Northern Spotted Owl

Biological Assessment 

of Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 for the 

Hi-Grouse Forest Management 

Project

Goosenest Ranger District 

Klamath National Forest 

Prepared by: 

Marynell Oechsner March 25, 2010

Marynell Oechsner Date 

Wildlife Biologist 

TEAMS Enterprise 

Reviewed by:

/s/ 

 Date 

Marynell Oechsner 

2010.03.25 15:59:30 -06'00'
Hi-Grouse Biological Assessment Alternatives 1, 2, and 3

2

Table of Contents 

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 4

Project Objectives ......................................................................................................................................... 4

Alternative 1 (No Action) ............................................................................................................................. 5

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) ................................................................................................................... 5

..................................................................................................................................................D

escription of Treatments ........................................................................................................................... 6

Thinning from Below ............................................................................................................................ 6

Thinning Within Late-Successional Habitats ....................................................................................... 6

Ponderosa Pine/Mixed Conifer Restoration and Reestablishment ........................................................ 7

Lodgepole Pine Thinning/Fuels Reduction ........................................................................................... 7

Plantation Thinning ............................................................................................................................... 7

Underburning Only ............................................................................................................................... 8

Fuel Management Zones ....................................................................................................................... 8

Landings ................................................................................................................................................ 8

Road Maintenance and Temporary Roads ............................................................................................ 8

Alternative 3.................................................................................................................................................. 9

..................................................................................................................................................W

ildlife Project Design Features ................................................................................................................. 9

Northern Spotted Owl Assessment ............................................................................................................. 11

..................................................................................................................................................M

ethodology .............................................................................................................................................. 11

..................................................................................................................................................E

nvironmental Baseline/Existing Condition ............................................................................................. 12

5th-field Watershed ............................................................................................................................. 13

Quarter Townships .............................................................................................................................. 13

Project Area ........................................................................................................................................ 14

Late Successional Reserve .................................................................................................................. 14

KL-3201 Activity Center .................................................................................................................... 14

Critical Habitat .................................................................................................................................... 15

..................................................................................................................................................E

nvironmental Consequences ................................................................................................................... 16

Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis ............................................................................ 16

Alternative 1 (No Action) ................................................................................................................... 16

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) ......................................................................................................... 17

Alternative 3 ........................................................................................................................................ 36

References (Literature Cited) ...................................................................................................................... 47

List of Tables 

Table 1. Comparison of alternatives 1, 2, and 3 ........................................................................................... 4

Table 2. Number of existing, relocated, and new landings by alternative .................................................... 8

Table 3. Wildlife project design features for northern spotted owls ............................................................. 9

Table 4. Acres/percent of available late successional/old growth habitat (LSOG) in the 

5th-field watershed ............................................................................................................................... 13

Table 5. Number of acres and percent of acres providing dispersal (connectivity) habitat by quarter 

township all ownerships ...................................................................................................................... 13

Table 7. Suitable habitat that exists within the core of activity center KL-3201 ........................................ 14

Table 8. Suitable habitat within the KL-3201 home range (excluding the 503-acre core area) ................. 15

Table 9. Total combined suitable habitat within the 1.3 mile (3,398 acre) home range of KL-3201 ......... 15
Hi-Grouse Biological Assessment Alternatives 1, 2, and 3

3

Table 10. Existing northern spotted owl habitat in critical habitat subunit 67 within the 

Hi-Grouse Project Area ....................................................................................................................... 16

Table 11. Changes to dispersal (connectivity) habitat as a result of alternative 2 ...................................... 18

Table 12. Effects of alternative 2 to nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat within the project area.......... 20

Table 13. Approximate amounts of pre- and post NSO habitat across the project area ............................. 23

Table 14. Nesting/roosting and foraging habitat within KL-3201 core area proposed for treatment in 

alternative 2 ......................................................................................................................................... 24

Table 15. Nesting/roosting habitat within home range (outside core area) proposed for treatment in 

alternative 2 ......................................................................................................................................... 24

Table 16. Foraging habitat effects within home range (outside core area) proposed for treatment in 

alternative 2 ......................................................................................................................................... 25

Table 17. Acres of foraging habitat that would be underburned within KL-3201 home range by unit ...... 27

Table 18. Effects of alternative 2 on NSO habitat within KL-3201 activity center .................................... 28

Table 19. Acres of nesting/roosting and foraging habitat affected by alternative 2 within 

critical habitat subunit 67 .................................................................................................................... 29

Table 20. Acres of foraging habitat that would be underburned within critical habitat subunit 67 ............ 30

Table 21. Current and projected* basal area and canopy cover by prescription ......................................... 31

Table 22. Effects of alternative 3 to nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat within the project area.......... 37

Table 23. Approximate amounts of pre- and post NSO habitat across the project area ............................. 39

Table 24. Nesting/roosting and foraging habitat within KL-3201 core area proposed for 

treatment in alternative 3 .................................................................................................................... 39

Table 25. Nesting/roosting habitat within home range (outside core area) proposed for treatment in 

alternative 3 ......................................................................................................................................... 40

Table 26. Foraging habitat effects within home range (outside core area) proposed for treatment in 

alternative 3 ......................................................................................................................................... 41

Table 27. Acres of foraging habitat that would be underburned within KL-3201 home range by unit ...... 42

Table 28. Effects of alternative 3 on NSO habitat within KL-3201 activity center .................................... 42

Table 29. Acres of nesting/roosting and foraging habitat degraded in alternative 3 within 

critical habitat subunit 67. ................................................................................................................... 43

Table 30. Acres of nesting/roosting and foraging habitat that would be underburned within 

critical habitat subunit 67. ................................................................................................................... 43

Table 31. Current and projected* basal area and canopy cover by prescriptions proposed in 

alternative 3 ......................................................................................................................................... 44

List of Maps 

Map 1. Hi-Grouse Project location area ...................................................................................................... 49

Map 2. NSO connectivity habitat within project area quarter townships ................................................... 50

Map 3. Hi-Grouse Project NSO habitat, exiting condition ......................................................................... 51

Map 4. Hi-Grouse Project post-treatment NSO habitat, alternative 2 ........................................................ 52

Map 5. Hi-Grouse Project NSO connectivity habitat, alternative 2 within quarter townships ................... 53

Map 6. Highlands Roadside Safety Improvement Project, Doublehead Ranger District, Modoc NF ........ 54
Hi-Grouse Biological Assessment Alternatives 1, 2, and 3

4

Introduction 

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

(referred to hereafter as “the project”) alternatives 1 (no action), 2 (proposed action) and 3 to northern 

spotted owl (NSO), a threatened species. Included in this document are the objectives of the project and a 

description of alternatives 1, 2 and 3, along with the environmental consequences of each alternative to 

NSO and their habitat. 

The biological assessment (BA) for the Hi-Grouse Forest Management Project (Oechsner 2010) discusses 

the effects of alternative 4, the preferred alternative, to NSO and their habitat. The biological assessment 

for preferred alternative 4 (Oechsner 2010), should be referenced with regard to listed species, 

management direction, consultation to date, and the location and physical description of the project area 

relative to NSO critical habitat. 

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 1 displays a comparison of alternatives 1, 2, and 3.Table 1. Comparison of alternatives 1, 2, and 3 

Treatments1 Alternative 1 

(No Action) 

Alternative 2 

(Proposed 

Action) Alternative 3 

Thinning from below 0 2,831 2,094 

Overall fuels abatement2 0 2,831 2,094 

Mowing 0 346 254 

Underburning 0 1,729 789 

Post-treatment evaluation of planting 0 757 0 

Ponderosa pine/mixed conifer restoration and reestablishment 

0 1,188 0 

Overall fuels abatement 0 1,188 0 

Mowing 0 70 0 

Underburning 0 939 0 

Post-treatment evaluation of planting 0 1,188 0 
Hi-Grouse Biological Assessment Alternatives 1, 2, and 3

5

Treatments1 Alternative 1 

(No Action) 

Alternative 2 

(Proposed 

Action) Alternative 3 

Lodgepole pine thinning/fuels reduction 0 683 683 

Overall fuels abatement 0 683 683 

Mowing 0 428 428 

Plantation thinning 0 99 99 

Overall fuels abatement 0 99 99 

Underburning only 0 42 478 

Fuel management zones3

Acres outside other treatments 

0 13 mi. 

(480 acres) 

266 

13 mi. 

(480 acres) 

300 

Total project area acres proposed for treatment 0 5,109 3,654 

Construction of temporary roads 0 0.7 0.7 

Temporary use of non-system roads 0 3.2 1.6 

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. 

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 National Forest System Roads 15, 77, 44N84, 44N77, 

44N75, and 44N75D. 

Since the initiation of this document, alternative 2 was dropped from further analysis on January 4, 2010. 

At the same time, treatments across about 86 acres in alternative 3 were dropped. Changes to alternative 

3 are not reflected in table 1 above or in the description of alternative 3 on page 9. A detailed description 

of the modification to alternative 3 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. 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 (the 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 

after 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 late-successional 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. 
Hi-Grouse Biological Assessment Alternatives 1, 2, and 3

6

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 Environmental Impact Statement for a detailed 

description of silvicultural and fuels prescriptions (USDA Forest Service 2009). 

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 unthinned 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 (BA) and a canopy cover of approximately 40 percent will be retained. 

Exceptions are small pockets of pine that may be more heavily thinned. 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 post-treatment for underplanting 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 BA 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 unthinned. (See attached prescription descriptions, these prescriptions include: HTH-WF-PP-liteNGH, HTH-WF-PP-lite NSO, and PCT2-OGRF.) 
Hi-Grouse Biological Assessment Alternatives 1, 2, and 3

7

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 accounts for 364 

acres in alternative 2. 

Ponderosa Pine/Mixed Conifer Restoration and Reestablishment 

Pine restoration and reestablishment 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 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. 

Unthinned 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 fireresistant 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 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). 
Hi-Grouse Biological Assessment Alternatives 1, 2, and 3

8

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.

Fuel Management Zones 

Fuel management zones (FMZs) 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. FMZs will generally 

extend 150 feet either side of the road. Some FMZs 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 2 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 

Maps 3, 4, and 7at the end of this document. 

Table 2. Number of existing, relocated, and new landings by alternative 

Landing Type 

Alternative 1 

(No Action) 

Alternative 2 

(Proposed Action) Alternative 3 

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 (NFS) roads. There will be no new permanent roads constructed or added to the Forest system. 

Primary NFS roads that serve the project area are: 15, 77, 44N80, 44N62, and 44N54. Existing NFS 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 
Hi-Grouse Biological Assessment Alternatives 1, 2, and 3

9

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, thinning from below will be reduced by about 734 acres; in particular, 

thinning within late-successional habitats is reduced to 180 acres (units 37 and 41). There will be no 

ponderosa pine/mixed conifer restoration and re-establishment treatments. This alternative does not 

include planting. Use of underburning 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). 

Wildlife Project Design Features 

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

alternatives to natural resources. Table 3 displays those project design features that would be 

implemented with 3 to reduce or avoid adverse environmental effects to wildlife, including NSO and 

their habitat. 

Table 3. Wildlife project design features for northern spotted owls 

Project 

Design 

Feature Description 

Units Where it 

Applies 

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 

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

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

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

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

amounts being left in the heavier treatments where suitable habitat is 

available. Due to the nature of the fuel management zones, 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 
Hi-Grouse Biological Assessment Alternatives 1, 2, and 3

10 

Project 

Design 

Feature Description 

Units Where it 

Applies 

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 

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

heavy thinning prescriptions involving removal of substantial amounts of 

true fir the following elements would be retained: essentially all 

ponderosa pine/sugar pine/white pine, pre-dominant trees, widely spaced 

true fir, and no-treatment clumps 

All units 

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

of understory vegetation, except where treatments are immediately 

adjacent to private property. Forty percent of underburn treatment areas 

will remain untreated to provide wildlife habitat. 

All units 

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 

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

and foraging habitat and Critical 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, roosting and foraging 

habitat in the fuel management zone and Critical Habitat, reduce habitat 

fragmentation, and provide screening and travel corridors for wildlife.

Units 29, 30, 41 

in fuel 

management 

zone along 

Road 77 

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

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

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

district biologist will contact USFWS. 

