This memorandum replaces letters sent to Forest Service/Region 6 dated October 2, 1997, and January 29, 1998, and to Forest Service/Region 5 dated October 31, 1997, concerning adjustments in the draft Survey and Manage amphibian protocol. The information in those letters was not transmitted to Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Districts. Also, Region 5 did not issue the clarifications that were contained in the January 29 letter transmitted by Region 6. This letter attempts to bridge the gaps in coordination that have occurred, and provide consistent information and direction to all four units.

The intent of this and previous letters was to transmit interim adjustments in the survey protocols for amphibian species under the Component 2 Survey and Manage provision of the Northwest Forest Plan. The draft protocols were issued March 18, 1996. Since that time, they have been reviewed by scientists, managers, and field biologists who have implemented the surveys. The adjustments identified in Enclosure 1 are in response to review comments and are intended to clarify and simplify procedures during the interim period before the next version of the protocol is completed.

The summary of protocol adjustments contained in Enclosure 1 was originally drafted by the Survey and Manage Taxa Team and included in the Forest Service October 2, 1997, letter. Since that letter was issued, changes have been made in numbers 4, 11, and 12. The list of exemptions was removed from number 4 because this approach is still under discussion. Number 11 has been revised to remove the requirement for Regional Ecosystem Office (REO) review of differences in survey procedures that are used by field units. The last paragraph in number 12(II) was modified, and the information concerning procedures for modification of the ranges and survey boundaries for the southern three salamander species, and accompanying phase-in period, is described below in this letter. Numbers 1 through 12(I) in Enclosure 1 provide increased flexibility and are effective immediately for all units. The procedure and timing for Number 12(II) follows.

The boundaries for the northern salamanders (Van Dyke's and Larch Mountain) are clarified in number 12(I) of Enclosure I. The adjusted survey areas for the Siskiyou Mountains (Plethodon stormi), Del Norte (P. elongatus), and Shasta (Hydromantes shastae) salamanders [Enclosure 1, Number 12(II)] extend to within approximately 25 miles of established known sites if potentially suitable habitat conditions for the species occur there. New sites may be found in the future that will result in another expansion of a species' range. These range extensions where survey is required are expected to be a temporary issue as the true geographic ranges of these species are determined over the next several years.

2

Forest Supervisors and District Managers 2

For ongoing projects where surveys have been initiated, ranges defined in the 1996 protocol can continue to be used. For projects where surveys have not yet been initiated or planned, the new 25-mile ranges should be incorporated in surveys that begin in the fall season of 1998. The new ranges identified in Number 12 of Enclosure I should be used for planning and conducting surveys for new projects until a revision of the ranges is determined and transmitted to the field, as described below, or further direction is issued.

In order to ensure coordination and consistency for field units in identifying the area to be surveyed for the Siskiyou Mountains, Del Norte, and Shasta salamanders, the ranges will be established at the regional level using updated known site data received from the field. In the future, Forest and BLM District offices will be instructed to provide new site information to a central location (such as was done informally this year to Richard Nauman) where adjustments to the area to be surveyed will be made, then communicated back to the field offices.

The digital coverages of known point locations of all five salamanders and polygons of the 25-mile ranges for the three southern salamander species are being electronically transmitted by Richard Nauman to GIS specialists at Forest Service Supervisors' and BLM District offices. They will be transmitted as an Arcinfo interchange file that has been compressed. The extension for this file type is *.e00.z; for example, the file for the Del Norte (Plethodon elongatus) would look like "plel.e00.z. The ranges were derived from known site locations provided by field units, and are current through December 31, 1997. Please coordinate with your GIS specialists concerning the transmittal of this coverage. If you have questions, contact Richard at 541-750-7284.

Questions concerning this letter should be directed to Sarah Madsen at 503-808-2673 (R6), John Robinson at 415-705-2745 (R5), or Cheryl McCaffrey at 503-952-6050 (BLM).

Authenticated by
Maggie Weaver
Management Asst.

Enclosure
1 - Adjustments to Amphibian Survey Protocols

BLM Distribution
WO-230 (Room 204 LS) -1
OR-931 (McCaffrey) -1
REO (Belisle, Knowles, Sims, Watson) -4

Enclosure 1
ADJUSTMENTS TO AMPHIBIAN SURVEY PROTOCOLS
May 1998

The timing for implementation of these adjustments is presented in the latest official transmittal memorandum on Survey and Manage protocol adjustments.

1. For all species, if animals are not found at a site, the necessary multiplesite visits with no detection may be completed during a single spring season. Site visits do not need to be conducted in two seasons or two years. Spring is considered the optimal season for surveys. If fall surveys are conducted, then at least two site visits must be conducted in the spring.

