Management Indicator Species 

Report Part II for the 

Hi Grouse Forest Management 

Project 

Goosenest Ranger District 

Klamath National Forest 

Prepared by: 

 March 25, 2010 

Marynell Oechsner Date 

Wildlife Biologist 

TEAMS Enterprise 

Reviewed by: 

 Date 

Hi-Grouse MIS Report Part II 

1 

1. Introduction 

The purpose of this report is to evaluate and disclose the impacts of the Hi-Grouse Forest Management 

Project on the management indicator species (MIS) identified in the Klamath National Forest (KNF) Land 

and Resource Management Plan (LRMP; USDA Forest Service 1995), which was developed under the 

1982 National Forest System Land and Resource Management Planning Rule (1982 Planning Rule; 36 

CFR 219). 

This report documents the effects on the habitat of selected MIS of four alternatives for the Hi Grouse 

Forest Management Project: the proposed action, (Alternative 2), no action (Alternative 1), and 

Alternatives 3 and 4. Detailed descriptions of the Hi-Grouse Project alternatives are found in the HiGrouse Forest Management Project Environmental Impact Statement (USDA Forest Service 2009). 

1.a. Direction Regarding the Analysis of Project-level Effects on MIS 

The monitoring requirements in Chapter 5 of the Klamath National Forest LRMP do not require 

population monitoring or surveys on any MIS except for steelhead trout and rainbow trout. For MIS listed 

in the LRMP (pp. 4-38 to 4-41), project-level MIS effects analyses are informed by project- and 

landscape-scale habitat analysis. Project-level effects on MIS are analyzed and disclosed as part of 

environmental analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act. This involves examining the 

impacts of the proposed project alternatives on MIS habitat by discussing how direct, indirect, and 

cumulative effects will change the quantity and/or quality of habitat in the landscape and project area 

(LRMP, p. 4-39). The LRMP requirements for MIS analyzed for the Hi-Grouse Forest Management 

Project are summarized in Part I of the MIS Report. Adequately analyzing project effects to MIS, 

involves the following steps: 

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

project alternatives; (LRMP standards and guidelines 8-21 through and including 8-34). This 

information is documented in Part I of the MIS Report. 

□ Identifying the LRMP forest-level monitoring requirements for this subset of forest MIS 

(LRMP Chapter 5, Table 5-1). This information is documented in Part I of the MIS Report. 

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

represent in the LRMP. 

The Management Indicator Species (MIS) Report, parts I and II document application of the above steps 

to select and analyze MIS for the Hi-Grouse Forest Management Project. 

1.b. Direction Regarding Monitoring of MIS Population and Habitat Trends 

at the Forest Scale 

Forest-scale monitoring requirements for the Klamath National Forest (KNF) MIS are found in Table 5-1 

of monitoring plan by resource of the LRMP. 

Habitat Status and Trend 

Habitat monitoring requirements are summarized in the MIS report, part I. “Habitats” are the vegetation 

types (for example, mixed-conifer forest) and/or ecosystem components (for example, river and ponds) 

and special habitat elements (for example, snags) as identified in the LRMP. “Habitat status” is the current 

amount of habitat on the KNF. “Habitat trend” is the direction of change in the amount of habitat 

between the time the LRMP was approved and the present. The methodology for assessing habitat status 

and trend is: 
Hi-Grouse MIS Report Part II 

2 

1. Use the GIS vegetation layers to describe the location of habitat for non-fish MIS within 

a project area, 

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

distribution, 

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

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

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

Appendix I and California Wildlife Habitat Relationship (CWHR) System (CWHR 

2005). The CWHR System is considered “a state-of-the-art information system for 

California’s wildlife” and provides the most widely used habitat relationship models for 

California’s terrestrial vertebrate species (ibid). 

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

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

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

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

remote-sensing imagery obtained at various points in time, which are verified using 

photo-imagery, on-the-ground measurements, and tracking of events that change 

vegetation and stream conditions (for example, vegetation management, floods, and 

wildland fires). 

Population Status and Trend 

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

“Population trend” is the direction of change in that population measured over time. Population 

monitoring data are collected and/or compiled at the stream scale rather than the project scale because 

site-specific monitoring or surveying of a proposed project or activity area is not required (36 CFR 

219.14(f)), and the actual treatment areas of an action may not contain streams, but may affect streams 

through sediment delivery or flow changes. 

2. LRMP Monitoring Requirements for MIS Selected for Projectlevel Analysis 

2.a. MIS Monitoring Requirements 

Guidance regarding MIS set forth in the KNF LRMP directs Forest Service resource managers to: (1) at 

the landscape and project scales, analyze the effects of proposed projects on the habitats of each MIS 

listed in LRMP standards and guidelines 8-21 through 8-34; and (2) assess presence of goshawk in 

suitable habitat and determine the number of pairs of northern spotted owls in late successional reserves, 

and to conduct implementation monitoring to determine population trends and relationships to habitat 

changes for steelhead trout and rainbow trout. 

2.b. How MIS Monitoring Requirements are Being Met 

Project-level assessment is not required for northern spotted owls and goshawks as MIS per LRMP 

standards and guidelines 8-21 through 8-34. Impacts to northern spotted owls are evaluated as a species 

listed under the Endangered Species Act and the impacts to goshawks are evaluated as a species 

designated as sensitive by the Forest Service. 

There are several ways that spotted owl presence is being determined: 1) Surveys have been conducted in 

late successional reserves in coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2) habitat evaluations 

have been conducted by the Fish and Wildlife Service (in coordination with the Forest Service Research 
Hi-Grouse MIS Report Part II 

3 

Station) to predict northern spotted owl presence, 3) habitat loss and potential take throughout the Forest 

is reported to the Fish and Wildlife Service annually, and 4) monitoring is accomplished through the 

formal monitoring programs of the Northwest Forest Plan area. 

Chapter 5 o the LRMP states that goshawk occupancy in suitable habitat will be determined. Surveys are 

done at the project level where a potential for impacts (to habitat or from noise disturbance) may be 

significant. The majority of habitat and survey work is conducted on the Goosenest Ranger District of the 

KNF because of the high likelihood of presence. Also, Goshawk Management Areas have been identified 

throughout the KNF, with a specific standard (8-20) to project goshawks. Chapter 5 of the LRMP says 

that the variation from the standard requiring further action will be determine in a regional conservation 

strategy, which has not yet been completed. Therefore, there is no standard to measure against. Survey 

information has been provided to the Fish and Wildlife Service for evaluation and development of a 

regional conservation strategy. 

Population trend data for steelhead trout is collected and consolidated by the KNF in cooperation with 

State, tribal, and Federal agency partners such as the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), 

Karuk Tribe, USDI Geological Survey, and the Fish and Wildlife Service, and other conservation partners 

such as universities and watershed restoration councils. Fish presence data for steelhead trout and rainbow 

trout are collected using a number of direct and indirect methods, such as stream surveys and fishing 

results (creel census). The KNF’s MIS monitoring program for species typically hunted, fished, or 

trapped (such as steelhead and rainbow trout) was designed to be implemented in cooperation with CDFG, 

consistent with direction in the 1982 Planning Rule to monitor forest-level MIS population trends in 

cooperation with State fish and wildlife agencies to the extent practicable (36 CFR 219.19(a)(6)). To be 

biologically meaningful for wide-ranging MIS, presence data are collected and tracked not only at the 

forest scale, but also at larger scales, such as rangewide (range of the northern spotted owl), statewide, 

provincewide (Northern California), or important species management unit (for example, Klamath River 

Basin). In 2006, available data on steelhead and rainbow trout were analyzed to determine the population 

trends of these species. 

