The Utility of Strategic Surveys 

for Rare and Little-Known Species 

Under the Northwest Forest Plan

Deanna H. Olson, Kelli J. Van Norman, and Robert D. Huff

United States 

Department of 

Agriculture

Forest Service

Pacific Northwest 

Research Station

General Technical

Report

PNW-GTR-708

May 2007

DEPAR TMENT OF AGRICULT URE
The Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is dedicated to the principle of 

multiple use management of the Nation’s forest resources for sustained yields of wood, 

water, forage, wildlife, and recreation. Through forestry research, cooperation with the 

States and private forest owners, and management of the National Forests and National 

Grasslands, it strives—as directed by Congress—to provide increasingly greater service to a 

growing Nation.

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 (voice) 

or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Authors

Deanna H. Olson is a research ecologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 3200 

SW Jefferson Way, Corvallis, OR 97330; Kelli J. Van Norman is an inventory 

coordinator and Robert D. Huff is a conservation planning coordinator, U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Oregon State Office, 

Interagency Special Status/Sensitive Species Program, 333 SW 1st Avenue, 

Portland, OR 97208.

Cover art: drawing by Phil Rickus.
Abstract

Olson, Deanna H.; Van Norman, Kelli J.; Huff, Robert D. 2007. The utility of 

strategic surveys for rare and little-known species under the Northwest Forest 

Plan. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-708. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 48 p.

Management of over 400 rare species thought to be associated with late-successional and old-growth forest conditions on U.S. federal lands within the range 

of the northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) included a four-pronged 

“survey-and-manage” approach in 1994–2004 and 2006–2007, which included 

predisturbance surveys, strategic surveys, management of known sites to address 

species’ persistence, and adaptive management via an annual species review to 

improve management approaches. Although the objective of predisturbance surveys 

was to detect species in areas proposed for land management activities, strategic 

surveys were intended to fill critical information gaps in species knowledge. Many 

rare taxa in this program were little known, and basic knowledge of abundance and 

distribution patterns, species-habitat relationships, or species responses to disturbances were not well understood. To advance the adaptive management of this type 

of program, we compiled these strategic survey projects and evaluated their relative 

effectiveness by project types (including known site surveys, purposive surveys, 

probability surveys, historical data and literature synthesis, modeling, research, 

and genetics) and 10 taxa (fungi, lichens, bryophytes, vascular plants, arthropods, 

mollusks, amphibians, red tree voles [Phenacomys longicaudus], great gray owl 

[Strix nebulosa], and bats). We tallied 96 projects initiated in this timeframe, with 

almost $5 million spent for their implementation. From 63 projects, 123 products, 

(e.g. publications and reports) were compiled and are now available in a regional 

archive. Although all project types significantly contributed to advancing our 

understanding of rare species, numerous lessons learned from this effort will be 

important considerations for future conservation programs.

Keywords: Rare species, adaptive management, inventory, conservation.

The Utility of Strategic Surveys for Rare and Little-Known Species Under the Northwest Forest Plan



Introduction

Biodiversity conservation approaches target both species and habitats (e.g., Lindenmayer and Franklin 2002, Meffe and Carroll 1997, Miller et al. 1995, Noss et al. 

1997). Rare species are often the focus of conservation efforts, which can target the 

species themselves, or surrogate species associated with them, and their habitats. 

For example, the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) takes a species-by-species 

approach, yet focuses conservation efforts on protecting or restoring habitats that 

also serve larger assemblages and ecological processes (Noss et al. 1997). As 

landscapes or ecosystems are managed for multiple resources, including biodiversity, the list of rare species burgeons. In particular, forests are one of the most 

species-diverse systems, where an estimated two-thirds of all terrestrial species 

occur worldwide (World Commission on Forests and Sustainable Development 

1999). Surrogate species and habitat management designs can serve as “umbrellas” for larger species communities, including the rare taxa with similar ecologies. 

However, this coarse-filter approach fails when rare taxa do not have a good spatial 

correspondence with surrogate species or habitat protections. 

This issue was recognized during the development of the U.S. Northwest Forest 

Plan, which sought to preserve socioeconomic and ecological commodities in the 

range of the northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) in western Oregon 

and Washington and northwestern California (FEMAT 1993; USDA and USDI 

1994a, 1994b). An overarching goal of the plan was to address the ESA listing 

of the owl by a habitat management plan focusing on the 23.7 million acres of 

federal forest land within its range. The owl is a late-successional and old-growth 

(LSOG) forest associate, and species assessments during plan development found 

most LSOG associates in other taxonomic groups would likely be protected by the 

plan’s various habitat provisions (FEMAT 1993). However, there was concern for 

persistence of over 400 rare or little known species that did not appear to be well 

protected by reserves or habitat mitigations designed at site-to-ecosystem scales, or 

for which there was uncertainty regarding these issues. These taxa included fungi, 

lichens, bryophytes, vascular plants, arthropods, mollusks, amphibians, red tree 

voles (Phenacomys longicaudus), and great gray owls (Strix nebulosa). A multipronged “survey-and-manage” program was implemented to address the conservation of these taxa (Molina et al. 2006; USDA and USDI 1994b, 2000, 2001). These 

prongs included (1) predisturbance surveys, where areas proposed for land management activities that could significantly negatively affect the species are surveyed to 

detect those present; (2) strategic surveys, designed to gain additional or sometimes 

basic knowledge about the species; (3) management of known sites to help provide 

Forests are one of the 

most species-diverse 

systems, where an 

estimated two-thirds of 

all terrestrial species 

occur worldwide.
General TEchnical REport PNW-GTR-708

a reasonable assurance of species persistence; and (4) adaptive management via an 

annual species review process. Although the survey-and-manage program ended 

in 2004 (USDA and USDI 2004a, 2004b) and at this writing was only recently 

reinstated in 2006, its approaches warrant evaluation for program adaptive management as well as consideration for application to any similar conservation efforts that 

attempt to balance natural resource protection with commodity production.

In particular, strategic surveys were an important component of this rare 

species conservation approach because most “survey-and-manage” taxa were little 

known. Critical information gaps included basic knowledge of their ecology, including abundance and distribution patterns, micro- and macro-habitat associations, life 

history, and response to disturbances. Accrual of new knowledge of species through 

strategic surveys was intended in part to lead to adaptive management in the survey-and-manage program by refinement of predisturbance survey protocols and site 

management recommendations. This new information also was included in annual 

reassessments of the conservation status of each survey-and-manage species. This 

process of continuous collection and evaluation of new information that is subsequently incorporated into management direction is known as adaptive management 

by federal agencies. This annual species review allowed for removal of species from 

the program that were determined to be of lesser priority for conservation action or 

if new information showed the species no longer met criteria for inclusion (Molina 

et al. 2003, Rittenhouse 2003). These inclusion criteria included the species being 

rare or uncommon, having a close association with LSOG forest conditions, and 

species persistence not being provided by federal reserves or other standards and 

guidelines of the Northwest Forest Plan (e.g., USDA and USDI 2001, 2004c). For 

example, through strategic surveys it was documented that some species had a more 

widespread distribution or broader habitat use than was previously recognized. This 

could inform a management decision that the species did not need the survey-andmanage mitigation to persist on federal lands in the range of the northern spotted 

owl.

The framework for strategic surveys developed significantly during the course 

of the survey-and-manage program from 1994 to 2004. Initially, strategic surveys 

were termed “extensive surveys” and “general regional surveys” and were instituted 

primarily for the least-known species such as many fungi, lichens, bryophytes, 

and arthropods (USDA and USDI 1994a, 1994b). In the early years, there was an 

emphasis on conducting predisturbance surveys because this was specified as a 

requirement for some species in the record of decision (USDA and USDI 1994a, 

1994b), and little financial support was allocated to extensive or general regional 

surveys. In 2001, this broad survey concept to gather new species information was 

Accrual of new 

knowledge of species 

through strategic 

surveys was intended 

in part to lead to 

adaptive management 

in the survey-andmanage program.
The Utility of Strategic Surveys for Rare and Little-Known Species Under the Northwest Forest Plan

revisited and applied to all taxa in the program (USDA and USDI 2000, 2001), 

with a concurrent name change to “strategic surveys.” A major underpinning of the 

strategic surveys was the ability to ask specific questions about the most important 

information needed per species, and for the species of greatest management concern, so that the best survey and management approach could be developed.

Project Types

Several specific strategic survey approaches or project types were pursued to meet 

the information needs of the various taxa (Molina et al. 2003; Rittenhouse 2002, 

2003). Each project type is described further below. The choice of project type 

was driven by the level of information and question that needed to be addressed 

per taxon. For example, if there were few known site data and little known about 

a taxon (e.g., some lichens, bryophytes, mollusks, and fungi), the priority was to 

gain some knowledge of its general biology and ecology, especially distribution 

and habitat associations. Association with late-successional or old-growth forest 

conditions was a criterion for inclusion in the survey-and-manage program; hence 

knowing whether or not a taxon had this habitat association was a particular need. 

Also, another criterion for inclusion as a survey-and-manage species was that the 

reserve system and other provisions of the federal Northwest Forest Plan did not 

provide for their persistence; hence, distribution of the organisms relative to land 

use allocations was another specific information need. Basic information needs 

about distribution and habitat could lead to the project types of known-site surveys, 

purposive surveys, probability sampling, and habitat modeling. For taxa with more 

data on known site locations but little biology and ecology knowledge, statistical 

modeling could be used to develop predictions about habitat associations (e.g., some 

mollusks and amphibians). Modeling simulations could be used for those species 

with more information about their ecology but few known sites. With both ecological knowledge and known-site data available, population and habitat modeling 

could be developed and validated (e.g., some amphibians). A mix of approaches 

could be applied to a taxon to address different information needs (e.g., by region), 

or to opportunistically gain from the interests of different principal investigators 

proposing projects.

Known-site surveys—

Surveys of known sites of rare species served two primary purposes: to confirm the 

continued existence of the species at those sites, and to collect new habitat or population data for further analyses of habitat associations, life history, and population 

structure (Molina et al. 2003; Rittenhouse 2002, 2003). Some original site records 

of survey-and-manage species were several decades old. With timber harvest, fire, 

Several specific 

strategic survey 

approaches or project 

types were pursued 

to meet the information 

needs of the various 

taxa.
General TEchnical REport PNW-GTR-708



or other disturbances occurring on the landscape in the interim, there was some 

skepticism whether species were extant at those sites. For species with very few 

site records, revisits to those sites to collect additional habitat data were an effective means of improving understanding of their habitat associations. Habitat data 

collected in this way could be included later in habitat modeling approaches (see 

below, Rittenhouse 2002, 2003). Application of a standard survey protocol was 

important for these site revisits in order to later merge data across survey crews or 

independent efforts into meta-analyses; use of such a protocol also would enhance 

the effectiveness of later monitoring of these sites (e.g., Molina et al. 2003).

Purposive surveys—

The perceived rarity of some survey-and-manage species likely stems from little 

past effort to investigate their distributions and habitat associations. If some understanding of habitat and potential distribution existed, the value of intuitive searches by species experts could greatly enhance our knowledge base for such taxa. 

Purposive surveys were conceived as intuitive or opportunistic searches by experts, 

with the primary objective of increasing the number of known sites for a species 

(Molina et al. 2003; Rittenhouse 2002, 2003). This approach could alleviate a concern for species persistence if many new species locations were detected, and could 

expand our understanding of distribution or habitat use if the organism were to be 

found in new areas where it had not been reported previously. Also, by providing 

additional known sites, followup surveys as mentioned above could be completed to 

meet known-site survey objectives. 

Probability sampling—

Probability sampling approaches allow for inference to the broader sampled landscape (Molina et al. 2003). Results of this sampling approach can be an important 

contributor to species rarity decisions, such as those recommendations for inclusion in the survey-and-manage provision owing to few detection estimates, as 

well as recommendations for de-listing from the provision when more frequent 

detection estimates were made, particularly in reserves. Probability sampling 

designs were developed to address a variety of specific questions about population abundance and distribution, habitat associations, and population trends, for 

example. Secondarily, such approaches could help studies meet criteria for statistical analyses. A landscape-scale, multiple species survey effort to estimate species 

occurrences across the Northwest Forest Plan area was launched in 2000 (“random 

grid” design, Rittenhouse 2002). Through this effort, surveys were conducted for 

almost 400 rare or little-known species on federal forest lands in the range of the 

Northwest Forest Plan at existing Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) grid points 
The Utility of Strategic Surveys for Rare and Little-Known Species Under the Northwest Forest Plan

and Current Vegetation Survey (CVS) points. Sample points were randomly 

selected within stand-age and land-use strata. Species detections at these points 

were intended to be incorporated into species occurrence estimators and habitat 

association models across these lands.

Modeling—

Model-based approaches addressed several species-habitat related questions 

(Molina et al. 2003, Rittenhouse 2002). Models could be developed to map potential 

or suitable habitats across the forest landscape, to statistically describe species-associations with those mapped habitat elements, and then spatially portray estimated 

species occurrences across that same landscape. Models also could be used to 

forecast species rarity based on existing knowledge, assess risk or persistence concerns, and project species responses to conservation practices. Finally, microhabitat 

models could identify those specific elements (e.g., coarse woody debris, stream 

proximity, plant species association) that determine species presence on a site. This 

information could help refine survey methods to target these features and also aid 

development of management recommendations for protecting or restoring the most 

important habitat elements to provide for species persistence.

Research—

Research approaches (Molina et al. 2003, Rittenhouse 2003) could be used to 

address additional information needs to advance rare species conservation. For 

example, responses of species to disturbances such as fire or timber harvest, or 

protections such as reserve islands, could be addressed by research studies using 

retrospective or before-after-control designs. Survey protocols are not well tested 

for many taxa, so research could assess efficacy of different approaches. Also, 

our understanding of rare species’ life history or population structures are usually 

limited and could be augmented by studies of these attributes (see Species-Specific 

Surveys; Rittenhouse 2002, 2003). In particular, population structure can now 

be easily understood with application of recently developed genetics techniques. 

Genetics could be applied to some of the taxa groups in our pool to help define 

species, as well as population boundaries.

Strategic Survey Implementation

Selection and implementation of any project type depends heavily on the taxon, 

habitat, specific information need, and objective of the effort (Olson and Leonard 

1997). Priorities of information needs were key factors in determining which projects and approaches were chosen for strategic survey implementation (Rittenhouse 

2003). High-priority projects included consideration of biological (e.g., persistence), 
General TEchnical REport PNW-GTR-708

managerial (e.g., cost of management, tradeoffs with other resources), and operational (e.g., specified timelines needed to be met, USDA and USDI 2001) factors 

(Rittenhouse 2003, USDA and USDI 2004c). Molina et al. (2003) cited several other 

considerations for selection of strategic survey approaches: efficiency, cost, scientific credibility, and legal defensibility. One particular survey type may be more 

efficient or cost-effective than the others at addressing the information need given 

the species, existing knowledge base, or personnel available to conduct the work. 

