Biological Evaluation for the

Hi-Grouse Forest Management 

Project

Goosenest Ranger District 

Klamath National Forest 

Prepared by: 

 March 30, 2010 

Marynell Oechsner Date 

Wildlife Biologist 

TEAMS Enterprise 

Reviewed by:

/s/

Christy Cheyne Date 

District Wildlife Biologist 

Goosenest Ranger District 

Klamath National Forest 

Marynell Oechsner 

2010.03.30 15:21:21 

-06'00'
Hi-Grouse Biological Evaluation 

i

Table of Contents 

Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1

Sensitive Species Regulatory Framework ................................................................................... 1

Sensitive Species Management Direction ............................................................................... 1

Sensitive Species Considered ...................................................................................................... 1

Species Dropped from Further Analysis ................................................................................. 3

Location of the Project Area ....................................................................................................... 6

Physical Description of the Project Area .................................................................................... 9

White Fir .................................................................................................................................. 9

Red Fir ................................................................................................................................... 10

Lodgepole Pine ...................................................................................................................... 10

Snags and Down-Woody Material ........................................................................................ 10

Project Objectives ..................................................................................................................... 12

Alternatives ............................................................................................................................... 15

Alternative 1(No Action) ....................................................................................................... 15

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) ............................................................................................ 15

Alternative 3 .......................................................................................................................... 19

Alternative 4 .......................................................................................................................... 20

Project Design Features ................................................................................................................. 20

Sensitive Species Evaluated ...................................................................................................... 23

Methodology and Terminology ............................................................................................. 23

American Marten ................................................................................................................... 24

Existing Condition (Environmental Baseline) ....................................................................... 26

Northern Goshawk ................................................................................................................ 37

Townsend’s Big-eared Bat and Pallid Bat ............................................................................. 73

References (Literature Cited) ........................................................................................................ 79

List of Tables 

Table 1: Species preliminarily considered and dismissed ............................................................... 4

Table 2. Management areas ............................................................................................................. 9

Table 3. Average number of snags per stratum in stands in the project area ................................ 11

Table 4. Existing course woody debris amounts, decomposition class, and distribution within 

selected treatment units ......................................................................................................... 13

Table 5. Comparison of alternatives .............................................................................................. 14

Table 6a. Number of existing, relocated, and new landings by alternative ................................... 19

Table 6b. Project design features for wildlife or their habitat ....................................................... 20

Table 7. Effects of alternative 2 to denning/resting and foraging habitat of marten ..................... 29

Table 8. Changes to the acres of marten habitat as proposed in alternative 2 ............................... 32

Table 9. Effects of alternative 3 to denning/resting and foraging habitat of marten ..................... 33

Table 10. Changes to the acres of marten habitat as proposed in alternative 3 ............................. 35

Table 11. Effects of alternative 4 to denning/resting and foraging habitat of marten ................... 36

Table 12. Changes to the acres of marten habitat as proposed in alternative 4 ............................. 37

Table 13. Existed amount of goshawk habitat by territory ............................................................ 39

Table 14. Year 2006 through 2009 goshawk survey findings ....................................................... 40

Table 15. Acres of treatments within units and effects to habitat of the Rainbow Goshawk 

Territory as proposed in alternative 2 .................................................................................... 42

Table 16. Changes to the amount of habitat within the Rainbow Territory as proposed in 

alternative 2 ........................................................................................................................... 42
Hi-Grouse Biological Evaluation 

ii 

Table 17. Acres of treatments within units and effects to habitat of the 

Davis Goshawk Territory as proposed in alternative 2 ......................................................... 43

Table 18. Changes to the amount of habitat within the Davis Goshawk Territory 

as proposed in alternative 2 ................................................................................................... 44

Table 19. Acres of treatments within units and effects to habitat of the 

Hi Ridge Goshawk Territory as proposed in alternative 2 .................................................... 45

Table 20. Changes to the amount of habitat within the Hi Ridge Goshawk Territory 

as proposed in alternative 2 ................................................................................................... 46

Table 21. Acres of treatments within units and effects to habitat of the West Grouse Hill 

Goshawk Territory as proposed in alternative 2 .................................................................... 47

Table 22. Changes to the amount of habitat within the West Grouse Hill Goshawk Territory 

as proposed in alternative 2 ................................................................................................... 48

Table 23. Acres of underburning within each goshawk territory .................................................. 50

Table 24. Summary of changes to the amount of goshawk habitat by territory for 

alternative 2 ........................................................................................................................... 52

Table 25. Acres of nesting and foraging habitat within the primary nest zone and 

foraging area of the Rainbow Territory that would be treated in alternative 3 ..................... 54

Table 26. Acres of treatments within units and effects to habitat of the 

Davis Goshawk Territory as proposed in alternative 3 ......................................................... 55

Table 27. Acres of treatments within units and effects to habitat of the Hi Ridge Goshawk 

Territory as proposed in alternative 3 .................................................................................... 56

Table 28. Acres of treatments within units and effects to habitat of the West Grouse Hill 

Goshawk Territory as proposed in alternative 3 .................................................................... 57

Table 29. Acres of underburning within each goshawk territory .................................................. 59

Table 30. Summary of changes to goshawk foraging habitat by territory for alternative 3 .......... 61

Table 31. Acres of treatments within units and effects to nesting and foraging habitat 

of the Rainbow Goshawk Territory as proposed in alternative 4 .......................................... 63

Table 32. Acres of goshawk habitat in the primary nest zone and foraging area of the 

Rainbow Territory before and after treatments proposed in alternative 4 ............................. 64

Table 33. Acres of treatments within units and effects to habitat of the 

Davis Goshawk Territory as proposed in alternative 4 ......................................................... 65

Table 34. Changes to the amount of habitat within the Davis Goshawk Territory as 

proposed in alternative 4 ....................................................................................................... 66

Table 35. Acres of treatments within units and effects to habitat of the Hi Ridge Goshawk 

Territory as proposed in alternative 4 .................................................................................... 67

Table 36. Changes to the amount of habitat within the Hi Ridge Goshawk Territory 

as proposed in alternative 4 ................................................................................................... 68

Table 37. Acres of treatments and effects to habitat of the 

West Grouse Hill Goshawk Territory as proposed in alternative 4 ....................................... 68

Table 38. Changes to the amount of habitat within the West Grouse Hill Goshawk Territory 

as proposed in alternative 4 ................................................................................................... 69

Table 39. Acres of underburning within each goshawk territory .................................................. 70

Table 40. Summary of changes to goshawk habitat by territory for alternative 4 ......................... 72

List of Maps 

Map 1. Hi-Grouse Project Area ....................................................................................................... 8

Map 2. Marten habitat, existing condition ..................................................................................... 83

Map 3. Marten habitat, alternative 3, post treatment ..................................................................... 84

Map 4. Marten, foreseeable future projects ................................................................................... 85

Map 5. Marten habitat, alternative 4, post treatment ..................................................................... 86
Hi-Grouse Biological Evaluation 

iii 

Map 6. Northern goshawk habitat, existing condition ................................................................... 87

Map 7. Northern goshawk habitat, alternative 3, post treatment ................................................... 88

Map 8. Northern goshawk, foreseeable future projects ................................................................. 89

Map 9. Northern goshawk habitat, alternative 4, post treatment ................................................... 90

Map 10. Bat analysis areas ............................................................................................................ 91

Map 11. Bats, foreseeable future projects ..................................................................................... 92
1

Introduction 

The purpose of this document is to disclose the effects of Hi-Grouse Forest Management Project 

on sensitive species known or assumed to occur within the project area. The effects to sensitive 

species are discussed below. 

Sensitive Species Regulatory Framework 

Sensitive species are those that are vulnerable to decline and loss of viable populations, and have 

the potential for being listed as threatened or endangered. Sensitive species are managed under 

the authority of the National Forest Management Act (PL 94-588) and the USDA Forest Service 

Manual Direction (FSM 2600). Sensitive species are “Those plant and animal species identified 

by a Regional Forester for which population viability is a concern, as evidenced by: (a) 

Significant, current or predicted downward trends in population numbers or density; (b) 

Significant current or predicted downward trends in habitat capability that would reduce a 

species’ existing distribution.” (FSM 2670.5, page 12, 6/23/95) 

This document is prepared in accordance with current policy and follows the standards 

established in FSM 2670.32. 

Sensitive Species Management Direction 

Forest-wide management direction for sensitive species on the Klamath National Forest is found 

on pages 4-22, 4-28, and 4-29 of the Klamath National Forest Land and Resource Management 

Plan.

(6-8) Sensitive species: Project areas should be surveyed for the presence of sensitive 

species before project implementation. If surveys cannot be conducted, project areas 

should be assessed for the presence and condition of sensitive species habitat. 

(8-18) Avoid or minimize impacts to sensitive species where possible. If impacts cannot 

be avoided, analyze the potential effects on the population or its habitat within the 

landscape and on the species as a whole. Projects should not jeopardize species viability 

or create significant trends toward the need for Federal listing (FSM 2670.22) of sensitive 

species. 

(8-19) Collect information on sensitive species to assess population distribution and 

habitat associations. Identify suitable habitat for each sensitive species at the Forest scale. 

Inventory a portion of the suitable habitat each year. Assess habitat conditions at occupied 

sites. Based on the assessment, use appropriate management techniques to maintain or 

enhance habitat suitability. 

Additional management direction related to some of the sensitive species is presented in the 

individual species analysis portion of this report. 

Sensitive Species Considered 

The Regional Forester's sensitive species list (last amended October 15, 2007, to include the 

delisted bald eagle) identifies 22 sensitive animal species that may occur on the Klamath National 

Forest. The Klamath National Forest land and Resource Management Plan (as amended 

08/15/07) lists the peregrine falcon as a sensitive species. However, peregrine falcons are no 

longer on the Regional Forester’s sensitive species list. In order to determine the scope of 

analysis, a preliminary evaluation was conducted for each potentially affected sensitive species. 

This document considers the 22 animal species listed below. 
Hi-Grouse Biological Evaluation 

2
Hi-Grouse Biological Evaluation 

3

Mammals 

Pacific fisher (Martes pennanti pacifica)

American marten (Martes americana)

Sierra Nevada red fox (Vulpes vulpes necator)

California wolverine (Gulo gulo luteus)

Pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus)

Townsend's big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii)

Birds

Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)

Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis)

Willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii)

Great gray owl (Strix nebulosa)

Greater sandhill crane (Grus canadensis tabida)

Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni)

Reptiles

Northwestern pond turtle (Clemmys marmorata marmorata)

Amphibians

Cascades frog (Rana cascadae)

Foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii)

Southern torrent salamander (Rhyacotriton variegatus)

Siskiyou Mountain salamander (Plethodon stormi)

Terrestrial Invertebrates 

Tehama chaparral snail (Trilobopsis tehamana)

Blue-gray traildropper slug (Prophysaon coeruleum)

Fishes 

Steelhead–Klamath Mountain Province ESU (Oncorhynchus mykiss)

Upper Klamath/Trinity chinook ESU–spring run (Onchorhynchus tshawytscha)

Upper Trinity River chinook ESU–fall run (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)

Species Dropped from Further Analysis 

Table 1 displays the species that were considered, but were dismissed from further project 

analysis in this document. The rationale for their elimination from detailed study and the effects 

determination for each species are also provided in table 1. 
Hi-Grouse Biological Evaluation 

4

Table 1: Species preliminarily considered and dismissed 

Species Habitat Requirements 

Potential

Habitat in 

Project 

Area? 

Likelihood of 

Occurrence in 

Project Area? 

Potential

Effects

from

Project? 

Determination 

of

Effects 

California 

Wolverine 

Wide ranging species that 

occupies a wide variety of 

remote habitat away from 

people 

Habitat lacks 

suitability due 

to high 

human use 

No; no historical 

or recent 

sightings of 

wolverine have 

occurred in 

Siskiyou or 

Modoc

Counties 

(Zielinski et al. 

2005) 

No No

Impact

Pacific Fisher Coniferous forests and 

deciduous-riparian 

habitats with a high 

percent canopy closure 

(CADFG 2009) 

No Not known to 

occur on the 

eastside of the 

Goosenest RD 

(Cheyne 2010) 

No No

Impact

Sierra

Nevada Red 

Fox 

Preferred habitat 

apparently red fir and 

lodgepole pine forests 

and alpine fell-fields; may 

hunt in forest openings, 

meadows, and barren 

rocky areas (NatureServe 

2009) 

Yes No; recent or 

reliable 

sightings of 

Sierra Nevada 

red fox have not 

occurred

anywhere in 

Siskiyou, 

Modoc, or 

Shasta

Counties 

(Zielinski et al. 

2005) 

No No

Impact

Bald Eagle Large trees adjacent to 

lakes and rivers with 

abundant fish 

No; lack of 

aquatic 

habitat1

No No No

Impact

Willow 

Flycatcher 

Requires large shrubby 

willows that line slowmoving streams in open 

meadow situations or that 

are scattered about seeps 

in moist meadows 

(NatureServe 2008) 

No; lack of 

aquatic 

habitat1

No No No

Impact

Swainson’s 

Hawk 

Open deserts and 

grasslands with scattered 

large trees or grooves for 

nesting (CADFG 2009) 

No No No No

Impact

Greater

Sandhill 

Crane 

Shallow wetlands 

adjacent to fields and 

meadows (DeGraaf et al. 

1991) 

No No No No

Impact
Hi-Grouse Biological Evaluation 

5

Species Habitat Requirements 

Potential

Habitat in 

Project 

Area? 

Likelihood of 

Occurrence in 

Project Area? 

Potential

Effects

from

Project? 

Determination 

of

Effects 

Great Gray 

Owl 

Relatively dense 

coniferous forests with 

snags adjacent to small 

openings and meadows 

for hunting (CADFG 

2009) 

Dense conifer 

forests occur, 

but no 

meadows 

occur in the 

project area 

No; sightings 

are rare on the 

Goosenest 

Ranger District 

and none have 

occurred in or 

near the project 

area during owl 

surveys 

No No

Impact

Northwestern 

Pond Turtle 

Permanent or nearly 

permanent waters of low 

flow rivers, creeks, small 

lakes, ponds, and 

marshes with nesting and 

hibernating habitat in 

uplands about 1,320 feet 

adjacent to water 

(NatureServe 2008) 

No; lack of 

aquatic 

habitat1

No No No

Impact

Siskiyou 

Mountain 

Salamander 

Entirely terrestrial; rock 

rubble of old riverbeds, 

road fills and outcrops 

and in moss-covered 

talus where moisture and 

humidity are high enough 

to allow respiration 

through their skin 

(Stebbins 1985) 

No No; the 

Goosenest 

Ranger District 

is outside the 

current and 

historic range 

(Cheyne 2010) 

No No

Impact

Cascades

Frog 

Permanent open shallow 

ponds and streams, wet 

mountain meadows, 

sphagnum bogs in open 

coniferous forests up to 

timberline (NatureServe 

2008) 

No; lack of 

aquatic 

habitat1

No No No

Impact

Foothill 

Yellow-legged 

Frog 

Partially shaded, rocky 

low flow, shallow streams 

at low to moderate 

elevations in areas of 

chaparral, open woodland 

and forest (NatureServe 

2008) 

No;Range is 

just west of 

the Cascade 

Crest which 

is which west 

of the project 

area

No No No

Impact

Southern 

Torrent 

Salamander 

Small, cold, clear, highgradient mountain 

streams and spring 

seepages in graveldominated riffles 

(NatureServe 2008) 

No; the entire 

Goosenest 

Ranger 

District is 

outside the 

range.(Cheyn

e 2010) 

No No No

Impact
Hi-Grouse Biological Evaluation 

6

Species Habitat Requirements 

Potential

Habitat in 

Project 

Area? 

Likelihood of 

Occurrence in 

Project Area? 

Potential

Effects

from

Project? 

Determination 

of

Effects 

Tehama 

Chaparral 

Snail 

Talus, leaf litter and 

woody debris within 100 

meters of limestone 

outcrops (NatureServe 

2008) 

No; The 

Goosenest 

Ranger 

District is 

outside the 

current and 

historic

range 

(Cheyne 

2010) 

No; surveys 

conducted, 

none found 

No No

Impact

Blue-Gray 

Taildropper 

Slug

Carbonate cliff habitats 

(NatureServe 2009) with 

moist, coniferous forest 

characterized by the 

presence of sword fer, 

and big leaf maple. 

)

No moist 

hardwoods 

exist in the 

project area 

No; surveys 

conducted, 

none found 

No No

Impact

Steelhead–

Klamath

Mountain 

Province ESU 

Freshwater streams No; lack of 

aquatic 

habitat1

No No No

Impact

Upper 

Klamath/ 

Trinity 

Chinook 

ESU–

Spring Run 

Freshwater streams No; lack of 

aquatic 

habitat1

No No No

Impact

Upper Trinity 

River Chinook 

ESU–Fall Run 

Freshwater streams No; lack of 

aquatic 

habitat1

No No No

Impact

1

 The Hi Grouse project area 7th-field HUC watersheds are Antelope Well, Dock Well, Grouse Hill, Hill 22, and Tamarack 

Flat. The project area contains two riparian reserves. Two riparian reserve segments (300 feet) were identified previously 

to the project with remote sensing inside of the project area boundaries. However, field verification revealed that there is 

no defined channel and inter-annual scour in these drainages, and that they likely flow only directly in response to very 

large flows, and are ephemeral. As a result, the designated riparian reserves lack the characteristics necessary for 

classifying them as riparian reserves (McNamara 2009). There is no mapped surface hydrologic connectivity between the 

project units and downstream waters (McNamara 2009); therefore, any species requiring aquatic habitat within the HiGrouse Project area are not evaluated any further in this biological evaluation. 

While peregrine falcons are no longer considered to be a sensitive species, they have been 

considered. No peregrine falcon habitat exists in the Hi-Grouse project area and thus, peregrine 

falcons have dismissed from further project evaluation in this or any other wildlife analysis 

relative to Hi-Grouse project.

Location of the Project Area 

The Hi-Grouse Project area is located south of the Four Corners snowmobile trailhead and 

encompasses approximately 7,450 acres in the southeast portion of the Goosenest Ranger District. 

The legal description for the project area is all or portions of: T44N, R2E, Sections 23, 25–28, 
Hi-Grouse Biological Evaluation 

7

32–36; T43N, R2E, Sections 1–4, 9–13; T44N, R3E, Section 31; T43N, R3E, Sections 6, 7, and 

18 Mt. Diablo Meridian, Siskiyou County, California. 
8

Map 1. Hi-Grouse Project Area 
Hi-Grouse Biological Evaluation 

9

The Klamath National Forest is divided into 17 management areas (land allocations), each with 

distinct management direction. Table 2 lists the acres and management areas (MA) within the 

project area. There are no riparian reserves in the project area. 

Table 2. Management areas 

Acres Management Area 

4,653 General Forest MA 17 

2,574 Partial Retention Visual Quality Objective MA 15 

152 Special Habitat Late Successional Reserve MA 5 

71 Special Interest Area MA 7 

7,450 Goosenest Adaptive Management Area (entire project area) 

The Goosenest Adaptive Management Area (AMA) was established under the Northwest Forest 

Plan (USDI 1994) and lies within the Cascade Mountains Physiographic Province in the eastern 

portion of the Klamath National Forest on the Goosenest Ranger District. There are 151,100 

acres of Federal land within the AMA. The Hi-Grouse Project area is entirely within the 

Goosenest AMA (USDA FS 1996). The Goosenest AMA goal is for development of ecosystem 

management approaches, and includes the use of prescribed fire and other silvicultural techniques 

for management of pine forests. The Goosenest AMA objectives include forest health, 

production and maintenance of late-successional forest and riparian habitat, and commercial 

timber production. 

Physical Description of the Project Area 

The Hi-Grouse Project area is part of the fire-dominated east side of the California Cascades. 

Elevations in the project area range from 5,400 to 6,500 feet. Four forest communities, white 

fir/pine, white fir/mixed conifer, lodgepole pine, and red fir/mixed conifer occur within the 

project area. Greater than 85 percent of conifers are less than 24 inches in diameter and even-aged 

between 60 to 90 years old (mid-seral stage). 

White Fir 

White fir is the primary species found 

regenerating in the understory, and most 

stands are now almost exclusively white 

fir in the overstory. This series generally 

occurs from lowest elevations (about 

5,400 to 6,000 feet elevation). Currently 

the stands are 9 to 24 inches diameter and 

dominated by 50- to 80-year-old white fir 

with ponderosa pine comprising from 5 

to 60 percent. Sugar pine is a minor 

species that historically occupied the 

same niche as ponderosa pine. Patches of 

predominant white fir and/or ponderosa 

pine are found scattered throughout the 

area (Schantz 2009). Plant associations 

reflect the drier range of the white fir 

White fir/ponderosa pine stand 
Hi-Grouse Biological Evaluation 

10 

series. Common shrubs and herbaceous plants found in this forest type are: bitterbrush, fescue, 

greenleaf manzanita, bearberry, snowberry, snowbrush, mahala mat, pinegrass, strawberry, 

hawkweed, currant, sedge, and penstemon (USDA 1996). 

Red Fir 

Shasta red fir becomes dominant on sites lying 

generally above 6,000 feet elevation, and red fir is 

the primary species regenerating in the 

understory. Stands are typically a multi-aged mix 

of red fir, white fir, lodgepole pine, and 

ponderosa pine, with minor amounts of white 

pine (Schantz 2009). 

Shrubs and herbaceous plants are sparse under the 

typically dense growth of a red fir forest. Plants 

typically found in forest openings include 

pinemat manzanita, snowbrush, greenleaf 

manzanita, Scoulers willow, snowberry, bush 

chinquapin, western needlegrass, mountain 

brome, squirreltail, dry land sedges, coyote mint, 

penstemon, princes’ pine, strawberry and 

wintergreen (USDA 1996). 

Lodgepole Pine 

Lodgepole pine occupies the colder sites within 

both the red fir and white fir series, where it is 

often the dominant species found regenerating in 

the understory or on disturbed areas (Schantz 

2009). In dense stands and on pumice flats the 

understory is relatively sparse. In more open 

stands, Bloomer’s goldenbush, bush chinquapin, 

greenleaf manzanita, along with mountain brome, 

western needlegrass, and forbs such as coyote 

mint and strawberry are found (USDA 1996). 

Snags and Down-Woody Material 

The amount of standing dead trees in the project 

area is quite high due to the amount of mortality 

occurring due to high tree density, insects, and 

disease. Most of the standing dead snags are in 

the 10 to 19 inch dbh range. Table 3 shows an 

estimated average number of snags per stratum 

derived from plot data taken within the project 

area (Schantz 2009). In actuality, there are more 

large dead trees present in the stands than the data 

shows because live trees were the focus of the 

stand exams; thus, dead trees were underrepresented in the plots taken (Schantz 2009). 

Red fir 

Lodgepole pine stand with substantial amounts 

of down woody debris in the project area
Hi-Grouse Biological Evaluation 

11 

Table 3. Average number of snags per stratum in stands in the project area 

Stand-type 

Vegetation 

Community Acres 

Percent

of

Project

Area 

Average 

Number of 

Snags 10–

19” DBH 

Average 

Number of 

Snags 20” 

DBH or 

Greater 

Mid-seral PP-dominated 9–24” dbh White Fir/Pine 292 4 5.5 1.4 

Mid-seral WF-PP 9–24” dbh White Fir/Pine 614 8 25.3 3.1 

Mid-seral WF-PP 9–24” dbh1 White Fir/Pine 787 11 5.7 1.8 

Mid-seral WF 9–24” dbh1 White Fir/Pine 759 10 2.9 1.9 

Early-seral WF 5–16” dbh1 White Fir/Pine 91 1 23 0.7 

Mid-seral MC 5–24” dbh White Fir/Mixed 

Conifer, Red Fir 

/Mixed Conifer 

772 10 14.6 1.8 

Mid-seral MC 5–24” dbh1 White Fir/Mixed 

Conifer, Red 

Fir/Mixed Conifer 

494 7 2.8 1.1 

Early-seral MC 5–16” dbh1 White Fir/Mixed 

Conifer, Red 

Fir/Mixed Conifer 

132 2 0 0 

Early-seral MC 5–16” dbh1 White Fir/Mixed 

Conifer, Red 

Fir/Mixed Conifer 

105 1 3.1 2.5 

Early-seral MC 5–12” dbh White Fir/Mixed 

Conifer, Red 

Fire/Mixed Conifer 

35 <1 54.3 0 

Late-seral RF dominated Red Fir/Mixed 

Conifer 

347 5 5.6 2.9 

Mid/Late-seral WF dominated White Fir/Pine 863 12 8.3 2.7 

Mid-seral LP- Mature, Heavy 

Mortality 

Lodgepole/Mixed 

Conifer 

1,072 15 10.6 0.3 

Early/Mid-seral LP-Immature Lodgepole/Mixed 

Conifer 

583 8 8.4 0 

Plantations/regeneration HarvestPolesN/A 80 1 0 0 

Plantations/regeneration Harvestseedling/sapling N/A 132 2 5.8 0 

1

 With root disease. 
Hi-Grouse Biological Evaluation 

12 

The amount of large down woody 

material in the project area varies widely. 