3. Description of Proposed Project 

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

approximately 7,450 acres in the southeast portion of the Goosenest Ranger District. The legal description 

for the project area is all or portions of: T. 44 N., R. 2 E., sections 23, 25-28, 32-36; T. 43 N., R. 2 E., 

sections 1-4, 9-13; T. 44 N., R. 3 E., section 31; T. 43 N., R. 3 E., sections 6, 7, and 18; Mt. Diablo 

Meridian, Siskiyou County, California. 

The purpose and need for this project is driven by the recognition of the departure in processes and 

functions of these forests compared to the historic range of variability. There is a need to create forest 

structures and species compositions that are resilient to patterns of disturbance that are most likely to 

occur given current and predicted trends for fire behavior, stand density, insects, and disease. Historic 

references serve as an approximation of the types of conditions that are likely to be best adapted to these 

disturbances, but may not be entirely representative of conditions that would suffer the least amount of 

perturbation from predicted climate change (warmer, wetter winters and hotter, drier summers). 

The purpose and need has three main elements: 

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. 
Hi-Grouse MIS Report Part II 

4 

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. 

The Forest Service developed four alternatives, including the no action (alternative 1) and proposed 

action (alternative 2) and two additional alternatives created in response to the significant issue of effects 

on northern spotted owl (NSO) habitat. A detailed description of each of the alternatives shown in Table 1 

is in the Hi-Grouse Forest Management Environmental Impact Statement (USDA Forest Service 2009). 

Table 1. Comparison of action alternatives 

Treatments1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt.4 

Thinning from Below 2,831 2,094 2,530 

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

Mowing 346 254 346 

Underburning 1,729 789 1,495 

Post-treatment evaluation of planting. 757 0 644 

Ponderosa Pine/Mixed Conifer 

Restoration and Re-establishment 1,188 0 0 

Overall Fuels Abatement 1,188 0 0 

Mowing 70 0 0 

Underburning 939 0 0 

Post-treatment evaluation of planting. 1,188 0 0 

Lodgepole Pine Thinning/Fuels Reduction 683 683 984 

Overall Fuels Abatement 683 683 984 

Mowing 428 428 728 

Plantation Thinning 99 99 99 

Overall Fuels Abatement 99 99 99 

Underburning Only 42 478 42 

Fuel management zones s3

Acres Outside Other Treatments 

13 mi. (480 acres) 

266 

13 mi. (480 acres) 

300 

13 mi. (480 acres) 

300 

Total Project Area Acres Proposed for 

Treatment 5,109 3,654 3,955 

Construction of Temporary Roads 0.7 0.7 1.3 

Temporary Use of Non-system Roads 3.2 1.6 1.9 

Road Maintenance on Existing System & 

Non-system Roads As needed during operations 

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

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

2 Fuels overall abatement includes whole-tree yarding, pile and burning, lop and scatter, and biomass removal treatment options. 

3 Mileage is approximate, proposed fuel management zone are along Forest System Roads 15, 77, 44N84, 44N77, 44N75, and 

44N75D

Since the completion of this document in July, 2009, alternative 2 was dropped from further analysis on 

January 4, 2010. At the same time, treatments across about 86 and 108 acres in alternatives 3 and 4, 

respectively, were also dropped. These changes have not been reflected in this document. A detailed 
Hi-Grouse MIS Report Part II 

5 

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

Management Environmental Impact Statement (USDA 2010). 

Acres of habitat for MIS that occur within the Hi-Grouse project area as defined by the Klamath National 

Forest Land and Resource Management Plan and MIS Habitat database (date?) are displayed in Table 2. 

Table 2. Acres of habitat for management indicator species within the Hi-Grouse project area 

Habitat Type Acres 

Brush 

Bitterbrush - Sagebrush 1 

Eastside Pine 4 

Great Basin – Mixed Chaparral Transition 3 

Lodgepole Pine 7 

Mixed Conifer - fir 66 

Perennial Grasses and Forbs 1 

Ponderosa Pine – White Fir 3 

Red Fir 40 

Upper Montane Mixed Chaparral 7 

White Fir 40 

Total Brush 172 

Early Seral 

Annual Grasses and Forbs 1 

Barren 4 

Eastside Pine 4 

Lodgepole Pine 1,304 

Mixed Conifer - Fir 255 

Pinemat Manzanita 6 

Ponderosa Pine – White Fir 7 

Red Fir 27 

Upper Montane Mixed Chaparral 5 

Western White Pine 1 

White Fir 66 

Urban - other 15 

Total Early Seral 1,695 

Mid-Seral 5,444 

Barren 5 

Curlleaf Mountain Mahogany 4 

Eastside Pine 423 

Great Basin – Mixed Chaparral Transition 4 

Lodgepole Pine 67 

Mixed Conifer - Fir 719 

Pinemat Manzanita 1 

Ponderosa Pine – White Fir 897 

Red Fir 694 

Upper Montane Mixed Chaparral 17 

White Fir 2,595 

Urban - other 16 

Total Mid-Seral 5,444 

Other 

Barren 110 
Hi-Grouse MIS Report Part II 

6 

Habitat Type Acres 

Lodgepole Pine 2 

Western White Pine 5 

Other 23 

Total Other 139 

Grand Total 7,451 

Acres of habitat for MIS that occur within the Hi-Grouse project area as per 2009 stand exam data and 

field verification are displayed in Table 3. 

Table 3. Acres of MIS habitat within the Hi-Grouse project area 

Habitat Strata Acres 

Early Seral Lodgepole Pine-White Fir-Ponderosa Pine Seedling Sapling (Plantations) 132 

Early Seral Red Fir-Ponderosa Pine-Lodgepole Pine Poles (Plantations) 80 

Early/Mid-Seral Lodgepole Pine - Immature 583 

Early Seral Mixed Conifer 327 

Early Seral White Fir 91 

Mid-Seral Lodgepole Pine - Mature 1,072 

Mid-Seral Mixed Conifer 1,267 

Mid-Seral Ponderosa Pine 292 

Mid-Seral White Fir-Ponderosa Pine 2,160 

Mid-Late-Seral White Fir 863 

Late Seral Red Fir 347 

Other 237 

Total 7,451 

4. Selection of Project-level MIS 

As mentioned previously, management indicator species for the KNF are identified in the LRMP 

standards and guidelines 8-21 through 8-34. A review was conducted using the MIS Report Part I - 

Project Level Assessment Checklist to determine: 1) if the project is within the range of any MIS, 2) if 

habitat for which the species is an indicator is present within or adjacent to the proposed treatment areas, 

and 3) if there are potential direct, indirect or cumulative effects on habitat components. 