Scientific credibility depends on the standard use of protocols and peer-reviewed 

designs, analyses, and reports when they are relevant, in order to reduce bias and 

result in findings accepted by both scientists and managers; this will lead to legally 

defensible decisions (e.g., regarding rarity or persistence) by managers. 

The Strategic Survey Implementation Guide (SSIG) (Rittenhouse 2002, 2003) 

described information needs per species, and specified how strategic surveys were 

applied to address these knowledge gaps. In 2000-2004, many of these projects 

were funded and implemented (USDA and USDI 2004c). In 2003, the SSIG briefly 

summarized project findings (Rittenhouse 2003). A system to adequately track 

these projects across years and evaluate approaches was nearly developed in 2004 

when the survey-and-manage program was eliminated (USDA and USDI 2004a, 

2004b). 

The objective of our study is to further develop a tracking system for projects, 

evaluate the approaches used, and summarize lessons learned from the surveyand-manage strategic surveys. We provide recommendations to apply these lessons 

learned to survey-and-manage or other rare species conservation efforts such as 

the Interagency Special-Status and Sensitive Species Program of the USDI Bureau 

of Land Management, Oregon and Washington, and USDA Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Region. Strategic survey implementation was expected to change 

with time as information needs were identified and prioritized annually (USDA 

and USDI 2001). Molina et al. (2003) envisioned an evolution of strategic survey 

approaches as knowledge accrued. They thought the need for general species 

ecological information would decrease with time, and be replaced with more 

specific species management information and model-based approaches. We provide 

the first adaptive management feedback loop for this novel strategic survey concept, 

and our findings will likely be of use beyond our region, for development of rare 

species programs globally.

Our approach includes four steps. First, we developed a master list of strategic 

survey projects, including brief information regarding their principal investigators, 

objectives, direct costs, progress, and key findings. We examined this implementation data across project types (e.g., known-site survey, purposive survey, probability 

The objective of 

our study is to 

further develop a 

tracking system for 

projects, evaluate the 

approaches used, 

and summarize 

lessons learned 

from the survey-andmanage strategic 

surveys. We provide 

the first adaptive 

management feedback 

loop for this novel 

strategic survey 

concept, and our 

findings will likely 

be of use beyond 

our region, for 

development of rare 

species programs 

globally.
The Utility of Strategic Surveys for Rare and Little-Known Species Under the Northwest Forest Plan

survey, modeling, research) and taxa. Our list included all projects except the random 

multiple-species survey effort (random grid design); a separate summary has been 

initiated for that project. Second, we evaluated the projects. Our evaluations were 

a qualitative panel assessment of project effectiveness to address their objectives, 

species conservation needs, and project cost efficiency relative to results obtained. 

We summarized these evaluations by each project type and taxon. Third, we 

synthesized lessons learned from this effort and opportunities for future work that 

could fold into the future evolution of similar species conservation efforts. Lastly, 

we compiled products resulting from these survey efforts in order to develop an 

information archive for scientists and managers working with these taxa. 

Methods 

We compiled strategic survey projects by querying several sources in the summer 

of 2004. First, we reviewed records of projects in the SSIG (Rittenhouse 2002, 

2003), and reports and files kept by the survey-and-manage strategic survey coordinator. However, project compilation was not straightforward because the surveyand-manage program had been eliminated before compilation began. As a result, 

personnel changes had removed knowledgeable persons (e.g., the strategic survey 

coordinator), and hardcopy or electronic files were not found or did not appear to 

be complete. Second, we examined annual budget spreadsheets for the surveyand-manage program where either projects or individuals were listed under one of 

several broader categories. Several individuals were contacted to find out if they 

had conducted any project that could fall under the category of strategic surveys. 

Third, we asked taxa leads and experts funded by the survey-and-manage program 

if they knew of any additional surveys or research. We compiled projects that were 

directly funded by the strategic survey budget, and also projects that appeared to 

meet strategic survey information needs but were only indirectly funded through 

survey-and-manage program operations. For example, some taxa leads funded by 

the program conducted purposive surveys, revisits to known sites, or research.

We developed a summary form to document each project (app. 1). Forms 

included information about the project leads, funding received, objectives, critical information gaps addressed, methods, key findings, products, effectiveness, 

and completion date. These forms were drafted, internally reviewed by program 

personnel, and revised before use. Forms were sent to project leads, or if leads 

were not available, to knowledgeable persons associated with the project or taxa. 

We completed some forms when project leads were unavailable but final reports or 

publications were available with the relevant project information.
General TEchnical REport PNW-GTR-708

Information from summary forms was compiled. Funding compiled from the 

project leads’ numbers on summary forms were totaled by project type and taxon. 

Hence, our results of strategic survey costs were not derived from internal program 

records, and may differ from other expense compilations relying on other sources. 

Survey objectives were summarized across projects. Projects that were listed in 

the SSIG of 2002 and 2003 were tallied by project type and taxon. Strategic survey 

funding of those not in the guide was summed. Products were listed and attempts 

were made to find hardcopies of publications or reports. Incomplete projects were 

highlighted for possible followup.

Project evaluations were conducted by a panel in the summer of 2005. Evaluations focused on giving a numerical ranking of the effectiveness of a project’s 

(1) methods at addressing the stated objective; (2) implementation at addressing the 

conservation need; and (3) cost, in terms of funding provided by the survey-andmanage program, to answer conservation questions. A 0 to 10 ranking scale was 

used, with 0 indicating lack of effectiveness and 10 indicating most effective. 

A score of 5 was generally understood to be “average,” and ranks were relative 

among projects. We also compiled notes regarding accountability issues that may 

have explained incomplete projects, lessons learned from the project or project 

implementation, and opportunities for future work. The project evaluation form was 

drafted, reviewed internally by agency personnel working with the agency sensitive and special status species programs, and revised before use (app. 2). We then 

conducted a preliminary evaluation of several projects to ensure our form questions 

were clear and resulted in useful information. 

Although we initially planned to have our evaluation panel include field unit 

biologists and managers who were not closely associated with the survey-andmanage program to reduce bias in our evaluations, we found that the project summary forms we evaluated in this preliminary assessment were extremely brief and 

required either additional knowledge or considerable explanation for their interpretation. We felt personnel who had been previously associated with survey-andmanage would be most effective at conducting evaluations. Time to conduct 

evaluations figured into our perception of panel effectiveness; when personnel 

with knowledge of a project were available, the project could be assessed in about 

5 to 20 minutes, whereas it could take twice this time and a mediator to explain 

additional details of projects when less experienced personnel were used. Hence, 

four persons with survey-and-manage experience were chosen as panel members. 

The survey-and-manage roles of these four persons were broad, some had changed 

over time, and had included being a taxa expert, the acting program manager, the 

acting strategic survey coordinator, the annual species review coordinator, and the 

Project evaluations 

were conducted by 

a panel in the summer 

of 2005. Evaluations 

focused on giving a 

numerical ranking of 

the effectiveness of a 

project’s (1) methods 

at addressing the 

stated objective; 

(2) implementation 

at addressing the 

conservation need; 

and (3) cost, in terms 

of funding provided 

by the survey-andmanage program, to 

answer conservation 

questions. 
The Utility of Strategic Surveys for Rare and Little-Known Species Under the Northwest Forest Plan

database manager. We acknowledge that such a team of persons tightly linked to 

the program may bias evaluations; however, we opted for potential bias as a tradeoff 

to task efficiency, in particular relative to panel logistics and time constraints.

Our evaluations were conducted over a 4-day period with projects clustered by 

type. For example, we evaluated all known site surveys first. We used a modified 

Delphi method for the evaluations. The panel convened, panelists each read the 

summary form for a project, and each panelist completed an evaluation form for 

the project. When all panelists had completed their evaluations, each revealed their 

rankings. Panelists then discussed their knowledge of the project and rationale for 

their rankings; in particular, panelists with both high and low scores for effectiveness questions revealed why they had up- or down-graded projects. Finally, panelists were provided the opportunity to recast their rating given the new information 

provided by others. We did not attempt to reach consensus for ranked or other 

questions, but we recorded the variety of scores and opinions given. In some cases, 

panelists did not have sufficient information to score a project and a question mark 

was given for an element on the form. Ranked scores were averaged, with question 

marks omitted from the averaging. We listed “action items” for incomplete projects, 

projects which we felt required broader dissemination, or projects with opportunities for additional work. 

Methods, conservation, and cost-effectiveness evaluations were summarized 

per project type and per taxon. Average, maximum, and minimum effectiveness 

scores were examined for ranked questions. When a project addressed more than 

one taxon, it was compiled and evaluated separately for each taxon. Similarly, in a 

couple of cases, a project had multiple objectives, which met the criteria for more 

than one project type; these were compiled and evaluated separately for each project 

type. Overall project effectiveness was calculated as the sum of the three ranked 

effectiveness scores. Average project conservation and overall effectiveness scores 

were examined relative to whether or not a project was identified in the SSIG. Overall effectiveness was categorized and compared to funding levels provided by the 

strategic survey program; patterns of effectiveness by funding level were examined. 

Lastly, information was compiled for other questions on the evaluation form including lessons learned, accountability issues, and future work opportunities.

Results

We reviewed 96 projects and their corresponding summary forms from August 

2004 to August 2005. Our total sample size of projects by project type was 98 

(two projects had objectives relevant to different project types), and by taxa was 

120 (15 projects addressed multiple taxa, 5 projects addressed “All Taxa” and 

We reviewed 96 

projects. At the time 

of our evaluation, 

41 of 96 (43 percent) 

of projects were 

not completed, and 

completion was 

unknown for two 

projects.
General TEchnical REport PNW-GTR-708

10

were compiled separately). At the time of our evaluation, 41 of 96 (43 percent) of 

projects were not completed, and completion was unknown for two projects. Of the 

41 incomplete projects, two had not been begun at all, we thought many may have 

been either stopped or stalled by the elimination of the survey-and-manage program 

in 2004, and some were ongoing.

Project objectives were quite variable. Many projects gathered information 

about habitat attributes at known sites or modeled species-habitat associations or 

did both. Historical data were compiled, including literature citations and knownsite information. Genetics studies identified discrete populations that may warrant 

discrete conservation measures. Effects of forest management activities on taxa 

were examined in several instances (e.g., arthropods, lichens). Species ranges were 

explored, and in some cases rarity was confirmed. 

Funding compiled from summary forms for these strategic survey projects 

reached almost $5 million dollars (table 1), excluding the random multiple-species 

survey. If funding amounts were not always clear from our records in 2004, estimates were made by principal investigators or survey-and-manage personnel; some 

project funding may have been over- or underestimated owing to sparse records. Of 

the 120 projects by taxa, 89 appeared to be funded directly by the survey-and-manage program. As taxa groups, amphibians and lichens received the greatest amount 

of funding, with bats and great gray owls receiving the least funding. Red tree vole 

was the most-funded taxon, receiving a half million dollars for 10 projects. On a 

per-species basis, five amphibians and the great gray owl received over $90,000 per 

species in project funding. With 189 fungi species identified in the survey-and-manage program (table 1), their funding allocation on a per-species basis was smallest, 

at $2,350 per species.

More projects were conducted with amphibians (n = 27) and bryophytes (n = 

21) than other taxa groups (table 1). However, 13 of the 27 (48 percent) amphibian 

projects and 6 of the 21 (28.5 percent) bryophyte projects were not directly funded 

by the strategic survey program (table 1). Not including unfunded projects, the 

count of projects by taxa ranged from 1 for bats to 15 for bryophytes, and averaged 

8 per taxon group. 

Among taxa, different project types were implemented (fig. 1). The most 

common project types were modeling (n = 30), purposive surveys (n = 17), research 

(n = 17), and probability sampling (n = 13). Modeling was most frequently applied 

to amphibians (n = 12 projects), mollusks (n = 5), and lichens (n = 5). For species 

with little prior information about them, purposive surveys were frequently used 

to gain basic knowledge: bryophytes (n = 11 projects) and fungi (n = 3). Similarly, 

for species with little prior habitat information, known-site surveys were used with 

Funding compiled 

from summary forms 

for these strategic 

survey projects 

reached almost 

$5 million dollars.
The Utility of Strategic Surveys for Rare and Little-Known Species Under the Northwest Forest Plan

11

Table 1—Tally of strategic survey projects and related studies and their cost by 

taxa, and sum of taxa in the survey-and-manage program in 2001

Average 

Number of projects cost per

 funded Number

Taxon Funded Unfunded Total cost project of taxa

Thousand dollars

All taxa 4 1 473 118 —

Amphibians 14 13 836 60 5

Arthropods 7 0 626 89 4 assemblages

Bats 1 0 148 148 —

Bryophytes 15 6 325 22 17

Fungi 11 4 445 40 209

Great gray owl 2 0 185 92 1

Lichens 12 3 780 65 51

Mollusks 7 4 381 54 46

Red tree vole 10 0 502 50 1

Vascular plants 6 0 292 49 12

 Total 89 31 4,993 56 346

— = not applicable. a

Of the 96 projects conducted, some addressed more than one taxon, and these were counted for each taxon 

here (hence, no. projects = 120), whereas their costs were divided equally among taxa in the project (funding 

was not double counted). “Funded” projects were allocated monies from the survey-and-manage program 

under the auspices of strategic surveys. “Unfunded” projects may have been funded by other means but were 

conducted on survey-and-manage species and had objectives similar to other strategic survey projects.

Source: USDA and USDI 2001.

bryophytes (n = 5 projects) and fungi, lichens, and vascular plants (n = 3, each); 

and historical data compilations (n = 5 projects) were conducted on bryophytes, 

lichens, red tree voles, and arthropods. One or two research projects per taxon were 

conducted for fungi, great gray owl, lichens, mollusks, and vascular plants; and 

five research projects were conducted with amphibians and five with arthropods. 

Probability sampling was implemented to make population inferences with some 

species: amphibians and red tree vole (n = 4 projects each), lichens and fungi 

(n = 2, each) and bats (n = 1). Five to six different project types were used with 

amphibians, fungi, lichens, and red tree voles; and four different types were used 

with bryophytes, mollusks, and vascular plants. Three modeling projects and two 

program development projects were applicable to all taxa. “Program development” 

was a project type submitted by two principal investigators who had been funded 

to assist in the design of the strategic survey program. Their work related to how 

the strategic survey program could be developed, including identification of project 

types and how information needs per taxon could be compiled and evaluated.

