February 1, 2017 1

Compliance with Migratory Bird Memorandum of Understanding

(FS Agreement # 08-MU-1113-2400-264)

Forest Procedures for NEPA documentation

Craggy Vegetation Management Project (Craggy Project)

On December 12, 2008, a Memorandum of Understanding between the U. S. Department 

of Agriculture Forest Service (Forest Service) and the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service to 

promote the conservation of migratory birds was issued (USDA USDI 2008). Section D3 

of the Memorandum of Understanding directs the Forest Service, stating, “Within the 

NEPA process, evaluate the effects of agency action on migratory birds, focusing first on 

species of management concern along with their priority habitats and key risk factors.” 

For the Klamath National Forest (Forest), the migratory bird species of management 

concern are those bird species listed under the Endangered Species Act as Threatened or 

Endangered, those species designated by the Regional Forester as Sensitive Species1

(USDA 2013) and those species listed under Standard and Guideline 8-21 through 8-34 

of the Klamath Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) (USDA 1995a) as

Management Indicator Species for project level assessment.2 The species for which 

habitat exists in the Craggy Project area are listed in Tables 1 and 2.

Table 1: Species listed as Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive for which Habitat Exists in the 

Craggy Project Area

Common 

Name Scientific Name

Forest

Management 

Concern

Fish and 

Wildlife Service

Bird of 

Conservation 

Concern

CA StateListed

CA State 

Species of 

Concern

Northern 

spotted owl

Strix occidentalis T - - -

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus S - Yes -

Northern 

goshawk

Accipiter gentilis S Yes - Yes

Willow 

flycatcher

Empidonax trailii S - Yes -

Table 2: Species listed as Management Indicator for Project-level Assessment for which Habitat 

Exists in the Craggy Project Area

Common 

Name Scientific Name Biological Community or habitat feature

Fish and Wildlife 

Service Bird of 

Conservation Concern

CA State 

Species of 

Concern

Downy 

woodpecker

Picoides 

pubescens

Snags - -

Red breasted 

sapsucker

Sphyrapicus 

ruber

Snags - -

 1 Several of these species are included in the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service’s Birds of Conservation Concern (USDI 

2008), the State of California Threatened and Endangered Species (CA 2017), and the California Bird Species of 

Special Concern (CA 2008).

2 Several of these species are also identified by the Fish and Wildlife Service as Birds of Conservation Concern and/or 

as Species of Special Concern.
February 1, 2017 2

Common 

Name Scientific Name Biological Community or habitat feature

Fish and Wildlife 

Service Bird of 

Conservation Concern

CA State 

Species of 

Concern

Hairy 

woodpecker

Picoides villosus Snags - -

Black backed 

woodpecker

Picoides 

arcticus

Snags - -

White-headed 

woodpecker

Picoides 

albolarvatus

Snags, Mature pine Yes -

Pileated 

woodpecker

Dryocopus 

Pileatus

Snags - -

Vaux’s swift Chaetura vuaxi Snags Yes Yes

American 

dipper

Cynclus 

platensis

River/Stream - -

The Memorandum of Understanding expands on the direction for the NEPA process in 

Section D3 to say, “to the extent practicable:

a. Evaluate and balance long-term benefits of projects against any short- or long 

term adverse effects when analyzing, disclosing, and mitigating the effects of 

actions.

b. Pursue opportunities to restore or enhance the composition, structure, and 

juxtaposition of migratory bird habitats in the project area.

c. Consider approaches, to the extent practicable, for identifying and minimizing 

take that is incidental to otherwise lawful activities, including such approaches as:

1. altering the season of activities to minimize disturbances during the 

breeding season;

2. retaining snags for nesting structures where snags are underrepresented;

3. retaining the integrity of breeding sites, especially those with long histories 

of use and;

4. giving due consideration to key wintering areas, migration routes, and 

stopovers.

5. minimizing or preventing the pollution or detrimental alteration of the 

environments utilized by migratory birds whenever practical by assessing 

information on environmental contaminants and other stressors relevant to 

migratory bird conservation.

d. Coordinate with the appropriate FWS Ecological Services office when planning 

projects that are likely to have a negative effect on migratory bird populations. 

