Table 2. Guidelines for evaluating species persistence and late successional and old-growth forest (LSOG) association under the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP), taken from USDA and USDI (2001), with reference to the Bayesian belief network (BBN) decision models. See Fig. 1 for how the overall BBN decision model combined these six evaluation categories. BLM = USDI Bureau of Land Management, and FEMAT = Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team.

Evaluation category
Guideline description with references to node numbers in the BBN submodel figures
BBN model
1. Geographic range
The species must occur within the Northwest Forest Plan area (1), or occur close to the NWFP area (2) and have potentially suitable habitat within the NWFP area (3).
Fig. 2
2. LSOG association
A species is considered to be closely associated with late-successional and old-growth forests if it met at least one of the following criteria:
  • The species is significantly more abundant in late-successional and old-growth forest than in young forest, in any part of its range (1).
  • The species shows association with late-successional and old-growth forest and may reach highest abundance there (2) and the species requires habitat components that are contributed by late successional and old-growth forest (3).
  • The species is associated with late-successional and old-growth forest, based on field study (2) and is on a federal U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service list (4d/5a) or state threatened or endangered list (4c); the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service candidate species list (4a); a BLM or Forest Service special status species list in Oregon, Washington, or California (4b); or is listed by the States of Washington, Oregon, or California as a species of special concern or as a sensitive species (4c).
  • Field data are inadequate to measure strength of association with late-successional and old-growth forest (5c); the species is listed as a federal U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service threatened and endangered species (4d/5a); and the FEMAT suspected, or the panel doing the final placement in Species Review Process suspects, that it is associated with late-successional and old-growth forest (5b).
Fig. 3
3. Plan provides for persistence
The reserve system and other Standards and Guidelines of the NWFP do not appear to provide for a reasonable assurance of species persistence. Criteria indicating a concern for persistence, i.e., one or more of the following criteria must apply:
  • Low-to-moderate number of likely extant known sites/records in all or part of a species range (1);
  • Low-to-moderate number of individuals (2);
  • Low-to-moderate number of individuals at most sites or in most populations (3);
  • Very-limited to somewhat-limited range (5);
  • Distribution within habitat is spotty or unpredictable in at least part of its range (6); and
  • Very-limited to somewhat-limited habitat (8).
Criteria indicating little or no concern for persistence, usually, most of the following criteria must apply:
  • Moderate-to-high number of likely extant sites/records (1);
  • Sites are relatively well distributed within the species range (7);
  • High proportion of sites and habitat in reserve land allocations (9); or limited number of sites within reserves, but the proportion or amount of potential habitat within reserves is high (10a) and there is a high probability that the habitat is occupied (10b); and
  • Matrix Standards and Guidelines or other elements of the Northwest Forest Plan provide a reasonable assurance of species persistence (11).
Fig. 4
4. Data sufficiency
Information is insufficient to determine whether survey and manage basic criteria are met (1), or to determine what management is needed for a reasonable assurance of species persistence (2).
Fig. 5
5. Practicality of survey
Surveys are considered “practical” if all of the following
criteria apply:
  • The taxon appears annually or predictably, producing identifying structures that are visible for a predictable and reasonably long time (1);
  • The taxon is not so minuscule or cryptic as to be barely visible (2);.
  • The taxon can authoritatively be identified by more than a few experts, or the number of available experts is not so limited that it would be impossible to accomplish all surveys or identifications for all proposed habitat-disturbing activities in the NWFP area needing identification within the normal planning period for the activity (3);
  • The taxon can be readily distinguished in the field and needs no more than simple laboratory or office examination to confirm its identification (4);
  • Surveys do not require unacceptable safety (5a) or species risks (5b);
  • Surveys can be completed in two field seasons (approximately 7-18 mo) (6); and
  • Credible survey methods for the taxon are known or can be developed within a reasonable time period, i.e.,approximately 1 yr (7).
Fig. 6
6a. Relative rarity
The species is relatively rare and all known sites or population areas are likely to be necessary to provide reasonable assurance of species persistence, as indicated by one or more of the following:
  • Species poorly distributed within its range or habitat (1,2,3);
  • Limited dispersal capability on federal lands (4);
  • Reproduction or survival not sufficient (5);
  • Low number of likely extant sites/records on federal lands indicates rarity (6).
  • Limited number of individuals per site (7).
  • Declining population trends (8)
  • Low number of sites in reserves (9) or low likelihood of sites or habitat in reserves (10).
  • Highly specialized habitat requirements (narrow ecological amplitude) (11);
  • Declining habitat trend (12);
  • Dispersal capability limited relative to federal habitat;
  • Habitat fragmentation that causes genetic isolation (13);
  • Microsite habitat limited (14); and
  • Factors beyond management under the NWFP affect persistence, but special management under the NWFP will help persistence (15).
Fig. 7
6b. Relative uncommonness
The species is relatively uncommon rather than rare, and not all known sites or population areas are likely to be necessary for reasonable assurance of persistence, as indicated by one or more of the following:
  • A higher number of likely extant sites/records does not indicate rarity of the species (1);
  • Low-to-high number of individuals/site (2);
  • Less restricted distribution pattern relative to range or potential habitat (3);
  • Moderate-to-broad ecological amplitude (4);
  • Moderate-to-high likelihood of sites in reserves (5); and
  • Populations or habitats are stable (6).
Fig. 8