Craggy Vegetation Project MIS Assessment - Page 1 of 21

8/28/2017

KLAMATH NATIONAL FOREST

MIS Project Level Assessment Part II of II

Effects of Project on MIS Habitats

PROJECT NAME: ___Craggy Vegetation Management Project (Craggy Project) _______

RANGER DISTRICT: ___Salmon and Scott River Ranger District________

Prepared by: /s/ Sam Cuenca Date: July 10, 2017

Sam Cuenca, Wildlife Biologist

Prepared by: /s/ Brian Thomas Date: July 19, 2017

Brian Thomas, Fisheries Biologist

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this assessment is to evaluate landscape and project-level impacts to habitat conditions 

associated with the six Species Associations and related Management Indicator Species (MIS) identified 

in the Klamath Land and Resource Management Plan [Forest Plan] on page 4-30 through page 4-32

(USDA 1995). This report documents the effects of three alternatives, the proposed action (modified as 

Alternative 2), no action (Alternative 1), and one action alternative (Alternative 3) for the Craggy Project 

on the habitat of selected MIS. Detailed descriptions of the Project alternatives are found in Chapter 2 of 

the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), available on the Project Website.

Direction Regarding the Analysis of Project-Level Effects on MIS

The monitoring requirements in Chapter 5 of the Forest Plan do not require population monitoring or 

surveys on any MIS except for steelhead trout and rainbow trout. For MIS listed in the Forest Plan, 

project-level MIS effects analysis are informed by project- and landscape-scale habitat analysis alone. 

Project-level effects on MIS are analyzed and disclosed as part of environmental analysis under the 

National Environmental Policy Act. This involves examining the impacts of the proposed project 

alternatives on MIS habitat by discussing how direct, indirect, and cumulative effects will change the 

quantity or quality of habitat in the landscape and project area (Forest Plan, page 4-30). The Forest Plan 

requirements for MIS analyzed for the Craggy Project are summarized in Part I of the MIS Report. 

Adequately analyzing project effects to MIS involves the following steps:

• Identifying which MIS have habitat that would be either directly or indirectly affected by the 

Project alternatives (Forest Plan standards and guidelines 8-21 through and including 8-34). This 

information is documented in Part I of the MIS Report.

• Identifying the Forest Plan forest-level monitoring requirements for this subset of forest MIS 

(Forest Plan Chapter 5, Table 5-1, pages 5-13 and 5-14).

• Analyzing landscape- and project-level effects on habitats for which the MIS was selected to 

indicate in the Forest Plan.
Craggy Vegetation Project MIS Assessment - Page 2 of 21

8/28/2017

• Relating project-level impacts on MIS habitat to habitat and population trends for fisheries MIS, 

per the Forest Plan.

The MIS Report, Parts I and II, documents application of the above steps to select and analyze MIS for 

the Craggy Project.

Direction Regarding Monitoring of MIS Population and Habitat Trends at the Forest Scale.

Forest-scale monitoring requirements for the Forest MIS are found in Table 5-1, pages 5-13 to 5-14 of 

Chapter 5 of the Forest Plan.

Habitat Status and Trend.

The requirement to evaluate landscape and project-level impacts to habitat conditions associated with the

species associations and related MIS is identified in the Forest Plan on page 4-30. Habitat monitoring 

requirements are summarized in the MIS Report, Part I. “Habitats” are the vegetation types (for example, 

mixed conifer forest) or ecosystem components (for example, river and ponds) and special habitat 

elements (for example, snags) as identified in the Forest Plan. “Habitat status” is the current amount of 

habitat on the Forest. “Habitat trend” is the direction of change in the amount of habitat between the time 

the Forest Plan was approved and the present. The methodology for assessing habitat status and trend is:

1. Use the geographic information system (GIS) vegetation layers to describe the location of 

habitat for non-fish MIS within a project area.

2. Determine the distribution of fish MIS species using the Forest GIS layer for fish 

distribution.

3. Consider the reason the MIS habitat was selected as an indicator, and determine the 

potential effects to that habitat for which an MIS was selected.

4. Identify the indicated habitat using habitat relationships data or models in the final 

environmental impact statement (FEIS) for the Forest Plan, Appendix I (USDA 1994), and 

California Wildlife Habitat Relationship (CWHR) System (CWHR 2005). The CWHR 

System is considered “a state-of-the-art information system for California’s wildlife” and 

provides the most widely used habitat relationship models for California’s terrestrial 

vertebrate species (ibid).

5. Detailed information on the habitat relationships for MIS on the Forest and on the CWHR 

System can be found in the Forest MIS Report Part I.

6. MIS habitat trend is monitored using ecological and vegetation data for the Forest and 

stream surveys. These data include spatial ecological and vegetation layers created from 

remote-sensing imagery obtained at various points in time, which are verified using photoimagery, on-the-ground measurements, and tracking of events that change vegetation and 

stream conditions (for example, vegetation management, floods, and wildland fires).

Population Status and Trend.

“Population status” is the current condition of the steelhead trout and rainbow trout. “Population trend” is 

the direction of change in that population measured over time. Population monitoring data are collected or 

compiled at the stream scale rather than the project scale because site- specific monitoring or surveying of 
Craggy Vegetation Project MIS Assessment - Page 3 of 21

8/28/2017

a proposed project or activity area is not required (36 CFR 219.14(f), and the actual treatment areas of an 

action may not contain streams but may affect streams through sediment delivery or flow changes.

Project Location Information

For a map of the proposed project area and a detailed description of the location, refer to the DEIS for the 

Craggy Project.

FOREST PLAN SPECIES ASSOCIATIONS AND MIS SELECTED FOR THE CRAGGY

PROJECT

Project Level Assessment Checklist

A review was conducted using the Project Level Assessment Checklist to determine 1) if the project is 

within the range of any MIS, 2) if habitat for which the species is an indicator is present within the 

proposed project area, and 3) if there are potential direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on habitat 

components. Species associations and MIS associated with habitats that may be affected by the project 

will be analyzed below.