Purpose: To ensure detection and protection of any northern spotted owls 

utilizing habitat affected by the project.

All units 

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

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

owl habitat. 

Purpose: To ensure protection of any northern spotted owls utilizing 

previously un-surveyed habitat.

Units 1, 2, 3, 4, 

12A, 13, 37 and 

53A 
Hi-Grouse Biological Assessment Alternatives 1, 2, and 3

11 

Project 

Design 

Feature Description 

Units Where it 

Applies 

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 on site to provide coarse woody debris, 

consistent with fuels objectives (Klamath LRMP; pages 4-23–4-24). 

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

marten as well as denning habitat for various wildlife species. 

All units 

WL-9 Retain at a minimum, 5 snags per acre of standing dead or dying trees 

(preferably in clumps) greater than or equal to 20 inches 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 

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 

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

untreated. 

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

All units 

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

safety reasons will be left on-site for use by wildlife. 

Purpose: To provide large down woody debris for down woody dependent 

wildlife species 

All units 

Northern Spotted Owl Assessment 

For life history information, range, distribution and definitions of suitable habitat for NSO, refer to the 

Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (USDI and USFWS 2008) and the Revised Designation of 

Critical habitat for the Northern Spotted Owl (USDI and USFWS 2008). 

Many historical spotted owl site-centers are no longer occupied because spotted owls have been displaced 

by barred owls, timber harvest, or fires (USDI and USFWS 2008). Declining suitable habitat was 

recognized as a severe or moderate threat to the spotted owl throughout its range; isolation of populations 

was identified as a severe or moderate threat in 11 out of 12 provinces, and a decline in population was a 

severe or moderate threat in 10 of the 12 provinces. Currently, the primary source of habitat loss is 

catastrophic wildfire (USFWS 2008). It is the Service’s (USFWS) belief that the threat from barred owls 

is extremely pressing and complex, requiring immediate consideration (USDI-USFWS 2008). 

Methodology 

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

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

The NSO habitat layer utilized for GIS queries was updated in January 2009, using updated vegetation 

data called ‘e-veg04’ from the USFS Region 5 Remote Sensing Laboratory. To complete the update, the 

following multiple information sets and professional judgment were used: (1) Klamath National Forest 
Hi-Grouse Biological Assessment Alternatives 1, 2, and 3

12 

definition of NSO habitat, (2) data dictionary for pre-2009 Nesting-Roosting-Foraging GIS layer, and (3) 

Northern Spotted Owl Fish and Wildlife Service-Baseline Definition. Using the information, a model was 

developed by reviewing all attributes in KNF e-veg04 to determine which attributes can be used to define 

NSO habitat. (For more go to RSL website: http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/rsl/projects/frdb/layers/ev_mid.html.) 

E-veg04 was also used in the 50:11:40 analysis (Thomas et al. 1990) to determine connectivity/dispersal 

habitat conditions within 1⁄4 townships of the project area. The location of NSO activity centers within a 

16-mile mean-dispersal distance of KL-3201 activity center within the project area were obtained from 

adjoining districts of the Shasta-Trinity and Modoc National Forests. 

Environmental Baseline/Existing Condition 

The range of the NSO in California includes three physiographic provinces: the California Coast, 

California Klamath, and the California Cascade. The California Cascade Province connects the range of 

the NSO and the California spotted owl (USDA-FS 1996). The Goosenest Ranger District is the eastern 

most district of the Klamath National Forest and the project area is the eastern extent of NSO range in the 

fire-prone California Cascades. 

Populations in the Southern Cascades are stationary with fecundity declining (USFWS 2008). The 

Klamath National Forest has 246 activity centers; 26 of those activity centers occur on the Goosenest 

Ranger District, of which 6 are on the eastside of the Goosenest Ranger District within 16 miles of the 

project area. (Sixteen miles is about the mean dispersal distance for 50 percent of the juvenile male and 

female owls [Forsman et al. 2002].) The McCloud Ranger District of the Shasta-Trinity National Forest 

has two NSO activity centers within 16 miles of activity center KL-3201. Two additional recent owl 

locations occur in close proximity of each other on the McCloud District/Doublehead Ranger District 

boundary. An activity center has not yet been determined (Derby 2009). 

The Doublehead District of the Modoc National Forest has two established NSO activity centers within 

16 miles of KL-3201 activity center within the project area. There are two additional “paired” owl 

locations on the Doublehead District. These recently discovered owl locations do not yet have activity 

centers determined (Beuttner 2009). Map 1 (at end of document) displays the NSO activity centers that 

occur within 16 miles of the KL-3201 activity center. 

In 1989, a pair of NSO was found within the project area, and as a result, activity center KL-3201 was 

established. Surveys for NSO were conducted periodically in and around KL-3201 since 1991, including 

2007, 2008, and 2009. In recent survey years, barred owls have been detected within 0.7 miles of activity 

center KL-3201 while NSO have not been detected there since 1994. The presence of barred owls has 

been known to interfere or inhibit responses from NSO that occur in the same vicinity. Thus, survey 

results are inconclusive as to whether or not activity center KL-3201 is occupied by NSO along with 

barred owls. In addition, all nesting/roosting and foraging habitat within 1.3 miles of NSO habitat 

proposed for treatment in the project area has not been surveyed to protocol. 

The trend analysis for habitat of the NSO indicated an overall decline of about 2.1 percent in the amount 

of suitable habitat on Federal lands as a result of range-wide management activities from 1994 to 2003 

(USFWS 2008). This rate of loss is lower than the 2.5 percent per decade estimate of habitat loss 

resulting from management activities predicted in the Northwest Forest Plan (USFWS 2008). 

California Cascade Province has shown a relatively high rate of habitat loss (USFWS 2008). The average 

annual habitat decline of 0.64 percent within the California Cascade Province amounted to 5.77 percent 

(5,091 acres) over the course of 9 years through 2003 (USFWS 2008). 
Hi-Grouse Biological Assessment Alternatives 1, 2, and 3

13 

It is estimated that approximately 60 percent of the project area has had previous partial cutting with 

approximately another 5 percent having been regenerated. Approximately 30 percent of the project area 

has had a full or partial overstory removal of the largest trees (Schantz 2009). The Hi Timber Sale of 

1989–1990 removed suitable nesting/roosting habitat within activity center core of KL-3201 and the 

surrounding area (Cheyne 2009). Reduction in the amount of suitable nesting, roosting, and foraging 

habitat has continued in the project area as a result of drought along with an increase in insect and disease. 

5th-field Watershed 

The project area occurs on the southern end of the Badger Basin-Willow Creek 5th-field Watershed. 

Approximately half of the watershed is capable land. Capable lands include those forests within NSO 

elevational limits of occupancy, at some time in the future, capable of growing and sustaining structural 

conditions that would function as owl habitat (USFWS 2008). The watershed is well below the 15 percent 

retention of late-successional/old-growth forest (LSOG) guideline in the Klamath National Forest LRMP 

(page 4-22). Table 4 displays the acres and percent of late successional/old growth habitat in the 

watershed (Stresser 2009). 

Table 4. Acres/percent of available late successional/old growth habitat (LSOG) in the 5th-field watershed 

5th-Field Watershed Total Acres 

Acres of 

Capable Land Acres of LSOG Percent LSOG 

Badger Basin-Willow Creek 84,067 44,230 945 2% 

Quarter Townships 

The project area overlaps six quarter townships. Dispersal/connectivity habitat was determined for these 

six quarter townships. Map 2 (at end of document) and table 5 displays the location, number of acres, and 

percent of land that is providing dispersal habitat (connectivity) by quarter township all ownerships. 

Table 5. Number of acres and percent of acres providing dispersal (connectivity) habitat by quarter township 

all ownerships 

Quarter Township Total Acres Acres of Dispersal Habitat

Percent of Dispersal 

Habitat

43N2E NE 4,399 3,655 83% 

43N2E NW 4,601 3,587 78% 

43N3E NW 4,865 3,810 78% 

44N2E SE 5,416 4,590 85% 

44N2E SW 5,355 3,257 61% 

44N3E SW 5,451 4,589 84% 

Quarter townships 43N2E NW and 44N2E SW have 201 acres (6 percent) and 83 acres (3 percent), 

respectively, of dispersal habitat that occur in other ownerships. All quarter sections exceed the 50 

percent threshold for dispersal (connectivity) habitat (11 inches dbh and 40 percent crown closure) across 

the landscape (Thomas et al. 1990). 
Hi-Grouse Biological Assessment Alternatives 1, 2, and 3

14 

Project Area 

Approximately 66 percent or 4,924 acres of the project area provides nesting/roosting and foraging 

habitats for NSO. See map 3 (end of document) for the location and distribution of NSO habitat within 

the project area. Table 6 displays the type and amount of NSO habitat in the project area. 

Table 6. Type and amount of NSO habitat within the project area 

Habitat Type Acres (%) of Project Area 

Nesting/Roosting 546 (7.4%) 

Foraging 4,378 (59%) 

Dispersal 51 (0.7%) 

Non-Habitat 2,475 (33%) 

Total Acres 7,451 

Late Successional Reserve 

A 155-acre late successional reserve (LSR; #5297) occurs within the project area. The LSR has 71 acres 

(46 percent) of nesting/roosting habitat, and 82 acres (53 percent) of foraging habitat. LSR #5297 has no 

dispersal habitat and 2 acres are classified as non-habitat. 

KL-3201 Activity Center 

Tables 7, 8, and 9 display the amount (and percentage) of nesting/roosting, foraging, and suitable habitat 

that exists and is needed within KL-3201 core area (503 acres) and home range (3,396 acres). LSR #5297 

contributes 71 acres of nesting/roosting habitat and 66 acres of foraging habitat to the KL-3201 core area. 

There are currently sufficient amounts of nesting/roosting, and foraging habitat within the KL-3201 core 

area. There are also 40 acres of non-capable habitat in the core area. A sufficient amount and type of 

habitat for NSO currently exists within KL-3201 activity center. 

Table 7. Suitable habitat that exists within the core of activity center KL-3201 

Suitable Habitat Acres (%) Needed Acres (%) Existing 

Nesting/Roosting 250 (50%) 297 (59%) 

Foraging 150 (30%) 166 (33%) 

Total Suitable 400 (80%) 463 (92%) 

KL-3201 home range area (not including core) is 2,895 acres. LSR#5297 contributes 16 acres of foraging 

habitat to the home range. Seventy-seven percent or 2,233 acres is suitable habitat for NSO within the 

home range. There are 638 acres in the home range not considered NSO habitat. Table 8 displays the 

acres of suitable NSO habitat that currently exists within KL-3201 home range. 
Hi-Grouse Biological Assessment Alternatives 1, 2, and 3

15 

Table 8. Suitable habitat within the KL-3201 home range (excluding the 503-acre core area) 

Suitable Habitat Acres of Suitable Habitat Percent of Suitable Acres Percent of Home Range 

Nesting/Roosting 223 10% 8% 

Foraging 2005 90% 69% 

Dispersal 5 <1% <1% 

Total Suitable 2,233 - 77% 

Table 9. Total combined suitable habitat within the 1.3 mile (3,398 acre) home range of KL-3201 

Suitable Habitat Acres Needed 

Acres Existing 

Suitable Habitat 

Percent Existing 

Suitable Habitat 

Percent of Home 

Range 

Nesting/Roosting >=250 520 19% 15% 

Foraging >=1,085 2,171 81% 64% 

Dispersal -- 5 <1% <1% 

Total Suitable 1,336 2,696 - 79% 

Critical Habitat 

On January 15, 1992, the USFWS designated critical habitat for the NSO across Washington, Oregon, and 

California (USDI FWS 1992). Critical habitat for the NSO was revised on August 13, 2008 (USDI FWS 

2008). The Hi-Grouse project area is not within NSO critical habitat as designated in 1992, but it is 

within critical habitat unit 29, subunit 67 as designated in 2008. NSO critical habitat designation is based 

upon the identification of blocks of suitable habitat that are well-distributed across the range of the NSO. 

