Browne Jr

James R Brunner

Mark Buckbee

Thomas Burke

Steve Canning

B Carey

Brad Carlquist

Don Carlton

Sandra Carrillo

Laura Ceperley

Clark Chase

Robert J Chesrow

Larry M Christiansen

Leon Clark

Howard Clark

Jason Clark

Scott Conroy

Patrick Craig

Ellen Crumb

Adam Cunningham

Jennifer Daly

Patrick Davis

Susan A Delles

Lou Anna And James Denison

Ken Denton

Patrick Devillier
411

Distribution List

Llyn Doremus

Barbara R Dudman

Karin S Engstrom

Dianne Ensign

Rick Esterly

Gregory Esteve

Joe Ewan

James P Fairchild

Suzanne Ferguson

Charles J Ferranti

Dwight Fielder

Edward Fitzpatrick

Marie A Flanagan

Samuel E Flenner III

Jeff (Joseph) Fontana

Erik M Fredsham

Victor Furman

Luis Garrido

Mike Gertsch

Doug Glavich

Norman Goetz

Doug Goldenberg

Judy Gordon

Matt Gordon

William Gray

John Green

Josh Gryniewicz

Toni-Jean Gundersen

Bill Haigh

David Hale

Marianne Hall

Valerie Hall

Patrick Hamilton

Ruth & Ben Hammett

Craig Harbison

Carolyn Kay Harper

Joan Hasselgren

Walter T Haswell

Robert Hayden

Joseph Haynes

H Jane Herbst

Dr Daniel F Hogan

Jeremy Hruska

Cynthia Huber

Connie Hull

Mark Humus

Julie Jacobson

Melissa Jahnke

Rick Kallmeyer

Richard Kangas

Jim Kates

Betty Jean Keele

Su Keister

Patricia Kellogg

Laura Kindsvater

Irwin Kingsman

Byron Kinnaman

Jeff Kipilman

Dolli Knowles

Monica Koler

Eugene Kunze

Alfred F Lang

Michael Lang

Lori Largent

Robert E Lee Jr

Dave Lensch

Daniel H Lichtenwald

Andrea Lindgren

J A Littooy

Dana MacDonald

B C MacDonald

Robert S Mahoney

Van Manning

Tony Marra

David Marshall

C Marychild

Olive Mayer

John McLaughlin

Lisa McManus

Diane Medeiros

Kaylynn, Molly & Brent Meyers

Dick Miller

Brittney Farrow Mitch Monetti

Patti Moffett

Randy Molina

Karen Mollander

Ned Montgomery

Bill Moore

James Moran

Marie Louise Morandi Long 

Zwicker

Diane Morison

Dr J Fraser Muirhead

Rich Nawa

Greely Nells

Ron Nosek

Gregg Oelker

Deanna H Olson, Phd

Marie Osmundsen

Joan Parker

Nellie D Patterson

Marc Paulman

Johanna Percilick

Beth Peterson

Robert Pfeffer

David Poese

Michael L Pond

Michael Powelson

Ron Pugh

Bud & Niki Queen

Gregg Ralston

Elaine Raper

Bryan Reggear

Ellen Reynoldson

Dale And Candance A Riddle

Jeanne Riha

Peter Rimbos

Denise Ripellino

Jeff Robinson

Rick and Monica Robinson

Peter Saltanis

Raymond W Scharpf

Dan Schrehoh

Carl H Schwarzenberg

Leslie Sekavec

Mike Shaw

Kathleen M Shayler

Edward & Susan T. Sherman

Dan Shydler

Alicia Simmons

Karen Jeanne Sjogren

Sherryl Smith

Nicholas Sobb

Peg Sorensen

Amy Sosin

Richard Spotts

Debra, Miles, Doug and Martin 

St. John

T Steen

Eric Stone

Carol Strand

William Tate

Peter Teensma

George Thompson

Naomi Thompson

Kathryn Toffenetti

Katie Tremaine

Jack Tuber

Marianne Turley

Dee G Tvedt

Heidi Tweed

E. Upton

Kim Vander Sys

Christopher Vondrasek

David H Wagner

Janet & Jack Walker

Lornie White

Duane Wicklund

Gloria Wiemann
412

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Robert A Witzeman

Jan Wroncy

Bryan Wyberg

Kristi Young

Quentin Youngblood

George Zuk 
413

Index

Index 

Acreage of known species sites. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,103

American Forest Resource Council. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5, 19, 112