The following species associations and MIS were selected for analysis for the Craggy Project due to the 

presence of suitable habitat that may be impacted by the project:

River/Stream Species Association

Rainbow trout

Steelhead

Tailed frog

American dipper

Northern water shrew

Snag Species Association

Red-breasted sapsucker

Hairy woodpecker

White-headed woodpecker

Vaux’s swift

Downy woodpecker

Pileated woodpecker

Black-backed woodpecker

The following associations and species were not selected for further analysis due to absence of habitat or 

because the project will not directly or indirectly affect the habitat (refer to Part I, the checklist, for 

rationale):

Hardwood Species Associations

Acorn woodpecker

Western gray squirrel

River/Stream Species Association

Cascade frog
Craggy Vegetation Project MIS Assessment - Page 4 of 21

8/28/2017

Long-tailed vole

Marsh/Lake/Pond Species Association

Northern red-legged frog

Western pond turtle

Grassland/Shrub-Steppe Species Association

Pronghorn

Montane vole

Loggerhead shrike

Swainson’s hawk

Sage thrasher

Burrowing owl

Mature Ponderosa Pine Species Association

Flammulated owl

White-headed woodpecker

Pinyon jay

MIS Monitoring Requirements

MIS are animal species identified in the Forest Plan. Guidance regarding MIS set forth in the Forest Plan 

directs Forest Service resource managers to: (1) at the landscape and project scale, analyze the effects of 

proposed projects on the habitats of each MIS listed in Forest Plan standards and guidelines 8-21 through 

8-34; and (2) to conduct implementation monitoring to determine population trends and relationship to 

habitat changes for steelhead trout and rainbow trout.

How MIS Monitoring Requirements are Being Met

(1) The effects of the proposed project on the habitat of each MIS listed in Forest Plan standards and 

guidelines are assessed and disclosed in the Craggy Project DEIS as environmental effects 

(Chapter 3, sections 3.5 and 3.6).

(2) Population trend data for steelhead trout are collected and consolidated by the Forest in 

cooperation with State, tribal, and Federal agency partners (such as the California Department of 

Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), Karuk Tribe, USDI Geological Survey, and USDI Fish and Wildlife 

Service) and other conservation partners (such as universities and watershed restoration councils). 

Fish presence data for steelhead trout and rainbow trout are collected using a number of direct and 

indirect methods such as stream surveys and fishing results (creel census). The Forest’s MIS 

monitoring program for species typically hunted, fished, or trapped (such as steelhead and rainbow 

trout) was designed to be implemented in cooperation with CDFW, consistent with direction in the 

1982 Planning Rule to monitor forest-level MIS population trends in cooperation with state fish 

and wildlife agencies to the extent practicable (36 CFR 219.19(a)(6)). In 2006, available data on 

steelhead and rainbow trout were analyzed to determine the population trends of these species.

Steelhead Trout:

In the Klamath River basin, natural steelhead trout spawning historically extended into the upper Klamath 

basin. Their current distribution in the basin is now limited to downstream of Iron Gate Dam, although 

remnant steelhead runs now reside upstream from the dam. South of Cape Blanco, Oregon, steelhead are 
Craggy Vegetation Project MIS Assessment - Page 5 of 21

8/28/2017

known to occur in the Rogue, Smith, Klamath, Trinity, Mad, and Eel Rivers, and in Redwood Creek 

(Busby et al. 1996).

Klamath Mountain Province (KMP) steelhead trends: In 2001, NMFS [National Marine Fisheries Service] 

reconsidered the status of KMP steelhead under the ESA [Endangered Species Act] (66 FR 17845, April 

4, 2001) and determined that KMP steelhead do not warrant listing as threatened or endangered at this 

time. However, abundance trends since 1970 have declined to the point that some stocks, particularly of 

summer steelhead, are considered to be at risk of extinction (Busby et al. 1996).

In 2006, Rebecca Quinones of the Forest worked with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to complete a 

status review of current survey data. The following information is a summary from that effort.

“Moyle (2002) concluded that Klamath Mountains Province winter steelhead were widely 

distributed and fairly common, although in largely reduced numbers. In comparison, summer 

steelhead were in danger of extinction, with population estimates at less than 10 percent of historic 

levels. He cited dam construction, poor watershed management, decreased flows (resulting in 

increased temperatures and changes to stream channel morphology/composition), and interactions 

with hatchery produced steelhead as contributing factors to the decline in Klamath Mountains 

Province steelhead abundance.”

In the Humbug Creek watershed, little is known about winter or fall runs of steelhead because adults enter 

these streams and spawn during times of year when surveying is difficult and dangerous. It is assumed 

that winter or fall steelhead trout are maintaining their population because juvenile steelhead trout are 

dependably observed as widely distributed in Humbug Creek, Middle Fork Humbug Creek, and South 

Fork Humbug Creek year after year. Summer steelhead and spring Chinook salmon are not present in the 

Humbug Creek watershed due to lack of suitable adult holding habitat and fall Chinook salmon 

populations are not present in Humbug Creek watershed due to the fact that the lowermost 0.25 miles of 

Humbug Creek upstream from the Klamath River confluence is dry at the time when adult fall Chinook 

salmon are migrating and spawning in the Klamath River.

Both steelhead trout and rainbow trout are fished by recreationists; therefore, it is difficult to prove a 

strong tie between instream habitat conditions and population trend. The link between instream habitat 

conditions and the steelhead trout population trend is further complicated by the influence of ocean 

conditions.

Rainbow trout

Rainbow trout are native to Pacific slope drainages from the Kuskokwim River in Alaska to Baja 

California, Mexico (Moyle 2002). However their distribution has expanded significantly, including in 

previously fishless streams and lakes, due to introductions. Rainbow trout is a MIS in all the following 

three national forests: Klamath, Shasta-Trinity and Six Rivers.

Rainbow trout inhabit a wide variety of habitats. However, stream dwelling rainbows tend to prefer 

waters with a higher percentage of riffles than pools (Moyle 2002). In the summer, they prefer habitats 

with water temperatures between approximately 10 and 20 degrees Celsius (50 and 68 degrees 

Fahrenheit) and will move to deeper, cooler water at temperatures above 21 degrees Celsius (70 degrees 

Fahrenheit). Optimal habitat conditions include a high saturation of dissolved oxygen (up to 80 percent 

saturation), pH between seven and eight and temperatures between seven and 17 degrees Celsius (Van 
Craggy Vegetation Project MIS Assessment - Page 6 of 21

8/28/2017

Dam 1938 in Moyle 2002). Temperatures above 28 degrees Celsius are known to be lethal to rainbow 

trout.

Adult forage and dispersal patterns appear to vary with local conditions, environmental factors, and the 

presence of other fish species (Moyle 2002). Rainbow trout are typically diurnal, opportunistic feeders. 

They are carnivores that feed in a rover-predator style. The majority of their diet consists of aquatic 

insects, although they will eat crayfish, grasshoppers, winged bugs, worms, salamanders, and other fish 

(including other trout). They occasionally feed on benthic invertebrates when the benthic food supply is 

great or when there is increased competition for prey form the water column.