Critical habitat units were intended to identify a network of habitats that provided the functions 

considered important to maintaining stable, self-sustaining, and interconnected populations over the range 

of the NSO; each critical habitat unit has a local, provincial, and range-wide role in NSO conservation.

Most critical habitat units were expected to provided suitable habitat for population support, some were 

designated primarily for connectivity, and other were designated to provide for both population support 

and connectivity. 

Critical habitat for a listed species contains the physical or biological features (primary constituent 

elements) essential to the conservation of the species. When considering the physical features, it is 

important to evaluate the influence of physical factors such as elevation and slope position toward the 

contribution of biological features such as large trees to the species. Primary constituent elements 

associated with nesting, roosting, and foraging habitats include moderate to high canopy closures; multilayered, multi-species canopy; large overstory trees; large trees with deformities; large snags; large 

accumulations of down woody debris; and sufficient open space to fly beneath canopy. Primary 

constituent elements associated with dispersal habitat are adequate tree size and canopy closure to provide 

protection from predators and minimal foraging opportunities.

Critical Habitat Unit within the Project Area 

All but 15 acres (greater than 99 percent) of the 1,751 acres of critical habitat unit 29, subunit 67 occur 

within the 7,604-acre Hi-Grouse Project area (see map 3, end of document). Map 3 and table 10 display 

the location and acres, respectively, of the existing NSO nesting, roosting and foraging, habitat within 

critical habitat subunit 67. 
Hi-Grouse Biological Assessment Alternatives 1, 2, and 3

16 

Table 10. Existing northern spotted owl habitat in critical habitat subunit 67 within the Hi-Grouse Project Area 

Habitat Type 

Acres of Critical 

Habitat Subunit 67 in 

Project Area 

Percent of Suitable 

Critical Habitat in 

Subunit 67 in Project 

Area 

Percent of Critical 

Habitat in Subunit 67 

in Project Area 

Nesting/Roosting 326 25% 19% 

Foraging 973 75% 56% 

Dispersal 0 0 0 

Total Suitable Acres 1,299 - - 

Non-habitat 452 - 26% 

Total Critical Habitat Acres 1,751 - - 

Environmental Consequences 

In addition to the Klamath National Forest LRMP standards and guidelines for endangered and threatened 

species (page 4-27) and the NSO on page 4-28, project design features displayed in this document (pages 

9 and 10) address the retention of important habitat features. 

Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis 

Direct and indirect effects of the Hi-Grouse Forest Management Project were evaluated at the Badger 

Basin-Willow Creek Watershed level, quarter townships, the project area, LSR #5297, and critical habitat 

subunit 67spatial scales. In this document, National Environmental Policy Act cumulative effects and 

foreseeable actions were evaluated up to 16 miles from the project area boundary. (Sixteen miles is about 

the mean dispersal distance for 50 percent of the juvenile male and female owls [Forsman et al. 2002].) 

Endangered Species Act cumulative effects were evaluated 1.3 miles from NSO habitat affected by 

alternative 2.

Implementation of the Hi-Grouse project is anticipated to begin 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 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. 

Intensity of Effects to Habitat: 

Degraded ~ The habitat continues to function at its current state (i.e., nesting/roosting/foraging).

For example: pre-treatment nesting/roosting habitat maintains the characteristics and 

functionality of nesting/roosting habitat post-treatment. 

Downgraded ~ Habitat characteristics are changed from suitable nesting/roosting to foraging 

habitat or foraging habitat that is changed to dispersal habitat. 

Removed ~ Habitat that is eliminated and no longer functions as owl habitat (becomes capable). 

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. 
Hi-Grouse Biological Assessment Alternatives 1, 2, and 3

17 

Tree mortality from insects and disease would be expected to continue within the project area. 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. 

The amount of available nesting and roosting habitat for NSO within KL-3201 activity center and critical 

habitat subunit 67 would be expected to continue to decline in the short and long term. Foraging habitat 

would continue to be provided in the short term, but would also be expected to decline long term. 

Dispersal habitat would be expected to increase as nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat declined over 

time.

The loss of NSO habitat to high-severity wildfire in the Klamath and Cascade Provinces has been 

relatively high over the last decade and if this trend continued, could significantly impact the owl in these 

drier forests (USFWS 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. The quantity 

and quality of NSO habitat remaining after a wildfire would affect the continued viability of the KL-3201 

activity center and critical habitat subunit 67. 

Cumulative Effects 

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

Determination of Effects 

Alternative 1 (no action) would have no effect on northern spotted owls or their habitat.

Alternative 1, (no action) would have no effect to Critical Habitat Sub-unit 67.

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) 

Alternative 2 was dropped from further analysis on January 4, 2010. 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

NSO presence within the project area, LSR 5297, the historical KL-3201 Activity Center, and critical 

habitat subunit 67 has not been documented during surveys conducted in 2007, 2008, and 2009. One 

historic owl activity center (KL-3201) occur within 1.3 miles of habitat proposed for treatment in 

alternative 2 (see map 1, end of document). 

Survey efforts throughout the life of the project will continue. Should a pair of breeding NSO be detected 

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

situation by the district biologist would occur in order to determine what appropriate actions should be 

taken to protect NSO and their habitat. 

Barred owls have been documented utilizing NSO habitat within the project area, and competition 

between the species may be occurring. Barred owls negatively affect site occupancy, reproduction, and 

survival of NSO (Livezey et al. 2007). It is possible that these same negative effects may be occurring to 

spotted owls if they are currently occupying habitat that occurs the project area. 

Quantified Changes to NSO Habitat within the Project Area and Activity Center 

Late Successional Reserve. No changes to late successional reserve habitat would occur as a result of 

treatments proposed in alternative 2. 
Hi-Grouse Biological Assessment Alternatives 1, 2, and 3

18 

Quarter Townships. Table 11 displays the changes to the amount of dispersal (connectivity habitat) by 

quarter township as a result of alternative 2. 

Table 11. Changes to dispersal (connectivity) habitat as a result of alternative 2 

Quarter

Township 

Acres Dispersal 

Habitat Post 

Treatment 

Acres of Dispersal 

Habitat Reduced 

Percent Change in 

Dispersal Habitat 

Percent Dispersal 

Habitat Post 

Treatment 

43N2E NE 4,179 220 -5% 74% 

43N2E NW 4,601 0 0 78% 

43N3E NW 4,788 77 -2% 77% 

44N2E SE 4,771 645 -12% 50% 

44N2E SW 5,262 93 -2% 50% 

44N3E SW 5,388 63 -1% 82% 

In addition to the 5,262 acres of dispersal habitat in quarter township 44N2E SW, there are an additional 

83 acres of dispersal habitat on non-Federal land. Adequate dispersal habitat would be maintained at or 

above 50 percent in all six of the quarter townships (see map 5 at the end of this document.). Portions of 

quarter township 44N2E SW and SE are outside the range of the northern spotted owl. Connectivity 

beween other activity centers within 16 miles of KL-3201 activity center (see map 1 at end of document) 

would remain adequate following implementation of alternative 2. There are no known northern spotted 

owls to the north of this quarter township and vegetation types to the north quickly transition to east-side 

pine types, which are not likely to be utilized by northern spotted owls. Activities occurring within the 

44N2E SW quarter township are concentrated in the extreme southeast corner of the quarter township. 

Current conditions within this portion of the project area likely support dispersal of NSOs to disperse 

through the acres associated with project activities; however, NSOs are still expected to utilize this area 

due to the variability of habitat conditions that will be retained post treatment. 

As demonstrated on Map 1 (at the end of this document), the closest known NSO activity center is less 

than 5 miles to the southwest of this quarter township Non-capable ground such as large lava flows, glass 

and pumice mountains (Little Glass Mountain Geologic Area) are immediately south and east of the 

project boundary, as well as large tracts of lodgepole pine (also considered non-capable of becoming 

nesting/roosting habitat). 

The area south of the project area on the Shasta-Trinity National Forest provides both foraging and 

dispersal habitat for NSO (Derby 2009). Movement of a northern spotted owl between the Goosenest 

District and the Shasta-Trinity National Forest has been demonstrated with a color-banded adult moving 

from the Haight Mtn (KL-0372) 16 miles southwest to the Six Shooter Butte area (Derby 2009). The 

amount and distribution of dispersal habitat south and southwest of the project area, along with the 

number of nearest neighboring activity centers that occur within 16 miles of KL-3201, would facilitate 

continued connectivity for dispersal of NSO to and from the project area and critical habitat subunit 67. 

Habitat similar to what is described above also occurs east of the project boundary on the Doublehead 

District of the Modoc National Forest. This landscape is dominated by lodgepole, glass flows and high 

elevation true tir. Pockets of fir may allow successful dispersal/movement as shown by the Haight 

Mountain spotted owl. Adequate dispersal habitat would also be maintained east of the project area with 

the Modoc National Forest. 
Hi-Grouse Biological Assessment Alternatives 1, 2, and 3

19 

Project Area. Treatments are proposed across 53 percent or 3,955 acres (includes fuel management zone 

acres) of the project area. Map 4 (end of document) displays the location of the treatments proposed in 

alternative 2 as well as the location of owl habitat following treatments in the project Area, KL-3201 

Activity Center, and critical habitat subunit 67. Table 12 displays the effects of alternative 2 to nesting, 

roosting, and foraging habitat within the project area. No dispersal habitat within units would be treated 

in alternative 2. 
Hi-Grouse Biological Assessment Alternatives 1, 2, and 3

20 

Table 12. Effects of alternative 2 to nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat within the project area 

Unit

No. 

Unit

Subdivision Silvicultural RX Fuels RX Species Composition Acres** 

Acres 

Suitable PreHarvest 

Acres 

Suitable 

Post Harvest 

Acres Habitat 

Downgraded 

Acres Habitat 

Degraded 

Acres Habitat 

Removed 

N/R F N/R F N/R F N/R F N/R F

1 1 HTH-PP LTA/M/UB PP 31/31 0 31 0 0 0 31 0 0 0 0 2 2 HTH-PP LTA/M/UB PP-WF 129/129 0 129 0 0 0 129 0 0 0 0 3 3 HTH-PP-Hvy LTA/PCT2/MP/UB PP-WF-LP 58/58 0 58 0 0 0 58 0 0 0 0 4 4 HTH-PP LTA/M/UB PP 57/57 0 57 0 0 0 57 0 0 0 0 5 5 HTH-PP LTA/PCT2/M/UB PP-WF-LP 92/92 0 92 0 0 0 92 0 0 0 0 6 6 HTH-PP LTA/MP/UB WF-PP-LP 78/78 0 78 0 0 0 78 0 0 0 0 7 7 HTH-PP LTA/MP/UB WF-PP 144/175 0 144 0 0 0 144 0 0 0 0 8 8 PRE LTA/SMR/MP/UB WF-PP 90/90 0 90 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 9 9 PCT2 HP PP-WF-LP 16/16 0 16 0 16 0 0 0 16 0 0 10 10 HTH-PP-Hvy LTA/MP/UB WF-PP 37/42 0 37 0 0 0 37 0 0 0 0 11 11 HTH-PP-Hvy LTA/MP/UB WF-PP 190/193 0 190 0 0 0 190 0 0 0 0 12 12a HTH-LP LTA/PCT2/MP/M LP-WF-PP 245 - - - - - - - - - - 12 12b LPFR LTA/PCT2/MP/M LP 256 - - - - - - - - - - 13 13 HTH-LP LTA/PCT2/MP/M LP-WF-RF 183 - - - - - - - - - - 14 14 PRE LTA/SMR/MP WF-LP-RFPP 42/42 0 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 15 15 PRE LTA/PCT2/MP/UB WF-PP 56/56 0 56 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 56 16 16 HTH-WF-PP-liteNSO LTA/SMR/MP WF-PP 152/152 103 49 103 49 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 17 PCT2 HP/MP LP-WF-PP 29 - - - - - - - - - - 18 18 HTH-MC-Hvy LTA/PCT2/MP/UB PP-WF-LP 204/204 0 204 0 0 0 204 0 0 0 0 19 19 HTH-WF-PP LTA/SMR/MP WF-PP 154/154 0 154 0 0 0 154 0 0 0 0 20 20 HTH-PP-Hvy LTA/PCT2/MP/UB WF-PP 107/109 0 107 0 0 0 107 0 0 0 0 21 21a HTH-WF-PP LTA/SMR/MP/UB WF-PP 188/188 0 188 0 0 0 188 0 0 0 0 21 21b PCT2 LTA/MP WF-PP 44/44 0 44 0 44 0 0 0 44 0 0 
Hi-Grouse Biological Assessment Alternatives 1, 2, and 3

21 

Unit

No. 

