Assessment and Management of Dead-Wood 

Habitat 

Joan Hagar 

Open-File Report 2007–1054 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

U.S. Geological Survey 
U.S. Department of the Interior 

DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Secretary 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Mark D. Myers, Director 

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia 2007 

For product and ordering information: 
 


World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod
 


Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS 
 


For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, 
 


its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment: 
 


World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov 
 


Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS 
 


Suggested citation: 
 


Hagar, Joan, 2007, Assessment and management of dead-wood habitat: USGS Administrative Report 2007­
 


1054, p. 1-32. 
 


Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply 
 


endorsement by the U.S. Government. 
 


Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual 
 


copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted material contained within this report. 
 


ii 
 Contents 

Contents ..............................................................................................................................................................................iii
 


Introduction .........................................................................................................................................................................1
 


Current BLM Approach to Management of Dead Wood.............................................................................................2
 


Methods and Tools for Dead-Wood Management ......................................................................................................3
 


Assessing and Managing Dead-Wood Habitat using DecAID...............................................................................4
 


Conclusions .........................................................................................................................................................................7
 


Limitations of DecAID ....................................................................................................................................................8
 


Long-term Planning for Dead Wood............................................................................................................................8
 


Possible Approaches or Changes ...................................................................................................................................9
 


References Cited ..............................................................................................................................................................11
 


Appendix A. Occurrence and status of native forest-dwelling wildlife species associated with dead wood 
 


(O’Neil et al., 2001) by western Oregon BLM District.................................................................................................16
 


Amphibians.........................................................................................................................................................16
 


Reptiles................................................................................................................................................................16
 


Birds.....................................................................................................................................................................17
 


Mammals ............................................................................................................................................................19
 


Appendix B. Geographic ranges of selected sensitive species relative to BLM ownership in western 
 


Oregon. ...............................................................................................................................................................................22
 


Figures 

Figure 1. Example of DecAID graph showing results of meta-analysis of the relationship between snagassociated species and snag density at three levels of statistical confidence ...................................6 

iii 
Assessment and Management of DeadWood Habitat: State of the Science Report to 

BLM in Support of the Western Oregon Plan 

Revisions 

Joan Hagar 

Introduction 

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is in the process of revising its resource 

management plans for six districts in western and southern Oregon as the result of the settlement 

of a lawsuit brought by the American Forest Resource Council. A range of management 

alternatives is being considered and evaluated including at least one that will minimize reserves 

on O&C lands. In order to develop the bases for evaluating management alternatives, the agency 

needs to derive a reasonable range of objectives for key issues and resources. Dead-wood habitat 

for wildlife has been identified as a key resource for which decision-making tools and techniques 

need to be refined and clarified. Under the Northwest Forest Plan, reserves were to play an 

important role in providing habitat for species associated with dead wood (U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Forest Service and U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management, 

1994). Thus, the BLM needs to: 1) address the question of how dead wood will be provided if 

reserves are not included as a management strategy in the revised Resource Management Plan, 

and 2) be able to evaluate the effects of alternative land management approaches. 

Dead wood has become an increasingly important conservation issue in managed forests, 

as awareness of its function in providing wildlife habitat and in basic ecological processes has 

dramatically increased over the last several decades (Laudenslayer et al., 2002). A major concern 

of forest managers is providing dead wood habitat for terrestrial wildlife. Wildlife in Pacific 

Northwest forests have evolved with disturbances that create large amounts of dead wood; so, it 

is not surprising that many species are closely associated with standing (snags) or down, dead 

wood. In general, the occurrence or abundance of one-quarter to one-third of forest-dwelling 

vertebrate wildlife species, is strongly associated with availability of suitable dead-wood habitat 

(Bunnell et al., 1999; Rose et al., 2001). In Oregon and Washington, approximately 150 species 

of wildlife are reported to use dead wood in forests (O’Neil et al., 2001). Forty-seven sensitive 

and special-status species are associated with dead wood (Appendix A). These are key species 

for management consideration because concern over small or declining populations is often 

related to loss of suitable dead-wood habitat (Marshall et al., 1996). Primary excavators 

(woodpeckers) also are often the focus of dead-wood management, because they perform 

keystone functions in forest ecosystems by creating cavities for secondary cavity-nesters (Martin 

and Eadie, 1999; Aubry and Raley, 2002). A diverse guild of secondary cavity-users (including 

swallows, bluebirds, several species of ducks and owls, ash-throated flycatcher, flying squirrel, 

bats, and many other species) is unable to excavate dead wood, and therefore relies on cavities 

created by woodpeckers for nesting sites. Suitable nest cavities are essential for reproduction, 

1
 

and their availability limits population size (Newton, 1994). Thus, populations of secondary 

cavity-nesters are tightly linked to the habitat requirements of primary excavators. 

Although managers often focus on decaying wood as habitat for wildlife, the integral role 

dead wood plays in ecological processes is an equally important consideration for management. 

Rose et al. (2001) provide a thorough review of the ecological functions of dead wood in Pacific 

Northwest forests, briefly summarized here. Decaying wood functions in: soil development and 

productivity, nutrient cycling, nitrogen fixation, and carbon storage. From ridge tops, to 

headwater streams, to estuaries and coastal marine ecosystems, decaying wood is fundamental to 

diverse terrestrial and aquatic food webs. Wildlife species that use dead wood for cover or 

feeding are linked to these ecosystem processes through a broad array of functional roles, 

including facilitation of decay and trophic interactions with other organisms (Marcot, 2002; 

Marcot, 2003). For example, by puncturing bark and fragmenting sapwood, woodpeckers create 

sites favorable for wood-decaying organisms (Farris et al., 2004), which in turn create habitat for 

other species and facilitate nutrient cycling. Small mammals that use down wood for cover 

function in the dispersal of plant seeds and fungal spores (Carey et al., 1999). Resident cavitynesting birds may regulate insect populations by preying on overwintering arthropods (Jackson, 

1979; Kroll and Fleet, 1979). These examples illustrate how dead wood not only directly 

provides habitat for a large number of wildlife species, but also forms the foundation of 

functional webs that critically influence forest ecosystems (Marcot, 2002; Marcot, 2003). The 

important and far-reaching implications of management of decaying wood highlight the need for 

conservation of dead-wood resources in managed forests. Consideration of the key ecological 

functions of species associated with dead wood can help guide management of dead wood in a 

framework consistent with the paradigm of ecosystem management (Marcot and Vander Heyden, 

2001; Marcot, 2002.) 

As more information is revealed about the ecological and habitat values of decaying 

wood, concern has increased over a reduction in the current amounts of dead wood relative to 

historic levels (Ohmann and Waddell, 2002). Past management practices have tended to severely 

reduce amounts of dead wood throughout all stages of forest development (Hansen et al., 1991). 

The large amounts of legacy wood that characterize young post-disturbance forests are not 

realized in managed stands, because most of the wood volume is removed at harvest for 

economic and safety reasons. Mid-rotation thinning is used to “salvage” some mortality that 

might otherwise occur due to suppression, so fewer snags are recruited in mid-seral stages. 