4.a. Species Not Selected 

The following associations and MIS will not be further discussed because the habitats for which 

these species were selected are not in or adjacent to the project area as documented in Project 

Level Assessment Part I. Therefore, the project will not directly or indirectly affect the habitat 

for these species and will, therefore, have no impact on forest-level habitat or population trends 

for these species: 

Hardwood Species Association: 

Acorn woodpecker Melanerpes formicivorus 

Western gray squirrel Sciurus griseus 

Marsh/Lake/Pond Species Association 

Northern red-legged frog Rana aurora 

Western pond turtle Clemmys marmorata 

River/Stream Species Association: 

Rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss 

Steelhead Oncorhynchus mykiss 

Tailed frog Ascaphus truei 

Cascades frog Rana cascade 

American dipper Cynclus platensis 
Hi-Grouse MIS Report Part II 

2 

Northern water shrew Sorex palustris 

Long-tailed vole Microtus longicaudus 

Grassland/Shrub-Steppe Species Association 

Pronghorn Antilocarpa Americana 

Montane vole Microtus montanus 

Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus 

Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni 

Sage thrasher Oreoscoptes montanus 

Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia 

Snag Species Association 

Hairy woodpecker Picoides albolarvatus 

Downy woodpecker Picoides pubescens 

Mature Ponderosa Pine with Juniper 

Pinyon jay 

4.b. Selected MIS 

The following species associations and MIS were selected for analysis for the Hi-Grouse Forest 

Management Project due to the presence of suitable habitat that may be impacted by the project activities, 

as described in the MIS Project Level Assessment Part I. Species associations and MIS associated with 

habitats that may be affected by project activities are analyzed below. 

Snag Species Association 

Red-breasted sapsucker Sphyrapicus rubber 

White-headed woodpecker Picoides albolarvatus 

Vaux’s swift Chaetura vuaxi 

Pileated woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus 

Black-backed woodpecker Picoides arcticus 

Mature Ponderosa Pine Species 

Association (Eastside Pine) 

Flammulated owl Otus flammeolus 

White-headed woodpecker Picoides 

albolarvatus 

5. MIS Environmental Baseline 

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

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

the EIS for the Forest Plan (1995) and in the "LRMP MIS Selection and Monitoring Summary" in the 

MIS Report Part I in the project file. 

Snag Species Association 

Existing Condition 

The amount of standing dead trees in the project area is quite high due to the amount of mortality 

occurring from high tree density, insects and disease. Most of the standing dead snags are in the 10-inch 

to 19-inch dbh range (Figure 1). Table 3 presents an estimated average number of snags by stratum 

derived from plot data taken within the project area (Schantz, personal communication). In actuality, 

there are more large dead trees present in the stands than the data shows because live trees were the focus 

of the stand exams and thus dead trees were under-represented in the plots taken. 

Table 4. Average number of snags by size class in stratums in the project area 

Stand-type Vegetation Community Acres 

Percent of 

Project 

Area 

Average 

Number of 

Snags 10-

19” DBH 

Average 

Number of 

Snags 20” DBH 

or greater 

Mid-seral PP-dominated 9-24 

in. dbh White fir/Pine 292 4 5.5 1.4 

Mid-seral WF-PP 9-24 in. 

dbh White fir/Pine 614 8 25.3 3.1 

Mid-seral WF-PP 9-24 in. White fir/Pine 787 11 5.7 1.8 
Hi-Grouse MIS Report Part II 

2 

Stand-type Vegetation Community Acres 

Percent of 

Project 

Area 

Average 

Number of 

Snags 10-

19” DBH 

Average 

Number of 

Snags 20” DBH 

or greater 

dbh 

Mid-seral WF 9-24 in. dbh White fir/Pine 759 10 2.9 1.9 

Early-seral WF 5-16 in. dbh White fir/Pine 91 1 23 0.7 

Mid-seral MC 5-24 in. dbh White fir/Mixed Conifer, Red 

Fir /Mixed Conifer 772 10 14.6 1.8 

Mid-seral MC 5-24 in. dbh White Fir/Mixed Conifer, 

Red Fir/Mixed Conifer 494 7 2.8 1.1 

Early-seral MC 5-16 in. dbh White Fir/Mixed Conifer, 

Red Fir/Mixed Conifer 132 2 0 0 

Early-seral MC 5-16 in. dbh White Fir/Mixed Conifer, 

Red Fir/Mixed Conifer 105 1 3.1 2.5 

Early-seral MC 5-12 in. dbh White Fir/Mixed Conifer, 

Red Fire/Mixed Conifer 35 <1 54.3 0 

Late-seral RF dominated Red Fir/Mixed Conifer 347 5 5.6 2.9 

Mid/Late-seral WF 

dominated White fir/Pine 863 12 8.3 2.7 

Mid-seral LP- Mature, Heavy 

Mortality Lodgepole/Mixed Conifer 1072 15 10.6 0.3 

Early/Mid-seral LP- Immature Lodgepole/Mixed Conifer 583 8 8.4 0 

Plantations/regen. HarvestPoles N/A 80 1 0 0 

Plantations/regen. Harvestseedling/sapling N/A 132 2 5.8 0 
Hi-Grouse MIS Report Part II 

3 

Figure 1. Three large broken-topped snags in the background 

The amount of large down woody material in the project area varies widely. Many of the white fir stands 

and the lodgepole pine stand have large amounts of large down woody material due to root rot and pine 

beetle (Figure 2). 
Hi-Grouse MIS Report Part II 

4 

Figure 2. Large amounts of down woody material in white fir stands 

Table 5 displays the amount and distribution of course woody debris by decomposition class in various 

sampled treatment units within the project area (McNamara 2009). Due to the limited number of plots 

sampled, the amount of course woody debris present is under-represented (Helmbrecht 2009). 

Table 5. Existing course woody debris amounts, decomposition class and distribution within selected 

treatment units 

Harvest 

Unit No. 

Existing CWD (>

20 in. diameter) 

logs/acre 

CWD Decomposition Class 

1 

% 

2 

% 

3 

% 

4 

% 

5 

% 

2 0 

3 4 -- 18 18 55 9 

4 3 -- -- 67 33 -- 

7 4 -- -- 33 67 -- 

9 9.1 -- 50 25 25 -- 

12 1.2 -- -- 100 -- -- 

14 1.8 -- -- 33 67 -- 

15 4.8 -- 17 33 33 17 

16 2.0 34 -- 66 -- -- 

19 1.7 -- 25 25 25 25 

21 4.4 -- 80 -- 20 34 

22 1.3 -- -- 50 50 -- 

23 1.7 -- 25 25 25 25 

25 9.8 -- 31 44 19 6 

28 1.2 -- -- 100 -- -- 

30 2.2 -- 33 33 -- 34 

32 10.8 -- 13 45 39 4 

37 3.2 -- -- 100 -- -- 
Hi-Grouse MIS Report Part II 

5 

Harvest 

Unit No. 

Existing CWD (>

20 in. diameter) 

logs/acre 

CWD Decomposition Class 

1 

% 

2 

% 

3 

% 

4 

% 

5 

% 

41 5.3 -- -- 100 -- -- 

43 4.7 -- -- 43 43 14 

44 4.7 -- -- 43 43 14 

45 4.8 -- 17 33 33 -- 

54 4.7 43 43 14 

58 4.7 -- -- 43 43 14 

59 4.7 -- -- 43 43 14 

61 10.8 -- 13 44 39 4 

65 5.0 -- -- 40 60 -- 

MIS Snag Species 

Red-breasted sapsucker 

In the forest plan, habitat for the red-breasted 

sapsucker is identified as mid- to late-seral 

mixed conifer and riparian deciduous 

vegetation (the Hi-Grouse project area does not 

contain any riparian deciduous vegetation). 