Many of the white fir stands and the 

lodgepole pine stand have large amounts 

of large down woody material due to root 

rot and pine beetle. Table 4 displays the 

amount and distribution of course woody 

debris by decomposition class in various 

sampled treatment units within the project 

area (McNamara 2009). Due to the 

limited number of plots sampled, the 

amount of course woody debris present is 

under-represented (Helmbrecht 2009). 

Project Objectives 

The objectives of the Hi-Grouse Forest Management Project are to: 

1. Increase resiliency of this area to disturbance by using methods that promote the historic 

structure and species composition that are likely to be best adapted to disturbances given 

current and future climate scenarios. 

2. Promote, protect, and maintain sustainable late-successional habitat elements for species 

such as the spotted owl and goshawk by promoting resiliency to fire, insects, and disease 

on the landscape, and by culturing young trees to increase growth rates and crown 

development for future suitable habitat. 

3. Mimic natural processes through management actions that promote healthy ecological 

conditions and replicate the role of natural disturbances, such as fire. Treat heavy fuel 

loadings to reduce the threat of stand-replacing wildfire and approximate historical fire 

regimes of low intensity fire behavior that protect older forest habitat components in the 

project area, and provide for firefighter safety. 

Table 5 displays a comparison of the alternatives proposed. 

Large down woody material present in white fir stands
Hi-Grouse Biological Evaluation 

13 

Table 4. Existing course woody debris amounts, decomposition class, and distribution within 

selected treatment units 

Harvest Unit No. 

Existing CWD 

(>20” dia) 

Logs/Acre 

CWD Decomposition Class (%) 

1 2 3 4 5

2 0 

3 4 -- 18 18 55 9 

4 3 -- -- 67 33 -- 

7 4 -- -- 33 67 -- 

9 9.1 -- 50 25 25 -- 

12 1.2 -- -- 100 -- -- 

14 1.8 -- -- 33 67 -- 

15 4.8 -- 17 33 33 17 

16 2.0 34 -- 66 -- -- 

19 1.7 -- 25 25 25 25 

21 4.4 -- 80 -- 20 34 

22 1.3 -- -- 50 50 -- 

23 1.7 -- 25 25 25 25 

25 9.8 -- 31 44 19 6 

28 1.2 -- -- 100 -- -- 

30 2.2 -- 33 33 -- 34 

32 10.8 -- 13 45 39 4 

37 3.2 -- -- 100 -- -- 

41 5.3 -- -- 100 -- -- 

43 4.7 -- -- 43 43 14 

44 4.7 -- -- 43 43 14 

45 4.8 -- 17 33 33 -- 

54 4.7 43 43 14 

58 4.7 -- -- 43 43 14 

59 4.7 -- -- 43 43 14 

61 10.8 -- 13 44 39 4 

65 5.0 -- -- 40 60 -- 
Hi-Grouse Biological Evaluation 

14 

Table 5. Comparison of alternatives 

Treatments1 Alternative 1 

(No Action) 

Alternative 2 

(Proposed 

Action) Alternative 3 Alternative 4 

Thinning From Below 0 2,831 2,094 2,530 

Overall Fuels Abatement2 0 2,831 2,094 2,530 

Mowing 0 346 254 346 

Underburning 0 1,729 789 1,495 

Post-Treatment Evaluation of 

Planting 

0 757 0 644 

Ponderosa Pine/Mixed Conifer 

Restoration and Re-Establishment 

0 1,188 0 0 

Overall Fuels Abatement 0 1,188 0 0 

Mowing 0 70 0 0 

Underburning 0 939 0 0 

Post-Treatment Evaluation of 

Planting. 

0 1,188 0 0 

Lodgepole Pine Thinning/Fuels 

Reduction 

0 683 683 984 

Overall Fuels Abatement 0 683 683 984 

Mowing 0 428 428 728 

Plantation Thinning 0 99 99 99 

Overall Fuels Abatement 0 99 99 99 

Underburning Only 0 42 478 42 

Fuel Management Zones3

Acres Outside Other Treatments 

0 13 miles 

(480 acres) 

266 

13 miles 

(480 acres) 

300 

13 miles 

(480 acres) 

300 

Total Project Area Acres Proposed 

for Treatment 

0 5,109 3,654 3,955 

Construction of Temporary Roads 0 0.7 0.7 1.3 

Temporary Use of Non-System 

Roads 

0 3.2 1.6 1.9 

Road Maintenance on Existing 

System & Non-System Roads 

As needed As needed for project implementation 

1

 Some treatments overlap, e.g., thinning followed with fuels abatement and underburning; fuel management zones 

overlap with other treatments (e.g., fuel management zones overlap with other treatments). 

2

 Overall fuels abatement includes whole-tree yarding, pile and burning, lop and scatter, and biomass removal treatment 

options.

3

 Mileage is approximate, proposed fuel management zones are along Forest System Roads 15, 77, 44N84, 44N77, 

44N75, and 44N75D. 

Note: Table 5 displays the proposed action (alternative 2) and unmodified alternatives 3 and 4; see alternative section 

below. 

Since the initiation of this document, alternative 2 was dropped from further analysis on January 

4, 2010. This change was not reflected in the marten and goshawk sections of this document. At 

the same time, treatments across about 86 and 108 acres in alternatives 3 and 4, respectively, 

were also dropped. These changes have not been reflected in table 5 above, the description of 

alternatives 3 and 4 below, or in the marten section of this document. A detailed description of 

the modifications to alternatives 3 and 4 can be reviewed in the Hi-Grouse Forest Management 

Environmental Impact Statement (USDA 2010). 
Hi-Grouse Biological Evaluation 

15 

Alternatives

Since the initiation of this document in November 2009, alternative 2 was found to not comply 

with Forest Plan standard and guideline (S&G) 8-20 for maintaining goshawk habitat. Modifying 

alternative 2 to meet this S&G would result in an alternative similar to alternative 3 or 4. On 

January 4, 2010, alternative 2 was dropped from detailed analysis, and slight modifications were 

incorporated into alternatives 3 and 4 to drop approximately 86 and 108 acres of treatment, 

respectively, to comply with Forest Plan S&G 8-20. Alternative 4 also includes a modification in 

one unit's prescription to a lighter level of thinning. Alternative 2, the proposed action, was 

analyzed and is discussed in this document, along with the original alternatives 3 and 4 for the 

alternative description and the marten section. Effects to marten in the project area from 

treatment activities would not change because the treatments dropped are not within marten 

habitat areas. The analysis for the northern goshawk incorporates the modifications to 

alternatives 3 and 4. A detailed description of the modifications to alternatives 3 and 4 can be 

reviewed in the Hi-Grouse Forest Management Environmental Impact Statement (USDA 2010). 

Alternative 1(No Action) 

Under the no-action alternative, current management plans will continue to guide management of 

the project area. No forest health or fuels vegetation management will be implemented to 

accomplish project goals. Northern spotted owl (NSO) habitat would not be degraded in the short 

term, but long-term forest health goals would not be addressed. The purpose and need would not 

be met. 

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) 

Alternative 2 (proposed action) is the Forest Service initial proposal for meeting the purpose and 

need. A description of this action was circulated for public scoping input. The proposed action 

was modified since scoping to address recently designated NSO critical habitat. Clarifications and 

adjustments were also made to respond to scoping comments. Alternative 2 avoids treatment of 

higher quality NSO nesting and roosting habitat. Prescriptions were designed to maintain latesuccessional habitat characteristics. 

The proposed action proposes to treat a total of approximately 5,109 acres, and involves several 

types of vegetation management and fuels treatment actions, including thinning from below, 

ponderosa pine/mixed conifer restoration and re-establishment, lodgepole pine thinning and fuels 

reduction, plantation thinning, underburning, and creation of fuel management zones. 

All treatments will retain the largest ponderosa pine and white fir existing in the stands. All 

prescriptions will maintain late-successional attributes, e.g., pre-dominant white fir and ponderosa 

pine, snags and down logs, untreated areas, and structural patchiness. In prescriptions where 

substantial amounts of true fir are removed, the following elements will be retained: most if not 

all ponderosa pine/sugar pine/white pine, individuals and clumps of pre-dominant true fir, widely 

spaced true fir, and no-treatment clumps. 

Description of Treatments 

Refer to appendix C of the Hi-Grouse Project draft EIS for a detailed description of silvicultural 

and fuels prescriptions (USDA Forest Service 2009). 
Hi-Grouse Biological Evaluation 

16 

Thinning from Below 

Thinning from below will remove trees that are smaller and shorter than the trees that form the 

upper canopy. Thinning treatments are proposed on a total of 2,831 acres. Stand density is 

reduced, allowing the trees with the best crown development and size to utilize the new growing 

space and increase growth and ability to withstand fire and insects and disease. Species 

composition can also be altered by favoring some species to be left over others. In this project, 

the objectives are to improve overall stand vigor, favor the largest fire-resistant trees and species, 

and reduce the potential for crown fire through removal of trees that act as fire “ladders” and that 

could sustain a crown fire. The percentage of ponderosa pine, sugar pine, and white pine would 

increase in the residual stand. Thinning intensity will vary; up to 10 percent of the area will be 

left un-thinned to maintain stand diversity. 

In healthier white fir dominated foraging habitat for NSO and northern goshawk, approximately 

100 to 140 square feet of basal area and a canopy cover of approximately 40 percent will be 

retained. Exceptions are small pockets of pine that may be thinned heavier. About 10 percent will 

be in small openings and 10 percent will remain untreated. 

Thinning will be heavier in some areas to move the species composition towards ponderosa pine, 

and create structural patchiness. Small openings, 0.25 to 1 acre in size that cover as much as 10 

percent of a treated stand, will be created and left unplanted to increase forest structural and 

species diversity. Areas of heavier thinning around root disease centers will be evaluated posttreatment for under-planting with a site-specific and appropriate mix of ponderosa pine, sugar 

pine, and white pine (if available). 

Fuel abatement treatments will be carried out on all (2,831 acres) of the thinned acres. Fuel 

abatement treatments will include whole-tree yarding, pile and burning, lop and scatter, and 

biomass removal options. Additional fuels treatments include mechanical mowing on 346 acres 

and underburning of 1,729 acres in stands that have larger amounts of fire-resistant species. 

Logged conifer stumps will be treated with a fungicide (trade name Sporax®) to prevent 

colonization and spread of the conifer root disease Heterobasidion annosum.

Thinning Within Late-Successional Habitats 

Treatments within 364 acres (units 16, 23, 37, and 41) of late-successional habitat were designed 

to maintain the current characteristics of late-successional habitat in the project area. Residual 

density of approximately 180 square feet of basal area and approximately 60 percent canopy 

cover will be retained. Understory trees will be thinned to a variable spacing of 15 to 25 feet. No 

trees over 20 inches diameter breast height (dbh) will be cut. No openings will be created, and 10 

to 15 percent of the unit area will be left un-thinned; these prescriptions include: HTH-WF-PPlite-NGH, HTH-WF-PP-lite NSO, and PCT2-OGRF. 

Prescriptions proposed in NSO and northern goshawk nest, roosting, and foraging habitat will 

vary in the treatment of the understory when compared with other treatment areas. In northern 

goshawk habitat, the above prescription will apply; with the exception that thinning in the 

understory will focus mainly on leaving good replacement trees for the overstory trees in the 

event of tree mortality. Portions of late-successional stands are currently dominated by small trees 

(5 to 12 inches dbh) which will be thinned to a spacing of 15 to 40 feet between trees. 

Prescriptions in northern goshawk and NSO units account for 364 acres in alternative 2. 
Hi-Grouse Biological Evaluation 

17 

Ponderosa Pine/Mixed Conifer Restoration and Re-establishment 

Pine restoration and re-establishment treatments are proposed on 1,188 acres, and will allow for 

the regeneration of ponderosa pine where stand composition is now dominated by diseased white 

fir. The white fir in these stands are at a high risk of mortality and more susceptible to stand 

replacement in the event of a wildland fire. The objectives of this prescription are to restore 

historic species composition and stand structure to areas that have lost most of the historic pine 

species and are now dominated by diseased white fir. 

The thinning prescription in these stands will favor ponderosa pine, sugar pine, and white pine in 

stands where white fir and red fir are heavily infested with H. annosum root disease. Pines will 

be planted where they are currently lacking. Ponderosa pine, and rust-resistant sugar and white 

pine, will be planted following thinning on sites where pine stocking is lacking.

Conifer stumps will be treated with Sporax® in areas where healthy true fir is a sustainable stand 

component. Sporax® will not be used in areas where the majority of fir is currently infected. 

Small openings of 0.25 to 1 acre in size will be created, covering up to 15 percent of each treated 

stand. Un-thinned areas, up to 15 percent within a unit, will also be retained.

Mechanical mowing is proposed as a follow up to thinning on approximately 70 acres. 

Underburning following thinning is proposed for approximately 939 acres in stands that have 

larger amounts of fire-resistant species. 

Lodgepole Pine Thinning/Fuels Reduction 

Lodgepole pine thinning and fuels reduction is proposed on 683 acres, or about two-thirds of the 

large lodgepole pine stand that is dying and falling apart located along Forest Road 15. The 

prescription will remove overstory lodgepole pine that are infected with dwarf mistletoe and/or 

have been attacked by beetles. The understory will be thinned to promote the existing healthy 

trees. 

The objective of this prescription is to maintain a more open stand structure with mixed conifer 

species composition including white fir-red fir, ponderosa pine, and lodgepole pine. This 

structure and composition will have less fuel hazard and will be more resistant to future mountain 

pine beetle mortality. Fuels treatments across the area will include mechanical piling and 

mowing. 

Plantation Thinning 

Thinning of trees generally less than 12 inches dbh in old regeneration cutting units will be 

accomplished by mechanical or hand methods to promote growth, future fire resistance, and a 

mixed species composition. Since ponderosa pine is generally the most under-represented 

species in these plantations due to natural seeding of lodgepole and true firs, it will be favored 

over other species in the thinning. 

Overall fuels abatement in plantations will be accomplished through whole-tree yarding, pile 

burning, lop and scatter, and biomass treatments (previously described). 

Underburning Only

Underburning is prescribed as a stand-alone treatment in some stands where commercial thinning 

is not feasible. Some mechanical pre-treatment, such as thinning, piling ladder fuels, and mowing 

will ensure that the residual stand is protected. 
Hi-Grouse Biological Evaluation 

18 

Fuel Management Zones 

Fuel management zones will be created along major road corridors and certain access roads for 

fire control. Small tree thinning and/or removal, pruning, mowing of brush, and hand or machine 

piling and burning in areas of high fuels concentration is proposed in these corridors. Fuel 

management zones will generally extend 150 feet either side of the road. Some fuel management 

zones s overlap stands with proposed silviculture treatments. 

Landings

There are currently 96 existing landings within the project area. The size of both existing 

landings and new landings would be about 0.5 acres. All landings would occur along roads or at 

the end of roads. Table 6a displays the number of existing, proposed new landings, and relocated 

landings anticipated for each of the action alternatives. The location of existing, relocated, and 

new landings are displayed on alternative maps by species at the end of this document. 
Hi-Grouse Biological Evaluation 

19 

Table 6a. Number of existing, relocated, and new landings by alternative 

Landing Type 

Alternative 2 

(Proposed Action) Alternative 3 Alternative 4 

Existing 94 63 63 

New 65 53 55 

Relocated 3 1 1 

Road Maintenance and Temporary Roads 

Road Maintenance. The Hi-Grouse Project area is accessed by a network of county and National 

Forest System roads. There will be no new permanent roads constructed or added to the Forest 

system. Primary National Forest System roads that serve the project area are: 15, 77, 44N80, 

44N62, and 44N54. Existing National Forest System roads within the project area received 

periodic clearing, blading, and drainage structure maintenance in the 2007 and 2008 seasons. 

Roads needed for the project will be reassessed prior to and during activities to determine if 

additional maintenance is needed. Light maintenance may be necessary to meet project 

requirements. Maintenance will generally consist of spot rocking, grading, and re-establishing 

drainage structures. All aggregate rock and water source requirements for this project can be met 

from existing sources on National Forest lands; no new sources will be developed. 

Temporary Roads. Approximately 3.9 miles of temporary roads will be needed to access 

thinning units. Most of the temporary roads (3.2 miles) are existing non-system (not on the Forest 

system) jeep roads or spurs, which were created during previous harvest entries. Road 

reconstruction, as defined by Forest Service Manual 7700, is not proposed. 

Approximately 0.7 miles of new temporary road will be located and constructed to design 

standards that minimize ground disturbance, protect resources, and provide safe transportation at 

the least possible cost. 

All temporary roads, including those existing from previous entries, will be closed upon project 

completion. Road closure will include all or a combination of the following activities: (1) placing 

earth or log mound barriers to prevent vehicle traffic; (2) subsoiling and outsloping the road 

surface; (3) installing water bars and other drainage structures; and (4) mulching with native 

materials (logging slash) or certified weed-free straw. 

Alternative 3

Alternative 3 will treat approximately 3,654 acres. This alternative will use less intensive thinning 

prescriptions in all stands when compared with proposed action. There will be no created 

openings, except in stands currently with a higher proportion of pine, where the objective is to 

create small openings for goshawk foraging. When compared with the proposed action, this 

alternative places less emphasis on increasing the proportion of ponderosa pine, sugar pine, and 

white pine across the landscape, and maintains more area as untreated mid/late-successional 

habitat for wildlife than under the proposed action. Natural fuel loadings will not be treated with 

machine piling. 

Approximately 2.2 miles of temporary road will be needed to access thinning units, of which 

approximately 1.5 miles will be on non-system roads from previous harvest entries. 

Compared to the proposed action, acres of thinning from below will be reduced by about 734 

acres; in particular, thinning within late-successional habitats is reduced to 180 acres (units 37, 
Hi-Grouse Biological Evaluation 

20 

41). There will be no ponderosa pine/mixed conifer restoration and re-establishment treatments. 

This alternative does not include planting. Use of underburn only will be increased by 436 acres 

and temporary roads will be reduced by 1.6 miles. Other treatments are similar to the proposed 

action, with the differences in prescription (as described above). 

Alternative 4

Alternative 4 will treat approximately 3,995 acres. When compared to the proposed action, this 

alternative places less emphasis on increasing the proportion of ponderosa pine, sugar pine, and 

white pine across the landscape and maintains more area as untreated mid/late-successional 

habitat for wildlife. It also treats the entire 984 acres of dying lodgepole in a stand in the western 

portion of the planning area. Natural fuel loadings will be treated with machine piling where 

necessary. 

Approximately 3.1 miles of temporary road will be needed to access thinning units, of which 

approximately 1.9 miles are non-system roads from previous harvest entries. New temporary road 

construction is increased by 0.6 mile, and use of non-system roads is reduced by 1.3 miles. 

Compared to the proposed action, approximately 300 fewer acres of thinning is proposed; in 

particular, thinning within late-successional habitats and/or NSO critical habitat is reduced to 180 

acres (units 37, 41) in alternative 4. Alternative 4 eliminated ponderosa pine/mixed conifer 

restoration and re-establishment treatments throughout the planning area. The rest of the 

silviculture treatments are the same as the proposed action. 

Alternative 4 is anticipated to need about 109 landings with each being about a 0.5 acre in size. 

About 56 new landings would be constructed and about 53 existing landings would be utilized. 

All landings would be along or at the end of roads used for project implementation. 

Project Design Features 

Project design features were developed to reduce or avoid adverse environmental effects of the 

proposed alternatives to natural resources. Table 6b displays those project design features that 

would be implemented to reduce or avoid adverse environmental effects to wildlife or their 

habitats.

Table 6b. Project design features for wildlife or their habitat 

Project 

Design 

Feature* Description 

Applicable 

Unit/Alternative 

GEO-1 New lava tube or fault caves discovered during unit layout and tree 

marking will be identified and protected by the 50-foot mechanical 

equipment exclusion buffer, but may require wider buffers designated 

by the district cave coordinator or biologist. 

All

units/alternatives 

GEO-2 Newly discovered cave locations will not be identified in the EIS, 

implementation, or sale area map (SAM), and confidentiality will be 

maintained in a manner similar to that used for archaeological sites. 

All

units/alternatives 

GEO-3 If caves are discovered, prescribed fire will be allowed to back into 

cave entrance buffers and fault zones, unless otherwise specified by 

the district cave coordinator or biologist for certain caves. Ignition of 

fuels within entrance buffers and fault zones is not appropriate, unless 

such action is needed to prevent unacceptable damage to vegetation 

and organic materials within or immediately adjacent to a cave 

entrance. Burning of pack rat middens or other accumulations of 

All

units/alternatives 
Hi-Grouse Biological Evaluation 

21 

Project 

Design 

Feature* Description 

Applicable 

Unit/Alternative 

flammable material within caves or entrance buffers will be avoided. 

Fire will be excluded from the entrance buffers for caves discovered 

with sensitive bat habitat. 

GEO-4 Equipment will be excluded from any discovered cave entrance buffers 

and outcrops and talus within fault zones. This can be accomplished 

by either flagging the exclusion zones around cave entrances, or 

designating and flagging the equipment road locations after the trees 

are marked. Crossings of fault zones will be allowed, but will be 

designated or approved in the field by the district cave coordinator1

 or 

designated representative. Crossings will be where the fault trace is 

not exposed on the surface. 

All

units/alternatives 

GEO-5 Fault zones will have no disturbance buffers which coincide with the 

rock outcrops and talus deposits within the fault zone. Since outcrops 

and talus are easily recognizable, they will not be flagged on the 

ground unless required by unique circumstances. There will be no tree 

removal from the outcrop and talus areas. Equipment operators will 

typically avoid the talus and outcrops found in fault zones. 

All

units/alternatives 

GEO-6 Cave entrance buffers will either be flagged in the field prior to 

implementation or other similarly effective measures taken to prevent 

disturbances there. Subtle cave entrances that will be difficult to spot 

on the ground, such as those which are flush with the soil surface, will 

have the buffers flagged. 

All

units/alternatives 

GEO-7 Any discovered lava-tube caves, associated sink holes, or fault caves 

will be protected by a minimum 50-foot no disturbance buffer around 

the entrance. Some caves may require wider buffers and if so, will be 

designated by the district cave coordinator or biologist. 

All

units/alternatives 

GEO-8 Several fault zones, rock outcrops, and talus deposits were identified in 

the project area, and caves may be present (cave locations are 

protected from disclosure to the public by the Federal Cave Resources 

Protection Act of 1988). 

All

units/alternatives 

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% 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, no-treatment 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. All 
Hi-Grouse Biological Evaluation 

22 

Project 

Design 

Feature* Description 

Applicable 

Unit/Alternative 

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. 

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. 40% of underburn treatment 

areas will remain untreated to provide wildlife habitat. 

All

units/alternatives 

RDS-3 All non-system roads used for entry will be closed immediately 

following operations. When multiple entries are necessary for project 

completion, roads used by contractors will be closed in between each 

entry. Road closure will include all or a combination of the following 

activities: (1) placing earth or log mound barriers to prevent vehicle 

traffic; (2) subsoiling and outsloping the road surface; (3) installing 

water bars and other drainage structures; and (4) mulching with native 

materials (logging slash) or certified weed free straw. 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. 

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. 

Units 29, 30, 41 in 

fuel management 

zone along NFS 

Road 77/all 

alternatives 

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

LRMP, 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. 

All

units/alternatives 
Hi-Grouse Biological Evaluation 

23 

Project 

Design 

Feature* Description 

Applicable 

Unit/Alternative 

Purpose: To maintain goshawk habitat and eliminate disturbance to 

goshawks during the nesting season. 