Harvest rotations of 80 years or less truncate tree size in managed stands, and thus limit the 

production of large-diameter wood. As a consequence of these practices, dead wood has been 

reduced by as much as 90% after two rotations of managed Douglas-fir (Rose et al., 2001). Large 

legacy deadwood is becoming a scarce, critical habitat that will take decades to centuries to 

replace. Furthermore, management continues to have important direct and indirect effects on the 

amount and distribution of dead wood in forests. Current guidelines for managing dead wood 

may be inadequate to maintain habitat for all associated species because they largely focus on a 

single use of dead wood (nesting habitat) by a small suite of species (cavity-nesting birds), and 

may under represent the sizes and amounts of dead wood used by many wildlife species (Rose et 

al., 2001, Wilhere, 2003). 

Current BLM Approach to Management of Dead Wood 

Current management direction for BLM forestlands in western Oregon comes from a 

Record of Decision (ROD) and Resource Management Plan (RMP) prepared by each of the 

districts following adoption of the Northwest Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service and USDI 

2
 

Bureau of Land Management 1994). In these documents, which reflect a strong emphasis on latesuccessional forests, the agency states two broad goals related to ecological principles for forest 

management. The first is “to maintain late-successional and old-growth species habitat and 

ecosystems on federal lands.” The second goal is to “maintain biological diversity associated 

with native species and ecosystems in accordance with laws and regulations.” In addition, the 

common objective for wildlife management across all districts is to “enhance and maintain 

biological diversity and ecosystem health to contribute to healthy wildlife populations.” 

Management actions and directions in the RMP’s emphasize federally listed threatened and 

endangered (T&E) species, state-listed species, and bureau special-status species (see Appendix 

A for list of species). 

All districts specifically address management of standing and down coarse wood by land 

use as allocated by the Northwest Forest Plan, although levels of detail and management 

direction for dead-wood habitats differ slightly for each district. Current RMPs rely heavily on 

the model developed by Neitro et al. (1985) to provide guidelines for snag retention in harvest 

units. The Klamath Falls Resource Area uses this model to set snag-retention levels sufficient to 

support 60% of potential populations of cavity-nesting birds, whereas the other five districts aim 

for 40% of potential populations. The model developed by Nietro et al. was a useful step in the 

evolution of management of dead wood for wildlife, but has become outdated with the 

availability of new information (Rose et al., 2001). Revisions of the western Oregon resource 

management plans afford the BLM an opportunity to update approaches to assessing and 

managing dead wood for wildlife habitat, as well as for the maintenance of ecosystem processes. 

Methods and Tools for Dead-Wood Management 

Managers confront two fundamental questions with regard to dead wood: 1) How much 

dead wood is needed? and 2) How should dead wood be spatially distributed? Answers to these 

questions also include consideration of characteristics of dead wood, including size, decay stage, 

and tree species. Furthermore, managers need to manage dead wood at various spatial and 

temporal scales, from planning an individual, stand-level project, to long-term recruitment of 

dead wood at the landscape scale. Finally, forest managers have to balance objectives for 

multiple resources, including both timber harvest and wildlife habitat, when considering amounts 

and distribution of dead wood. Tools are needed to help set objectives and provide guidelines for 

amounts and distribution of dead wood to meet management goals. The following sections 

discuss the tools that have been used and that are currently available to address these questions. 

Tools related to managing dead wood on federal lands in the Pacific Northwest that were 

first developed in the 1970s and 1980s focused on the question of how much dead wood is 

needed to provide habitat for dead-wood-dependent wildlife (Thomas et al., 1979; Raphael, 

1983; Nietro et al., 1985). The best known and most widely used of these tools is the Biological 

Potential Model (BPM) for cavity-nesting birds in west-side Douglas-fir developed by Nietro et 

al. (1985). This model provides a simple approach to dead-wood management that focuses on a 

single wildlife guild (woodpeckers) and does not incorporate variability among regions or habitat 

types. It is appealing because it relates snag density to a population parameter, although the 

underlying relationships are based on questionable assumptions (Rose et al., 2001). Managers 

have been using this approach for 15 years and continue to use it to set guidelines for snag 

retention on BLM forestlands. 

In spite of these advantages, the BPM has several shortcomings. First, it is out-dated 

because it is based on information available prior to 1985, and the relationships between snag 

density and population sizes have not been validated. New information indicates that amounts 

3
 

and sizes of snags selected by wildlife are far greater than those suggested by existing models 

(Bull, 1987; Milne and Hejl, 1989; Nelson, 1988; Schreiber and deCalesta, 1992; Raphael and 

Jones, 1997). A second disadvantage of the BPM is that it does not consider use of snags by 

species other than primary cavity-nesting birds. The assumption that snags retained to meet the 

needs of woodpeckers during the breeding season will also meet the requirements of most other 

snag-dependent species has not been empirically demonstrated. It may not be valid because of 

the wide range of habitats used to meet various life requisites by species associated with dead 

wood (Bunnell et al., 2002a). Whereas primary cavity excavators perform an important function 

by creating cavities, many species use decay features that are not created by woodpeckers, such 

as hollows and logs. In addition, target snag densities are based only on nesting habitat used by 

these species. Several studies have demonstrated that habitat used for foraging may not only be 

different than that used for nesting, but that it may be more limiting than cavity sites 

(Walankiewicz, 1991; Welsh and Capen, 1992; Weikel and Hayes, 1999). These findings 

highlight the importance of considering all life-history requirements (i.e., breeding, feeding, 

roosting, dispersal) when the goal is to provide adequate habitat for any species (Bunnell et al., 

2002a). Finally, the BPM is only applicable to projects at the spatial scale of individual timber 

sales, and therefore offers no guidance on planning at a landscape scale. 

Few tools have been developed to provide guidance on the question of how dead wood 

should be spatially distributed. The BPM (Nietro et al., 1985) used by federal forest managers 

does not include specific recommendations on how to distribute retained snags. A major 

consideration in deciding where to retain snags is the current location of existing snags. It is also 

important to note that our knowledge about the effects of snag distribution patterns on cavityusing wildlife is scant and inconclusive (Chambers et al., 1997). Abundance of primary 

excavators may be greater when retained structures are aggregated (Saab and Dudley, 1998), but 

dispersed retention of trees and snags at the stand level generally favors secondary cavity nesters 

(Bunnell et al., 2002b). Bull et al. (1997) recommended managing snags at the scale of 5- to 25­

acre patches, and retaining mixed clusters of live and dead trees within each patch. This 

approach is intended to maximize the density of cavity nesters by distributing snag clusters at a 

scale corresponding to territory size. In addition to providing wildlife habitat, other issues, such 

as safety and risk of windfall, have influenced decisions about how to distribute those trees and 

snags that are retained. In general, clustering of snags has been recommended in order to reduce 

worker exposure to safety hazards. Also, the retention of live trees next to snags, rather than 

clusters of snags only, reduces the probability that snags will fall and provides canopy cover for 

wildlife using the snags (Bull et al., 1997). 