Affiliations of principal investigators of strategic survey projects included 

federal agency personnel, university cooperators, and independent contractors 

Affiliations of principal 

investigators of 

strategic survey 

projects included 

federal agency 

personnel, university 

cooperators, 

and independent 

contractors.
General TEchnical REport PNW-GTR-708

12

Figure 1—Number of strategic survey projects conducted by project type per taxon.

(table 2). Most investigators were affiliated with the USDA Forest Service, being 

employed by the Pacific Northwest Research Station (PNW, mainly at the Forestry 

Sciences Laboratory, Corvallis, OR), the Pacific Southwest Research Station (PSW, 

Redwood Sciences Laboratory, Arcata, CA), or the National Forest System (NFS). 

For both the USDI Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the USDA Forest 

Service National Forest System, we did not distinguish between those working at 

regional, state, or field unit offices. Investigators from both Forest Service Pacific 

Southwest and Pacific Northwest Regions were noted, however. For projects that 

were a mix of affiliations, if a single investigator or affiliation took primary responsibility for the work, they alone were included in our compilation here. For example, 
The Utility of Strategic Surveys for Rare and Little-Known Species Under the Northwest Forest Plan

13

if a PNW collaborator working with a university student on a project was the 

responsible party for the work, their PNW affiliation was counted in our tally.

Patterns of affiliation by project type and taxa were apparent (table 2). University collaborators conducted primarily genetics, modeling, and research studies. 

Independent contractors were hired for many purposive surveys. Modeling was 

conducted by the NFS, PNW, and PSW, primarily. Probability sampling and 

research projects were dominated by investigators from NFS and PNW. By taxa, 

investigator affiliation patterns included amphibian projects conducted by university cooperators, PNW, and PSW; bryophyte projects conducted by independent 

contractors and NFS; fungi projects conducted by independent contractors, NFS, 

and PNW; lichen projects conducted by NFS; and PNW researchers contributing to 

red tree vole and arthropod studies.

Most projects were identified, at least in a general sense, in the SSIG of 2002 

or 2003 (Rittenhouse 2002, 2003). By project type, 70 percent of projects were 

Table 2—Affiliations of strategic survey project principal investigators by project type and taxonomic groupa

Affiliation

University Contract USGS BLM NFS PSW PNW USFWS Mix

Project type:

Genetics 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Historical data compilation 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0

Known-site surveys 0 1 0 1 4 0 1 0 1

Modeling 3 0 2 0 10 6 6 1 0

Probability sampling 0 1 0 1 3 1 7 0 0

Program development 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0

Purposive survey 0 9 0 0 4 0 1 1 0

Research 2 0 0 0 3 1 10 0 0

Taxonomic group:

Amphibians 6 1 1 0 2 5 12 0 0

Arthropods 2 1 0 0 0 0 4 0 0

Bats 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

Bryophytes 1 6 0 0 10 1 1 1 1

Fungi 0 4 0 0 3 0 4 0 1

Great gray owl 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0

Lichens 1 1 1 0 10 1 0 0 1

Mollusks 1 3 1 0 2 2 1 0 1

Red tree vole 1 0 1 1 2 0 4 0 0

Vascular plants 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

All 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0

a University = university collaborators; contract = independent contractors; USGS = U.S. Geological Survey; BLM = U.S. Bureau of Land Management; 

NFS = U.S. Forest Service, National Forest System; PSW = U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station; PNW = U.S. Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station; USFWS = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; mix = mixture of affiliations.
General TEchnical REport PNW-GTR-708

14

identified in the guide, and 76 percent of these were funded directly by the strategic 

survey program. Of those not referenced in the guide, the most frequent project 

types were research (n = 9), genetics (n = 5), purposive surveys, and modeling (n 

= 4, each). By project type, overall, 64 percent of those not named in the guide 

were funded by the strategic survey program. Tallying by taxa group, 73 percent 

of projects were identified in the guide, with 79 percent of them being funded by 

the program. Of those not found in the guide, most frequent projects by taxa were 

amphibian (n = 9), bryophyte (n = 6), fungi, and all taxa (n = 4, each), and overall, 

with 64 percent of these being program funded. The sum of direct funding from the 

strategic survey program toward projects not referenced in the guide was estimated 

at $770,000; this was about 15 percent of the total funding allocation.

Evaluations of Summary Forms

Project effectiveness—

Ranking of effectiveness was conducted by a four-person panel on a 10-point scale 

(10 = highest effectiveness, 5 = “average”) for three aspects of projects: methods, 

conservation, and cost. Methods effectiveness addressed how well a project’s 

method was conceptually able to meet the project objectives. Although a proposal 

may have had an effective design a priori, we ranked the implementation of the 

project’s method here if that information differed from the proposed methods. For 

example, if a project proposed to use a random site selection for surveys, but ended 

up with a nonrandom and biased design, its ranking was likely lowered because of 

implementation issues. A lower score for methods effectiveness indicated a flawed 

design for the stated objectives. These scores ranged from 0 to 9.5 across projects, 

and overall were the highest scores of the three aspects. Average methods effectiveness across project types was 7.46, and across taxa was 7.49 (exclusive of bats, 

which were not survey-and-manage, and which had only one project with a score of 

3.25; with this score added, the mean taxa score was 7.10). 

Conservation effectiveness addressed how well a project’s results actually met 

information needs by the survey-and-manage program, for example to improve 

surveys, to improve management approaches, or to fill critical information needs 

for taxa. A high score in this category indicated the conservation of a taxon was advanced by the findings of the project. Conservation effectiveness of projects ranged 

from 0 to 9.25, averaged 6.19 for project types and 6.18 for taxa (bats were excluded 

because no score was given for this aspect). 

Cost effectiveness addressed the cost of a project, and how well the funding 

level matched information needs given the scope of the work conducted. A highly 

Methods effectiveness 

addressed how well a 

project’s method was 

conceptually able to 

meet the project objectives. Conservation 

effectiveness addressed 

how well a project’s 

results actually met 

information needs by 

the survey-and-manage 

program, for example 

to improve surveys, to 

improve management 

approaches, or to fill 

critical information 

needs for taxa.
The Utility of Strategic Surveys for Rare and Little-Known Species Under the Northwest Forest Plan

15

ranked score in cost effectiveness indicated a lot of useful information was collected for relatively little or a reasonable amount of funding. Cost effectiveness scores 

ranged from 0 to 9.25 among projects, with a mean score of 6.29 by project type 

and a mean score of 5.99 by taxa (excluding the one bat project; with it included, 

the mean by taxa score was 5.71). 

By project type (fig. 2a), mean methods effectiveness was highest for genetics 

and historic data compilation (> 8.0) and lowest for known-site surveys and purposive surveys (< 6.5). Historical data compilation received the highest score for conservation effectiveness (7.46), followed by probability sampling (6.95), and genetics 

(6.62). Known-site surveys were ranked lower for conservation effectiveness (4.75). 

Historical data compilation also received the highest score for cost effectiveness 

(7.75). Research received the lowest cost effectiveness score (5.27).

By taxa (fig. 2b), methods effectiveness scores averaged 6.27 to 8.32 (excluding bats, 3.25 for one project). Arthropods and amphibians received the highest 

methods rankings, whereas lichens and bryophytes received the lowest. For both 

conservation and cost effectiveness, great gray owl, arthropods, and amphibians 

were ranked high. Lower scores (< 6.0) for conservation effectiveness were received 

by the all taxa category, vascular plants, red tree voles, lichens, and bryophytes. 

Lower cost scores (< 6.0) were given to all taxa, bryophytes, lichens, mollusks, and 

vascular plants (and bats, 3.0).

By project, summed scores across all three aspects (methods, conservation, and 

cost effectiveness, sum = 30 maximum) gave an overall ranking of project efficacy. 

The most effective projects had sums > 27, and included an arthropod project that 

conducted a literature search synthesizing knowledge of forest arthropods and 

an amphibian research project advancing risk assessment procedures by use of 

landscape geographic information system parameters, which could be applied to 

any taxa. Eight additional projects received summed scores > 24: three amphibian 

projects, two lichen projects, one fungi research project, a second arthropod literature synthesis, and one project with fungi, bryophytes, and lichens. Least effective 

projects had summed ranks ranging from 0 to 12: two lichen and one mollusk 

project for which there was no support for them to have been conducted despite 

funding allocation (summed ranks of zero), and one bryophyte project, which may 

have been completed but for which the product had not been submitted (summed 

rank of 8). 

Average conservation and overall effectiveness were computed for projects 

identified and those not identified in the SSIGs (Rittenhouse 2002, 2003). Conservation effectiveness averaged 6.6 for projects listed as a priority in the SSIGs, and it 

Cost effectiveness 

addressed the cost 

of a project, and how 

well the funding level 

matched information 

needs given the scope 

of the work conducted. 

A highly ranked score 

in cost effectiveness 

indicated a lot of 

useful information was 

collected for relatively 

little or a reasonable 

amount of funding. 

By project, summed 

scores across all three 

aspects (methods, 

conservation, and cost 

effectiveness, sum 

= 30 maximum) gave 

an overall ranking of 

project efficacy. 
General TEchnical REport PNW-GTR-708

16

averaged 5.2 for those not in the SSIG (unranked projects were not included, 

n = 1 for unranked SSIG projects and n = 3 for unranked non-SSIG). However, 

four projects received a zero ranking among those not listed in the SSIG, and no 

zeroes occurred in the SSIG group. A zero ranking meant we had no evidence that 

the project was actually conducted. Removing the four projects with zeroes from 

the tally, the average increased to 6.2 for projects not in the SSIGs. Overall effectiveness was the sum of the three rankings (methods, conservation, and cost) and 

did not include projects lacking one of these rankings (26 percent of SSIG projects 

lacked a score, 40 percent of non-SSIG projects). Average overall effectiveness for 

SSIG projects was 20.5, and for non-SSIG projects was 15.8. Again, removing the 

four projects that did not appear to have been conducted (zero ranks for conservation and cost effectiveness), the average overall effectiveness for non-SSIG projects 

increased to 20.8.

Overall project effectiveness was also examined relative to the extent of strategic survey funding provided to projects. An interesting pattern occurred where 

projects funded by more than $30,000 were ranked higher in overall effectiveness, 

with the majority of these projects receiving summed rankings >20 (table 3). 

Other findings—

Lessons learned per project were key points, both positive and negative, compiled 

during panel evaluations. We found these spanned advances relative to species 

biology and ecology, survey methods development, and forest management considerations (app. 3). It is important to note that these “lessons” did not highlight all 

new information (e.g., species sites, research findings) gained from a project. We 

also found several project implementation issues, including need for greater project 

planning, documentation, or accountability (37 of 96 projects [38.5 percent], app. 3). 

Two types of projects were perceived to be potentially expensive when they were 

conducted on a per-species basis: molecular genetic probes for species identification 

and habitat modeling. 

A final section of the evaluation forms addressed those topics recommended 

to be followed up by subsequent federal agency programs. These included project 

completion or publication (n = 9 projects), incorporation of information into conservation assessments (n = 4), agency acquisition of products (n = 2), and data entry 

(n = 4). However, consideration of new work dominated recommendations (n = 43), 

such as collection of new data, habitat analysis, modeling, model validation 

(n = 25), conducting new syntheses (n = 2), and using sites for monitoring (n = 3).
The Utility of Strategic Surveys for Rare and Little-Known Species Under the Northwest Forest Plan

17

Products

Products from projects included reports, publications, and references of oral or 

poster presentations given of project findings. We compiled hardcopies of 123 

reports and publications from 63 projects during our evaluation (app. 4). 

Discussion

The strategic survey program was a component of survey-and-manage instituted to 

fill critical information gaps regarding rare and little-known species’ basic biology, 

life history, distribution, and abundance patterns. Specifically, strategic surveys 

targeted those information needs relevant to advancing species’ management efficacies on federal lands within the range of the northern spotted owl. Some projects 

focused on validating whether or not species met survey-and-manage criteria (i.e., 

being associated with LSOG forest conditions, that reserves did not provide for 

persistence, and that the taxon was rare). Improved knowledge in these areas could 

reduce the list of species being managed under the survey-and-manage program, 

which would have direct managerial repercussions by focusing future efforts on the 

truly rare and at-risk species, and also could result in the lifting of restrictions on 

projects, and potential economic ramifications if commodity production was facilitated. Validation that species met the criteria of the survey-and-manage program 

could focus future resources to more specific aspects of their ecology, to improve 

species management approaches.

Our compilation and evaluation of strategic surveys and related projects to date 

has provided significant insight regarding implementation, scope, and effectiveness of the survey-and-manage strategic survey program. Although most projects 

Table 3—Project cost categories in relation to overall effectiveness ranks (sum 

of methods, conservation and cost ranks per project, potential range 0–30)a

Overall effectiveness

Cost category ($1,000) <10 10–14.9 15–19.9 20–24.9 25–30

<10 1 2 3 2 —

10–29 3 2 7 1 —

30–49 — — 3 5 2

50–69 — — 1 8 —

70–89 — 1 — 5 —

90–109 — — — 2 —

110–199 — — 3 10 —

>200 — — 3 — —

— Indicates no projects were sorted into that cell.

a

Costs are funds allocated to the project through the strategic survey program. Projects without direct funding 

from strategic surveys and projects that were not scored for all three effectiveness measures are not included. 

We compiled 

hardcopies of 

123 reports and 

publications from 

63 projects during 

our evaluation.
General TEchnical REport PNW-GTR-708

18

successfully met their objectives, many were incomplete at the time of our evaluation, and we were not able to find evidence that a few were conducted as planned. 

Nevertheless, each project has contributed important lessons learned about project 

and program implementation. Their value is often in the species knowledge gained, 

the implementation lessons learned, and the opportunities they have opened for 

pursuit by others.

Project Compilation

Ninety-six distinct projects were compiled in our assessment of strategic surveys 

and related projects from 1994 to 2004. The SSIG (Rittenhouse 2002, 2003) served 

as a synthesis of projects being funded by the program. Of those 96 projects we 

compiled, 70 percent were named in the SSIG. Of those projects we found were 

funded by the strategic survey program, 15 percent were not reported in the SSIG. 

Although the guide adequately represented the main projects being pursued, it was 

not a mechanism to account for all projects being conducted. The 2003 SSIG also 

contained some project findings. However, again, these were syntheses, and did not 

fully explain projects and their findings. An additional tracking mechanism would 

be warranted to fulfill the task of complete accountability of projects, from funding of proposals through project completion and reporting. We found considerable 

“detective work” was needed to identify some project leads and findings of studies, 

suggesting that a tracking system would be useful. To this end, we now have a database of projects with summary information (app. 1) and products compiled (app. 4) 

in an information archive. This will be an important step, considering that over 40 

percent of projects were not completed at the time of our synthesis.