Rainbow trout usually spawn between the ages of two to four years old. Age of first spawn can vary 

greatly depending on size and genetics (Moyle 2002). Female fecundity ranges from 1,200 to 3,200 eggs 

per kilogram of body weight (Moyle 2002). Rainbow trout spawning behavior typically begins during the 

spring but can begin as early as in December and varies due to temperature and water flow conditions. 

Temperatures of three to six degrees Celsius often initiate spawning behavior, although actual spawning 

does not usually occur until temperatures reach six to nine degrees Celsius. In lakes, this often means 

moving from the lake into their natal stream. If the lake is not stream-fed, rainbow trout will move into 

near-shore shallow waters (Moyle 2002). In rivers, rainbow trout will migrate from feeding areas into 

smaller, cool-water tributaries (Moyle 2002). Both rainbow and steelhead trout can spawn more than once 

throughout their lifetime.

Rainbow trout trends

A reliable trend assessment is not possible because surveys for rainbow trout have not been conducted in 

past district stream survey efforts.

For aquatic habitat monitoring, a comprehensive monitoring approach is conducted through the Aquatic 

and Riparian Effectiveness Monitoring Plan (AREMP) which is designed for the regional and species 

range scales. It is intended to characterize the ecological condition of watersheds and aquatic ecosystems, 

determine present watershed condition, track trends in watershed condition over time, and report on the 

Forest Plan’s effectiveness across the region. Impacts to MIS habitat are also tracked at the project level 

by updating the Forest Plan MIS GIS layer and through stream condition inventories and fish habitat 

typing surveys conducted at the project level and the watershed level.

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND PROJECT AREA

Background

The description of the location of the Craggy Project area, purpose and need for the project, existing 

versus desired conditions, management direction, and proposed action are found in Chapter 1 of the 

environmental impact statement.

MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES (MIS) ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE AND 

EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT

Information on species natural history, including general habitat requirements, is found in the “Species 

Natural History Summary for MIS” found in the project file. Rationale for designation of MIS is found in 

the environmental impact statement for the Forest Plan (1995) and on the "Forest Plan MIS Selection 

Summary" in the project file. As noted in the Snag Analysis Report (available on the Project Website), 

snags are dense within the project area. For the proposed project, no measurable change in stand snag 
Craggy Vegetation Project MIS Assessment - Page 7 of 21

8/28/2017

suitability is expected due to the low number of snags being removed and Forest-wide standards and 

guidelines being met for snags and coarse woody debris in treated areas. There will be some loss of 

recruitment trees in the treated areas but snags should remain abundant in untreated areas of the analysis 

area. Approximately, 10,600 to 11,310 acres (depending on alternative selected) of the 29,500 acres in the 

project area will be treated with this project. Currently, there is an abundance of oak habitat, snags and 

coarse woody debris within the forested habitat of the analysis area.

River/Stream Species Association: steelhead and rainbow trout

Indicator for which steelhead and rainbow trout were selected for, descriptions of the amount of 

potentially affected habitat

Rainbow trout and steelhead trout are indicators of perennial montane streams surrounded by dense 

vegetation. Specifically, these species are an indicator for water quality, bottom substrate, stream flow, instream woody debris, and channel condition. There are about 14.6 miles of rainbow trout habitat and 

about 9.6 miles of steelhead trout habitat within the Craggy Project analysis area that could potentially be 

affected by the project.

Environmental Baseline

Water quality of streams within the area is good and the habitat indicators for substrate-sediment, 

channel condition and water temperature are considered Properly Functioning or At Risk (see the Craggy 

Project Aquatic Resources Report, available on the Project Website). Based on field reviews of project 

streams, turbidity is low, except during times of intense precipitation when surface erosion and mass 

wasting activity is high. Streams within the project area are high-gradient and coarse-bedded. Channels 

typically run in steep narrow gorges that do not support large areas of grassy vegetation. There are low 

gradient stream reaches in Humbug Creek that are two to three miles downstream of project activities.

River/Streams Association: tailed frog, American dipper, northern water shrew

Indicator for which species of the river/streams association were selected and baseline (descriptions 

of the amount of potentially affected habitat and description of habitat potentially affected by 

project activities).

The tailed frog was chosen to represent perennial montane streams surrounded by dense vegetation. 

Specifically, tailed frogs are an indicator for water quality, bottom substrate, stream flow, in-stream 

woody debris, and channel condition. There are 19.1 miles of perennial streams within the Craggy Project 

analysis area that provide suitable habitat for tailed frog. Cascade frogs prefer high-elevation stream 

habitat that are not found within the project area. American dipper was chosen to represent cold, swift, 

perennial streams. Specifically, they were chosen as an indicator for water quality, in-stream woody 

debris, bottom substrate and flows. There are 19.1 miles of perennial streams within the Craggy Project 

analysis area that provide suitable habitat for American dipper. Northern water shrew was chosen to 

represent riparian with dense grass-forb cover. Specifically, they are an indicator of riparian vegetation 

including canopy, deciduous vegetation, and grasses and forbs along streams. There are 35 miles of 

perennial and intermittent streams within the Craggy Project analysis area that provide suitable habitat for 

northern water shrew.

The following Forest Plan standards and guidelines apply: Management Area (MA) 10-1, MA10-2, 

MA10-3, MA10-18, MA10-19, MA10-20, MA10-42, MA10-43, MA10-45, MA10-50, MA10-51, MA10-
Craggy Vegetation Project MIS Assessment - Page 8 of 21

8/28/2017

55, MA10-58, MA10-60, MA10-61, MA10-62, MA10-63, MA10-65, MA10-68, and MA10-71.

Best management practices and project design features will ensure that the standards and guidelines listed 

above are implemented.

Steelhead trout and Rainbow trout

Baseline Conditions: There are about 14.6 miles of rainbow trout habitat and about 9.6 miles of steelhead 

trout habitat within the Craggy project analysis area that could potentially be affected by the project.

Effects of the Proposed Project

The effects described below are for steelhead trout and rainbow trout habitat. The effects to habitat for the 

other three River/Stream Association species (tailed frog, American dipper, and northern water shrew) are 

the same as the effects to habitat for steelhead trout and rainbow trout.

Alternative 1

Direct and Indirect Effects: There will be no management action under this alternative; therefore, there 

are no direct effects. Indirect effects of not taking any action at this time are those which would occur 

based on taking no action. For example, if a wildfire with high severity impacts were to burn through 

riparian reserves (RRs) in the project area because no stands were treated, there could be negative indirect 

effects to steelhead trout and rainbow trout habitat.