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 

marten as well as denning habitat for various wildlife species. 

All

units/alternatives 

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 

1

 GEO = geological design feature; VEG = vegetation design feature; RDS = roads project design feature; WL = wildlife 

design feature. 

Sensitive Species Evaluated 

Methodology and Terminology 

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 in the field and with aerial photography. Marten and goshawk habitat was defined in the 

Goosenest Ranger District habitat matrix, developed by Elizabeth Willy (USFWS 2008) and 

Christy Cheyne. The habitat matrix along with the verified ‘e-veg04’ layer was utilized for GIS 

queries.

Terms used in the context of this document: 
Hi-Grouse Biological Evaluation 

24 

Degraded ~ some structure and/or components of the habitat have been reduced, but primary, 

important habitat components remain intact and the habitat continues to function at its current 

state. 

Downgraded ~ the modification of important habitat characteristics to the point that nesting 

habitat no longer functions as nesting habitat (i.e., becomes foraging habitat) or foraging 

habitat no longer functions as foraging habitat (i.e., becomes unsuitable or non-habitat).

Unsuitable habitat/non-habitat ~ no longer functions as habitat because important habitat 

characteristics have been removed or habitat that does not and never will provide habitat for 

the species. 

Assumptions: 

Acres listed in this document are approximate. 

New or relocated landing locations and size are approximate (~0.5 acres) 

American Marten 

Natural History 

In the southern Cascades of California, the two largest populations of marten occur in the Mt. 

Shasta and Mt. Lassen regions. The Mt. Shasta region population includes portions of the 

Klamath, Shasta-Trinity, and Modoc National Forests. The distribution of martens in California 

appears to have decreased in the southern Cascade region and there is evidence that the 

distribution of martens has become fragmented in the southern Cascades (Zielinski et al. 2005). 

Martens are closely associated with late-successional coniferous forests having complex physical 

structure at or near the ground (Slauson et al. 2000). Lower branches of living trees, tree boles in 

various stages of life and death, coarse woody debris in various forms, middens of red squirrels, 

shrubs, and rock fields can all contribute to marten structural needs (Buskirk and Zielinski 1997). 

Late-seral forest conditions provide marten with increased rest and den sites and higher numbers 

and production of preferred prey species (Kirk 2007). Large course woody debris and downfall 

provides refuge sites and allows marten access to subnivien habitat during the winter. Overhead 

canopy cover that exceeds 40 percent provides protection from predators. Larger amounts of 

habitat, larger patch sizes, and larger areas of interior forest (e.g., core areas) are important to 

marten occurrence (Kirk 2007). Corridors of mature forest with dense canopy cover and 

abundant quantities of large woody debris on the ground are important to marten for dispersal and 

travel.

Marten home range size varies depending upon prey abundance and habitat type. In the Sierra 

Nevada of California, marten home ranges have been reported to vary from 0.7 to 2.9 square 

miles (448 to 1,856 acres) for males and from 0.3 to 2.3 square miles (192 to 1,472 acres) for 

females (Buskirk and Zielinski 1997). In northern California, Self and Kerns (2001) reported 

average male home ranges of 2,560 acres (4 square miles) with a range of 667 to 6,395 acres and 

female home ranges averaged 904 acres (1.4 square miles) with a range of 546 to 1,087 acres. 

Population densities of marten are dependent upon the quality of available habitat. Population 

densities of 1.7 marten per square kilometer (247 acres) in good habitat and 0.4 marten per square 

kilometer in poor habitat have been reported (Animal Diversity Web 2009). 

Marten forage on small mammals, birds, carrion, bird eggs, insects, and fruits (NatureServe 

2008). 
Hi-Grouse Biological Evaluation 

25 

The forests preferred by martens continue to face threats from timber harvest, wildfire, and 

climate changes associated with global warming (Kirk 2007). Further loss of late-successional 

forests will adversely affect marten population viability (Kirk 2007). 

Management Direction 

Land and Resource Management Plan direction for the Klamath National Forest specific to 

marten is found on pages 4-23 to 4-24. 

Coarse Woody Debris (CWD) 

(6-16) A renewable supply of large down logs is critical for maintaining populations of fungi, 

arthropods, bryophytes, and various other organisms that use this habitat structure. Provision of 

CWD is also a key standard and guideline for American marten, fisher, two amphibians, and two 

species of vascular plants. The objective is to provide CWD well-distributed across the landscape 

in a manner which meets the needs of species and provides for ecological functions. Standards 

and guidelines would provide for appropriate CWD quantity, quality (such as species, decay 

stage, and size) and groups of plant associations and stand types, which can be used as a baseline 

for managers to develop prescriptions for landscape management. An important factor is to 

provide the CWD within a forest patch so that the appropriate microclimate for various organisms 

that use this substrate is available. 

a) Manage to provide a renewable supply of large down logs well distributed across the 

matrix landscape in a manner that meets the needs of species and provides for ecological 

functions. Develop models for groups of plant associations and stand types that can be used 

as a baseline for developing prescriptions. 

b) Until standards are developed as described above, the following guidelines apply in areas 

of regeneration harvests and other vegetation manipulation: 

Maintain 5 to 20 pieces of CWD per acre in various states of decay. The specific 

amount of materials specified for retention on individual projects shall be determined 

by the project ID team. At a minimum, the ID team should consider the amount of 

materials existing on site, the amount of material needed to provide for nutrient 

cycling and site productivity, the denning needs of wildlife species, and the fire risk 

as a result of fuel material on site. Attempt to maintain these levels of CWD on site 

throughout the life of the project or throughout the rotation (if timber harvest is 

planned). 

Leave large logs, conifer and hardwood, sound and cull of at least 20 inches in 

diameter and about 40 cubic feet in volume when they are available. Most of the logs 

should be in decay class 3, 4, and 5 (defined in the USDA Handbook 553, page 80) 

with at least two logs per acre in decay class 1 or 2. Do not count logs less than 12 

inches in diameter or stumps as CWD. This guideline may be waived in strategic 

fuelbreak areas or for documented safety reasons. 

Down logs should reflect the species mix of the original stand. In areas of partial 

harvest, the same basic guidelines should be applied, but they should be modified to 

reflect the timing of stand development cycles where partial harvesting is practiced. 

c) CWD already on the ground should be retained and protected to the greatest extent 

possible form disturbance during treatment (e.g., slash burning and yarding) which might 

otherwise destroy the integrity of the substrate. 
Hi-Grouse Biological Evaluation 

26 

d) Down logs should be left within forest patches that are retained under green-tree retention 

guidelines in order to provide the microclimate that is appropriate for various organisms that 

use this substrate. 

The Goosenest AMA Ecosystem Analysis (1996) on page 3-34 states that wildlife species found 

in the AMA that can be affected by high open road densities include American marten, 

pronghorn, mule deer, and black bear. Table 3-23 “Open Road Densities and Habitat Capability” 

displays the open road densities associated with high and medium habitat capability for wildlife 

species found in the AMA. Average open road density across the district for wildlife species 

found on the Goosenest is approximately 1.7 miles/square mile. The open road density in high 

capability habitat for American marten is less than 1 mile/square mile of paved road. Open road 

density in medium capability habitat for American marten is 1 to 2 miles/square mile of paved 

road.

Existing Condition (Environmental Baseline) 

Marten occur on the Klamath National Forest and the Goosenest Ranger District in mature white 

and red fir or mixed conifer stands. Slauson (2009) suggests marten are found in the upper 

portion (greater than 6,000 feet elevation) of the Hi-Grouse Project area. Marten are also known 

to occur adjacent to the project area on the Goosenest Ranger District, the Doublehead District of 

the Modoc National Forest (Beuttner 2009), and the McCloud Ranger District of the ShastaTrinity National Forest (Derby 2009). 

Based on marten detections made during the course of an on-going research project, Slauson 

(2010) has documented that there are four individual marten using the project area. 

Within the project area boundary at elevations greater than 6,000 feet, there are about 347 acres 

of suitable denning and resting habitat for marten. There are about 1,087 of foraging/dispersal 

habitat for marten. Within the project area at elevations at or above 6,000 feet elevation, there are 

747 acres that are not considered suitable marten habitat at this time. 

The denning/resting stand where marten were detected within the project area is characterized as 

a late-seral red fir/white fir/mixed conifer stand. The foraging/dispersal stands are mostly earlymid seral true fir (5 to 24 inches dbh) with root disease (which typically equates to heavy down 

wood) (Schantz 2009). 

Within the 14,407-acre marten analysis area (reference map 2 at end of this document) there are 

about 1,600 acres of denning and resting habitat and 8,404 acres of foraging habitat. About 4,403 

acres of the analysis area does not provide habitat for marten at this time. There are 

approximately 3 miles of paved road (Highway 15) within the marten analysis area or 0.13 miles 

per square mile of paved road within the marten analysis area. 

Environmental Consequences 

In addition to the Forest Plan standards and guidelines listed for the species, the project design 

features Veg-1-3 and WL-6–8, and WL-10–11 listed in table 6b of this document, will be applied, 

as appropriate, for the action alternatives 2, 3, and 4 below. 

Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis 

Direct and indirect effects to marten were evaluated within that portion of the project area at or 

above 6,000 feet elevation and included white fir, red fir, and mixed conifer habitat. 

The cumulative effects analysis area includes occupied marten habitat at or above 6,000 feet 

elevation approximately 2 miles adjacent to the occupied habitat that exists within the project area 

(reference map 4 at end of this document.) This analysis area was determined by using an 
Hi-Grouse Biological Evaluation 

27 

average 4 square mile home range size for a male marten (as per Self and Kerns [2001]) of which 

approximately 2 square miles of home range occurs within the project area and 2 square miles 

occurs outside the project area. 

Implementation of the Hi-Grouse 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 

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. 

In the project area, tree mortality from insects and disease would be expected to continue. 

Canopy cover would be expected to decrease over time due to the loss of dominant trees in the 

overstory from insects and disease. The amount of denning, resting, and foraging substrate for 

marten would continue to be provided and would be expected to increase over time. 

In the event of a wildfire within the project area, burn intensity, extent and post-fire conditions 

would likely vary widely, resulting in a mosaic of habitat conditions. Smith (2000) reported that 

the effects of fire on mammal species are related to the uniformity and pattern of fire on the 

landscape. Fire affects marten denning, resting, cover, and foraging habitat components. Fire has 

been cited by many authors as detrimental to American marten food and habitat (Smith 2000). 

However, a mixed-severity fire in an area of lodgepole pine, spruce, and fir in northern Idaho left 

a mosaic of forest types that supported a diversity of cover and food types favorable for marten 

(Koehler and Hornocker 1977). While large, uniform burns do not favor American marten, a 

mosaic of vegetation shaped in part by recent fire may do so (Smith 2000). 

Cumulative Effects 

There are no cumulative effects because there are no direct or indirect effects of the no-action 

alternative.

Determination of Effects and Rationale 

Alternative 1, no action, would result in no impact to marten or their habitat because no thinning, 

burning, or related activities would take place within the project area. 

Alternative 2 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Disturbance and/or displacement of marten from resting, denning, or foraging habitat within the 

project area could occur as a result of implementing alternative 2. Because of the mobility of 

marten and their large home ranges, it is unlikely, but some level of risk exists, that a resting or 

denning marten could be killed during tree thinning operations. Marten would be at a slightly 

higher risk of mortality from the anticipated increase in road traffic during alternative 2 

implementation. 

Our knowledge of the effects of different fuel reduction techniques on most wildlife and 

invertebrate species is limited (Pilliod et al. 2006). Alternative 2 would result in changes to the 

quality and quantity of available marten habitat. Alternative 2 would be expected to alter the 
Hi-Grouse Biological Evaluation 

28 

distribution of marten, marten habitat, and their prey species. Table 7 displays the location, type, 

and acres of marten habitat affected by treatments proposed in alternative 2. 
Hi-Grouse Biological Evaluation 

29 

Table 7. Effects of alternative 2 to denning/resting and foraging habitat of marten 

Unit # Prescription 

Type of Marten 

Habitat

Acres Marten 

Habitat

Treated 

Post Treatment 

Marten Habitat 

Type 

Post

Treatment 

Acres of 

Marten

Habitat

29 HTH-WF-PP-lite-NGH Foraging 29 Foraging 29 

30 PCT2-NGH Denning/Resting 

Foraging 

10 

33 

Denning/Resting 

Foraging 

10 

33 

35a HTH-MC-Hvy Foraging 50 Unsuitable 0 

35b HTH-RF Foraging 72 Foraging 72 

37 PCT2-OG-RF Denning/Resting 

Foraging 

95 

21 

Denning/Resting 

Foraging 

95 

21 

41 PCT2-OG-RF Denning/Resting 

Foraging 

55 

9

Denning/Resting 

Foraging 

55 

9

43 MCR Foraging 60 Unsuitable 0 

44 PCT2-MC Foraging 24 Foraging 24 

45a HTH-PP-Hvy Foraging 45 Unsuitable 0 

45b PPR Foraging 70 Unsuitable 0 

51 PRE Foraging 2 Unsuitable 0 

53b PCT2 Foraging 11 Foraging 11 

54 PRE Foraging 44 Unsuitable 0 

55 PCT2-MC Foraging 1 Foraging 1 

56 MCR Foraging 24 Unsuitable 0 

65a HTH-MC-lite Foraging 35 Foraging 35 

65b HTH-MC-lite Foraging 20 Foraging 20 

65c HTH-MC-lite Foraging 13 Foraging 13 

Alternative 2 would treat approximately 46 percent of the available denning and resting habitat 

for marten in the project area. About 160 acres of denning and resting habitat would be treated in 

three units. Thinning from below in units 37 and 41 was designed to maintain the current 

characteristics of late-successional denning and resting habitat preferred by marten. The 

treatments PCT-NGH and PCT2-OG which are proposed in denning and resting habitat would 

alter the quality, but not the quantity, of denning and resting habitat available to marten. 

Alternative 2 would maintain the same amount of denning and nesting habitat for marten that 

currently exists within treatment units. 

Alternative 2 would treat approximately 52 percent of the available foraging habitat available to 

marten in the project area. About 562 acres of foraging habitat in 18 units is proposed for 

treatment in alternative 2. Prescriptions HTH-MC-lite, HTH-WF-PP-lite-NGH, PCT2, PCT2-

MC, PCT-NGH, and PCT2-OG-RF would thin small trees in the understory while maintaining 

the large overstory trees across 268 acres of foraging habitat. Maintaining large overstory cone 

producing conifers would maintain flying squirrel habitat; flying squirrels are important prey 

species of marten. The quality of 268 acres of foraging habitat would be reduced following 

treatments, but would continue to provide usable habitat for marten in the short and long term. 

Prescriptions HTH-PP-Hvy, HTH-MC-Hvy, MCR, PPR, and PRE would be applied to 294 acres 

(about 27 percent) of foraging habitat. The reduction of canopy cover to less than 40 percent and 

an open forest, park-like structure on the landscape would not provide marten with suitable 

foraging/dispersal habitat and would increase the risk of predation to marten. Some of this 

habitat would be expected to return to usable marten habitat over the long term. 
Hi-Grouse Biological Evaluation 

30 

Prescriptions that reduce canopy cover would be expected to increase botanical biodiversity in the 

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

there should also be an increase in number and type of prey species available to marten. These 

effects would diminish over time as the canopy gradually closed. 

Underburning Following Thinning. Fall underburning 427 acres following thinning would 

reduce large down woody debris and snags that remain after thinning. A few snags would be 

burned up during prescribed fire operations. Some new snags would be created during 

underburns. These snags would contribute to future down woody material. In areas proposed for 

underburning, heavily decayed classes 4 and 5 would be lost and charring of large down woody 

material would be expected. Loss or charring of decadent standing snags and large down woody 

material may affect the prey base of marten in the short term. Underburning would be expected 

to increase understory structural complexity and habitat heterogeneity by stimulating shrub and 

plant (re)growth which would be beneficial to some prey species of marten. 

Fuel Management Zone. 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 marten from the available habitat. The proposed fuel 

management zone would degrade denning, resting, and foraging habitat. Denning, resting and 

foraging habitat within the fuel management zone would remain suitable and usable by marten. 

Maintaining marten habitat within the fuel management zone would continue to provide a 

corridor for marten traveling across Forest Service Road 44N77. 

Snag and Large Down Woody Material. Implementation of any thinning or prescribed burning 

is likely to result in loss of snags, future snags, and down wood, important stand attributes of 

healthy forests and critical components of wildlife and invertebrate habitat (Pilliod et al. 2006). 

Within treated areas, a few snags would be felled for safety reasons and a few would be knocked 

over during thinning processes. A few snags would be removed within fuel management zones. 

Some of the largest standing trees would not be affected by treatments and would provide future 

snag and large woody debris. Treatments that affect the number of snags and amount of down 

woody material would affect prey species and foraging opportunities of marten, especially during 

periods of snow cover. 

The amount of 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. Within thinning 

units some existing down woody material would be crushed by machinery. 

During and following treatments, current KNF LRMP snag and down woody material standards 

and guidelines would likely continue to be met. Existing numbers of snags and amounts of down 

woody debris would remain across 68 percent of the available marten habitat. Snag numbers and 

down woody material would also be unaffected in 10 to 15 percent of each unit left untreated. 

The snag and down woody material project design features would help in maintaining these 

important components to marten. As insects and diseases continue to kill trees in untreated areas, 

the number of snags and amount of down woody material would be expected to increase in those 

places. 

Other Connected Actions 

Underburning Only. This treatment will not occur in marten habitat; therefore, there would be 

no affect to marten.

Underplanting Ponderosa Pine. Underplanting and promoting the development of ponderosa 

pine would provide habitat for marten and their prey over the long term. 
Hi-Grouse Biological Evaluation 

31 

Landings. Twenty-five existing landings occurring along roads within marten habitat would be 

utilized in alternative 2. These landings currently do not provide suitable habitat for marten, 

primarily due to the lack of canopy cover within these openings. Five new half-acre landings are 

proposed along roads adjacent to marten habitat. Suitable marten habitat would be reduced by 

about 2.5 acres within these five newly created openings over the long term. 

Machine Mowing/Machine Piling. Use of machinery causes noise, which could temporarily 

disturb a marten using habitat within the vicinity of the equipment/operation. 

Road Maintenance and Use. The use and maintenance of roads within the project area may 

cause noise and disturbance to marten using habitat within the vicinity of the road(s). There 

would be no change in the miles of paved road within the marten analysis area during or after 

implementation of alternative 2. No new temporary roads are proposed within marten habitat 

within the project area. 

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

small down woody debris would temporarily increase the amount of habitat for prey species of 

marten. The presence of humans conducting biomass removal and these other activities could 

temporarily disturb or displace a marten from the vicinity. Underburning or pile burning would 

eventually be conducted and eliminate lopped and scattered material and hand piles. 

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. There are three foreseeable 

actions proposed within the marten analysis area. Map 4 at the end of this document displays the 

location of foreseeable actions relative to the marten analysis area. 

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 14,833-acre Hoffman Project occurs south of the Hi-Grouse Project area on the McCloud 

District of the Shasta-Trinity National Forest. The project is very early in the planning stages and 

the proposed action is anticipated to be developed in 2010. The project will focus on dwarf 

mistletoe areas. Group selections, sanitation, and small-diameter tree thinning may be proposed. 

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 less than 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. 

Removal of dead and dying trees would result in the loss of existing snags, future snags and down 

woody debris for snag and down woody dependent species such as martin, in the short and long 

term. Foraging substrate, resting and denning habitat and cover would be reduced for marten. 

Though the risk is low and dependent, in part, upon the width of clearing, fragmentation of 
Hi-Grouse Biological Evaluation 

32 

marten habitat and increased marten vulnerability to predation and vehicle mortality may occur as 

a result of vegetation removal along road corridors. 

Determination of Effects and Rationale 

Table 8 summarizes the changes to the current amount of marten habitat resulting from 

alternative 2 within the project area and analysis area. 

Table 8. Changes to the acres of marten habitat as proposed in alternative 2 

Marten Habitat 

Acres of Marten Habitat 

in Project Area 

Acres of Marten Habitat 

in Analysis Area 

Existing

PostAlternative 2 ExistingPostAlternative 2 

Denning/Resting 347 347 1,600 1,600 

Foraging 1,087 791 8,404 8,107 

Non-habitat 747 1,043 4,403 4,700 

Total 2,181 2,181 14,407 14,407 

Treatments proposed would reduce the incidence of insect and disease mortality, reduce the 

wildfire potential by 50 percent, prevent rapid future fuel build-up for approximately 20 years, 

and allow the reintroduction of fire within the treated areas. By reducing the risk of a standreplacement fire within marten habitat, thinning, fuel treatment zones, and underburning 

treatments proposed with alternative 2 should benefit marten over the long term. 

Therefore, Alternative 2 may impact individual marten but would not likely result in a trend 

toward listing or loss of viability.

Alternative 3 

Note: On January 4, 2010, treatments on approximately 86 in alternative 3 were dropped. This 

reduction in acres treated in alternative 3 is not reflected in the following analysis because the 

modifications did not occur in marten habitat. The results of the marten analysis for alternative 3 

that follows would not change. 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternative 3 proposes less intensive thinning prescriptions over fewer acres than either 

alternative 2 or 4. Changes to the quality and quantity of available marten habitat in the project 

area would occur as a result of implementing alternative 3, but to a lesser degree. Table 9 and 

map 3 (at the end of this document) display the location, type, and acres of marten habitat 

affected by treatments proposed in alternative 3. 
Hi-Grouse Biological Evaluation 

33 

Table 9. Effects of alternative 3 to denning/resting and foraging habitat of marten 

Unit # Prescription 

Type of Marten 

Habitat

Acres Marten 

Habitat

Treated 

Post Treatment 

Marten Habitat 

Type 

Post

Treatment 

Acres of 

Marten

Habitat

29 HTH-WF-PP-lite-NGH Foraging 29 Foraging 29 

30 HTH-MC-lite Denning/Resting 

Foraging 

10 

33 

Denning/resting 

Foraging 

10 

33 

35b HTH-RF-lite Foraging 72 Foraging 72 

37 PCT2-OG-RF Denning/Resting 

Foraging 

95 

21 

Denning/Resting 

Foraging 

95 

21 

41 PCT2-OG-RF Denning/Resting 

Foraging 

55 

9

Denning/Resting 

Foraging 

55 

9

44 PCT2-MC Foraging 24 Foraging 24 

45a HTH-PP-lite Foraging 45 Foraging 45 

53b PCT2 Foraging 11 Foraging 11 

55 PCT2-MC Foraging 1 Foraging 1 

Alternative 3 treats approximately 46 percent of the available denning and resting habitat for 

marten in the project area. About 160 acres of denning and resting habitat would be treated in 

three units. Prescriptions HTH-MC-lite and PCT2-OG-RF in units 37 and 41 were designed to 

maintain the current characteristics of late-successional denning and resting habitat preferred by 

marten. These treatments would alter the quality, but not the quantity, of denning and resting 

habitat available to marten. Alternative 3 would maintain the same amount of denning and 

nesting habitat for marten that currently exists within treatment units. 

Alternative 3 would treat approximately 23 percent of the available foraging habitat available to 

marten in the project area. About 245 acres of foraging habitat in 9 units is proposed for 

treatment in alternative 3. Prescriptions HTH-MC-lite, HTH-PP-lite, HTH-WF-PP-lite-NGH, 

HTH-RF-lite, PCT2, PCT2-MC, and PCT2-OG-RF would thin small trees in the understory while 

maintaining the large overstory trees across 245 acres of foraging habitat. The quality of 245 

acres of foraging habitat would be reduced following treatments, but would continue to provide 

usable habitat for marten in the short and long term. Alternative 3 would maintain the same 

amount of foraging habitat for marten that currently exists within treatment units. 

Underburning Following Thinning. Fall underburning of 240 acres would occur following 

thinning in alternative 3. Underburning would reduce large down woody debris and snags that 

remain after thinning. A few snags would be burned up during prescribed fire operations. Some 

new snags would be created during underburns. These snags would contribute to future down 

woody material. In areas proposed for underburning, heavily decayed classes 4 and 5 would be 

lost and charring of large down woody material would be expected. Loss or charring of decadent 

standing snags and large down woody material may affect the prey base of marten in the short 

term. Underburning would be expected to increase understory structural complexity and habitat 

heterogeneity by stimulating shrub and plant (re)growth which would be beneficial to some prey 

species of marten. 