Most projects were species- or taxon-specific because information needs 

differed with taxa and geographic locations (Rittenhouse 2002, 2003), and project 

methods were often taxon-specific. However, one-fifth of the projects spanned 

multiple taxa, suggesting that cross-taxonomic efficiencies were being sought. 

In several projects, taxa included together for projects involving field surveys or 

modeling were lichens, bryophytes, and fungi. Commonalities among these taxa 

may include habitat associations, survey approaches, and level of knowledge.

We summarized eight project types overall. During the development of the strategic survey program, five of these eight project types had been identified (knownsite surveys, purposive surveys, probability surveys, modeling, and research). Two 

of the additional three types we recognized in our assessment are subcategories of 

“research”: historical data compilation and genetics. Historical data compilation 

included literature review and known-site compilation. Although these are relevant 

Our compilation and 

evaluation of strategic 

surveys and related 

projects to date has 

provided significant 

insight regarding 

implementation, scope, 

and effectiveness 

of the survey-andmanage strategic 

survey program.
The Utility of Strategic Surveys for Rare and Little-Known Species Under the Northwest Forest Plan

19

research tasks, this work differs significantly from collection of new information 

to answer a specific question typical of other research projects. Historical data 

compilation occurred for many taxa outside the guise of strategic surveys, for 

example at the beginning of the survey-and-manage program in 1994 and 1995 or 

as literature was synthesized to write early management recommendations and 

survey protocols. The projects included here are only the later efforts initiated that 

were funded by strategic surveys. Genetics studies were broken out from “research” 

owing to their common question of seeking recognition of species or populations 

by using molecular laboratory tools, and their frequency (n = 7 genetics projects) 

relative to all other research projects (n = 17). The last type of project we identified 

was “Program Development.” We received summary forms from a couple of project 

leads because they were funded to develop strategic survey program procedures. 

We suspect our summaries of this type of work are underrepresented in our compilation owing to other personnel funded for such work not recognizing or summarizing it as such during our queries for “strategic survey project summaries.” However, 

it does provide insight for program management that procedural development is a 

critical aspect of program implementation.

All project types were valuable tools to collect new species information. The 

utility of specific project types depended on the information gap that needed to 

be addressed, and the prior information available for a taxon. For example, prior 

to habitat modeling, sufficient species site and habitat data were needed; hence, 

models could not be developed for the lesser known taxa. There tended to be taxonomic patterns for project types used, and these tracked information needs, site and 

habitat data, and opportunities owing to personnel expertise or proximity of federal 

lands to species experts. 

The most frequent project types compiled were modeling, purposive surveys, 

and probability surveys. Modeling and probability surveys have broader inference 

to a species, habitat, or area, and were likely pursued in order to reveal new information about a species and its habitat. Purposive surveys were initiated to find more 

species locations, delineate ranges, and collect species’ habitat data as the basis for 

habitat models. However, habitat models developed from purposive survey data are 

biased and require probability sample data for model testing. Because areas selected 

to be surveyed by purposive surveys are biased, the results cannot be inferred to a 

broader area. Another problem with purposive surveys is that often only suspected 

habitats are searched when the species may occur in other habitat types.

We received summary forms for projects on 10 different taxonomic groups, and 

some projects appeared conceptually relevant to “All Taxa.” Priority taxa for projects appeared to be based on a mixture of management concern, prior information 

All project types were 

valuable tools to 

collect new species 

information. The utility 

of specific project 

types depended on 

the information gap 

that needed to be 

addressed, and the 

prior information 

available for a taxon. 

The most frequent 

project types compiled 

were modeling, 

purposive surveys, 

and probability 

surveys.
General TEchnical REport PNW-GTR-708

20

about a taxon, personnel, and ability to survey a taxon. Arthropods, bats, and great 

gray owls were the least-represented taxa among projects, likely because of their 

reduced emphasis in the survey-and-manage program. Of these three taxa, only 

arthropods were initially on the survey-and-manage list. In 1994, four arthropod assemblages were identified as survey-and-manage “strategy 4” (i.e., conduct general 

regional surveys) in the Northwest Forest Plan (USDA and USDI 1994b). Three of 

these assemblages were of concern in only the “south range”: canopy herbivores, 

coarse wood chewers, and litter and soil dwelling species. The other assemblage 

was understory and forest gap herbivores. These are all little-known taxa, and 

primarily literature reviews and management-effects research were initiated to fill 

knowledge gaps with this taxon. Bat habitat mitigations were a separate provision 

of the Northwest Forest Plan for matrix lands (USDA and USDI 1994b: C-43-44) 

and reflected a modified approach of surveys and management of detected sites. 

The revised survey-and-manage program did not include bats on the species list 

but refined these mitigations for bats (USDA and USDI 2001: 37-38). Although bats 

were not within the survey-and-manage program, the program did fund a single 

probability survey project for this taxon. The great gray owl was a protection buffer 

species in the original Northwest Forest Plan (USDA and USDI 1994b), and the 

revised survey-and-manage standards and guidelines formally added this species 

to the survey-and-manage list (USDA and USDI 2001). Known-site surveys and a 

research study were funded for these owls. Of the other seven taxa, fewer projects 

were tallied for vascular plants and mollusks. Priority taxa for implementation of 

strategic surveys were amphibians, red tree voles, bryophytes, fungi, and lichens. 

The most projects compiled for a single species were for red tree voles. 

Direct funding to 89 strategic survey projects was almost $5 million (table 1). 

This cost estimate may be low owing to our difficulty in identifying projects that 

had been conducted, and in determining if survey-and-manage monies may have 

been indirectly allocated to help pay for some studies (i.e., via salaries covered 

under other topics in the larger survey-and-manage budget). Funding allocations 

reflect more overall spending for amphibians, fungi, lichens, and red tree voles. 

These taxa had direct expenditures from the strategic survey program exceeding 

$400,000 per taxon. Red tree voles were the single most-funded species ($502,000). 

These priorities may reflect a focus on projects to advance knowledge of vertebrate 

species and for taxa with many rare or uncommon species (lichens, fungi). Many 

lichens and fungi did not require preproject surveys, so strategic surveys were the 

only mechanism available to gain new information about these little-known taxa. 

We received summary 

forms for projects on 

10 different taxonomic 

groups, and some 

projects appeared 

conceptually relevant 

to “All Taxa.” 
The Utility of Strategic Surveys for Rare and Little-Known Species Under the Northwest Forest Plan

21

Two vertebrates, Del Norte salamander (Plethodon elongatus) and red tree vole, 

were entirely (salamander) or partially (voles, some geographic locations) removed 

from the survey-and-manage program largely as a result of strategic survey findings; for voles this was an outcome of $500,000 in spending decisions, and for 

salamanders, the cost to the program was about $200,000. Red tree voles reportedly 

were a huge barrier to timber sales; consequently, removal of them from the program likely facilitated forest management wood production. Similarly, a purposive 

survey for the bryophyte Encalypta brevicola var. crumiana determined it was not 

an old-growth-forest associated species, and it was subsequently removed from 

survey-and-manage during an annual species review. However, we did not find an 

explicit rationale documenting that these animals’ projects were funded in order for 

the species to be removed from the list. 

Funding averages per project reflect the high cost of projects for taxa that are 

difficult to study. As a single species, the $185,000 allocated for the two great gray 

owl projects was similar to funding provided for several amphibian species. If those 

projects had been completed and survey-and-manage had been retained in 2004, 

it would have been interesting to see if additional changes in the categorization 

of these species would have resulted. Some reasons for the discrepancy in project 

implementation or funding among taxa likely were that the federal agency research 

community was not well staffed for nonvertebrates, nonvertebrate knowledge gaps 

were harder to fill because the information gaps are so large by comparison, and 

some nonvertebrate groups may not have as much of an economic impact and less 

perceived regulatory attention.

Strategic surveys were a multiagency program of work. Principal investigators 

belonged to nine affiliation categories (table 2), seven of which included federal 

personnel from four agencies: USDI Geological Survey; USDI Bureau of Land 

Management; USDI Fish and Wildlife Service; and USDA Forest Service. Patterns 

of investigator affiliation by project type likely reflected the regional expertise 

available (e.g., established genetics laboratories at universities and ecological modelers at PSW) or efficacies of funding mechanisms to conduct specific work (e.g., 

purposive surveys conducted by independent contractors). Similarly, taxonomic 

expertise of investigators by affiliation also was apparent (e.g., PNW expertise in 

amphibians, arthropods, fungi and red tree voles; NFS expertise in bryophytes and 

lichens). Implementation of strategic surveys clearly was a complex partnership 

among numerous independent entities. This led to some important lessons learned, 

as described below.

Strategic surveys 

were a multiagency 

program of work. 

Principal investigators 

belonged to nine 

affiliation categories.
General TEchnical REport PNW-GTR-708

22

Effectiveness

Effectiveness scores were qualitative assessments, and overall showed all project 

types were fairly successful. Although quantitative comparisons of effectiveness 

scores among project types or taxa are difficult, interesting patterns can be seen. 

Of the three aspects of project effectiveness (methods, conservation, and cost), 

methods scores were highest. This makes sense because, although the design of 

a project could be well conceived to meet its objectives, conservation and cost 

scores take into consideration the implementation and findings of the project. 

Unforeseen logistical constraints may affect implementation, although findings rely 

upon completion of the complete cycle of a project: design, implementation, data 

compilation, analyses, and reporting. The fact that many projects were incomplete 

during our evaluation likely lowered their conservation or cost effectiveness scores. 

Conservation or cost effectiveness may not have been ranked if progress was uncertain; however, if a project was known to be ongoing or progress reports documented 

early findings, confidence in project completion was higher and effectiveness 

scores may have been projected given available information. Also, many projects 

advanced our knowledge of the biology or site-locations of organisms, but these 

may have had limited conservation effectiveness if the scope of the new knowledge 

was limited. Thus although a significant biological or site-specific finding may have 

developed, these may not have had substantial conservation effectiveness. Some 

projects collected site and associated habitat data for inclusion in habitat modeling, 

to be executed via another companion project. In some cases, we could not ensure 

the data were collected and included in the models, nor did we have evidence to 

support the development of models. This type of scenario resulted in a lower ranking of conservation and cost effectiveness, with panel notes recorded about project 

accountability (see below). Lower cost effectiveness scores also may reflect a bias 

among panelists to expect projects to be more economically implemented, or may 

reflect more rankings toward a notion of “average” cost effectiveness. It may be 

difficult to place a monetary value on species information. 

Several patterns were apparent by project type and taxa (figs. 2a and 2b). First, 

it should be noted that the range of scores per category shows many ranks were 

high. Some categories with a very low score, such as a zero ranking, lowered the 

mean. Hence a few poorly ranked projects likely shifted averages downward, and 

patterns may not be truly reflective of the effectiveness of that project category. 

Nevertheless, patterns should be noted in case their explanation can provide insights to program advancement. 

By project type (fig. 2a), genetics had the highest methods effectiveness rank 

even though it was used by a variety of taxa: amphibians, fungi, and red tree voles. 

Effectiveness scores 

were qualitative 

assessments, and 

overall showed all 

project types were 

fairly successful. 
The Utility of Strategic Surveys for Rare and Little-Known Species Under the Northwest Forest Plan

23

Figure 2—Panel results of effectiveness ranks (mean, range) of projects by (A) project type and (B) taxon. Methods of effectiveness 

addressed how well project methods were matched with its objectives. Conservation effectiveness addressed how well a project met 

the conservation needs of the strategic survey and survey-and-manage program. Cost effectiveness assessed conservation value of a 

project realtive to its direct funding from the strategic survey program.
General TEchnical REport PNW-GTR-708

24

Historical data compilation projects also scored high. Both projects likely did well 

because these rely on straightforward techniques that directly address their very 

focused objectives. Purposive surveys, known-site surveys, and probability sampling had the lowest mean methods effectiveness ranks. 

Historical data compilation projects (fig. 2a) had the highest mean conservation effectiveness ranks, and this result suggests that amassing prior information 

is a critical step in development of conservation program for a taxon. It should be 

noted that historical data compilations had occurred previously for several taxa, 

especially those assessed for the Northwest Forest Plan (e.g., Thomas et al. 1993; 

amphibians: biology—Blaustein et al. 1995, site locations—Olson 1999). Probability sampling projects also received high conservation effectiveness scores, suggesting this project type can be extremely valuable. By design, projects with probability 

sampling had inference over areas greater than the sites of the sample, and that 

greatly expanded their scope; for example, applications of findings to a larger 

geographic area would be extremely useful for conservation guidance across a 

region. Known-site surveys and research projects scored lowest overall for conservation effectiveness. These project types tended to answer specific site or biological 

questions, and had limitations owing to scope, such as lack of inference over areas 

greater than the sites of the surveys, relative to the other project types. 

Historical data compilations, program development, and genetics had the highest cost effectiveness ranks (fig. 2a) and these results were likely due to the limited 

amount of field data collection and model development, both costly efforts that may 

be more prone to falling short of expectations. A few research projects were multiyear and multiple-partner endeavors, which may have elevated costs; these were 

ranked less effective when they were incomplete with a lack of accountability.

By taxa, the two-edged sword of working with little-known species becomes 

apparent: effectiveness can be low owing to difficulties working with such organisms that are truly rare, but new knowledge gains can be dramatic because so little 

has been done with these species. Lower average scores for lichens, bryophytes, 

mollusks, and “all taxa” reflect, in part, difficulties with executing effective project 

designs and yielding results advancing species conservation. Also, these were relatively lesser known taxa, such that incremental increases in site-specific knowledge 

of occurrence (i.e., results of purposive or known-site surveys) may not have greatly 

advanced their conservation. However, again, the lower scores in these categories 

may be just a few studies that effectively lower the group average. The great gray 

owl is an example of great strides in knowledge gains with direct application to 

species management or conservation by just two preliminary studies. It was noted 

By taxa, the two-edged 

sword of working with 

little-known species 

becomes apparent: 

effectiveness can be 

low owing to difficulties 

working with such 

organisms that are 

truly rare, but new 

knowledge gains can 

be dramatic because 

so little has been done 

with these species. 
The Utility of Strategic Surveys for Rare and Little-Known Species Under the Northwest Forest Plan

25

that the scope of the work was narrow for these two studies, but given the lack of 

knowledge for the species in the Pacific Northwest as a whole, the implications 

of the findings were relatively dramatic. Arthropods and amphibians also ranked 

relatively high, perhaps because new knowledge gains were achieved owing to 

established and effective methods for these taxa. Unfortunately, the first attempt 

at conducting strategic surveys for bats via a probability sampling approach appeared to suffer from a project design and implementation issue. Similarly, design 

and implementation issues affected one amphibian project that used a probability 

sampling approach (see app. 3 for lessons learned from probability sampling).