Even less information is available to inform decisions regarding distribution patterns of 

downed wood to provide suitable habitat for species that use decaying wood on the ground. 

Bunnell et al. (2002b) suggest that a dispersed distribution of downed wood would promote 

forest productivity by facilitating dispersal of mycorrhizae by small mammals within a stand. 

However, empirical data and models to provide specific guidelines, even at the spatial scale of 

stands, are lacking. The issue of how to distribute dead wood at the scale of landscapes has 

barely been broached. 

Assessing and Managing Dead-Wood Habitat using DecAID 

An effective approach to dead-wood management should consider requirements of all 

associated species, incorporate variability in dead wood according to management goals and 

habitat types, and be applicable at various spatial scales. The Decayed Wood Advisor (DecAID; 

Mellen et al., 2006) offers such an approach. Current information on the ecology and distribution 

4
 

of decaying wood in Oregon and Washington, along with comprehensive data on habitat 

relationships of wildlife with dead wood in the Pacific Northwest, has been compiled in DecAID. 

As the state-of-the-science source of information on decaying wood in western forests, DecAID 

represents the best tool currently available to forest managers for managing dead-wood habitat. 

DecAID is not a model, but rather an advisory tool that can help managers evaluate effects of 

forest conditions and existing or proposed management activities on organisms that use snags 

and down wood. This tool provides managers with information about the sizes and abundance of 

snags and down wood needed to help meet objectives for wildlife management. In addition to 

providing comprehensive information on dead wood as wildlife habitat, the supporting literature 

available on the DecAID website also provides an overview of the current knowledge regarding 

the ecological functions of dead wood (Marcot, 2003). 

Two major bodies of literature and data have been compiled in DecAID to address 

management questions related to amounts and distribution of dead wood: 1) data about habitat 

relationships of wildlife with dead wood in the Pacific Northwest; and 2) summaries of inventory 

plots characterizing the current distribution and range of variability of decaying wood in Oregon 

and Washington. These two primary components of DecAID facilitate both fine- and coarsefilter approaches to management of decaying wood. A fine-filter approach focuses on the 

providing for the needs of individual species or guilds; the goal of a coarse-filter approach is to 

manage for an appropriate mix of ecological communities on a landscape scale (Baydack et al., 

1999). Together the two approaches comprise a strategy to maintain native ecosystems and their 

components, while assuring that the needs of special-status species (e.g., threatened and 

endangered species) are met. Empirical data on wildlife relationships with dead wood from 

multiple studies are synthesized in a meta-analysis to provide a summary of information about 

the sizes and amounts of dead wood used by individual species or guilds. This data set can be 

used as a fine filter to help meet habitat objectives in locations where managing for particular 

species is a priority. For example, the BLM may implement specific management actions to 

provide habitat for focal species associated with dead wood. Sensitive species for which BLM 

lands represent a significant portion of the distribution in western Oregon may be good 

candidates for fine-filter management. Appendix B shows examples of maps of species 

distributions relative to BLM ownership developed from the Oregon Natural Heritage Program 

database that can help guide selection of focal species. Once species are selected, DecAID can 

provide any available information about habitat associations. 

The cumulative species curves that summarize wildlife relationships with dead wood for 

each forest type and structure class (Fig. 1) have two basic interpretations. First, they can be used 

to determine which species, and what fraction of all reported species, would be provided suitable 

habitat for nesting, foraging, and roosting by managing for a specified snag density. A second 

use of the information displayed in cumulative species curves is to determine amounts and sizes 

of dead wood needed to provide suitable habitat for a given species or species group, such as 

management indicator species. More detailed information on dead-wood characteristics 

associated with particular species, such as decay stage or snag height, can be accessed in 

underlying data summaries from individual studies. 

Variability in the underlying data is portrayed as tolerance levels (Marcot et al., 2002). 

Tolerance levels are estimates of the percent of all individuals in a population that used some 

specified range of values representing characteristics of dead wood (from data combined across 

one or more studies). For example, an 80% tolerance level for the diameter at breast height of 

snags indicates that 80% of the individuals in the population used snags less than or equal to the 

value that corresponds to 80% tolerance; 20% of the individuals used larger snags. Tolerance 

levels are intended to be interpreted as levels of assurance that species needs are met. Choice of 

5
 

tolerance level to use as a guideline depends on management goals. For example, where 

providing habitat for a particular species is a high priority, managers could use 80% tolerance 

levels to set objectives for dead wood sizes and amounts. In areas where other uses, such as 

timber production, have higher priority, lower tolerance levels may be more appropriately used 

to determine guidelines for management of dead wood. Managers can make use of local 

knowledge and agency goals to determine priorities for management units within a district. 

DecAID can be used to facilitate evaluation of trade-offs associated with managing for different 

levels of dead wood. 

Figure 1. Example of DecAID graph showing results of meta-analysis of the relationship between 

snag-associated species and snag density at three levels of statistical confidence (Mellen et al., 

2006). Codes for species are: BBBA = big brown bat, CNB = cavity-nesting birds, LEMY = longeared myotis, LLMY = long-legged myotis, NFSQ = northern flying squirrel, PIWO = pileated 

woodpecker, TOCH = Townsend’s chipmunk. 

Few studies to date have addressed relationships of wildlife to dead wood at landscape 

scales. Because of this lack of empirical data, and the difficulty in acquiring it, DecAID relies on 

a compilation of forest inventory data (Ohmann and Waddell, 2002) to provide a coarse-filter 

approach for assessing amounts and distributions of dead wood at broad spatial scales. Forest 

6
 

inventory data have been used to generate amounts and distributions of dead wood by habitat and 

harvest history, allowing users to evaluate current levels of dead wood in relation to those 

expected in a natural reference condition. In DecAID, inventory data are separated by vegetation 

and structural condition to represent amounts and distribution of dead wood in various 

developmental stages of forests, from post-disturbance to late-seral. Data from unharvested plots 

can assist managers in setting objectives aimed at mimicking natural amounts and distribution 

patterns (spatial and temporal) of dead wood. However, because management has in many cases 

reduced dead wood amounts relative to unharvested forests (Cline et al., 1980, Ohmann et al., 

1994), managers should not expect to immediately make up the deficits in dead wood to meet 

goals for wildlife habitat. The amounts of dead wood suggested as goals by DecAID should be 

considered as long-term objectives for desired future conditions; a reasonable short-term 

objective might be to show incremental progress towards these goals. 

The Umpqua National Forest also has suggested an approach to developing guidelines for 

snag and down-wood prescriptions based on mimicking natural patterns (White, unpubl.). This 

approach sets targets for amounts and sizes of snags and down wood based on groups of plant 

associations. Plant-association groups are assumed to reflect ecological processes that have an 

influence on dead-wood dynamics, such as productivity, disturbance regime, and environmental 

conditions. DecAID could incorporate this concept to develop prescriptive guidelines for the 

distribution of dead wood at the landscape scale; however, corresponding information about 

wildlife use of dead wood by plant-association group is not available. 