This species is an indicator of snags as a habitat 

element and of other species that depend on 

sapwells. 

Red-breasted sapsuckers are not considered a 

common species and little is known about local 

distribution and abundance. 

Population trends measured by BBS data 

suggest no changes in population from 

surveywide data for various superspecies (3 

species of sapsuckers combined) for 1966–

2000, but statistically significant trends noted 

for two states for the period 1966–2000: 

Oregon with a positive trend: +3.6%/yr, n = 63 

routes, p = 0.03; California with a negative 

trend: -2.9%/yr, n = 62 routes, p = 0.02. Trends 

for the Cascade Mountains were positive (Sauer 

et al. 2005). 

This primary cavity nester nests and roosts in 

standing snags and hollow trees (CA Dept Fish 

and Game, 1990). Sapsuckers forage for insects by gleaning, probing, prying and tapping on tree bark as 

well as by fly-catching. This species drills a series of shallow holes in the bark of trees and licks up the 

sap (NatureServe 2009). 

Figure 3. Red-breasted sapsucker range in North 

America 
Hi-Grouse MIS Report Part II 

6 

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

they would occur there. Red-breasted sapsuckers have been documented at the Antelope Creek bird 

monitoring station in Siskiyou County, California (Alexander et al 2009). This bird monitoring station 

occurs in similar habitat approximately 11 miles southwest of the project area (Cheyne 2010). There is 

approximately 4,290 acres of mid-seral and mature white fir or mixed-conifer habitat within the project 

area that is potentially suitable for sapsuckers. In Modoc County, California, home ranges have been 

reported up to 15 acres (CA Dept Fish and Game 1990). 

Pileated Woodpecker 

In the forest plan, habitat for pileated 

woodpeckers is defined as late-successional 

coniferous forests. This species is an 

indicator of snags as a habitat element and 

for other species which depend on 

woodpeckers for cavities or as prey. 

Pileated woodpeckers occupy dense, 

mature forests with large numbers of snags, 

stumps, and logs for cover. In California, 

they frequent Douglas-fir, white fir, and red 

fir more than other conifers primarily in the 

northern part of the state (CA Dept Fish and 

Game 1990). This primary cavity nester 

drills the largest holes and cavities of any 

woodpecker in California (ibid). Multiple 

cavities are excavated in large dead and 

dying trees, which the woodpecker uses for 

nesting and roosting (Figure 4). 

The national population of pileated 

woodpeckers, as reported by the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service's Breeding Bird 

Survey data (1966-1999), is significantly 

increasing at a rate of 1.4 percent per year 

(P value of 0.0); in California, pileated woodpeckers are increasing non-significantly (P value of 0.66) at a 

rate of 0.4 percent per year (Sauer et al. 2005). 

Pileated woodpeckers feed extensively on carpenter ants (Camponotus spp.) and beetle larvae obtained by 

chiseling into standing large trees, stumps, and logs (NatureServe 2009). They forage on decayed and live 

tree trunks, snags, logs, and stumps over 18 cm (7 inches) in diameter. This woodpecker digs extensive, 

rectangular holes when feeding, usually within 10 feet of the ground (Bull and Meslow 1977). 

Bull and Holthausen (1993) recommended the size of management areas for pileated woodpeckers be 

approximately 900 acres with 50 percent of the stands having 60 percent canopy cover. The Hi-Grouse 

project area has approximately 4,582 acres of mid-seral mixed conifer and ponderosa habitat, and midseral white fir-ponderosa pine, and mid/late seral white fir habitat available to pileated woodpeckers. 

Figure 4. Evidence of pileated woodpecker foraging within 

the Hi-Grouse project area (photo by Oechsner 6/08) 
Hi-Grouse MIS Report Part II 

7 

Vaux’s Swift 

In the forest plan, habitat for Vaux’s swift is defined as late-successional forests with large hollow snags. 

This species is an indicator of large snags as a habitat element. 

Figure 5. Range map of Vaux’s swift 

In North America, Vaux’s swifts prefer late-seral stages of coniferous and mixed-deciduous/coniferous 

forests (NatureServe 2009). Vaux’s swifts are summer residents of northern California (CA Dept Fish and 

Game 1990). Breeding habitat for the Vaux’s swift varies from east-side ponderosa pine to Douglas fir 

and mixed-conifer in the Sierra Nevada Mountains. In the Modoc Plateau, Warner Mountains and other 

sites east of the Sierra Nevada, elevational distribution is from 4,500 to 6,500 feet (Sterling and Paton 

1996). 

Little is known about population trends and current knowledge is limited to Breeding Bird Survey data. 

Data shows a stable to slightly increasing trend from 1968 to 2003. This data should be interpreted with 

caution as the survey method may not accurately or appropriately measure Vaux’s Swift population 

trends. 
Hi-Grouse MIS Report Part II 

8 

Nests are usually in large-diameter hollow trees, broken-top trees, or stumps where it glues twigs and 

needles to the bottom, interior vertical wall (NatureServe, 2009). Vaux’s swifts are known to use the 

same nest year after year (Bull 1996). Vaux’s swifts feed exclusively on flying insects taken in long, 

continuous foraging flights. They feed high in the air over most terrains and habitats (CA Dept Fish and 

Game, 1990). 

There are 4,290 acres of mid-seral mixed conifer and white fir-ponderosa pine habitat and mid/late seral 

white fir habitat available to Vaux’s swifts in the Project area. The presence of Vaux’s swifts has not been 

documented within the Hi-Grouse project area, but they are assumed to be present. 

Black-backed Woodpecker 

In the forest plan, habitat for black-backed woodpecker is defined as high elevation fir and lodgepole 

pine. This species is an indicator of snags as a habitat element and for other species which depend on 

woodpeckers for cavities or as prey. 

Figure 6. Black-backed woodpecker range map 

Although black-backed woodpeckers are associated with fir habitats, they are more commonly associated 

with fir and lodgepole pine at elevations above 6,000 feet in the California Cascades. 

Black-backed woodpeckers are known to use three types of forested habitat: 1) post fire areas that have 

burned within 1 to 6 years, 2) areas with extensive bark beetle outbreaks causing widespread tree 

mortality, and 3) a natural range of smaller disturbances scattered throughout the forest such as wind 

throw, ice damage or other occurrences that produce small patches of dead trees. These habitat conditions 
Hi-Grouse MIS Report Part II 

9 

all provide habitat for the black-backed woodpecker’s primary food source, woodborer beetles and larvae 

(Bonn et al. 2007). 

Black-backed woodpecker populations are irruptive, increasing in areas of extensive bark beetle 

outbreaks and wildfires. Because of their irruptive pattern, population trends are not easily discernable. 

Black-backed woodpeckers utilize a variety of tree species for excavating cavity nests, which occur 

primarily in dead or dying conifer trees. Home ranges vary from 286 to 1,040 acres, depending upon 

availability of their wood sources (Bonn et al. 2007). 

There are approximately 6,000 acres of late-seral red fir, mid-seral lodgepole pine, mixed conifer, 

ponderosa pine, white fir and mid/late white fir that provides potential habitat for black-backed 

woodpeckers in the project area. Black-backed woodpeckers have been documented directly adjacent to 

the north of the Hi-Grouse project area in the spring of 2008 (Cheyne 2009). They are assumed to be 

present in the project area in low numbers. 

