United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest

Service

July 2017

Terrestrial Wildlife Report

Craggy Vegetation Management Project

Salmon/Scott River Ranger District, Klamath National Forest

Siskiyou County, California

For Information Contact: Sam Cuenca

11263 N. Hwy 3 Fort Jones, CA

530.468.5351

Non-Discrimination Policy

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination against its customers, 

employees, and applicants for employment on the bases of race, color, national origin, age, disability, 

sex, gender identity, religion, reprisal, and where applicable, political beliefs, marital status, familial or 

parental status, sexual orientation, or all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public 

assistance program, or protected genetic information in employment or in any program or activity 

conducted or funded by the Department. (Not all prohibited bases will apply to all programs and/or 

employment activities.)

To File an Employment Complaint

If you wish to file an employment complaint, you must contact your agency's EEO Counselor (PDF) 

within 45 days of the date of the alleged discriminatory act, event, or in the case of a personnel 

action. Additional information can be found online at www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_file.html.

To File a Program Complaint

If you wish to file a Civil Rights program complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program

Discrimination Complaint Form (PDF), found online at www.ascr.usda.gov/ complaint_filing_cust.html, 

or at any USDA office, or call (866) 632-9992 to request the form. You may also write a letter 

containing all of the information requested in the form. Send your completed complaint form or letter 

to us by mail at U.S. Department of Agriculture, Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence 

Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, by fax (202) 690-7442 or email at 

program.intake@usda.gov.

Persons with Disabilities

Individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing or have speech disabilities and you wish to file either an 

EEO or program complaint please contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-

8339 or (800) 845-6136 (in Spanish).

Persons with disabilities who wish to file a program complaint, please see information above on how 

to contact us by mail directly or by email. If you require alternative means of communication for 

program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) please contact USDA's TARGET 

Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

Terrestrial Wildlife Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

i

Table of Contents

Terrestrial Wildlife Resource Report...........................................................................................1

Methodology........................................................................................................................... 1

Analysis Indicators and Measures .......................................................................................... 3

Threatened and endangered species (northern spotted owl) and critical habitat ............ 3

Threatened and endangered species, and species proposed for federal listing, other than 

the northern spotted owl.................................................................................................. 7

Spatial and Temporal Context ................................................................................................ 8

Affected Environment............................................................................................................. 8

Environmental Consequences............................................................................................... 15

Alternative 1...................................................................................................................... 15

Alternative 2...................................................................................................................... 15

Alternative 3...................................................................................................................... 18

Comparison of Alternatives.................................................................................................. 19

Compliance with Law, Regulation, Policy and the Forest Plan ........................................... 23

Literature Cited ..................................................................................................................... 24

List of Tables

Table 1: Values for selected structural parameters used in the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service guidelines 

to classify nesting, roosting and foraging habitat for Northern Spotted Owls......................................4

Table 2: Recovery Actions Applicable to the Craggy Project ......................................................................7

Table 3: Northern Spotted Owl Habitat Acres within the Analysis Area .....................................................9

Table 4: Northern Spotted Owl Survey Summary by Activity Centers in the Analysis Area ......................9

Table 5: Home Range and Core Acres of Northern Spotted Owl Activity Centers....................................10

Table 6: Status, Habitat Description and Known Sites for Terrestrial Species...........................................11

Table 7: Management Indicator Species Relevant to the Craggy Project...................................................13

Table 8: Foraging Habitat in Home Range and Core Acres of Northern Spotted Owl Activity Centers 

Affected by Alternative 2....................................................................................................................16

Table 9: Foraging Habitat in Home Range and Core Acres of Northern Spotted Owl Activity Centers 

Affected by Alternative 3....................................................................................................................18

Table 10: Comparison of Effects of Alternatives on Federally Listed, Forest Service Sensitive, 

Management Indicator, and Survey and Manage Wildlife Species....................................................20

Terrestrial Wildlife Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

1

Terrestrial Wildlife Resource Report

This resource report addresses terrestrial wildlife habitat and species known or potentially 

occurring in the Craggy area ad discussed in the environmental impact statement, available 

on the Project website. Several federally-listed threatened or endangered species in the vicinity 

of the project area are excluded from analysis. The discussion of why they are excluded by 

species is below.

Oregon spotted frog (Rana pretiosa) - The areas proposed for treatment are well outside of the 

sub-basins where this species is either historically or currently extant1 as identified in the Final 

Rule for Listing (USDI 2014). There is, therefore, a discountable chance for it to occur within 

the analysis area. Therefore, this project will have “no effect” on this species.

Conservancy Fairy Shrimp (Branchinechta conservation), Vernal pool fairy shrimp

(Branchinechta lynchi ) and Vernal pool tadpole shrimp (Lepidurus packardi) - The project 

and analysis areas are outside the range of Conservancy fairy shrimp and vernal pool tadpole 

shrimp and does not contain suitable habitat for vernal pool fairy shrimp. The Craggy Project

will, therefore, have “no effect” on these species.

Yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) – The cuckoo is strongly associated with dense 

riparian vegetation typically composed of woodlands with low, scrubby, dense vegetation and 

surface water. In some areas of the species range, the cuckoo can be found in willow thickets or 

dogwood patches. On the Forest, cuckoo habitat is somewhat likely to occur in small areas along 

the Klamath River but the Forest has no record of a cuckoo detection; the closest known 

detection is located near the mouth of the Smith River (outside the Forest boundary). The Craggy

Project analysis area does not contain cuckoo habitat; thus, the Project will have “no effect” on 

cuckoo. In addition, the Forest doesn’t contain any cuckoo critical habitat; thus, this project will 

have “no effect” on cuckoo critical habitat.

Shortnose sucker (Chasmistes brevirostris) and Lost River sucker (Deltistes luxatus) - The 

Craggy Project analysis area is outside the range of both the shortnose sucker and Lost River 

sucker and is not within these species’ designated or proposed critical habitat. Therefore, the

proposed project will have “no effect” on the shortnose sucker or Lost River sucker or their 

designated or proposed critical habitat. These species will not be further addressed in this 

document.

Methodology

For all terrestrial wildlife species that are federally-listed as threatened or endangered (or proposed 

for listing), Forest Service sensitive, survey and manage, and management indicator species, 

analysis indicators include the effects to habitat (quantified by acres affected) or to individuals if

known. The Forest accessed the most recent list of endangered, threatened, or proposed species that 

 

1 Lost River sub-basin: Lower Klamath Lake, Upper Pit River sub-basin: Pine Creek-South Pit River (near Alturas), 

Lower Pit River sub-basin: Town of Pittville-Pit River (near Fall River Mills).
Terrestrial Wildlife Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

2

may occur in the vicinity of the project from the USFWS web site (IPaC) dated June 20, 2017 (USDI 

2017).

Methods for analysis focus primarily on assessment of wildlife habitats and habitat distribution.

Assessments were made with field review, species surveys, analysis of geographic information 

system (GIS) data, and plot data collection and modeling using the Forest Vegetation Simulator.

Field reviews of proposed treatment units were conducted in 2013 and 2015. Suitable northern 

spotted owl habitat within 0.5 mile of proposed treatment areas was surveyed to an approved 

protocol in 2012 through 2015. Daytime stand searches of selected activity centers were

conducted in 2012 through 2015. Surveys conducted to regionally-approved protocol, or as 

agreed upon by the Local Level One Team (a team of biologists from the USDA Forest Service 

and the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service), will continue surveys in the year prior to, and during 

the years of implementation, in and adjacent to known activity centers or areas adjacent to the 

proposed action that contain habitats likely to contain northern spotted owls. Surveys based on 

protocols will be continuing through project implementation (USDA USDI 1992, USDA USDI

2011).