Funding level seemed associated with project effectiveness. Many highly effective projects were funded at levels between $30,000 and 200,000. Projects funded 

at either greater or lesser amounts were more likely to remain incomplete. Projects 

funded at lower amounts also naturally tended to have limited scope. For example, 

several projects funded at levels <$30,000 were to search for specific species in 

certain locations (e.g., known-site or purposive surveys), often being opportunistic 

to capitalize on the juxtaposition of species experts’ locations with neighboring 

federal lands. Although this may have been a cost-effective way to get the work 

done, the conservation effectiveness of such small-scale surveys may not have been 

great, and consequent cost effectiveness for advancing conservation may not have 

been great either. Some of these suffered from inadequate documentation and data 

management as well. 

Lessons Learned

Numerous lessons were learned by our implementation and evaluation of these 

strategic survey projects. First, information gained from this body of work greatly 

advanced knowledge of species biology (app. 3, biology lessons; app. 4, products). 

Several projects collected data and conducted analyses to examine species-habitat 

associations or construct species-habitat models. Some of these were applied at 

landscape scales to predict species occurrences. However, only one project completed a subsequent field validation of a model applied to large spatial scales. Other 

projects (1) developed more refined species range boundaries; (2) documented 

additional habitats in which species could occur; (3) confirmed previous suspicions 

about habitat associations; (4) supported associations or lack of associations with 

LSOG conditions; (5) supported species persistence in federal reserve land allocations; (6) provided the first syntheses of data and literature for a taxon; (7) advanced 

survey protocols; (8) documented individual home ranges or expanded home 

ranges; (9) identified new species and populations; and (10) documented that species 

Numerous lessons 

were learned by our 

implementation and 

evaluation of these 

strategic survey 

projects. First, 

information gained 

from this body of 

work greatly advanced 

knowledge of species 

biology.
General TEchnical REport PNW-GTR-708

26

were more common than previously known or were truly rare. Some projects illustrated the value of “mining” existing data for research questions, although these 

may have had limited conservation effectiveness.

Overall, species management has been advanced. Effects of thinning, patch 

reserves, prescribed fire, and forest edges are now known for some taxa. Also, new 

sites are now available for potential monitoring.

Project funding level may be important to advance species’ conservation. 

In particular, projects funded at levels less than $30,000 were generally of small 

scope, lacked inference, focused on filling specific knowledge gaps, were not 

always completed or documented, and consequently may have resulted in limited 

species conservation effectiveness. The most effective projects relative to advancing 

species’ conservation were funded at levels from $30,000 to $200,000, which may 

reflect costs to adequately hire personnel to design, implement, analyze, and report 

on full studies. Some of the more costly projects were incomplete at the time of our 

assessment, and may reflect more complex designs and multiple-year efforts.

Lessons were learned relative to project design and implementation (app. 3, 

planning lessons). For project design, up-front planning seemed inadequate in many 

cases. Some projects were funded for single years but clearly were intended to be or 

quickly became multiyear endeavors. Multiyear projects may have developed owing 

to delayed implementation or poor planning as a result of mid-year receipt of funds, 

inability to implement surveys in a timely way owing to federal hiring constraints, 

or data collection in year one with later analyses and reporting. This likely led to 

the incompletion of some projects because federal funds were difficult to carry over 

into the following fiscal year; without funding, federal personnel may have been 

constrained. Design issues included narrow scope of some projects conducted in 

small areas or at case-study sites and lack of a random component to study designs, 

which could have allowed broader inference. Limited up-front planning affected 

several projects that ran into logistical constraints owing to access or time issues. 

Some projects were being conducted by agency personnel subject to shifting priorities. Project leads for some projects changed. Methods used for surveys changed 

in one study, mid-way through the project. Consultation with a statistician would 

have helped design and implementation issues for several projects. In general, 

project types tend to require 1 year of funding to collect data or build a model and 

another year to analyze the data (if necessary) or test the model. The approach of 

some personnel to plan and implement yearly projects toward a larger effort may be 

appropriate for accountability and if a change in plans is needed.

Accountability was problematic at several levels for many projects. Inadequate 

oversight of projects by the strategic survey program was evident by the lack of 

Lessons were 

learned relative to 

project design and 

implementation. 

For project design, 

up-front planning 

seemed inadequate 

in many cases. 

Accountability was 

problematic at several 

levels for many 

projects. Inadequate 

oversight of projects 

by the strategic survey 

program was evident.
The Utility of Strategic Surveys for Rare and Little-Known Species Under the Northwest Forest Plan

27

record keeping and knowledge of which projects had been funded, completed, and 

ongoing. Records of project proposals, objectives, and rationale for their funding 

were not consistently maintained. In particular, over 40 percent of projects were 

incomplete at the time of this evaluation, suggesting expectations from the program 

perspective had not been well-communicated to principal investigators. Although 

we asked for summary forms from principal investigators for each project, the 

fate of incomplete projects was uncertain, with some likely continuing and many 

possibly being stopped or stalled with the elimination of the survey-and-manage 

program in 2004. A mechanism was not evident for progress reporting, and deadlines of projects were not developed, not being enforced, or were not enforceable. It 

was apparent to us in our compilation of projects that a refined process or additional 

personnel should have been used in the management of the many strategic survey 

projects. In summary, programmatic accountability seemed to consistently fall 

short in (1) defining expectations, (2) requiring timelines to be met, (3) requiring 

detailed project proposals to be submitted and maintained, (4) requiring statistically 

sound project designs, (5) requiring reporting, and (6) continuing to allocate monies 

to some people when they were not completing their work.

Ramifications of complex collaborations among investigators from multiple 

affiliations no doubt added to the accountability issues we detected. Retrospectively, we can see the need for strong program-level management to ensure two-way 

communication of program implementation and project accountability to bridge 

affiliation gaps. Formal contracts or memoranda of understanding with timelines 

of progress and final reports are popular mechanisms to bridge such gaps. Alternatively, because the strategic survey program did not have direct supervision of 

most investigators, accountability processes could have included supervisors in the 

planning, implementation, and accountability of projects. Records we were able 

to retrieve about strategic survey projects suggested that contracts were in place 

when independent contractors were hired, but were used variably otherwise. For 

example, we could not be sure that supervisors of principal investigators within the 

various federal agency affiliations knew that work for strategic surveys was proposed, funded, in progress, a priority, and that reporting products were expected. 

Each affiliation and principal investigator also has their own “culture” relative to 

partnerships, which may have led to informal communications (telephone or email 

progress reports that were not recorded) or extended timelines (graduate student 

projects may have been multiyear to enable classes and other student obligations to 

be fulfilled, yet not necessarily acknowledged by the strategic survey program). 

Project lead accountability also was an issue. Two projects were not conducted 

at all; others were not conducted as proposed; implementation of several was 
General TEchnical REport PNW-GTR-708

28

delayed owing to a variety of logistic or personnel issues; many were not completed; and, in some instances, data were collected but not input to the interagency 

species database or analyzed. Products from funded projects rarely were sent to the 

strategic survey program. Some projects were very long-term endeavors, yet this 

information was not documented as part of project planning. In one case, a single 

work team was funded $761,000 for a variety of projects; yet, we found only projects summing to $131,000 had apparently been completed. Again, there appeared 

to be lack of accountability tracking from the program and lack of accountability 

with implementation from the project lead sides that contributed to these issues. We 

recommend in such cases that at a minimum expectations should be documented 

at the beginning of a project and subsequent years of funding be dependent upon 

proven progress at meeting project objectives.

Lastly, although we found development of species-specific molecular genetic 

probes and habitat models to be relatively expensive endeavors, these also were 

noted to be highly effective to advance species conservation. These are tools 

relevant to most taxa groups that, given information needs, should be retained in 

the greater toolbox of project types for a rare species conservation program. 

Opportunities

Although some of the lessons learned emphasize process improvements, we found 

that a great deal of new and useful data were emerging from these strategic survey 

projects. Organized dissemination of survey results is needed for federal resource 

specialists, land managers, taxa experts, and species databases. Incorporation of 

new species information into revised taxa syntheses, advancement of survey protocols, and management recommendations are likely future needs. Communication 

of project findings on agency Web sites was cited as a priority task for the agency 

sensitive species program for those taxa still of concern that are being managed 

to forestall federal listing in the region. Some project findings (e.g., collection of 

habitat data) could facilitate new habitat modeling efforts. A few effective studies 

demonstrate an approach works and could be applied to other areas or taxa. Some 

studies suggest new work or surveys are needed to expand the scope of findings or 

to address emerging themes per taxon. Our collation of science advances of completed strategic survey projects are now available in an archive at the USDA Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Regional Office, Interagency Special-Status and 

Sensitive Species Program, Portland, Oregon. They may prove valuable for ongoing 

rare species management.

Our collation of 

science advances of 

completed strategic 

survey projects are 

now available in an 

archive at the USDA 

Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Region, 

Regional Office, 

Interagency SpecialStatus and Sensitive 

Species Program, 

Portland, Oregon. 

They may prove 

valuable for ongoing 

rare species 

management.
The Utility of Strategic Surveys for Rare and Little-Known Species Under the Northwest Forest Plan

29

Summary

Strategic surveys were a successful venture for the development of more species 

knowledge. Many studies generated a great deal of new information regarding 

species distributions, habitat associations, and effects of land management 

activities. Results of many studies confirmed rarity or LSOG association, or 

determined species were more common than previously known or were associated 

with a broader array of habitats. In particular, these new insights have led to a 

greater understanding of how the federal Northwest Forest Plan land allocations 

and provisions may provide for biodiversity. 

A toolbox of seven distinct approaches (i.e., project types) to gather species 

information was assembled. Application of a specific tool was appropriate under a 

certain set of circumstances, largely contingent upon whether a taxon was already a 

data-rich or data-poor entity and the geographic scope of the information need. No 

single project type should be advocated over all others; they all appear to have their 

utility under different conditions and information needs. Effectiveness of all project 

types was generally moderate to somewhat high, although relative differences may 

be useful to make decisions for future approaches relative to information need. 

Probability sampling offers broader geographic inference, and holds promise for 

greater use to answer questions related to rarity or habitat. By taxa, more projects 

were conducted and more funding allocated to projects with vertebrates, perhaps 

owing to their heightened regulatory oversight or the availability of federal agency 

experts. 

However, administrative issues overshadowed this program of work. Given sufficient time for project completion and program adaptive management, it is possible 

that the problems we found in planning, implementation, and tracking projects would 

be resolved; the disruption of this program in 2004 may have adversely affected our 

findings on accountability. However, only 70 percent of projects were included in the 

SSIGs, suggesting the other projects may have begun without survey-and-manage 

oversight. Our retrospective analysis suggests the implementation process may have 

been deficient in various ways, insufficient personnel were assigned to manage this 

work, clear expectations for project leads were not defined, project leads did not 

always complete their work, and accountability was subsequently lost. Although it is 

important to reduce administrative costs so that more funding is allocated to projects 

for greater scientific and conservation gains, future programs are well-advised to 

ensure sufficient oversight and managerial tracking to achieve the results they seek. 

Our findings are applicable to the adaptive management of the survey-and-manage 

program, to the Oregon/Washington Bureau of Land Management special status 

Strategic surveys were 

a successful venture 

for the development 

of more species 

knowledge. Many 

studies generated 

a great deal of new 

information regarding 

species distributions, 

habitat associations, 

and effects of land 

management activities. 

In particular, these new 

insights have led to a 

greater understanding 

of how the federal 

Northwest Forest Plan 

land allocations and 

provisions may provide 

for biodiversity. 
General TEchnical REport PNW-GTR-708

30

species program and the Pacific Northwest Region Forest Service sensitive species 

programs, which are jointly administered at the regional level by the Interagency 

Special Status and Sensitive Species Program and which similarly funds projects 

to fill information gaps of species on their lists, and to other species conservation 

programs.

Acknowledgments

This paper is a product of the authors and although federal agency manager and 

policy reviews were conducted, this paper does not necessarily represent federal 

agency views. We greatly appreciate comments on an earlier draft from Marianne 

Turley, Bruce Rittenhouse, Randy Molina, and Richard Helliwell. We thank Russell 

Holmes for serving on the evaluation panel, Jeanne Hoxer for compiling data, 

and Lynne Larson for data management and analyses of Summary Forms. We 

especially thank Kathryn Ronnenberg for data compilation, editing, and graphic 

design, and Tami Lowry and Carolyn Wilson for editorial assistance.

Metric Equivalents

When you know:	 Multiply by:	 To find:

Acres 0.405 Hectares

Square miles 2.59 Square kilometers
The Utility of Strategic Surveys for Rare and Little-Known Species Under the Northwest Forest Plan

31

Literature Cited

Blaustein, A.R.; Beatty, J.J.; Olson, D.H.; Storm, R.M. 1995. The biology of 

amphibians and reptiles in old-growth forests in the Pacific Northwest. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-337. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 98 p. 

Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team [FEMAT]. 1993. Forest 

ecosystem management: an ecological, economic, and social assessment. 

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture; U.S. Department of the Interior 

[and others]. [Irregular pagination]. 

Lindenmayer, D.B.; Franklin, J.F. 2002. Managing forest biodiversity: a 

comprehensive multiscaled approach. Washington, DC: Island Press. 351 p.

Meffe, G.K.; Carroll, C.R. 1997. The species in conservation. In: Meffe, G.K.; 

Carroll, C.R., contribs. Principles of conservation biology. 2nd ed. Sunderland, 

MA: Sinauer Associates, Inc.: 57–86. Chapter 3.

Miller, K.; Allegretti, M.H.; Johnson, N.; Jonsson, B. 1995. Measures for 

conservation of biodiversity and sustainable use of its components. In: Heywood, 

V.H.; Watson, R.T., eds. Global biodiversity assessment. Cambridge, United 

Kingdom: United Nations Environment Programme and Cambridge University 

Press: 915–1062. Chapter 13.

Molina, R.; Marcot, B.G.; Lesher, R. 2006. Protecting rare, old-growth forestassociated species under the survey and manage program guidelines of the 

Northwest Forest Plan. Conservation Biology. 20: 306–318.