Fuel Management Zone. 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 marten from the available habitat. The proposed fuel 

management zone would degrade denning, resting, and foraging habitat. Denning, resting and 

foraging habitat within the fuel management zone would remain suitable and usable by marten. 
Hi-Grouse Biological Evaluation 

34 

Maintaining marten habitat within the fuel management zone would continue to provide a 

corridor for marten traveling across Forest Service Road 44N77. 

Snag and Large Down Woody Material. Implementation of any thinning or prescribed burning 

is likely to result in loss of snags, future snags, and down wood, important stand attributes of 

healthy forests and critical components of wildlife and invertebrate habitat (Pilliod et al. 2006). 

Within treated areas, a few snags would be felled for safety reasons and a few would be knocked 

over during thinning processes. A few snags would be removed within fuel management zones. 

Some of the largest standing trees would not be affected by treatments and would provide future 

snag and large woody debris. Treatments that affect the number of snags and amount of down 

woody material would affect prey species and foraging opportunities of marten, especially during 

periods of snow cover. 

The amount of 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. Within thinning 

units some existing down woody material would be crushed by machinery. 

During and following treatments current KNF LRMP snag and down woody material standards 

and guidelines would likely continue to be met. Existing numbers of snags and amounts of down 

woody debris would remain across 68 percent of the available marten habitat. Snag numbers and 

down woody material would also be unaffected in 10 to 15 percent of each unit left untreated. 

The snag and down woody material project design features would help in maintaining these 

important components to marten. As insects and diseases continue to kill trees in untreated areas, 

the number of snags and amount of down woody material would be expected to increase in those 

places. 

Other Connected Actions 

Landings. Sixteen existing landings occurring along roads within marten habitat would be 

utilized in alternative 3. These landings currently do not provide suitable habitat for marten, 

primarily due to the lack of canopy cover within these openings. Suitable marten habitat would 

be reduced by 2.5 acres within five newly created openings over the long term. 

Road Maintenance and Use. The use and maintenance of roads within the project area may 

cause noise and disturbance to marten using habitat within the vicinity of the road(s). There 

would be no change in the miles of paved road within the marten analysis area during or after 

implementation of alternative 3. No new temporary roads are proposed within marten habitat 

within the project area. 

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

small down woody debris would temporarily increase the amount of habitat for prey species of 

marten. The presence of humans conducting biomass removal and these other activities could 

temporarily disturb or displace a marten from the vicinity. Underburning or pile burning would 

eventually be conducted and eliminate lopped and scattered material and hand piles. 

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. There are three foreseeable 

actions proposed within the marten analysis area. Map 4 at the end of this document displays the 

location of foreseeable actions relative to the marten analysis area. 
Hi-Grouse Biological Evaluation 

35 

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 14,833-acre Hoffman Project occurs south of the Hi-Grouse Project area on the McCloud 

District of the Shasta-Trinity National Forest. The project is very early in the planning stages and 

the proposed action is anticipated to be developed in 2010. The project will focus on dwarf 

mistletoe areas. Group selections, sanitation, and small-diameter tree thinning may be proposed. 

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 less than 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. 

Determination of Effects and Rationale 

Table 10 summarizes the changes to the current amount of marten habitat resulting from 

alternative 3 within the project area and analysis area. 

Table 10. Changes to the acres of marten habitat as proposed in alternative 3 

Marten Habitat 

Acres of Marten Habitat 

in Project Area 

Acres of Marten Habitat 

in Analysis Area 

Existing

PostAlternative 3 ExistingPostAlternative 3 

Denning/Resting 347 347 1,600 1,600 

Foraging 1,087 1,084 8,404 8,401 

Non-habitat 747 750 4,403 4,406 

Total 2,181 2,181 14,407 14,407 

Because less fuel reduction would take place, the risk of a higher intensity and/ or stand 

replacement fire within marten habitat in the project area is higher than in alternative 4. 

Alternative 3 may impact individual marten but would not likely result in a trend toward 

listing or loss of viability.

Alternative 4 

Note: On January 4, 2010, treatments on approximately 108 acres in alternative 4 were dropped. 

This reduction in acres treated in alternative 4 is not reflected in the following analysis because 

the modifications did not occur in marten habitat. The results of the marten analysis for 

alternative 4 that follows would not change. 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Map 5 (at the end of this document) and table 11 summarize the type and acres of marten habitat 

affected by treatments proposed in alternative 4. 
Hi-Grouse Biological Evaluation 

36 

Table 11. Effects of alternative 4 to denning/resting and foraging habitat of marten 

Unit # Prescription 

Type of Marten 

Habitat

Acres Marten 

Habitat

Treated 

Post Treatment 

Marten Habitat 

Type 

Post

Treatment 

Acres of 

Marten

Habitat

29 HTH-WF-PP-lite-NGH Foraging 29 Foraging 29 

30 PCT2-NGH Denning/Resting 

Foraging 

10 

33 

Denning/resting 

Foraging 

10 

33 

35b HTH-RF-lite Foraging 72 Foraging 72 

37 PCT2-OG-RF Denning/Resting 

Foraging 

95 

21 

Denning/Resting 

Foraging 

95 

21 

41 PCT2-OG-RF Denning/Resting 

Foraging 

55 

9

Denning/Resting 

Foraging 

55 

9

44 PCT2-MC Foraging 24 Foraging 24 

45a HTH-PP-Hvy Foraging 45 Unsuitable 0 

53b PCT2 Foraging 11 Foraging 11 

55 PCT2-MC Foraging 1 Foraging 1 

Alternative 4 would also treat approximately 46 percent of the available denning and resting 

habitat for marten in the project area. About 160 acres of denning and resting habitat would be 

treated in three units. Thinning from below in units 37 and 41 were designed to maintain the 

current characteristics of late-successional habitat desirable for marten. The treatments proposed 

in denning and resting habitat would alter the quality, but not the quantity, of denning and resting 

habitat available to marten. 

Alternative 4 would treat approximately 56 percent of the available foraging habitat available to 

marten in the project area. About 245 acres of foraging habitat in nine units is proposed for 

treatment in alternative 4. Presciptions HTH-PP-lite, HTH-WF-PP-lite-NGH, HTH-RF-lite, 

PCT2-NGH, PCT2-MC, PCT2, and PCT2-OG-RF would thin small trees in the understory while 

maintaining the large overstory trees. The quality of 200 acres of marten foraging habitat would 

be reduced following treatments, but would continue to provide usable habitat for marten in the 

short and long term. Application of prescription HTH-PP-HVY to 45 acres (about 4 percent) of 

foraging habitat would alter marten foraging habitat to the extent that it would become unsuitable 

for use by marten long term. 

Underburning Following Thinning. Fall underburning of 97 acres would occur following 

thinning in alternative 4. The effects of underburning in marten habitat would be the same as 

discussed in alternative 3, but would occur across fewer acres. 

Fuel Management Zone. The effects to marten habitat in the fuel management zone would be 

the same as discussed in alternative 3. The effects of to snags and down woody material would be 

similar to alternative 3. 

Other Connected Actions 

Landings. Sixteen existing landings occurring along roads within marten habitat would be 

utilized in alternative 4. These landings currently do not provide suitable habitat for marten, 

primarily due to the lack of canopy cover within these openings. Four new half-acre landings are 

proposed along roads adjacent to marten habitat. Suitable marten habitat would be reduced by 

about 2 acres within these four newly created openings over the long term. 

Other connected actions in marten habitat would be the same as discussed in alternative 3. 
Hi-Grouse Biological Evaluation 

37 

Foreseeable Cumulative Effects 

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

Determination of Effects and Rationale 

Table 12 summarizes the changes to the current amount of marten habitat resulting from 

alternative 4 within the project area and analysis area. 

Table 12. Changes to the acres of marten habitat as proposed in alternative 4 

Marten Habitat 

Acres of Marten Habitat 

in Project Area 

Acres of Marten Habitat 

in Analysis Area 

Existing

PostAlternative 4 ExistingPostAlternative 4 

Denning/Resting 347 347 1,600 1,600 

Foraging 1,087 1,040 8,404 8,357 

Non-habitat 747 794 4,403 4,450 

Total 2,181 2,181 14,407 14,407 

The risk of a higher intensity and/or stand replacement fire within marten habitat in the project 

area would be lower than in alternative 3. 

Alternative 4 may impact individual marten but would not likely result in a trend toward 

listing or loss of viability.

Northern Goshawk 

Natural History 

Northern goshawks have broad geographic and elevational distributions in North America 

(Andersen et al. 2004). In northern California, goshawks are considered permanent residents 

(NatureServe 2008). There are no reliable population trend data on goshawks in the western 

United States (Andersen et al. 2004). Goshawk populations in California are considered 

vulnerable (NatureServe 2008). 

The size of goshawk home ranges vary regionally, seasonally, and individually. Goshawks 

exhibit considerable versatility in habitat use. Forested stands with complex structure having 

large amounts of down woody debris and snags provide the best foraging habitat for goshawks. 

Adequate perches for hunting and flight space for maneuvering are other important characteristics 

of forested stands used for foraging by goshawks. The majority of species that prefer latesuccessional characteristics, such as the goshawk, find suitable habitat in size classes 4–6, with 25 

foot or greater crown diameters and crown closure densities exceeding 39 percent (Graham et al. 

1999). 

Goshawks prey on a variety of species that inhabit both early- and late-successional forests 

(Andersen et al. 2004). Medium sized birds such as northern flickers, American robins, and 

Steller’s jays, and small mammals such as tree and ground squirrels, rabbits, hares, and 

chipmunks are primary prey of goshawks. Keane (1999) found Douglas squirrels to be a yearround key prey species of goshawks in the Lake Tahoe region of California. 

Goshawks select nest areas that are typically composed of late-successional forests. In general, 

nests are constructed in the largest trees of dense, mature stands with high canopy closure (60 to 
Hi-Grouse Biological Evaluation 

38 

88 percent) in northern California (Hargis et al. 1993) with an open understory (The Nature 

Conservancy 1999). Goshawk territories typically have more than one nest. Woodbridge et al. 

(1993) found that goshawk territories in northern California typically used three to nine 

alternative nests distributed among one to five different forest stands ranging from 10 to 284 

acres in size. Distances between territories ranged between 0.8 and 3.8 miles (Woodbridge et al. 

1993). 

Timber harvest that includes removal of large nest trees reducing stand density and canopy cover 

is the principal threat to breeding populations (NatureServe 2008). Fire suppression and insect 

and tree disease outbreaks can result in the deterioration or loss of nesting habitat (Graham et al. 

1999). 

Management Direction 

The Klamath LRMP provides interim standards and guidelines on page 4-29 for northern 

goshawks within the Klamath and California Cascade Provinces. 

Planned timber sale areas should be surveyed to Region 5 protocol for goshawks for a minimum 

of one season (intensive protocol) or two seasons (broadcast only). 

I. Primary Nest Zone 

Establish a 0.5-mile radius circle (504 acres) around the last known nest or the geometric 

center of a cluster of all known nests. Within this circle, maintain 40 percent (200 acres; 

California Cascades/Eastern Klamath Province) or 60 percent (300 acres; Western 

Klamath/California Coastal Provinces) in dense mature forest cover (>>60 percent CC, >>24 

inches DBH [4B,C+]). The existing nest stand should be used to determine desired forest 

structure. This 200-acre (or 300-acre) area should include the active and historic nest stands 

and be as contiguous as possible relative to existing conditions. The remaining 60 percent (or 

40 percent) should be managed for a habitat mosaic dominated by large-tree conditions and 

open understories (3N, G - 4P, N, G+), but lower canopy closure (40 to 60 percent) and small 

openings are allowable. Encourage the use of underburning, precommercial thinning and 

fuels reduction to achieve desired habitat conditions. 

II. Foraging Habitat Zone 

Establish a 1-mile radius circle (2,010 acres: 1,506 acres excluding primary nest zone) 

centered on the primary nest zone. Maintain 60 percent (900 acres) in a mosaic of mid-mature 

(3N, G+) to late-successional forest condition. Desired conditions include open understories, 

large CWD, large snags, and small openings. The remaining 40 percent can be younger 

stands with small openings. Encourage the use of underburning, fuels reduction, and thinning 

to achieve desired habitat conditions. 

III. Disturbance 

Restrict habitat-modifying activities between March 1 and August 31 within primary nest 

zone (0.5 mile radius). Restrict loud and/or continuous noise within 0.25 miles of active nest 

sites during the same period. Normal levels of vehicle traffic on existing roads may be 

excluded in cases where goshawks appear to be habituated to such activities. 

In addition, management direction listed for coarse woody debris on pages 4-23 and 4-24 and 

snags on page 4-30 also apply to goshawks because they are also important features of goshawk 

habitat. 
Hi-Grouse Biological Evaluation 

39 

Spatial Scales Analyzed and Timelines Analyzed 

Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to goshawks were evaluated across the project area as 

well as for each territory that occurred wholly or partially within the project area. 

Implementation of the Hi-Grouse 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 thinning units are completed (i.e., 9 or 10 years after project start) 

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

implementation and long-term effects would be those occurring in excess of 50 years. 

Existing Condition (Environmental Baseline) 

Goshawks occur on the Klamath National Forest and the Goosenest Ranger District. About 12 

percent or 873 acres out of the 7,451-acre Hi-Grouse Project area is suitable goshawk nesting 

habitat. The project area has 4,442 acres (60 percent) of foraging habitat. About 2,136 acres (29 

percent) is not considered goshawk habitat. 

There are five known goshawk territories partially or completely within the Hi-Grouse Project 

area. Map 6 (at the end of this document) displays the location of the goshawk territories and 

existing habitat relative to the project area. Table 13 displays the amount of existing goshawk 

habitat within the primary nest zone (PNZ) and foraging area (FA) of each of the five territories. 

Table 13. Existed amount of goshawk habitat by territory 

Primary Nest Zone (PNZ) Foraging Area (FA) 

Foraging Nesting Non-Habitat Nesting/Foraging Non-Habitat 

Territory Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres %

Rainbow 90 18 222 44 192 38 714 47 794 53

Red Cap 193 38 184 36 127 25 612 40 896 60

Davis 256 51 238 47 10 2 1,215 81 293 19

Hi Ridge 324 64 114 23 65 13 1,265 84 243 16

West Grouse 322 64 63 13 117 23 1,191 79 317 21

The Red Cap, Hi Ridge, and West Grouse goshawk territories all lack the desired 40 percent 

nesting habitat within their primary nest zones. The Rainbow, Red Cap, and Davis territories lack 

the desired 60 percent foraging habitat in their primary nest zones. The Rainbow and Red Cap 

territories also lack the desired 60 percentage foraging/nesting habitat in their foraging areas.

None of the five territories meet all of the Klamath LRMP standards and guidelines for suitable 

amounts of goshawk nesting and foraging habitat within the primary nest zone and foraging 

areas. 

Surveys of the five goshawk territories have consistently been conducted for a number of years. 

Table 14 displays the findings of the last 4 years of surveys for the five territories. (Complete 

survey and activity records following nest discovery and prior to 2006 are included in the project 

record.)
Hi-Grouse Biological Evaluation 

40 

Table 14. Year 2006 through 2009 goshawk survey findings 

Year of 

Discovery 

Territory 

Name 2006 2007 2008 2009 

1987 Rainbow Surveyed; no 

sign/response 

Surveyed; 

evidence of 

activity; no nest 

found 

Surveyed; no 

sign/ response 

Surveyed; no 

sign/ 

response

1986 Red Cap Surveyed; no 

sign/response 

Surveyed; 

evidence of 

activity; no nest 

found 

Surveyed; no 

sign/response 

Surveyed; no 

sign/ 

response

1992 Davis Surveyed; no 

sign/ response 

Surveyed; 

evidence of 

activity; no nest 

found 

Surveyed; no 

sign/response 

Surveyed; no 

sign/ 

response

1983 Hi Ridge Surveyed; nest 

activity; one 

juvenile

goshawk found 

Surveyed; 

goshawk sighted; 

no nest found 

Surveyed; 

evidence of 

activity; no nest 

found 

Surveyed; 

nest activity; 

one juvenile 

goshawk 

found 

2000 West

Grouse 

Surveyed; no 

sign/response 

Surveyed; no 

sign/response 

Surveyed; 

evidence of 

activity; no nest 

found 

Surveyed; no 

sign/ 

response

Environmental Consequences 

In addition to the Forest Plan standards and guidelines listed for the species, the project design 

features VEG-1-4, VEG-10, WL-1, WL-4-10, and WL-12–13 as listed in table 6b of this 

document, will be applied, as appropriate, for the action alternatives 2, 3, and 4. 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

Direct 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. 

In the project area, tree mortality from insects and disease would be expected to continue. 

Canopy cover would be expected to decrease over time due to the loss of dominant trees in the 

overstory from insects and disease. Snag numbers and down woody material would be expected 

to gradually increase as trees die due to crowded conditions, insects, and disease. Further 

development of large old trees within stands would likely progress slowly due to existing tree 

densities and competition for sunlight, nutrients and water. 

In the event of a wildfire within the project area, burn intensity, extent and post-fire conditions 

would likely vary widely, resulting in a mosaic of habitat conditions. Wildfire would affect the 

amount and distribution of nesting and foraging habitat available to goshawks. Habitat 

components important to goshawks and their prey, such as snags, vertical and horizontal 

structure, canopy closure and large down woody material would be affected by wildfire. 

Conditions following a wildfire event would influence the continued use of the remaining suitable 

habitat by goshawks. 
Hi-Grouse Biological Evaluation 

41 

Cumulative Effects 

There are no cumulative effects because there are no direct or indirect effects of the no-action 

alternative.

Determination of Effects and Rationale 

There would be no change to the existing amount and quality of habitat for goshawks within the 

Hi-Grouse Project area; therefore, alternative 1 (no action) would result in no impact to 

goshawks or their habitat. 

Alternative 2 

Note: Since the initiation of this document in November 2009, alternative 2 was found to not 

comply with Forest Plan S&G 8-20 for maintaining goshawk habitat. Modifying alternative 2 to 

meet S&G 8-20 would result in an alternative similar to alternative 3 or 4. On January 4, 2010, 

alternative 2 was dropped from detailed analysis, and slight modifications were incorporated into 

alternatives 3 and 4 to drop approximately 86 and 108 acres of treatment, respectively, to comply 

with Forest Plan S&G 8-20. Alternative 4 also includes a change in one unit's prescription to a 

lighter level of thinning. At the same time, updated information on the existing amount of 

available goshawk habitat in the Rainbow and Red Cap territories based on updated field reviews 

were incorporated. The existing condition habitat data for the primary nest zones and foraging 

areas of the Rainbow and Red Cap territories have not been corrected in alternative 2.The 

following analysis of effects to goshawk discloses the effects discussion for the proposed action, 

alternative 2, for comparison purposes. The analysis of alternatives 3 and 4 disclosed below 

incorporates the modifications noted above. 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Project design features WL-3, -4 and -5 on page 23 of this document would minimize the 

likelihood of disturbance or displacement of goshawks during implementation of alternative 2. 

Mortality to goshawks from any activities proposed would not be expected. 

Alternative 2 would result in changes to the quantity and quality of goshawk habitat within the 

project area and within each of the five goshawk territories. Alternative 2 would treat 74 percent 

of the available goshawk nesting and foraging habitat within the project area. 

Approximately 329 acres, or 45 percent of the suitable nesting habitat, would be treated in 

alternative 2. Treatments would downgrade 20 acres of nesting habitat to foraging habitat within 

the project area. A total of 709 acres of nesting habitat would remain in the project area 

following treatments proposed in alternative 2. 

Within the project area, about 3,660 acres, or 79 percent of goshawk foraging habitat, would be 

treated in alternative 2. Actions proposed in alternative 2 would downgrade 2,030 acres (a 44 

percent decrease) of foraging habitat across the project area. Following treatments proposed in 

alternative 2, there would be 1,649 acres of foraging habitat within the project area. 

Quantified Changes to the Five Goshawk Territories 

Approximately 2,721 acres of nesting and foraging habitat within the five territories would be 

treated in alternative 2. Habitat in each of the five goshawk territories affected by alternative 2 

was evaluated separately. 

Rainbow Territory. Table 15 displays the acres of treatments proposed in the Rainbow Territory 

and discloses the effects to the goshawk habitat in the primary nest zone and foraging area. 
Hi-Grouse Biological Evaluation 

42 

Table 15. Acres of treatments within units and effects to habitat of the Rainbow Goshawk Territory 

as proposed in alternative 2 

Management 

Zone 

Habitat PreTreatment Unit Rx Treatment Habitat Post Treatment Acres 

Primary Nest Zone 

Foraging 9 PCT2 Foraging 10 

Total Foraging Maintained 10 

8 PRE Non-habitat 1 

10 HTH-PP-Hvy Non-habitat 37 

11 HTH-PP-Hvy Non-habitat 113 

12a HTH-LP Non-habitat 2 

Total Foraging Removed 153 

Foraging Area 

Foraging 1 HTH-PP Foraging 13 

2 HTH-PP Foraging 45 

6 HTH-PP Foraging 3 

7 HTH-PP Foraging 90 

9 PCT2 Foraging 7 

Total Foraging Maintained 158 

3 HTH-PP-Hvy Non-habitat 10 

8 HTH-PP-Hvy Non-habitat 88 

11 PRE Non-habitat 77 

Total Foraging Removed 175 

Nesting habitat in the primary nest zone of the Rainbow Territory would be unaffected by actions 

proposed in alternative 2. Of the 163 acres of foraging habitat treated within the primary nest 

zone, 10 acres would be degraded, but would remain foraging habitat, and 153 acres would 

become unsuitable for foraging goshawks for the long term. 

In the foraging area of the Rainbow Territory, 333 acres of foraging habitat would be treated in 

alternative 2. Alternative 2 treatments would remove 175 acres of foraging habitat. A total of 

153 acres of foraging habitat would be degraded, but would continue to function as foraging 

habitat.

A total of 242 acres of non-habitat would also be treated in the Rainbow Territory in alternative 2. 

Treatments proposed in non-habitat would not affect the amount of available suitable habitat for 

goshawks within the Rainbow Territory. 

Table 16 displays the amount of goshawk habitat in the primary nest zone and foraging area of 

the Rainbow Territory before and after treatments proposed in alternative 2. 

Table 16. Changes to the amount of habitat within the Rainbow Territory as proposed in alternative 2 

Primary Nest Zone (PNZ) Foraging Area (FA) 

Foraging Nesting Non-Habitat Foraging Nesting Non-Habitat 

Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres %

Pretreatment 413 82 48 10 42 8 970 64 22 2 516 34

Posttreatment 259 51 48 10 197 39 795 53 22 1 691 46

There would be no change in the amount of available goshawk nesting habitat in the primary nest 

zone of the Rainbow Territory with the implementation of alternative 2. Approximately 24 
Hi-Grouse Biological Evaluation 

43 

percent, or 329 acres of foraging habitat in both the primary nest zone and foraging area, would 

become unsuitable to goshawks following treatments proposed in alternative 2. Following 

treatments proposed in alternative 2, the desired amount of foraging habitat in the primary nest 

zone and foraging area would be below 60 percent. 

Red Cap Territory. About 164 acres of habitat not considered suitable for goshawks is proposed 

for treatment within the Red Cap Territory in alternative 2. Alternative 2 does not propose to 

treat any nesting habitat in either the primary nest zone or foraging area within the Red Cap 

Territory; therefore, there would be no change in the amount of nesting habitat available to 

goshawks in the Red Cap Territory. One acre of foraging habitat in the foraging area would be 

removed in the Red Cap Territory. 

Davis Territory. Table 17 displays the acres of treatments proposed in the Davis Territory and 

discloses the effects to the goshawk habitat in the primary nest zone and foraging area. 