Snag and Mature Ponderosa Pine Species Association 

White-headed Woodpecker 

In the forest plan, habitat for white-headed woodpecker is defined as ponderosa pine and high elevation 

mixed-conifer. This species is an indicator for mature eastside ponderosa pine habitat and as an indicator 

of large snags as a habitat element and for other species that depend on woodpeckers for cavities or as 

prey. 

The white-headed woodpecker is a year-round resident in the Pacific coastal states. In California, it 

occurs in Sierra Nevada, Cascade, Klamath, Transverse, and Peninsular Ranges, and Warner Mountains. 

No clear overall population trends are evident from Breeding Bird Survey data because there are too few 

survey routes in most portions of the species’ range. Rangewide Breeding Bird Survey data suggest a 

stable or increasing population from 1968 to 2003. 

This species is closely associated with open-canopied (50 to 70 percent) coniferous pine forests, 

especially ponderosa pine at altitudes between 4,000 and 9,000 feet during the summer (Audubon 2005). 

Important habitat components are an abundance of mature pines of species that produce large cones and 

abundant large seeds (NatureServe 2009). This woodpecker reaches its greatest abundance where the 

forest contains a mix of two or more pine species (ibid.). Pine seeds make up more than 50 percent of its 

diet (Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology 2005). They also forage on insects and spiders on the trunks and 

limbs of living and dead trees. This woodpecker pries off the scales of bark to expose its prey rather than 

drilling or excavating holes in search of insects. 

White-headed woodpeckers excavate nests in large (greater than 23 inches dbh), soft, dead tree trunks or 

stumps. Home ranges vary from approximately 140 to 1,100 acres. 

There are approximately 2,452 acres of mid-seral ponderosa pine and white fir - ponderosa pine that 

provides potential habitat for white-headed woodpeckers within the Hi-Grouse project area. One 

occurrence of a white-headed woodpecker has been documented at the Antelope Bird Monitoring Station 

in 2003 (Alexander et al 2009). White-headed woodpeckers have not been documented within the project 

area, but they are assumed to be present. 
Hi-Grouse MIS Report Part II 

10 

Figure 7. Various size classes of ponderosa pine in the Hi Grouse project area 

Flammulated Owl 

In the forest plan, habitat for flammulated owl is defined as mature conifer stands and eastside pine 

habitats. This species is an indicator for mature eastside ponderosa pine habitat with large snags. 

The flammulated owl “is perhaps the most common raptor of the montane forests of the western United 

States” (McCallum 1994). The breeding range of the flammulated owl extends south from southern 

British Columbia into California, Idaho, Nevada, western Wyoming, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico and 

well into Mexico (Samson 2005). Population data are inadequate for trend assessment (NatureServe 

2009). 

Flammulated owls show a strong preference for ponderosa and Jeffrey pine throughout their range. They 

prefer mature growth with an open canopy (less than 40 percent) with some shrubbery and grass 

(NatureServe 2009). They roost in dense vegetation, thickets or in cavities. 

Flammulated owls are insectivores, favoring lepidopteran (moth) prey that they glean and hawk from the 

air or vegetation at night (NatureServe 2009), favoring small openings, and edges and clearings (CA Dept 

Fish and Game 1990). 

The female flammulated owl selects the nest site that is most often an old pileated woodpecker or 

northern flicker nest cavity (McCallum 1994). The nest cavity is used year after year by the flammulated 

owl pair. Nesting home ranges vary in size from about 14 to 54 acres. 

There are approximately 2,452 acres of mid-seral ponderosa pine and mid-seral white fir – ponderosa pine 

potential habitat available to flammulated owls within the project area. However much of the white-fir – 

ponderosa pine habitat is dense and has little in the way of understory vegetation, which is not preferred 

by flammulated owls. The presence of flammulated owls have been documented during northern spotted 

owl surveys conducted within the project area. 
Hi-Grouse MIS Report Part II 

11 

6. Effects of the Hi-Grouse Alternatives on Selected MIS 

No Action Alternative - Continuation of Existing Activities and Trends 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

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

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

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

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

and larger snags for the six selected snag-associated MIS birds. Habitat for static numbers of blackbacked woodpeckers would be expected to continue to be available as the bark beetle infestation 

continued. The death of conifers would reduce foraging habitat for the red-breasted sapsucker and whiteheaded woodpecker that forage on and under the bark of live trees. Black-backed and pileated 

woodpecker forage would continue to be available in the insect and disease ridden trees and fallen logs. 

Preferred nesting and foraging habitat for flammulated owls would continue to be limited in the dense 

ponderosa pine habitat in the short term(about 5 years) and long term (more than 50 years). Vaux’s swift 

habitat would remain available. 

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. Fire effects on birds depend largely on fire 

severity (Kaplan Smith 2000). Changes to the quality and quantity of habitat available to the seven 

selected MIS species would vary widely. 

In areas of high-intensity fire, there would be a reduction in the availability of the ponderosa pine habitat 

for flammulated owls and white-headed woodpeckers in the long term (more than 50 years). Long-term 

impacts to forest structure would be expected in areas burned by high-intensity crown fire. Trees of all 

sizes would be killed, including large trees suitable for cavity nesting and foraging by selected MIS birds. 

Large snags currently suitable for nesting would be burned up in a high-intensity crown fire. 

Displacement and reduced reproduction of selected MIS birds would occur in areas that experienced a 

stand-replacing wildfire. 

Fires that underburn in ponderosa pine would improve stand conditions. Smaller trees would be killed 

and/or burned up, while the larger ponderosa pine would be more fire tolerant. Habitat conditions for the 

remaining larger ponderosa pine trees would improve and so would conditions for the flammulated owl 

over the long term in areas burned at low intensity. 

Fires that reduce logs, stumps, and snags could have adverse effects by decreasing insect availability for 

pileated woodpeckers. Black-backed woodpecker habitat would increase in burned areas and their 

numbers would be expected to rise for approximately 5 years following the wildfire. Some snag habitat 

would be created while existing decadent standing snags would be burned up. 

Because there are no direct or indirect effects of the no action alternative, there are no cumulative effects. 

Action Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 

Note: Since the completion of this document in July, 2009, alternative 2 was dropped from further 

analysis on January 4, 2010. At the same time, treatments across about 86 and 108 acres in alternatives 3 

and 4, respectively, were also dropped. These changes have not been reflected in the following analysis. 
Hi-Grouse MIS Report Part II 

12 

The effects of alternatives 3 and 4 as a result of reducing treatments across 86 and 108 acres, respectively, 

would be less than what is discussed and displayed in the tables below. 

Selected MIS (red-breasted sapsucker, white-headed woodpecker, Vaux’s swift, 

pileated woodpecker and black-backed woodpecker) Snag Species Habitat 

The quantity and quality of snags and down woody material in the project area would decrease from 

existing conditions with the implementation of thinning and fuel reduction treatments proposed in 

Alternatives 2, 3 or 4. More acres of habitat is proposed for treatment in Alternative 2 than in 

Alternatives 3 and 4, so more snag habitat and down woody debris would be affected. 

In all three action alternatives, some standing dead snags would be felled for reasons of safety; some 

would be knocked over during the tree thinning process; some would be removed in the fuel management 

zone, temporary road and landing construction. Post-activity fuel treatments by means of mechanical and 

prescribed fire would also result in the loss of some snags. Thinning and fuel reduction treatments would 

also affect the rate of snag and down woody debris recruitment over the next 20 years. 