2. The time interval between site visits is reduced to a minimum of 10 days for the southern three species (Siskiyou Mountains salamander [Plethodon stormi], Del Norte salamander [P. elongatus], and Shasta salamander [Hydromantes shastae]).

3. For the southern three species (Siskiyou Mountains salamander [Plethodon stormi], Del Norte salamander [P. elongatus], and Shasta salamander [Hydromantes shastae]), the search pattern can vary (transects, zig zag, spiral) as long as the pattern fully covers the area identified for survey, following the time/area guideline in the protocol (e.g., 4 person-hours per 10 acres of suitable habitat for P. stormi and P. elongatus).

4. The revised protocol may include a list of proposed management activities that might be considered "exemptions" from survey. This list of exemptions is still under discussion.

5. Analogous to the list of exemptions, a list of "triggers" for surveys is being developed. Triggers are proposed activities perceived to be associated with risk to Survey and Manage salamanders or their habitats. Triggers are disturbances that require suitable salamander habitats within a proposed project area, and sometimes suitable salamander habitats in the adjacent area, to be surveyed. Generally, triggers are activities resulting in potential habitat disturbance, microclimate shifts, hydrological changes (e.g., downslope), or alteration in surface debris recruitment (e.g., downed wood loading). Trigger examples include trail, road, or campsite building, rock removal, forest density management or regeneration timber harvest. Activities that are not considered "ground disturbance" may trigger surveys for these salamanders if they could impact salamanders or their habitats (e.g., chemical applications, vegetation removal via aerial means).

6. Suitable habitats for Survey and Manage salamanders on federal lands adjacent to a proposed disturbance should be surveyed if proposed disturbances in the project area could affect animals or their habitats in neighboring areas (see below). Impacts potentially influencing salamander habitats or populations in adjacent areas include those which may result in potential microclimate shifts, hydrological changes (e.g., downslope), alteration in surface debris recruitment (downed wood loading), and increased recreational use in adjacent areas.

This survey requirement is tied to the protective measures to consider for occupied sites, where protection of adjacent areas may be needed to maintain habitat conditions at occupied sites. If a known site were to occur adjacent to a disturbed area, animals there might be affected by impacts to their habitat from off-site activities.

enclosure 1-1

The change in the survey protocols is with regard to the distance adjacent to proposed project areas to consider for surveys: a single distance of 180 m (about 590 ft) surrounding project areas is revised.

The distance into adjacent areas that should be considered for surveys may vary with the proposed disturbance activity and site conditions. Generally, distances from 60 to 240 m (approx. 200 to 790 ft) adjacent to proposed disturbances should be considered. A written rationale for the distance into adjacent areas surveyed should be developed and reflect the conservative nature of survey approaches for these species of concern.

Until we have a greater understanding of the influences of edge effects relative to these rare salamanders, a conservative approach is needed. From current literature, edge effects from clearcuts into adjacent intact forests on microclimate conditions potentially important for ground- dwelling salamanders are known to extend 60 to 240 m (approx. 200 to 790 ft). Surveys of adjacent areas within this range of distances should be conducted when proposed actions would expose a site and cause likely surface microclimatic shifts. More exposed sites, such as those in more xeric locations (e.g., southern inland sites) or on south-facing slopes, may have a greater chance of reaching the temperature/moisture limits of these species. These should be surveyed a greater adjacent distance; we recommend at least 180 m (about 590 ft). For proposed actions that would result in less severe edges than clearcuts against intact forests, rationale may be developed for surveys of suitable habitat in smaller adjacent areas.

Other potential impacts to salamander habitats include surface debris recruitment and altered hydrologic patterns. Adjacent area distances to consider for downed wood and litter recruitment span one-to-two tree heights. This follows the rationale previously developed for Riparian Reserve widths. Hydrologic patterns may be disrupted from upslope disturbances. Consequently, surveys in suitable habitat areas downslope from potential project areas should be considered with regard to this possible impact.

At one end of this continuum of adjacent area surveys (60-240 m; approx. 200 to 790 ft), would be more severe ground disturbances with a larger potential edge effect on surface microclimates, requiring a broader adjacent area to be surveyed. At the other extreme, a small minor impact of short duration may require little, if any, adjacent area survey. To reiterate, only suitable habitat in adjacent areas need to be considered for survey, and surveys are not required on adjacent non-federal lands.

Example 1: Regeneration harvest is proposed. This disturbance will create a more distinct edge relative to adjacent forested areas. Suitable salamander habitat at the site should be surveyed a distance into the adjacent area that may match the edge effect distance relative to microclimate conditions important to these salamanders. Site conditions will need to be incorporated into this rationale for adjacent area survey distance. Under more xeric site conditions, such as southern inland sites on south-facing slopes, a more buffered "occupied site" might be warranted for salamander known site management, and a wider adjacent area surveyed (e.g., 150 to 240 m; approx. 490 to 790 ft). Under more mesic site conditions, such as a site in the coastal fog belt,

enclosure 1-2

rationale for a less buffered "occupied site" might be developed because severe microclimate edge effects appear to be less of an issue (e.g., 60 to 200 m; approx. 200 to 656 ft).