Molina, R.; McKenzie, D.; Lesher, R. [and others]. 2003. Strategic survey 

framework for the Northwest Forest Plan survey and manage program. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-573. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 34 p.

Noss, R.F.; O’Connell, M.A.; Murphy, D.D. 1997. The science of conservation 

planning: habitat conservation under the Endangered Species Act. Washington, 

DC: Island Press. 246 p.

Olson, D.H., ed. 1999. Survey protocols for amphibians under the survey and 

manage provision of the Northwest Forest Plan. Version 3.0. Interagency 

publication of the Regional Ecosystem Office. BLM Publ. BLM/OR/WA/PT00/033+1792. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management. 310 p. 
General TEchnical REport PNW-GTR-708

32

Olson, D.H.; Leonard, W.P. 1997. Amphibian inventory and monitoring: a 

standardized approach for the Pacific Northwest. In: Olson, D.H.; Leonard, 

W.P.; Bury, R.B., eds. Sampling amphibians in lentic habitats. Northwest Fauna. 

4: 1–21. Chapter 1.

Rittenhouse, B. 2002. 2002 strategic survey implementation guide. Version 2.4. 

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 

http://www.or.blm.gov/surveyandmanage/StrategicSurveyGuides/2002/SS_Imp_

Guide.pdf. (21 June 2006). 

Rittenhouse B. 2003. 2003-2004 strategic survey implementation guide. Version 

1.2. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 

http://www.or.blm.gov/surveyandmanage/StrategicSurveyGuides/2003/2003_

SS_Implementation_Guide.pdf. (21 June 2006). 

Thomas, J.W.; Raphael, M.G.; Anthony, R.G. [and others]. 1993. Viability 

assessments and management considerations for species associated with latesuccessional and old-growth forests of the Pacific Northwest: the report of the 

Scientific Analysis Team. [Place of publication unknown]: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture. 530 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture; U.S. Department of the Interior 

[USDA and USDI]. 1994a. Final supplemental environmental impact statement 

on management of habitat for late-successional and old-growth forest related 

species within the range of the northern spotted owl [Northwest Forest Plan]. 

Portland, OR. 2 vol.

U.S. Department of Agriculture; U.S. Department of the Interior 

[USDA and USDI]. 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, OR. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture; U.S. Department of the Interior [USDA 

and USDI]. 2000. Final supplemental environmental impact statement for 

amendment to the survey and manage, protection buffer, and other mitigation 

measures standards and guidelines. Portland, OR. 2 vol.

U.S. Department of Agriculture; U.S. Department of the Interior [USDA and 

USDI]. 2001. Record of decision and standards and guidelines for amendments 

to the survey and manage, protection buffer, and other mitigation measures 

standards and guidelines. Portland, OR.
The Utility of Strategic Surveys for Rare and Little-Known Species Under the Northwest Forest Plan

33

U.S. Department of Agriculture; U.S. Department of the Interior [USDA and 

USDI]. 2004a. Final supplemental environmental impact statement to remove 

or modify the survey and manage mitigation measure standards and guidelines. 

Portland, OR. 2 vol. http://www.or.blm.gov/nwfpnepa/index.htm#March 23, 

2004. (30 June 2006).

U.S. Department of Agriculture; U.S. Department of the Interior [USDA and 

USDI]. 2004b. Record of decision to remove or modify the survey and manage 

mitigation measure standards and guidelines in Forest Service and Bureau of 

Land Management planning documents within the range of the northern spotted 

owl. Portland, OR. http://www.or.blm.gov/nwfpnepa/index.htm#March 23, 2004. 

(30 June 2006).

U.S. Department of Agriculture; U.S. Department of the Interior 

[USDA and USDI]. 2004c. Survey and manage: fiscal year 2003 annual 

status report. Portland, OR. http://www.or.blm.gov/surveyandmanage/

AnnualStatusReport/2003/S_and_M-2003.pdf. (30 August 2005).

World Commission on Forests and Sustainable Development. 1999. Our 

forests, our future: summary report of the world commission on forests and 

sustainable development. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University 

Press. http://www.iisd.org/pdf/wcfsdsummary.pdf. (30 June 2006).
General TEchnical REport PNW-GTR-708

34

Appendix 1: Summary Forms Used to Compile Project Information

Summary Form

Non-Grid Strategic Surveys or Survey and Manage Projects

Please return this form by 8/30/04 to: Please return products to:

dedeolson@fs.fed.us cshughes@fs.fed.us

Fax (541) 750-7329 Carol S. Hughes

Dede Olson USDA Forest Service, Region 6

Pacific Northwest Research Station P.O. Box 3623

3200 SW Jefferson Way 333 SW First Avenue

Corvallis, OR 97331 Portland, OR 97208

Project Title:

Taxa Group(s):

Principal Investigators: (Name, affiliation, address, email, phone)

Funding Support: Direct S&M Support: Year(s) Amount $ 

Indirect Support*: Yes / No Explain:

(*S&M support in other ways (e.g., salary) allowed this project to proceed, another grant, matching 

funds, collaboration with others, etc.)

Project Type: Purposive Surveys Known Site Surveys Modeling Research Other:

Completion Date: 

Project Objective(s):

Critical Information Gaps Addressed:

Are These Gaps Named in Strategic Survey Implementation Guide? Yes / No / Don’t know

Approach Used: (methods)

Data Disposition: (hard and e-copies: location, e-file name and directory)

Key Findings:

Products: (publications, abstracts, posters, reports, etc.; Please submit to Carol Hughes for S&M library)

Summary of Effectiveness to Address Knowledge Gap and Advance Species Conservation:
The Utility of Strategic Surveys for Rare and Little-Known Species Under the Northwest Forest Plan

35

Appendix 2: Evaluation Form Used to Assess Project Effectiveness

Survey and Management Strategic Survey Projects

Project Evaluation Form

Project Number: 

Project Title: 

Is the project completed? (Yes/no): 

Question

Score (1–10) or 

Answer (Y/N)

Average 

Score Comments

Effectiveness of Project

How effective was the project’s method at 

addressing the objective?

How effective was the project at addressing 

management and conservation needs? 

Information gap relevant to S&M?

Lessons Learned

Give a score for if the cost of the effort was 

worth the information gathered.

Were there lessons learned from these methods?

Was there an accountability problem?

Information Sharing Priority

Is there a need to share this information more 

broadly?

If so, what is the target audience?

How should it be shared?

Opportunity for Additional Work

If the work is not completed, do we need to 

push to get it completed?

Has the current information been fully analyzed? 

What additional work could be done 

building from this project?

Action:
General TEchnical REport PNW-GTR-708

36

Appendix 3 

Lessons learned from strategic survey projects by project type (number of projects with similar comments 

during evaluations are indicated if >1)

Project type Lessons learned Type of lessona

Genetics • Genetic population structure is useful for conservation planning and Methods, biology 

adaptive management (e.g., can show two salamander species occur where 

one was previously recognized). Three projects.

• Molecular probes are expensive per species (e.g., fungi). Cost

• DNA can be extracted from old vole bones in owl pellets. Methods, biology

Historical data • Searches of literature and previously collected data are an effective Methods

compilation approach for initial information gathering (arthropods, lichens, 

bryophytes). Two projects.

• Museums do not always reply to information requests. Site validation is Methods, biology 

difficult when historical data locations are imprecise. Historical range may 

differ from current distribution patterns (voles). 

Known-site • Small and large efforts are not always well planned or documented. Four Planning

surveys projects (e.g., how were species chosen, how does effort link to habitat 

modeling, were data entered into databases, were data used in modeling 

efforts, etc.); study not entirely planned up front (budget, analysis, and 

reporting). 

• Sites surveyed are now well-poised for future monitoring efforts. Adaptive management

• Shifting priorities affected project completion. (If initiated, should a 

project be completed?Accountability needed.) Planning 

• Species ranges were confirmed. Biology

Modeling • Design flaws were detected; need to have better oversight of study plans; Planning 

need better documentation/reporting; modelers should communicate and 

work out issues better with taxa experts. Eleven projects.

• Landscape-level analyses were effective (habitat, risk, supported lack of Methods 

“rarity” for one species). Two projects.

• Late-successional and old-growth association was supported for one species. Biology

• At least one project had narrow scope; it could have been designed to have Planning, cost 

more inference.

• Habitat modeling is expensive for one species. Methods

• Model validation was not conducted. Two projects. Methods

• Modeling can “mine” existing data, although conservation value of mining Forest managment 

expeditions are not assured. Two projects.

• New information emerged about landscape design; patch reserve approach Planning 

seen as valid.

• The value was questioned of a large contribution to a long-term ecology Planning 

project with broad applications (potential natural vegetation model), rather 

than contributions to specific to rare/little-known species issues.

• A map of all species sites was useful for implementation monitoring, to Planning 

show which units were conducting predisturbance surveys.

• A map is not a final product; need metadata and report of methods, etc.
The Utility of Strategic Surveys for Rare and Little-Known Species Under the Northwest Forest Plan

37

Project type Lessons learned Type of lessona

Probability • Retrospective study raised questions of pretreatment conditions owing to Planning

sampling patchy distribution of organism; collect preharvest data when possible for 

stronger inferences.

• Entire project should be planned up front (methods, data collection, Planning 

analysis and reporting process and standards). Six projects.

■ Although a report was submitted, it was not acceptable; a revised final 

report was not submitted. Need to clarify accountability process up front.

■ Need to plan how to deal with inaccessible areas (e.g., high elevation, 

snowbound, roadless) that are randomly selected as part of design.

■ Project expected to have a statistical design for site selection but was 

not implemented as such (turned into case studies rather than inferential 

work); analysis was needed in first year and budget should have funded 

entire project rather than only part of it. 

■ Do not modify design midway through the project and expect to draw Planning 

conclusions from all data combined; was there inadequate communication 

between project designers and implementers—unclear why implementers 

 changed protocol. 

• Random sampling protocol did not appear to work. Two projects.

■ For one patchy salamander species, random sampling proved ineffective 

owing to inadequacy of remote site selection to identify suitable habitat; 

field crews needed to bypass areas that looked good for the species in order 

 to sample the selected site, and some selected sites ended up not meeting 

criteria for sampling, which wasted time/effort (could take a day to reach 

a site, then find it did not meet sampling criteria).

■ For coastal lichens, random sampling was not a cost-effective approach. Biology, methods

• An effective project looking at species occurrance in habitats in which we 

did not know they occurred. Two projects.

■ Salamander species was found to occur in reserves, which led to a later 

decision to remove it from the survey-and-manage provision; however, 

sampling only in reserves biased the data (What is the role of matrix 

for this species?).

■ Another salamander species was found to occur outside of rock 

outcrops/limestone, but does not seem to thrive there.

Program • Better integration/communication is needed with taxa leads and experts. Planning

development Two projects.

Purposive • Good approach of identifying gaps in species distribution where models Biology, methods

surveys show habitat occurs, then go and see if species is there; species found at 

65 percent of sites surveyed.

• Makes sense to look outside of preconceived notion of “habitat” for rare Methods 

and little-known species.

• Good example of interagency cooperative effort. Partners

• More up-front planning needed. Three projects.

■ Better contract administration needed; haphazard methods used and Planning 

 single site visit inadequate.

■ Shifting project leads and priorities resulted in poor implementation 

and uncertain data quality.
General TEchnical REport PNW-GTR-708

38

Project type Lessons learned Type of lessona

• Better project documentation needed. Five projects.

■ For small projects.

■ Standardized survey protocol needed for opportunistic work. Two projects. Planning ■ Need to document where surveys occurred and species found and not 

found. Three projects.

■ What criteria were used for the habitat model upon which survey was 

based?

Research • Study to examine alternative survey method found method was not effective. Method 

• Study of thinning effects and leave islands found 1-acre diameter patches Biology, forest 

retained interior microclimate and some species. management

• Case study has limited inference. Four projects. Biology

• Species occur to edges of intact stands, but abundances reduced near edge. Biology, forest 

 management

• Funding for 1 year, but this was a multiyear project. Two projects. Planning

• Study found surveys for fungi should be conducted in >2 years and Methods 

>300 square miles.

• Study confirmed distribution patterns; abundance of active sites Planning 

now controversial.

• Accountability issues. Two projects. Biology

• Life history knowledge expanded for great gray owls, but work is intensive 

and has technical difficulties. 

a

Types of lessons were categorized as methods (e.g., survey methodology), biology (new species knowledge), cost (expense of project), planning 

(design, implementation, documentation, reporting, or accountability issue), adaptive management (program advancement), forest management 

(e.g., design of forest projects or landscapes), and partners (e.g., multiple agencies).
The Utility of Strategic Surveys for Rare and Little-Known Species Under the Northwest Forest Plan

39

Appendix 4

Products (N = 123) from the U.S. Pacific Northwest federal survey-and-manage 

program strategic survey projects and related studies on survey-and-manage 

species that are available at the USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land 

Management Interagency Special Status and Sensitive Species Program, 333 SW 

First Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97208. Project numbers are cross-referenced to this 

archive and our project summary forms and evaluations. Presentations are 

not included here unless abstracts were journal-published.

Project no. Product

Amph_01, Mead, L.S. 2006. Plethodon salamanders of the Applegate, Klamath and 

Amph_09 Scott River areas: report on genetic variation and species status. Yreka, 

CA. February 2006 report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 27 p. 

Unpublished report. On file with: D.H. Olsen, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station, 3200 SW Jefferson Way, Corvallis, OR 97331.

Mead, L.S.; Clayton, D.R.; Nauman, R.S. [et al.]. 2003. Molecular and 

morphological variation in the Plethodon elongatus-stormi complex. 

Northwestern Naturalist. 84: 106.

Mead, L.S.; Clayton, D.R.; Nauman, R.S. [et al.]. 2005. Newly discovered 

populations of salamanders from Siskiyou County California represent a 

species distinct from Plethodon stormi. Herpetologica. 61: 158–177.

Amph_02, Ollivier, L.M.; Welsh, H.H., Jr. 2000. A hierarchal analysis of the habitat 

Amph_17 correlates of the Siskiyou Mountains salamander (Plethodon stormi): as 

north meets south. Northwestern Naturalist. 81: 84.

Ollivier, L.M.; Welsh, H.H., Jr.; Clayton, D.R. 2001. Habitat correlates 

of the Siskiyou Mountains salamander, Plethodon stormi (Caudata: 

Plethodontidae) with comments on the species’ range. Arcata, CA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Redwood Science Laboratory. 

47 p. 

Stauffer, H.B.; Welsh, H.H., Jr. 2003. Multiscale modeling of the Siskiyou 

Mountains salamander (Plethodon stormi): exploring approaches 

for hypothesis generation and the development of tools for conservation 

planning. Northwestern Naturalist. 84: 115.