The amount of down woody material for pileated woodpeckers would be reduced in treated areas as well. 

During seed tree and commercial thinning operations, some existing down woody material would be 

crushed by machinery and/or removed. Larger diameter down logs would be avoided by ground-based 

equipment. Post treatment fuel reduction would also result in the loss of down woody material. 

During and following implementation of any of the action alternatives, snag and down woody material 

standards would be met. Unit design, silvicultural prescriptions, and burn plans will be developed to 

ensure snags and large down woody debris are retained on the landscape over time. At a minimum, five 

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 will be maintained. If the 

representative overstory trees are less than 20 inches dbh, the largest size classes available in the stand 

will be retained. 

Snags and down logs and 1 to 4 dominant/predominant trees will be retained in the 0.25 to 1 acre small 

openings created. Snags felled for safety reasons will be retained onsite to provide coarse woody debris, 

consistent with fuels objectives (LRMP, pp. 4-23 and 4-24). 

Retain existing levels or a minimum of 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 will be maintained. 

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. The district biologist will designate up to 10 to 15 percent 

of each unit area to be left untreated. 

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. 

To the greatest extent possible, snags and large down woody debris will be protected 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.). 
Hi-Grouse MIS Report Part II 

13 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

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

species is limited (Pilliod et al. 2006). Thinning and fuel reduction activities would affect the quality, and 

to a limited extent, the quantity of habitat available to the six selected MIS birds for the short term 

(approximately 5 years after within stand work is completed). Tables 6 and 7 display the acres of 

treatment type proposed in Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 using two different habitat layers. (Habitat acreage 

totals in Table 6 will vary from treatment acres because of January 4, 2010 boundary changes in the data 

layer from the time it was originally produced in June 2009.) Map 1 at the end of this document displays 

the treatments proposed in MIS habitat for alternative 4, the preferred action. 

Table 6. Existing acres and acres treated within the project area by alternatives 2, 3 and 4. 

Habitat Type1 Existing 

Acres 

Treatment 

Type* 

Acres Treated 

Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4

Early Seral Lodgepole-White FirPonderosa Pine seedling/sapling 

(plantation) 

132 PCT 99 99 99 

Total 99 99 99 

% Habitat Treated 75% 75% 75% 

Early Seral RF-PP-LP poles 

(plantation) 80 

HTH-PP-Hvy 1 0 1 

PPR 2 0 0 

HTH-PP-lite 0 1 0 

Total 3 1 1 

% Habitat Treated ~4% ~1% ~1% 

Early/Mid-Seral LodgePoleimmature 573 HTH-MC-lite 9 9 0 

Total 9 9 0 

% Habitat Treated ~2% ~2% ~2% 

Early Seral Mixed Conifer 327 

HTH-PP-Hvy 2 0 2 

MCR 102 0 0 

PCT2 35 35 35 

PCT2-MC 68 68 68 

PPR 3 0 0 

PRE 27 0 0 

PRE2 50 0 0 

HTH-PP-lite 0 2 0 

Total 288 106 106 

% Habitat Treated 88% 32% 32% 

Early Seral White Fir 91 

PPR 13 0 0 

PRE 15 0 0 

PRE2 48 0 0 

Total 76 0 0 

% Habitat Treated 84% 0 0 

Late Seral Red Fir 347 PCT2-OG-RF 150 150 150 

PCT2-NGH 0 0 10 

Total 150 150 160 

% Habitat Treated 43% 43% 46% 

Mid/Late Seral White Fir 863 

HTH-MC-HVY 7 0 7 

HTH-WF-PP 245 0 245 

HTH-WF-PP-lite-NGH 32 0 32 

HTH-WF-PP-lite-NSO 103 0 0 

HTH-MC-lite 0 7 0 

HTH-PP-lite 0 277 0 

PPR 110 0 0 

PRE2 1 0 0 

UB 15 15 15 

Total 513 299 299 
Hi-Grouse MIS Report Part II 

14 

Habitat Type1 Existing 

Acres 

Treatment 

Type* 

Acres Treated 

Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4

% Habitat Treated 59% 35% 35% 

Mid-Seral LodgePole Mature 1,072 

HTH-LP 422 422 722 

HTH-PP 31 0 31 

LPFR 255 255 255 

HTH-PP-lite 0 31 0 

Total 709 708 1009 

% Habitat Treated 66% 66% 94% 

Mid-Seral Mixed Conifer 1,267 HTH-MC-Hvy 285 231 

 

HTH-MC-lite 85 277 0 

HTH-PP 9 0 29 

HTH-PP-lite 0 25 0 

HTH-PP-Hvy 21 0 0 

HTH-RF 86 0 0 

HTH-WF-PP 3 0 3 

HTH-WF-PP-lite 0 40 0 

HTH-RF-lite 86 86 

HTH-WF-PP-lite-NGH 37 0 37 

PCT2-MC 23 23 23 

PCT2-NGH 46 0 46 

PCT2-OG-RF 29 29 29 

PPR 7 0 0 

PRE 74 0 0 

PRE2 6 0 0 

UB 0 5 0 

Total 710 484 484 

% Habitat Treated 56% 38% 38% 

Mid-Seral Ponderosa Pine 292 

HTH-PP 290 290 

HTH-PP-lite 0 203 0 

UB 0 87 0 

Total 290 290 290 

Mid-Seral White Fir-Ponderosa 

Pine 

2,160 HTH-PP 230 0 268 

HTH-PP-Hvy- 398 0 360 

HTH-WF-PP 305 0 305 

HTH-WF-PP-lite-NGH 25 0 25 

HTH-WF-PP-lite-NSO 120 0 71 

PCT2 97 0 0 

HTH-PP-lite 0 326 0 

HTH-WF-PP-lite 0 402 0 

PCT2-MC 1 1 1 

PPR 328 0 0 

PRE 400 0 0 

PCT2 0 97 97 

UB 27 329 27 

Total 1,932 1,155 1,155 

% Habitat Treated 89% 54% 54% 

 

Grand Total Acres Treated 4,788 3,301 3,601 

Grand Total % Habitat Treated 66% 46% 50% 

1 habitat type as determined by stand exam data and field reconnaissance. 

*HTH- thinning for sawlogs and fiber 

PPR, PRE, MCR- heavy thinning to promote reestablishment of ponderosa pine and mixed-conifer species composition and 

structure. 

PCT2- Thinning of trees generally less than 12 inches dbh in natural stands; mostly mechanical methods, but some hand treatment. 

PCT- Thinning of trees generally less than 12 inches dbh in old regeneration cutting units; could be accomplished by mechanical or 

hand methods. 