Cumulative effects: There will be no management action under this alternative; therefore, there are no 

cumulative effects even though there may be effects of past, present and reasonably foreseeable future 

action.

Alternative 2

Direct Effects

Potential direct effects of this project on steelhead trout and rainbow trout habitat are associated only 

with water withdrawal used to reduce dust to maintain safe driving conditions and construction of two 

temporary low water stream crossings on Forest roads; there are no other activities occurring within 

flowing streams. Individuals may be affected during pumping operations and construction and removal of 

the two temporary low water stream crossings, but project design features at the two temporary low water 

crossings and at the pump sites will minimize risk to steelhead trout and rainbow trout.

Indirect Effects

Potential indirect effects are those relating to impacts to habitat indicators because effects to steelhead 

trout and rainbow trout habitat can occur later in time and at a different place (downstream). Based on 

field reviews by the hydrologist and fishery biologist, implementation of the project will not cause any 

significant effects to water temperature, substrate and turbidity, chemical contamination, physical barriers, 

large woody debris, pool quality and quantity, refugia, stream width-depth ratio, off-channel habitat, 

refugia, streambank condition, floodplain connectivity, peak and base flow, increase in drainage network, 

road density and location, disturbance history, and riparian reserves; because the functioning levels of the 

relevant fish habitat indicators at the site, 7th field, 6th field and 5th field (Humbug Creek-Klamath River) 
Craggy Vegetation Project MIS Assessment - Page 9 of 21

8/28/2017

watershed scales are not changed (see the Craggy Aquatic Resources report, available on the Project 

Website).

The reduction of fuel levels and associated change in expected fire intensity in the project area is expected 

to have beneficial effects to aquatic habitat in the long term by reducing risk of future high intensity 

wildfires that could significantly alter stream flows. The beneficial effects are preventative and will not 

actively improve habitat conditions or directly increase the fish populations in the project area. 

Considering that the negative effects to water quality are insignificant and long term beneficial effects are 

expected, no direct change in the populations is expected from the proposed action.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects are the effects from foreseeable actions combined with the effects of past and 

ongoing actions and the proposed action. A number of projects are currently being implemented 

(ongoing) to reduce the fire risk around the project area. These burning and mechanical thinning actions 

were considered part of the baseline for fish habitat conditions (Craggy Aquatic Resources report) and 

had no or only insignificant effects to steelhead trout, rainbow trout and their habitat. The present, 

ongoing, and future foreseeable projects on national forests that are modeled and qualitatively evaluated 

all have project design features so that the fisheries resource is not adversely affected. Each of these 

actions are of low intensity across the landscape, have no effects or insignificant effects to steelhead trout, 

rainbow trout and their habitat, and are typically separated by time or space, or both from the proposed 

project. Many of the past, ongoing and proposed future projects compliment the proposed action in the 

Craggy Project by reducing the risk of high intensity wildfires to protect fisheries resources in and around 

the Humbug Creek 6th field watershed. Because of the low intensity of these actions, cumulative shortterm effects to steelhead trout, resident rainbow trout and their habitat are considered insignificant. When 

the insignificant effects of Alternative 2 are added to the insignificant effects of the past, present and 

reasonably foreseeable future action, the effects to steelhead trout, resident rainbow trout and their habitat 

are considered to be insignificant in the short and long term. When considered together, the long-term 

effects of all these actions and the proposed action are likely to be beneficial because the actions reduce 

fuels and improve forest health conditions.

Effects summary for steelhead trout habitat and rainbow trout habitat:

• Construction of New Landings (no new landings are located within stream-course riparian 

reserves): Neutral effects to stream temperature, suspended sediment, substrate and 

embeddedness, and peak/base flow.

• Mastication: Neutral effects to stream temperature, suspended sediment, substrate and 

embeddedness, and peak/base flow

• Construction of New Temporary Roads (no new proposed temporary roads are located in 

stream-course riparian reserves): Neutral effects to stream temperature, suspended sediment, 

substrate and embeddedness, and peak/base flow.

• Thinning (and ground-based harvest activities): Neutral effect to stream temperature. 

Insignificant short-term effects to suspended sediment, substrate and embeddedness, and 

peak/base flow.

• Water Drafting: Neutral effect to stream temperature. Insignificant short-term effects to 

suspended sediment, substrate and embeddedness, and peak/base flow.
Craggy Vegetation Project MIS Assessment - Page 10 of 21

8/28/2017

• Construction and Removal of two Temporary Low water Stream Crossings: Neutral effect to 

stream temperature. Insignificant short-term effects to suspended sediment, substrate and 

embeddedness, and peak/base flow.

• Legacy Sediment Sites: Neutral effect to stream temperature. Insignificant short-term effects and 

long-term positive effects to suspended sediment, substrate and embeddedness, and peak/base 

flow.

• Underburning: Neutral effect to stream temperature. Insignificant short-term effects and longterm positive effects to suspended sediment, substrate and embeddedness, and peak/base flow.

• Use and maintenance of existing landings: Neutral effect to stream temperature. Insignificant 

short-term effects to suspended sediment, substrate and embeddedness, and peak/base flow.

• Building of temporary roads on existing roadbeds: Neutral effect to stream temperature.

Insignificant short-term effects and long-term positive effects to suspended sediment, substrate 

and embeddedness, and peak/base flow.

Alternative 3

Treatments in Alternative 3 are the same as Alternative 2 with the differences displayed in Chapter 2 of 

the environmental impact statement (Table 2-2).

Direct Effects

The direct effects associated with water drafting for dust abatement are the same as described in 

Alternative 2 since the number of drafting sites is the same for Alternative 3 as in Alternative 2. The 

direct effects associated with construction and removal of temporary low water crossings is less for 

Alternative 3 since there is just one temporary low water crossing proposed for this alternative.

Indirect Effects

The probability of insignificant effects occurring to steelhead trout and rainbow trout habitat would be

similar to that of Alternative 2 although there are some differences between the two action alternatives.

Effects of Alternative 3 may be less than Alternative 2 because:

• There are 11 fewer acres of thinning within riparian reserves under Alternative 3 than in 

Alternative 2 and 100 fewer acres of ground-based treatment in the outer portion of riparian 

reserves.

• There will be 0.52 fewer acres of temporary roads on existing roadbeds within stream-course 

riparian reserves under Alternative 3 than in Alternative 2.