Welsh, H.H., Jr.; Stauffer, H.B.; Clayton, D.R.; Ollivier, L.M. [2007]. 

 Multiscale habitat relationships of the Siskiyou Mountains salamander,

Plethodon stormi, on each side of the Siskiyou Crest. Northwest Science. 

81(1): 15–36.

Amph_03 Suzuki, N.; Olson, D. 2005. Assessing threats to the conservation of 

Siskiyou Mountain salamanders in Oregon. In: Peterson, C.E.; Maguire, 

D.A., eds. Balancing ecosystem values: innovative experiments for 

sustainable forestry: proceedings of a conference. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

PNW-GTR-635. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 375 p.
General TEchnical REport PNW-GTR-708

40

Project no. Product

Suzuki, N.; Olson, D. [N.d.]. Assessment of risk to conservation of Siskiyou 

Mountains salamanders in the Applegate Watershed. In: Olson, D.H.; 

Clayton, D.R.; Reilly, E.C. [et al.]. Conservation strategy for the Siskiyou 

Mountains salamander (Plethodon stormi). Version 1.1. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region; U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Sensitive Species 

Programs: 44–49. Appendix 2.

Suzuki, N.; Olson, D.H. 2005. Developing a GIS-based risk assessment 

process for the conservation of rare species across the landscape. 

Northwestern Naturalist. 86: 117.

Suzuki, N.; Olson, D.H. [2007 submitted]. Biodiversity conservation in 

temperate planted forests of Oregon and Washington, USA. Biodiversity 

and Conservation.

Suzuki, N.; Olson, D.H.; Reilly, E.C. [2006 submitted]. Developing 

landscape habitat models for rare amphibians with small geographic 

ranges: an example using Siskiyou Mountains salamanders in the western 

USA. Biodiversity and Conservation.

Amph_04 Nauman, R.S.; Olson, D.H. 2004. Strategic survey annual report: 

Siskiyou Mountains salamander northern population. Corvallis, OR: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station. 4 p. Submitted to the Survey and Manage Program.

Amph_05 Nauman, R.S.; Lindstrand, L., III; Olson, D.H. 2003. Recent discoveries 

of Shasta Salamanders (Hydromantes shastae) in unusual habitats: relative 

rarity and conservation implications. Northwestern Naturalist. 84: 108.

Nauman, R.S.; Olson, D.H. 2004. Surveys for terrestrial amphibians 

in Shasta County, California, with notes on the distribution of Shasta 

Salamanders (Hydromantes shastae). Northwestern Naturalist. 85: 35–38.

Amph_06 Nauman, R.S.; Olson, D.H. 2004. Distribution of the Siskiyou Mountains 

salamander, Plethodon stormi, in relation to federal land allocations in 

Siskiyou County, California. Northwestern Naturalist. 85: 83.

Nauman, R.S.; Olson, D.H. 2004. Strategic survey annual report: 

Siskiyou Mountains salamander southern population. Corvallis, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station. 12 p. Submitted to the Survey and Manage Program.

Nauman, R.S.; Olson, D.H. [2006 submitted]. Distribution and conservation 

of rare Plethodon salamanders on federal lands in Siskiyou County, 

California. Northwestern Naturalist. 

Amph_07 Lindstrand, L., III. 2002. Green Mountain Shasta salamander purposive 

surveys. Report submitted to the Survey and Manage Program.

New sites from these surveys are included in the map in: Lindstrand, L., III. 

2000. Discovery of Shasta salamanders in atypical habitat. California 

Fish and Game. 86: 259-261. http://www.dfg. ca.gov/hcpb/species/t_e_spp/

teamphib/shastasalamander.pdf. (5 July 2006).

Nauman, R.S.; Olson, D.H. 2004. Surveys for terrestrial amphibians 

in Shasta County, California, with notes on the distribution of Shasta 

Salamanders (Hydromantes shastae). Northwestern Naturalist. 85: 35–38.
The Utility of Strategic Surveys for Rare and Little-Known Species Under the Northwest Forest Plan

41

Project no. Product

Amph_08 Mahoney, M.J. 2004. Molecular systematics and phylogeography of the

Plethodon elongatus species group: combining phylogenetic and 

population genetic methods to investigate species history. Molecular 

Ecology. 13: 149–166.

Amph_12 Bingham, R. 2004. The phylogeography of Hydromantes shastae. 4 p. 

Unpublished report. On file with: D.H. Olson, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station, 3200 SW Jefferson Way, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, Corvallis, 

OR 97331. 

Bingham, R. and Wake, D. B. 2006. Phylogeography of Hydromantes 

shastae: implications for management. Unpublished report. On file with: 

D.H. Olson, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 3200 SW Jefferson Way, 

Corvallis, OR 97331.

Amph_13 Jones, L.L.C.; Raphael, M.G. 2000. Diel patterns of surface activity and 

microhabitat use by stream-dwelling amphibians in the Olympic peninsula. 

Northwestern Naturalist. 81: 78.

Jones, L.L.C.; Raphael, M.G. 2001. Diel patterns of surface activity of 

stream from 3 ecoregions of western Washington. Northwestern Naturalist. 

82: 72.

Amph_14 DeGross, D.J. 2004. Gene flow and the relationship of Plethodon stormi

and P. elongatus assessed with 11 novel microsatellite loci. Corvallis, OR: 

Oregon State University. 52 p. M.S. thesis.

DeGross, D.J.; Mead, L.S.; Arnold, S.J. 2003. Assessing gene flow across 

contact zones between Plethodon elongatus and Plethodon stormi using 

microsatellite markers. Northwestern Naturalist. 84: 97.

DeGross, D.J.; Mead, L.S.; Arnold, S.J. 2004. Assessing gene flow between 

the closely related species, Del Norte salamander (Plethodon elongatus) 

and Siskiyou Mountains salamander (P. stormi), utilizing 11 novel 

microsatellite markers. Northwestern Naturalist. 85: 71.

DeGross, D.J.; Mead, L.S.; Arnold, S.J. 2004. Novel tetranucleotide 

microsatellite markers from the Del Norte salamander (Plethodon 

elongatus) with application to its sister species the Siskiyou Mountain 

salamander (P. stormi). Molecular Ecology Notes. 4: 353–354.

Amph_15 Herman, A.E. 2003. Aspects of the ecology of the Shasta salamander, 

Hydromantes shastae, near Samwell Cave, Shasta County, California. 

Arcata, CA: Humboldt State University. 56 p. M.S. thesis.

Herman, A.E.; Marks, S.B. 2002. Movement patterns and ecology of the 

Shasta salamander (Hydromantes shastae). Northwestern Naturalist. 

83: 72.

Herman, A.E.; Marks, S.B.; Welsh, H.H., Jr. 2003. Seasonal habitat use 

and movement patterns of the Shasta salamander (Hydromantes shastae). 

Northwestern Naturalist. 84: 101.

Amph_16 Clayton, D.; Nauman, R. 2001. The potential management implications of 

recent genetic and habitat research on three species of northwestern 

terrestrial salamanders. Northwestern Naturalist. 82: 68.

DeGross, D.; Nauman, R.; Olson, D.H. 2001. The role of federal reserved 

lands for salamander persistence in southwest Oregon and northwestern 

California. Northwestern Naturalist. 82: 68.
General TEchnical REport PNW-GTR-708

42

Project no. Product

Nauman, R. 2001. Amphibian strategic survey: Del Norte/Siskiyou 

Mountains salamander final report. Submitted to the Survey and 

Manage Program.

Nauman, R.; Olson, D. 2002. A distributional analysis of the Del 

Norte/Siskiyou Mountains salamander complex. Report submitted 

to the Survey and Manage Program.

Nauman, R.S.; Olson, D.H. 2002. The Del Norte/Siskiyou 

Mountains salamander complex: status and conservation on 

federal lands. Northwestern Naturalist. 83: 79.

Amph_18 Henderson, J. 2004. Modeled potential habitat for Van Dyke’s 

salamander: Southwest Washington. Maps submitted to the 

Survey and Manage Program.

Amph_20 Cissel, J.H.; Anderson, P.; Chan, S. [et al.]. 2004. Bureau of Land 

Management’s density management study. Corvallis, OR: 

Cooperative Forest Ecosystem Research (CFER) program fact 

sheet. 6 p.

Wessell, S.; Olson, D.; Schmitz, R. 2005. Preliminary research 

results: leave islands. Density management and riparian buffer 

studies research highlight. In: Erickson, J., ed. Bureau of Land 

Management density management studies, 2005 CFER annual 

report. Corvallis, OR: Cooperative Forest Ecosystem Research, 

Oregon State University: 40–42.

Wessell, S.; Schmitz, R.; Olson, D. 2005. Leave islands as refugia 

for low-mobility species in managed forests. In: Peterson, C.E.; 

Maguire, D.A., eds. Balancing ecosystem values: innovative 

experiments for sustainable forestry: proceedings of a conference. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-635. Portland, OR: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station: 379.

Wessell, S.J. 2001. Evaluating the utility of upslope leave islands 

as refugia for sensitive plant and animal species in managed 

forests: a research proposal. Northwestern Naturalist. 82(2): 84.

Wessell, S.J. 2005. Biodiversity in managed forests of western 

Oregon: species assemblages in leave islands, thinned, and 

unthinned forests. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. 161 p. 

M.S. thesis.

Wessell, S.J.; Olson, D.H.; Schmitz, R.A. 2005. Effects of thinning 

on microclimate, plants, and low-mobility animals in managed 

Oregon forests. Northwestern Naturalist. 86: 122.

Wessell, S.J.; Olson, D.H.; Schmitz, R.A. [2007 submitted]. 

Biodiversity in western Oregon managed forests: leave islands 

retain species and habitats. Forest Ecology and Mangement.

Amph_24 Lund, E.M.; Crisafulli, C.M.; McIntyre, A.P.; Turley, M. 2004. 

Occurrence of the Van Dyke’s salamander (Plethodon vandykei) 

and other stream and seep associated amphibian species in the 

Washington Cascade Range. Northwestern Naturalist. 85: 81.

Amph_25 McIntyre, A.P. 2003. Ecology of populations of Van Dyke’s 

salamanders in the Cascade Range of Washington State. Corvallis, 

OR: Oregon State University. 128 p. M.S. thesis.
The Utility of Strategic Surveys for Rare and Little-Known Species Under the Northwest Forest Plan

43

Project no. Product

McIntyre, A.P.; Crisafulli, C.M.; Schmitz, R.A. 2002. Habitat associations

of Van Dyke’s salamanders (Plethodon vandykei) in the Cascade Range.

Northwestern Naturalist. 83: 76.

McIntyre, A.P.; Crisafulli, C.M.; Schmitz, R.A. 2005. Population and 

movement estimates of Van Dyke’s salamanders (Plethodon vandykei) 

using mark-recapture techniques. Northwestern Naturalist. 86: 108.

McIntyre, A.P.; Schmitz, R.A.; Crisafulli, C.M. 2004. Associations of the 

Van Dyke’s salamander (Plethodon vandykei) with bio- physical features. 

Northwestern Naturalist. 85: 82.

McIntyre, A.P.; Schmitz, R.A.; Crisafulli, C.M. 2006. Associations of the 

Van Dyke’s salamander (Plethodon vandykei) with geomorphic conditions

in headwall seeps of the Cascade Range, Washington State. Journal of

Herpetology. 40: 309–322.

Amph_26 Trippe, L.S.; Crisafulli, C.M.; Hawkins, C.P. 2001. Development of habitat 

models for the Larch Mountain salamander (Plethodon larselli). Olympia, 

WA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station; final report; cooperative agreements PNW 98-9051-1-1A 

and PNW-98-9045-2-CC. 62 p. On file with: Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 

3625 SW 93rd Avenue, Olympia, WA 98512-9193. 

Trippe, L.S.; Crisafulli, C.M.; Hawkins, C.P. 2003. Development of habitatbased models for the Larch Mountain salamander (Plethodon larselli). 

Northwestern Naturalist. 84: 116–117. 

Related work on the Larch Mountain salamander:

Wagner, R.S.; Crisafulli, C.; Scott, J. [et al.]. 2002. Conservation genetics: 

tales of Pacific Northwest forest associated salamanders. Northwestern 

Naturalist. 83: 87.

Wagner, R.S.; Haig, S.M. 2000. Phylogeographic variation, genetic structure 

and conservation unit designation in forest- associated terrestrial 

salamanders: the Oregon slender salamander and the Larch Mountain 

salamander. Northwestern Naturalist. 81: 90.

Wagner, R.S.; Miller, M.P.; Crisafulli, C.M.; Haig, S.M. 2005. Geographic 

variation, genetic structure, and conservation unit designation in the Larch 

Mountain salamander (Plethodon larselli). Canadian Journal of Zoology. 

83: 396–406.

Wagner, S.; Haig, S.; Crisafulli, C.; Pfrender, M. 2001. Genetic tools for the 

management of forest-associated amphibians. Northwestern Naturalist. 

82: 83.

Amph_29 Welsh, H.H., Jr.; Dunk, J.R.; Zielinski, W.J. 2006. Developing and applying 

habitat models using forest inventory data: an example using a terrestrial 

salamander. Journal of Wildlife Management. 70(3): 671–681.

Amph_32 Cutler, D.R.; Edwards, T.C., Jr.; Alegria, J. [et al.]. 2003. Abundance and

Bryo_23 association analyses for the GOBIG2K mollusk and amphibian surveys 

with applications to Survey and Manage; final report. 94 p. Submitted to 

the Survey and Manage Program.

Arth_01 Niwa, C.G.; Peck, R.W. 2002. Influence of prescribed fire on carabid beetle 

(Carabidae) and spider (Araneae) assemblages in forest litter in 

southwestern Oregon. Environmental Entomology. 31: 785–796.
General TEchnical REport PNW-GTR-708

44

Project no. Product

Arth_02 Peck, R.W.; Niwa, C.G. 2004. Longer-term effects of selective thinning 

on carabid beetles and spiders in the Cascade Mountains of southern 

Oregon. Northwest Science. 78: 267–277.

Peck, R.W.; Niwa, C.G. 2005. Longer-term effects of selective thinning 

on microarthropod communities in late-successional coniferous forest. 

Environmental Entomology. 34: 646–655.

Arth_03 Cokendolpher, J.C.; Peck, R.W.; Niwa, C.G. 2005. Mygalomorph spiders 

from southwestern Oregon, USA, with descriptions of four new species. 

Zootaxa. 1058: 1–34.