PP- ponderosa pine; WF- white fir; RF- red fir; TF- true firs; LP- lodgepole pine 

MC- Mixed conifer- ponderosa pine, white fir, lodgepole pine, and red fir in various aggregations 

Hvy- heavy thinning 

NGH- northern goshawk; NSO- northern spotted owl 
Hi-Grouse MIS Report Part II 

15 

LPFR – lodgepole pine/fuel reduction 

Table 7. Existing acres and acres treated within the project area by Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 

Habitat Type1 Existing 

Acres 

Acres Treated

Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4

Brush 

East Side Pine 4 1 1 1 

Lodgepole Pine 7 6 6 6 

Mixed Conifer-Fir 66 60 35 35 

Ponderosa Pine – White Fir 3 2 1 1 

Red Fir 40 27 10 10 

White Fir 40 32 24 24 

Total Acres 163 127 68 68

Early Seral 

Lodgepole Pine 1,304 592 585 866 

Mixed Conifer 255 152 136 140 

Ponderosa Pine – White Fir 7 2 2 2 

Red Fir 27 1 1 1 

White Fir 66 35 27 27 

Total Acres 1,664 783 751 1,036

Mid-Seral 

East Side Pine 423 340 339 339 

Lodgepole Pine 67 38 30 35 

Mixed Conifer – Fir 719 538 261 266 

Ponderosa Pine – White Fir 897 803 704 704 

Red Fir 694 321 188 188 

White Fir 2,595 1,862 980 980 

Total Acres 5,395 3,905 2,502 2,512

Grand Total Acres Treated 7,222 4,815 3,321 3,616

1 Habitat types within project area as determined by MIS Habitat layer 

(The analysis discussed here references treatments discussed in table 6 above.) Ponderosa pine/mixed 

conifer restoration and reestablishment that would occur across approximately 1,188 acres (23 percent) in 

Alternative 2 would sustain and promote mid-to-late seral ponderosa pine and mixed conifer habitat for 

red-breasted sapsuckers, pileated woodpeckers, Vaux’s swifts, white-headed woodpeckers and 

flammulated owls. Post-treatment conditions would vary from thinned patches dominated by the largest 

pines to thinned patches dominated by white fir to areas of open pine forest. The larger areas of open pine 

and areas dominated by white fir would be planted to ponderosa pine, as well as rust-resistant sugar pine 

and white pine on the appropriate sites. Pileated woodpeckers, Vaux’s swifts and black-backed 

woodpeckers would be affected by the removal of larger fir in the re-establishment and restoration 

treatments. 

Thinning-from-below treatments across approximately 2,831 acres (55 percent) would alter the structure 

and composition of the stands treated, but the acres of available habitat by type would not change. The 

density of trees would decrease along with the canopy closure. Reducing the canopy closure would affect 

species like the pileated woodpecker that prefers higher canopy cover. Removing trees would reduce 

foraging substrate for red-breasted sapsuckers, pileated woodpeckers, black-backed woodpeckers, and 

white-headed woodpeckers. Reducing the density of trees and opening the canopy would benefit whiteheaded woodpeckers and flammulated owls that prefer more open (widely spaced) and larger ponderosa 

pine trees with a shrub and grass layer beneath. The decrease in stand density may affect future snag 

recruitment. 

Pre-commercial thinning would reduce the number of small trees less than 12 inches dbh. There would 

be no short-term effects to the six selected MIS birds. Over the long term (more than 50 years) trees in 

these thinned stands would develop more quickly and provide future habitat needs for red-breasted 

sapsuckers, pileated woodpeckers, Vaux’s swifts, white-headed woodpeckers, and flammulated owls. 
Hi-Grouse MIS Report Part II 

16 

Fuel abatement activities would reduce the amount of down woody debris in treatment areas as discussed 

previously in the snag dependent species section. 

Lodgepole pine thinning and fuel reduction proposed in all three action alternatives would remove 

remnant diseased lodgepole pines, pile fuels and thin the understory to promote the existing true firs and 

pine. This treatment would affect 683 acres (64 percent) of existing lodgepole pine black-backed 

woodpecker habitat in Alternatives 2 or 3. Nine-hundred eighty-four acres (92 percent) of lodgepole pine 

black-backed woodpecker habitat would be affected in Alternative 4. The removal of beetle-killed 

lodgepole and promotion of small trees including white fir-red fir, ponderosa pine, and lodgepole pine 

would reduce black-backed woodpecker habitat immediately following treatment and for the long term 

(more than 50 years). 

Plantation thinnings over the long term would promote ponderosa pine and mixed-conifer habitat for redbreasted sapsuckers, pileated woodpeckers, Vaux’s swifts, white-headed woodpeckers and flammulated 

owls. 

Tree planting and sporax treatment of stumps to prevent the spread of root rot would not affect any of the 

selected MIS birds or their habitat. 

Mechanical mowing of shrubs, seedlings, and saplings would occur in limited areas dominated by small 

trees. These treatments would enhance grass and low shrub growth which would be favorable to 

flammulated owls. 

Underburning would be used to reduce natural fuel loads, treatment slash, shrubs, and white fir understory 

trees, while increasing herbaceous species and encouraging pine regeneration. Encouraging pine 

regeneration would benefit ponderosa pine dependent species such as flammulated owls, in the long term. 

Fuel management zones consist of small tree thinning and/or removal, pruning, mowing of brush, and 

hand or machine piling and burning of down woody debris concentrations. Trees greater than 11 inches 

dbh trees would remain. The treatments of fuels along the management zones would generally extend 

150 feet from either side of the road, but may extend farther depending on slope and vegetation type. 

Habitat types treated in the fuel management zones would be expected to remain available to MIS species 

dependent upon them. 

Temporary road construction would remove approximately 1 acre of habitat for the long term in 

Alternatives 2 and 3. In Alternative 4, approximately 2 acres of habitat would be removed for the long 

term. Temporary roads would create edge/small opening habitat for those MIS species that prefer 

openings near ponderosa pine stands, such as flammulated owls and white-headed woodpeckers. 

Tables 8 and 9 display the acres of habitat that would be removed during the construction of both new and 

relocated landings by alternative. 

Table 8. Acres of habitat* removed during construction of new and relocated landings by action alternative 

Habitat Type Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 

Early Seral RF-PP-LP poles (Plantations) 0 0 0 

Early-seral MC 1.5 1 1 

Early/Mid-seral LP-immature 0.5 0 0 

Early-seral WF 0.5 0 0 

Late-seral RF 0.5 0.5 0.5 

Mid/Late-seral WF 2.5 1.5 1.5 

Mid-seral LP-mature 7.0 7.0 8.0 

Mid-seral MC 6.5 5.0 5.0 
Hi-Grouse MIS Report Part II 

17 

Mid-seral PP 1.5 1.5 1.5 

Mid-seral WF-PP 10.0 8.5 8.5 

Total Acres New Landings 30.5 25.0 26.0 

Early-Seral MC 0.5 0 0 

Mid-Seral MC 0.5 0.5 0.5 

Mid-Seral WF-PP 0.5 0 0 

Total Acres Landings Relocated 1.5 0.5 0.5 

1 habitat type as determined by stand exam data and field reconnaissance 

Table 9. Acres of habitat* removed by new or relocated landing construction in alternatives 3 and 4 

Habitat Type Alt. 3 Alt. 4 

Brush 0.5 0.5 

Early Seral 9.0 10.0 

Mid-Seral 17.5 17.5 

Total Acres 27 27 

* Habitat types within project area as determined by MIS Habitat layer 

Table 10 presents the estimated amount of habitat the selected MIS bird species would lose for the long 

term by action alternative. 

