Migratory Bird and Deer Analysis 

for the 

Hi-Grouse Forest Management 

Project 

Goosenest Ranger District 

Klamath National Forest 

Prepared by: 

 March 24, 2010

Marynell Oechsner Date 

Wildlife Biologist 

TEAMS Enterprise 

Reviewed by: 

/s/ 

Name Date 

Title 

Location 
2 

Introduction 

This analysis discloses the effects of pre-January 4, 2010 alternatives 3 and 4 of the Hi-Grouse Forest 

Management project to deer and migratory birds. The purpose and need, location, description of the 

project area, alternatives and treatments proposed can be found in the Hi-Grouse Project Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement (USDA 2010). 

Project Design Features 

For ease of reference, listed in table 1 below are the project design features pertinent to this analysis. 

Table 1. Project design features for wildlife or their habitat 

Project 

Design 

Feature* Description 

Applicable 

Unit/Alternative 

VEG-1 Where found within units, patches of late-successional forest consisting 

of predominant trees, high canopy cover, and/or snags and down logs 

will be retained. 

All 

units/alternatives 

VEG-2 No-treatment clumps will be left in all treatments to increase structural 

diversity and retain elements of biodiversity such as snags, logs, and 

predominant trees in a clumped distribution. The amount will vary by 

prescription from up to 10 or 15 percent of the unit area, with higher 

amounts being left in the heavier treatments where suitable habitat is 

available. Due to the nature of the fuel management zones, notreatment clumps will be minimized and designed to meet specific 

elements of adjacent habitat. Emphasis will be placed on leaving 

clumps that provide the most diversity within the unit, as well as habitat 

elements for other species. 

All 

units/alternatives 

VEG-3 Predominant trees of all species will be retained in all treatments. In 

rare instances it may be necessary to cut them for safety of workers or 

for equipment access, but this will require approval of the Forest 

Service contract administrator. Predominant trees have the following 

characteristics: generally taller and older than the general canopy, 

more deeply furrowed bark with plate formation (especially ponderosa 

pine), large limbs, and often patchy crowns with flat tops. In ponderosa 

pine the bark is orange to yellow and composed of many puzzle-like 

pieces in older trees. As trees age the bark plates become much wider 

than the fissures separating them. In white fir the bark plates appear 

more vertical and depth of fissures can be equal to the width of the 

plates. Diameter is often poorly correlated with age, but most trees with 

these characteristics are 24 inches dbh and larger. 

All 

units/alternatives 

VEG-4 In all treatments, the largest ponderosa pine and white fir would be left. 

In heavy thinning prescriptions that would involve removing substantial 

amounts of true fir, the following elements would be retained: 

essentially all ponderosa pine/sugar pine/white pine, pre-dominant 

trees, widely spaced true fir, and no-treatment clumps. 

All 

units/alternatives 

VEG-10 Prescribed burning treatments would be implemented to provide a 

mosaic of understory vegetation, except where treatments are 

immediately adjacent to private property. Forty percent of underburn 

treatment areas will remain untreated to provide wildlife habitat. 

All 

units/alternatives 

RDS-3 Temporary roads will be closed at the conclusion of project 

implementation. In the event that operations occur over more than 1 

year, temporary roads will be closed between periods of operation. 

Purpose: To limit public access and use of temporary roads as well as 

reduce open road density. 

All temporary 

roads/all 

alternatives 

WL-1 In the fuel management zone along NFS Road 77 within NSO nesting 

and roosting habitat, only trees less than 8 inches dbh will be removed. 

Units 29, 30, 41 in 

fuel management 
3 

Project 

Design 

Feature* Description 

Applicable 

Unit/Alternative 

Thinning will be variably spaced except in existing openings. In some 

areas, leave trees clumpy while other areas can be more open. 

Purpose: To prevent the loss of NSO nesting and roosting habitat in 

the fuel management zone, reduce habitat fragmentation, and provide 

screening and travel corridors for wildlife. 

zone along NFS 

Road 77/all 

alternatives 

WL-2 Northern spotted owl surveys to protocol will be conducted during the 

life of the project. Should northern spotted owls be detected within the 

project area or within 1.3 miles of a treatment unit outside the project 

area, the district biologist will contact USFWS. 

Purpose: To ensure detection and protection of any northern spotted 

owls utilizing habitat affected by the project.

All units 

WL-3 A seasonal restriction between February 1st and September 15th will 

apply to all activities within 0.25 miles of un-surveyed suitable northern 

spotted owl habitat. 

Purpose: To ensure protection of any northern spotted owls utilizing 

previously un-surveyed habitat. 

Units 1, 2, 3, 4, 

12A, 13, 37 and 

53A 

WL-4 Maintain habitat specific for goshawk consistent with the Klamath 

National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, page 4-29. 

Purpose: To maintain goshawk habitat and use in the project area 

Units 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 

9, 10, 11, 12a, 

12b,13, 17, 18, 

19, 21a, 21b, 22, 

23, 24, 25b, 28, 

29, 30, 32,35b, 

37, 41, 44, 45a, 

46, 48, 52, 53a, 

53b, 55, 58, 59; 

(that occur within 

goshawk 

territories (primary 

nest zone and 

foraging areas); 

All alternatives 

WL-5 Restrict habitat-modifying activities between March 1 and August 31 

within the primary nest zone (0.5 mile radius) unless surveys confirm 

goshawks are not nesting or within the area (Klamath LRMP, page 4-

29). 

Purpose: To eliminate disturbance to goshawks during the nesting 

season. 

Units 9, 10, 12a, 

13, 17, 19, 23, 24, 

25b, 29, 30, 45a, 

53b, 55, 58, 59 

(within 0.5 miles 

of an active 

goshawk nest) all 

alternatives 

WL-6 Restrict loud and/or continuous noise within 0.25 miles of active 

goshawk nest sites between March 1 and August 31 (Klamath LRMP, 

page 4-29). 

Purpose: To eliminate disturbance to nesting goshawks 

All units (including 

fuel management 

zone) within 0.25 

miles of an active 

goshawk nest; all 

alternatives 

WL-7 If an active goshawk nest is discovered within a stand prior to or during 

treatment activities work will be halted and the wildlife biologist notified 

immediately to determine steps to resolve the situation. 

Purpose: To maintain goshawk habitat and eliminate disturbance to 

goshawks during the nesting season. 

All 

units/alternatives 

WL-8 Maintain 5 to 20 pieces (depending upon forest type) of large down 

woody debris of at least 20 inches in diameter (minimum >12 inches 

dbh) and about 40 cubic feet in volume in decay classes 3, 4, and 5. 