Effects of Alternative 3 may be greater than those of Alternative 2 because:

• There is an additional 45 acres of underburning in stream-course riparian reserves under 

Alternative 3. However, the effects to steelhead trout habitat and rainbow trout habitat) from 

underburning for Alternative 3 are the same as in Alternative 2. There are insignificant short-term 

effects, with long-term benefits to steelhead trout habitat and rainbow trout habitat in the long term 

by reducing risk of future high intensity wildfires that could significantly alter stream flows.
Craggy Vegetation Project MIS Assessment - Page 11 of 21

8/28/2017

Cumulative Effects

Except for a few hundredths of a risk ratio less for the equivalent roaded area and universal soil loss 

equation models, the cumulative watershed effects modeling results are very similar to Alternative 2 (see 

the Cumulative Watershed Effects model report on the Project Website). The cumulative effects 

determination for steelhead trout, rainbow trout and their habitat for Alternative 3 is the same as in 

Alternative 2. See the cumulative effects discussion section in Alternative 2.

Effects summary for steelhead trout habitat and rainbow trout habitat:

For the following activities (construction of new landings, mastication, and construction of new 

temporary roads) the effects determination is the same as described in the effects summary for Alternative 

2.

For the following activities with a neutral effect to stream temperature and insignificant short-term effects 

to suspended sediment, substrate and embeddedness, and peak base flow, the effects are less than for 

Alternative 2 for reasons stated above in discussion sections for each indicator:

• Thinning (and ground-based harvest activities)

• Water drafting

• Construction and removal of temporary low-water stream crossing

For the following activities with a neutral effect to stream temperature, insignificant short-term effects 

and long-term positive effects to suspended sediment, substrate and embeddedness, and peak base flow,

the short-term effects are less than for Alternative 2 for reasons stated above in discussion sections for 

each indicator. The long-term positive effects are the same as for Alternative 2.

• Reconstruction of existing landings

• Reconstruction of temporary roads on existing roadbeds

For underburning the insignificant short-term effects and long-term positive effects are the same as for 

Alternative 2 due to increases in underburning acreage.

Effects summary for steelhead trout habitat and resident rainbow trout habitat:

For the construction of new landings, mastication, and construction of new temporary roads, the effects 

determination is the same as described in the effects summary for Alternative 2.

For the following activities with a neutral affect to stream temperature and insignificant short-term effects 

to suspended sediment, substrate and embeddedness, and peak base flow the effects are less than for 

Alternative 2 for reasons stated above in discussion sections for each indicator:

• Thinning (and ground-based harvest activities)

• Water drafting

• Construction and removal of temporary low-water stream crossing

Northern Water Shrew

Baseline conditions: water shrews live within grassy vegetation along stream banks and do not live more 

than 100 feet from water. The shrew home range is about one mile of stream (MIS Part I). The potential 
Craggy Vegetation Project MIS Assessment - Page 12 of 21

8/28/2017

habitat in the project area is therefore a subset containing the grassy portions of the total perennial stream 

miles, which is estimated to be about 100 feet on each side of streams where project activities are 

proposed.

Alternative 2

Direct Effects

While there are approximately 35 miles of perennial and intermittent streams within the project area that 

provide habitat for the northern water shrew, the only activities that occur within 100 feet of these stream 

channels are (1) underburning along Humbug Creek, and Sucker Creek; (2) water drafting at four 

established sites on Humbug Creek, two sites on Middle Fork Humbug Creek and three sites on South 

Fork Humbug Creek; (3) thinning with forest product removal in units 134-250, and 134-41 in Sucker 

Creek, units 134-107 and 134-31 in Humbug Creek, and thinning without forest product removal in unit 

138-53 in Middle Fork Humbug Creek.

Water is drafted and applied to roads to reduce dust and maintain safe driving conditions on dirt roads. It 

is unlikely that riparian vegetation (including water shrew habitat) will be affected during water drafting 

because it is conducted at established sites. Any disturbance of riparian vegetation at the drafting sites on 

Humbug Creek, Middle Fork Humbug Creek and South Fork Humbug Creek will be negligible with 

vegetation able to re-grow after one season. While water shrews and long-tailed voles may be temporarily 

disturbed from some activities, no habitat will be removed in the long term and shrews are not expected to 

be directly impacted.

Any disturbance of riparian vegetation at the two temporary low-water stream crossing sites on Humbug 

Creek will be negligible with vegetation able to re-grow after one season. While water shrews may be 

temporarily disturbed from some activities, no habitat will be removed in the long term and shrews are 

not expected to be directly impacted.

Indirect Effects

The treatment areas in units 134-250, 134-41, 134-107, 134-31, and 138-53 only bisect the streams in 

small areas and any riparian vegetation disturbed by thinning activities in these units is expected to go 

back to pre-project conditions within one growing season. In units 134-250 and 138-53 approximately one 

half mile of shrew habitat may be affected in each unit. About 500 feet of shrew habitat in unit 134-41 

and less than 300 feet in units 134-31 and 134-107 may be affected.

Any riparian vegetation disturbed by legacy site treatment activities is expected to grow back to preproject condition within one growing season. Approximately 500 feet of shrew habitat may be affected.

Where fire creeps into streamside vegetation, the vegetation is expected to grow back to pre-project 

condition within the first growing season. If prescribed fire creeps within shrew habitat (100 feet of water) 

for Humbug Creek, and Sucker Creek, it will be of low intensity and is not likely to kill the grassy edges 

of streams because of the high moisture content of the vegetation and its re-growth potential.

In no instance will more than 1.25 miles of stream side vegetation be affected by either thinning, legacy 

site treatments, or prescribed burning. Therefore no home range will be removed. Therefore, no change in 

the number of individuals or the overall population is expected. The treatments will benefit aquatic 

species in the long term, including water shrews, by reducing impacts to watershed/stream conditions 

from a wildfire.
Craggy Vegetation Project MIS Assessment - Page 13 of 21

8/28/2017

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects determination for northern water shrew and their habitat for Alternative 2 is the 

same for steelhead trout and rainbow trout in Alternative 2. See the cumulative effects discussion section 

in Alternative 2.

Alternative 3

Treatments in Alternative 3 are similar to Alternative 2 with the differences displayed in Chapter 2 of the 

environmental impact statement (Table 2-2).

Direct Effects

The direct effects associated with water drafting for dust abatement are the same as described in 

Alternative 2 since the number of drafting sites is the same for Alternative 3 as in Alternative 2.