For this analysis, suitable northern spotted owl habitat (nesting, roosting, and foraging) was 

identified using the local northern spotted owl habitat definition, CALVEG and Remote Sensing 

Lab data (EVeg), application of “suitable northern spotted owl habitat” definitions using GIS, 

aerial photography, and ground verification. This resulted in a verified northern spotted owl

habitat layer that was used for the Craggy Project analysis.

Suitable nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat for northern spotted owls is used as a proxy for

potential fisher habitat (a Forest Service sensitive species). Other habitat types may be used by

fisher, especially when occurring as a mosaic with more mature stands, but to include them as a

whole may over-represent availability of the fisher’s habitat.

Forest GIS wildlife and vegetation layers were used to assess habitat for Forest Service sensitive, 

survey and manage and management indicator species.

The Forest-wide Late-Successional Reserves Assessment (USDA 1999) and the Forest Plan 

(USDA 1995) were used for information on the existing conditions, desired conditions, Forest 

policy and guidance related to wildlife, and the Northern Spotted Owl Recovery Plan.

Current literature from scientific journals and universities was used to support all aspects of the 

proposed action, current conditions, and the effects section of this report.

Project design features to minimize negative effects to federally-listed species were developed 

through interdisciplinary process and discussed during the streamlined consultation process

between the Forest and the Yreka Field Office of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Stand diagnosis and site-specific prescriptions were developed by a Forest silviculturist. 

Inventory crews collected vegetation and fuels data to be used in the Forest Vegetation Simulator 

to model existing and projected stand structures. To account for stand variability, potential 

treatment units were divided into subunit aggregations based on specific stand conditions and 

treatment objectives. Approximately 25 survey plots were taken covering most of the proposed 

units. Field reviews were made and vegetative data was analyzed. The project development 

process also included project detailed involvement with interdisciplinary team meetings, public 

meetings, and coordination with Yreka Field Office of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service as part 

of the Level 1 streamlined consultation process to meet the Endangered Species Act 
Terrestrial Wildlife Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

3

requirements. The Forest Vegetation Simulator was used to analyze stand prescriptions and 

predict stand dynamics using the information collected from the survey plots.

Analysis Indicators and Measures

Threatened and endangered species (northern spotted owl) and critical habitat

Analysis indicators for determining effects to the northern spotted owl will be acres of nesting and 

roosting or foraging habitat maintained or improved, degraded, downgraded, and removed. 

Effects to habitat were determined to be either no effect, degraded, downgraded, or removed. No 

effect means that the action will not measurably affect the quality of habitat. Degrade signifies 

when treatments have a negative influence on the quality of habitat due to the removal or 

reduction of northern spotted owl habitat elements but not to the degree where existing habitat 

function is changed. Downgrade applies to treatments that reduce habitat elements to the degree 

the habitat will not function in the capacity that exists pre-treatment but activities will not 

remove habitat entirely (i.e., downgrade from nesting or roosting to foraging habitat). Removal

pertains to treatments that reduce habitat elements to the degree that habitat will no longer 

function as suitable for northern spotted owl. Qualitative and quantitative attributes were 

considered in this process including the anticipated change in habitat structure after treatment. 

Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS) modeling predictions were used in combination with 

considerations of the size of parcel treated, homogeneity of the stand conditions pre- and posttreatment, adjacent habitat conditions, slope position and aspect of parcel to be treated, 

distribution of untreated riparian areas, and the distribution of leave areas retained. The 

combination of these factors was considered in the determination of degrading, downgrading, or 

removal of habitat conditions predicted after treatment.

The threatened northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) is the only federally-listed species

known to exist in the project and analysis area. Critical habitat for the northern spotted owl was 

identified on December 4, 2012 (USDI 2012). Effects to critical habitat for the northern spotted 

owl will also be indicated as number of acres of habitat affected. The following is information 

available on this species and habitat:

Habitat type: northern spotted owls generally inhabit older forested habitats because these 

habitats contain the structures and characteristics required for nesting, roosting, foraging, and 

dispersal for the owls (Forsman et al. 1984, Blakesley et al. 1992, LaHaye and Gutiérrez 1999). 

Specifically, habitat features that support nesting and roosting include a multi-layered, multispecies canopy dominated by large overstory trees; moderate to high canopy closure (60 to 90 

percent); a high incidence of trees with large cavities or other types of deformities (e.g., broken 

tops, mistletoe, etc.); numerous large snags; an abundance of large, dead wood on the ground; 

and open space within and below the upper canopy for northern spotted owls to fly within 

(Thomas et al. 1990). Basal areas of trees within nest stands often exceed 200 square feet per 

acre (Solis and Gutiérrez 1990). Foraging habitat generally consists of attributes similar to those 

in nesting and roosting habitat but variation of foraging habitat exists over the range of the 

northern spotted owl. In the analysis area, northern spotted owls likely forage in a variety of seral 

conditions that may include the presence of hardwood understory. Dispersal habitat, at 

minimum, consists of stands with adequate tree size and canopy closure (greater than 40 percent) 

to provide protection from avian predators and some foraging opportunities (USDI FWS 1992b).
Terrestrial Wildlife Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

4

Northern spotted owl habitat is also influenced by abiotic features (e.g., slope position, distance 

to water, and topography) in determining the habitat type: nesting, roosting, foraging, and 

dispersal (Solis and Gutiérrez 1990, Blakesley et al. 1992, LaHaye and Gutiérrez 1999). Studies 

from northern California indicate that Northern Spotted Owls typically nest and roost on the 

lower two-thirds of slopes within a given drainage (Forsman et al. 1984, Blakesley et al. 1992, 

Hershey et al. 1998) while avoiding the upper one-third of slopes (Blakesley et al. 1992). Upper 

ridgelines are generally considered to be natural barriers which can separate northern spotted owl

home ranges; the owls likely don’t forage on the opposite side of a ridgeline from their home 

range (Forsman et al. 1984).

A recent synthesis of published and unpublished literature on northern spotted owl habitat use 

and home range compositions outline the range of measurable habitat conditions and abiotic 

factors (e.g., slope position, distance to water, etc.) strongly associated with northern spotted owl

nesting, roosting, or foraging use in the Northern California interior (USDI 2009). The U. S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has classified this range of conditions into habitat categories 

based on the conditions’ primary function and apparent quality for northern spotted owl suitable 

habitat (nesting, roosting or foraging habitat, high or low quality habitat; Table 1).

Table 1: Values for selected structural parameters used in the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service guidelines to 

classify nesting, roosting and foraging habitat for Northern Spotted Owls

Habitat category

Tree Size 

(Quadratic Mean 

Diameter)1

Basal Area2

Trees greater than 

26 inches in 

diameter

Canopy closure

High quality nesting and 

roosting

≥ 15 inches ≥ 210 square feet per 

acre

8 per acre ≥60%

Nesting and roosting ≥ 15 inches 150-180+ square feet 

per acre

8 per acre ≥ 60%

Foraging ≥ 13 inches 120-180+ square feet 

per acre

5 per acre Mix ranging ≥40% 

to100%

Low quality foraging ≥ 11 inches 80-120+ square feet 

per acre

< 5 per acre ≥ 40%

1Quadratic Mean Diameter (inches) of trees greater than five inches in diameter

2 Square feet per acre, trees greater than five inches in diameter

Nesting and roosting habitat for this analysis is measured by (1) average crown closure greater 

than or equal to 60 percent, (2) average diameter at breast height for canopy trees (greater than or 

equal to 18 inches), basal area (greater than or equal to 180 square feet per acre), and includes 

trees with cavities or platforms (usually created by dwarf mistletoe).