Conclusions 

Whether the management goal is to maintain biodiversity or to prevent species listing and 

associated legal challenges, DecAID is the most comprehensive tool currently available to 

inform dead-wood management. The following bullets highlight the advantages of using 

DecAID to evaluate and manage dead-wood resources: 

•	 DecAID provides a scientifically defensible approach to dead-wood management 

because it is based on empirical data from published scientific literature. DecAID 

incorporates all currently available data about relationships of wildlife habitat 

with deadwood. The meta-analysis approach employed by DecAID, combining 

data from multiple regionally relevant studies, provides a more defensible basis 

for management decisions than relying on the results of single studies. 

•	 DecAID provides both fine-filter (individual wildlife species) and course-filter 

(range of natural variability) approaches to dead-wood management. The 

synthesis of detailed empirical data describing wildlife use of dead wood allows 

managers to account for individual species of concern when planning and 

implementing forest practices. A landscape-level approach to maintaining 

amounts and distributions of wood within the range of variation with which 

wildlife evolved can help ensure that the needs of all species are met. 

•	 Because DecAID is web-based, it can be, and is, continually updated as new 

information becomes available. The most recent version of DecAID incorporates 

information from literature and data available through December 2005. This 

feature of DecAID makes it particularly valuable for adaptive management. 

7
 
•	 DecAID was developed for use during revisions of forest plans and is appropriate 

for planning management of dead wood at the spatial scale of a BLM district. 

DecAID can be employed both for evaluating alternatives in resource 

management plans with respect to dead-wood habitat, and for developing 

management plans once an alternative is selected. 

Limitations of DecAID 

Although DecAID provides a valuable tool for dead-wood management, users should be 

aware of its limitations. The authors include a thorough discussion of caveats and cautions 

associated with the use of DecAID, which are labeled as “must read” for all users (see Mellen et 

al., 2006). In general, one of the biggest barriers of using DecAID – the large volume of data 

upon which it is based – also is its biggest asset. Users are encouraged to explore all relevant 

data available in DecAID before applying interpretations to management actions. Whereas 

DecAID is extremely rich in data that can provide a defensible basis for management decisions, 

it does not provide project-level prescriptions. Managers are encouraged to apply local 

knowledge to develop goals and objectives, and to focus on desired future conditions in the 

context of a broad spatial scale (e.g., BLM District). Therefore, thoughtful incorporation of local 

knowledge of plant and animal communities is essential to effective applications of DecAID. A 

considerable investment of time and energy is required to learn how to use the information 

synthesized in DecAID. 

The amount of data synthesized in DecAID may seem overwhelming in volume, but 

basic natural history information for most wildlife species in most habitat types is far less than 

adequate for making informed management decisions. Information on wildlife associated with 

dead wood and their habitat requirements is particularly scarce for southwestern Oregon. 

Similarly, research on snag dynamics is relatively recent, and there is still much to be learned 

about factors affecting decay rates and patterns, especially for tree species other than Douglasfir. Hardwoods make important contributions to habitat for cavity-using species, both when alive 

and after death (Chambers et al., 1997; Bunnell et al., 1999). The role of hardwoods in providing 

habitat has not been well-studied in Oregon and Washington, and thus they are under-represented 

in the literature and in DecAID. 

Long-term Planning for Dead Wood 

DecAID provides assistance in establishing long-term goals for dead-wood habitat, but 

additional tools are needed to plan for sustained amounts of dead wood through time. Managers 

need to be able to estimate the number of green trees to retain in order to replace snags that will 

move into softer decay classes and eventually become downed wood. Tools for tracking the 

dynamics of coarse woody debris have been evolving in sophistication over the last decade. The 

Snag Recruitment Simulator (SRS) was one of the first models developed to track snag density 

by size and decay class for the purpose of managing habitat for wildlife (Marcot, 1992). SRS was 

based on a chronosequence of snag ages and represented a limited range of site conditions. The 

Snag Dynamics Projection Model (SDPM) improved upon SRS by using remeasurement data 

from a large sample to predict the probability that an individual snag will fall in a 10-year period 

(McComb and Ohmann, 1996). More recently, Mellen and Ager (2002) developed the CoarseWood Dynamics Model (CWDM), which analyzes the dynamics of down logs as well as snags. 

CWDM combines rates of snag fall and height loss from Forest Inventory and Analysis (USDA 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region) remeasurement data, with estimates of decay rates 

from published studies to predict when snags will transition from one decay class to the next, and 

8
 

when snags transition to downed wood. Of these models, only CWDM distinguishes between 

snags and logs, and tracks decay of logs by size and decay class over time. Since CWDM’s 

release, updated fall and decay rates from more recent plot re-measurement and expert opinion 

have been incorporated into the Fire and Fuels Extension (FFE) of the Forest Vegetation 

Simulator (FVS, http://www.fs.fed.us/fmsc/fvs/), making it the best tool currently available for 

planning with regard to dead wood in Oregon and Washington. Underlying data on decay and 

fall rates have not been published but could be obtained from K Mellen-McLean (USFS, 

Portland, Oreg.). FVS-FFE can be used to determine the number and sizes of snags created by 

suppression mortality and to track their subsequent decomposition. FVS also can be used to 

predict when trees will attain sufficient diameter to be recruited as coarse woody debris. 

Approaches that simulate forest growth and coarse-woody-debris dynamics can be very useful 

for evaluating the effects of alternative management scenarios on dead-wood habitat over broad 

spatial scales and long time-frames (Wilhere 2003; Kennedy et al., 2004). 

Possible Approaches or Changes 

To address goals related to the management of dead wood as wildlife habitat, the BLM 

needs data about the current status of dead-wood resources and about amounts and 

characteristics of dead wood needed to support species of management concern. Maps that will 

provide information about current spatial distributions of dead wood are being developed by 

IMAP (Interagency Mapping and Assessment Process) using the Gradient Nearest Neighbor 

(GNN; Ohmann and Gregory, 2002). Mapping for areas of Oregon and Washington covered by 

the Northwest Forest Plan are expected to be completed by October 2008 (Janet Ohmann, USFSPNW Research Station). Although GNN-derived maps do not provide sufficiently accurate 

estimates of dead wood for use at local, project-level scales, they are expected to provide 

information useful for regional and mid-scale evaluations of management scenarios through 

time. 

In order to obtain additional reliable information about the current status of dead wood, 

an assessment specific to the BLM lands could be conducted. The summaries of regional 

inventory plots contained in the current version of DecAID are compiled by wildlife habitat type, 

but do not distinguish among land ownerships; however, sample-based estimates of dead wood 

conditions with associated errors could be developed from the current vegetation survey plots on 

BLM lands. Substantially more data from inventory plots are currently available than were 

available at the time the DecAID summaries were compiled because the number of plots on 

BLM lands have since quadrupled. 

Validation and testing are necessary for refining any model or tool. A scarcity of wildlife 

data for many sub-regions in western Oregon dictated pooling of data at regional scales to create 

summaries in DecAID. Therefore, data collected at local scales will be necessary for validation 

and refinement of these wildlife relationships to dead-wood characteristics. Local data can then 

be incorporated into DecAID to improve the quality of data available for guiding management. 