Unit

Subdivision Silvicultural RX Fuels RX Species Composition Acres** 

Acres 

Suitable PreHarvest 

Acres 

Suitable 

Post Harvest 

Acres Habitat 

Downgraded 

Acres Habitat 

Degraded 

Acres Habitat 

Removed 

N/R F N/R F N/R F N/R F N/R F

21 21c PPR LTA/SMR/MP/UB WF-PP 163/163 0 163 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 163 22 22 HTH-WF-PP LTA/SMR/MP WF-PP 211/211 0 211 0 0 0 211 0 0 0 0 23 23 HTH-WF-PP-liteNGH LTA/SMR/MP WF-PP 32/32 0 32 0 32 0 0 0 32 0 0 24 24 HTH-WF-PP-liteNSO LTA/SMR/MP WF-PP 72/72 0 72 0 72 0 0 0 72 0 0 25 25a PPR LTA/SMR/MP/UB WF-PP 57/57 0 57 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 57 25 25b HTH-WF-PP-liteNGH LTA/SMR/MP WF-PP 25/25 0 25 0 25 0 0 0 25 0 0 26 26 PRE2 LTA/MP PP-WF 18/18 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 28 28 HTH-MC-Hvy LTA/PCT2/MP/UB WF-PP 35/35 0 35 0 0 0 35 0 0 0 0 29 29 HTH-WF-PP-liteNGH LTA/SMR/MP WF-PP 37/37 0 37 0 37 0 0 0 37 0 0 30 30 PCT2-NGH LTA/MP WF-RF-LPPP 45/56 10 35 10 35 0 0 10 35 0 0 32 32 PCT Bundle/LS LP-WF-PP 25 - - - - - - - - - - 34 34 HTH-MC-lite LTA/MP WF-LP-RF 18 - - - - - - - - - - 35 35a HTH-MC-Hvy LTA/PCT2/MP/UB WF-PP-LPRF 54/54 0 54 0 0 0 54 0 0 0 0 35 35b HTH-RF-lite LTA WF-PP-LPRF 72/86 0 72 0 72 0 0 0 72 0 0 37 37 PCT2-OG-RF HP/UB RF-WF-LP 96/116 0 96 0 96 0 0 0 96 0 0 40 40 PRE2 LTA/MP RF-LP-WF 22 - - - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 41 PCT2-OG-RF HP/UB RF-PP-SP 64/64 55 9 55 9 0 0 55 9 0 0 43 43 MCR LTA/PCT2/MP RF-WFPP-LP 60/60 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 44 44 PCT2-MC LTA/MP RF-WF 2/45 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 45 45a HTH-PP-Hvy LTA/MP/UB WF-PP-RF 58/61 0 58 0 0 0 58 0 0 0 0 45 45b PPR LTA/SMR/MP/UB WF-PP-RF 182/187 0 182 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 182 46 46 PCT Bundle/LS LP-PP 28 - - - - - - - - - - 48 48 PCT Bundle/LS PP-LP 30 - - - - - - - - - - 
Hi-Grouse Biological Assessment Alternatives 1, 2, and 3

22 

Unit

No. 

Unit

Subdivision Silvicultural RX Fuels RX Species Composition Acres** 

Acres 

Suitable PreHarvest 

Acres 

Suitable 

Post Harvest 

Acres Habitat 

Downgraded 

Acres Habitat 

Degraded 

Acres Habitat 

Removed 

N/R F N/R F N/R F N/R F N/R F

49 49 PRE LTA/SMR/MP/UB WF-PP 15/15 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 50 50 PRE2 LTA/SMR/MP WF-PP 8 - - - - - - - - - - 51 51 PRE LTA/SMR/MP/UB WF-PP 300/300 0 300 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 52 52 PCT Bundle/LS LP-WF-PP 15 - - - - - - - - - - 53 53a UB UB PP-WF 27/42 - 27 0 27 0 0 0 27 0 0 53 53b PCT2 LTA/MP/UB WF-PP 37/37 0 37 0 37 0 0 0 37 0 0 54 54 PRE LTA/PCT2/MP/M/

UB

WF-RF-PP 60/70 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 

55 55 PCT2-MC LTA/MP/M RF-WF-LPPP 1/37 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 56 56 MCR LTA/PCT2/MP RF-LP 23/42 0 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 58 58 PCT2-MC LTA/MP RF-LP-PP 10 - - - - - - - - - - 59 59 PCT2 HP/UB PP-WF 6 - - - - - - - - - - 61 61 PRE2 LTA/SMR/MP WF-PP-RF 6 - - - - - - - - - - 62 62 PRE2 LTA/MP WF-PP 28/28 0 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 63 63 PRE2 LTA/MP WF-PP-LP 10 - - - - - - - - - - 65 65a HTH-MC-lite LTA/PCT2/MP WF-RF-LP 35/35 0 35 0 35 0 0 0 35 0 0 65 65b HTH-MC-lite LTA/SMR/MP WF-RF-LP 20/20 0 20 0 20 0 0 0 20 0 0 65 65c HTH-MC-lite LTA/PCT2/MP WF-RF-LP 13/23 0 13 0 13 0 0 0 13 0 0 66 66 PRE2 LTA/MP WF 13 - - - - - - - - - - Totals 3,711/4,842 168 3,543 168 550 0 1,899 168 550 0 1,094 

**Acres of NSO habitat treated in alternative 2 in bold/total acres of habitat in unit treated (acres are approximate). - = Not applicable; non-habitat. 
Hi-Grouse Biological Assessment Alternatives 1, 2, and 3

23 

Across the project area within treatment units, 3,711 acres of NSO habitat would be treated. One-hundred 

sixty-eight acres of nesting/roosting habitat would be degraded by treatments. No nesting/roosting habitat 

would be downgraded or removed within treatment units. 

Approximately 81 percent of the 4,378 acres of available NSO foraging habitat within units would be 

treated within the project area. Sixteen percent (550 acres) of the treated foraging habitat within units 

would be degraded. About 54 percent (1,899 acres) of the treated foraging habitat within units would be 

downgraded to dispersal habitat. About 31 percent or 1,094 acres of foraging habitat would be removed 

within treatment units. 

Fuel management zones within the project area would remove 38 acres of dispersal habitat, degrade 164 

acres of foraging habitat, and degrade 13 acres of nesting/roosting habitat. Approximately 0.5 acre of 

foraging habitat would be removed during construction of 0.3 miles of temporary road within the project 

area. Fifty-one new half-acre landings would be placed within NSO habitat in the project area. 

Approximately 2 acres of nesting and roosting habitat would be affected by landings and 0.5 acre of 

dispersal habitat would be affected by one landing. Forty-five new landings would remove 22.5 acres of 

foraging habitat within the project area. Table 13 displays the approximate amount of nesting/roosting, 

foraging, and dispersal habitat across the project area before and after all activities proposed in alternative 

2. 

Table 13. Approximate amounts of pre- and post NSO habitat across the project area 

Habitat Existing Acres Post-Treatment Acres 

Nesting/Roosting 546 544 

Foraging 4,378 1,362 

Dispersal 51 1,912 

Late Successional Reserve #5297. Alternative 2 would not change the quantity or quality of 

nesting/roosting or foraging habitat within the 100-acre LSR #5297 because no activities are proposed 

within it. Habitat within LSR #5297 would be maintained. The potential for wildfire to burn through the 

LSR would be reduced by thinnings, fuel reductions, and fuel management zone proposed around it 

(Helmbrecht and Kurth 2009). Reducing the potential effects of wildfire burning through the LSR would 

be of benefit to NSO and their habitat for approximately 10 to 20 years following treatments (Helmbrecht 

2009). 

KL-3201 Activity Center. Table 14 displays the treatment types proposed by unit within NSO activity 

center KL-3201 core area and the subsequent effect to acres of foraging and nesting/roosting habitat. 

Dispersal habitat is not present within the KL-3201 home range. 
Hi-Grouse Biological Assessment Alternatives 1, 2, and 3

24 

Table 14. Nesting/roosting and foraging habitat within KL-3201 core area proposed for treatment in 

alternative 2 

Habitat Unit

Stand 

No. Rx Treatment Effect Acres 

Habitat Post 

Treatment 

Foraging 25b 746-26 HTH-WF-PP-lite-NGH Degrade 25 Foraging 

 30 746-901 PCT2-NGH Degrade 20 Foraging 

Total Foraging Degraded 45 Foraging 

 35a 746-119 HTH-MC-Hvy Downgrade 1 Dispersal 

Total Foraging Downgraded 1 Dispersal 

 25a 746-26 PPR Remove 4 Non/Capable 

 25a 746-29 PPR Remove 13 Non/Capable 

 26 746-28 PRE2 Remove 18 Non/Capable 

 62 746-25 PRE2 Remove 6 Non/Capable 

Total Foraging Removed 41 Non/Capable 

Nesting/Roosting 16 746-112 HTH-WF-PP-lite-NSO Degrade 56 Nesting/Roosting 

 16 746-908 HTH-WF-PP-lite-NSO Degrade 14 Nesting/Roosting 

 30 747-53 PCT2-NGH Degrade 2 Nesting/Roosting 

Total Nesting/Roosting Degraded 72 Nesting/Roosting 

Treatments proposed in alternative 2 within Kl-3201 core area would degrade 72 acres of existing 

nesting/roosting habitat and 45 acres of foraging habitat. One acre of foraging habitat would be 

downgraded and 41 acres would be removed. One acre of nesting/roosting habitat and 1 acre of foraging 

habitat would be removed during the development of four new landings along a road in the core area. 

About 1 acre of foraging habitat within the fuel management zone (outside unit) within the core would be 

degraded. In unit 25A, 17 acres of foraging habitat would be underburned. Temporary road building 

would not affect NSO habitat within the core area. 

Ninety-four acres (42 percent) of the nesting and roosting habitat outside KL-3201 core area, but within 

the home range of KL-3201, are proposed for treatment in alternative 2. Table 15 displays the treatment 

types proposed by unit within the KL-3201 home range, but outside KL-3201 core area, and the 

anticipated effects to nesting and roosting habitat. 

Table 15. Nesting/roosting habitat within home range (outside core area) proposed for treatment in 

alternative 2 

Unit Stand No. Rx Treatment Effect Acres 

Habitat Post 

Treatment 

16 746-112 HTH-WF-PP-lite-NSO Degrade 1 N/R 

16 746-909 HTH-WF-PP-lite-NSO Degrade 32 N/R 

30 747-53 PCT2-NGH Degrade 7 N/R 

41 746-902 PCT2-OG-RF Degrade 54 N/R 

Total Acres Nesting/Roosting Degraded 94 N/R 

Alternative 2 would degrade 94 acres of nesting/roosting habitat outside of the core, but within the home 

range. Approximately 0.5 acre of nesting/roosting habitat would be removed outside the core area, but 
Hi-Grouse Biological Assessment Alternatives 1, 2, and 3

25 

within the home range, for one landing. Thirteen acres of nesting/roosting habitat would be degraded 

within fuel management zones (outside units) within the home range. In unit 41, 54 acres of 

nesting/roosting habitat would be underburned. 

Of the 2,005 acres of foraging habitat within the home range, but outside the core area, 1,134 acres (57 

percent) are proposed for treatment. Foraging habitat would be removed across 513 acres. Table 16 

displays the effects to foraging habitat by treatment type in alternative 2. Alternative 2 would cause a 

shift from foraging habitat to dispersal habitat on 265 acres. 

