| United States Department of Agriculture |
Forest Service |
R-5 R-6 |
CA OR/WA |
Bureau of Land Management |
United States Department of Interior |
|
| Reply Refer To: 1920/2600 (FS); 1630/1736-PFP (BLM-OR931)P | Date: November 23, 1999 | |||||
FS-Memorandum |
EMS TRANSMISSION 12/02/99 BLM-Instruction Memorandum No. OR-2000-015 Expires: 09/30/2001 |
|
| To: | USDI Bureau of Land Management District Managers (Coos Bay, Eugene, Lakeview, Medford, Roseburg, Salem) and Field Managers (OR: Klamath Falls; CA: Arcata, Redding, and Ukiah) and USDA Forest Service Forest Supervisors within the area of the Northwest Forest Plan |
|
| Subject: | Survey and Manage Management Recommendations for Four Terrestrial Mollusks: Cryptomastix devia, Megomphix hemphilli, Prophysaon coeruleum, and P. dubium
|
|
Background To implement these provisions of the NFP, the Regional Interagency Executive Committee agreed in January 1995 to have the S&M Work Group coordinate preparation of management recommendations (MRs) for known sites. Management Recommendations for 23 other Terrestrial Mollusks were transmitted via Forest Service (FS) Memorandum1920/2600 /Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Instruction Memorandum No. OR-2000-003 on October 15, 1999. The Management Recommendations for the four remaining terrestrial mollusks listed in Table C-3 and on page C-6 (Protect from Grazing) have been completed. The Management Recommendations for Cryptomastix devia, Megomphix hemphilli, Prophysaon coeruleum, and P. dubium are enclosed. Effective Date of S&M Management Recommendations - Terrestrial Mollusks It is the intent of these MRs that they be used by biological staff to reduce the risk to the species. The application of the recommendations, along with professional biological judgment based on local site conditions, will provide site management of these species in the context of NFP goals. Please follow the guidance (Enclosure 1) regarding use of these MRs. Review of S&M Management Recommendations - Terrestrial Mollusks If you have questions or comments concerning the enclosed MRs or guidance, please address any questions to Cheryl McCaffrey (BLM), Sarah Madsen (FS R-6), or Paula Crumpton (FS R-5). They can be reached at: -- Cheryl - 503-952-6050; E-mail: cmccaffr@or.blm.gov |
/signed/, NANCY GRAYBEAL |
/signed/, ELAINE Y. ZIELINSKI |
/signed/, BRADLEY E. POWELL |
/signed/, ALFRED W. WRIGHT |
BLM |
Forest Service |
||
|
District Managers |
Field |
Forest Supervisors |
Forest Supervisors |
| Coos Bay Eugene Lakeview Medford Roseburg Salem |
Arcata Klamath Falls Redding Ukiah |
Deschutes Gifford Pinchot Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie Mt. Hood Okanogan Olympic Rogue River Siskiyou Siuslaw Umpqua Wenatchee Willamette Winema |
Klamath Lassen Mendocino Modoc Shasta Trinity Six Rivers |
| BLM Distribution:
WO-230 (Room 204LS)-1 |
FS Distribution:
R5: |
||
| REO Distribution:
Belisle -1 |
Research Units:
PNW - 1 |
||
The following guidance was developed to assist field units in implementing management recommendations (MRs) for Component 1 and 2 Survey and Manage (S&M) species and Protection Buffer species and Protect From Grazing species: Terrestrial Mollusks.
1. Introduction
All MRs will be transmitted by joint Bureau of Land Management (BLM) / Forest Service (FS) memos.
MRs have been developed for use at field offices of the BLM and FS. Other agencies may find them useful as well.
MRs were developed primarily in response to the Standards and Guidelines (S&Gs) for Component 1 Survey and Manage species and Protection Buffer species.
It is the intent of these MRs to maintain a level of flexibility that allows for creativity of interdisciplinary (ID) teams in providing for management of the species in the context of other Northwest Forest Plan (NFP) goals. Where there are few known sites, it is especially important for these MRs to be followed in order to reduce any possible high risk to species survival in the NFP area.
2. Application of the MRs
The Executive Summary can be scanned for highlights about species. For example, look at range information and determine where a species is likely to be, get an idea of the species' habitat, and review what management options might be useful.
MRs were written primarily for use by botanists or biologists, but they also may be useful to others involved in project planning and design.
The enclosed MRs are effective as of the date of the transmittal memorandum, and replace the species management information contained in Appendix J-2 of the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement.
The MRs apply to the species as they occur throughout the range of the northern spotted owl (or limited areas as noted in Table C-3 of the NFP S&Gs). The known site database (KSDB) and other credible locational data available to the field office should be used as appropriate to determine if a particular taxon is known within the project area. Use the MRs in concert with the most recently distributed version of the KSDB to aid in determining the range of each species relative to the project area.
Component 1 provisions for the protection of known sites apply to all activities (including, but not limited to timber sales) that may have adverse or beneficial effects.
For Protection Buffer species, these MRs serve as the management plans recommended by the NFP S&Gs on pp. C-20 and C-27.
Some MRs may suggest proactive management, such as prescribed fire, needed for species viability. Where such opportunities exist, managers are encouraged to implement these proactive recommendations.
3. Follow-up Actions
Field office staff who have expertise regarding these species may be asked to participate in revision of the MRs, in peer reviews, or on teams developing recommendations to change the status of certain species.
Field offices will likely be asked to provide information regarding their implementation of these MRs. Therefore, field office staff are asked to note pertinent aspects of the MRs, such as feasibility of implementation, appropriateness of the level of intensity, magnitude of implementation costs, and the accuracy of biological information.
Enclosure 1