Snags felled for safety reasons will be retained onsite to provide coarse 

woody debris, consistent with fuels objectives (Klamath LRMP, pages 

4-23 and 4-24). 

Purpose: To meet the habitat needs of prey species of raptors and 

All 

units/alternatives 
4 

Project 

Design 

Feature* Description 

Applicable 

Unit/Alternative 

marten as well as denning habitat for various wildlife species. 

WL-9 Retain at a minimum five snags per acre of standing dead or dying 

trees (preferably in clumps) greater than or equal to 20” dbh in a variety 

of decay classes at locations greater than 75 feet from roads. If the 

representative overstory trees are <20” dbh, retain the largest size 

classes available in the stand (Klamath LRMP, page 4-30). 

Purpose: To provide adequate habitat for snag dependent wildlife 

species. 

All 

units/alternatives 

WL-10 Design units, silvicultural prescriptions, and burn plans to ensure snags 

and large down woody debris are retained on the landscape over time. 

Protect, to the greatest extent possible, snags and large down woody 

debris from destruction during treatments (i.e., yarding, machine piling, 

crushing by equipment, etc.; reduce fuel accumulations around snags 

and down logs during prescribed fire, etc.) 

Purpose: To maintain snags and large down wood during and 

following project implementation. 

All 

units/alternatives 

WL-11 Roads proposed for closure will be ripped and seeded or planted with 

appropriate native, non-invasive grasses and/or shrubs. 

Purpose: To provide foraging opportunities for ungulates and other 

wildlife species. 

Roads 44N80a 

and 44N62a/all 

alternatives 

WL-12 District biologist will designate up to 10 to 15% of each unit area to be 

left untreated. 

Purpose: To provide additional diversity of habitat for wildlife species. 

All units/all 

alternatives 

WL-13 Large diameter snags (greater than 20 inches dbh) that are felled for 

safety reasons will be left onsite for use by wildlife. 

Purpose: To provide large down woody debris for down woodydependent wildlife species 

All units/all 

alternatives 

* VEG = vegetation design feature; RDS = roads project design feature; WL = wildlife design feature. 
5 

Methodology 

Stand exams and walk-throughs were done by Rob Schantz, silviculturist, along with interdisciplinary 

team site visits, in order to discuss and evaluate the existing forested conditions within the project area. 

The vegetation data layer called ‘e-veg04’from USFS Region 5 Remote Sensing Laboratory was verified 

by Rob Schantz, Christy Cheyne (Goosenest District wildlife biologist) and Elizabeth Willy (US Fish and 

Wildlife Service wildlife biologist) in the field and with aerial photography. 

The initial GIS queries for the deer analysis and attached maps were completed on June 2009. Additional 

queries for generalized deer habitat mapping using the Mule Deer Habitat Capability Model (Odocoileus 

hemionus (also attached) was completed in November 2009. Road density summary information was 

also completed in November 2009. Since then alternative 2 was dropped from further analysis on January 

4, 2010. Prescription modifications and acreage reductions of approximately 86 and 108 acres were made 

to alternatives 3 and 4, respectively. Alternative 3 and 4 analysis that follows does not reflect those 

changes. 

Terminology 

Cover is vegetation used by wildlife for protection from predators, or to ameliorate conditions of weather, 

i.e. thermal cover (Thomas 1979). 

Hiding cover for deer is vegetation capable of hiding 90 percent of a standing adult deer from the view of 

a human at a distance equal to or less than 200 feet; generally, any vegetation used by deer for security or 

to escape from danger (Thomas, 1979). 

Cover to forage ratios are widely used as an index of habitat quality. The optimum mix of cover to 

forage is 40 percent cover and 60 percent forage. 

Mule Deer 

The Hi-Grouse project area is part of the Goosenest Adaptive Management Area. Mule deer populations 

within the Goosenest Adaptive Management Area (USDA 1996) are part of the much larger McCloud 

Flats Deer Herd. The herds are migratory. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG 1992) 

suggests that deer range should be 55 percent forage, 20 percent hiding cover, 10 percent thermal cover, 

15 percent fawning and fawn-rearing habitat. 

Much of the Goosenest Adaptive Management area (AMA) has been identified as critical deer fawning 

habitat. Good fawning habitat contains low shrubs or small trees from two to six feet tall under a tree 

overstory of about 50 percent or more crown closure, located on slopes less than 15 percent with water 

available within 600 feet. Optimum size is one to five acres and has abundant succulent forage for does 

and young fawns (CDFG 1997). 

Another important consideration to creating fawn-friendly habitat is the exclusion of livestock from these 

designated fawning areas for 4-6 weeks following the fawning period (CDFG 1992). Schaefer (2008) 

stated that periods of conception and parturition (reproductive synchrony) have extended in deer in 

northern California, meaning that fawns are being dropped anywhere from June to September. Livestock 

allotments within fawning areas should be carefully monitored to avoid overgrazing impacts to deer 

forage (CDFG 1992). 

Underburning in a mosaic pattern may help to increase grasses and forbs important to does during the 

fawning season (CDFG 1992). 

Schaefer (2008) stated that mule deer have experienced dramatic declines on the Goosenest (District). 
6 

Management direction 

Forest-wide management direction for black-tailed deer is found in Chapter 4 on page 4-33 in the 

Klamath National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (as amended 08/15/07). The KNFLRM 

Plan states: 

Black-Tailed Deer 

8-47 Design projects to improve, create or maintain a mix of forage and cover conditions that will 

maintain or increase deer populations. Use a range of management tools, including prescribed burning, 

thinning, and timber harvest to create openings for black tailed deer populations. 

8-48 Provide high quality wintering, fawning/rearing and migration habitat where such habitat has been 

identified by the CDFG. Within wintering habitat, forage areas should simulate existing patches with 

distance to cover not exceeding 300 yards. 

8-49 Emphasize projects that maintain the health and vigor of browse species and mast-producing oaks. 

Forage areas in fawning/rearing areas should be smaller openings, with the distance to cover not 

exceeding 150 yards. 

8-50 Close roads when necessary to limit activities that inhibit deer use of quality foraging, 

fawning/rearing or wintering areas. Maintain or establish roadside screening along open roads in areas 

important for migration, fawning/rearing or concentrated seasonal use. 

8-51 Manage key winter and spring use areas to provide a good forage to cover habitat ratio. 

The KNFLRM Plan also directs the use of Wildlife Habitat Capability Models (Appendix I of the EIS) for 

deer. (The Mule Deer Habitat Capability Model is displayed on the last page of this document.) 