Table 16. Foraging habitat effects within home range (outside core area) proposed for treatment in alternative 

2

Unit Stand No. Rx Treatment Effect Acres 

Habitat Post 

Treatment 

16 746-103 HTH-WF-PP-lite-NSO Degrade 4 Foraging 

16 746-914 HTH-WF-PP-lite-NSO Degrade 45 Foraging 

23 746-915 HTH-WF-PP-lite-NGH Degrade 32 Foraging 

24 746-101 HTH-WF-PP-lite-NSO Degrade 55 Foraging 

24 746-102 HTH-WF-PP-lite-NSO Degrade 17 Foraging 

29 747-54 HTH-WF-PP-lite-NGH Degrade 37 Foraging 

30 746-901 PCT2-NGH Degrade 15 Foraging 

37 PCT2-OG-RF Degrade 1 Foraging 

37 747-30 PCT2-OG-RF Degrade 10 Foraging 

37 747-61 PCT2-OG-RF Degrade 73 Foraging 

41 746-119 PCT2-OG-RF Degrade 9 Foraging 

44 746-48 PCT2-MC Degrade 2 Foraging 

65a 747-30 HTH-MC-lite Degrade 35 Foraging 

65b 747-30 HTH-MC-lite Degrade 20 Foraging 

65c 747-30 HTH-MC-lite Degrade 1 Foraging 

Total Acres Foraging Degraded 356 Foraging 

18 746-97 HTH-MC-Hvy Downgrade 39 Dispersal 

19 746-103 HTH-WF-PP Downgrade 35 Dispersal 

19 746-911 HTH-WF-PP Downgrade 7 Dispersal 

19 746-914 HTH-WF-PP Downgrade 12 Dispersal 

22 746-104 HTH-WF-PP Downgrade 11 Dispersal 

28 747-52 HTH-MC-Hvy Downgrade 34 Dispersal 

 HTH-MC-Hvy Downgrade 1 Dispersal 

35a 746-119 HTH-MC-Hvy Downgrade 53 Dispersal 

35b 746-119 HTH-MC-Hvy Downgrade 72 Dispersal 

45a 745-905 HTH-PP-Hvy Downgrade 1 Dispersal 

Total Acres Foraging Downgraded 265 Dispersal 

14 746-906 PRE Remove 40 Non/Capable 

15 PPR Remove 1 Non/Capable 
Hi-Grouse Biological Assessment Alternatives 1, 2, and 3

26 

Unit Stand No. Rx Treatment Effect Acres 

Habitat Post 

Treatment 

15 746-20 PPR Remove 6 Non/Capable 

15 746-21 PPR Remove 18 Non/Capable 

15 746-114 PPR Remove 20 Non/Capable 

15 746-115 PPR Remove 2 Non/Capable 

15 746-116 PPR Remove 10 Non/Capable 

25a 746-29 PPR Remove 26 Non/Capable 

25a 746-30 PPR Remove 13 Non/Capable 

25a 746-102 PPR Remove 1 Non/Capable 

43 746-48 MCR Remove 35 Non/Capable 

43 746-118 MCR Remove 24 Non/Capable 

45b 746-40 PPR Remove 7 Non/Capable 

45b 746-905 PPR Remove 171 Non/Capable 

49 746-43 PRE Remove 15 Non/Capable 

51 746-1 PRE Remove 80 Non/Capable 

56 746-49 MCR Remove 5 Non/Capable 

56 746-110 MCR Remove 1 Non/Capable 

56 746-124 MCR Remove 17 Non/Capable 

62 746-25 PRE2 Remove 21 Non/Capable 

Total Acres Foraging Removed 513 Non/Capable 

Seventy-four acres of foraging habitat would be degraded within the fuel management zone (outside 

units) of the home range. The development of up to 17 new half-acre landings would remove about 8.5 

acres of foraging habitat. No temporary roads would be developed within KL-3201 home range. Eighty 

acres of foraging habitat within the home range would be underburned. Table 17 displays the unit/acres 

of foraging habitat that would be underburned within KL-3201 home range; all acres shown in table 21 

will be also be treated with thinning prescriptions.. 
Hi-Grouse Biological Assessment Alternatives 1, 2, and 3

27 

Table 17. Acres of foraging habitat that would be underburned within KL-3201 home range by unit 

Unit Stand No. Rx Treatment Acres 

37 HP/UB 1 

37 747-30 HP/UB 10 

37 747-61 HP/UB 73 

41 746-119 HP/UB 9 

18 746-97 LTA/PCT2/MP/UB 39 

28 LTA/PCT2/MP/UB 1 

28 747-52 LTA/PCT2/MP/UB 34 

35a 746-119 LTA/PCT2/MP/UB 53 

45a 746-905 LTA/MP/UB 1 

15 LTA/PCT2/MP/UB 1 

15 746-20 LTA/PCT2/MP/UB 6 

15 746-21 LTA/PCT2/MP/UB 18 

15 746-114 LTA/PCT2/MP/UB 20 

15 746-115 LTA/PCT2/MP/UB 2 

15 746-116 LTA/PCT2/MP/UB 10 

25a 746-29 LTA/SMR/MP/UB 26 

25a 746-30 LTA/SMR/MP/UB 13 

25a 746-102 LTA/SMR/MP/UB 1 

45b 746-40 LTA/SMR/MP/UB 7 

45b 746-905 LTA/SMR/MP/UB 171 

49 746-43 LTA/SMR/MP/UB 15 

51 746-1 LTA/SMR/MP/UB 80 

Total Foraging Habitat Underburned 591 

The amount of foraging habitat would decrease and the amount of dispersal habitat within the home range 

would increase following treatments. Table 18 summarizes the effects of alternative 2 on the amount of 

nesting/roosting, foraging, and dispersal habitat within KL-3201 activity center. 
Hi-Grouse Biological Assessment Alternatives 1, 2, and 3

28 

Table 18. Effects of alternative 2 on NSO habitat within KL-3201 activity center 

Habitat

Existing Acres 

Habitat

Acres Habitat 

Degraded 

Acres of Habitat 

Downgraded 

Acres of Habitat 

Removed 

Post

Treatment 

Acres Habitat 

0.5 1.3 0.5 1.3 0.5 1.3 0.5 1.3 0.5 1.3 

Nesting/ 

Roosting 

297 223 72 107

(13

FMZ) 

0 0 1

(2 landings)

0.5 

(1

landing)

296 222.5 

Foraging 166 2005 46 (1 

FMZ) 

430

(74

FMZ) 

0 265 0 8.5 

(17

landings)

166 1731.5 

Dispersal 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 270 

Critical Habitat. Alternative 2 proposes to treat about 55 percent of the suitable northern spotted owl 

habitat within Critical Habitat Sub-unit 67. Table 19 shows the acres of nesting/roosting and foraging 

habitats in units that would be modified following treatments proposed in alternative 2. 
Hi-Grouse Biological Assessment Alternatives 1, 2, and 3

29 

Table 19. Acres of nesting/roosting and foraging habitat affected by alternative 2 within critical habitat 

subunit 67 

Habitat Unit

Stand 

No. Rx Treatment Effect Acres 

Habitat Post 

Treatment 

Foraging 24 746-101 HTH-WF-PP-lite-NSO Degrade 32 Foraging 

 24 746-102 HTH-WF-PP-lite-NSO Degrade 5 Foraging 

 25b 746-26 HTH-WF-PP-lite-NGH Degrade 22 Foraging 

 29 747-54 HTH-WF-PP-lite-NGH Degrade 36 Foraging 

 30 746-901 PCT2-NGH Degrade 35 Foraging 

 37 PCT2-OG-RF Degrade 1 Foraging 

 37 747-30 PCT2-OG-RF Degrade 20 Foraging 

 37 747-61 PCT2-OG-RF Degrade 75 Foraging 

 65a 747-30 HTH-MC-lite Degrade 35 Foraging 

 65b 747-30 HTH-MC-lite Degrade 20 Foraging 

 65c 747-30 HTH-MC-lite Degrade 3 Foraging 

Total Foraging Degraded 284 Foraging 

 35a 746-119 HTH-MC-Hvy Downgrade 54 Dispersal 

 35b 746-119 HTH-RF Downgrade 52 Dispersal 

Total Foraging Downgraded 106 Dispersal 

 14 746-906 PRE Remove 7 Non/Capable 

 15 PPR Remove 1 Non/Capable 

 15 746-21 PPR Remove 18 Non/Capable 

 15 746-114 PPR Remove 16 Non/Capable 

 15 746-115 PPR Remove 2 Non/Capable 

 15 746-116 PPR Remove 10 Non/Capable 

 25a 746-26 PPR Remove 4 Non/Capable 

 25a 746-29 PPR Remove 38 Non/Capable 

 25a 746-30 PPR Remove 3 Non/Capable 

 26 746-28 PRE2 18 

 45b 746-40 PPR Remove 7 Non/Capable 

 45b 746-905 PPR Remove 81 Non/Capable 

 49 746-43 PRE Remove 11 Non/Capable 

 62 746-25 PRE2 Remove 27 Non/Capable 

Total Foraging Removed 243 Non/Capable 

Nesting/ 

Roosting 

16 746-112 HTH-WF-PP-lite-NSO Degrade 2 Nesting/Roosting 

 30 747-53 PCT2-NGH Degrade 10 Nesting/Roosting 

 41 746-902 PCT2-OG-RF Degrade 4 Nesting/Roosting 

Total Nesting/Roosting Degraded 16 Nesting/Roosting 

One half acre of nesting/roosting habitat would be removed during the development of a landing within 

critical habitat subunit 67. Thirteen acres of nesting/roosting habitat would be degraded within fuel 
Hi-Grouse Biological Assessment Alternatives 1, 2, and 3

30 

management zones (outside units) and 45 acres of foraging habitat would be degraded within fuel 

management zones (outside units) in critical habitat subunit 67. The development of seven new landings 

would remove 3.5 acres of foraging habitat. Four acres of nesting/roosting habitat would be underburned. 

Table 20. Acres of foraging habitat that would be underburned within critical habitat subunit 67 

Unit Stand No. Rx Treatment Acres 

37 HP/UB 1 

37 747-30 HP/UB 20 

37 747-61 HP/UB 75 

35a 746-119 LTA/PCT2/MP/UB 54 

15 LTA/PCT2/MP/UB 1 

15 746-21 LTA/PCT2/MP/UB 18 

15 746-114 LTA/PCT2/MP/UB 16 

15 746-115 LTA/PCT2/MP/UB 2 

15 746-116 LTA/PCT2/MP/UB 10 

25a 746-26 LTA/SMR/MP/UB 4 

25a 746-29 LTA/SMR/MP/UB 38 

25a 746-30 LTA/SMR/MP/UB 3 

45b 746-40 LTA/SMR/MP/UB 7 

45b 746-905 LTA/SMR/MP/UB 81 

49 746-43 LTA/SMR/MP/UB 11 

Total Foraging Habitat Underburned 341 

Qualitative Changes to Habitat At All Spatial Scales Identified Above 

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/roosting and foraging habitat available to NSO would also be altered. 

Several different thin-from-below prescriptions would be utilized in alternative 2; the effects to NSO 

habitat and primary constituent elements would vary. 

Table 21 displays the current and projected basal area and canopy cover that would result from 

prescriptions proposed in alternative 2. 
Hi-Grouse Biological Assessment Alternatives 1, 2, and 3

31 

Table 21. Current and projected* basal area and canopy cover by prescription 

Prescription 

Ave Sq. Ft. Basal Area per Acre Ave. Canopy Cover Per Acre 

2009 2014 2029 2009 2014 2029 

HTH-PP 183 97 111 54 33 35 

HTH-LP 93 39 58 38 15 20 

HTH-WF-PP 191 122 141 61 37 40 

HTH-WF-PP-lite 203 183 210 53 45 47 

HTH-PP-Hvy 147 72 85 49 22 24 

PPR/PRE 188 79 96 55 22 30 

HTH-RF 177 108 133 51 29 32 

HTH-MC-Hvy/MCR 166 107 126 64 41 45 

HTH-MC-lite 188 172 237 61 53 59 

PCT2-MC 64 69 92 16 14 19 

PCT2-NGH 113 113 143 36 29 32 

PCT2 100 94 117 40 32 35 

PCT2-OG-RF 154 144 171 41 29 32 

*Schantz (2009). 