On the Forest, in the California Klamath and Cascade provinces, 41 percent of 29 nests were in 

cavities and 59 percent on platforms, with cavity nests occurring predominantly in Douglas-fir 

forest and platform nests found mainly in mixed conifer forest. Eighty-six percent of the 29 nests 

were in Douglas-fir trees. Marshall et al. (2003) noted that approximately 90 percent of known 

northern spotted owl nests on the Applegate Ranger District of the Rogue River National Forest 

(Klamath Province, Oregon, 25 miles northwest of the Project area) were in dwarf mistletoe 

brooms in Douglas-fir trees. None of the Craggy Project area or analysis area contains nesting or 

roosting habitat.
Terrestrial Wildlife Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

5

Foraging habitat is defined for this analysis as (1) stands with greater than 40 percent canopy 

closure; (2) average diameter at breast height of stands 13 inches or more; and (3) basal areas 

120 to 180 square feet. In 2009, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service conducted a thorough review 

and synthesis of published literature, unpublished data sets and direct communication with 

northern spotted owl researchers to develop a process for evaluating the effects of habitat 

management on northern spotted owls. The result was issuance of guidance to avoid “take” of 

individual owls. That guidance describes foraging habitat as including a mix of basal areas 

ranging from 120 to 180 square feet or more; trees that are greater than or equal to 15 quadratic 

mean diameter; greater than or equal to five trees per acre than are greater than or equal to 26 

inches in diameter at breast height; and a mix of greater than or equal to 40 percent to 100 

percent canopy closure. It also recognizes “low quality” foraging habitat as a mix of basal areas 

ranging from 80 to 120 square feet or more; trees that are greater than or equal to 11” inches 

Quadratic Mean Diameter; and greater than or equal to 40 percent canopy closure (USDI FWS 

2009, Irwin et al. 2004 and 2007). Stands exhibiting these characteristics are consistent with 

foraging habitat as described in the guidance for evaluation of take by USDI Fish and Wildlife 

(2009).

Northern spotted owls feed mainly on small forest mammals, particularly arboreal and semiarboreal species (Courtney et al. 2004). Northern flying squirrels and woodrats comprise a bulk 

of the diet but secondary species may be important for survival and reproduction. Deer mice, red 

tree voles, red-backed voles, and two species of lagomorphs are considered locally or seasonally 

important in the diet (Courtney et al. 2004). Within the project area, it is expected that woodrats 

are the most likely prey item based on available habitat.

Dispersal of animals can be defined as the relatively permanent movement of individuals from 

one location to another. Usually dispersal is the movement of juveniles from their natal area to a 

site where they eventually settle to breed (Thomas et al. 1990).

Modeling efforts by Thomas et al. (1990) indicated that long-term spotted owl persistence is 

unusually sensitive to the distance between blocks of suitable habitat in relation to the percentage 

of the landscape that a dispersing individual can search before perishing. The distance between 

adjacent pairs or groups of breeding owls should be such that the dispersal of juveniles can 

replace losses among existing pairs and provide for the colonization of suitable, unoccupied 

habitats. They suggested that the distance between habitat conservation areas (the concept of 

habitat conservation areas was used to develop late successional reserves but did not become part 

of the Northwest Forest Plan) should be within the known dispersal distances of at least twothirds of all juvenile owls (Thomas et al. 1990); 12 miles is the distance that satisfied that 

criteria. To provide an additional measure of security for smaller habitat conservation areas, they 

suggested using shorter distances to increase the likelihood of successful dispersal; they selected 

seven miles which is less than the median distance estimated from banded birds and within the 

dispersal range of more than 75 percent of all radio-marked juveniles studied (Thomas et al. 

1990).

In addition to short distances between habitat areas (less than seven miles), Thomas et al. (1990) 

suggest that management practices, such as visual corridors, riparian corridors, streamside 

management zones, geologic reserves, and other special management zones, provide habitat 

attributes conducive to spotted owl dispersal between habitat areas. To facilitate dispersal 

between habitat patches, they suggest maintaining 50 percent of each quarter-township in forest 

crown closure over 40 percent with average diameter at breast height of 11 inches.
Terrestrial Wildlife Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

6

The possible effects of a project on northern spotted owls may be: (1) no effect on habitat; (2) 

degradation of habitat; (3) downgrading of habitat; or (4) removal of habitat. No effect means 

that the action will not decrease the quality of habitat. Degradation means the effects are minimal 

and the habitat remains functional at the same level prior to treatment. Downgrading means the 

habitat has been affected to the point where the habitat will not continue to function at its initial 

level and it will drop down one level in habitat type. Removal means that habitat that was once 

functional is no longer habitat.

Northern Spotted Owl Recovery

A recovery plan for the northern spotted owl (to allow the owl to be removed from the threatened 

and endangered list) was prepared by a recovery team consisting of Federal agencies, State

governments, and other interested parties. A recovery plan was published in May 2008 (USDI

2008) and a revised recovery plan was published on June 28, 2011 (USDI 2011). The 2008 and 

2011 recovery plans replaced the 1992 Draft Recovery Plan (USDI 1992) which had been used 

as a foundation for the 1994 Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau 

of Land Management Planning Documents within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl (also 

known as the Northwest Forest Plan).

The 2011 Revised Recovery Plan incorporates portions of the 2008 Recovery Plan, modifies or

updates other portions based on new information, and builds on previous range-wide

conservation plans. The most important range-wide threats to the owl include competition with 

barred owls and the loss of suitable habitat. The 2011 Revised Recovery plan describes a

recovery strategy which includes addressing threats from barred owls, habitat conservation and 

active forest restoration as necessary. The California Klamath Province is identified as one

province most at risk due to effects of fire exclusion on vegetation change, and habitat loss from 

wildfire. Specific to dry forest ecosystems such as those in the California Klamath Province, the

intent of the 2011 Recovery Plan is to “embed spotted owl conservation and recovery within 

broader dry forest ecosystem restoration efforts to increase the likelihood spotted owl habitat will 

remain on the landscaped longer and develop as part of this fire adapted community instead of

being consumed by uncharacteristic wildfires.” Included in this recovery strategy are specific

recovery actions that land management agencies in the California Klamath Province can 

implement to contribute to recovery (Table 2).
Terrestrial Wildlife Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

7

Table 2: Recovery Actions Applicable to the Craggy Project

Recovery 

Action

Description Applicable Recommendations

10 Conserve spotted owl sites and 

high value spotted owl habitat 

to provide additional 

demographic support to the 

spotted owl population

Intent of this recovery action is to protect, enhance, and develop 

habitat in the quantity and distribution necessary to provide for 

the long-term recovery of spotted owls.

Action: There will be no significant changes to high quality 

habitat in the ten home ranges in the Craggy Vegetation 

Management Project analysis area. No nesting roosting habitat 

will be commercially treated. Harvest treatment prescriptions are 

designed to maintain foraging habitat and increase forested 

heterogeneity, and resilience to disturbance while maintaining 

foraging habitat. Silvicultural prescriptions will incorporate design 

features unique to high priority NSO cores and home ranges. 

Fuels treatments occurring in foraging habitat will retain foraging 

habitat character.

32 Federal and non-federal 

landowners should work with 

the Service to Maintain and 

restore older and more 

structurally complex multilayered conifer forests 

...allowing for other threats, 

such as fire and insects to be 

addressed by restoration 

management actions.