On page 3-35 in the Goosenest Adaptive Management Area Ecosystem Analysis (USDA 1996), open 

road density and habitat capability direction for mule deer is: 

 In High Capability habitats open road densities should be <2.5 miles/square mile. 

 In Medium Capability habitats, open road densities should be 2-3 miles/square mile. 

 Good fawning habitat should be maintained throughout the AMA (pg 5-9). 

Existing Condition (Environmental Baseline) 

The 7,451 acre project area is likely used by deer in late spring, summer and early fall seasons. A mule 

deer fawn was observed by the author in a timbered stand in the northeast quarter section of section 34 

within the project area on June 25, 2008 during an interdisciplinary team field review. 

There are portions of two delineated fawning areas that overlap with the Hi-Grouse project area. 

Table 2 displays the acres and percentage of habitat in each fawning area that occurs within and outside the 

Hi-Grouse project area. 

Fawning Area Location Within Project Area Outside Project Area Total Acres of Fawning 

Acres % Acres % Area 

East 1,027 44 1,310 56 2,337 

West 1,180 64 675 36 1,855 

Total 2,207 30 1,985 47 4,192 

About 30 percent of the 7,451 acre project area is within delineated fawning habitat. About 47 percent of 

the two fawning areas combined occur outside of the project area. 

The project area is densely timbered with little foraging habitat existing beneath the canopy. Use of the 

project area and fawning habitat by deer is likely limited by the amount of forage and water available. 
7 

Figure 1 Displays a snapshot of cover and forage in the project area and in the east and west fawning areas. 

There are an estimated 6,703 acres of cover and 604 acres of forage within the Hi-Grouse project area. 

About 144 acres (2 percent) of the project area is considered barren. The cover to forage ratio within the 

project area is 90 percent cover and 8 percent forage. Similarly, cover and forage ratios in each of the 

two fawning areas are also heavy to cover. 

Table 3 Displays the estimated amount of cover and forage in the two fawning areas 

Area 

Cover Forage 

Acres Acres Acres % 

East Fawning Area 2,212 95 125 5 

West Fawning Area 1,764 95 91 5 

Table 4 Displays the estimated amount of cover and foraging in the two fawning areas within the project area 

Area 

Cover Forage 

Acres Acres Acres % 

East Fawning Area 965 94 62 6 

West Fawning Area 1,095 93 85 7 

There are currently an estimated 11.8 miles of open road within the 7,451 acre project area. The existing 

open road density within the project area is 3.7 miles per square mile. Within the 2,337 acre east fawning 

area, there is about 15.7 miles of open road. The open road density in the east fawning area is 4.3 miles 

per square mile. In the 1,855 acre west fawning area, there are 7.4 miles of open road, with an open road 

density of 2.5 miles per square mile. 

Based on the high amount of cover, low amount of forage, distance to water and the open road density 

displayed above, the habitat capability of the project area and fawning areas is medium to low. 
8 

Environmental Consequences 

In addition to the Forest Plan standards and guidelines listed for deer, project design features VEG-1, 

VEG-2, VEG-10, RDS-3, WL-1, WL-11, WL-12 and 13 listed in table 1 of this document will be applied, 

as appropriate for alternatives 3 and 4 below. 

Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis 

Direct and indirect effects to deer fawning habitat were evaluated at the project area as well as those 

portions of the two fawning areas that occurs within the project area. 

The cumulative effects analysis area includes both fawning areas in their entirety. This cumulative effects 

analysis area is appropriate because portions of the two fawning areas occur outside the project area. 

Implementation of the Hi-Grouse Forest Management Project is anticipated to start in 2010. The 

estimated duration of the project is approximately 7 years. It is likely that some pile burning and 

underburning could occur a few years after the last units have been thinned (i.e., 9 or 10 years after 

project start) (Schantz 2009). Short-term effects would be those occurring within about 10 to 20 years of 

implementation. Long-term effects would be those occurring in excess of 20 years. Speculation and 

variability in long-term effects increases in the out-years. 

Alternative 1- No action 

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects 

Under the no action alternative, current management plans would continue to guide existing and 

previously authorized activities in the project area. No thinning or burning treatments or related activities 

would be implemented and there would be no temporary road or landing construction. Cover would 

continue to predominate over forage within the project area and within fawning habitat. Miles of open 

road and road densities would remain the same. 

In the event of a wildfire, burn intensity, extent and post-fire conditions would likely vary widely across 

the landscape resulting in a mosaic of habitat conditions. Changes to the quality and quantity of habitat 

available to deer would vary widely. 

Because ungulates are sensitive to alterations in vegetation structure, their net response to fire depends on 

its severity and uniformity (Kapler Smith, 2000). Overall, a wildfire would affect the distribution and 

amount of cover and forage available to deer. A wildfire event would likely reduce the amount of cover 

and increase the amount of forage available to deer over the long term. 

Cumulative Effects 

There are no cumulative effects because there are no direct or indirect effects of the No Action 

Alternative. 

Conclusion 

Alternative 1 would not change existing habitat conditions for deer within the project area and fawning 

areas. Cover would continue to be abundant and forage would continue to be lacking in both the project 

area and the fawning areas. 

Alternative 3 

Note: On January 4, 2010, treatment modifications and acreage reductions were made on about 86 acres 

in alternative 3. While these changes are not reflected in the analysis below, a reduction in the number of 

acres treated in the project area and west fawning area would reduce the amount of change to deer 

habitat.. 
9 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Within areas being treated within the project area and fawning habitat, temporary disturbance and 

displacement of deer may occur. Mortality to a hidden young fawn, while unlikely, could occur if a tree 

fell on it during thinning operations and/or it became separated from its mother due to disturbance or 

displacement. 

Treatments proposed across the project area and within fawning areas will modify the amount of cover 

and forage available to deer across about 45 percent of the project area. Table 5 displays the treatment 

acres proposed across the project area in alternative 3 along with the current average canopy cover per 

acre and projected canopy cover by year. 

Table 5. Alternative 3 treatment acres and current average canopy cover by acre and by year post treatment 

1Not available; 2No change 

Approximately 30 percent of the east fawning area and 55 percent of the west fawning area within the 

project area is proposed for treatment in alternative 3. Table 6 displays the acres by treatment type 

proposed in each of the fawning areas. 