Table 17. Acres of treatments within units and effects to habitat of the Davis Goshawk Territory as 

proposed in alternative 2 

Management 

Zone 

Habitat PreTreatment Unit Rx Treatment Habitat Post Treatment Acres 

Primary Nest Zone 

Foraging 16 HTH-WF-PP-lite-NSO Foraging 49 

17 PCT2 Foraging 29 

19 HTH-WF-PP Foraging 25 

24 HTH-WF-PP-lite_NSO Forging 9 

Total Foraging Maintained 138 

Nesting 16 HTH-WF-PP-lite-NSO Nesting 103 

23 HTH-WP-PP-lite-NSO Nesting 6 

Total Nesting Maintained 109 

19 HTH-WF-PP Foraging 8 

Total Nesting Downgraded 8 

Foraging Area

Foraging 5 HTH-PP Foraging 17 

6 HTH-PP Foraging 29 

7 HTH-PP Foraging 1 

19 HTH-WF-PP Foraging 108 

21a HTH-WF-PP Foraging 45 

21b PCT2 Foraging 7 

22 HTH-WF-PP Foraging 109 

24 HTH-WF-PP-lite-NSO Foraging 62 

Total Foraging Maintained 378 

Nesting 23 HTH-WF-PP-lite-NGH Nesting 26 

Total Nesting Maintained 26 

19 HTH-WF-PP Foraging 12 

Total Nesting Downgraded 12 

About 117 acres of nesting habitat in the primary nest zone of the Davis Territory would be 

treated in alternative 2. Of the 117 acres of nesting habitat treated in the primary nest zone, 109 

acres would be degraded, but would remain nesting habitat. Eight acres of nesting habitat in the 
Hi-Grouse Biological Evaluation 

44 

primary nest zone would be downgraded to foraging habitat. All 138 acres of foraging habitat 

treated in the primary nest zone would be degraded, but would remain suitable foraging habitat 

for goshawks. 

In the foraging area of the Davis Territory, 378 acres of foraging habitat would be treated in 

alternative 2. These 378 acres of foraging habitat would be degraded, but would remain suitable 

foraging habitat for goshawks. Thirty-eight acres of nesting habitat would be treated within the 

foraging area of the Davis Territory. Twelve acres of nesting habitat would be downgraded to 

foraging habitat and 26 acres of nesting habitat would be degraded, but would remain suitable 

nesting habitat in the foraging area of the Davis Territory. 

Within the foraging area of the Davis Territory, 42 acres of foraging habitat (acres not included in 

the treatment units listed in table 17) would be treated within the fuel management zone. All 42 

acres of foraging habitat treated within the fuel management zone would become unsuitable. 

About 743 acres of non-habitat would also be treated in the Davis Territory in alternative 2. 

Treatments proposed in non-habitat would not affect the amount of available suitable habitat for 

goshawks within the Davis Territory. 

Table 18 displays the amount of goshawk habitat in the primary nest zone and foraging area of 

the Davis Territory before and after treatments proposed in alternative 2. 

Table 18. Changes to the amount of habitat within the Davis Goshawk Territory as proposed in 

alternative 2 

Primary Nest Zone (PNZ) Foraging Area (FA) 

Foraging Nesting Non-Habitat Foraging Nesting Non-Habitat 

Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres %

Pretreatment 

256 51 238 47 9 2 1,100 73 115 8 293 19 

Posttreatment 

169 33 230 46 105 21 7041 47 102 7 702 47 

1

 Includes fuel management zone acres. 

There would be a 2 percent decrease in the amount of available goshawk nesting habitat in the 

Davis Territory with the implementation of alternative 2. The amount of nesting habitat available 

to goshawks in the primary nest zone of the Davis Territory would remain above 40 percent 

following treatments proposed in alternative 2. 

Approximately 483 acres of foraging habitat in both the primary nest zone and foraging area 

would become unsuitable to goshawks following treatments proposed in alternative 2. Unsuitable 

or non-habitat would increase by 505 acres following treatments proposed in alternative 2. The 

desired amount of foraging habitat in the primary nest zone and foraging area would be below 60 

percent.

Hi Ridge Territory. A portion of the foraging area of the Davis Goshawk Territory and the Hi 

Ridge Goshawk Territory overlap. Table 19 displays the acres of treatments proposed in the Hi 

Ridge Territory and discloses the effects to the goshawk habitat in the primary nest zone and 

foraging area. 
Hi-Grouse Biological Evaluation 

45 

Table 19. Acres of treatments within units and effects to habitat of the Hi Ridge Goshawk Territory as 

proposed in alternative 2 

Management 

Zone 

Habitat PreTreatment Unit Rx Treatment Habitat Post Treatment Acres 

Primary Nest 

Zone 

Foraging 29 HTH-WF-PP-lite-NGH Foraging 37 

30 PCT2-NGH Foraging 35 

65a HGH-MC-lite Foraging 8 

Total Foraging Maintained 80 

Nesting 30 PCT2-NGH Nesting 10 

Total Nesting Maintained 10 

Foraging Area

Foraging 35b HTH-RF Foraging 68 

37 PCT2-OG-RF Foraging 21 

41 PCT2-OG-RF Foraging 7 

65a HTH-MC-lite Foraging 27 

65b HTH-MC-lite Foraging 20 

65c HTH-MC-lite Foraging 11 

Total Foraging Maintained 154 

26 PRE2 Non-habitat 8 

28 HTH-MC-Hvy Non-habitat 35 

35a HTH-MC-Hvy Non-habitat 54 

43 MCR Non-habitat 1 

45b PPR Non-habitat 27 

62 PRE2 Non-habitat 23 

Total Foraging Removed 148 

Nesting 37 PCT2-OG-RF Nesting 95 

41 PCT2-OG-RF Nesting 16 

Total Nesting Maintained 111 

About 10 acres of nesting habitat in the primary nest zone of the Hi Ridge Territory would be 

treated in alternative 2. These 10 acres of nesting habitat would be degraded, but would remain 

nesting habitat. All 80 acres of foraging habitat treated in the primary nest zone would be 

degraded, but would remain suitable foraging habitat for goshawks. 

In the foraging area of the Hi Ridge Territory, 302 acres of foraging habitat would be treated in 

alternative 2. Of the 302 acres of foraging habitat treated, 154 acres (51 percent) of foraging 

habitat would be degraded, but would remain suitable foraging habitat for goshawks. About 148 

acres of foraging habitat would be removed, becoming unsuitable to goshawks. About 111 acres 

of nesting habitat would be treated within the foraging area of the Hi Ridge Territory. These 111 

acres of nesting habitat would be degraded, but would remain suitable nesting habitat in the 

foraging area of the Hi Ridge Territory. 

Within the primary nest zone of the Hi Ridge Territory, 8 acres (acres not included in the 

treatment units listed in table 19) of nesting habitat would be degraded by treatments within the 

fuel management zone. Thirteen acres of foraging habitat within the primary nest zone of the Hi 

Ridge Territory would be downgraded to non-habitat within the fuel management zone. 

Within the foraging area of the Hi Ridge Territory, 65 acres (acres not included in the treatment 

units listed in table 19) of foraging habitat would be treated within the fuel management zone. 

All 65 acres of foraging habitat treated within the fuel management zone would become 

unsuitable. Also within the foraging area of the Hi Ridge Territory, 6 acres (acres not included in 

the treatment units listed in table 19) of nesting habitat would be degraded by treatments within 

the fuel management zone. These 6 acres would remain goshawk nesting habitat. 
Hi-Grouse Biological Evaluation 

46 

About 121 acres of non-habitat would also be treated in the Hi Ridge Territory in alternative 2. 

Treatments proposed in non-habitat would not affect the amount of available suitable habitat for 

goshawks within the Hi Ridge Territory. 

Table 20 displays the amount of goshawk habitat in the primary nest zone and foraging area of 

the Hi Ridge Territory before and after treatments proposed in alternative 2. 

Table 20. Changes to the amount of habitat within the Hi Ridge Goshawk Territory as proposed in 

alternative 2 

Primary Nest Zone (PNZ) Foraging Area (FA) 

Foraging Nesting Non-Habitat Foraging Nesting Non-Habitat 

Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres %

Pretreatment 

324 64 114 23 65 13 1,007 67 258 17 242 16 

Posttreatment* 

311 62 114 23 78 16 795 53 258 17 455 30 

*Includes fuel management zone acres. 

West Grouse Hill Territory. There would be no change in the amount of available goshawk 

nesting habitat in the primary nest zone or foraging area of the West Grouse Hill Territory with 

the implementation of alternative 2. 

Approximately 225 acres of foraging habitat in both the primary nest zone and foraging area 

would become unsuitable to goshawks following treatments proposed in alternative 2. Unsuitable 

or non-habitat would increase by 225 acres following treatments proposed in alternative 2. The 

desired amount of foraging habitat in the primary nest zone would remain above 60 percent. In 

the foraging area, when foraging habitat is combined with nesting habitat (nesting habitat does 

provide foraging habitat, but foraging habitat does not necessarily provide nesting habitat) 

foraging habitat would remain above the desired 60 percent level. 

Table 21 displays the acres of treatments proposed in the West Grouse Hill Territory and 

discloses the effects to the goshawk habitat in the primary nest zone and foraging area. 
Hi-Grouse Biological Evaluation 

47 

Table 21. Acres of treatments within units and effects to habitat of the West Grouse Hill Goshawk 

Territory as proposed in alternative 2 

Management 

Zone 

Habitat Pre 

Treatment Unit Rx Treatment Habitat Post Treatment Acres 

Primary Nest Zone 

Foraging 53b PCT2 Foraging 4 

55 PCT2-MC Foraging 1 

Total Foraging Maintained 5 

45a HTH-PP-Hvy Non-habitat 10 

54 PRE Non-habitat 54 

Total Foraging Removed 64 

Nesting 30 PCT2-NGH Nesting 10 

Total Nesting Maintained 10 

Foraging Area

Foraging 44 PCT2-MC Foraging 23 

53a UB Foraging 27 

53b PCT2-MC Foraging 33 

Total Foraging Maintained 83 

43 MCR Non-habitat 52 

45a HTH-PP-Hvy Non-habitat 48 

45b PRE Non-habitat 90 

51 PRE Non-habitat 76 

54 PPR Non-habitat 6 

56 MCR Non-habitat 24 

Total Foraging Removed 296 

Nesting 41 PCT2-OG-RF Nesting 3 

Total Nesting Maintained 3 

About 10 acres of nesting habitat in the primary nest zone of the West Grouse Hill Territory 

would be treated in alternative 2. These 10 acres of nesting habitat would be degraded, but would 

remain nesting habitat. Of the 69 acres of foraging habitat treated in the primary nest zone of the 

West Grouse Hill Territory, 5 acres of foraging habitat would be degraded, but would remain 

foraging habitat. About 64 acres of foraging habitat in the primary nest zone would become 

unsuitable for goshawks. 

In the foraging area of the West Grouse Hill Territory, 3 acres of nesting habitat would be 

degraded, but would remain nesting habitat for goshawks. About 379 acres of foraging habitat in 

the foraging area would be treated in alternative 2. Of the 302 acres of foraging habitat treated, 

83 acres of foraging habitat would be degraded, but would remain suitable foraging habitat for 

goshawks. About 296 acres of foraging habitat would be removed, becoming unsuitable to 

goshawks.

About 137 acres of non-habitat would also be treated in the West Grouse Hill Territory in 

alternative 2. Treatments proposed in non-habitat would not affect the amount of available 

suitable habitat for goshawks within the West Grouse Hill Territory. 
Hi-Grouse Biological Evaluation 

48 

Table 22. Changes to the amount of habitat within the West Grouse Hill Goshawk Territory as 

proposed in alternative 2 

Primary Nest Zone (PNZ) Foraging Area (FA) 

Foraging Nesting Non-Habitat Foraging Nesting Non-Habitat 

Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres %

Pretreatment 

322 64 63 13 117 23 1,130 75 61 4 317 21 

Posttreatment 

258 51 63 13 181 36 835 55 61 4 612 41 

There would be no change in the amount of available goshawk nesting habitat in the primary nest 

zone of the West Grouse Hill Territory with the implementation of alternative 2. Approximately 

359 acres of foraging habitat in both the primary nest zone and foraging area would become 

unsuitable to goshawks following treatments proposed in alternative 2. Following treatments 

proposed in alternative 2, the desired amount of foraging habitat in the primary nest zone and 

foraging area would be below 60 percent. 

Qualitative Changes to Goshawk Habitat Within the Project Area and Territories

The effects of different fuel reduction techniques on most wildlife and invertebrate species are 

limited (Pilliod et al. 2006). In addition to the quantity of habitat affected by treatments proposed 

in alternative 2, the quality of the available nesting and foraging habitat available to goshawks 

would also be altered. Several different thin-from-below prescriptions would be utilized in 

alternative 2; the effects to goshawk habitat and habitat components important to goshawks 

would vary. The immediate effect of fuel reduction and thinning treatments would be a change in 

the structure of vegetation (Pilliod et al. 2006). 

Alternative 2 emphasizes the restoration and re-establishment of ponderosa pine within the 

project area. Thinning from below would be used to increase the proportion of ponderosa, sugar, 

and white pine by selective removal of true fir where possible. Ponderosa pine restoration and reestablishment treatments would use a heavy thinning from below with underplanting of widelyspaced ponderosa pine and sugar pine to create a two-layered stand. Eventually, pine would 

come to dominate the sites as the white fir succumbs to the continued effects of root disease. By 

promoting ponderosa pine there would be an increase fire-resistance across the landscape. 

Mature ponderosa pine stands are utilized by goshawks for nesting and foraging. Alternative 2 

would promote the development and increase the amount of habitat available to goshawks over 

the long term. 

Prescriptions HTH-PP, HTH-PP-Hvy, HTH-WF-PP, AND HTH-MC-Hvy. Canopy cover in 

the pine-dominated thinnings (HTH-PP) would be reduced to approximately 33 percent after 

thinning and would be about 35 percent in 2029. In the white fir-dominated thinnings (HTH-WFPP), canopy cover would be reduced to approximately 37 percent, and would reach 40 percent in 

2029. Emphasis would be placed on retaining the largest and healthiest pine trees in a patchy 

clumpy variable pattern with small gaps and some openings ranging in size from 0.25 to 1 acre. 

While the canopy cover in pine and white fir dominated thinnings would be less than 40 percent 

over a portion of the treated stands in the short term, goshawks would likely continue to utilize 

the denser and unthinned patches for foraging. Heavy thinnings in pine (HTH-PP-Hvy) would 

reduce canopy cover below 30 percent. These stands would provide an open forest, park-like 

structure on the landscape and would be expected to provide a limited amount of foraging habitat 

for goshawks, particularly in the denser patches and clumps of remaining trees in the short term. 
Hi-Grouse Biological Evaluation 

49 

Over the long term, these ponderosa pine stands would be expected to continue to increase in 

diameter and canopy closure and provide goshawks with foraging habitat and nest trees. 

Light thinning (HTH-WF-PP-lite, HTH-MC-lite). White fir, ponderosa pine, and red fir stands 

would be degraded following light thinning. Some vertical and horizontal structure would be 

reduced when less than 20 inch dbh understory trees are removed. These stands would be 

maintained at a higher density of trees per acre. A reduction in the number of smaller trees in the 

understory would reduce competition for nutrients, light, and water, and increase the growth and 

size of the largest remaining healthy trees and contribute to the development of late-successional 

stand conditions over time. A reduction in the number of smaller trees in the understory would 

increase goshawk maneuverability while foraging; however, some structure for prey species 

would also be reduced. Light thinning from below would maintain goshawk habitat in the project 

area for the short and long term. 

Prescriptions PPR, PRE, PRE2, and MCR. White fir-dominated stands with a high-incidence 

of root disease would be thinned and underplanted with pine. These stands would be an open 

forest with a park-like structure and would not provide goshawks with habitat in the short term. 

These stands would be expected to provide foraging habitat for goshawks in the long term. 

Small-tree Thinning Treatments (PCT2, PCT2-MC, PCT2-NGH, PCT2-OG-RF). These 

treatments would thin small trees in the understory while maintaining the large overstory trees. 

Maintaining large overstory cone-producing conifers would maintain Douglas squirrel and 

Steller’s jay habitat, both of which are important prey species of goshawks. Foraging habitat for 

goshawks would be maintained in the short term. Over the long term, these stands would be 

expected to develop into nest stands for goshawks. 

A reduction in canopy cover and tree density would be expected to cause a shift in habitat use by 

goshawks and prey species home ranges. The reduction in canopy would be expected to increase 

botanical biodiversity in the understory and at ground level. With the increase in amount of 

herbaceous and shrub growth, there should also be an increase in number and type of prey species 

available to goshawks. Reduction of canopy cover may increase the risk of predation to 

goshawks and/or competition by raptors such as red-tailed hawks or great horned owls that utilize 

the more open canopy conditions that some of the treatments would produce. These effects would 

diminish over time as the canopy gradually closed. 

Lodgepole Pine Thinning. The treatment of lodgepole pine stands would have no effect on the 

quantity or quality of goshawk habitat because it is not considered to be goshawk habitat at this 

point in time. Over the long term, this habitat would likely be utilized by goshawks for foraging, 

particularly as the trees increase in size and canopy cover improves. 

Underburning Following Thinning. Table 23 displays the number of acres proposed for 

underburning in alternative 2 in the primary nest zones and foraging areas of the five goshawk 

territories.
Hi-Grouse Biological Evaluation 

50 

Table 23. Acres of underburning within each goshawk territory 

Territory Primary Nest Zone Acres Foraging Area Acres 

Rainbow 159 345 

Red Cap 0 0 

Davis 77 390 

Hi Ridge 0 254 

West Grouse Hill 84 305 

Underburning following thinning conducted in the fall of the year would reduce large down 

woody debris and snags that remain after thinning. A few snags would be burned-up during 

prescribed fire operations. Some new snags would be created during underburns, contributing to 

future down woody material. In areas proposed for underburning, heavily decayed classes 4 and 

5 would be lost and charring of large down woody material would be expected. Loss or charring 

of decadent standing snags and large down woody material may affect the prey base of goshawks 

in the short term. Underburning would be expected to increase understory structural complexity 

and habitat heterogeneity by stimulating shrub and plant (re)growth which would be beneficial to 

some prey species of goshawks. 

Snags and Large Down Woody Debris. Implementation of any thinning or prescribed burning 

is likely to result in loss of snags, future snags, and down wood, important stand attributes of 

healthy forests and critical components of wildlife and invertebrate habitat (Pilliod et al. 2006). 

Alternative 2 proposes to treat 81 percent of the project area. Because more area is proposed for 

treatment in alternative 2, more snags and down woody material would be affected. Within 

treated areas, a few snags would be felled for safety reasons and a few would be knocked over 

during thinning processes. A few snags would be removed during temporary road building, and 

within fuel management zones. Some of the largest standing trees would not be affected by 

treatments and would provide future snag and large woody debris. Treatments that affect the 

number of snags and amount of down woody material may affect prey species and foraging 

opportunities of goshawks. The amount of down woody material would be reduced in units with 

heavy fuel levels. Generally, coarse woody debris >12 inches dbh would be left on site. Within 

thinning units some existing down woody material would be crushed by machinery. 

During and following treatments, current KNF LRMP snag and down woody material standards 

and guidelines would likely continue to be met. Existing numbers of snags and amounts of down 

woody debris would remain across 19 percent of the project area. Snag numbers and down 

woody material would also be unaffected in 10 to 15 percent of each unit left untreated. The snag 

and down woody material project design features would help in maintaining this important 

primary constituent element within the project area. As insects and diseases continue to kill trees 

in untreated areas, the number of snags and amount of down woody material would be expected 

to increase in those places. 

Treatments proposed would reduce the incidence of insect and disease mortality, reduce the 

wildfire potential by 50 percent, prevent rapid future fuel build-up for approximately 20 years, 

and allow the reintroduction of fire within the treated areas. By reducing the risk of a standreplacement fire within the project area, thinning, fuel treatment zones, and underburning 

treatments proposed in alternative 2 should maintain goshawk habitat within the project area over 

the long term. 
Hi-Grouse Biological Evaluation 

51 

Other Connected Actions 

Underburning Only. Effects of underburning 27 acres of foraging habitat in unit 53a would be 

expected to be similar to those discussed above for underburning following thinning. Unit 53a is 

within the foraging area of the West Grouse Hill Territory. 

Underplanting Ponderosa Pine. Underplanting and promoting the development of ponderosa 

pine would benefit the amount of habitat available to goshawks over the long term because 

mature ponderosa pine stands are utilized for nesting and foraging habitat for goshawks. 

Fuel Management Zones. Small 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 may temporarily disturb or displace goshawks from the habitat. The home 

range of goshawks and their prey would likely be altered both in the short term and over the long 

term with the continued maintenance of the fuel management zones. 

Machine Mowing/Machine Piling. Use of machinery causes noise, which could temporarily 

disturb a goshawk within the vicinity of the equipment/operation. Machine mowing and piling 

may remove components of goshawk prey species habitat causing a shift in prey species home 

ranges and reducing their abundance in treatment units during the short term. 

Road Maintenance and Use. The use and maintenance of roads within the project area may 

cause noise and potential temporary disturbance to a goshawk within the vicinity of the road(s). 

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

small down woody debris would temporarily shift habitat for prey species of goshawk. The 

presence of humans conducting biomass removal and these other activities could temporarily 

disturb or displace a goshawk from the vicinity. Underburning or pile burning would eventually 

be conducted and eliminate lopped and scattered material and hand piles. 

Landings. Goshawks utilizing habitat adjacent to landings could be disturbed or displaced 

during the development and/or use of existing and new landings. 

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 

Map 8 at the end of this document displays the location of two foreseeable actions relative to four 

of the five goshawk territories. No known foreseeable actions would affect the West Grouse Hill 

Goshawk Territory. 

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 Area may affect the primary nest zone and foraging area in the Rainbow and Red Cap 

Goshawk Territories. The Davis and Hi Ridge Goshawk foraging areas would be unaffected by 

the Pumice Project. 
Hi-Grouse Biological Evaluation 

52 

The 14,833-acre Hoffman Project occurs south of the Hi-Grouse Project area on the McCloud 

District of the Shasta-Trinity National Forest. The project is very early in the planning stages and 

the proposed action is anticipated to be developed in 2010. The project will focus on dwarf 

mistletoe areas. Group selections, sanitation, and small diameter tree thinning may be proposed. 

The Hoffman Project Area may affect habitat in the foraging area of the Hi-Ridge Goshawk 

Territory. 

Determination of Effects and Rationale 

Alternative 2 would result in a 20-acre reduction in the amount of nesting habitat and a 44 percent 

(2,030 acre) reduction of foraging habitat available to goshawks within the project area. 

Table 24 quantifies the changes to the amount of goshawk habitat in the primary nest zones and 

foraging areas in each of the five territories that would occur with the implementation of 

alternative 2. 

Table 24. Summary of changes to the amount of goshawk habitat by territory for alternative 2 

Territory 

Primary Nest Zone (PNZ) Foraging Area (FA) 

Foraging Nesting Non-Habitat Foraging Nesting Non-Habitat 

Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres %

Rainbow 

Pretreatment 

413 82 48 10 42 8 970 64 22 2 516 34 

Posttreatment 

259 51 48 10 197 39 795 53 22 1 691 46 

Red Cap 

Pretreatment 

341 68 28 6 133 26 671 44 160 11 677 45 

Posttreatment 

341 68 28 6 134 26 670 44 160 11 678 45 

Davis 

Pretreatment 

256 51 238 47 9 2 1,100 73 115 8 293 19 

Posttreatment1 169 33 230 46 105 21 704* 47 102 7 702 47 

Hi Ridge 

Pretreatment 

324 64 114 23 65 13 1,007 67 258 17 242 16 

Posttreatment1 311 62 114 23 78 16 795 53 258 17 455 30 

West Grouse 

Pretreatment 

322 64 63 13 117 23 1,130 75 61 4 317 21 

Posttreatment 

258 51 63 13 181 36 835 55 61 4 612 41 

*Includes unit and fuel management zone acres. 

The amount and quality of goshawk habitat in the Red Cap Territory would basically remain 

unchanged (1 acre of foraging habitat in the foraging area would be removed) by actions 

proposed in alternative 2. 

The amount of nesting habitat within the Davis Territory would be reduced by 8 acres in the 

primary nest zone and 13 acres in the foraging area. The amount of nesting habitat in the other 

four territories would remain the same following treatments proposed in alternative 2. 
Hi-Grouse Biological Evaluation 

53 

Foraging habitat in the primary nest zones would be reduced by a total of 305 acres in the 

Rainbow, Davis, Hi Ridge, and West Grouse Hill Territories. Foraging habitat in the primary 

nest zone would fall below the 60 percent forest-wide goshawk standard in the Rainbow, Davis, 

Hi Ridge, and West Grouse Hill Territories. 