Maintaining forests with older, structurally complex, highquality habitat (defined as nesting roosting habitat in this 

document) will provide additional support for reducing key 

threats faced by NSO; protecting these forests should provide 

NSO high-quality refugia habitat from negative competitive 

interactions with barred owls that are likely occurring where the 

two species’ home ranges overlap.

Action: High quality spotted owl habitat stands meeting the intent 

of RA-32 have not been proposed for commercial treatments. No 

commercial harvest will occur in NSO nesting roosting habitat. 

No commercial harvest will occur in 100 acre LSRs. Fuels 

treatments occurring in foraging habitat will retain forging habitat 

character.

Threatened and endangered species, and species proposed for federal listing, 

other than the northern spotted owl

Habitat for the gray wolf (Canis lupus), an endangered species, is available in the project and 

analysis area but there is no known sighting of the wolf. Therefore, acres of effects to wolf 

habitat will not be included as an analysis indicator. Project design features (section 2.2 of the 

Craggy Project environmental impact statement) will provide protection to the wolf if it is 

sighted in the area. The North American wolverine is a species currently proposed for listing as 

threatened; since this species is also on the Forest Service sensitive list, effects to it and its 

habitat are disclosed under the Forest Service sensitive section of this chapter.

Forest Service Sensitive, Survey and Manage, Management Indicator Species, and 

Migratory Birds

Forest Service sensitive species are identified as such by the Pacific Southwest Regional 

Forester; effects to these species are disclosed in this section of the environmental impact 

statement. Additional information is available in the Terrestrial Wildlife Biological Evaluation.
Terrestrial Wildlife Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

8

Analysis indicators for sensitive species will be acres of habitat maintained or improved, 

degraded, and removed or lost. Management indicator species are identified in the Forest Plan; 

effects to these species are disclosed in this section of the environmental impact statement and as 

part of the Management Indicator Species Report, Parts I and II. Analysis indicators for 

management indicator species will be acres of habitat maintained or improved and acres lost. For 

survey and manage species the analysis indicator is compliance with survey and manage 

direction. Compliance is determined through following the guidance for survey protocols and 

protection of known sites (USDA USDI 2001). Information on all of these species, plus migratory 

birds and survey and manage species, and methodology used for this analysis are included in the 

Wildlife Resource Report and detailed in separate reports. All of these reports are incorporated by 

reference and are available on the Project website.

Spatial and Temporal Context

The analysis area for effects on wildlife varies by species and reflects the area within which the 

species could be directly or indirectly affected by the proposed Project.

Northern spotted owl and its critical habitat

The analysis area consists of the project area plus a distance representing a median home range in 

the California Klamath Province. The project area is defined in chapter 1 of this document. The 

analysis area was established by a 1.3-mile buffer around treatment units plus all northern spotted 

owl home ranges that intersect the treatment unit buffers. For this project, the analysis area 

includes about 57,300 acres, of which about 39,000 are acres managed by the Forest. The 

treatment area is the area in which actions will occur (about 10,600 to 11,310 Forest acres, 

depending on the alternative being analyzed). The short-term temporal bound is the time during 

implementation (about five years). Temporal bounds for long-term effects are up to 30 years 

following implementation.

Forest Service Sensitive, Survey and Manage, Management Indicator Species, and Migratory 

Birds

For species with larger home ranges such as wolverine, fisher, or goshawk, the analysis area 

consists of the project area plus a distance representing a median home range in the California 

Klamath Province. For other species, the analysis area consists of the area of potential treatment. 

The short-term temporal bound is the time during implementation (about five years). Temporal 

bounds for long-term effects are up to 30 years following implementation.

Affected Environment

Federally-listed as threatened or endangered, or proposed for federally-listing

Northern Spotted Owl

One federally-listed threatened species, the northern spotted owl, is known to occur within the 

analysis area. The critical habitat (revised) for the northern spotted owl was designated on 

December 4, 2012 (USDI 2012). Although habitat can and does occur on private land, critical 

habitat is only on federally-managed land. The following table displays the amount and type of 

northern spotted owl habitat that exists in the Craggy analysis area. As noted, there are no acres of 

nesting or roosting habitat in the analysis area. The “suitable habitat” for this analysis area is all 
Terrestrial Wildlife Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

9

foraging habitat (although dispersal habitat is useful to the owl for moving through the area, 

dispersal habitat is not considered as suitable habitat by definition).

Table 3: Northern Spotted Owl Habitat Acres within the Analysis Area

Northern Spotted Owl Habitat in 

Analysis Area

Acres of Habitat 

(acres managed by 

the Forest)

Acres of Critical 

Habitat

Non-habitat 44,350 (29,200) 1,890

Dispersal 10,150 (8,010) 1,580

Foraging 2,790 (1,870) 970

Nesting and Roosting 0 (0) 0

Grand Total 57,300 (39,000) 4,440

Table 4: Northern Spotted Owl Survey Summary by Activity Centers in the Analysis Area

Activity 

Center 

Number

Activity Center 

Name Historical Status

Recent Survey

Status 2011 

through 2015

KL0268 Clear Creek

Non-Reproductive Pair 

1992 and 1998; Single 

2001

No Response 2011-

2017

KL0382 Deadwood Reproductive Pair 

2001; Single 2003

No Response 2011-

2016 Single Male 

2017

KL4103 Deadwood Baldy Reproductive Pair 1992 No response 2011-

2017
Terrestrial Wildlife Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

10

Table 5: Home Range and Core Acres of Northern Spotted Owl Activity Centers

Activity 

Center 

Number

Activity 

Center 

Name

Core Area (0.5 mi Radius)

Home Range (entire 1.3 mi 

Radius, includes the acres in the 

core)

Nesting 

and 

Roosting

Foraging Total

Nesting 

and 

Roosting

Foraging Total

KL0268

Clear 

Creek

0 112 112 0 210 210

KL0382 Deadwood 0 44 44 0 159 159

KL4104

Deadwood 

Baldy

0 106 106 0 295 295

Gray Wolf

There are no recorded gray wolf den sites and no rendezvous sites within the Craggy Project 

analysis area, despite many reported observations of wolves in recent years made to the California 

Department of Fish and Wildlife. The likelihood of wolves persisting in the analysis area is low 

because of high road densities and concentrated human use. The area is also close to the 

community of Yreka, California and has relatively high use (compared to other areas of the 

Forest) by hunters, off-highway vehicle users, and woodcutters. There is evidence that OR-7 

passed through a portion of the planning area in the spring of 2013.

North American Wolverine

No den sites for wolverines are known in the Craggy analysis area although there are ten 

documented detections on the Forest. Surveys for wolverines have not been conducted within the 

analysis area. Sightings of this species are rare in Northern California but some sightings have 

occurred from Del Norte and Trinity Counties east through Siskiyou and Shasta Counties. Habitat 

distribution in California is poorly known for the North Coast. In northern California, wolverines 

range from 500-1,500 meters in elevation (1,600 to 4,800 feet) in Douglas-fir and mixed conifer 

and true fir habitats (Zeiner et al. 1990). Camera stations and track plate surveys have been 

conducted on the Forest but these surveys did not find wolverines.

Species that are Federally-listed or Proposed, Sensitive, or Survey and Manage

Habitat conditions for species known to exist in the project area or species for which habitat 

occurs (for federally-listed and proposed species, Forest Service sensitive species, and survey and 

manage species) are provided in the following table.
Terrestrial Wildlife Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

11

Table 6: Status, Habitat Description and Known Sites for Terrestrial Species

Species Status Known to Occur in General Habitat Description

Northern 

spotted owl 

Federally-listed 

as Threatened

Known territories and 

designated critical habitat.