The direct effects associated with construction and removal of temporary low-water stream crossings is 

slightly less in Alternative 3 than in Alternative 2 since there is just one temporary low-water stream 

crossing proposed under Alternative 3.

Indirect Effects 

The probability of insignificant effects occurring to northern water shrew habitat would be similar to that 

of Alternative 2 although there are some differences between the two action alternatives.

There are 11 fewer acres of thinning within riparian reserves under Alternative 3 than in 

Alternative 2 and 100 fewer acres of ground-based treatment in the outer portion of stream-course 

riparian reserves.

There is one fewer mile of temporary road on existing roadbeds and one fewer mile of new 

temporary road than in Alternative 2; no new temporary roads are built in riparian reserves in 

either action alternative.

There is an additional 45 acres of underburning in stream-course riparian reserves under 

Alternative 3.

The effects to northern water shrew habitat from underburning for Alternative 3 are the same as in 

Alternative 2. There are insignificant short-term effects, with long-term benefits to northern water shrew 

habitat in the long term by reducing risk of future high intensity wildfires that could significantly alter 

watershed and stream conditions.

Cumulative Effects

Except for a few hundredths of a risk ratio less for the equivalent roaded area and universal soil loss 

equation models, the cumulative watershed effects modeling results are very similar to Alternative 2 (see 

the Cumulative Watershed Effects modeling report on the Project Website). The cumulative effects 

determination for northern water shrew and their habitat for Alternative 3 is the same as in Alternative 2. 

See the cumulative effects discussion section for steelhead trout and rainbow trout in Alternative 2.

American Dipper and Tailed Frog

Dippers and tailed frogs are likely to be present in and near the larger streams in the project area (Humbug 

Creek, Middle Fork Humbug Creek, South Fork Humbug Creek and Sucker Creek). Similar to steelhead 
Craggy Vegetation Project MIS Assessment - Page 14 of 21

8/28/2017

trout and rainbow trout, dippers and tailed frogs are indicators for water quality, instream woody debris, 

suspended sediment substrate or turbidity, and peak-base flow. Dippers are more likely to live in and 

along cold, swift, perennial streams (MIS Report Part I). Tailed frogs are found in montane steams with 

dense vegetation along the streams. As with shrews, the possibility of affecting dippers and tailed frogs is 

low, with approximately one half mile each of dipper and tailed frog habitat affected in units 134-250 and 

138-53, about 500 feet of dipper and tailed frog habitat in unit 134-41 and less than 300 feet in units 134-

31 and 134-107 may be affected.

Approximately 500 feet of dipper and tailed frog habitat may be affected by legacy site treatment 

activities in the short term.

The effects of Alternatives 2 and 3 to the habitat listed for dippers and tailed frogs are the same as those 

discussed for steelhead trout and rainbow trout.

River/Stream Species Association

Rainbow trout habitat identified in the Forest Plan is rivers and streams on the Forest. This 

species is an indicator for water quality, in-stream woody debris, bottom substrate, flows and 

channel condition.

Steelhead trout habitat identified in the Forest Plan is rivers and streams. This species is an 

indicator for water quality, in-stream woody debris, bottom substrate, flows and channel 

condition.

Tailed frog habitat identified in the Forest Plan is perennial montane streams with dense 

vegetation. This species is an indicator for water quality, in-stream woody debris, bottom 

substrate, flows and channel condition.

American dipper habitat identified in the Forest Plan is cold, swift, perennial streams. This 

species is an indicator for water quality, instream woody debris, bottom substrate and flows.

Northern water shrew habitat identified in the Forest Plan is riparian habitat with dense grassford cover. This species is an indicator of riparian vegetation including canopy, grass, and 

deciduous vegetation.

SNAG SPECIES ASSOCIATION

Red-breasted sapsuckers, hairy woodpeckers, downy woodpeckers, white-headed woodpeckers, Vaux’s 

swifts, pileated woodpeckers, and black-backed woodpeckers were selected as indicators of snags as a 

habitat element within mature conifer and riparian deciduous habitats. Standards and guidelines from the 

Forest Plan that are related to snag-dependent species, and that are being implemented as part of the 

Craggy Project, include retention of an average of five large snags per acre across the landscape (range in 

project area of two to five per acre) in a variety of size classes (more than 50 percent over 20 inches in 

diameter). By implementation of standards and guidelines, at a minimum, the proposed project 

prescriptions maintain moderate capability snag habitat in the majority of timber harvest units and high 

capability habitat in untreated parts of the project area (“capability” as determined in Forest Plan

Environmental Impact Statement: Appendix I, Wildlife Habitat Capability Model for Cavity Nesting and 

Decadence Wildlife Assemblage). In addition to standards and guidelines above, which provide protection 

for snags as a habitat component, added protections in riparian reserves maintain and enhance conditions
Craggy Vegetation Project MIS Assessment - Page 15 of 21

8/28/2017

of late-successional forests. Riparian reserves are habitat “reserves” where populations of snag-dependent 

species will be largely unaffected by land management activities.

Red-breasted sapsucker

Environmental Baseline

The analysis area for snag-associated species in the Craggy Project is the same as the “project area” as 

described in the environmental impact statement. The project area is large enough in size to 

potentially contain habitat for several red-breasted sapsucker territories. There are 4,744 acres of midseral and mature mixed conifer habitat, potentially suitable for sapsuckers, scattered throughout the 

project area on Forest Service and private land. Habitat in the project area is currently moderate 

capability for sapsuckers.

Red-breasted sapsuckers have not been documented in the project area, but it is assumed that they 

would occur there. Red-breasted sapsuckers are not considered a common species and little is known 

about local distribution and abundance. In Modoc County, California, home ranges have been reported 

up to 15 acres.

Effects of the Proposed Project

Alternative 1

There would be no change in the amount or quality of snag habitat in the project area; risk of standreplacing fire would remain moderate to high in the landscape.

Alternative 2

Proposed harvest and post-harvest activity fuels treatments should not affect suitable habitat for redbreasted sapsuckers. Large snags that could provide habitat components will not be removed. Harvest 

will remove some snag recruitment trees within the 347 acres of treatment. Forest snag minimums, 

noted in Forest Plan standards and guidelines, will be maintained in these treated areas. Snag habitat 

will remain abundant and well distributed after treatments. Outside of treated areas, snag habitat will 

remain abundant throughout the 7th field watersheds. Some snags within units may be felled for safety 

reasons. Felling of individual snags will be scattered, infrequent and will not have a measurable effect

on the amount of habitat in the project treatment units.