Table 6. Acres of treatments within fawning areas as proposed in alternative 3 

Rx Treatment Acres 

Average Canopy Cover per Acre by Year 

2009 2014 2029 

HTH-PP-lite 590 53 44 47 

HTH-RF-lite 86 51 46 49 

HTH-MC-lite 295 55 52 55 

HTH-LP 428 38 15 20 

HTH-WF-PP-lite 719 60 53 54 

LPFR 256 NA1 NC2 NC 

PCT 99 NA NC NC 

PCT2 132 40 32 35 

PCT2-MC 91 16 14 19 

PCT2-OG-RF 180 41 29 32 

PCT2-OG 180 NA NC NC 

UB 478 49 48 53 

Total Treatment Acres 3,354 

Rx Treatment 

East Fawning Area West Fawning Area 

Acres Acres 

HTH-PP-lite 61 33 

HTH-RF-lite 23 - 

HTH-MC-lite - 1 

HTH-LP - 356 

HTH-WF-PP-lite 1 7 

LPFR - 192 

PCT 63 - 
10 

The effects of different fuel reduction techniques on most wildlife and invertebrate species are not very 

well known (Pilliod et al. 2006). Most of the activities proposed in alternative 3 would stimulate the 

growth of varying amounts of grasses, forbs and shrubs, which would increase foraging habitat for deer. 

Light thinning from below. Some vertical and horizontal structure would be reduced when less than 20 

inch DBH understory trees are removed. By stand average, basal area would range between 160 and 200. 

Between 106 and 163 trees per acre would remain with a 15- to 25-foot spacing where they exist. Nontreatment clumps would continue to provide hiding cover within treated stands. Canopy cover would be 

reduced by varying amounts depending upon prescription (reference table 5). A reduction in the number 

of trees and canopy cover would increase the amount of light reaching the forest floor and stimulate the 

growth of grasses, forbs and shrubs. Light thinning from below would decrease the amount of cover 

initially and increase the amount of forage available to deer in the short term. 

Underburning following thinning. Immediately following thinning and areas underburned in the fall 

would be devoid of cover in the spring until vegetation regrowth occurs. Typically within one growing 

season, the areas underburned would be expected to increase understory structural complexity and habitat 

heterogeneity by stimulating shrub and plant (re)growth which would be beneficial to foraging deer. New 

spring plant growth following fire is highly nutritious and is preferred forage by deer. 

Precommercial Thinning and Light Plantation Thinning. Precommercial thinning and light plantation 

thinning in mixed conifer, ponderosa pine, and red fir stands would remove smaller trees generally less 

than 12 inches dbh. Tree spacing would range between 20 and 40 feet. Hiding cover would be reduced 

and foraging habitat would be expected to increase in the short term. 

Down woody material. The amount of large down woody material would be reduced in units with heavy 

fuel levels. Generally, coarse woody debris greater than 12 inches dbh would be left on site and would 

continue to provide hiding cover for young fawns. 

Other Connected Actions 

Underburning Only. Effects of underburning 478 acres across the project area would be similar to that 

of underburning following thinning. Approximately 42 acres of the east fawning area would be 

underburned and 61 acres in the west fawning area would be underburned. Fall burning in fawning 

habitat would not be expected to impact fawns of the year. 

Fuel Management Zones. Tree thinning and/or removal, pruning, mastication of brush, and hand or 

machine piling and burning of fuel concentrations up to 150 feet along both sides of major road corridors 

could disturb and displace deer from the available habitat. Hiding cover along Forest Service Road 

44N77 would decrease over the long term. Forage for deer, in the form of grasses and forbs would be 

expected to increase along the road. 

Biomass Removal/Lop and Scatter/Hand Piling. Lopping and scattering and/or hand piling small down 

woody debris would provide some temporary hiding cover for deer. The presence of humans conducting 

biomass removal and these other activities could temporarily disturb or displace deer from the vicinity. 

Underburning or pile burning would eventually be conducted and eliminate lopped and scattered material 

and hand piles. The temporary cover created by hand piling would be eliminated and burning would 

stimulate forage growth. 

PCT2 43 1 

PCT2-MC 80 - 

UB 42 61 

Total Treatment Acres 313 651 
11 

Road Maintenance and Use. Within the project area, Alternative 3 proposes to construct 0.7 miles of 

temporary road. No new temporary road construction would occur in the east fawning area. About 0.4 

miles of temporary road would be constructed in the west fawning area. The development and use of 

temporary roads and use and maintenance of existing roads within the project area may cause noise and 

potential temporary disturbance to deer using habitat within the vicinity of the road(s). 

After the Hi-Grouse Forest Management project is completed, 1.5 miles of road within the project area 

would be closed. Open road density across the project area would then be 3.5 miles per square mile, a 

decrease of 0.2 miles per square mile. About 0.2 miles of Forest Service Road 44N80A within the west 

fawning area would closed after the Hi-Grouse project is completed. This small decrease would not result 

in any change to the existing open road density within the west fawning area. 

Following use of the new temporary roads proposed in alternative 3, they would be closed, ripped and 

planted with native grasses and or shrubs. These revegetated closed temporary roads would be provide 

foraging areas for deer. 

Landings. The existing 63 landings within the project area currently provide foraging habitat for deer. 

Alternative 3 proposes to create 54 new or relocated landings within the project area. There would be 2 

new half acre landings created in the east fawning area and 6 new half acre landings created in the west 

fawning area. Deer utilizing habitat in and around landings could be disturbed or displaced during the 

development and/or use of existing and new landings. Following project use, these half acre openings 

would revegetate and provide foraging opportunities for deer. 

Sporax Treatment. The application of borax to freshly cut stumps is not expected to have adverse effects 

on wildlife or surrounding plants, invertebrates, or microorganisms (Dost et al. 1996). 

Foreseeable Cumulative effects 

Baseline (current) existing conditions capture all the residual effects of past human actions and natural 

events, regardless of which particular action or event contributed those effects. Therefore, past actions 

and past natural events are not discussed in this section. 

The 7,451 acre Hi-Grouse project area is part of the 34,500 acre Three Sisters Range Allotment. The 

cattle allotment season of use is from June 16 to September 30. A small (less than 50 individuals) wild 

horse herd uses the Badger Basin area yearlong. (The Hi-Grouse project area is located within Badger 

Basin.) Author observed wild horse use in sagebrush grasslands outside of the timbered project area. 

Grazing practices can affect the amount of forage available to deer. 

 
12 

There are two foreseeable actions proposed that would affect deer habitat adjacent to the Hi-Grouse 

project area. Figure 2 below, displays the location of foreseeable actions relative to deer habitat. 

On the Goosenest District, the Pumice Project Area boundary occurs southwest of the Hi-Grouse Project 

area. The project is in the very early planning stages. The anticipated EA would focus on vegetation 

management and fuels reduction within the 9,562-acre project area. The Pumice project would affect the 

habitat in the west fawning area. 