Example 2: Forest thinning is proposed and this will probably create less of a distinct edge relative to adjacent forested areas than would regeneration harvest. Also, the duration of the impact may be greatly reduced if the thinning is expected to accelerate the development of the growth of retained trees. However, the possible short-term risk of the disturbance to Survey and Manage salamanders should be considered. Suitable salamander habitat at the site should be surveyed a distance into the adjacent area that may match the edge effect distance relative to microclimate conditions important to these salamanders. Unfortunately, at this time, we have little information to guide us for this potential edge effect distance. For a conservative approach, adjacent area distances of 60 m (about 200 ft; or about one potential tree height) to 180 m (about 590 ft) might be considered. Site conditions will need to be incorporated into this rationale for adjacent area survey distance. Under more exposed conditions such as xeric sites (e.g., southern inland sites on south-facing slopes) or wind-prone sites, a more buffered "occupied site" might be warranted for salamander known site management, and a wider adjacent area surveyed. Under more mesic site conditions, such as a midslope site in the coastal fog belt, rationale for a less buffered "occupied site" might be developed because severe microclimate edge effects appear to be less of an issue.

Example 3: Roadside ground disturbance is proposed. Specifically, trees posing safety hazards will be removed and sporadically-occurring eroded surfaces will be repaired. Increased edge effects on forest interior microclimates are unlikely, and additional effects on downed wood recruitment to adjacent areas is negligible. A rationale for adjacent areas to be exempt from survey might be considered. If it were culvert or drainage work, the exception would be in the north where Van Dyke's salamander (Plethodon vandykei) could be impacted in or along streams. Here, surveys should be conducted approximately 25 m (about 80 ft.) upstream and 100 m (about 330 ft) downstream.

Example 4: A road is proposed and would provide access to a project area on non-federal lands, but would cross federal lands. This is a linear impact for which we have little knowledge with regard to effects on adjacent areas. Surveys of suitable habitat on federal land along the project area of the proposed road on and within about 60 m (about 200 ft) of each side of the road may be sufficient to address potential shifts in microclimate, hydrology, and operational disturbances to adjacent areas. In the north, if the road bisects a stream within the range of Van Dyke's salamander (P. vandykei), the area downstream that is surveyed should be extended to approximately 100 m (about 330 ft).

Example 5: A trail less than 1.22 m (48 in.) wide is proposed. Surveys are recommended in areas of suitable habitat for salamanders under the Survey and Manage provision along the trail and adjacent to the trail within 25 m (about 80 ft), on each side. If the trail bisects surface rock (talus) or a stream, the survey should be extended to a 60 m (about 200 ft) adjacent area distance. For example, for Larch Mountain salamanders (Plethodon larselli) which may occur in forested habitat, we recommend that three belt transects be searched, one along the proposed trail alignment and one along each side of the proposed trail within 25 m (about 80 ft). As the proposed trail bisects a

enclosure 1-3

patch of surface rock, this area should be surveyed to 60 m (about 200 ft) from the trail. The 25 m (about 80 ft) adjacent distance is reduced compared to other proposed disturbances because of the expected limited aerial extent of impacts from trail construction.

7. At least one person conducting surveys should be able to identify all salamander species that occur in the area, to ensure proper species identification. Knowledge of only the Survey and Manage species does not ensure accurate species identification.

8. We expect the developing Interagency Species Management System (ISMS) to be used for data management of amphibians under the Survey and Manage provision. Until it becomes available, data records of site visits in which animals are "detected" and "not found" should be maintained in field offices.

9. The States of California, Oregon, and Washington have different regulations for the capture and handling of these species. Please contact the State agencies to acquire the necessary permits to conduct surveys. Some State agencies may require the lead surveyor of a field crew to hold a permit, and have not given blanket permits to federal agencies for work on federal lands.

10. Three levels of survey are being incorporated into the revised protocols.

I. Survey until first detection.

Using the described methods, once an individual of the target species is detected, the survey may be halted and the survey requirement of the ROD will have been met. Subsequently, the "occupied site" is delineated by contiguous habitat.

Data forms in the revised protocols will distinguish between required and optional data elements for Level I surveys. Level I surveys represent the minimal approach for detection, and include a reduced level of effort for habitat typing and animal sampling. Optional data collected during Level I surveys are discussed below (Level II surveys); these additional data allow a better examination of habitat associations and relative abundance patterns.