Nests in complex forested 

habitats with multi-layered 

canopies, large overstory trees, 

snags, and downed wood

North 

American 

wolverine

Proposed for 

federal listing 

and Forest 

Service Sensitive

No known locations but 

species could occur based on 

available habitat.

Uses meadows, forests, riparian 

habitats and montane chaparral; 

mature, structurally complex 

high elevation conifer and 

mixed conifer-hardwood 

forests

Bald eagle Forest Service 

Sensitive

No known nest sites but have 

been observed roosting and 

foraging along the Klamath 

River.

Nests in conifer forests 

containing old-growth 

components typically within 

one mile of water

Northern 

goshawk

Forest Service 

Sensitive

One designated goshawk 

management area. No known 

nest sites.

Nests in dense, mid-mature and 

late successional conifer forests

Great Gray 

Owl

Forest Service 

Sensitive

Habitat above 5,000 

elevation occurs in analysis 

area. No known nest sites.

Nests in dense mid mature and 

late successional conifer forests 

in high elevations with 

proximity to meadows and 

openings

Willow 

flycatcher

Forest Service 

Sensitive

No known locations but 

small areas of potential 

riparian habitat occur along 

Klamath River.

Nests in river valleys or lush 

meadows in willows or other 

riparian tree/shrub species

Fisher Forest Service 

Sensitive

Known incidental locations 

and species could occur 

based on available habitat.

Mature, structurally complex 

conifer and mixed coniferhardwood forests; requires 

multiple rest sites that are often 

tree cavities, squirrel/raptor 

nests, mistletoe platforms or 

brush piles

Pacific marten Forest Service 

Sensitive

No known locations but 

species could occur at higher 

elevations of the project.

High-elevation true fir stands; 

use large logs, snags and live 

trees for denning/resting
Terrestrial Wildlife Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

12

Species Status Known to Occur in General Habitat Description

Pallid bat Forest Service 

Sensitive

No known locations, but 

occurrence is likely based on 

available snag habitat; large 

rocky outcrops, caves or 

mines are not known within 

or adjacent to the project.

Utilizes a variety of arid and or 

wooded habitats often in 

association with caves for 

roosting; will use caves, large 

trees, mines, buildings and 

bridges for roosting

Townsend’s 

big-eared bat

Forest Service 

Sensitive

No known locations, but 

occurrence is likely based on 

available snag habitat; caves 

or mines are not known 

within or adjacent to the 

project.

Variety of wooded habitat often 

in association with caves for 

roosting; will use caves, large 

trees, mines, buildings and 

bridges for roosting

Fringed 

Myotis bat

Forest Service 

Sensitive

No known locations, but 

occurrence is likely based on 

available snag habitat; large 

rocky outcrops, caves or 

mines are not known within 

or adjacent to the project.

Utilizes a variety of arid and or 

wooded habitats often in 

association with caves for 

roosting; will use caves, large 

trees, mines, buildings and 

bridges for roosting

Foothill 

yellow-legged 

frog

Forest Service 

Sensitive

No known locations but 

potential habitat occurs along 

tributaries of the Klamath 

River.

Shallow, slow moving streams 

with gravel or rocky substrate

Cascade frog Forest Service 

Sensitive

No known locations in 

higher elevations but 

potential habitat occurs along 

tributaries of the Klamath 

River.

Higher elevation lakes and 

tributaries

Western 

bumble bee

Forest Service 

Sensitive

No known locations. 

Potential habitat in higher 

elevations of analysis area.

Open wet meadow habitats

Tehama 

chaparral snail

Forest Service 

Sensitive and 

Survey and 

Manage 

(Category A)

One known location but 

potential habitat may occur 

in the analysis area

Talus and outcrops within 

mature conifer forests

Klamath 

shoulderband 

(Trinity 

shoulderband)

Survey and 

Manage 

(Category A)

Three known sites in the 

analysis area.

Closed canopy, moist forest 

typically near talus refugia
Terrestrial Wildlife Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

13

Species Status Known to Occur in General Habitat Description

Siskiyou 

Mountain 

Salamander

Forest Service 

Sensitive and 

Survey and 

Manage 

(Category A)

No known sites in analysis 

area.

Moist forest typically near talus 

refugia

Scott Bar 

Salamander

Survey and 

Manage 

(Category A)

No known sites in analysis 

area.

Moist forest typically near talus 

refugia

Blue-gray tail 

dropper

Survey and 

Manage 

(Category A)

No known locations but 

potential habitat occurs in 

the analysis area.

Moist conifer and mixed 

conifer and hardwood forests 

high levels of shade and 

moisture

Oregon 

Shoulderband 

Survey and 

Manage 

(Category B)

Known locations. Closed canopy, moist forest 

typically near talus refugia

Siskiyou 

Sideband

Survey and 

Manage 

(Category B)

Known locations. Closed canopy, moist forest 

typically near talus refugia

Management Indicator Species

Additional information on terrestrial management indicator species and their associations that 

exist in the project area and may be affected by the project is provided in the Wildlife Resource 

Report. Information on river and stream species and their associations is provided in the Aquatic 

Resources Report. Information on both is also provided in the Management Indicator Species 

Report, Parts I and II. A summary is provided on the following table.

Table 7: Management Indicator Species Relevant to the Craggy Project

Species Habitat 

Association Habitat Description Reasons for Selection as a Management Indicator Species

Rainbow 

Trout

River/ 

Stream

Cool, clear, fastflowing permanent 

streams and rivers

Indicator for water quality, in-stream 

woody debris, bottom substrate, flows 

and channel condition.

Steelhead River/ 

Stream

Cool, clear, fastflowing permanent 

streams and rivers 

with opportunities to 

migrate to and from 

estuaries and ocean 

habitats

Indicator for water quality, in-stream 

woody debris, bottom substrate, flows 

and channel condition.
Terrestrial Wildlife Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

14

Tailed 

frog

River/ 

Stream

Perennial montane 

streams with dense 

vegetation

Indicator for water quality, in-stream 

woody debris, bottom substrate, flows 

and channel condition.

American 

dipper

River/ 

Stream

Cold, swift, 

perennial streams

Indicator for water quality, instream 

woody debris, bottom substrate and 

Northern 

water 

shrew

River/ 

Stream

Riparian w/dense 

grass-forb cover

Indicator of riparian vegetation including 

canopy, deciduous vegetation, and 

grass/forb.

Redbreasted 

sapsucker

Snagdependent

Mid-to-late seral 

mixed conifer and 

riparian deciduous 

vegetation.

This species is an Indicator of snags as a 

habitat element and of other species 

which depend on sap wells.

Whiteheaded 

woodpecker

Snagdependent

Ponderosa pine and 

high elevation 

mixed-conifer

This species is an Indicator of snags as a 

habitat element and for other species 

which depend on woodpeckers for 

cavities or as prey.

Vaux’s 

swift

Snagdependent

Late-successional 

forests with large 

hollow snags

Indicator of large snags as a habitat 

element.

Hairy 

woodpecker

Snagdependent

Riparian deciduous 

habitats with large 

trees for cavities

Indicator of snags as a habitat element 

and for other species which depend on 

woodpeckers for cavities or as prey.

Downy 

woodpecker

Snagdependent

Riparian deciduous 

habitats with large 

trees for cavities

Indicator of snags as a habitat element 

and for other species which depend on 

woodpeckers for cavities or as prey.

Pileated 

woodpecker

SnagdependentLate-successional 

coniferous forests

Indicator of snags as a habitat element 

and for other species which depend on 

woodpeckers for cavities or as prey.