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 re-establishment treatments 

would use a heavy thinning from below with underplanting of widely-spaced 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. However, ponderosa pine stands are typically not used by 

NSO for nesting, roosting, or foraging, so the amount of available habitat for NSO would decrease in the 

project area for the short and long term. 

Prescriptions HTH-PP, HTH-PP-Hvy, HTH-WF-PP, AND HTH-MC-Hvy. Canopy cover in the pinedominated 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-WF-PP), 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. Heavy thinnings in pine (HTH-PP-Hvy) on 464 acres 

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 dispersal habitat, 

particularly in the denser patches and clumps of remaining trees. 

In Critical Habitat, prescription HTH-MC-Hvy would focus on leaving the largest and healthiest 

ponderosa pine and allow for ponderosa pine regeneration in openings created within true fir/lodgepole 

disease centers. This prescription would result in a downgrade of foraging habitat to dispersal habitat 

across 54 acres of Critical Habitat. 

Light Thinning (HTH-WF-PP-lite, HTH-MC-lite) Across Approximately 415 Acres. 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 
Hi-Grouse Biological Assessment Alternatives 1, 2, and 3

32 

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. Light thinning from below would maintain NSO habitat in the project area 

and Critical Habitat Sub-unit 67 for the short and long term. 

Prescriptions PPR, PRE, PRE2, and MCR Across Approximately 1,190 Acres. 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 NSO with habitat in the short 

term. These stands would become non-habitat (capable) for NSO in the long term. 

In Critical Habitat, PPR prescriptions would remove 180 acres of habitat. PRE prescriptions in Critical 

Habitat would remove 18 acres and PRE2 prescription would remove 45 acres.

Small-tree Thinning Treatments (PCT2, PCT2-MC, PCT2-NGH, PCT2-OG-RF) Across 400 Acres.

These treatments would promote the growth of pole-sized and small tree stands towards mid- and lateseral stages. 

A reduction in canopy cover and tree density would be expected to cause a shift in habitat use by NSO 

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 NSO. Reduction 

of canopy cover may increase the risk of predation to NSO. These effects would diminish over time as 

the canopy gradually closed. 

In Critical Habitat, PCT2-NGH and PCT2-OG-RF would degrade 10 acres and 4 acres of nesting and 

roosting habitat, respectively. 

Lodgepole Pine Thinning. The treatment of lodgepole pine stands would have no effect on the quantity 

or quality of NSO because it is not considered to be NSO habitat. This treatment type is not proposed in 

Critical Habitat, so there would be no effect to NSO Critical Habitat. 

Underburning Following Thinning. Three hundred forty-one acres of Critical Habitat Sub-unit 67 

would be underburned. 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 NSO 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 NSO. Disturbance to NSOs from smoke would be managed through the use of seasonal restrictions 

such that nesting NSOs and un-surveyed suitable habitat would not be affected. 

Snag and Down Woody Primary Constituent Elements. 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 and 55 percent of Critical Habitat Sub-unit 

67. 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. Any large diameter snags deemed a hazard and felled for 
Hi-Grouse Biological Assessment Alternatives 1, 2, and 3

33 

safety reasons would be left on site as needed to meet the objectives for down woody debris standards and 

guidelines. 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 NSO. 

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 stand-replacement fire within the 

project area and critical habitat, thinning, fuel treatment zones, and underburning treatments proposed in 

alternative 2 should maintain the remaining amount of NSO habitat within the project area over the long 

term. 

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 outside the KL3201 home range and NSO critical habitat subunit 67. 

Underplanting Ponderosa Pine. Underplanting and promoting the development of ponderosa pine 

would negatively affect the amount of habitat available to NSO over the long term because ponderosa 

pine stands do not provide nesting, roosting, or foraging habitat. 

Fuel Management Zones. Fuel management zones occur within and outside of Critical Habitat. 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 owls from the habitat. Treatments within the fuel management zone would remove components 

of NSO prey habitat. The removal of down woody debris and understory vegetation would result in shifts 

in prey species home ranges. The home range and abundance of prey species 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 

NSO using habitat within the vicinity of the equipment/operation. Machine mowing , piling and 

subsequent burning would remove components of NSO prey species habitat causing a shift in prey 

species home ranges and reducing their abundance in treatment units over the short term. The effects of 

these connected actions would be the same in Critical Habitat. 

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

and potential temporary disturbance to a NSO using habitat within the vicinity of the road(s) within the 

project area and Critical Habitat. 
Hi-Grouse Biological Assessment Alternatives 1, 2, and 3

34 

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 NSO. The presence of humans 

conducting biomass removal and these other activities could temporarily disturb or displace a NSO from 

the vicinity. Underburning or pile burning would eventually be conducted and eliminate lopped and 

scattered material and hand piles. 

Landings. There are 21 existing landings and 8 new landing proposed in critical habitat subunit 67. 

NSO 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 within and outside Critical Habitat 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 NSO average 16 mile dispersal distance to/from 

the project area. Map 6 at the end of this document displays the location of foreseeable actions relative to 

the project 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 <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. 

No State or private lands occur within 1.3 miles of NSO habitat proposed for treatment in alternative 2 of 

the Hi-Grouse Project (see map 1, end of document). Therefore, there would be no cumulative effects. 

Determination of Effects and Rationale 

Northern Spotted Owl 

Alternative 2 would negatively affect the existing quantity and quality of primary constituent elements 

available to NSO across more than 50 percent of the project area. 
Hi-Grouse Biological Assessment Alternatives 1, 2, and 3

35 

Alternative 2 would not alter existing Late Successional Old Growth habitat conditions in the Badger 

Basin-Willow Creek 5th field watershed. 

Alternative 2 would maintain dispersal/connectivity habitat at or above 50 percent across all six quarter 

townships.

Actions proposed in alternative 2 across the project area would: 

Degrade 181 acres of nesting and roosting habitat and remove 2 acres of nesting/roosting habitat. 

The quantity of nesting and roosting habitat available to NSO would remain about the same. 

Degrade 714 acres of foraging habitat; downgrade 1,899 acres of foraging habitat; remove about 

1117 acres of foraging habitat. The amount of foraging habitat would decrease by about 69 

percent.

Remove 38 acres of dispersal habitat. The amount of dispersal habitat would increase 

substantially (1,861 acres) primarily due to the amount of foraging habitat downgraded. 

Alternative 2 would not alter habitat conditions in LSR#5297. 

Actions proposed in alternative 2 in the KL-3201 Activity Center Core would: 

Degrade 72 acres and remove 1 acre of nesting and roosting habitat. 

Degrade 45 acres of foraging habitat and downgrade 1 acre of foraging habitat. 

Alternative 2 actions proposed in KL-3201 Home Range would: 

Degrade 107 acres and remove 0.5 acres of nesting and roosting habitat. 

Degrade 356 acres of foraging habitat; downgrade 339 acres and remove 8.5 acres of foraging 

habitat.

Post-treatment, habitat within the KL-3201 core area and home range will remain above threshold 

retention values. 

Therefore: Alternative 2 may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect northern spotted owls.

NSOs were not detected within KL-3201 or the project area during surveys in 2007, 2008, and 2009; 

barred owls were detected during surveys in 2007, 2008, and 2009. Prior timber harvest within the project 

area removed suitable NSO habitat and may have reduced the overall ability of NSOs to persist in the 

area. Christy Cheyne (Goosenest District Biologist) and Elizabeth Willy (USFWS, Yreka) agree that 

though suitable habitat exists within the project area, the current condition and configuration of habitat is 

more likely to support territorial singles or dispersal by NSOs. 

NSO Critical Habitat Subunit 67 

Alternative 2 would negatively affect the primary constituent elements available to NSO within critical 

habitat subunit 67 in the short term. 

Alternative 2 would degrade 16 acres of nesting and roosting habitat and remove a half an acre of nesting 

and roosting habitat within critical habitat subunit 67. The amount of nesting and roosting habitat 

available to NSO within critical habitat subunit 67 would remain essentially the same. 

Alternative 2 would degrade 329 acres of foraging habitat, downgrade 106 acres and remove about 247 

acres of foraging habitat. The amount of dispersal habitat within critical habitat subunit 67 would 

increase due to the downgrading of foraging habitat. 
Hi-Grouse Biological Assessment Alternatives 1, 2, and 3

36 

Therefore: Actions proposed in alternative 2 may affect, and likely to adversely affect NSO critical 

habitat.

Consistency with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans 

Alternative 2 is consistent with direction and guidance in the Northwest Forest Plan (1994), the Klamath 

National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (1996), the Goosenest Adaptive Management Area, 

and the Final Rule for the Revised Designation of Critical habitat for the Northern Spotted Owl (2008). 

Alternative 3

On January 4, 2010, treatments across about 86 acres were dropped in alternative 3. These adjustments 

were made in the analysis that follows. 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternative 3 proposes less intensive thinning prescriptions over fewer acres than either alternative 2 or 4. 

Quantified Changes to NSO Habitat at All Spatial Scales Identified 

Late Successional Reserve. No changes to late successional reserve habitat would occur as a result of 

treatments proposed in alternative 3. 

Quarter Townships. Alternative 3 would cause no change in the amount of dispersal habitat available to 

NSO in the six quarter townships. Connectivity between other activity centers within 16 miles of KL3201 activity center (reference map 1 at end of document) would remain adequate following 

implementation of alternative 3. 

Project Area. Treatments are proposed across 48 percent or 3,567 acres (includes fuel management zone 

acres) of the project area. Map 7 (end of document) displays the location of the treatments proposed in 

alternative 3 as well as the location of owl habitat following treatments in the Hi-Grouse Project Area, 

KL-3201 Activity Center, and critical habitat subunit 67. Table 26 displays the effects of alternative 3 to 

nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat within the project area. No dispersal habitat within units would be 

treated in alternative 3. 
Hi-Grouse Biological Assessment Alternatives 1, 2, and 3

37 

Table 22. Effects of alternative 3 to nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat within the project area 

Unit

No. 

Unit Subdivision Silvicultural RX Fuels RX Species Composition Acres** 

Acres Suitable 

Pre-Harvest 

Acres Suitable 

Post-Harvest 

Acres Habitat 

Down-graded 

Acres Habitat 

Degraded 

N/R F N/R F N/R F N/R F

1 1 HTH-PP-lite LTA/M/UB PP 31/31 0 31 0 31 0 0 0 31 2 2 HTH-PP-lite LTA/M/UB PP-WF 129/129 0 129 0 129 0 0 0 129 3 3 HTH-PP-lite LTA/PCT2 PP-WF-LP 58/58 0 58 0 58 0 0 0 58 4 4 HTH-PP-lite LTA/M/UB PP 57/57 0 57 0 57 0 0 0 57 5 5 UB UB PP-WF-LP 92/92 0 92 0 92 0 0 0 92 6 6 HTH-PP-lite LTA/UB WF-PP-LP 78/78 0 78 0 78 0 0 0 78 7 7 HTH-PP-lite LTA/UB WF-PP 144/175 0 144 0 144 0 0 0 144 9 9 PCT2 HP PP-WF-LP 16/16 0 16 0 16 0 0 0 16 

10 10 UB UB WF-PP 37/42 0 37 0 37 0 0 0 37 11 11 UB UB WF-PP 116/116 0 116 0 116 0 0 0 116 12 12a HTH-LP LTA/PCT2/M LP-WF-PP 236 - - - - - - - - 12 12b LPFR LTA/PCT2 LP 256 - - - - - - - - 13 13 HTH-LP LTA/PCT2/M LP-WF-RF 183 - - - - - - - - 17 17 PCT2 HP LP-WF-PP 29 - - - - - - - - 18 18 HTH-MC-lite LTA/PCT2 PP-WF-LP 204/204 0 204 0 204 0 0 0 204 19 19 HTH-WF-PP-lite LTA/SMR WF-PP 154/154 0 154 0 154 0 0 0 154 20 20 UB UB WF-PP 107/109 0 107 0 107 0 0 0 107 21 21a HTH-WF-PP-lite LTA/SMR/MP/UB WF-PP 188/188 0 188 0 188 0 0 0 188 21 21b PCT2 LTA WF-PP 44/44 0 44 0 44 0 0 0 44 22 22 HTH-WF-PP-lite LTA/SMR WF-PP 211/211 0 211 0 211 0 0 0 211 23 23 HTH-WF-PP-lite LTA/SMR WF-PP 32/32 0 32 0 32 0 0 0 32 24 24 HTH-WF-PP-lite LTA/SMR WF-PP 72/72 0 72 0 72 0 0 0 72 25 25b HTH-WF-PP-lite LTA/SMR WF-PP 25/25 0 25 0 25 0 0 0 25 28 28 HTH-MC-lite LTA/PCT2/UB WF-PP 35/35 0 35 0 35 0 0 0 35 29 29 HTH-WF-PP-lite LTA/SMR WF-PP 37/37 0 37 0 37 0 0 0 37 30 30 HTH-MC-lite LTA WF-RF-LP-PP 45/56 10 35 10 35 0 0 10 35 32 32 PCT Bundle/LS LP-WF-PP 25 - - - - - - - - 35 35b HTH-RF-lite LTA WF-PP-LP-RF 72/86 0 72 0 72 0 0 0 72 37 37 PCT2-OG-RF HP/UB RF-WF-LP 96/116 0 96 0 96 0 0 0 96 41 41 PCT2-OG-RF HP/UB RF-PP-SP 64/64 55 9 55 9 0 0 55 9 
Hi-Grouse Biological Assessment Alternatives 1, 2, and 3

38 

Unit

No. 