II. Optional additional surveys.

A. Opportunistic Surveys.

Survey methods other than the ones described in the draft protocol might be attempted for a quicker reconnaissance of a site. An opportunistic search may reveal known sites without the effort of planning and implementing the survey protocol. If such additional survey methods are utilized and a new known site is detected, the site is certainly recognized. However, if an additional survey method is used and these animals are not found, the survey does not count as one of the "site visits" as described in the protocol. Therefore, the value of these optional additional searches would be to quickly determine presence, which could occur if site conditions appeared optimal, the animals were extremely active on the surface, or if the salamander population were large.

B. Habitat Quantification.

A more detailed habitat quantification of survey areas is desired, but not mandated, for known site detection. This increased level of survey effort

enclosure 1-4

for habitat descriptors is optional, but may contribute to knowledge of the habitat associations of these animals that might be useful for further development of the survey protocols (i.e., where to survey), and contribute to management decisions at that site or within a larger spatial context (e.g., within the drainage or province). The revised protocol will include data forms clearly marked with required and optional data elements. The optional data are useful from areas in which "presence" is determined as well as those areas at which salamanders are "not found."

C. Relative Abundance Estimates.

For a better estimate of relative abundance, survey efforts that go beyond first detection are encouraged. After detection, an additional hour of survey is recommended, especially if detection occurs within the first person-hour of survey. If the area of suitable habitat being surveyed is relatively small, we recommend the entire habitat to be searched according to the methods in the protocol. If these animals occur in patches, first detection might signify a patch location, but not patch size or inter-patch interval which are needed for a site-scale relative abundance estimate. If surveyors were to initiate searching in a patch and detection occurred within the first few minutes of a site visit and searching halted, a relative abundance estimate of the site could be grossly overestimated. Conversely, if searching began in an unoccupied area and was halted after a single individual within a patch was later-discovered, a relative abundance estimate might be underestimated. A more accurate relative abundance estimate is desired for monitoring impacts at a site. Also, relative abundance information may be a critical part of adaptive management and could forward the development of a management prescription that might lead to relief from surveys of this sort.

III. Delineation of Occupied Site.

After initial detection, additional surveys may be implemented to delineate occupancy patterns within the suitable habitat at the site. Once the occupied site is delineated, further management options can be addressed. For example, it may be decided that only the occupied site (and its adjacent areas) require protection from ground disturbance rather than all contiguous habitat. In contrast, it may be decided that contiguous habitat offers potential refuge and may become occupied in the future.

11. Field units should follow survey procedures as provided by the protocols. The need for deviations in implementation of the protocol should be determined by field biologists who should document the change and rationale for why it was needed. The Amphibian Taxa Team members are available to assist with the evaluation of proposed changes.

12. Within the PNW Region, the areas in which surveys are required for salamanders under the Survey and Manage provision reflect our lack of knowledge of these species' ranges. Few surveys specific for detection of these rare species have been implemented across the landscape. New localities extending the ranges many miles have been found in recent years. Boundaries for surveys are described below.

I. Van Dyke's salamander and Larch Mountain salamander.

For the northern two species (Van Dyke's salamander [Plethodon vandykei] and Larch Mountain salamander [P. larselli]), surveys should be conducted

enclosure 1-5

in Washington in areas of appropriate habitat south of Highway 2, as it passes through the Washington Cascade Range. The western boundary in Washington is the Cascade Range foothills (i.e., the Puget Trough). In Oregon, surveys should be conducted in areas of appropriate habitat north of the interface of Townships 5S and 4S, from the western foothills to Range 11E. This boundary runs approximately 12 miles (about 19 km) south of Mt. Hood. The western boundary in Oregon is the Cascade Range foothills. In Washington and Oregon, the eastern boundary for surveys is expanded east of the Cascade crest, to the eastern Cascade Range foothills.

The Larch Mountain salamander has been found recently in more xeric habitat on the eastern side of the Cascades, demonstrating our lack of knowledge of its range limits. Along the Columbia River Gorge, the eastern extent of surveys is extended to the Range 11E and 12E boundary line; surveys need to be conducted west of this line. The westward extent should be where the Columbia River bisects the foothills of the western slope of the Cascade Range.

II. Siskiyou Mountains salamander, Del Norte salamander, and Shasta salamander.

For the southern three species (Siskiyou Mountains salamander [Plethodon stormi], Del Norte salamander [P. elongatus], and Shasta salamander [Hydromantes shastae]), surveys should be implemented within proposed project areas (and their immediately adjacent areas, as discussed above) within approximately (+10%) 25 miles (approximately 40 km) of an established known site, if potentially suitable habitat conditions for the species occur there. These ranges will be established and periodically updated at the regional level based on known site locations for each species obtained from field units when requested.

enclosure 1-6