Monitoring of individual species’ responses to different approaches to dead-wood management 

will also provide valuable input for refining DecAID. 

Although DecAID provides the most current and best-available science to inform 

management of dead wood, some questions remain unanswered. Research and monitoring is 

especially needed on the following topics: 

1.	 More empirical data are needed to determine how spatial distribution of residual 

structures affects their use by wildlife at various spatial scales. 

9
 
2.	 Information characteristics of dead-wood habitats that influence fitness and 

productivity of wildlife species would help managers plan for the maintenance of 

viable populations. 

3.	 What are the roles of live trees, including both conifer and hardwood species that 

have elements of decay, in providing habitat for species that use dead wood? 

Which species use them and to what extent? Answering these questions would 

help managers decide how these elements of decay could count toward meeting 

goals for providing dead-wood habitat. 

DecAID can be used to evaluate the effects of alternative management scenarios on 

habitat for species associated with dead wood, for evaluating and for developing management 

plans under the selected alternative. The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) is already using DecAID to 

set new goals and objectives for dead wood management on several national forests. The BLM 

can take advantage of the available experience by working with USFS experts to implement 

DecAID at the district level. 

10
 

References Cited 

Aubry, K.B., and Raley, C.M., 2002, The pileated woodpecker as a keystone habitat modifier in 

the Pacific Northwest, in: Laudenslayer Jr., W. F., Shea, P. J., Valentine, B., Weatherspoon, C. 

P., and Lisle, T. E., eds., Proceedings of the symposium on the ecology and management of 

dead wood in western forests: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Southwest Research Station, General Technical Report, PSW-GTR-181, p. 257-274. 

Baydack, R.K., Campa, H. III, and Haufler, J.B., 1999, Practical approaches to the conservation 

of biological diversity: Washington, D.C., Island Press. 

Bull, E.L., 1987, Ecology of the pileated woodpecker in northeastern Oregon: Journal of Wildlife 

Management, v. 51, p. 472-481. 

Bull, E.L., Parks, C.G., Torgersen, T.R., 1997, Trees and logs important to wildlife in the interior 

Columbia River basin: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station, General Technical Report, PNW-GTR-391, p. 55. 

Bunnell, F.L., Kremsater, L.L., and Wind, E., 1999, Managing to sustain vertebrate richness in 

forests of the Pacific Northwest: relationships within stands: Environmental Reviews, v.7, p. 

97-146. 

Bunnell, F.L., Houde, I., Johnston, B., and Wind, E., 2002, How dead trees sustain live 

organisms in western forests, in: Laudenslayer Jr., W.F., Shea, P.J., Valentine, B., 

Weatherspoon, C.P., and Lisle, T.E., eds., Proceedings of the symposium on the ecology and 

management of dead wood in western forests: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Southwest Research Station, General Technical Report PSW-GTR-181, p. 291-318. 

Bunnell, F.L., Boyland, M., and Wind, E., 2002, How should we spatially distribute dying and 

dead wood?, in: Laudenslayer Jr., W.F. Shea, P.J., Valentine, B., Weatherspoon, C.P., and 

Lisle, T.E., eds., Proceedings of the symposium on the ecology and management of dead wood 

in western forests: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research 

Station, General Technical Report PSW-GTR-181, p. 739-752. 

Chambers, C.L., Carrigan, T., Sabin, T.E., Tappeiner, J., and McComb, W.C., 1997, Use of 

artificially created Douglas-fir snags by cavity-nesting birds: Western Journal of Applied 

Forestry, v. 12, p. 93-97. 

Cline, S.P., Berg, A.B., and Wight, H.M, 1980, Snag characteristics and dynamics in Douglas-fir 

forests, western Oregon: Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 44, p. 773-786. 

Csuti, B., Kimerling, A.J., O’Neil, T., Shaughnessy, M.M., Gaines, E.P., and Huso, M.M.P., 

1997, Atlas of Oregon wildlife: Corvallis, Oreg., Oregon State University Press. 

Farris, K.L., Huss, M.J., Zack, S., 2004, The role of foraging woodpeckers in the decomposition 

of ponderosa pine snags: Condor, v. 106, p. 50-59. 

11
 
Hansen, A.J., Spies, T.A., Swanson, F.J., Ohmann, J.L., 1991, Conserving biodiversity in 

managed forests: BioScience, v. 41, p. 382-391. 

Jackson, J.A., 1979, Tree surfaces as foraging substrates for insectivorous birds, in: Dickson, 

J.G., Conner, R.N., Fleet, R.R., Kroll, J.C., and Jackson, J.A., eds., The role of insectivorous 

birds in forest ecosystem: proceedings of the symposium: New York, N.Y., Academic Press, p. 

69-93. 

Kennedy, R.S.H., Olsen, K.A., Pabst, R.J., and Spies, T.A., 2004, A simulation of dead wood 

dynamics in the Elliot State Forest, Oregon: Salem, Oreg., Report to Oregon Department of 

Forestry. 

Kroll, J.C., and Fleet, R.R., 1979, in :Dickson, J.G., Conner, R.N., Fleet, R.R., Kroll, J.C., and 

Jackson, J.A., eds., The role of insectivorous birds in forest ecosystem: proceedings of the 

symposium: New York, N.Y., Academic Press, p. 269-281. 

Laudenslayer, W.F. Jr., Shea, P.J., Valentine, B.E., Weatherspoon, C.P., and Lisle, T.E., 

technical coordinators, 2002, Proceedings of the symposium on the ecology and management 

of dead wood in western forests: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Southwest Research Station, General Technical Report PSW-GTR-181, p. 949 

Marcot, B.G., 1992, Snag Recruitment Simulator, Rel. 3.1 [computer program]. USDA Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, OR. 

Marcot, B.G., 2002, An ecological functional basis for managing decaying wood for wildlife, in: 

Laudenslayer Jr., W.F., Shea, P.J., Valentine, B., Weatherspoon, C.P., and Lisle, T.E., 

technical coordinators, Proceedings of the symposium on the ecology and management of dead 

wood in western forests: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest 

Research Station, General Technical Report PSW-GTR-181, p. 895-910 

Marcot, B.G., 2003, Ecosystem processes related to wood decay. In: Mellen, K., Marcot, B.G., 

Ohmann, J.L., Waddell, K., Livingston, S.A., Willhite, E.A., Hostetler, B.B., Ogden, C., and 

Dreisbach, T., 2006, DecAID, the decayed wood advisor for managing snags, partially dead 

trees, and down wood for biodiversity in forests of Washington and Oregon. Version 2.0. 