American Indian. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323, 326

Amphibians. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76, 92, 174, 269-283

Annual Species Review (ASR). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30-31, 37, 49, 67, 99, 117, 119, 129, Vol. 2-17, Appendix 9

Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111, 123, 131-134

Arthropods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94, 166, 244-246

Assumptions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39, 104-113, 121, 123, 127, 128

Biological evaluation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297, Appendix 5

Biscuit fire. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105, 108

Bryophytes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76, 91, 166, 168, 173, 181-191, 339-340

Canada lynx. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300

Clean Air Act. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133, 146, 148

Clean Water Act. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

Conservation agreements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Coquille Indian Tribe (a.k.a. Coquille Tribe). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15, 22, 308, 326

Costs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xviii, 6, 69, 128, 158, 304-308

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11, 110, 325, 326

Court-Identified Deficiencies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi, xxiii, 20

Diversity, plant, and animal communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5, 9, 28, 180

Douglas Timber Operators, Inc.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . See Settlement Agreement

Employment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xviii, 69, 319-321

Endangered Species Act (ESA). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25, 26, 29, 42, 44, 62, 100, 117, 120, 166, 297

Federal Lands Policy and Management Act (FLPMA). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26, 100

Fire. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvii, 6, 19, 69, 108, 135, 140, 149-161

Fish, fisheries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132, 303

Forest Ecosystem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101, 134-145

Forest Service Sensitive Species. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297, Appendix 2

Foundational Objective. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

Fuel treatments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129, 155

Fungi. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74, 81, 166, 167, 168-169, 191-203, 327-336

Great Gray Owl. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59, 76, 92, 170, 174, 284-286, Vol. 2-33

Interagency Species Management System (ISMS). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124

Land allocations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29, 108

Legal and regulatory requirements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5, 8, 23, 26-29

Lichens. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75, 88, 166, 168-169, 172, 203-236, 336-339

Line officer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

Management recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36, Vol. 2-19

Mitigation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvi, 57, 67, 69, 73-80, 109, 115, 307, 317, Vol. 2-32

Mollusks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77, 92, 166, 169, 170, 174, 246-269, 340-342

Monitoring. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xx, 38, 47, 48, 56, 67, 109, 137, Vol. 2-31

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55, 56

National Fire Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150

National Forest Management Act (NFMA). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5, 8, 9, 25, 27, 30, 45, 59, 100, 117, 119, 166, 180

Native American. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . See American Indian

Ninth Circuit Court Decision. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xii, xxiv, 20, 56, 57

NOAA Fisheries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20, 42, 45

Notice of Intent. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi, xii, 10, 11

Oregon and California Railroad and Coos Bay Wagon Road 

 Grant Lands Act (O&C Act). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5, 19, 27, 100, 112, 120

Oregon Natural Heritage Information Center (ORNHIC). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40, 60, 166, 167, 168-171, Appendix 3

Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Association (PCFFA). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

Persistence objective. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100, 119, Vol. 2-7

Physiographic provinces. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vol. 2-5
414

Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS - To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines

Prescribed fire. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128, 155

Probable Sale Quantity (PSQ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . See Timber Harvest

Random Multi-Species Survey (RMS). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81, 110, 125-126, 163, 327-342

Rare, rarity (species). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33, 34, 49, 52, 142, 143, 163, 164

Red Tree Vole. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59, 76, 92, 129, 170, 173, 287-297

Regional Ecosystem Office (REO). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18, 19, Vol. 2-31

Regional Interagency Executive Committee (RIEC). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18, 21, 38

Scott Bar Salamander. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274, 281, 282, Appendix 10

Settlement agreement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5, 19, 29

Special Status Species Programs. . . . . . xv, 9, 25, 32, 39, 40, 42, 50, 60, 63, 66, 70, 73, 81, 71, 122, 127, 131, Appendix 2

Survey and Manage, Three Basic Criteria. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33, 50, 65, 119, Vol. 2-6

Survey Protocols. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Timber Harvest. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvii, 6, 62, 69, 101, 128, 129, 308-318

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20, 29, 42, 45, 282

Vascular Plants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77, 94, 166, 171, 175, 236-244

Viability provision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . see National Forest Management Act

Water quality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . see Clean Water Act

Wilderness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

Wildland fire for resource benefits/Wildland fire use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19, 146, 147, 154

BUREAU OF

LAND

MANAGEMENT

US Forest Service

BLM/OR/WA/PT-07/044-1792