Foraging habitat in the foraging area would be reduced by a total of 972 acres in all five of the 

goshawk territories. When combined with nesting habitat available in foraging areas, foraging 

habitat would end up below the desired 60 percent forest-wide goshawk standard in the Rainbow, 

Davis, and West Grouse Hill Territories. 

Alternative 2 would alter the quality and negatively affect the quantity of foraging habitat 

available to goshawks in the short term across the project area and in four of the five goshawk 

territories. Restoration and re-establishment of ponderosa pine habitat along with increasing the 

resilience of remaining nesting and foraging habitat by thinning and fuel reduction prescriptions 

would benefit goshawks and their habitat over the long term. Alternative 2 may impact 

individual goshawks but would not likely result in a trend toward listing or loss of viability. 

Alternative 2 would require a project specific plan amendment for the Rainbow, Davis, Hi Ridge, 

and West Grouse Hill Goshawk Territories

Alternative 3 

Note: On January 4, 2010, the existing amount of available goshawk habitat was updated based 

on recent district reviews (Cheyne 2009) in the Rainbow and Red Cap territories. Treatments on 

approximately 86 acres in alternative 3 were dropped to ensure the alternative complied with 

Forest Plan S&G 8-20 by maintaining goshawk habitat. The modifications were incorporated 

into the following alternative 3 goshawk analysis. 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Project design features WL-5-7 (table 6b) would minimize the likelihood of disturbance or 

displacement of goshawks during implementation of alternative 3. Mortality to goshawks from 

any activities proposed would not be expected 

Alternative 3 would result in changes to the quantity and quality of goshawk habitat within the 

project area and within each of the five goshawk territories (reference map 7 at the end of this 

document). Approximately 2,517 acres or 47 percent of the available, suitable nesting and 

foraging goshawk habitat within the project area would be treated in alternative 3. 

Approximately 271 acres or 31 percent of the suitable nesting habitat would be treated in 

alternative 3. About 11 acres of nesting habitat would be removed in units across the project 

area. About 862 acres (99 percent) of nesting habitat would remain following activities proposed 

in alternative 3. 

Within the project area, about 2,246 acres or 51 percent of goshawk foraging habitat would be 

treated in alternative 3. Following treatments proposed in alternative 3, there would be about 

4,449 acres of foraging habitat within the project area. 

Non-habitat across the project area would increase by 4 acres across the project area following 

implementation of alternative 3. 

Quantified Changes to the Five Goshawk Territories

Approximately 1,536 acres (includes units and fuel management zone acres) of nesting and 

foraging habitat within the five territories would be treated in alternative 3. 
Hi-Grouse Biological Evaluation 

54 

Rainbow Territory. Table 25 displays the acres of nesting and foraging habitat within the 

primary nest zone and foraging area of the Rainbow Territory that would be treated in alternative 

3. 

Table 25. Acres of nesting and foraging habitat within the primary nest zone and foraging area of the 

Rainbow Territory that would be treated in alternative 3 

Management 

Zone 

Habitat PreTreatment Unit Rx Treatment Habitat Post Treatment Acres 

Primary Nest Zone 

Nesting 9 PCT2 Nesting 2 

2

Foraging Area

Nesting 1 HTH-PP-lite Foraging 9 

2 HTH-PP-lite Foraging 1 

Total Nesting Downgraded 10 

11 UB Nesting 28 

9 PCT2 Nesting 4 

Foraging 7 HTH-PP-lite Foraging 45 

9 PCT2 Foraging 1 

11 UB Foraging 86 

Total Nesting/Foraging Maintained 174 

Two acres of goshawk nesting habitat in the primary nest zone would be degraded but maintained 

as nesting habitat within the Rainbow Territory if alternative 3 were implemented. No foraging 

habitat within the primary nest zone is proposed for treatment in alternative 3. About 46 acres of 

non-habitat is proposed for treatment in the primary nest zone. Treatments proposed in nonhabitat would not affect the amount of available suitable habitat for goshawks within the primary 

nest zone of the Rainbow Territory. 

About 174 acres of nesting and foraging habitat within the foraging area of the Rainbow Territory 

would be treated in alternative 3. About 10 acres of nesting habitat would be downgraded to 

foraging habitat within the foraging area. Another 32 acres of nesting habitat would be degraded 

in the foraging area. About 132 acres of foraging habitat would be degraded within the foraging 

area. About 171 acres of non-habitat would be treated in the foraging area of the Rainbow 

Territory in alternative 3. Treatments proposed in non-habitat of would not affect the amount of 

available suitable habitat for goshawks within the foraging area of the Rainbow Territory. 

Alternative 3 would maintain the existing nesting and foraging habitat thresholds in the primary 

nest zone and foraging area in the Rainbow Territory. 

Red Cap Territory. No nesting habitat within the primary nest zone would be affected by 

treatments proposed in alternative 3. No foraging habitat is proposed for treatment in the primary 

nest zone or foraging area in the Red Cap Territory. About 22 acres of non-habitat is proposed 

for treatment in the primary nest zone. Treatments proposed in non-habitat of would not affect 
Hi-Grouse Biological Evaluation 

55 

the amount of available suitable habitat for goshawks within the primary nest zone of the Red 

Cap Territory. 

Alternative 3 would not affect nesting and foraging habitat in the Red Cap Territory. Nesting and 

foraging habitat thresholds would remain the same as the existing condition.. 

Davis Territory. Table 26 displays the acres of treatments proposed in the Davis Territory and 

discloses the effects to the goshawk habitat in the primary nest zone and foraging area. 

Table 26. Acres of treatments within units and effects to habitat of the Davis Goshawk Territory as 

proposed in alternative 3 

Management Zone Habitat PreTreatment Unit Rx Treatment Habitat Post Treatment Acres 

Primary Nest Zone 

Foraging 17 PCT2 Foraging 29 

18 HTH-MC-lite Foraging 17 

19 HTH-WF-PP-lite Foraging 25 

24 HTH-WF-PP-lite Foraging 9 

25b HTH-WF-PP-lite Foraging 25 

Total Foraging Maintained 105 

Nesting 19 HTH-WF-PP-lite Nesting 8 

23 HTH-WF-PP-lite Nesting 6 

Total Nesting Maintained 14 

Foraging Area

Foraging 5 UB Foraging 17 

6 HTH-PP-lite Foraging 29 

7 HTH-PP-lite Foraging 1 

18 HTH-MC-lite Foraging 184 

19 HTH-WF-PP-lite Foraging 108 

21a HTH-WF-PP-lite Foraging 45 

21b PCT2 Foraging 7 

22 HTH-WF-PP-lite Foraging 109 

24 HTH-WF-PP-lite Foraging 62 

28 HTH-MC-lite Foraging 5 

Total Foraging Maintained 567 

Nesting 19 HTH-WF-PP-lite Nesting 12 

23 HTH-WF-PP-lite Nesting 26 

Total Nesting Maintained 38 

About 14 acres of nesting habitat and 105 acres of foraging habitat in the primary nest zone of the 

Davis Territory, is proposed for treatment in alternative 3. All 119 acres of nesting and foraging 

habitat treated in the primary nest zone of the Davis Territory would be degraded, but would 

continue to function as nesting and foraging habitat. 

About 38 acres of nesting habitat and 567 acres of foraging habitat within the foraging area of the 

Davis Territory is proposed for treatment in alternative 3. All 605 acres of nesting and foraging 

habitat within the Davis foraging area would be degraded, but would continue to function as 

nesting and foraging habitat for goshawks. 
Hi-Grouse Biological Evaluation 

56 

About 247 acres of non-habitat would also be treated within units in the foraging area of the 

Davis Territory in alternative 3. Treatments proposed in non-habitat would not affect the amount 

of available suitable habitat for goshawks within the Davis Territory. 

Within the foraging area of the Davis Territory, 51 acres of foraging habitat (acres not included in 

the treatment units listed in table 27) would be treated within the fuel management zone. All 51 

acres of foraging habitat treated within the fuel management zone would be degraded, but would 

remain foraging habitat. 

The amount of nesting and foraging habitat available to goshawks would remain the same 

following treatments proposed in alternative 3 within the Davis Territory. Existing nesting and 

foraging habitat thresholds would not change. 

Hi Ridge Territory. Table 27 displays the acres of treatments proposed in the Hi Ridge Territory 

and discloses the effects to the goshawk habitat in the primary nest zone and foraging area. 

Table 27. Acres of treatments within units and effects to habitat of the Hi Ridge Goshawk Territory as 

proposed in alternative 3 

Management Zone Habitat PreTreatment Unit Rx Treatment Habitat Post Treatment Acres 

Primary Nest Zone 

Foraging 29 HTH-WF-PP-lite Foraging 37 

30 HTH-MC-lite Foraging 35 

Total Foraging Maintained 72 

Nesting 30 HTH-MC-lite Nesting 10 

Total Nesting Maintained 10 

Foraging Area 

Foraging 28 HTH-MC-lite Foraging 35 

35b PCT Foraging 68 

37 PCT2-OG-RF Foraging 21 

41 PCT2-OG-RF Foraging 7 

Total Foraging Maintained 131 

Nesting 37 PCT2-OG-RF Nesting 95 

41 PCT2-OG-RF Nesting 16 

Total Nesting Maintained 111 

About 10 acres of nesting habitat and 72 acres of foraging habitat in the primary nest zone of the 

Hi Ridge Territory is proposed for treatment in alternative 3. All 82 acres of nesting and foraging 

habitat treated in the primary nest zone of the Hi Ridge Territory would be degraded, but would 

continue to function as nesting and foraging habitat. 

About 111 acres of nesting habitat and 131 acres of foraging habitat within the foraging area of 

the Hi Ridge Territory is proposed for treatment in alternative 3. All 242 acres of nesting and 

foraging habitat in the foraging area would be degraded, but would continue to function as 

nesting and foraging habitat for goshawks. 

Within the primary nest zone of the Hi Ridge Territory, 8 acres (acres not included in the 

treatment units listed in table 27) of nesting habitat would be degraded by treatments within the 

fuel management zone. Fifteen acres of foraging habitat within the primary nest zone of the Hi 

Ridge Territory would also be degraded within the fuel management zone. All 23 acres of 
Hi-Grouse Biological Evaluation 

57 

nesting and foraging habitat treated within primary nest zone of the fuel management zone would 

be degraded, but would remain nesting and foraging habitat. 

Within the foraging area of the Hi Ridge Territory, 73 acres (acres not included in the treatment 

units listed in table 27) of foraging habitat would be treated within the fuel management zone. All 

73 acres of foraging habitat treated within the fuel management zone would be degraded and 

remain goshawk foraging habitat. Also within the foraging area of the Hi Ridge Territory, 6 acres 

(acres not included in the treatment units listed in table 27) of nesting habitat would be degraded 

by treatments within the fuel management zone. These 6 acres would remain goshawk nesting 

habitat.

About 11 acres of non-habitat in the primary nest zone and 62 acres in the foraging area would 

also be treated in the Hi Ridge Territory in alternative 3. Treatments proposed in non-habitat 

would not affect the amount of available suitable habitat for goshawks within the Hi Ridge 

Territory. 

There would be no change in the amount of nesting or foraging habitat within the primary nest 

zone or foraging areas from treatments proposed in alternative 3 within the Hi Ridge Territory. 

Existing nesting and foraging habitat thresholds would not change. 

West Grouse Hill Territory. Table 28 displays the acres of treatments proposed in the West 

Grouse Hill Territory and discloses the effects to the goshawk habitat in the primary nest zone 

and foraging area. 

Table 28. Acres of treatments within units and effects to habitat of the West Grouse Hill Goshawk 

Territory as proposed in alternative 3 

Management Zone Habitat PreTreatment Unit Rx Treatment Habitat Post Treatment Acres 

Primary Nest Zone 

Foraging 45a HTH-PP-lite Foraging 10 

53b PCT2 Foraging 4 

55 PCT2-MC Foraging 1 

Total Foraging Maintained 15 

Foraging Area

Foraging 44 PCT2-MC Foraging 23 

45a HTH-PP-lite Foraging 48 

53a UB Foraging 27 

53b PCT2 Foraging 33 

Total Foraging Maintained 131 

Nesting 41 PCT2-OG-RF Nesting 3 

Total Nesting Maintained 3 

No nesting habitat in the primary nest zone of the West Grouse Hill Territory would be treated in 

alternative 3. About 15 acres of foraging habitat within the primary nest zone of the West Grouse 

Hill Territory would be treated in alternative 3. Treatments would degrade all 15 acres of 

foraging habitat, but this habitat would continue to function as foraging habitat. 

Three acres of nesting habitat and 131 acres of foraging habitat in the foraging area of the West 

Grouse Hill Territory would be degraded in alternative 3. All 134 acres of nesting and foraging 
Hi-Grouse Biological Evaluation 

58 

habitat in the foraging area would be degraded, but would continue to function as nesting and 

foraging habitat. 

About 32 acres of non-habitat in the primary nest zone and 70 acres of non-habitat in the foraging 

area of the West Grouse Hill Territory would be treated in alternative 3. Treatments proposed in 

non-habitat would not affect the amount of available suitable habitat for goshawks within the Hi 

Ridge Territory. 

Alternative 3 would not result in any change to the amount of nesting or foraging habitat 

available to goshawks within the West Grouse Hill Territory. 

Qualitative Changes to Goshawk Habitat Within the Project Area and Territories

The effects of different fuel reduction techniques on most wildlife and invertebrate species are 

limited (Pillion et al. 2006). Alternative 3 would alter the quality of the available nesting and 

foraging habitat available to goshawks. The immediate effect of fuel reduction and thinning 

treatments would be a change in the structure of the vegetation (Pilliod et al. 2006). 

HTH-PP-lite, HTH-WF-PP-lite, HTH-RF-lite, and HTH-MC-lite Thinning from Below.

Light thinning from below in white fir, ponderosa pine and red fir stands would degrade nesting 

and foraging habitat of goshawks. Some vertical and horizontal structure would be reduced when 

less than 20 inch dbh understory trees are removed. In stands with a higher proportion of pine, 

small openings would be created for goshawk foraging. A reduction in the number of smaller 

trees in the understory would reduce competition for nutrients, light, and water, and would 

promote the growth and size of the largest remaining healthy trees for approximately 20 years. A 

reduction in the number of smaller trees in the understory would increase goshawk 

maneuverability while foraging; however, some structure for prey species would also be reduced. 

Light thinning from below treatments would maintain goshawk habitat in treated stands for the 

short term. 

Small-tree Thinning Treatments (PCT2, PCT2-MC, PCT2-NGH, PCT2-OG-RF). These 

treatments would thin small trees in the understory while maintaining the large overstory trees. 

Maintaining large overstory cone-producing conifers would maintain Douglas squirrel and 

Steller’s jay habitat, both of which are important prey species of goshawks. Foraging habitat for 

goshawks would be maintained in the short term. Over the long term, these stands would be 

expected to develop into nest stands for goshawks. 

Depending upon the prescription, canopy cover would be reduced from 0 to 29 percent. A 

reduction in canopy cover and tree density would be expected to cause a shift in habitat use by 

goshawks and prey species home ranges. The reduction in canopy would be expected to increase 

botanical biodiversity in the understory and at ground level. With the increase in amount of 

herbaceous and shrub growth, there should also be an increase in number and type of prey species 

available to goshawks.

Reduction of canopy cover may increase the risk of predation to goshawks and/or competition by 

raptors such as red-tailed hawks or great horned owls that utilize the more open canopy 

conditions that prescriptions PCT2, PCT2-MC and PCT2-OG-RF would produce. These effects 

would diminish over time as the canopy gradually closed. 

Lodgepole Pine Thinning. The treatment of lodgepole pine stands would have no effect on the 

quantity or quality of goshawk habitat because it is not considered to be goshawk habitat at this 

point in time. Over the long term, this habitat would likely be utilized by goshawks for foraging, 

particularly as the trees increase in size and canopy cover improves. 
Hi-Grouse Biological Evaluation 

59 

Underburning Following Thinning. Underburning in the project area would occur across 912 

acres of goshawk nesting and foraging habitat. Table 29 displays the number of acres proposed 

for underburning in alternative 3 in the primary nest zones and foraging areas of the five goshawk 

territories.

Table 29. Acres of underburning within each goshawk territory 

Territory 

Primary Nest Zone Acres Foraging Area Acres 

Nesting Foraging Non

Nesting/ 

Foraging Non

Rainbow 0 0 42 169 17 

Red Cap 0 0 0 0 0 

Davis 0 0 0 52 0 

Hi Ridge 0 0 0 174 0 

West Grouse Hill 0 14 6 111 18 

Underburning following thinning conducted in the fall of the year would reduce large down 

woody debris and snags that remain after thinning. A few snags would be burned-up during 

prescribed fire operations. Some new snags would be created during underburns. These snags 

would contribute to future down woody material. In areas proposed for underburning, heavily 

decayed classes 4 and 5 would be lost and charring of large down woody material would be 

expected. Loss or charring of decadent standing snags and large down woody material may affect 

the prey base of goshawks in the short term. Underburning would be expected to increase 

understory structural complexity and habitat heterogeneity by stimulating shrub and plant 

(re)growth which would be beneficial to some prey species of goshawks. 

Snags and Large Down Woody Debris. Implementation of any thinning or prescribed burning 

is likely to result in loss of snags, future snags, and down wood, important stand attributes of 

healthy forests and critical components of wildlife and invertebrate habitat (Pilliod et al. 2006). 

Alternative 3 proposes to treat 48 percent of the goshawk nesting and foraging habitat within the 

project area. Within treated areas, a few snags would be felled for safety reasons and a few 

would be knocked over during thinning processes. A few snags would be removed during 

temporary road building, and within fuel management zones. Some of the largest standing trees 

would not be affected by treatments and would provide future snag and large woody debris. 

Treatments that affect the number of snags and amount of down woody material may affect prey 

species and foraging opportunities of goshawks. The amount of down woody material would be 

reduced in units with heavy fuel levels. Generally, coarse woody debris >12 inches dbh would be 

left on site. Within thinning units some existing down woody material would be crushed by 

machinery. 

During and following treatments, current KNF LRMP snag and down woody material standards 

and guidelines would likely continue to be met. Existing numbers of snags and amounts of down 

woody debris would remain across 52 percent of the project area. Snag numbers and down 

woody material would also be unaffected in 10 to 15 percent of each unit left untreated. The snag 

and down woody material project design features would help in maintaining this important 

primary constituent element within the project area. As insects and diseases continue to kill trees 

in untreated areas, the number of snags and amount of down woody material would be expected 

to increase in those places. 
Hi-Grouse Biological Evaluation 

60 

Other Connected Actions 

Underburning Only. Effects of underburning 27 acres of foraging habitat in unit 53a would be 

expected to be similar to those discussed above for underburning following thinning. Unit 53a is 

located within the foraging area of the West Grouse Hill Territory. 

Fuel Management Zones. Small 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 may temporarily disturb or displace goshawks from the habitat. The home 

range of goshawks and their prey would likely be altered both in the short term and over the long 

term with the continued maintenance of the fuel management zones. 

Road Maintenance and Use. The use and maintenance of roads within the project area may 

cause noise and potential temporary disturbance to a goshawk using habitat within the vicinity of 

the road(s). 

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

small down woody debris would temporarily shift habitat for prey species of goshawk. The 

presence of humans conducting biomass removal and these other activities could temporarily 

disturb or displace a goshawk from the vicinity. Underburning or pile burning would eventually 

be conducted and eliminate lopped and scattered material and hand piles. 

Landings. Goshawks utilizing habitat adjacent to landings could be disturbed or displaced 

during the development and/or use of existing and new landings. Following their use in 

alternative 3, landings would provide edge/openings that may be used by foraging goshawks. 

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. 

Map 8 at the end of this document displays the location of two foreseeable actions relative to four 

of the five goshawk territories. No known foreseeable actions would affect the West Grouse Hill 

Goshawk Territory. 

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 Area would affect the primary nest zone and foraging area in the Rainbow and Red Cap 

Goshawk Territories. The Davis and Hi Ridge goshawk foraging areas would be unaffected by 

the Pumice Project. 

The 14,833-acre Hoffman Project occurs south of the Hi-Grouse Project area on the McCloud 

District of the Shasta-Trinity National Forest. The project is very early in the planning stages and 

the proposed action is anticipated to be developed in 2010. The project will focus on dwarf 

mistletoe areas. Group selections, sanitation, and small diameter tree thinning may be proposed. 

The Hoffman Project Area would affect habitat in the foraging area of the Hi-Ridge Goshawk 

Territory. 
Hi-Grouse Biological Evaluation 

61 

Determination of Effects and Rationale 

Alternative 3 would result in a 11-acre reduction in the amount of nesting habitat, and a 7-acre 

increase in foraging habitat available to goshawks within the project area. Non-habitat would 

increase by 4 acres. 

Table 30 displays the amount of existing and post-alternative 3 goshawk habitat in the primary 

nest zones and foraging areas in each of the five territories. 

Table 30. Summary of changes to goshawk foraging habitat by territory for alternative 3 

Territory 

Primary Nest Zone (PNZ) Foraging Area (FA) 

Foraging Nesting Non-Habitat Nesting/Foraging Non-Habitat 

Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres %

Rainbow 

Pretreatment 

90 18 222 44 192 38 714 47 794 53 

Posttreatment 

90 18 222 44 192 38 714 47 795 53 

Red Cap 

Pretreatment 

193 38 184 36 127 25 612 40 896 60 

Posttreatment 

193 38 184 36 127 25 612 40 896 60 

Davis 

Pretreatment 

256 51 238 47 10 2 1,215 81 293 19 

Posttreatment 

256 51 238 47 10 2 1,215 81 344 23 

Hi Ridge 

Pretreatment 

324 64 114 23 65 13 1,265 84 242 16 

Posttreatment 

324 64 114 23 65 13 1,265 84 243 16 

West Grouse 

Pretreatment 

322 64 63 13 117 23 1,191 79 317 21 

Posttreatment 

322 64 63 13 117 23 1,191 79 317 21 

Alternative 3 would maintain existing nesting and foraging habitat condition across the project 

area in the short term. Alternative 3 would not change the amount of nesting and foraging habitat 

available to goshawks in any of the five territories and would comply with Forest Plan S&G 8-20. 

Habitat quality in the treated stands would be reduced in the short term. Over the long term, 

many of the untreated densely spaced stands that are currently infected with root disease, pine and 

fir engraver beetles would be expected to decline to the point that they would no longer provide 

habitat for goshawks. 

Alternative 3 may impact individual goshawks but would not likely result in a trend toward 

listing or loss of viability. 

Alternative 4 

Note: On January 4, 2010, the existing amount of available goshawk habitat was updated based 

on recent district reviews (Cheyne 2009) in the Rainbow and Red Cap territories. Treatments on 
Hi-Grouse Biological Evaluation 

62 

approximately 108 acres in alternative 4 were dropped, and one unit’s prescription modified to 

ensure the alternative complied with Forest Plan S&G 8-20 by maintaining goshawk habitat. The 

modifications were incorporated into the alternative 4 goshawk analysis displayed below. 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Project design features WL-5-7 on page 23 of this document would minimize the likelihood of 

disturbance or displacement of goshawks during implementation of alternative 4. Mortality to 

goshawks from any activities proposed would not be expected 

Alternative 4 would result in changes to the quantity and quality of goshawk habitat within the 

project area and within each of the five goshawk territories (reference Map 9 at the end of this 

document). Alternative 4 would treat 47 percent or 2,500 acres of the available goshawk nesting 

and foraging habitat within the project area. 

Approximately 2,71 acres or 31 percent of the suitable nesting habitat would be treated in 

alternative 4. A total of 813 acres of nesting habitat would remain in the project area following 

treatments proposed in alternative 4. 

Within the project area, about 2,229acres or 50 percent of goshawk foraging habitat would be 

treated in alternative 4. Following treatments proposed in alternative 4, there would be about 

4,111 acres of foraging habitat within the project area. Non-habitat would increase by 391 acres 

across the project area with the implementation of alternative 4. 

Quantified Changes to the Five Goshawk Territories

Approximately 1,456 acres (includes treatment units and fuel management zone acres) of nesting 

and foraging habitat within the five territories would be treated in alternative 4. 