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region and Pacific Northwest Research Station; 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon State Office; Portland, Oregon. 

http://wwwnotes.fs.fed.us:81/pnw/DecAID/DecAID.nsf 

Marcot, B.G., and Vander Heyden, M., 2001, Key ecological functions of wildlife species, in: 

Johnson, D.H., O’Neil, T.A., Managing directors, Wildlife-habitat relationships in Oregon and 

Washington: Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oreg., p. 168-186 

Marcot, B.G., Ohmann, J.L., and Mellen, K., 2002, The statistical basis for the DecAID decayed 

wood management advisor. In: Mellen, K., Marcot, B.G., Ohmann, J.L., Waddell, K., 

Livingston, S.A., Willhite, E.A., Hostetler, B.B., Ogden, C., and Dreisbach, T., 2006, DecAID, 

the decayed wood advisor for managing snags, partially dead trees, and down wood for 

biodiversity in forests of Washington and Oregon. Version 2.0. USDA Forest Service, Pacific 

12
 

Northwest Region and Pacific Northwest Research Station; USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Oregon State Office; Portland, Oregon. http://wwwnotes.fs.fed.us:81/pnw/DecAID/DecAID.nsf 

Marshall, D.B., Chilcote, M., Weeks, H., 1996, Species at risk. Sensitive, threatened, and 

endangered vertebrates of Oregon: Portland, Oreg., Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 

Martin, K., and Eadie, J.M., 1999, Nest webs: A community-wide approach to the management 

and conservation of cavity-nesting forest birds: Forest Ecology and Management v. 115, p. 

243-257. 

McComb, W.C., and Ohmann, J.L., 1996, Snag Dynamics Projection Model (SDPM), [computer 

program], U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 

Corvallis, Oreg. 

Mellen, T.K., and Ager, A., 2002, A coarse wood dynamics model for the western Cascades, in: 

Laudenslayer, W.F. Jr., Shea, P.J., Valentine, B.E., Weatherspoon, C.P., and Lisle, T.E., 

technical coordinators, Proceedings of the symposium on the ecology and management of dead 

wood in western forests: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest 

Research Station, General Technical Report PSW-GTR-181, p. 503-516. 

Mellen, K., Marcot, B.G., Ohmann, J.L., Waddell, K., Livingston, S.A., Willhite, E.A., 

Hostetler, B.B., Ogden, C., and Dreisbach, T., 2006, DecAID, the decayed wood advisor for 

managing snags, partially dead trees, and down wood for biodiversity in forests of Washington 

and Oregon. Version 2.0. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region and Pacific 

Northwest Research Station; USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon State Office; Portland, 

Oregon. http://wwwnotes.fs.fed.us:81/pnw/DecAID/DecAID.nsf 

Milne, K.A., and Hejl, S.J., 1989, Nest-site characteristics of white-headed woodpeckers: Journal 

of Wildlife Management, v. 53, p. 50-55. 

Newton, I., 1994, The role of nest sites in limiting the numbers of hole-nesting birds: Biological 

Conservation, v. 70. p. 265-276. 

Neitro, W.A., Binkley, V.W., Cline, S.P., Mannan, R.W., Marcot, B.G., Taylor, D., and Wagner, 

F.F., 1985, Snags, in: Brown, E.R., ed., Management of wildlife and fish habitats in forests of 

western Oregon and Washington: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Region, Part 1 – Chapter narratives, Publication Number R6-F&WL-192-1985, p. 

129-169. 

Nelson, S. K., 1988, Habitat use and densities of cavity nesting birds in the Oregon Coast 

Ranges: Corvallis, Oreg., Oregon State University, p. 157. 

Ohmann, J.L., McComb, W.C., and Zumrawi, A.A., 1994, Snag abundance for cavity-nesting 

birds on nonfederal lands in Oregon and Washington: Wildlife Society Bulletin, v. 22 p. 607­

620. 

13
 

Ohmann, J.L., and Gregory, M.J., 2002, Predictive mapping of forest composition and structure 

with direct gradient analysis and nearest-neighbor imputation in coastal Oregon, U.S.A.: 

Canadian Journal of Forest Research, v. 32, p. 725-741. 

Ohmann, J.L., and Waddell, K.L., 2002, Regional patterns of dead wood in forested habitats of 

Oregon and Washington, in: Laudenslayer, W.F. Jr., Shea, P.J., Valentine, B.E., 

Weatherspoon, C.P., and Lisle, T.E., technical coordinators, Proceedings of the symposium on 

the ecology and management of dead wood in western forests: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, General Technical Report 

PSW-GTR-181, p. 535-560. 

O'Neil, T.A., Johnson, D.H., Barrett, C., Trevithick, M., Bettinger, K.A., Kiilsgaard, C., Vander 

Heyden, M., Greda, E.L., Stinson, D., Marcot, B.G., Doran, P.J., Tank, C., Wunder, L., 2001, 

Matrixes for Wildlife-Habitat Relationship in Oregon and Washington, in: Johnson, D.H., 

O'Neil, T.A., (Manag. Dirs.), Wildlife-Habitat Relationships in Oregon and Washington: 

Corvallis, Oreg., Oregon State University Press. 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2005, Wildlife Diversity Program: Sensitive Species 

List, Salem, OR. Available at http://www.dfw.state.or.us/wildlife/diversity/index.asp. Accessed 

October 2006. 

Raphael, M.G., 1983, Cavity-nesting bird response to declining snags on a burned forest: a 

simulation model, in: Davis, J.W., Goodwin, G.A., and Ockenfels, R.A., eds., Snag habitat 

management: proceedings of the symposium: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

General Technical Report RM-99, p. 211-215. 

Raphael, M. G., and Jones, L.L.C., 1997, Characteristics of resting and denning sites of 

American martens in central Oregon and western Washington, in: G. Proulx, H.N., and 

Woodward, P.M., eds., Martes: taxonomy, ecology, techniques, and management: Edmonton, 

Alberta, Canada, Provincial Museum of Alberta, p.146-165 

Rose, C.L., Marcot, B.G., Mellen, T.K., Ohmann, J.L., Wadell, K.L., Lindley, D.L., and 

Schreiber, B., 2001, Decaying wood in Pacific Northwest forests: concepts and tools for 

habitat management, in: Johnson, D.H., and O’Neil, T.A., Managing directors, Wildlife-habitat 

relationships in Oregon and Washington: Corvallis, Oreg., Oregon State University Press, p. 

580-623. 

Saab, V.A., and Dudley, J., 1998, Responses of cavity-nesting birds to stand-replacement fire 

and salvage logging in ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir forests of southwestern Idaho, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Research Paper 

RMRS-RP-11. 

Schreiber, B., and deCalesta D.S., 1992, The relationship between cavity-nesting birds and snags 

on clearcuts in western Oregon: Forest Ecology and Management v. 50, p. 299-316. 

Thomas, J.W., Anderson, R.G., Maser, C., and Bull, E.L., 1979, Snags, in: Thomas, J. W., ed., 

Wildlife habitats in managed forests the Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Agriculture Handbook No. 553, p. 60-77 

14
 
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

Land Management, 1994, Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau 

of Land Management Planning Documents within the range of the Northern Spotted Owl, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Forest Service and U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land 

Management. 

Walankiewicz, W., 1991, Do secondary cavity-nesting birds suffer more from competition for 

cavities or from predation in a primeval deciduous forest?: Natural Areas Journal, v. 11, p. 203 

- 212. 