The Highlands Roadside Safety Improvement Project occurs east of the Hi-Grouse Project area on the 

Doublehead District of the Modoc National Forest. The proposed action is to remove dead and dying 

hazard trees from along approximately 147 miles of major access routes designated as class 3, 4, and 5 

roads. Vegetation will be removed around corners to increase sight distance. The following activities are 

proposed: 

• Thinning of green trees <12 inches dbh where necessary to improve line of sight. 

• Mow brush and low growing vegetation to improve line of sight distances. 

• Prune tree limbs to a height of 8 to 16 feet. 

• Hand pile and burn residual fuels to reduce surface accumulations and ladder fuels. 

The Highlands Roadside Safety Improvement Project would be expected to minimally affect the east 

fawning habitat adjacent to roads. 

Conclusion 

The distribution, quantity and quality of hiding cover and foraging habitat would change across 

approximately 41 percent of project area with the implementation of alternative 3. The quantity of hiding 
13 

cover would decrease across the project area by about 41 percent. Conversely, the quantity and quality of 

foraging habitat would increase across about 41 percent of the project area. 

In the east fawning area within the project area, the quantity and quality of hiding cover would decrease 

by about 28 percent. Conversely, the quantity and quality of foraging habitat within the east fawning area 

within the project area, would increase across about 28 percent. Across the 2,337 acre east fawning area, 

there would be about 12 percent change in the quality and quantity of hiding cover and foraging habitat 

In the west fawning area within the project area, the quantity and quality of hiding cover would decrease 

by about 50 percent. Conversely, the quantity and quality of foraging habitat within the west fawning 

area within the project area would increase by about 50 percent. Across the 1,855 acre west fawning area, 

there would be about a 32 percent change in the quality and quantity of hiding cover and foraging habitat 

Overall, the distribution and juxtaposition of hiding cover and foraging habitat would improve with the 

implementation of alternative 3. Alternative 3 would result in some improvement in the deer habitat 

capability in the short term within the project area and to both of the fawning areas. Alternative 3 would 

bring cover/forage ratios closer to the desire condition in deer range. 

Treatment modifications and 86 acre reductions made to alternative 3 on January 4, 2010 would reduce 

the amount of change to cover and forage as described above across the project area and the west fawning 

area habitat. 

Recommendation 

In addition to improvements to cover/forage ratios with implementation of alternative 3, habitat capability 

and deer use within the project area and both fawning areas would benefit from the installation of water 

guzzlers either through KV funding and/or in partnership with California Department of Fish and Game. 

Alternative 4 – Preferred Alternative 

Note: On January 4, 2010, treatment modifications and acreage reductions were made on about 108 acres 

in alternative 4. While these changes are not reflected in the analysis below, a reduction in the number of 

acres treated in the project area and west fawning area would reduce the amount of change to deer 

habitat.. 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Several different thin-from-below prescriptions would be utilized in alternative 4, and the effects to deer 

habitat would vary. Treatments proposed across the project area and within fawning areas will modify 

the amount of cover and forage available to deer across about 49 percent of the project area. Table 7 

displays the treatment acres proposed across the project area in alternative 4 along with the current 

average canopy cover per acre and projected canopy cover by year. 

Table 7. Alternative 4 treatment acres and current average canopy cover by acre and by year post treatment 

Rx Treatment Acres 

Average Canopy Cover per Acre by Year 

2009 2014 2029 

HTH-LP 728 38 15 20 

HTH-PP 621 54 33 35 

HTH-RF-lite 86 51 46 49 

HTH-PP-Hvy 405 49 22 24 

HTH-MC-Hvy 239 55 52 55 

HTH-LP 428 38 15 20 
14 

Approximately 30 percent of the east fawning area and 81 percent of the west fawning area within the 

project area is proposed for treatment in alternative 4. Table 8 displays the acres by treatment type 

proposed in each of the fawning areas 

Table 8. Acres of treatments and effects to habitat within fawning areas as proposed in alternative 4 

Alternative 4 differs from alternative 3 in that alternative 4 proposes to treat more forested stands with a 

moderate to heavy variable thin from below. 

Moderate to heavy variable thinning from below. With the implementation of alternative 4, the 

density of trees would be reduced to a range between 41 and 172 trees per acre. The amount of vertical 

and horizontal structure and canopy cover would be reduced. By stand average, basal area would be 

reduced by approximately half and post treatment would range between 40 to 160 basal area. Reference 

table 7 for projected average canopy cover per acre by prescription. The largest and healthiest trees 

would remain in a patchy clumpy variable pattern with small gaps and some openings ranging in size 

from 0.25 to 1 acre. Non-treatment clumps would continue to provide hiding cover within treated areas. 

The reduction in tree density and canopy cover would reduce the amount of hiding cover available to deer 

in these stands. A reduction of canopy cover would be expected to increase botanical biodiversity in the 

understory and at ground level. With the increase in amount of herbaceous and shrub growth, the amount 

of foraging habitat available to deer would increase. Small openings would provide edge and foraging 

habitat adjacent to hiding cover which would be of benefit to deer. Alternative 4 proposes to treat 657 

HTH-WF-PP 553 61 37 40 

HTH-WF-PP-lite-NGH 94 53 45 47 

HTH-WF-PP-Lite-NSO 256 53 45 47 

LPFR 256 NA1 NC NC 

PCT 99 NA NC NC 

PCT2 132 40 32 35 

PCT2--NGH 56 36 29 32 

PCT2-OG-RF 180 41 29 32 

UB 42 49 48 53 

Total Treatment Acres 3,654 

Rx Treatment 

East Fawning Area West Fawning Area 

Acres Acres 

HTH-MC-Hvy - 1 

HTH-PP-Hvy 61 61 

HTH-PP - 33 

HTH-WF-PP 1 - 

HTH-RF-lite 23 - 

HTH-LP - 657 

HTH-WF-PP-lite-NGH - 7 

LPFR - 192 

PCT 63 - 

PCT2 43 1 

PCT2-MC 80 - 

UB 42 - 

Total Treatment Acres 313 952 
15 

acres of lodgepole. This would be about a 300 acre increase in the amount of lodgepole treated in the 

west fawning area. Hiding cover would be reduced and foraging habitat would increase across a larger 

area within fawning habitat. This treatment would affect roughly half of the west fawning area that 

occurs within the Hi-Grouse project area and about one third of fawning area overall. 