Blackbacked 

woodpecker

SnagdependentHigh elevation fir 

and lodgepole pine

Indicator of snags as a habitat element 

and for other species which depend on 

woodpeckers for cavities or as prey.

Migratory Birds

Migratory birds are identified in the memorandum of understanding that directs agencies under 

the Migratory Bird Act to focus on species of management concern along with their priority 

habitats and key risk factors. For the Forest, the migratory bird species of management concern 

are identified as species designated by the Regional Forester as sensitive species and the species 

listed under Standard and Guidelines 8-21 through 8-34 of the Forest Plan (USDA 1995, pages 4-

30 to 4-32) as management indicator species for project level assessment. Although federally-
Terrestrial Wildlife Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

15

listed threatened or endangered species would be species of management concern, no migratory 

birds on the Forest are currently federally-listed as threatened or endangered so none are 

identified as species of management concern for this project.

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1

Direct and Indirect Effects:

Species that are Federally-listed or Proposed, Sensitive, Survey and Manage, or Migratory 

Birds

Alternative 1 will result in no changes and, therefore, no direct effects to individual wildlife 

species or wildlife habitats (for threatened, endangered, and sensitive species, survey and manage 

species, management indicator species, and migratory birds). The indirect effects expected would 

be those effects related to the continued increase of density-related mortality and disease. Habitat 

conditions would remain as described in the existing condition for an undetermined amount of 

time trending towards less healthy stand conditions. Overall, effects to wildlife and wildlife 

habitats of no action will result in 1) reduced availability and distribution of stands that could 

develop into suitable habitat for late successional habitat related species (northern spotted owl, 

wolverine, fisher, and goshawk); and 2) increased fuel loadings and increased risk of standreplacing fire resulting in the potential loss of forested habitats in the project area. This will result 

in a decreased quality of forest habitat conditions (dense small diameter understory with few 

openings for stand diversity). Habitat for the threatened gray wolf will not be affected.

The Migratory Bird Act is followed through adherence to the memorandum of understanding that 

directs agencies to evaluate the effects of proposed actions on migratory birds. Specific effects of 

the project on species listed as sensitive or management indicator species are addressed in detail 

in the Terrestrial Wildlife Resource Report and the Management Indicator Species Report, Parts I 

and II; these are available on the Project website. Since Alternative 1 does not propose action, 

there would be no direct effects of this alternative on migratory birds. Indirect effects would be 

the same as described in the previous paragraph.

Cumulative Effects:

Adding the effects of this alternative to the effects of reasonably foreseeable future actions will 

not lead to significant cumulative effects because adding the minor short-term or non-discernible 

effects of the future actions to the indirect effects of this alternative would not result in significant 

cumulative effects.

Alternative 2

Direct and Indirect Effects:

Federally-listed and proposed species

Northern Spotted Owl

The proposed treatment for all stands emphasizes reduction of present stocking levels to enhance 

development of the residual mid-mature and younger stems and increase the longevity of the 

mature stems. Treatment areas would retain snags and coarse woody debris in stream-course 

riparian leave areas. Large snags would be retained as long as snags do not pose a safety hazard; if 
Terrestrial Wildlife Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

16

felled, snags would be left in the treatment unit as woody debris. Other large snags would be 

retained with live trees in areas called “skip areas.”

Effects of this alternative are addressed as effects on foraging habitat; since there is no known 

nesting or roosting habitat in the analysis area, none is affected. Implementing proposed treatment 

activities in Alternative 2 would degrade 347 acres of foraging habitat; about 1.5 acres of foraging 

habitat will be removed through construction of one new landing (this landing is not within an 

owl activity center or in critical habitat). No acres will be downgraded to dispersal habitat in the 

analysis area. Definitions of degrade, downgrade, and remove are provided in the “analysis 

indicators” section above. There would be long-term beneficial effects to late-successional habitat 

on these acres as described in the effects analysis in the Silviculture Report for this project.

In critical habitat, 203 acres of foraging habitat would be degraded but none would be 

downgraded or removed; no nesting or roosting habitat would be affected since none is known to 

exist in critical habitat in the analysis area. The proposed treatments occurring within critical 

habitat will maintain primary constituent elements throughout the analysis area for the northern 

spotted owl to sustain essential life history functions.

The following table displays the acres affected in owl activity centers.

Table 8: Foraging Habitat in Home Range and Core Acres of Northern Spotted Owl Activity Centers 

Affected by Alternative 2

Activity 

Center 

Number

Core

0.5 mile radius around center

Home Range Plus Core

Entire 1.3 mi Radius (includes the acres in 

the core)

Degrade Downgrade Remove Degrade Downgrade Remove

KL0268 0 0 0 35 0 0

KL0382 0 0 0 62 0 0

KL4104 0 0 0 0 0 0

Gray Wolf

As discussed in the affected environment section, no known wolf dens occur in the analysis area. 

If a wolf was present in the project area, it would likely avoid noise that is created by human 

activity. Therefore, Alternative 2 is likely to have “no effect” on gray wolf. If, during the 

implementation of this project, wolf activity is detected in the project area, then project design 

features specific to wolves will apply (Chapter 2, section 2.2) and the presence of wolves on the 

landscape may require coordination and potentially new consultation under Section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act with the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service.

North American Wolverine

Although there are no known den sites in the analysis area, it is possible that wolverine may be 

present. However, due to habitat fragmentation and limited availability of older forest conditions, 
Terrestrial Wildlife Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

17

wolverines are not expected to be abundant. Effects on wolverine and its habitat are discussed 

further under the Forest Service sensitive section.

Forest Service Sensitive Species, Survey and Manage, Management Indicator Species, and 

Migratory Birds

Due to the proposed actions within Alternative 2 either not occurring in known species ranges or 

not affecting any habitat, there are no expected direct or indirect effects on the following species: 

bald eagle, great gray owl, Siskiyou Mountain salamander, foothill yellow-legged frog, Cascade 

frog, and Tehama chaparral snail.

With the implementation of snag-related project design features and the limited activities 

proposed in older forested habitats in the watershed, Alternative 2 would not limit the availability 

of large snag distribution for the pallid bat, fringed myotis, Townsend’s big-eared bat, or the snag 

associated management indicator species in the analysis area.

With the implementation of riparian reserve related project design features and the limited 

activities proposed in the riparian habitat in the watershed, Alternative 2 would not limit the 

availability of riparian habitat conditions for the willow flycatcher, or the riparian associated 

management indicator species in the analysis area.

Pacific Marten: Alternative 2 would degrade about 278 acres of potential marten habitat but will 

retain habitat quality after treatment because the functioning of foraging habitat will continue as at 

present even though there will be some reduction in quality of habitat. There may be some loss of 

habitat structure after treatment; however, marten are expected to remain viable in treated areas 

and well distributed in the analysis area. The proposed treatments are not expected to have any 

effect on this species since these actions are either not occurring in suitable habitat or will not 

measurably alter habitat conditions.

Northern Goshawk, Fisher, and North American Wolverine: Suitable northern spotted owl 

foraging habitat is used as a proxy to evaluate the potential effects to northern goshawk, fisher, 

and wolverine habitat. The proposed thinning with product removal (thinning larger trees that can 

be sold as sawlogs) in Alternative 2 would occur on about 87 acres of foraging habitat. Thinning 

without product removal (thinning of small trees) in Alternative 2 would occur on about 78 acres 

of foraging habitat. The total affected acres of foraging habitat would retain suitable character for 

northern goshawk, fisher, and wolverine after treatment. The fuels reduction treatments associated 

would degrade but not downgrade 17 acres of foraging habitat. The total affected acres of habitat 

would retain suitable character for northern goshawk, fisher, and wolverine after treatment. 