Weikel, J.M., and Hayes, J.P., 1999, The foraging ecology of cavity-nesting birds in young 

forests of the northern Coast Range of Oregon: Condor, v. 101, p. 58-66. 

Welsh, H.H. Jr., and Capen, D.E., 1992, Availability of nest sites as a limit to woodpecker 

populations: Forest Ecology and Management, v. 48, p. 31-41. 

Wilhere, G. F., 2003, Simulations of snag dynamics in an industrial Douglas-fir forest: Forest 

Ecology and Management, v. 174, p. 521-539. 

White, D. unpublished. Guidelines for snag and down wood prescriptions in southwestern 

Oregon. Umpqua National Forest, Roseburg, Oreg. 

15
 

Appendix A. Occurrence and status of native forest-dwelling 

wildlife species associated with dead wood (O’Neil et al., 

2001) by western Oregon BLM District. 

Compiled from Csuti et al., and data from Oregon Natural Heritage Program -ONHP). O = 

occurs or likely occurs (Csuti et al.1997); D = Documented; S = Suspected (from ONHP 

data); Blank cells = no evidence of occurrence. 

Species Oregon 

Status1 Salem Eugene 

Coos 

Bay Roseburg Medford 

KFalls 

Amphibi an s 

Northwestern 

Salamander 

Ambystoma 

gracile 

none O O O O O 

Long-toed 

Salamander 

Ambystoma 

macrodactylum 

none O O O O O O 

Pacific Giant 

Salamander 

Dicamptodon 

tenebrosus 

none O O O O O 

Larch 

Mountain 

Salamander 

Plethodon larselli V S 

Dunn's 

Salamander 

Plethodon dunni none O O O O 

W. Redbacked 

Salamander 

Plethodon 

vehiculum 

none O O O O 

Del Norte 

Salamander 

Plethodon 

elongatus 

V D D D 

Siskiyou 

Mtns. 

Salamander 

Plethodon stormi V D 

Ensatina Ensatina 

eschscholtzii 

none O O O O O 

Clouded 

Salamander 

Aneides ferreus U D D D D D 

Black 

Salamander 

Aneides 

flavipunctatus 

P D 

Or. Slender 

Salamander 

Batrachoseps 

wrighti 

U D D 

Cal. Slender 

Salamander 

Batrachoseps 

attenuatus 

P D 

Reptil es 

Western 

Fence Lizard 

Sceloporus 

occidentalis 

none O O O O O 

Western 

Skink 

Eumeces 

skiltonianus 

none O O O O O O 

Rubber Boa Charina bottae none O O O O O O 

Sharptail 

Snake 

Contia tenuis V S D D D D D 

16
 

Species Oregon 

Status1 Salem Eugene 

Coos 

Bay Roseburg Medford 

KFalls 

Ringneck Diadophis none O O O O O O 

Snake punctatus 

Birds 

Great Blue 

Heron 

Ardea Herodias none O O O O O O 

Turkey 

Vulture 

Cathartes aura none O O O O O O 

Wood Duck Aix sponsa none O O O O O O 

Harlequin 

Duck 

Histrionicus 

histrionicus 

U D D D 

Common Bucephala none 

Goldeneye clangula 

Barrow's 

Goldeneye 

Bucephala 

islandica 

U O O O 

Bufflehead Bucephala 

albeola 

U D 

Hooded 

Merganser 

Lophodytes 

cucullatus 

none O O O O O O 

Common 

Merganser 

Mergus 

merganser 

none O O O O O O 

Osprey Pandion haliaetus none O O O O O O 

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus 

ST D D D D D D 

Northern 

Goshawk 

Accipiter gentilis CR D D D D D D 

Red-tailed 

Hawk 

Buteo jamaicensis none O O O O O O 

Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos none O O O 

American 

Kestrel 

Falco sparverius none O O O O O O 

Merlin Falco 

columbarius 

S 

Peregrine 

Falcon 

Falco peregrinus D D D D D D 

Ruffed 

Grouse 

Bonasa umbellus none O O O O O O 

Blue Grouse Dendragapus 

obscurus 

none O O O O O O 

Wild Turkey Meleagris 

gallopavo 

none O O O O O O 

Flammulated 

Owl 

Otus flammeolus CR D O D O 

Western 

Screech-owl 

Otus kennicottii none O O O O O O 

Great Horned 

Owl 

Bubo virginianus none O O O O O O 

Northern 

Pygmy-owl 

Glaucidium 

gnoma 

CR2

 D O O O D O 

N. Spotted 

Owl 

Strix occidentalis ST D D D D D D 

Great Gray 

Owl 

Strix nebulosa V S D S D D D 

17
 

Species Oregon 

Status1 Salem Eugene 

Coos 

Bay Roseburg Medford 

KFalls 

Boreal Owl Aegolius funereus U O 

Northern Aegolius acadicus none O O O O O O 

Saw-whet 

Owl 

Vaux's Swift Chaetura vauxi none O O O O O O 

Lewis' 