Unit Subdivision Silvicultural RX Fuels RX Species Composition Acres** 

Acres Suitable 

Pre-Harvest 

Acres Suitable 

Post-Harvest 

Acres Habitat 

Down-graded 

Acres Habitat 

Degraded 

N/R F N/R F N/R F N/R F

44 44 PCT2-MC LTA RF-WF 2/45 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 2 45 45a HTH-PP-lite LTA/UB WF-PP-RF 58/61 0 58 0 58 0 0 0 58 46 46 PCT Bundle/LS LP-PP 28 - - - - - - - - 48 48 PCT Bundle/LS PP-LP 30 - - - - - - - - 52 52 PCT Bundle/LS LP-WF-PP 15 - - - - - - - - 53 53a UB UB PP-WF 27/42 - 27 0 27 0 0 0 27 53 53b PCT2 LTA/UB WF-PP 37/37 0 37 0 37 0 0 0 37 55 55 PCT2-MC LTA/M RF-WF-LP-PP 1/37 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 58 58 PCT2-MC LTA RF-LP-PP 10 - - - - - - - - 59 59 

PCT2 HP/UB PP-WF 6 - - - - - - - - 

Total 2269/3,267 65 2,204 65 2,204 0 0 65 2204 

**Acres of NSO habitat treated in alternative 3 in bold/Total acres of habitat in unit treated (acres are approximate). - = Not applicable; non- habitat. 
Hi-Grouse Biological Assessment Alternatives 1, 2, and 3

39 

Across the project area within treatment units 2,269 acres of NSO habitat would be treated. Sixty-five 

acres of nesting/roosting habitat would be degraded by treatments. No nesting/roosting habitat would be 

downgraded or removed within treatment units. 

Approximately 50 percent of the 4,378 acres of available NSO foraging habitat within units would be 

treated within the project area. Treatment of 2,204 acres of foraging habitat would result in degradation 

of the habitat. No foraging habitat would be downgraded or removed within units. Eleven acres of 

dispersal habitat would be degraded. 

Fuel management zones within the project area would degrade 38 acres of dispersal habitat, degrade 198 

acres of foraging habitat, and degrade 13 acres of nesting/roosting habitat. Approximately 0.5 acre of 

foraging habitat would be removed during construction of 0.3 miles of temporary road within the project 

area. Thirty-nine new half-acre landings would be placed within NSO habitat in the project area. 

Approximately an acre of nesting and roosting habitat would be affected by landings and 0.5 acre of 

dispersal habitat would be affected by one landing. Thirty-six new landings would remove 18 acres of 

foraging habitat within the project area. Table 23 displays the approximate amount of nesting/roosting, 

foraging, and dispersal habitat across the project area before and after all activities proposed in alternative 

3. 

Table 23. Approximate amounts of pre- and post NSO habitat across the project area 

Habitat Existing Acres Post-Treatment Acres 

Nesting/Roosting 546 545 

Foraging 4,378 4,359.5 

Dispersal 51 50.5 

Late Successional Reserve #5297. Alternative 3 would not change the quantity or quality of 

nesting/roosting or foraging habitat within the 100-acre LSR #5297 because no activities are proposed 

within it. Habitat within LSR #5297 would be maintained. The potential for wildfire to burn through the 

LSR would be reduced by thinnings, fuel reductions, and fuel management zone proposed around it 

(Helmbrecht and Kurth 2009). Reducing the potential effects of wildfire burning through the LSR would 

be of benefit to NSO and their habitat for approximately 10 to 20 years following treatments (Helmbrecht 

2009). 

KL-3201 Activity Center. Table 24 displays the treatment types proposed by unit within NSO activity 

center KL-3201 core area and the subsequent effect to acres of foraging and nesting/roosting habitat. 

Dispersal habitat is not present within the KL-3201 home range. 

Table 24. Nesting/roosting and foraging habitat within KL-3201 core area proposed for treatment in 

alternative 3 

Habitat Unit

Stand 

No. Rx Treatment Effect Acres 

Habitat Post 

Treatment 

Foraging 25b 746-26 HTH-WF-PP-lite Degrade 25 Foraging 

 30 746-901 HTH-MC-lite Degrade 20 Foraging 

Total Foraging Degraded 45 Foraging 

 

Nesting/Roosting 30 747-53 HTH-MC-lite Degrade 2 Nesting/Roosting 

Total Nesting/Roosting Degraded 2 Nesting/Roosting 
Hi-Grouse Biological Assessment Alternatives 1, 2, and 3

40 

Treatments proposed in alternative 3 within Kl-3201 core area would degrade 2 acres of existing 

nesting/roosting habitat and 45 acres of foraging habitat. A half an acre of nesting/roosting habitat would 

be removed during the development of one new landing along a road in the core area. About 1 acre of 

foraging habitat within the fuel management zone (outside unit) within the core would be degraded. 

Temporary road building or underburning would not affect NSO habitat within the core area. 

Sixty-one acres (21 percent) of the nesting and roosting habitat outside KL-3201 core area, but within the 

home range of KL-3201 are proposed for treatment in alternative 3. Table 25 displays the treatment types 

proposed by unit within the KL-3201 home range, but outside KL-3201 core area and the anticipated 

effects to nesting and roosting habitat. 

Table 25. Nesting/roosting habitat within home range (outside core area) proposed for treatment in 

alternative 3 

Unit Stand No. Rx Treatment Effect Acres 

Habitat Post 

Treatment 

30 747-53 HTH-MC-lite Degrade 7 N/R 

41 746-902 PCT2-OG-RF Degrade 54 N/R 

Total Acres Nesting/Roosting Degraded 61 N/R 

Approximately a half-acre of nesting/roosting habitat would be removed for development of one landing 

outside the core area, but within the home range. Thirteen acres of nesting/roosting habitat would be 

degraded within fuel management zones (outside units) within the home range. 

Of the 2,005 acres of foraging habitat within the home range, but outside the core area, 463 acres (23 

percent) are proposed for treatment. Table 26 displays the effects to foraging habitat by treatment type in 

alternative 3.
Hi-Grouse Biological Assessment Alternatives 1, 2, and 3

41 

Table 26. Foraging habitat effects within home range (outside core area) proposed for treatment in alternative 

3

Unit Stand No. Rx Treatment Effect Acres 

Habitat Post 

Treatment 

18 746-97 HTH-MC-lite Degrade 39 Foraging 

19 746-103 HTH-WF-PP-lite Degrade 35 Foraging 

19 746-911 HTH-WF-PP-lite Degrade 7 Foraging 

19 746-914 HTH-WF-PP-lite Degrade 12 Foraging 

22 746-104 HTH-WF-PP-lite Degrade 11 Foraging 

23 746-915 HTH-WF-PP-lite Degrade 32 Foraging 

24 746-101 HTH-WF-PP-lite Degrade 55 Foraging 

24 746-102 HTH-WF-PP-lite Degrade 17 Foraging 

28 HTH-MC-lite Degrade 1 Foraging 

28 747-52 HTH-MC-lite Degrade 34 Foraging 

29 747-54 HTH-WF-PP-lite Degrade 37 Foraging 

30 746-901 HTH-MC-lite Degrade 15 Foraging 

35b 746-119 HTH-RF-lite Degrade 72 Foraging 

37 PCT2-OG-RF Degrade 1 Foraging 

37 747-30 PCT2-OG-RF Degrade 10 Foraging 

37 747-61 PCT2-OG-RF Degrade 73 Foraging 

41 746-119 PCT2-OG-RF Degrade 9 Foraging 

44 746-48 PCT2-MC Degrade 2 Foraging 

45a 746-905 HTH-PP-lite Degrade 1 Foraging 

Total Acres Foraging Degraded 463 Foraging 

Ninety-three acres of foraging habitat would be degraded within the fuel management zone (outside units) 

of the home range. The development of up to 12 new 0.5-acre landings would remove approximately 6 

acres of foraging habitat. No temporary roads would be developed within KL-3201 home range. 

In unit 41, 54 acres of nesting/roosting habitat would be underburned. One hundred twenty-nine acres of 

foraging habitat within the home range would be underburned. Table 27 displays the unit/acres of 

foraging habitat that would be underburned within KL-3201 home range; all acres will be also be treated 

with thinning prescriptions as shown in table 26 above. 
Hi-Grouse Biological Assessment Alternatives 1, 2, and 3

42 

Table 27. Acres of foraging habitat that would be underburned within KL-3201 home range by unit 

Unit Stand No. Rx Treatment Acres 

28 LTA/PCT2/UB 1 

28 747-52 LTA/PCT2/UB 34 

37 HP/UB 1 

37 747-30 HP/UB 10 

37 747-61 HP/UB 73 

41 746-119 HP/UB 9 

45a 746-905 LTA/UB 1 

Total Acres Foraging Habitat Underburned 129 

Table 28 summarizes the effects of alternative 3 on the amount of nesting/roosting, foraging and dispersal 

habitat within KL-3201 activity center. 

Table 28. Effects of alternative 3 on NSO habitat within KL-3201 activity center 

Habitat

Existing Acres 

Habitat

Acres Habitat 

Degraded 

Acres of Habitat 

Downgraded 

Acres of Habitat 

Removed 

Post Treatment 

Acres Habitat 

0.5 1.3 0.5 1.3 0.5 1.3 0.5 1.3 0.5 1.3 

Nesting/ 

Roosting 

297 223 2 74 0 0 0.5 (1 

landing 

0.5 (1 

landing 

296.5 222.5 

Foraging 166 2005 46 (1 

FMZ) 

556 (93 

FMZ) 

0 0 0.5 (1 

landing 

6

(landin

gs)

165.5 1999 

Dispersal 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 

Critical Habitat. About 369 acres (28 percent) of suitable northern spotted owl nesting, roosting and 

foraging Critical Habitat would be affected by treatments proposed in alternative 3. Table 29 shows the 

acres of nesting/roosting and foraging habitats in units that would be degraded following treatments 

proposed in alternative 3. 
Hi-Grouse Biological Assessment Alternatives 1, 2, and 3

43 

Table 29. Acres of nesting/roosting and foraging habitat degraded in alternative 3 within critical habitat 

subunit 67. 

Habitat Unit Stand No. Prescription Type Acres 

Nesting/Roosting 30 747-53 HTH-MC-lite 10 

41 746-902 PCT2-OG-RF 4 

Total Nesting/Roosting Degraded 14 

Foraging 24 746-101 HTH-WF-PP-lite 32 

24 746-102 HTH-WF-PP-lite 5 

25b 746-26 HTH-WF-PP-lite 22 

29 747-54 HTH-WF-PP-lite 36 

30 746-901 HTH-MC-lite 35 

35b 746-119 HTH-RF-lite 52 

37 PCT2-OG-RF 1 

37 747-30 PCT2-OG-RF 20 

37 747-61 PCT2-OG-RF 75 

Total Foraging Degraded 278 

One half acre of nesting/roosting habitat would be removed during the development of a landing within 

critical habitat subunit 67. One acre of foraging habitat would be removed for the development of two 

landings. Thirteen acres of nesting/roosting habitat would be degraded and 62 acres of foraging habitat 

would be degraded within fuel management zones (outside units) in Critical Habitat subunit 67. 