Proposed underburning would occur on about 163 acres of foraging habitat. The proposed actions 

within dispersal and non-habitat are not expected to have any effect on northern goshawk, fisher, 

or wolverine since these actions are not going to occur in suitable northern goshawk, fisher, or 

wolverine habitat. About 1.5 acres of foraging habitat would be reduced to non-habitat (removed) 

by construction of one new landing. Removal of such a small number of acres of habitat will not 

measurably affect the species.

Migratory Birds

Specific effects of the project on species listed as sensitive or management indicator species are 

addressed above as sensitive or management indicator species. They are also addressed in detail in 

the Terrestrial Wildlife Resource Report and the Management Indicator Species Report, Parts I 

and II; these are available on the Project website.
Terrestrial Wildlife Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

18

Cumulative Effects

Adding the effects of this alternative to the effects of reasonably foreseeable future actions will 

not lead to significant cumulative effects.

Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect:

Federally-listed and proposed species

Northern Spotted Owl

Effects to northern spotted owl in the project area are similar to those of Alternative 2 except that 

about 426 acres of foraging habitat would be degraded (compared to 347 acres degraded in 

Alternative 2), about 1.5 acres of foraging habitat will be removed through construction of one 

new landing (this landing is not in an owl activity center or in critical habitat). No acres of 

foraging habitat will be downgraded to dispersal habitat in the analysis area. The number of acres 

affected by this alternative increases over those of Alternative 2 (as displayed in section 2-5 of the 

Craggy Project environmental impact statement) and more foraging habitat is affected, primarily 

because fuel reduction treatment acres are increased in Alternative 3 to provide more clearance 

around private land.

As in Alternative 2, in critical habitat 203 acres of foraging habitat would be degraded but none 

would be downgraded or removed; no nesting or roosting habitat would be affected since none is 

known to exist in critical habitat in the analysis area. The proposed treatments occurring within 

critical habitat would maintain primary constituent elements throughout the analysis area for the 

northern spotted owl to sustain essential life history functions.

The following table indicates the differences for owl activity centers.

Table 9: Foraging Habitat in Home Range and Core Acres of Northern Spotted Owl Activity Centers 

Affected by Alternative 3

Activity 

Center 

Number

Core

0.5 mile radius around center

Home Range Plus Core

Entire 1.3 mi Radius (includes the acres in 

the core

Degrade Downgrade Remove Degrade Downgrade Remove

KL0268 0 0 0 35 0 0

KL0382 0 0 0 59 0 0

KL4104 0 0 0 0 0 0

Gray Wolf

Effects are the same as for Alternative 2.

North American wolverine
Terrestrial Wildlife Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

19

Effects are the same as for Alternative 2 except about 426 acres of wolverine foraging habitat 

would be degraded (compared to 347 acres of foraging habitat that would be degraded in 

Alternative 2). As in Alternative 2, no acres of foraging habitat will be downgraded. About 1.5 

acres of foraging habitat would be reduced to non-habitat (removed) by construction of one new 

landing. Removal of such a small number of acres of habitat will not measurably affect the 

species.

Forest Service Sensitive Species, Survey and Manage, Management Indicator Species and 

Migratory Birds

Effects of Alternative 3 would be the same as for Alternative 2 with the following exceptions:

Pacific Marten: Alternative 3 would degrade about 319 acres of potential marten foraging habitat 

(compared to 278 acres of foraging habitat downgraded in Alternative 2) but habitat quality would 

be retained.

Northern Goshawk, Fisher, and Wolverine: Proposed thinning with product removal would 

occur on about 104 acres of foraging habitat in Alternative 3. Thinning without product removal 

would occur on about 112 acres of foraging habitat. Fuel reduction treatments would degrade 

about 45 acres of foraging habitat and proposed underburning would occur on about 165 acres of 

foraging habitat. As in Alternative 2, no acres of foraging habitat will be downgraded to dispersal 

habitat. About 1.5 acres of foraging habitat would be reduced to non-habitat (removed) by

construction of one new landing. Removal of such a small number of acres of habitat will not 

measurably affect the species

Cumulative Effects

Adding the effects of this alternative to the effects of reasonably foreseeable future actions would 

not lead to significant cumulative effects.

Comparison of Alternatives

Determination of Effects

The following conclusions led to the Forest’s determination of effects that the proposed Craggy 

Project would have on federally-listed species:

Gray Wolf: Based on the above assessment of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects displayed in 

the Wildlife Resource Report, it is the Forest’s determination that implementation of the Project 

will result in “no effect to the gray wolf.”

Northern spotted owl: Based on the above assessment of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects, 

the Forest’s preliminary determination for implementation of the Craggy Project is “May Affect, 

Not Likely to Adversely Affect (MANLAA) NSO and NSO Critical Habitat.” This 

determination is based on the following factors:

• No treatment will occur in nesting or roosting habitat as none of this habitat is identified in 

the analysis area.

• No acres of foraging habitat will be downgraded to dispersal habitat in Alternative 2 or 

Alternative 3. About 347 acres of foraging habitat in Alternative 2 and 426 acres of 

foraging habitat in Alternative 3 will be degraded but will retain foraging quality after 

treatment.
Terrestrial Wildlife Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

20

• Application of project design features will minimize effects to northern spotted owl habitat 

and the likelihood that owls will be harassed, killed, or injured during project 

implementation.

• There will be an estimated 1.5 acres of foraging habitat removed with the proposed 

construction of one new landing with both action alternatives; this landing will not remove 

foraging habitat in an owl activity center or in critical habitat.

For the proposed species, the following is the determination:

North American Wolverine: Based on the assessment of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects, 

it is the Forest’s conclusion that implementation of the Craggy Project will “Not result in 

jeopardy to the North American wolverine.”

Table 10: Comparison of Effects of Alternatives on Federally Listed, Forest Service Sensitive, Management 

Indicator, and Survey and Manage Wildlife Species

Species Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Northern 

spotted owl

No Effect May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

347 acres of foraging 

habitat will be degraded, 

none will be downgraded, 

and 1.5 will be removed 

by construction of one 

new landing.

May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

426 acres of foraging habitat 

will be degraded, none will 

be downgraded, and 1.5 will 

be removed by construction 

of one new landing.

Northern 

spotted owl 

critical habitat

No Effect May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

203 acres of foraging 

habitat will be degraded, 

none will be downgraded 

or removed.

May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

203 acres of foraging habitat 

will be degraded, none will 

be downgraded or removed.

Gray wolf No Effect No Effect No Effect
Terrestrial Wildlife Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

21

Species Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Northern 

goshawk, 

fisher, and 

North 

American 

wolverine

No Effect May affect individuals but 

is not likely to lead to a 

trend towards Federal 

listing. Project activity is 

proposed to occur within 

about 347 acres (12%) of 

habitat; however, these 

habitats will continue to be 

viable after treatment.

1.5 acres of habitat will be 

reduced to non-habitat by 

new landing construction.

May affect individuals but is 

not likely to lead to a trend 

towards Federal listing. 

Project activity is proposed 

to occur within about 426 

acres (15%) of habitat; 

however, these habitats will 

continue to be viable after 

treatment.

1.5 acres of habitat will be 

reduced to non-habitat by 

new landing construction.

Pacific marten No Effect Degradation of about 278 

acres of marten; habitat 

will continue to be viable 

after treatment.

Degradation of about 319 

acres of marten; habitat will 

continue to be viable after 

treatment.