Cooperate in developing approaches to minimize negative impacts and maximize 

benefits to migratory birds.”

Per Memorandum of Understanding: item D3a

The Memorandum of Understanding recognizes that, “Within the National Forest 

System, conservation of migratory birds focuses on providing a diversity of habitat 

conditions at multiple spatial scales...” At the Forest scale, the land allocations in the 

Forest Plan are designed to maintain a variety of habitat types, which would provide 
February 1, 2017 3

habitat for migratory birds that may use the project area at some point during the year.

“Land allocations and management direction are designed to maintain species, 

community and genetic diversity. Diversity will be provided through a mixture of 

vegetative types and seral stages” (Forest Plan Record of Decision 1995) (USDA 1995b). 

The Forest Plan has provisions that provide for biological diversity on the Forest (based 

on the analysis in the environmental impact statement, pages 4-38 through 4-91) (USDA 

1994) including designations for Special Habitats (includes Late Successional Reserves)

Goshawk Management Areas, and Riparian Reserves. The designations and standards 

and guidelines for Late Successional Reserve and Riparian Reserve land allocations are 

designed to ensure the viability of species that use late-seral and aquatic habitats. A 

General Forest land allocation is intended to provide for early and mid-seral habitats 

which are also needed by some migratory bird species. At the project level, the Forest 

Plan identified standards and guidelines to address the diversity of major biological 

communities and priority habitat (such as snags and riparian vegetation) found on the 

Forest and identified guidance for assessing impacts to priority habitat for Management 

Indicator Species.

For the Craggy Project, the long-term benefits to species (and their key habitats) listed 

in Table 1 and 2 are maintaining key migratory bird habitat components by reducing fuels 

loading, re-establishing mosaic forest habitats, and improving stand conditions, thereby 

reducing the risk of further stand-replacing wildfire (wildfire with a high intensity of 

effects) (See the Craggy Wildlife Resource Report, Biological Evaluation and 

Management Indicator Species Report). The short- and long-term effects to bird species 

(and their key habitats) listed in Table 1 and 2 are not determined to be adverse effects

with the implementation of the project.

Per Memorandum of Understanding: item D3b

Although not a purpose and need for this action, there are benefits to the migratory bird 

species of management concern as described under item 3a.

Per Memorandum of Understanding: item D3c

“Take” in this Memorandum of Understanding has the same meaning as defined in 50 

CFR § 10.12 and means to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to 

attempt to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect. “Take” is incidental 

to this otherwise lawful action and has been minimized by incorporating project design 

features for riparian habitat, snags and hardwood habitats into the proposed action and 

specified in Chapter 2 of the environmental impact statement:

Per Memo of Understanding: item D3d

This Craggy Project is not likely to have a negative effect on migratory bird populations 

as summarized in this report and further described in the Craggy Project Wildlife 

Resource Report, Biological Evaluation, and Management Indicator Species Report.

/s/ Sam Cuenca______________ 7/31/2017

Sam Cuenca

District Wildlife Biologist

Salmon Scott Ranger District

Klamath National Forest
February 1, 2017 4

Literature Cited

California. 2008. California Bird Species of Special Concern. California Department of 

Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA. April 10, 2008.

California. 2017. State and Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Animals of 

California. The Natural Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Wildlife. 

Sacramento, CA. July 2017.

USDA. 1994. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Land and Resource 

Management Plan, Klamath National Forest. Yreka, CA.

USDA. 1995a. Land and Resource Management Plan, Klamath National Forest. Yreka, 

CA.

USDA. 1995b. Record of Decision. Land and Resource Management Plan, Klamath 

National Forest. Yreka, CA.

USDA. 2013. Forest Service. Pacific Southwest Regional Forester Letter of July 3, 2013.

USDA USDI. 2008. Memorandum of Understanding between the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to Promote the 

Conservation of Migratory Birds. 

USDI. 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of 

Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. December 2008.

USDI. 2013. Fish and Wildlife Service, General Provisions; Revised List of Migratory 

Birds; Final Rule. Federal Register Vol. 78, No. 212. November 1, 2013. 50 CFR 

Parts 10 and 21.