Woodpecker 

Melanerpes lewis CR2

 S S D D D D 

Acorn 

Woodpecker 

Melanerpes 

formicivorus 

none S D D D D 

Red-breasted 

Sapsucker 

Sphyrapicus 

ruber 

none O O O O O O 

Williamson's 

Sapsucker 

Sphyrapicus 

thyroideus 

U D D 

Downy 

Woodpecker 

Picoides 

pubescens 

none O O O O O O 

Hairy 

Woodpecker 

Picoides villosus none O O O O O O 

White-headed 

Woodpecker 

Picoides 

albolarvatus 

CR O D D 

Three-toed 

Woodpecker 

Picoides 

tridactylus 

CR D D S 

Black-backed 

Woodpecker 

Picoides arcticus CR D O O D D 

Northern 

Flicker 

Colaptes auratus none O O O O O O 

Pileated 

Woodpecker 

Dryocopus 

pileatus 

V D D D D D D 

Olive-sided 

Flycatcher 

Contopus cooperi V D D D D D D 

Pacific-slope 

Flycatcher 

Empidonax 

difficilis 

none O O O O O 

Cordilleran 

Flycatcher 

Empidonax 

occidentalis 

none O O O O O O 

Ash-throated 

Flycatcher 

Myiarchus 

cinerascens 

none O O O 

Purple Martin Progne subis CR D D D D S O 

Tree Swallow Tachycineta 

bicolor 

none O O O O O O 

Violet-green 

Swallow 

Tachycineta 

thalassina 

none O O O O O O 

Black-capped 

Chickadee 

Poecile 

atricapillus 

none O O O O O O 

Mountain 

Chickadee 

Poecile gambeli none O O O O O O 

Chestnut- Poecile rufescens none O O O O O O 

backed 

Chickadee 

Oak Titmouse Baeolophus 

inornatus 

none O O 

Juniper Baeolophus none O 

Titmouse ridgwayi 

Red-breasted 

Nuthatch 

Sitta canadensis none O O O O O O 

White- Sitta carolinensis none O O O O O O 

18
 

Species Oregon 

Status1 Salem Eugene 

Coos 

Bay Roseburg Medford 

KFalls 

breasted 

Nuthatch 

Pygmy 

Nuthatch 

Sitta pygmaea V2 D D 

Brown 

Creeper 

Certhia 

americana 

none O O O O O O 

Bewick's 

Wren 

Thryomanes 

bewickii 

none O O O O O O 

House Wren Troglodytes 

aedon 

none O O O O O O 

Winter Wren Troglodytes 

troglodytes 

none O O O O O O 

Western 

Bluebird 

Sialia Mexicana V D D D D D D 

Mountain 

Bluebird 

Sialia currucoides none O O O O O 

Townsend's 

Solitaire 

Myadestes 

townsendii 

none O O O O O O 

Dark-eyed 

Junco 

Junco hyemalis none O O O O O O 

Mammals 

Montane 

Shrew Sorex monticolus 

none O 

Baird's Shrew Sorex bairdi none O O O 

Fog Shrew Sorex sonomae none O O O O O O 

Pacific Shrew Sorex pacificus none O O O O O O 

Water Shrew Sorex palustris none O O O O O 

Pacific Water 

Shrew Sorex bendirii 

none O O O O O O 

Trowbridge's 

Shrew Sorex trowbridgii 

none O O O O O O 

Shrew-mole Neurotrichus 

gibbsii 

none O O O O O O 

Coast Mole Scapanus orarius none O O O O O 

Mountain 

Beaver Aplodontia rufa 

none O O O O O O 

Least 

Chipmunk Tamias minimus 

none O 

Yellow-pine 

Chipmunk Tamias amoenus 

none ? ? O O O O 

Townsend's 

Chipmunk 

Tamias 

townsendii 

none O O O O O 

Siskiyou 

Chipmunk Tamias siskiyou 

none O O O 

Yellowbellied 

Marmot 

Marmota 

flaviventris 

none O O 

Goldenmantled 

Ground 

Squirrel 

Spermophilus 

lateralis none 

O O O O O O 

Douglas' Tamiasciurus none O O O O O O 

19
 

Species Oregon 

Status1 Salem Eugene 

Coos 

Bay Roseburg Medford 

KFalls 

Squirrel douglasii 

Northern 

Flying 

Squirrel 

Glaucomys 

sabrinus 

none O O O O O O 

Northern 

Pocket 

Gopher 

Thomomys 

talpoides 

none O 

Western 

Harvest 

Mouse 

Reithrodontomys 

megalotis 

none O O 

Deer Mouse Peromyscus 

maniculatus 

none O O O O O O 

Dusky-footed 

Woodrat Neotoma fuscipes 

none O O O O O O 

Bushy-tailed 

Woodrat Neotoma cinerea 

none O O O O O O 

Western Redbacked Vole 

Clethrionomys 

californicus 

none O O O O O O 

Creeping 

Vole Microtus oregoni 

none O O O O O O 

Water Vole Microtus 

richardsoni 

none O O O O O 

Western 

Jumping 

Mouse Zapus princeps 

none O O O 

Pacific 

Jumping 

Mouse Zapus trinotatus 

none O O O O O O 

Common 

Porcupine 

Erethizon 

dorsatum 

none O O O O O O 

Gray Fox Urocyon 

cinereoargenteus 

none O O O O O O 

Black Bear Ursus americanus none O O O O O O 

Ringtail Bassariscus 

astutus 

U S D D D S 

Raccoon Procyon lotor none O O O O O O 

American 

Marten Martes americana 

V S S D S D D 

Fisher Martes pennanti 

pacifica 

CR D D D S 

Long-tailed 

Weasel Mustela frenata 

none O O O O O O 

Western 

Spotted 

Skunk Spilogale gracilis 

none O O O O O O 

Striped Skunk Mephitis mephitis none O O O O O O 

Northern 

River Otter Lutra Canadensis none 

O O O O O O 

Mountain 

Lion Felis concolor none 

O O O O O O 

Long-eared 

Myotis 

Myotis evotis U S D D D D D 

California 

Myotis 

Myotis 

californicus 

none S D D D D 

20
 

Species Oregon 

Status1 Salem Eugene 

Coos 

Bay Roseburg Medford 

KFalls 

W. Smallfooted Myotis 

Myotis 

ciliolabrum 

U S D 

Yuma Myotis Myotis 

yumanensis 

none S D D D D D 

Little Brown 

Myotis 

Myotis lucifugus none O O O O O O 

Long-legged 

Myotis 

Myotis volans U D D D D D D 

Fringed 

Myotis 

Myotis 

thysanodes 

V S S D D D D 

Silver-haired 

Bat 

Lasionycteris 

noctivagans 

U S D D D D 

Big Brown 

Bat 

Eptesicus fuscus none O O O O O O 

Hoary Bat Lasiurus cinereus none S D D D D 

Pallid Bat Antrozous 

pallidus 

V S S S D D D 

Townsend's 

Big-eared Bat 

Plecotus 

townsendii 

CR D D D D D D 

Pac. Western 

Big-eared Bat 

P. townsendii 

townsendii 

none ? ? 

1 SE = State Endangered; ST = State Threatened; CR = Critical; V = Vulnerable; P = 

Peripheral/Naturally Rare; U = Undetermined Status (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 

2005). 2 Status pertains to sub-population within Oregon. 

21
 

Appendix B. Geographic ranges of selected sensitive species 

relative to BLM ownership in western Oregon. 

From Oregon Natural Heritage Program data 

Clouded Salamander 

Legend 

Extent of species on BLM land 

Range of Clouded Salamander 

BLM Administration 

District Boundary 

50 25 0 50 Km 

Salem 

Eugene 

Coos 
 


Bay
 


Roseburg 

Lakeview 

Medford 

22
 

Oregon Slender Salamander
 


Legend 

Extent of species on BLM land 

Range of Slender Salamander 

BLM Administration 

District Boundary 

50 25 0 50 Km 

Salem 

Eugene 

Coos 
 

Bay
 

Roseburg 

Lakeview 

Medford 

23
 

Sharptail Snake 
 

Legend 

Extent of species on BLM land 

Range of Sharptail Snake 

BLM Administration 

District Boundary 

5005 25 0 Km 

Salem 

Eugene 

Coos

Bay 

Roseburg 

Lakeview 

Medford 

24
 

Black-backed Woodpecker
 


Legend 

Extent of species on BLM land 

Range of Black-backed Woodpecker 

BLM Administration 

District Boundary 

50 25 0 50 Km 

Salem 

Eugene 

Coos 
 


Bay
 


Roseburg 

Lakeview 

Medford 

25
 

American Marten 

Legend 

Extent of species on BLM land 

Range of American Marten 

BLM Administration 

District Boundary 

50 25 0 50 Km 

Salem 

Eugene 

Coos

Bay 

Roseburg 

Lakeview 

Medford 

26
 

Fringed Myotis 

Legend 

Extent of species on BLM land 

Range of Fringed Myotis 

BLM Administration 

District Boundary 

50 25 0 50 Km 

Salem 

Eugene 

Coos 
 


Bay
 


Roseburg 

Lakeview 

Medford 

27