Bald eagle 

and Great 

gray owl

No Effect No habitat affected No habitat affected

Willow 

flycatcher

No Effect With the implementation 

of riparian reserve related 

project design features and 

limited activities within 

habitat in the watershed 

this alternative will not 

limit the availability of 

habitat for this species.

With the implementation of

riparian reserve related 

project design features and 

limited activities within 

habitat in the watershed this 

alternative will not limit the 

availability of habitat for this 

species.

Pallid bat, 

Townsend 

big-eared bat, 

and fringed 

myotis

No Effect Alternative 2 will not limit 

the availability of large 

snag distribution. Forestwide standards and 

guidelines for snags will 

be met or exceeded.

Alternative 3 will not limit 

the availability of large snag 

distribution. Forest-wide 

standards and guidelines for 

snags will be met or 

exceeded.
Terrestrial Wildlife Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

22

Species Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Yellowlegged frog 

and Cascade 

frog

No Effect With the implementation 

of riparian reserve related 

project design features and 

the limited activities 

proposed in riparian 

habitat in the watershed, 

Alternative 2 will not limit 

the availability of habitat 

for these species.

With the implementation of 

riparian reserve related 

project design features and 

the limited activities 

proposed in riparian habitat 

in the watershed, Alternative 

3 will not limit the 

availability of habitat for

these species.

Siskiyou 

Mountain and 

Scott Bar 

Mountain 

salamanders

No Effect No habitat affected. No 

known sites.

No habitat affected. No 

known sites.

Blue-gray 

taildropper, 

Tehama 

chaparral 

snail, and 

western 

bumble bee

No Effect No habitat affected. No 

known sites.

No habitat affected. No 

known sites.

Klamath 

Shoulderband

No effect With the implementation 

of project design features, 

survey for the species, and 

management of known 

sites, there will be no 

effect on this species.

With the implementation of 

project design features, 

survey for the species, and 

management of known sites, 

there will be no effect on 

this species.

River/stream 

management 

indicator 

species

No Effect With the implementation 

of riparian reserve related 

project design features and 

the limited activities 

proposed within riparian 

habitat in the watershed, 

Alternative 2 will not limit 

the availability of riparian 

habitat conditions.

With the implementation of 

riparian reserve related 

project design features and 

the limited activities 

proposed within riparian 

habitat in the watershed, 

Alternative 3 will not limit 

the availability of riparian 

habitat conditions.
Terrestrial Wildlife Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

23

Species Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Snagdependent 

management 

indicator 

species

No Effect Alternative 2 will not limit 

the availability of large 

snag distribution. Forestwide standards and 

guidelines for snags will 

be met or exceeded.

Alternative 3 will not limit 

the availability of large snag 

distribution. Forest-wide 

standards and guidelines for 

snags will be met or 

exceeded.

Compliance with Law, Regulation, Policy and the Forest Plan

All action alternatives will comply with the Forest Plan and Survey and Manage Guidelines aimed 

at minimizing short-term impacts to individuals and providing for long-term wildlife population 

persistence as noted in the Wildlife Resource Report, Terrestrial Wildlife Biological Evaluation, 

Management Indicator Species Report, Parts I and II, and the Forest Plan Consistency Checklist. 

The design of this project is consistent with Recovery Actions described in the 2011 Northern 

Spotted Owl Recovery Plan, the 2012 northern spotted owl critical habitat designation, and the 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act as well as Forest Service sensitive species direction.
Terrestrial Wildlife Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

24

Literature Cited

Blakesley, J.A., A.B. Franklin, and R.J. Gutiérrez. 1992. Spotted owl roost and nest site selection 

in northwestern California. Journal of Wildlife Management 56(2):388-392.

Courtney, S.P., J.A. Blakesley, R.E. Bigley, M.L. Cody, J.P. Dumbacher, R.C. Fleischer, A.B. 

Franklin, J.F. Franklin, R.J. Gutiérrez, J.M. Marzluff, and L. Sztukowski. 2004. Scientific 

evaluation of the status of the northern spotted owl. Sustainable Ecosystems Institute, 

Portland, OR.

Forsman, E.D., E.C. Meslow, and H.M. Wright. 1984. Distribution and biology of the spotted 

owl in Oregon. Wildlife Monographs 87:1-64.

Hershey, K., E. Meslow and F. Ramsey. 1998. Characteristics of Forests at Spotted Owl Nest 

Sites in the Pacific Northwest. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 62(4), 1398-1410.

Irwin, L.L., D. Rock, and S. Rock. 2004. Adaptive management monitoring of northern and 

California spotted owls. Annual progress report. National Council for Air and Stream 

Improvement, unpublished report.

Irwin, L.L., L.A. Clark, D.C. Rock, and S.L. Rock. 2007. Modeling foraging habitat of 

California spotted owls. Journal of Wildlife Management 71(4):1183-1191.

LaHaye, W.S. and R.J. Gutiérrez. 1999. Nest sites and nesting habitat of the northern spotted owl 

in northwestern California. The Condor 101:324-330.

Marshall, D.B. M.G. Hunter, A.L. Contreras (editors). 2003. Birds of Oregon; a general 

reference. Oregon State University Press. Corvallis, Oregon.

Mead, L.S., D.R. Clayton, R.S. Nauman, D.H. Olson, and M.E. Pfrender. 2005. Newly 

discovered populations of salamanders from Siskiyou County, California represent a 

species distinct from Plethodon stormi. Herpetologica, 61:158-177.

Solis, D.M., Jr. and R.J. Gutiérrez. 1990. Summer habitat ecology of northern spotted owls in 

northwestern California. The Condor 92:739-748.

Thomas, J.W., E.D. Forsman, J.B. Lint, E.C. Meslow, B.R. Noon, and J. Verner. 1990. A 

conservation strategy for the northern spotted owl. A report by the Interagency Scientific 

Committee to address the conservation of the northern spotted owl. USDA Forest 

Service, and US Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land 

Management, and National Park Service. Portland, OR.

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. 1995 (updated through 2010). Land and 

Resource Management Plan: Klamath National Forest. Yreka, CA.

USDA Forest Service. 1999. Forest-wide Late Successional Reserve Assessment, Klamath 

National Forest. Yreka, CA.
Terrestrial Wildlife Report Craggy Vegetation Management Project

25

USDA USDI. 1992. Protocol for surveying proposed management activities that may impact 

Northern Spotted Owls, Endorsed by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, March 1991; 

revised – March 17, 1992. Unpublished document.

USDA USDI. 2011. Protocol for surveying proposed management activities that may impact 

Northern Spotted Owls, Endorsed by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, February 2, 

2011. Unpublished document.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Draft Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl. USDI 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Recovery plan for the northern spotted owl (Strix 

occidentalis caurina). Region 1, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. USDI 

Fish and Wildlife Service.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Regulatory and Scientific Basis for U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service Guidance for Evaluation of Take for Northern Spotted Owls on Private 

Timberlands in California’s Northern Interior Region. Unpublished document.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Revised recovery plan for the northern spotted owl (Strix 

occidentalis caurina). Region 1, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Revised Critical Habitat for the northern spotted owl. 50 

CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Revised 

Critical Habitat for the Northern Spotted Owl; Final Rule (December 4, 2012).

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 

Threatened Status for Oregon Spotted Frog; Final Rule; 50 CFR Part 17. Federal 

Register, Vol. 79, No. 168 (August 29, 2014).

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2017. Memorandum: List of threatened and endangered species 

that may occur in the Craggy proposed project area. Consultation Code 08EYRE00-2017-

SLI-0141 (from ECOS-IPaC) June 20, 2017.

Zeiner, D.C. (editor). 1988-1990. California’s Wildlife. Updates available at California Wildlife 

Habitat Relationships.