All treated acres will remain at moderate capability after harvest. No habitat patches equal to the size 

of sapsucker home ranges (15 acres) will be removed through timber harvest.

Alternative 3

Proposed Alternative 3 harvest and post-harvest activity fuels treatments should not affect suitable 

habitat for red-breasted sapsuckers. Large snags that could provide habitat components will not be 

removed. Harvest will remove some snag recruitment trees within the 426 acres of treatment. Forest

snag minimums, noted in Forest Plan standards and guidelines, will be maintained in these treated 

areas. Snag habitat will remain abundant and well distributed after treatments. Outside of treated 

areas, snag habitat will remain abundant throughout the 7th field watersheds. Some snags within units 

may be felled for safety reasons. Felling of individual snags will be scattered, infrequent and will not 
Craggy Vegetation Project MIS Assessment - Page 16 of 21

8/28/2017

have a measurable effect on the amount of habitat in the project treatment units.

All treated acres will remain at moderate capability after harvest. No habitat patches equal to the size 

of sapsucker home ranges (15 acres) will be removed through timber harvest.

Hairy Woodpecker and Downy Woodpecker

Environmental Baseline

The analysis area for snag-associated species in the Craggy Project is the same as the “project area.”

The project area is large enough in size to potentially contain habitat for several hairy or downy 

woodpecker territories. There are 3,334 acres of mature mixed conifer habitat within the analysis area.

These two woodpecker species are associated with mature mixed conifer, but are more specifically 

linked with deciduous riparian habitats interspersed along streams within mixed conifer forest.

It is assumed that both hairy and downy woodpeckers occur throughout the project area. Both hairy 

and downy woodpeckers are considered common species, although little is known about local 

distribution and abundance. In Ontario, breeding territories for hairy woodpeckers ranged from six to 

eight acres and ranged from five to nine acres for downy woodpeckers.

Effects of the Proposed Project

Alternative 1

There would be no change in the amount or quality of snag habitat in the project area; risk of stand 

replacing fire would remain moderate to high in the landscape.

Alternative 2

Of the acreage potentially affected by proposed treatments, it is expected that hairy and downy 

woodpeckers would only be associated with a small percentage of the treatment units closest to 

riparian deciduous habitats. Implementation of Forest Plan standards and guidelines as described 

above, such as in riparian reserves, will minimize potential impacts to habitat where woodpeckers are 

expected to occur by excluding those areas from treatment units. Large snags that could provide 

habitat components will not be removed.

Proposed harvest and post harvest activity fuels treatments should not affect suitable habitat for these 

species. Large snags that could provide habitat components will not be removed. Harvest will remove 

some snag recruitment trees with in the 347 acres of treatment. Forest Plan standard and guideline

snag minimums will be maintained in these treated areas. Snag habitat should remain abundant and 

well distributed after treatments. Outside of treated areas snag habitat will remain abundant 

throughout the surrounding 7th field watersheds. Some snags within units may be felled for safety 

reasons. Felling of individual snags will be scattered and infrequent and will not have a measurable 

affect on the amount of habitat in the project units.

Alternative 3

Proposed Alternative 3 harvest and post-harvest activity fuels treatments should not affect suitable 

habitat for hairy and downy woodpeckers. Large snags that could provide habitat components will not 
Craggy Vegetation Project MIS Assessment - Page 17 of 21

8/28/2017

be removed. Harvest will remove some snag recruitment trees within the 426 acres of treatment. 

Forest snag minimums, noted in Forest Plan standards and guidelines, will be maintained in these 

treated areas. Snag habitat will remain abundant and well distributed after treatments. Outside of 

treated areas, snag habitat will remain abundant throughout the 7th field watersheds. Some snags 

within units may be felled for safety reasons. Felling of individual snags will be scattered, infrequent 

and will not have a measurable effect on the amount of habitat in the project treatment units.

White-headed Woodpecker, Vaux’s Swift, and Pileated Woodpecker

Environmental Baseline

The analysis area is large enough in size to potentially contain habitat for several white-headed 

woodpecker territories (average 15 acres) and enough habitats for up to one pileated woodpecker 

foraging areas (500-1200 acres).Vaux’s swift territories may be limited to individual trees. There are 

3,536 acres of mature mixed conifer and true fir habitat, potentially suitable for swifts and 

woodpeckers, on Forest Service land. White-headed and pileated woodpeckers have been detected in 

the project area. Vaux’s swifts are suspected to exist in the area. Little is known about local 

distribution and abundance of these species.

Effects of the Proposed Project

Alternative 1

There would be no change in the amount or quality of snag habitat in the project area; risk of stand 

replacing fire would remain moderate to high in the landscape.

Alternative 2

Proposed harvest and post-harvest activity fuels treatments should not affect suitable habitat for these 

species. Large snags that could provide habitat components will not be removed. Harvest will remove 

some snag recruitment trees with in the 347 acres of treatment. Forest Plan standard and guideline

snag minimums will be maintained in these treated areas. Snag habitat should remain abundant and 

well distributed after treatments. Outside of treated areas snag habitat will remain abundant 

throughout the surrounding 7th field watersheds. Some snags within units may be felled for safety 

reasons. Felling of individual snags will be scattered and infrequent and will not have a measurable

effect on the amount of habitat in the project units.

Alternative 3

Proposed Alternative 3 harvest and post-harvest activity fuels treatments should not affect suitable 

habitat for these species. Large snags that could provide habitat components will not be removed. 

Harvest will remove some snag recruitment trees with in the 426 acres of treatment. Forest Plan 

standard and guideline snag minimums will be maintained in these treated areas. Snag habitat should 

remain abundant and well distributed after treatments. Outside of treated areas snag habitat will 

remain abundant throughout the surrounding 7th field watersheds. Some snags within units may be 

felled for safety reasons. Felling of individual snags will be scattered and infrequent and will not have 

a measurable effect on the amount of habitat in the project units.
Craggy Vegetation Project MIS Assessment - Page 18 of 21

8/28/2017

Black-backed Woodpeckers

Environmental Baseline

The analysis area contains approximately 202 acres of mature fir habitat. Although black-backed 

woodpeckers are associated with fir habitats, they are more commonly associated with fir and 

lodgepole pine at high elevations (greater than 6,000 feet) in the Cascade Mountains (eastside of the 

Forest). Black backed woodpeckers may be found in the project area.

Effects of the Proposed Project

Alternative 1

There would be no change in the amount or quality of snag habitat in the project area; risk of stand 

replacing fire would remain moderate to high in the landscape.