Halaj, J.; Peck, R.W.; Niwa, C.G. 2005. Trophic structure of a macroarthropod litter food web in managed coniferous forest stands: a 

stable isotope analysis with delta 15N and delta 13C. Pedobiologia. 

49: 109–118.

Arth_06 Brenner, G. 2001. Literature synthesis and recommendations for general 

surveys for forest understory and canopy gap herbivores pertinent to 

the southern range of the northern spotted owl; final report; submitted to 

the Survey and Manage Program, Portland, OR. http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/nr/

fid/pubsweb/litsurvey/. (5 July 2006).

Arth_07 Moldenke, A.R.; Ver Linden, C. 2003. Literature synthesis and 

recommendations for general surveys for arthropods in soil, litter and 

coarse woody debris in the southern range of the northern spotted owl. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/nr/fid/pubsweb/litsynth03.shtml. (5 July 2006).

Bats_01 Weller, T.J. 2006. Designing strategic survey protocols for bats; final report. 

56 p. Submitted to the Survey and Manage Program.

Bats_02 Ormsbee, P.C.; Zinck, J.; Hull, R.; Scott, S. 2002. Methods for inventorying 

and monitoring bats using genetics. Bat Research News. 43: 4.

Zinck, J.M.; Duffield, D.A.; Ormsbee, P.C. 2004. Primers for identification 

and polymorphism assessment of Vespertilionid bats in the Pacific 

Northwest. Molecular Ecology Notes. 4(2): 239–242.

Bryo_01 Helliwell, R. 2004. Observations and categorization of substrate for 

Schistotega pennata (Hedw.) Web. & Mohr. in the Pacific Northwest; 

final report. 10 p. Submitted to the Survey and Manage Program.

Bryo_04 Hastings, R.I.; Greven, H.C. 2003. Grimmia lesherae. In: Greven, H.C. 

Grimmias of the world. Leiden, The Netherlands: Backhuys Publ. 130–131. 

http://www.euronet.nl/users/backhuys/grgr.htm. (6 July 2006).

Bryo_11 Hutten, M. 2003. Iwatsukiella leucotricha: proposive survey results on the 

Olympic Peninsula. Report submitted to the Survey and Manage Program.

Fungi_01 Molina, R.; Pilz, D.; Smith, J. [et al.]. 2001 Conservation and management of 

forest fungi in the Pacific Northwestern United States: an integrated 

ecosystem approach. In: Moore, D.; Nauta, M.M.; Evans, S.; Rotheroe, M., 

eds. Fungal conservation: issues and solutions. Cambridge, United 

Kingdom: Cambridge University Press: 19–63.

Fung_02 Castellano, M.A.; Cazares, E.; Fondrick, B.; 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 p.
The Utility of Strategic Surveys for Rare and Little-Known Species Under the Northwest Forest Plan

45

Project no. Product

Castellano, M.A.; Smith, J.E.; O’Dell, T. [et al.]. 1999. Handbook to Strategy 

1 fungal taxa from the Northwest Forest Plan. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR476. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station. 195 p.

Cowden, M.M. 2002. A study of the current range and habitat of fuzzy 

sandozi conks (Bridgeoporus nobilissimus) throughout Pacific Northwest 

forests. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. 156 p. M.S. thesis. 

Dreisbach, T.A.; Smith, J.E.; Molina, R. 2002. Challenges of modeling 

fungal habitat: When and where do you find chanterelles? In: Scott, J.M.; 

Heglund, P.J., eds. Predicting species occurrences: issues of scale and 

accuracy. Covello, CA: Island Press: 475–481.

Molina, R.; Pilz, D.; Smith, J. [et al.]. 2001. Conservation and management 

of forest fungi in the Pacific Northwestern United States: an integrated 

ecosystem approach. In: Moore D.; Nauta, M.M.; Evans, S.; Rotheroe, M., 

eds. Fungal conservation: issues and solutions. Cambridge, United 

Kingdom: Cambridge University Press: 19–63.

Smith, J.E.; McKay, D.; Niwa, C.G. [et al.] 2004. Short-term effects of 

seasonal prescribed burning on the ectomycorrhizal fungal community 

and fine root biomass in ponderosa pine stands in the Blue Mountains of 

Oregon. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 34: 2477–2491.

Smith, J.E.; Molina, R.; Huso, M. [et al.]. 2002. Species richness, abundance, 

and composition of hypogeous and epigeous ectomycorrhizal fungal 

sporocarps in young, rotation-age, and old-growth stands of Douglas-fir 

(Pseudotsuga menziesii) in the Cascade Range of Oregon, U.S.A. Canadian 

Journal of Botany. 80: 186–204.

Fung_03 Cowden, M.M. 2002. A study of the current range and habitat of fuzzy 

sandozi conks (Bridgeoporus nobilissimus) throughout Pacific Northwest 

forests. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. 156 p. M.S. thesis.

Fung_04 Dunham, S.M.; Kretzer, A.; Pfrender, M.E. 2003. Characterization of 

Pacific golden chanterelle (Cantharellus formosus) genet size using 

co-dominant microsatellite markers. Molecular Ecology. 12: 1607–1618.

Dunham, S.M.; O’Dell, T.E.; Molina, R. 2003. Analysis of nrDNA 

sequences and microsatellite allele frequencies reveals a cryptic 

chanterelle species Cantharellus cascadensis sp. nov. from the 

American Pacific Northwest. Mycological Research. 107: 1163–1177.

Kretzer, A.M.; Dunham, S.; Molina, R.; Spatafora, J.W. 2003. Microsatellite 

markers reveal below ground clone structure in two species of Rhizopogon

forming tuberculate ectomycorrhizae on Douglas-fir. New Phytologist. 

161: 313–320.

Kretzer, A.M.; Luoma, D.L.; Molina, R.; Spatafora, J. 2003. Taxonomy 

of the Rhizopogon vinicolor species complex based on analysis of ITS 

sequences and microsatellite loci. Mycologia. 95: 480–487.

Fung_05 Gordon, M. 2004. The development and testing of specific DNA probes for 

Albatrellus ellisii and Albatrellus flettii. Reports I, II, and III. Submitted 

to the Survey and Manage Program.

Fung_10, Norvell, L.L.; Exeter, R.L. 2002. The epigeous ectomycorrhizal

Fung_18 basidiomycete Douglas-fir fungal community in “peace” and 

“war.” Inoculum. 53(3): 47.
General TEchnical REport PNW-GTR-708

46

Project no. Product

Norvell, L.L.; Exeter, R.L. 2002. 547—The Douglas-fir epigeous ectomycorrhizal basidiomycete community in the western North American 

northern spotted owl zone. In: The 7th international mycological 

congress—IMC7: Book of abstracts. Olso, Norway: 166–167. 

http://www.uio.no/conferences/imc7. (5 July 2006).

Norvell, L.L.; Exeter, R.L. 2004. Ectomycorrhizal epigeous basidiomycete diversity in Oregon Coast Range Pseudotsuga menziesii forest—

preliminary observations. In: Cripps, C.L., ed. Fungi in forest ecosystems: 

systematics, diversity and ecology. New York: The New York Botanical 

Garden: 159–189.

Norvell, L.L.; Redhead, S.A. 2000. Stropharia albivelata and its basionym 

Pholiota albivelata. Mycotaxon. 76: 315–320.

Lich_01 Carlberg, T.; Carothers, S.; Hoover, L. 2004. Spatial modeling for Usnea 

longissima, Ramalina thrausta, and Lobaria oregana in Northern 

California: an approach based on existing sites. Report submitted to 

the Survey and Manage Program.

Lich_06 Henderson, J.A.; Lesher, R.D. 2002. Survey protocols for habitat model 

validation for survey and manage bryophytes, lichens, vascular plants and 

fungi. Report submitted to the Surevey and Manage Program.

Lesher, R.D. 2005. An environmental gradient model predicts the spatial 

distribution of potential habitat for Hypogymnia duplicata in the Cascade 

Mountains of northwestern Washington. Seattle, WA: University of 

Washington. 85 p. Ph.D. dissertation.

Lich_11, Glavich, D.A.; Geiser, L.H. 2004. Dermatocarpon meiophyllizum in the 

Lich_16 Pacific Northwest. Evansia. 21(3): 137–140.

Lich_17

Geiser, L.H.; Glavich, D.A.; Mikulin, A.G. [et al.]. 2004. New records of 

rare and unusual coastal lichens from the US Pacific Northwest. Evansia. 

21(3): 104–110.

Glavich, D.A.; Geiser, L.H.; Mikulin, A.G. 2005a. Distribution of some rare 

coastal lichens in the Pacific Northwest and their association with late-seral 

and federally protected forests. The Bryologist. 108(2): 241–254.

Glavich, D.A.; Geiser, L.H.; Mikulin, A.G. 2005b. Rare epiphytic coastal 

lichen habitats, modeling, and management in the Pacific Northwest. The 

Bryologist. 108(3): 377–390.

Lich_18 Edwards, T.C., Jr.; Cutler, D.R.; Geiser, L. [et al.]. 2004. Assessing rarity 

of species with low detectability lichens in Pacific Northwest forests. 

Ecological Applications. 14(2): 414–424.

Moll_13 Wilke, T.; Duncan, N. 2004. Phylogeographical patterns in the American 

Pacific Northwest: lessons from the arionid slug Prophysaon coeruleum. 

Molecular Ecology. 13(8): 2303–2315. 

Moll_14 Lindberg, D.R.; Cordero, A. 2002. Molecular phylogeny of some land 

snails of the Clades Monadenia and Helminthoglypta in Southern Oregon 

and Northern California. Report to Roseburg BLM, purchase order 

HRP000506.

(information used in) Roth, B.; Sadeghian, P.S. 2003. Checklist of the 

land snails and slugs of California. Contributions in Science 3. Santa 

Barbara, CA: Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History. 69 p.
The Utility of Strategic Surveys for Rare and Little-Known Species Under the Northwest Forest Plan

47

Project no. Product

Moll_15 McGraw, R.; Duncan, N.; Cazares, E. 2002. Fungi and other items 

consumed by the blue-gray taildropper slug (Prophysaon coeruleum) and 

the papillose taildropper slug (Prophysaon dubium). The Veliger. Berkeley, 

CA: California Malacozoological Society, Inc. 45(3): 261–264.

Moll_16 Duncan, N. 2005. Monitoring of known mollusk sites following a wildfire 

event in 2002. Report submitted to the Survey and Manage Program.

Hohenlohe, P.A.; Duncan, N. 2003. How do terrestrial mollusk populations 

survive fire? Northwestern Naturalist. 84: 102.

Moll_18 Wilke, T. 2001. Phylogeny, taxonomy, and population structure of 

Hemphillia burringtoni and H. glandulosa based on genetic and 

morphological analyses: a study plan. 8 p. Report submitted to the 

Olympic National Forest.

Moll_21 Dunk, J.R.; Zielinski, W.J.; Preisler, H.K. 2004. Predicting the occurrence 

of rare mollusks in northern California forests. Ecological Applications. 

14(3): 713–729.

Moll_22 Dunk, J.R.; Zielinski, W.J.; Welsh, H.H. 2006. Evaluating reserves for 

species richness and representation in northern California. Diversity and 

Distributions. 12: 434–442.

Dunk, J.R.; Zielinski, W.J.; West, K. [et al.]. 2002. Distributions of rare 

mollusks relative to reserved lands in northern California. Northwest 

Science. 76: 249–256.

Other_01 Boughton, D. 2001. Paradoxes in science: a new view of rarity. Science 

Findings 35. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 5 p.

Boughton, D.; Malvadkar, U. 2002. Extinction risk in successional 

landscapes subject to catastrophic disturbances. Conservation Ecology. 

6(2): 2. http://www.consecol.org/vol6/iss2/art2/. (5 July 2006).

Earlier relevant work, not funded by Survey and Manage:

Boughton, D.A.; Smith, E.R.; O’Neill, R.V. 1999. Regional vulnerability: a 

conceptual framework. Ecosystem Health. 5(4): 312–322.

Other_02 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(2): 306–318.

Molina, R.; McKenzie, D.; Lesher, R. [et al.]. 2003. Strategic survey 

framework for Northwest Forest Plan Survey and Manage Program. 

Gen Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-573. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 34 p.

Other_08 Morey, S.; Collins, M. 2003. Uncovering biodiversity in the Northwest 

Forest Plan. Northwestern Naturalist. 84: 108.

RTV_03, Bellinger, M.R.; Haig, S.M.; Forsman, E.D.; Mullins, T.D. 2005.

RTV_05, Taxonomic relationships among Phenacomys voles as inferred by

RTV_06 cytochrome b. Journal of Mammalogy. 86(1): 201–210.

Haig, S.; Mullins, T.; Forsman, E.D. 2001. Taxonomic identity, population 

structure, and status in the red tree vole. Northwest Forest Plan Research 

Update: FY2001. 4 p. Unpublished report. 
General TEchnical REport PNW-GTR-708

48

Project no. Product

Miller, M.P.; Bellinger, M.R.; Forsman, E.D.; Haig, S.M. 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 North- western United States. Molecular 

Ecology. 15: 145–159.

RTV_04 Forsman, E.D.; Anthony, R.G.; Meslow, E.C.; Zabel, C.J. 2004. Diets and 

foraging behavior of northern spotted owls in Oregon. Journal of Raptor 

Research. 38: 214–230.

Forsman, E.D.; Anthony, R.G.; Zabel, C.J. 2004. Distribution and abundance 

of red tree voles in Oregon based on occurrence in pellets of northern 

spotted owls. Northwest Science. 78(4): 294–302.

RTV_08 Swingle, J.K. 2005. Daily activity patterns, survival and movements of 

red tree voles (Arborimus longicaudus) in Western Oregon. Corvallis, OR: 

Oregon State University. 121 p. M.S. thesis.

Swingle, J.K.; Forsman, E.D.; Sovern, S.G. 2004. A method for live-trapping 

tree voles. Northwestern Naturalist. 35: 134–135.

RTV_11, Biswell, B.L.; Jones, J.M.; Finley, L.; Schmalenberger, F. 2004. Red tree vole

RTV_15 strategic survey results for the 2000 Klamath RTV study in Siskiyou 

County, California. 53 p. Report submitted to the Survey and Manage 

Program.
Pacific Northwest Research Station

Web site http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/

Telephone (503) 808-2592

Publication requests (503) 808-2138

FAX (503) 808-2130

E-mail pnw_pnwpubs@fs.fed.us

Mailing address Publications Distribution 

	 	 Pacific Northwest Research Station

 P.O. Box 3890 

	 	 Portland, OR 97208-3890
U.S. Department of Agriculture

Pacific Northwest Research Station

333 SW First Avenue

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208-3890

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300