Table 30. Acres of nesting/roosting and foraging habitat that would be underburned within critical habitat 

subunit 67. 

Habitat Unit Stand No. Rx Treatment Acres 

Foraging 37 HP/UB 1 

 37 747-30 HP/UB 20 

 37 747-61 HP/UB 75 

Total Foraging Degraded 96 

Nesting/Roosting 41 746-902 HP/UB 4 

Total Nesting/Roosting Degraded 4 

Qualitative Changes to Habitat At All Spatial Scales Identified 

Because alternative 3 proposes less intensive thinning prescriptions over fewer acres than either 

alternative 2 or 4, more higher quality northern spotted owl nesting and roosting habitat would be 

maintained over the short term. Over the long term, mid-seral white-fir stands not proposed for treatment 

in alternative 3, that are currently infected with root disease and fir engraver beetles and function as 

nesting, roosting and foraging habitat, would decline to the point that they would no longer provide 

habitat for northern spotted owls. 

The risk of a stand-replacement fire within the project area and critical habitat would be higher than in 

either alternatives 2 or 4 because less fuel reduction would take place over a smaller area. 
Hi-Grouse Biological Assessment Alternatives 1, 2, and 3

44 

Table 31 displays the anticipated basal area and canopy cover as prescribed in alternative 3 immediately 

following treatment and 15 years later. 

Table 31. Current and projected* basal area and canopy cover by prescriptions proposed in alternative 3 

Prescription 

Ave Sq. Ft. Basal Area per Acre Ave. Canopy Cover Per Acre 

2009 2014 2029 2009 2014 2029 

HTH-LP 93 39 58 38 15 20 

UB 153 151 185 49 48 53 

HTH-WF-PP-lite 200 191 216 60 53 54 

HTH-PP-lite 174 145 170 53 44 47 

HTH-RF-lite 177 176 213 51 46 49 

HTH-MC-lite 148 153 186 55 52 55 

PCT2-MC 64 69 92 16 14 19 

PCT2 100 94 117 40 32 35 

PCT2-OG-RF 154 144 171 41 29 32 

*Schantz (2009). 

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, roosting, and 

foraging habitat of NSO. Some vertical and horizontal structure would be reduced when less than 20 inch 

dbh understory trees are removed. No openings/edge would be created. 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. Light 

thinning from below treatments would maintain NSO habitat in treated stands and within Critical Habitat 

for the short and long term. 

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

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

than 12 inches dbh. Tree spacing would range between 20 and 40 feet. Light plantation thinning would 

maintain NSO habitat in the project area for the short and long term. 

Plantations proposed for treatment within critical habitat are not currently functioning as NSO habitat.

There are no expected effects to NSO critical habitat as a result of plantation thinning. 

Underburning. The amount of underburning only would increase by 436 acres in alternative 3. The 

effects of underburning 400 acres and underburning only to northern spotted owls and their habitat would 

be the same as described in alternative 2. 

Snag and Down Woody Primary Constituent Elements. Because fewer acres are treated and thinning 

treatments would be less intensive, more existing snags and down woody material would remain in the 

project area in the short term. Over the long term, insects and diseases would continue to kill trees in 

untreated areas, and the number of snags and amount of down woody material would be expected to 

increase. Changes to the primary constituent elements important to northern spotted owls and their prey 

would be similar to what is described in alternative 2, but to a lesser degree.

Effects of other connected actions to northern spotted owls and Critical Habitat would be the same as 

alternative 2 except that no planting or machine piling would take place. 
Hi-Grouse Biological Assessment Alternatives 1, 2, and 3

45 

Foreseeable Cumulative Effects 

Foreseeable cumulative effects are the same as discussed in alternative 2. 

Determination of Effects and Rationale 

Northern Spotted Owl 

Alternative 3 would have a minor effect on the existing quantity and quality of northern spotted owl 

habitat available to NSO across less than 47 percent of the project area in the short term. 

Alternative 3 would not alter existing late successional old growth habitat conditions in the Badger BasinWillow Creek 5th field Watershed. 

Alternative 3 would not alter the existing amount of connectivity habitat within the six quarter townships. 

Actions proposed in alternative 3 across the project area would: 

Degrade 78 acres of nesting and roosting habitat and remove 1 acre of nesting/roosting habitat. 

The quantity of nesting and roosting habitat available to NSO would remain about the same. 

Degrade 2,402 acres of foraging habitat; remove 18.5 acres of foraging habitat. 

Degrade 38 acres of dispersal habitat; remove 0.5 acres of dispersal habitat. 

Alternative 3 would not alter habitat conditions in LSR#5297. 

Actions proposed in alternative 3 in the KL-3201 Activity Center Core would: 

Degrade 2 acres of nesting and roosting and remove 0.5 acre of nesting and roosting. 

Degrade 46 acres of foraging habitat. 

Alternative 3 actions proposed in KL-3201 Home Range would: 

Degrade 61 acres of nesting and roosting and remove 0.5 acre of nesting and roosting. 

Degrade 556 acres of foraging habitat; remove 6 acres of foraging habitat. 

Post-treatment, habitat within the KL-3201 core area and home range will remain above threshold 

retention values and remain most similar to the existing condition in the short term. 

Therefore: Alternative 3 may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect northern spotted owls.

NSO Critical Habitat Subunit 67 

Alternative 3 would have a minor effect on the primary constituent elements available to NSO within 

critical habitat subunit 67 in the short term. 

Alternative 3 would degrade 14 acres of nesting and roosting habitat and remove a half an acre of nesting 

and roosting habitat within critical habitat subunit 67. The amount of nesting and roosting habitat 

available to NSO within critical habitat subunit 67 would remain essentially the same. 

Alternative 3 would degrade 340 acres of foraging habitat and remove 1 acre of foraging habitat. 

Therefore: Actions proposed in alternative 3 may affect, and is not likely to adversely affect NSO

critical habitat.
Hi-Grouse Biological Assessment Alternatives 1, 2, and 3

46 

Consistency with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans 

Alternative 3 is consistent with direction and guidance in the Northwest Forest Plan (1994), the Klamath 

National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (1996), the Goosenest Adaptive Management Area, 

and the Final Rule for the Revised Designation of Critical habitat for the Northern Spotted Owl (2008). 
Hi-Grouse Biological Assessment Alternatives 1, 2, and 3

47 

References (Literature Cited)

Beuttner, P. 2009. Personal communication. Wildlife Biologist. USDA-Forest Service, Pacific Southwest 

Region, Modoc National Forest. 

Cheyne, C. 2009. Personal communication. Wildlife Biologist. USDA-Forest Service, Pacific Southwest 

Region, Klamath National Forest.

Derby, D.K. 2009. Personal communication. Wildlife Biologist. USDA-Forest Service, Pacific Southwest 

Region, Shasta-Trinity National Forest. 

Dost, Frank N., Norris Logan and Carol Glassman. 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. 

U.S. Department of Interior-Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Listed/proposed threatened and endangered 

species for the Bonita Butte, Garner Mtn., Little Glass Mtn., and Sharp Mtn. Quads. Pacific 

Southwest Region, Arcata Fish and Wildlife Service Office. [Available at: 

http://www.fws.gov/arcata/specieslist/search.asp. Retrieved on April 17, 2009.] 

Forsman, E.D.; Anthony, R.G.; Reid, J.A.; [and others]. 2002. Natal and breeding dispersal of northern 

spotted owls. Wildlife Monographs 149: 1–35. 

Helmbrecht, D. Personal communication. Fire and Fuels Specialist. Fire Modeling Institute, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station, Missoula Fire Sciences Lab, MT. [Communication 9/14/09]. 

Helmbrecht, D.; Kurth, L. 2009. Hi-Grouse draft fire and fuels report. Fire and Fuel Specialists, Fire 

Modeling Institute, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Missoula Fire Sciences Lab, MT. 25 p. 

Livesey, K.B.; Engeman, R.E.; Rock, D.M; [and others]. 2007 Considering control of invasive barred 

owls to benefit California spotted owls: Possible justification and draft methods. Managing 

Vertebrate Invasive Species: Proceedings of an International Symposium (Witmer, G.W.; Pitt, 

W.C.; Fagerstone, K.A.; eds). USDA/APHIS/WS, National Wildlife Research Center, Fort 

Collins, CO. p. 72–81. 

McNamara, M. 2009. Draft watershed report. Hydrologist, Soil Scientist, USDA-Forest Service, TEAMS 

Enterprise Unit. [Hi-Grouse Project]. 88 p. 

Oechsner, M. 2010. Biological Assessment for the Hi-Grouse Forest Management Project. Wildlife 

Biologist, USDA Forest Service. TEAMS Enterprise Unit. 50 pp. 

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

treatments in dry coniferous forests of the Western United States: A synthesis. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

RMRS-GTR-173, USDA-Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO. 34 

p. 

Schantz, R. 2009. Draft silviculture report. Silviculturist, USDA-Forest Service, TEAMS Enterprise Unit. 

[Hi-Grouse Project]. 47 p. 

Schantz, R. 2009. Personal communication. Silviculturist, USDA-Forest Service, TEAMS Enterprise 

Unit. [Communication 5/7/09]. 
Hi-Grouse Biological Assessment Alternatives 1, 2, and 3

48 

Stresser, S.R. 2009. Analysis for 15% retention of LSOG in 5th-field watersheds. Wildlife Biologist, 

Klamath National Forest, Klamath Land and Resource Management Plan Standard and Guideline 

6-4. January 16. 2 p. 

Thomas, J.W.; Forsman, E.D.; Joseph B Lint, J.B.; [and others]. 1990. A conservation strategy for the 

northern spotted owl. Interagency Scientific Committee to Address the Conservation of the 

Northern Spotted Owl. 427 p. 

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

statement. Pacific Southwest Region 5, Klamath National Forest, Goosenest Ranger District, 

Siskiyou County California. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture-Forest Service. 1994. Klamath National Forest land and resource 

management plan. Pacific Southwest Region 5, Klamath National Forest. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture-Forest Service. 1996. Goosenest Adaptive Management Area Ecosystem 

Analysis. Pacific Southwest Region, Klamath National Forest, Goosenest Ranger District. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture-Forest Service. 2002. Wildlife and federally listed plants, threatened, 

endangered, and sensitive species reference document. 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. Southwest 

Region 5, Klamath National Forest. 22 p. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture-Forest Service and U.S. Department of Interior-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.)

U.S. -Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Final recovery plan for the northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis 

caurina). U.S Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR xii+ 142 p. 

U.S. Department of Interior-Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Federal Register. 50 CFR Part 17. 

Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; revised designation of critical habitat for the 

northern spotted owl; Final rule. Vol. 73, No. 157/Wednesday August 13, 2008. p. 47326-47522. 

Willy, E. 2008. Habitat matrix for northern spotted owls, northern goshawks and marten on the Goosenest 

Ranger District. Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 
Hi-Grouse Biological Assessment Alternatives 1, 2, and 3

50 

Map 2. NSO connectivity habitat within project area quarter townships 
Hi-Grouse Biological Assessment Alternatives 1, 2, and 3

51 

Map 3. Hi-Grouse Project NSO habitat, exiting condition 
Hi-Grouse Biological Assessment Alternatives 1, 2, and 3

52 

Map 4. Hi-Grouse Project post-treatment NSO habitat, alternative 2 
Hi-Grouse Biological Assessment Alternatives 1, 2, and 3

53 

Map 5. Hi-Grouse Project NSO connectivity habitat, alternative 2 within quarter townships 
Hi-Grouse Biological Assessment Alternatives 1, 2, and 3

54 

Map 6. Highlands Roadside Safety Improvement Project, Doublehead Ranger District, Modoc NF 
Hi-Grouse Biological Assessment Alternatives 1, 2, and 3

55 

Map 7. Hi-Grouse Project post treatment NSO habitat, alternative 3