Rainbow Territory. Table 31 displays the acres of treatments proposed in the Rainbow Territory 

and discloses the effects to nesting and foraging habitat in the primary nest zone and foraging 

area. 
Hi-Grouse Biological Evaluation 

63 

Table 31. Acres of treatments within units and effects to nesting and foraging habitat of the Rainbow 

Goshawk Territory as proposed in alternative 4 

Management Zone Habitat PreTreatment Unit Rx Treatment Habitat Post Treatment Acres 

Primary Nest Zone 

Nesting 9 PCT2 Nesting 2 

Total Nesting Maintained 2 

12a HTH-LP Foraging 2 

Total Nesting Downgraded 2 

Foraging Area

Nesting

Foraging 

1 HTH-PP Foraging 9 

2 HTH-PP Foraging 1 

6 HTH-PP Foraging 3 

Total Nesting Downgraded 13 

9 PCT2 Nesting 4 

Total Nesting Degraded 4 

7 HTH-PP Foraging 45 

9 PCT2 Foraging 1 

12 HTH-LP Foraging 1 

Total Nesting/Foraging Maintained 64 

Two acres of goshawk nesting habitat in the primary nest zone would be degraded (nesting 

habitat would be maintained) within the Rainbow Territory if alternative 4 were implemented. 

Two acres of goshawk nesting habitat would be downgraded to foraging habitat in the primary 

nest zone. No foraging habitat within the primary nest zone is proposed for treatment in 

alternative 4. About 46 acres of non-habitat is proposed for treatment in the primary nest zone. 

Treatments proposed in non-habitat would not affect the amount of available suitable habitat for 

goshawks within the primary nest zone of the Rainbow Territory. 

About 64 acres of nesting and foraging habitat within the foraging area of the Rainbow Territory 

would be treated in alternative 4. About 13 acres of nesting habitat would be downgraded to 

foraging habitat within the foraging area; another 4 acres of nesting habitat would be degraded in 

the foraging area. About 47 acres of foraging habitat would be degraded within the foraging area. 

About 191 acres of non-habitat would be treated in the foraging area of the Rainbow Territory in 

alternative 4. Treatments proposed in non-habitat of would not affect the amount of available 

suitable habitat for goshawks within the foraging area of the Rainbow Territory. 

Table 32 displays the amount of goshawk habitat in the primary nest zone and foraging area of 

the Rainbow Territory before and after treatments proposed in alternative 4. 
Hi-Grouse Biological Evaluation 

64 

Table 32. Acres of goshawk habitat in the primary nest zone and foraging area of the Rainbow 

Territory before and after treatments proposed in alternative 4 

Territory 

Primary Nest Zone (PNZ) Foraging Area (FA) 

Foraging Nesting Non-Habitat Nesting/Foraging Non-Habitat 

Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres %

Rainbow 

Pretreatment 

90 18 222 44 192 38 714 47 794 53 

Posttreatment 

92 18 220 44 192 38 714 47 794 53 

Alternative 4 would maintain the existing nesting and foraging habitat thresholds in the primary 

nest zone and foraging area in the Rainbow Territory. 

Red Cap Territory. No nesting habitat within the primary nest zone would be affected by 

treatments proposed in alternative 3. No foraging habitat is proposed for treatment in the primary 

nest zone or foraging area in the Red Cap Territory. About 36 acres of non-habitat is proposed 

for treatment in the primary nest zone and another 315 acres of non-habitat is proposed for 

treatment in the foraging area of the Red Cap Territory. Treatments proposed in non-habitat of 

would not affect the amount of available suitable habitat for goshawks in the Red Cap Territory. 

Davis Territory. Table 33 displays the acres of treatments proposed in the Davis Territory and 

discloses the effects to the goshawk habitat in the primary nest zone and foraging area.
Hi-Grouse Biological Evaluation 

65 

Table 33. Acres of treatments within units and effects to habitat of the Davis Goshawk Territory as 

proposed in alternative 4 

Management Zone Habitat PreTreatment Unit Rx Treatment Habitat Post Treatment Acres 

Primary Nest Zone 

Foraging 17 PCT2 Foraging 29 

19 HTH-WF-PP Foraging 25 

24 HTH-WF-PP-lite_NSO Forging 9 

25b HTH-WF-PP-lite_NGH Forging 25 

Total Foraging Maintained 88 

Nesting 23 HTH-WP-PP-lite-NSO Nesting 6 

Total Nesting Maintained 6 

19 HTH-WF-PP Foraging 8 

Total Nesting Downgraded 8 

Foraging Area

Nesting 19 HTH-WF-PP Foraging 12 

Total Nesting Downgraded 12 

Nesting 23 HTH-WF-PP-lite-NGH Nesting 26 

Total Nesting Degraded 26 

Foraging 5 HTH-PP Foraging 17 

6 HTH-PP Foraging 29 

7 HTH-PP Foraging 1 

19 HTH-WF-PP Foraging 108 

21a HTH-WF-PP Foraging 45 

21b PCT2 Foraging 7 

22 HTH-WF-PP Foraging 109 

24 HTH-WF-PP-lite-NSO Foraging 62 

Total Nesting/Foraging Maintained 416

18 HTH-MC-Hvy Non-habitat 184 

28 HTH-MC-Hvy Non-habitat 5 

Total Foraging Downgraded 189 

About 14 acres of nesting habitat in the primary nest zone of the Davis Territory would be treated 

in alternative 4. Of the 14 acres of nesting habitat treated in the primary nest zone, 6 acres would 

be degraded, but would remain nesting habitat. Eight acres of nesting habitat in the primary nest 

zone would be downgraded to foraging habitat. About 88 acres of foraging habitat treated in the 

primary nest zone would be degraded, but would remain suitable foraging habitat for goshawks. 

In the foraging area of the Davis Territory, 643 acres of nesting and foraging habitat would be 

treated in alternative 4. About 26 acres of nesting habitat would be degraded in the Davis 

foraging area. Another 12 acres of nesting habitat would be downgraded to foraging habitat. 

About 378 acres of foraging habitat would be degraded, but would remain suitable foraging 

habitat for goshawks. About 189 acres of foraging habitat in units 18 and 28 area would be 

downgraded and become unsuitable to goshawks for up to 20 years. About 247 acres of nonhabitat would be treated within the Davis foraging area. The treatment of non-habitat does not 

affect the amount of habitat available to goshawks. 

Within the foraging area of the Davis Territory, 51 acres of foraging habitat (acres not included in 

the treatment units listed in table 33) would be treated within the fuel management zone. All 51 
Hi-Grouse Biological Evaluation 

66 

acres of foraging habitat treated within the fuel management zone would be degraded, but would 

continue to provide foraging habitat for goshawks. 

Table 34 displays the amount of goshawk habitat in the primary nest zone and foraging area of 

the Davis Territory before and after treatments proposed in alternative 4. 

Table 34. Changes to the amount of habitat within the Davis Goshawk Territory as proposed in 

alternative 4 

Territory 

Primary Nest Zone (PNZ) Foraging Area (FA) 

Foraging Nesting Non-Habitat Nesting/Foraging Non-Habitat 

Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres %

Davis 

Pretreatment 

256 51 238 47 10 2 1,215 81 293 19 

Posttreatment 

264 52 230 46 10 2 1,026 68 482 32 

There would be a 1 percent decrease in the amount of available goshawk nesting habitat in the 

Davis Territory with the implementation of alternative 4. The amount of nesting habitat available 

to goshawks in the primary nest zone of the Davis Territory would remain above 40 percent 

threshold following treatments proposed in alternative 4. 

Approximately 189 acres of foraging habitat in the foraging area would become unsuitable to 

goshawks following treatments proposed in alternative 4. The desired amount of foraging habitat 

in the foraging area would be above the 60 percent threshold. Unsuitable or non-habitat would 

increase by 189 acres following treatments proposed in alternative 4. 

Hi Ridge Territory. About 10 acres of nesting habitat in the primary nest zone and 72 acres of 

foraging habitat in the primary nest zone of the Hi Ridge Territory are proposed for treatment in 

alternative 4. All 82 acres of nesting and foraging habitat treated in the primary nest zone of the 

Hi Ridge Territory would be degraded, but would continue to function as nesting and foraging 

habitat. About 11 acres of non-habitat would be treated in alternative 4 within the primary nest 

zone. Treatment of non-habitat would not affect the amount of suitable habitat available to 

goshawks.
Hi-Grouse Biological Evaluation 

67 

Table 35. Acres of treatments within units and effects to habitat of the Hi Ridge Goshawk Territory as 

proposed in alternative 4 

Management Zone Habitat PreTreatment Unit Rx Treatment Habitat Post 

Treatment Acres 

Primary Nest Zone 

Foraging 29 HTH-WF-PP-liteNGH

Foraging 37 

30 PCT2-NGH Foraging 35 

Total Foraging Maintained 72 

Nesting 30 PCT2-NGH Nesting 10 

Total Nesting Maintained 10 

Foraging Area 

Foraging 35b HTH-RF-lite Foraging 68 

37 PCT2-OG-RF Foraging 21 

41 PCT2-OG-RF Foraging 7 

Total Foraging Maintained 96 

Nesting 

Foraging 

37 PCT2-OG-RF Nesting 95 

41 PCT2-OG-RF Nesting 16 

Total Nesting Maintained 111 

28 HTH-MC-Hvy Non-habitat 35 

Total Foraging Downgraded 35 

In the foraging area of the Hi Ridge Territory, 242 acres of nesting and foraging habitat would be 

treated in alternative 4. About 111 acres of nesting habitat would be degraded in the Hi Ridge 

foraging area. About 96 acres of foraging habitat would be degraded, but would remain suitable 

foraging habitat for goshawks. About 35 acres of foraging habitat in unit 28 would be 

downgraded and become unsuitable to goshawks for up to 20 years. About 62 acres of nonhabitat would be treated within the Hi Ridge foraging area. The treatment of non-habitat does not 

affect the amount of habitat available to goshawks. 

Within the primary nest zone of the Hi Ridge Territory, 8 acres (acres not included in the 

treatment units listed in table 35) of nesting habitat would be degraded by treatments within the 

fuel management zone. Fifteen acres of foraging habitat within the primary nest zone of the Hi 

Ridge Territory would be degraded within the fuel management zone. Degraded nesting and 

foraging habitat would continue to function as goshawk nesting and foraging habitat posttreatment. 

Within the foraging area of the Hi Ridge Territory, 73 acres (acres not included in the treatment 

units listed in table 35) of foraging habitat would be treated within the fuel management zone. 

All 73 acres of foraging habitat treated within the fuel management zone would be degraded, but 

would continue to function as foraging habitat. Also within the foraging area of the Hi Ridge 

Territory, 6 acres (acres not included in the treatment units listed in table 35) of nesting habitat 

would be degraded by treatments within the fuel management zone. These 6 acres would remain 

goshawk nesting habitat. 

Table 36 displays the amount of goshawk habitat in the primary nest zone and foraging area of 

the Hi Ridge Territory before and after treatments proposed in alternative 4. 
Hi-Grouse Biological Evaluation 

68 

Table 36. Changes to the amount of habitat within the Hi Ridge Goshawk Territory as proposed in 

alternative 4 

Territory 

Primary Nest Zone (PNZ) Foraging Area (FA) 

Foraging Nesting Non-Habitat Nesting/Foraging Non-Habitat 

Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres %

Hi Ridge 

Pretreatment 

324 64 114 23 65 13 1,265 84 243 16 

Posttreatment 

324 64 114 23 65 13 1,231 82 277 18 

There would be no change in the amount of available nesting and foraging habitat in the primary 

nest zone of the Hi Ridge Territory with the implementation of alternative 4. 

Approximately 35 acres of foraging habitat in the foraging area would become unsuitable to 

goshawks following treatments proposed in alternative 4. The desired amount of foraging habitat 

in the Hi Ridge foraging area would remain above 60 percent. The amount of non-habitat in the 

foraging area of the Hi Ridge Territory would increase by 35 acres. 

West Grouse Hill Territory. About 5 acres of foraging habitat in the primary nest zone of the 

West Grouse Hill Territory are proposed for treatment in alternative 4. These five acres of 

foraging habitat in the primary nest zone of the West Grouse Hill Territory would be degraded, 

but would continue to function as foraging habitat. About 10 acres of foraging habitat in unit 45a 

within the primary nest zone would be downgraded and become unsuitable to goshawks for up to 

20 years. About 32 acres of non-habitat would be treated within the primary nest zone in 

alternative 4. Treatment of non-habitat would not affect the amount of suitable habitat available 

to goshawks. 

Table 37. Acres of treatments and effects to habitat of the West Grouse Hill Goshawk Territory as 

proposed in alternative 4 

Management Zone Habitat PreTreatment Unit Rx Treatment Habitat Post Treatment Acres 

Primary Nest Zone 

Foraging 53b PCT2 Foraging 4 

55 PCT2-MC Foraging 1 

Total Foraging Maintained 5 

45a HTH-PP-Hvy Non-habitat 10 

Total Foraging Removed 10 

Foraging Area 

Foraging 44 PCT2-MC Foraging 23 

53a UB Foraging 27 

53b PCT2 Foraging 33 

Total Foraging Maintained 83 

45a HTH-PP-Hvy Non-habitat 48 

Total Foraging Downgraded 48 

Nesting 41 PCT2-OG-RF Nesting 3 

Total Nesting Maintained 3 
Hi-Grouse Biological Evaluation 

69 

In the foraging area of the West Grouse Hill Territory, 134 acres of nesting and foraging habitat 

would be treated in alternative 4. About 3 acres of nesting habitat would be degraded in the West 

Grouse Hill foraging area. About 83 acres of foraging habitat would be degraded, but would 

remain suitable foraging habitat for goshawks. About 48 acres of foraging habitat in unit 45a 

would be downgraded and become unsuitable to goshawks for up to 20 years. About 70 acres of 

non-habitat would be treated within the West Grouse Hill foraging area. The treatment of nonhabitat does not affect the amount of habitat available to goshawks. 

Table 38. Changes to the amount of habitat within the West Grouse Hill Goshawk Territory as 

proposed in alternative 4 

Territory 

Primary Nest Zone (PNZ) Foraging Area (FA) 

Foraging Nesting Non-Habitat Nesting/Foraging Non-Habitat 

Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres %

Hi Ridge 

Pretreatment 

322 64 63 13 117 23 1,191 79 317 21 

Posttreatment 

312 62 63 13 127 25 1,143 76 365 24 

There would be no change in the amount of available nesting habitat in the primary nest zone of 

the West Grouse Hill Territory with the implementation of alternative 4. Approximately 10 acres 

of foraging habitat in the primary nest zone would become unsuitable to goshawks following 

treatments proposed in alternative 4. The desired amount of foraging habitat in the primary nest 

zone and the foraging area would remain above 60 percent. The amount of non-habitat in the 

primary nest zone of the West Grouse Hill Territory would increase by 10 acres. 

In the foraging area, foraging habitat would be reduced by 48 acres. Likewise, non-habitat in the 

foraging area would increase by 48 acres. The desired amount of foraging habitat in the foraging 

area of the West Grouse Hill Territory would remain above the 60 percent threshold. 

Qualitative Changes to the Goshawk Habitat Within the Project Area and Territories

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

very well known (Pilliod et al. 2006). In addition to the quantity of habitat affected by treatments 

proposed in alternative 4, the quality of the available nesting and foraging habitat available to 

goshawks would also be altered. Several different thin-from-below prescriptions would be 

utilized in alternative 4, and the effects to goshawk habitat would vary. 

Moderate to Heavy Variable Thinning. Moderate to variable thinning from below in white fir, 

ponderosa pine, and mixed conifer stands would downgrade nesting and foraging habitat of 

goshawks. 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. 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. 

A reduction in canopy cover and tree density would be expected to cause a shift in prey species 

home ranges. The reduction in canopy would be expected to increase botanical biodiversity in the 

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

there should also be an increase in number and type of prey species available to goshawks. 

Reduction of canopy cover may increase the risk of predation to goshawks. These effects would 

diminish over time as the canopy gradually closed within approximately 20 years. 
Hi-Grouse Biological Evaluation 

70 

Light Thinning from Below. Light thinning from below in white fir, ponderosa pine, and red fir 

stands would degrade nesting and foraging habitat of goshawks. 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. Canopy cover would be at 60 

percent where that amount or more currently exists. A reduction in the number of smaller trees in 

the understory would reduce competition for nutrients, light, and water, and increase the growth 

and size of the largest remaining healthy trees contributing to the development of latesuccessional stand conditions over time. Light thinning from below would maintain goshawk 

habitat in the territories and project area in the short and long term. 

Light Plantation Thinning. Light plantation thinning in white fir, 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. On stand average, basal area would range between 69 and 176. Trees 

per acre would range between 72 and 163. Light plantation thinning would maintain NSO habitat 

in the project area in the short and long term. 

Underburning Following Thinning. Underburning following thinning would occur across 

1,065 acres of nesting and roosting habitat in the project area. Underburning following thinning 

conducted in the fall of the year would result in some amount of reduction of large down woody 

debris and snags that remain after thinning. A few snags would be burned up during prescribed 

fire operations. Some new snags would be created during underburns. These snags would 

contribute to future down woody material. In areas proposed for underburning, heavily decayed 

classes 4 and 5 would be lost and charring of large down woody material would be expected. 

Loss or charring of decadent standing snags and large down woody material may affect the prey 

base of NSOs in the short term. Underburning would be expected to increase understory 

structural complexity and habitat heterogeneity by stimulating shrub and plant (re)growth which 

would be beneficial to foraging goshawks and their prey species. 

Table 39 displays the number of acres proposed for underburning in alternative 4 in the primary 

nest zones and foraging areas of the five goshawk territories. 

 Table 39. Acres of underburning within each goshawk territory 

Territory 

Primary Nest Zone Acres Foraging Area Acres 

Nesting Foraging Non

Nesting/ 

Foraging Non

Rainbow 0 0 42 169 17 

Red Cap 0 0 0 0 0 

Davis 0 0 0 281 0 

Hi Ridge 0 0 0 35 0 

West Grouse Hill 0 14 6 108 18 

Snag and Down Woody Components. The effects of alternative 4 to snag and down woody 

components in goshawk habitat would be similar to alternative 3. The amount of down woody 

material would be reduced in units with heavy fuel levels. Generally, coarse woody debris >12 

inches dbh would be left on site. Within thinning units some existing down woody material 

would be crushed by machinery. 
Hi-Grouse Biological Evaluation 

71 

During and following treatments, KNF LRMP snag and down woody material standards and 

guides would be met across the project area. Existing numbers of snags and amounts of down 

woody debris would remain across 52 percent of the project area. Snag numbers and down 

woody material would also be unaffected in 10 to 15 percent of each unit left untreated. The snag 

and down woody material project design features would also ensure that this important habitat 

component is well distributed and maintained across goshawk habitat within the project area and 

goshawk territories. Gradually, as insects and diseases continue to kill trees in untreated areas, 

the number of snags and amount of down woody material would be expected to increase. 

Treatments proposed would reduce the incidence of insect and disease mortality, reduce the 

wildfire potential by 50 percent, prevent rapid future fuel build-up for approximately 20 years, 

and allow the reintroduction of fire within the treated areas. By reducing the risk of a standreplacement fire within the project area and within goshawk territories, thinning, fuel treatment 

zones, and underburning treatments proposed with alternative 4 should benefit goshawks over the 

long term. 

Other Connected Actions 

Machine Mowing/Machine Piling. Alternative 4 would utilize machine mowing and machine 

piling for fuels treatments. Use of machinery causes noise, which could temporarily disturb a 

goshawk using habitat within the vicinity of the equipment/operation. Machine mowing and 

piling may remove components of goshawk prey species habitat causing a shift in prey species 

home ranges and reducing their abundance in treatment units during the short term. 

Underburning Only, Fuel Management Zones, Road Maintenance and Use, Biomass 

Removal/Lop and Scatter/Hand Piling, Landings and Sporax Treatments. These would be 

expected to have the same effects to goshawks and/or their habitat as discussed in alternative 3. 

Foreseeable Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative effects for alternative 4 would be the same as discussed in alternative 3. 

Determination of Effects and Rationale 

Alternative 4 would result in a 60 acre reduction in the amount of nesting habitat and a 331 acre 

reduction of foraging habitat available to goshawks across the project area. A 391 acre increase 

in non-habitat would occur across the project area in alternative 4. 

Table 40 quantifies the changes to the amount of goshawk habitat in the primary nest zones and 

foraging areas in each of the five territories that would occur with the implementation of 

alternative 4. 
Hi-Grouse Biological Evaluation 

72 

Table 40. Summary of changes to goshawk habitat by territory for alternative 4 

Territory 

Primary Nest Zone (PNZ) Foraging Area (FA) 

Foraging Nesting Non-Habitat Nesting/Foraging Non-Habitat 

Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres %

Rainbow 

Pretreatment 

90 18 222 44 192 38 714 47 794 53 

Posttreatment 

92 18 220 44 192 38 714 47 795 53 

Red Cap 

Pretreatment 

193 38 184 36 127 25 612 40 896 60 

Posttreatment 

193 38 184 36 127 25 612 40 896 60 

Davis 

Pretreatment 

256 51 238 47 10 2 1,215 81 293 19 

Posttreatment 

264 52 230 46 10 2 1,026 68 482 32 

Hi Ridge 

Pretreatment 

324 64 114 23 65 13 1,265 84 242 16 

Posttreatment 

324 64 114 23 65 13 1,231 82 277 18 

West Grouse 

Pretreatment 

322 64 63 13 117 23 1,191 79 317 21 

Posttreatment 

312 62 63 13 127 25 1,143 76 365 24 

With the implementation of alternative 4, there would be no change to the amount of nesting or 

foraging habitat in the primary nest zones or foraging areas of the Rainbow and Red Cap 

Territories. Alternative 4 would change the amount of nesting and foraging habitat in the primary 

nest zone and foraging area of the Davis Territory. In the primary nest zone and foraging area of 

the West Grouse Hill Territory, the amount of foraging habitat would change. Nesting and 

foraging habitat in the Hi Ridge Territory would also change with the implementation of 

alternative 4. Nesting and foraging habitat thresholds in the primary nest zones and foraging 

areas would remain at existing levels or remain above thresholds in all five territories with 

alternative 4. Alternative 4 would provide goshawk habitat to comply with Forest Plan S&G 8-20 

through meeting the nesting and foraging habitat amounts or maintaining the available habitat in 

territories that are currently lacking in nesting or foraging habitat in the primary nest zone or 

foraging areas. 

Habitat quality of nesting and foraging habitat for goshawks would be reduced in the five 

territories and across the project area in the short term. Treatments proposed would reduce the 

incidence of insect and disease mortality, reduce the wildfire potential by 50 percent, prevent 

rapid future fuel build-up for approximately 20 years, and allow the reintroduction of fire within 

the treated areas. By reducing the risk of a stand-replacement fire within the project area and 

within goshawk territories, thinning, fuel treatment zones, and underburning treatments proposed 

with alternative 4 should benefit goshawks over the long term. 

Alternative 4 may impact individual goshawks but would not likely result in a trend toward 

listing or loss of viability.
Hi-Grouse Biological Evaluation 

73 

Townsend’s Big-eared Bat and Pallid Bat 

Natural History—Townsend’s Bat 

Townsend’s big-eared bat is distributed widely across western North America. Local distribution 

is bounded by the presence of caves and similar structures, most of which are the result of 

specific geological conditions and processes, and which are not distributed evenly across the 

landscape (Gruver and Keinath 2006). Townsend’s big-eared bats are noted to occur in Siskiyou 

County California (California Department of Fish and Game 1997; NatureServe 2009). 

On the West Coast, Townsend’s big-eared bats are found regularly in forested regions and 

buildings, and in areas with a mosaic of woodland, grassland, and or shrubland. The species 

commonly occurs in mesic habitats characterized by coniferous and deciduous forests 

(NatureServe 2009). 

In California, small colonies of this bat species use caves, mines, and buildings, generally open 

attics. Individual bats are known to use fire-scarred basal tree hollows for night roosts (Fellers 

and Pierson 2002). Townsend’s big-eared bats are known to switch roost sites within and 

between seasons. 

Maternity and hibernation colonies are typically in caves and mine tunnels in elevations between 

4,500 to 10,460 feet (Gruver and Keinath 2006). In the central part of California, solitary males 

and small groups of females are known to hibernate in buildings (Fellers and Pierson 2002). In 

California, maximum known distance traveled to hibernacula is 20 miles (Gruver and Keinath 

2006). 