 Effects of light thinning from below, underburning following thinning, precommercial thinning, light 

plantation thinning and changes to the amount of down woody material to deer habitat would be the same 

as discussed under alternative 3. 

Other Connected Actions 

Other than what is mentioned in this section, the other connected actions and their effects to deer and 

fawn habitat would be similar to alternative 3. 

Underburning Only. Effects of underburning 42 acres across the project area would be similar to that of 

underburning following thinning. Approximately 42 acres of the east fawning area would be 

underburned. Unlike alternative 3, no underburning only would take place in west fawning area. 

Machine Mowing/Machine Piling. Machine mowing would cause an immediate reduction in the amount 

of hiding cover and foraging habitat for deer. Use of machinery causes noise, which could temporarily 

disturb and displace deer from habitat within the vicinity of the equipment/operation. 

Road Maintenance and Use. Within the project area, Alternative 4 proposes to construct 1.3 miles of 

temporary road. No new temporary road construction would occur in the east fawning area. About 1.0 

mile of temporary road would be constructed in the west fawning area. The effects of temporary road 

construction, open road maintenance and use to deer and their habitat during and after project completion 

would be the same as that discussed in alternative 3. 

Landings. Alternative 4 proposes to create 56 new or relocated landings within the project area. There 

would be 4 new half acre landings created in the east fawning area and 10 new half acre landings created 

in the west fawning area. The effects of existing and new landings to deer and deer habitat would be the 

same as discussed in alternative 3. 

Foreseeable Cumulative effects 

Foreseeable cumulative effects for alternative 4 would be the same as discussed for alternative 3. 

Conclusion 

The distribution, quantity and quality of hiding cover and foraging habitat would change across 

approximately 44 percent of project area with the implementation of alternative 4. The quantity of hiding 

cover would decrease across the project area by about 44 percent. Conversely, the quantity and quality of 

foraging habitat would increase across about 44 percent of the project area. 

In the east fawning area within the project area, the quantity and quality of hiding cover would decrease 

by about 28 percent. Conversely, the quantity and quality of foraging habitat within the east fawning area 

within the project area, would increase across about 28 percent. Across the 2,337 acre east fawning area, 

there would be about 12 percent change in the quality and quantity of hiding cover and foraging habitat 

In the west fawning area within the project area, the quantity and quality of hiding cover would decrease 

by about 73 percent. Conversely, the quantity and quality of foraging habitat within the west fawning 

area within the project area would increase by about 73 percent. Across the 1,855 acre west fawning area, 

there would be about a 44 percent change in the quality and quantity of hiding cover and foraging habitat 

Overall, the distribution and juxtaposition of hiding cover and foraging habitat would improve with the 

implementation of alternative 4. Alternative 4 would result in more improvement to deer habitat 

capability in the short and long term within the project area and to both of the fawning areas than in 
16 

alternative 3. Foraging opportunities would increase more and excessive amounts of cover would 

decrease more in alternative 4 than in alternative 3, bringing cover/forage ratios closer to the desire 

condition in deer range. 

Treatment modifications and 108 acre reductions made to alternative 4 on January 4, 2010 would reduce 

the amount of change to cover and forage as described above across the project area and the west fawning 

area habitat. 

Recommendation 

In addition to improvements to cover/forage ratios with implementation of alternative 4, habitat capability 

and deer use within the project area and both fawning areas would benefit from the installation of water 

guzzlers either through KV funding and/or in partnership with California Department of Fish and Game. 

 
17 

Migratory birds 

Under the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), the Forest Service is directed to “provide for 

diversity of plant and animal communities based on the suitability and capability of the specific land area 

in order to meet overall multiple-use objectives.” (P>L> 94-588, Sec 6 (g) (3) (B)). The January 2000 

USDA Forest Service Landbird conservation Strategic Plan, followed by Executive Order 13186 in 2001, 

in addition to the Partners in Flight specific habitat Conservation Plans for birds, as well as the January 

2004 Partners In Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan, all reference goals and objectives 

for integrating bird conservation into forest management and planning. 

In late 2008, a Memorandum of Understand was signed between the USDA Forest Service and U. S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, to promote the conservation of migratory birds. The intent of the MOU is to 

strengthen migratory bird conservation through enhanced collaboration and cooperation between the 

Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as well as other federal, state, tribal and local 

governments. Within the National Forests, conservation of migratory birds focuses on providing a 

diversity of habitat conditions at multiple spatial scales and ensuring that bird conservation is addressed 

when planning for land management activities. 

For the Klamath National Forest, the migratory bird species of management concern are those bird 

species listed under the Endangered Species Act as Threatened (T) or Endangered (E), those species 

designated by the Regional Forester as Sensitive Species (S) (pages 4-27 to 4-29)and those species listed 

under Standard and Guideline 8-21 through 8-34 (pages 4-30 to 4-32 of the Klamath Land and Resource 

Management Plan (as amended 08/15/07) as Management Indicator Species (MIS) for project level 

assessment. 

Klamath National Forest Bird Species of Management Concern 

Table 9 lists bird species of management concern that were evaluated for effects from the Hi-Grouse 

Forest Management Project. 

Table 9. Klamath National Forest Bird Species of Management Concern1 per section D of the Memorandum 

of Understanding (MOU above)

Common 

Name Scientific Name Status 

Habitat or Species 

Present in Project 

Area? 

Reference 

Document 

Northern 

spotted owl 

Strix occidentalis T Yes Evaluated in HiGrouse BA2

Marbled 

murrelet 

Brachyramphus 

marmoratus T 

No Not Evaluated; 

Dismissed in HiGrouse BA2 

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus S 

No Not Evaluated; 

Dismissed in this 

document 

Northern 

goshawk 

Accipiter gentilis S Yes Evaluated in HiGrouse BE3 

Willow 

flycatcher 

Empidonax trailii 

S 

No Not Evaluated; 

Dismissed in the HiGrouse BE3

Swainson’s 

hawk 

Buteo swainsoni 

S 

No Not Evaluated; 

Dismissed in the HiGrouse 

Greater sandhill 

crane 

Grus canadensis 

tabida S 

No Not Evaluated; 

Dismissed in the HiGrouse BE3

 
18 

Common 

Name Scientific Name Status 

Habitat or Species 

Present in Project 

Area? 