Alternatives 2 and 3

Fifteen acres of mature fir habitat in the project area are located within treatment units. Proposed 

harvest and post-harvest activity fuels treatments should not affect suitable habitat for black backed 

woodpeckers. Large snags that could provide habitat components will not be removed. Alternatives 2 

and 3 will not affect potential habitat for black-backed woodpeckers. Snag habitat should remain 

available on the all acres of mature fir habitat in the analysis area after treatments. Outside of treated 

areas snag habitat will remain abundant throughout the surrounding 7th field watershed. Some snags 

within units may be felled for safety reasons. Felling of individual snags will be scattered and 

infrequent and will not have a measurable affect on the amount of habitat in the project units.

Comparison of Alternatives

The following is a summary of the effects of the Craggy Project on habitat for steelhead trout and rainbow 

trout. Effects to habitat for the other three river/stream association MIS species (tailed frog, American 

dipper, and northern water shrew) are the same as for steelhead trout and rainbow trout.

The Analytical Process for Developing Biological Assessments for Federal Actions Affecting Fish within 

the Northwest Forest Plan Area (USDI 2004) analyzes 18 fish habitat indicators. Three of those indicators 

were chosen for this analysis: temperature and substrate embeddedness (material that settles) are 

objectives in the Basin Plan. Peak flow is a hydrologic condition that directly affects sediment delivery 

and channel condition.

Effects can be neutral, beneficial or negative. All effects of the no-action and action alternatives are 

described in context to their spatial and temporal extent. The spatial scale is described at two levels: (1) 

Site – effects located in the stream channel adjacent to or nearby the treatment area and that do not extend 

downstream for more than 100 yards; (2) Watershed – effects are detectable in the response reach of a 7th

field watershed. The temporal scale is described as being either short- or long-term in duration. Shortterm (direct and indirect) is usually one to three years, but can be up to 10 years. Long-term (indirect) is 

any effect that persists for more than 10 years.

Alternative 1 would not actively maintain or restore suspended sediment, substrate and embeddedness, 

stream temperature or peak-base flow. The no action alternative would passively maintain areas that are 
Craggy Vegetation Project MIS Assessment - Page 19 of 21

8/28/2017

currently functioning within desired reference conditions and passively restore areas that are recovering 

from past disturbances.

All direct and indirect negative effects resulting from the action alternatives on suspended sediment, 

substrate and embeddedness, stream temperature and peak-base flow would be short-term and at the siteand 7th field-scale only. No adverse effects are expected to habitat for steelhead trout and rainbow trout.

Table 1 shows that Alternative 2 has 34 percent more acres of ground-based thinning in stream-course 

riparian reserves than Alternative 3. The majority of the landscape scale underburning acres in Alternative

3 would still be underburned post-thinning treatment under Alternative 2. There is a higher combined 

relative risk of negative effects occurring from Alternative 2 when compared to Alternative 3. In general 

there is not a great difference between Alternatives 2 and 3 in the combined risk of negative effects 

occurring. For action alternatives, best management practices and project design features will be 

implemented to prevent or minimize adverse effects to steelhead trout and resident rainbow trout habitat 

from occurring.

Table 1: Comparison of acres of proposed activities in stream-course riparian reserves by alternative and their percent 

of all riparian reserves in the Craggy project area

Treatments

Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Acres affected

Temporary roads on existing roadbeds in RRs 9 (0.1) 8 (0.1)

Reconstructed existing landings in RRs 20 (0.3) 20 (0.3)

All thinning in RRs1 905 (14.5) 915 (14.5)

Ground-based thinning in RRs2 355 (5.7) 255 (4.1)

Mastication in RRs 168 (2.7) 158 (2.5)

Prescribed Fire in RRs3 1,214 (19.4) 1,259 (20.1)

1 – Includes all thinning with and without forest product removal

2 – Includes all units that utilized any ground-based equipment (feller bunchers, tractor and tractor endline)

3 – Landscape scale underburns only; does not include follow up underburn fuel treatment in thinning units

The long-term and short-term beneficial (positive) effects of the proposed action on suspended sediment, 

substrate and embeddedness, stream temperature and peak-base flow outweigh all of the effects listed 

above. These beneficial effects include:

• Increased fire resilience of stream course riparian reserves, reducing the risk of moderate- to highseverity wildfire which could cause adverse effects to steelhead trout and rainbow trout habitat

• Stream-course riparian reserves moving towards desired conditions (future large woody debris 

recruitment, diverse understory, more stream shade, etc.)

Rehabilitation of reconstructed temporary roads and landings eliminating their negative effects on sedimentation.
Craggy Vegetation Project MIS Assessment - Page 20 of 21

8/28/2017

Table 2: Comparison of effects of alternatives on management indicator wildlife species

Species Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

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.

Snag-dependent 

management 

indicator species

No Effect

Alternative 2 will not limit the availability of 

large snag distribution. Forest-wide 

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.

Literature Cited

Busby, P.J., T.C. Wainwright, G.J. Bryant, L.J. Lierheimer, R.S. Waples, F.W. Waknitz, and I.V. 

Lagomarsino. 1996. Status review for Klamath Mountains Province steelhead. NOAA technical 

memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-19.

Moyle, P.B. 2002. Inland Fishes of California.

Quiñones, Rebecca. 2006. Status of six anadromous species in the Klamath River Basin, California. 

Klamath National Forest. Draft document. Unpublished.

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. 1994. Environmental Impact Statement for the Land 

and Resource Management Plan, Appendix I: Wildlife Habitat Capability Models. Klamath 

National Forest. Yreka, CA

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

Management Plan: Klamath National Forest. Yreka, CA

USDI, USDA, and USDC. 2004. Interagency Training: Analytical Process for Developing Biological 

Assessments for Federal Actions Affecting Fish Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area. Bureau of 

Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, Forest Service, NOAA Fisheries – National Marine 

Fisheries Service.
Craggy Vegetation Project MIS Assessment - Page 21 of 21

8/28/2017

MIS Habitat by MIS Species

MIS Species MIS Habitat

Acorn woodpecker Oak

Western gray squirrel Oak 

Hairy woodpecker Mat MC, Mat dense MC

Downy woodpecker Mat MC, Mat dense MC

White headed woodpecker Mat F, Mat MC, and Mat dense MC

Vaux’s swift Mat F, Mat MC, and Mat dense MC

Pileated woodpecker Mat F, Mat MC, and Mat dense MC

Red breasted sapsucker mat MC, Mat dense MC, and mid seral

Black backed woodpecker Mat F