Connectivity of habitat may be especially important as commuting distance from roosts to 

foraging or drinking habitat increases (Gruver and Keinath 2006). Maximum one-way distances 

traveled between roosts and foraging areas in California ranged between 3.1 and 8 miles (Fellers 

and Pierson 2002). 

Foraging occurs in a wide variety of habitats. In the West, Cornynorhinus townsendii forage in 

woodlands, canopy gaps, vegetated stream corridors and other linear landscape elements, but 

avoid foraging and traveling in open areas and grazed lands. In coastal California, Fellers and 

Pierson (2002) found both males and females foraged along the edges of riparian vegetation 

dominated by Douglas-fir, California bay, and willow species. Foraging sites are preferred that 

have dense and structurally diverse vegetation that may support greater abundances of insect prey 

and provide escape from potential avian predators (Gruver and Keinath 2006). 

Townsend’s big-eared bats are moth specialists, emerging from roosts to begin foraging about 60 

minutes after sunset (Gruver and Keinath 2006). In California, Fellers and Pierson (2002) found 

that they foraged among foliage near the perimeter of trees, usually between mid-canopy and near 

the top of the canopy as well as gleaned insects directly from substrates. 

Given the general lack of data on the historic distribution of the species, current distribution 

trends are difficult to assess. Long-term monitoring data for Townsend’s big-eared bats are 

generally lacking and patchy at best (Gruver and Keinath 2006). There is general concurrence 

among bat biologists that there has been a downward trend in abundance of the Townsend’s bigeared bat in the western portion of its range over the past half-century (Gruver and Keinath 2006). 

Surveys conducted by Pierson and Rainey in 1994 for California Department of Fish and Game 

showed marked population declines in the State (Pierson et al. 1999). 

Threats to Townsend’s big-eared bats include displacement and disturbance by humans and 

destruction of roost and hibernaculum sites, including uninformed closure of abandoned mines 

(Gruver and Keinath 2006). Pesticide applications that reduce populations of moths, such as 
Hi-Grouse Biological Evaluation 

74 

spruce budworms and gypsy moths, reduce foraging opportunities for these bats. Pesticide 

application contributes to bioaccumulation hazards in bats. Exposure to mining related toxins 

(heavy metals) found in mine adits, waste, and water also contributes to bioaccumulation hazards 

in bats. 

Natural History—Pallid Bat 

Pallid bats range throughout western and southwestern United States and Mexico. Pallid bats 

occur throughout California, except in the high Sierra Nevada where they are considered 

permanent residents. They are known to occur in Siskiyou County California (California 

Department of Fish and Game 1997; NatureServe 2008). 

Pallid bats are found in a variety of habitats and elevations. They are commonly found in arid 

deserts and grasslands, often near rocky outcrops, cliffs, and water. They also inhabit chaparral 

shrublands and higher elevation (>7,000 feet) coniferous forests. 

Day and night roosts include crevices in rocky outcrops and cliffs, caves, mines, tree cavities and 

various human structures. Pallid bats roost alone, in small groups, or gregariously and may 

switch day roosts on a daily and seasonal basis. 

Pallid bats travel 0.31 to 1.55 miles from day roosts for foraging (California Department of Fish 

and Game 2009). Pallid bats are opportunistic generalists that glean a variety of large insects, 

such as crickets, grasshoppers, and scorpions, usually taken from the ground (Western Bat 

Working Group 2005). 

Winter habits are poorly known, but this species apparently does not migrate long distances 

between summer and winter sites. In some parts of the species range, males and females have 

been found hibernating alone or in small groups, wedged deeply into narrow fissures in mines, 

caves and buildings (Western Bat Working Group 2005). 

Data are lacking for population and population trends. Threats to pallid bats include mass 

displacement due to disturbance, damage, or destruction of roosts and hibernacula as a result of 

recreational activities, forestry practices, prescribed or wildfire (Western Bat Working Group 

2005). 

Management Direction for Bats 

The KNF LRMP direction applicable to Townsend’s big-eared bats includes the following 

direction under “Cliff, Cave, and Talus” found on page 4-32: 

(8-38) Design individual projects to protect the value of unique wildlife habitats such as 

cliffs, caves and talus slopes. 

(8-39) This provision is intended to apply in matrix forests (regulated land) and in the AMA. 

Conduct surveys of crevices in caves, mines and abandoned wooden bridges and buildings 

for the presence of roosting bats, including fringed myotis, silver-haired bats, long-eared 

myotis, long-legged myotis and pallid bats. For the purposes of this standard and guideline, 

caves are defined as in the Federal Cave Resources Protection Act of 1988. If bats are found, 

identify the species using the site and determine for what purpose bats are using it. As an 

interim measure, timber harvest is prohibited within 250 feet of sites containing bats. Protect 

the site from destruction, vandalism, disturbance from road construction or blasting, or any 

other activity that could change cave or mine temperatures or drainage patterns. The size of 

the buffer, and types of activities allowed within the buffer, may be modified through the 

standards developed for the specific site. Retention of abandoned bridges or buildings must 

be made contingent on safety concerns. 
Hi-Grouse Biological Evaluation 

75 

(8-40) When Townsend's big-eared bats are found occupying caves or mines on Federal land, 

the appropriate agency should be notified, and management prescriptions for that site should 

include special consideration for potential impacts on this species. 

(8-41) Coordinate cave inventories with wildlife biologists to reduce disturbance to bats. 

Limit public access to caves where such access could be potentially detrimental to bat 

populations. 

In addition, management direction listed for snags on page 4-30 also apply to Townsend’s bigeared bats because they are also important features of bat habitat. 

Spatial Scales Analyzed and Timelines Analyzed 

The maximum foraging distance for Townsend’s big-eared bats from roost sites in California is 8 

miles. An analysis area for Townsend’s big-eared bats was developed by using an 8-mile radius 

from the center of the project area. 

The maximum foraging distance for pallid bats from roost sites in California is 1.55 miles. An 

analysis area for pallid bats was developed by using a 1.55-mile radius around the perimeter of 

the project area. The project area was also evaluated for roosting and foraging habitat for these 

two bat species. 

Implementation of the Hi-Grouse 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 thinning units are completed (i.e., 9 or 10 years after project start) 

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

implementation and long-term effects would be those occurring in excess of 50 years. 

Existing Condition (Environmental Baseline) 

It has not been verified whether or not Townsend’s big-eared bats or pallid bats occupy or utilize 

the Hi-Grouse Project area. Lava tubes and large decadent trees and snags exist in the project 

area and bat analysis area. Foraging and roosting habitat is likely present within the project area 

and the bat analysis areas. Map 10 (at the end of this document) displays Townsend’s big-eared 

bat and pallid bat analysis areas. 

Environmental Consequences 

In addition to the Forest Plan standards and guidelines listed for the bat species, project design 

features GEO-1-8, VEG-1-4, VEG-10, WL-9 and -10 (table 6b), will be applied, as appropriate, 

for alternatives 3 and 4. 

Hayes and Loeb (2007) described four ecological factors considered important in shaping habitat 

suitability for bats in North American forests. The four ecological factors are: characteristics and 

abundance of roost sites, amount of “clutter”, availability of prey and availability of water (Hayes 

and Loeb 2007). These four ecological factors will be evaluated for project effects analysis in 

this section. Note: Clutter is the number of obstacles a bat must detect and avoid in a given area; 

it affects maneuverability and influences habitat use by bats. 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

Direct 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. 
Hi-Grouse Biological Evaluation 

76 

Some habitat conditions for bats would gradually change over the next 20 years. . The amount of 

snags available for roosting would be expected to gradually increase as a result of tree mortality 

from insects and disease. Water availability, primarily occurring in the analysis area, would 

remain static. A gradual reduction in the canopy as large trees die and eventually fall, would 

decrease the amount of clutter and increase the number of openings. An increase in the number 

of small openings would increase ground cover and shrubbery in these openings which may 

increase the amount of prey and foraging opportunities for bats. 

Little or no research has been conducted on wildfire and prescribed burning impacts to bats and 

bat populations (Carter et al. 2008). In the event of a wildfire within the project area, burn 

intensity, extent, and post-fire conditions would likely vary widely, resulting in a mosaic of 

habitat conditions. Smith (2000) reported that the effects of fire on mammal species are related to 

the uniformity and pattern of fire on the landscape. A wildfire would be expected to affect prey 

and roosting and foraging habitat of bats by altering the structural components of the area burned. 

Cumulative Effects 

There are no cumulative effects because there are no direct or indirect effects of the no-action 

alternative.

Determination of Effects and Rationale 

There would be no change to the existing habitat for bats within the Hi-Grouse Project area or the 

larger analysis areas; therefore, alternative 1 (no action) would result in no impact to Townsend’s 

big-eared bats or pallid bats or their habitat. 

Alternatives 3 or 4 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

While occupancy and/or use of the project area by Townsend’s big-eared bats and/or pallid bats is 

uncertain, most all of the project area would be expected to provide some habitat components 

important to bats. 

Thinning and Underburning; Underburning Only; Fuel Management Zones; Plantation 

Thinning and Mowing. The amount of potential bat habitat (approximately 3,654 acres) 

affected by alternative 3 is less than alternative 4 (approximately 3,955 acres). Thinning and 

prescribed burning have direct and indirect effects on bats. Thinning and burning alter the 

structure of forest stands, reducing the amount of clutter and may affect insect prey abundance 

(Loeb and Waldrop 2008). The immediate effect of the proposed treatments would result in 

changes to the density and vertical and horizontal structure of the vegetation by removing smaller 

diameter trees. In response to a change in stand vertical structure, bats may change their vertical 

use of space (Loeb and Waldrop 2008). A decrease in the density of trees would increase bat 

foraging maneuverability (Hayes and Loeb 2007). 

Thinned forested habitats and prescribed fire would be expected to increase the amount of shrubs, 

forbs, and grasses on the forest floor. An increase in shrubs, herbs, grasses and forbs would 

provide additional foraging opportunities for bats and may increase numbers and diversity of 

insect prey 

Thinning forested habitats, prescribed fire, and mowing would be expected to increase the 

amount of shrubs, forbs, and grasses on the forest floor. An increase in shrubs, herbs, grasses and 

forbs would provide additional foraging opportunities for bats and may increase numbers and 

diversity of insect prey. 
Hi-Grouse Biological Evaluation 

77 

Snags. Effects of treatments proposed to snag habitat would affect roosting habitat of bats and 

may potentially impact a few individual bats as well. Felling or burning-up a roost structure 

(snag) could result in displacement of bats or the mortality of the bat(s) inside the roost (Hayes 

and Loeb 2007). 

Project design features will assure that with few exceptions existing potential bat roosts (snags) 

will be retained in all units. Exceptions may occur if a snag (potential roosting site) occurs in a 

skid trail, landing site, temporary road location, or for safety reasons. Post-activity fuel 

treatments by means of mechanical and prescribed fire would also result in the loss of some 

snags. Prescribed fire treatments would also be expected to kill a few trees thereby creating a few 

snags. Project design features GEO-1–8 will ensure bat habitat is protected if any caves are 

discovered within the project area. 

A decrease in the density of trees could alter the thermal properties in and adjacent to live trees 

with cavities and snags used for roosting (Hayes and Loeb 2007). Microclimate changes could 

affect the habitat suitability of these existing snag roosts for bats.

Other Connected Actions 

Landings and Temporary Roads. Construction of temporary roads and new or relocated 

landings would create openings that may be utilized by bats for foraging. Following their use, 

shrubs, herbs, grasses, and forbs would be expected to develop providing additional foraging 

opportunities for bats. 

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.) 

The actions proposed in either alternative 3 or 4 would not change the availability of water 

sources for bats.

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. 

There are three foreseeable actions proposed within the bat analysis area. Map 11 at the end of 

this document displays the location of foreseeable actions relative to the Townsend’s big-eared 

and pallid bat analysis areas. 

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. Foraging and 

roosting habitat of both bat species may be affected by the Pumice Project. 

The 14,833-acre Hoffman Project occurs south of the Hi-Grouse Project area on the McCloud 

District of the Shasta-Trinity National Forest. The project is very early in the planning stages and 

the proposed action is anticipated to be developed in 2010. The project will focus on dwarf 

mistletoe areas. Group selections, sanitation, and small-diameter tree thinning may be proposed. 

Foraging and roosting habitat of both bat species may be affected by the Hoffman Project. 

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: 
Hi-Grouse Biological Evaluation 

78 

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. 

Foraging and roosting habitat of Townsend’s big-eared bat would be affected by the Highlands 

Roadside Safety Improvement Project. 

Determination of Effects and Rationale 

Actions proposed in alternatives 3 or 4 would alter the amount and quality of the roosting and 

foraging habitat of Townsend’s big-eared bats and pallid bats within the project area. Foraging 

habitat and opportunities would likely increase in either alternative 3 or 4. Snag roosting habitat 

would decrease slightly in quantity and quality (thermal properties). Therefore: 

Either Alternative 3 or Alternative 4 may impact individual Townsend’s big-eared bats but 

would not likely result in a trend toward listing or loss of viability. 

Either Alternative 3 or Alternative 4 may impact individual Pallid bats, but would not likely 

result in a trend toward listing or loss of viability.
Hi-Grouse Biological Evaluation 

79 

References (Literature Cited)

Andersen, D.E.; Galley, K.E.M.; Crocker-Bedford, C.; [and others]. 2004. The status of northern 

goshawks in the western United States. Technical Review 04-01, The Wildlife Society, 

Bethesda, MD. 24 p. 

Animal Diversity Web. University of Michigan Museum of Zoology. Martes Americana

American marten. Available at: 

http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Martes_americana.html.

Accessed: 9/3/2009. 

Beuttner, P. 2009. Personal communication. Wildlife Biologist. USDA-Forest Service, Pacific 

Southwest Region, Modoc National Forest. 

Bull, E.L.; Blumton, A.K. 1999. Effect of fuels reduction on American martens and their prey. 

Research Note PNW-RN-39, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 9 p. 

Buskirk, S.W.; Zielinski, W.J. 1997. American marten (Martes americana) ecology and 

conservation. In: J.E. Harris, and C.V. Ogan, (eds.), Mesocarnivores of northern California: 

biology, management, and survey techniques, workshop manual. August 12–15, Humboldt 

State University, Arcata, CA. The Wildlife Society. p. 17–22. 

California Department of Fish and Game. California Interagency Wildlife Task Group. California 

Wildlife Habitat Relationships System. Townsend’s Big-eared Bat. Available at: 

http://www.delta.dfg.ca.gov/reports/stanriver/sr448.asp. Accessed: 8/28/2009. 

California Department of Fish and Game. California Interagency Wildlife Task Group. California 

Wildlife Habitat Relationships System. Pallid Bat. Available at: 

http://www.delta.dfg.ca.gov/reports/stanriver/sr448.asp. Accessed: 4/16/2009. 

Carter, T.C.; Ford, M.W.; Menzel, M.A. 2000. Fire and bats in the Southeast and Mid-Atlantic: 

More questions than answers? In: The role of fire in nongame wildlife management and 

community restoration: traditional uses and new directions. W.M. Ford, K.R. Russell, and C. 

Moorman, (eds.), Proceedings of a Special Workshop. Nashville, TN. September 15, 2000. 

General Technical Report NE-288, USDA Forest Service Northeastern Research Station. 145 

p.

Cheyne, C. 2010. Personal communication. Wildlife Biologist. USDA Forest Service, Pacific 

Southwest Region, Klamath National Forest. 

Cheyne, C. 2009. Personal communication. Wildlife Biologist. USDA Forest Service, Pacific 

Southwest Region, Klamath National Forest. 

DeGraaf, R.M.; Scott, V.E.; Hamre, R.H.; [and others]. 1991. Forest and rangeland birds of the 

United States: Natural history and habitat use. USDA Forest Service. Agriculture Handbook 

688. 625 p. 

Derby, D.K. 2009. Personal communication. Wildlife Biologist. USDA-Forest Service, Pacific 

Southwest Region, Shasta-Trinity National Forest. 
Hi-Grouse Biological Evaluation 

80 

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. 

Fellers, G.M.; Pierson, E.D. 2002. Habitat use and foraging vehavior of Townsend’s big-eared bat 

(Corynorhinus townsendii) in coastal California. Journal of Mammalogy 83(1): 167–177. 

Graham, R.T.; Rodrigues, R.L.; Paulin, K.M.; [and others]. 1999. The Northern Goshawk in 

Utah: habitat assessment and management recommendations. General Technical Report 

RMRS-GTR-22, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 48 p. 

Gruver, J.C.; Keinath, D.A. 2006. Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii): A 

technical conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. 

Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/townsendsbigeardbat.pdf 

Hargis, C.D.; McCarthy, C.; Perloff, R.D. 1993. Home ranges and habitat of northern goshawks 

in eastern California. In: Block, Morrison and Reiser, (eds.), The northern goshawk ecology 

and management. Proceedings of a symposium of the Cooper Ornithological Society, 

Sacramento, CA. 

Hayes, J.P.; Loeb, S.C. The influences of forest management on bats in North America. In: Bats 

in forests. p. 207–235. 

Helmbrecht, D. 2009. Personal comunication. Fire and Fuels Specialist. Fire Modeling Institute, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station, Missoula Fire Sciences Lab, MT. 

Helmbrecht, D.; Kurth, L. 2009. Hi-Grouse draft fire and fuels report. Fire Modeling Institute, 

Rocky Mount Research Station, Missoula Fire Sciences Lab. 25 p. 

Keane, J.J. 1999. Ecology of the northern goshawks in the Sierra Nevada, California. Ph.D. 

dissertation, University of CA, Davis. 

Kirk, T.A. 2007. Landscape-scale habitat associations of the American marten (Martes

americana) in the greater Southern Cascades Region of California. Master of Science thesis, 

Humboldt State University, 115 p. 

Koehler, G.M.; Hornocker, M.G. 1977. Fire effects on marten habitat in the Selway-Bitterroot 

Wildernes. Journal of Wildlife Management 41(3): 500–505. 

Loeb, S.C.; Waldrop, T.A. 2007. Bat activity in relation to fire and fire surrogate treatments in 

southern pine stands. Forest Ecology and Management 255: 3185–3192. 

McNamara, M. 2009. Draft watershed Report, Hi-Grouse Project. USDA Forest Service, TEAMS 

Enterprise Unit. 88 p. 

NatureServe. 2008. Accipiter gentili–northern goshawk. NatureServe Explorer: An Online 

Encyclopedia of Life [web application], Version 7.0 (1 February 2008). Arlington, VA. 

Online: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed: 12/12/2008). 

NatureServe. 2008. Actinemys marmoratamarmorata–Northern Pacific pond turtle. NatureServe 

Explorer: An Online Encyclopedia of Life [web application], Version 7.0 (1 February 2008). 

Arlington, VA. Online: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed: 3/17/2008). 
Hi-Grouse Biological Evaluation 

81 

NatureServe. 2008. Antrozous pallidus–pallid bat. NatureServe Explorer: An Online 

Encyclopedia of Life [web application], Version 7.0 (1 February 2008). Arlington, VA. 

Online: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed: 3/17/2008). 

NatureServe. 2009. Corynorhinus townsendii–Townsend’s big-eared bat. NatureServe Explorer: 

An Online Encyclopedia of Life [web application], Version 7.1 (1 February 2008). Arlington, 

VA. Online: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed: 8/31/2009). 

NatureServe. 2008. Empidonax traillii–willow flycatcher. NatureServe Explorer: An Online 

Encyclopedia of Life [web application], Version 7.0 (1 February 2008). Arlington, VA. 

Online: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed: 3/18/2008). 

NatureServe. 2008. Martes Americana–American marten. NatureServe Explorer: An Online 

Encyclopedia of Life [web application], Version 7.0 (1 February 2008). Arlington, VA. 

Online: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed: 3/24/2008). 

NatureServe. 2008. Rana cascadae–Cascades frog. NatureServe Explorer: An Online 

Encyclopedia of Life [web application], Version 7.0 (1 February 2008). Arlington, VA. 

Online: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed: 3/17/2008). 

NatureServe. 2008. Rana boylii–foothill yellow-legged frog. NatureServe Explorer: An Online 

Encyclopedia of Life [web application], Version 7.0 (1 February 2008). Arlington, VA. 

Online: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed: 3/17/2008). 

NatureServe. 2008. Rhyacotriton variegatus–southern torrent salamander. NatureServe Explorer: 

An Online Encyclopedia of Life [web application], Version 7.0 (1 February 2008). Arlington, 

VA. Online: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed: 3/17/2008). 

NatureServe. 2008. Trilobopsis tehamana–Tehama chaparral. NatureServe Explorer: An Online 

Encyclopedia of Life [web application], Version 7.0 (1 February 2008). Arlington, VA. 

Online: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed: 3/17/2008). 

Pierson, E.D.; Wachenhut, M.C.; Altenbach, J.S.; [and others]. 1999. Species conservation 

assessment and strategy for Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii

and Cornorhinus townsendii pallescens). Idaho Conservation Effort, Idaho Department of 

Fish and Game, Boise. 

Pilliod, D.S.; Bull, E.L.; Hayes, J.L.; [and others]. 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, Ft. Collins, CO. 34 p. 

Schantz, R. 2009. Silviculture report, Hi-Grouse Forest Management Project. USDA Forest 

Service, TEAMS Enterprise Unit, 47 p. 

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

Enterprise Unit.

Self, S.; Kerns, S. 2001. Pine marten use of a managed forest landscape in Northern California. 

Sierra Pacific Research and Monitoring, Sierra Pacific Industries, Wildlife Research Paper 

No. 4. 13 p. 
Hi-Grouse Biological Evaluation 

82 

Slauson, K. 2009. Personal communication. Wildlife Biologist. USDA Forest Service, Pacific 

Southwest Research Station, Redwood Sciences Lab. 

Slauson, K.M., Zielinski, W.J.; Hayes, J.P. 2000. Ecology of American martens in coastal 

Northwestern California. Progress Report 1. 27 p. 

Smith, J.K., ed. 2000. Wildland fire in ecosystems: Effects of fire on fauna. General Technical 

Report RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 1, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, 

Ogden, UT. 83 p. 

Stebbins, R.C. 1985. The Peterson Field Guide series: A field guide to western reptiles and 

amphibians, second edition. Houghton Mifflin Company. 336 p. 

The Nature Conservancy. 1999. Species management abstract: Northern goshawk (Accipiter

gentilis). 13 p. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service. 2010. Hi-Grouse Project draft 

environmental impact statement. Pacific Southwest Region 5, Klamath National Forest, 

Goosenest Ranger District, Siskiyou County, CA. 

USDA Forest Service. 1996. Klamath National Forest land and resource management plan. 

Pacific Southwest Region 5, Klamath National Forest. 

USDA Forest Service. 1996. Goosenest Adaptive Management Area ecosystem analysis. Pacific 

Southwest Region, Klamath National Forest, Goosenest Ranger District. 

USDA Forest Service. 2002. Wildlife and federally listed plants, threatened, endangered, and 

sensitive species reference document. Southwest Region 5, Klamath National Forest. 

(Updated 10-2007 for peregrine falcon; updated 3-2008 for wolverine; updated 3-2009 for 

the northern spotted owl critical habitat, recovery plan, and change from bald eagle ESA 

status to USDA-USFS R5 sensitive.

USDA Forest Service; USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1994. Record of decision for 

amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management planning documents within 

the range of the northern spotted owl (known as the Northwest Forest Plan.)

Western Bat Working Group. 2005. Species Accounts. Antrozous pallidus Pallid Bat. 4pp. 

Willy, E. 2008. Habitat matrix for northern spotted owls, northern goshawks and marten on the 

Goosenest Ranger District. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Woodbridge, B.; Detrich, P.J. 1993. Territory occupancy and habitat patch size of northern 

goshawks in the southern Cascades of California. In: Block, Morrison and Reiser, eds. The 

northern goshawk ecology and management. Proceedings of a symposium of the Cooper 

Ornithological Society, Sacramento, CA. 

Zielinski, W.J.; Truex, R.L.; Schlexer, F.V.; [and others]. 2005. Historical and contemporary 

distributions of carnivores in forests of the Sierra Nevada, California. Journal of 

Biogeography 32: 1385–1407. 
Hi-Grouse Biological Evaluation 

85 

Map 4. Marten, foreseeable future projects
91

Map 10. Bat analysis areas
92

Map 11. Bats, foreseeable future projects