Reference 

Document 

Downy 

woodpecker 

Picoides 

pubescens 

Snag MIS No Not evaluated ; 

Dismissed in HiGrouse MIS Part I4 

Red breasted 

sapsucker 

Sphyrapicus ruber Snag MIS Yes Evaluated in HiGrouse MIS Report 

Part II5 

Hairy 

woodpecker 

Picoides villosus Snag MISI No Not 

evaluated ;Dismissed 

in Hi-Grouse MIS 

Part I4 

Black backed 

woodpecker 

Picoides arcticus Snag MIS Yes Evaluated in HiGrouse MIS Report 

Part II5 

White-headed 

woodpecker 

Picoides 

albolarvatus 

Snags and mature 

pine MIS 

Yes Evaluated in HiGrouse MIS Report 

Part II5 

Pileated 

woodpecker 

Dryocopus 

Pileatus 

Snag MIS Yes Evaluated in HiGrouse MIS Report 

Part II5 

Vaux’s swift Chaetura vuaxi Snag MIS Yes Evaluated in HiGrouse MIS Report 

Part II5 

Flammulated 

owl 

Otus flammeolus Mature pine MIS Yes Evaluated in HiGrouse MIS Report 

Part II5 

Pinyon jay Gymnorhinus 

cyanocephalius 

Mature pine MIS No Not evaluated; 

Dismissed in HiGrouse MIS Part I 4

; 

Mature pine habitat 

evaluated in HiGrouse MIS Part II5 

Brown Creeper Certhia americana Mature pine MIS No Not Evaluated at 

Project Level; 

Mature pine habitat 

evaluated in HiGrouse MIS Part II5 

Pygmy 

nuthatch 

Sitta pusilla Mature pine MIS No Not Evaluated at 

Project Level; 

Mature pine habitat 

evaluated in HiGrouse MIS Part II5 

Acorn 

woodpecker 

Melanerpes 

formicivorus 

Hardwoods MIS No Not evaluated ; 

Dismissed in HiGrouse MIS Part I4 

American 

dipper 

Cynclus platensis River/Stream MIS No Not evaluated ; 

Dismissed in HiGrouse MIS Part I4 

Swainson’s 

hawk 

Buteo swainson Grassland/Shrubsteppe MIS No Not evaluated ; 

Dismissed in HiGrouse MIS Part I4 

Sage thrasher Oreoscoptes 

montanus 

Grassland/Shrubsteppe MIS No Not evaluated ; 

Dismissed in Hi-
19 

Common 

Name Scientific Name Status 

Habitat or Species 

Present in Project 

Area? 

Reference 

Document 

Grouse MIS Part I4

Loggerhead 

shrike 

Lanius 

Ludovicianus 

Grassland/Shrubsteppe MIS No Not evaluated ; 

Dismissed in Hirouse MIS Part I4 

Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia Grassland/Shrubsteppe No Not evaluated ; 

Dismissed in HiGrouse MIS Part I4 

1 Several species of management concern for the Klamath National Forest are also identified as bird species of conservation 

concern by the FWS and are identified on State of California lists. 

2 Oechsner, Marynell. 2010. Biological Assessment for the Hi-Grouse Forest Management Project 

3 Oechsner, Marynell . 2010. Biological Evaluation for the Hi-Grouse Forest Management Project 

4 Oechsner, Marynell. 2010. Hi-Grouse Management Indicator Species Part I Checklist 

5 Oechsner, Marynell. 2010. Management Indicator Species Report Part II for the Hi-Grouse Forest Management Project. 

The 2008 Memorandum of Understand was signed between the USDA Forest Service and U. S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service expands on the guidance 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. 

1. Snag and down woody debris dependent species (northern spotted owls, goshawks, red-breasted 

sapsuckers, black-backed woodpeckers, white-headed woodpeckers, pileated woodpeckers, 

Vaux’s swifts and flammulated owls) would be affected by the reduction in the number of snags 

and amount of large down woody debris in either alternative 3 or 4. Snags and large down 

woody debris would be maintained across the treated areas in both alternatives. 

2. The amount of available red-breasted sapsucker habitat would be reduced as a result of removing 

smaller green conifer trees during thinning in either alternative 3 or 4. 

3. By promoting resiliency to fire, insects, and disease within the project area, the Hi-Grouse Forest 

Management project reduces the risk of wildfire within the project area, thereby maintaining 

migratory bird habitats over the long term. 

4. The black-backed woodpecker would lose the most habitat in alternative 4. This is because 

removing insect infected dead and dying trees affects the amount of available foraging and 

nesting habitat of black-backed woodpeckers over the long term (more than 50 years). More 

black-backed woodpecker foraging and nesting habitat would be removed in Alternative 4 with 

the thinning of more acres of lodgepole pine than that proposed in alternative 3. 

5. Species that prefer late-successional habitat (Vaux’s swift, northern spotted owls, goshawks and 

pileated woodpeckers) would benefit the most from Alternative 4. Refer to Project Design 

Features VEG-1, VEG-3, and VEG-4 in Table 1 of this document. The emphasis in Alternative 4 

is maintaining the late-successional habitat that is there in project area, while increasing resiliency 

of the stands by treating fuel build-up and insect and disease infestations in adjacent stands. 

6. Mature ponderosa pine dependent species (white-headed woodpeckers, flammulated owls and 

goshawks) would benefit the most from the actions proposed in alternative 4, and to a lesser 

extent in alternative 3, both in the short and long term. Promoting and preserving larger fire 

resilient ponderosa pine within stands and across the project area would benefit white-headed 

woodpeckers, goshawks and flammulated owls. Removal of smaller trees during thinning 
20 

proposed in either alternative 3 or 4 would improve existing habitat conditions for white-headed 

woodpeckers, goshawks and flammulated owls. 

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

migratory bird habitats in the project area. 

1. Reference Project Design Features VEG-1-4, VEG-10, WL-1, WL-8-13 listed in table 1 of this 

document maintains and/or enhances the composition, structure and juxtaposition of migratory 

bird habitats within the Hi-Grouse 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; 4) considering key wintering areas, migration routes, 

and stopovers; and 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.” 

1. Project Design Features WL-3 and WL-5-7, listed in table 1 of this document, would minimize 

disturbance to northern spotted owls and goshawks and other migratory birds utilizing habitat 

within known or suspected nesting locations during the breeding season. 

2. Project Design Features WL-9, WL-10, WL-12-13, listed in table 1 of this document, would 

retain/maintain snag habitat. 

3. Project Design Features WL-1-7, listed in table 1 of this document, would retain the integrity of 

northern spotted owl and goshawk breeding sites. 

4. Sustaining migratory bird habitat in both treated and untreated areas of the project area is 

compatible with maintaining bird migration habitat. 

5. The use of borax to treat stumps is not expected to have adverse effects on wildlife or 

surrounding plants, invertebrates, or microorganisms (Dost et al 1996). 

Per MOU item D3a. The MOU 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 Klamath LRMP are designed to maintain a variety of habitat 

types, which would provide 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” 

(KLRMP Record of Decision). The KLRMP has provisions that provide for biological diversity on the 

Forest (EIS pages 4-38 through 4-91) including designations for Wilderness, Research Natural Areas, the 

Butte Valley National Grassland, Special Habitats (includes Late Successional Reserves, Bald Eagle 

Management Areas, and Peregrine Falcon Management Areas), a Managed Wildlife Area, 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 

KLRMP identified standards and guidelines to address the diversity of major biological communities and 
21 

priority habitat (such as snags and riparian vegetation) found on the Forest and identified guidance for 

assessing impacts to priority habitat for MIS. 

The short term long-term adverse and beneficial effects to the migratory bird species of concern and their 

key habitats listed in table 9 are: 

1. Alternative 3 would have both a positive and negative minor effect on the existing quantity and 

quality of northern spotted owl and goshawk habitat in the short-term. In the long term, northern 

spotted owl habitat would be expected to decline due to amount of insect and disease that exists 

in untreated areas. In the long term, the wildfire hazard would remain high (5;2 Oechsner 2010 

pgs.31and 61, respectively). 

2. Alternative 4 would positively and negatively affect the quantity and quality of existing northern 

spotted owl and goshawk habitat in the short term. Wildfire, insect and disease resiliency in 

northern spotted owl and goshawk habitat would increase in the short and long term (1;2 Oechsner 

2010 pgs. 45 and 70, respectively). 

3. Mature ponderosa pine dependent species (white-headed woodpeckers, flammulated owls and 

goshawks) would benefit the most from the actions proposed in alternative 4, and to a lesser 

extent in alternative 3, both in the short and long term (4 Oechsner 2010 pg. 18). 

4. Snag and down woody debris dependent species (northern spotted owls, goshawks, red-breasted 

sapsuckers, black-backed woodpeckers, white-headed woodpeckers, pileated woodpeckers, 

Vaux’s swifts and flammulated owls) would be negatively affected by the reduction in the 

number of snags and amount of large down woody debris in either alternative 3 or 4 in the short 

term (4

 Oechsner 2010 pg 18). 

5. Species that prefer late-successional habitat (Vaux’s swift, northern spotted owls, goshawks and 

pileated woodpeckers) would benefit the most from alternative 3 in the short term. Species that 

prefer late-successional habitat (Vaux’s swift, northern spotted owls, goshawks and pileated 

woodpeckers) would benefit the most from alternative 4 in the long term (4

 Oechsner 2010 pg 

18). 

6. The short term and long term loss of black-backed woodpecker habitat is the same between 

alternative 3 and alternative 4. Only the amount of habitat removed differs between alternative 3 

and alternative 4. More black-backed woodpecker foraging and nesting habitat would be 

removed in Alternative 4 with the thinning of more acres of lodgepole pine than that proposed in 

alternative 3 (4

 Oechsner 2010 pgs 17 and 18). 

In balance, the long-term benefits are of greater conservation value to the species than the short- and longterm adverse effects. 

Per MOU item D3b. The Purpose and Need for the Hi-Grouse Forest Management Project is not to 

restore or enhance the composition, structure, and juxtaposition of migratory bird habitats in the project 

area. 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 MOU item D3c. The project does not result in “take; “take” is 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. 

Per MOU item D3d. The Hi-Grouse Forest Management Project is not likely to have a negative effect on 

migratory bird populations as summarized in this report and further described in the Biological 

Assessment, Biological Evaluation and Management Indicator Species Reports Part I and Part II for HiGrouse Forest Management Project. 

 
22 

References (Literature Cited) 

California Department of Fish and Game. 1992 and 1997. Fawning Habitat Information from California 

Department of Fish and Game; Excerpts from two letters sent to the Goosenest Ranger District in 

response to planned timber sales. 

Dost, F. N.; Logan, N.; Glassman, C. 1996. Assessment of human health and environmental risks 

associated with the use of borax for cut stump treatment. Unpublished, prepared for USDA 

Forest Service Regions 5 and 6. 

1

Oechsner, Marynell. Wildlife Biologist. USDA Forest Service. TEAMS Enterprise Unit. 2010. 

Biological Assessment for the Hi-Grouse Forest Management Project. 

2

Oechsner, Marynell. Wildlife Biologist. USDA Forest Service. TEAMS Enterprise Unit. 2010. 

Biological Evaluation for the Hi-Grouse Forest Management Project. 

3

Oechsner, Marynell. Wildlife Biologist. USDA Forest Service. TEAMS Enterprise Unit. 2010. HiGrouse Management Indicator Species Part I Checklist. 

4

Oechsner, Marynell. Wildlife Biologist. USDA Forest Service. TEAMS Enterprise Unit. 2010. 

Management Indicator Species Report Part II for the Hi-Grouse Forest Management Project. 

5

Oechsner, Marynell. Wildlife Biologist. USDA Forest Service. TEAMS Enterprise Unit. 2010. 

Northern Spotted Owl Biological Assessment of Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 for the Hi-Grouse Forest 

Management Project. 

Pilliod, D.S.; Bull, E.; Hayes, J.L.; Wales, B.C. 2006. Wildlife and invertebrate response to fuel reduction 

treatments in dry coniferous forests of the Western United States: A synthesis. General Technical 

Report RMRS-GTR-173, USDA-Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, 

CO. 34 p. 

Schaefer, Robert. California Department of Fish and Game. September 18, 2008. E-mail response to 

Christy Cheyne Goosenest Ranger District wildlife biologist, regarding fawning habitat 

information she requested. 

Schantz, Rob. Silviculturist. USDA Forest Service. TEAMS Enterprise Unit. Hi-Grouse Forest 

Management Project. Silviculture Report. 47 pp. 

Schantz, Rob. 2009. Personal communication. Silviculturist. USDA Forest Service. TEAMS 

Enterprise Unit. 

Thomas, Jack Ward. Editor. 1979. Wildlife Habitats in Managed Forests; the Blue Mountains of Oregon 

and Washington. USDA Forest Service. Agriculture Handbook No. 553. 512 pp. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service. 2010. Hi-Grouse Project draft environmental impact 

statement. Pacific SouthwestnRegion 5, Klamath National Forest, Goosenest Ranger District, 

Siskiyou County, California. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region 5. Klamath National Forest. 

1996. Klamath National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. Klamath National Forest. 

Goosenest Ranger District. 1996. Goosenest Adaptive Management Area Ecosystem Analysis. 
23 
24 
25