Table 10. Changes to the amount of habitat* available to selected MIS species by alternative 

Selected MIS Existing Acres of Habitat 

By Type 

Estimated Acres Habitat Removed for New and 

Relocated Landings and Mature LPP Thinning 

 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 

Red-breasted 

Woodpecker 

Mid-Late Seral WF – 863 

Mid-seral MC – 1,267 

Mid-seral WF – PP – 2,130 

 Total 4,290 

0.5 

7.0 

10.5 

18.0 

1.5 

5.5 

8.5 

15.5 

1.5 

5.5 

8.5 

15.5 

Vaux’s Swift Mid-Late Seral WF – 863 

Mid-seral MC – 1,267 

Mid-seral WF – PP – 2,130 

 Total 4,290 

2.5 

7.0 

10.5 

20.0

1.5 

5.5 

8.5 

15.5

1.5 

5.5 

8.5 

15.5

Pileated 

Woodpecker 

Mid-Late Seral WF – 863 

Mid-seral MC – 1,267 

Mid-seral WF – PP – 2,130 

Mid-seral PP - 292 

 Total 4,582 

2.5 

7.0 

10.5 

1.5 

21.5 

1.5 

5.5 

8.5 

1.5 

17.0 

1.5 

5.5 

8.5 

1.5 

17.0 

Black-backed 

Woodpecker 

Late-seral RF - 347 

Mid-late seral WF - 863 

Mid-seral LPP mature - 1,072 

Mid-seral MC - 1,267 

Mid-seral PP - 292 

Mid-seral WF-PP - 2,160 

 Total 6,001 

0.5 

2.5 

690.0 

7.0 

1.5 

10.5 

806.2 

0.5 

1.5 

690.0 

5.5 

1.5 

8.5 

836.5 

0.5 

1.5 

992.0 

5.5 

1.5 

8.5 

1,138.5 

White-headed 

Woodpecker 

Mid-seral PP - 292 

Mid-seral WF-PP - 2,160 

 Total 2,452 

1.5 

10.5 

12.0 

1.5 

8.5 

10.0 

1.5 

8.5 

10.0 

Flammulated 

Owl 

Mid-seral PP - 292 

Mid-seral WF-PP - 2,160 

 Total 2,452

1.5 

10.5 

12.0 

1.5 

8.5 

10.0 

1.5 

8.5 

10.0 

* habitat as determined by stand exam data and field reconnaissance. 
Hi-Grouse MIS Report Part II 

18 

Table 11 displays the estimated changes to the amount of habitat (as per MIS habitat layer) that would 

occur with the implementation of either alternative 3 or 4. Acreage reductions are a result of new landing 

construction and mature lodgepole pine thinning. Other treatments proposed in alternatives 3 and 4 

would not remove habitat. 

Table 11 Changes to the amount of MIS habitat* available by alternatives 3 and 4 

Alternative 3 

Habitat Type/Treatment Acres Treated Pre-Treatment 

Acres 

Post-Treatment 

Acres 

Brush 

Lodgepole Pine Thinning/Fuel Reduction 9 

Plantation Thinning 37 

Thin from below 39 

Brush Total Acres 84 170 161 

Early Seral 

Lodgepole Pine Thinning/Fuel Reduction 651 

Thin from below 61 

Underburn Only 45 

Early Seral Total Acres 757 1,694 1,034 

Mid-Seral 

Lodgepole Pine Thinning/Fuel Reduction 24 

Plantation Thinning 62 

Thin from below 1,994 

Underburn Only 433 

Mid-Seral Total Acres 2,513 5,397 5,356 

Alternative 4 

Brush 

Lodgepole Pine Thinning/Fuel Reduction 9 

Plantation Thinning 37 

Thin from below 39 

Brush Total Acres 84 170 161 

Early Seral 

Lodgepole Pine Thinning/Fuel Reduction 941 

Thin from below 106 

Early Seral Total Acres 1,047 1,694 743 

Mid-Seral 

Lodgepole Pine Thinning/Fuel Reduction 34 

Plantation Thinning 62 

Thin from below 2,385 

Underburn Only 42 

Mid-Seral Total Acres 2,523 5,397 5,346 

* Habitat types within project area as determined by MIS Habitat layer 

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. 
Hi-Grouse MIS Report Part II 

19 

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

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

management and fuels reduction within the 9,562-acre project area. 

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

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

action is anticipated to be developed in 2010. The project will focus on dwarf mistletoe areas. Group 

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

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

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

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

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

proposed: 

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

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

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

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

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

debris for snag and down woody dependent species in the short and long term. Thinning of green trees 

less than 12 inches would also remove future snags and down woody debris. Foraging substrate, nesting 

habitat and cover would be reduced for snag and down woody debris dependent species. Brush mowing 

and low growing vegetation mowing would result in the short term and long term loss of some amount of 

cover, nesting and foraging habitat for shrub and ground nesting/foraging MIS species. 

Summary 

Any of the three action alternatives would reduce selected MIS habitat elements such as individual snags, 

smaller green trees, and down woody debris. Alternative 2 would treat more acres than Alternatives 3 or 

4, so habitat elements would be reduced across more of the project area in Alternative 2. Snag loss within 

treatment areas would be incidental. There would be some reduction in the amount of down woody 

debris in treatment areas, but down woody debris forest plan standards would be met across the project 

area. Snags and large down woody debris would be maintained across the treated areas in all action 

alternatives. 

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

green conifer trees during thinning in any of the action alternatives. Alternative 2 would treat more acres 

of conifers than Alternatives 3 or 4, so more conifer habitat would be reduced across more of the project 

area in Alternative 2. 

By promoting resiliency to fire, insects, and disease within the project area, the black-backed woodpecker 

would lose the most habitat in any of the three action alternatives. This is because removing insect 

infected dead and dying trees affects the amount of available foraging and nesting habitat of black-backed 

woodpeckers over the long term (more than 50 years). More black-backed woodpecker foraging and 

nesting habitat would be removed in Alternative 4 with the thinning of more acres of lodgepole pine than 

that proposed in either Alternatives 2 or 3. 

MIS species that prefer late-successional habitat (Vaux’s swift and pileated woodpecker) would benefit 

the most from Alternative 4. The emphasis in Alternative 4 is maintaining the late-successional habitat 

that is there in project area, while increasing resiliency of the stands by treating fuel build-up and insect 

and disease infestations in adjacent stands. 
Hi-Grouse MIS Report Part II 

20 

Mature ponderosa pine dependent species (white-headed woodpeckers and flammulated owls) would 

benefit the most from the actions proposed in Alternative 2 and to a lesser extent in Alternatives 3 or 4, 

both in the short and long term. Promoting and preserving larger fire resilient ponderosa pine within 

stands and across the project area would benefit white-headed woodpeckers and flammulated owls. 

Removal of smaller trees during thinning proposed in all three action alternatives would improve existing 

habitat conditions for white-headed woodpeckers and flammulated owls. 

Table 12 summarizes the approximate acres and percent of black-backed woodpecker and mature 

ponderosa pine habitat (as per stand exam data and field reconnaissance) that would be removed within 

the project area with alternative 3 and 4 as compared to total available acres on the Klamath National 

Forest. Data in table 12 below does not reflect the boundary changes and treatment acre reduction across 

86 and 108 acres in alternative 3 and alternative 4 respectively, that occurred on January 4, 2010. 

Reducing treatment acres would reduce the effects to habitat and MIS species further than what is 

displayed in table 12. 

Table 12. Changes to black-backed woodpecker and mature ponderosa habitat* removed within the project 

area and Klamath National Forest 

Habitat/Species Existing 

Acres of 

Habitat* 

Acres % Habitat Removed in 

Project Area 

Alt. 3 Alt. 4 

Acres 

Available on 

Forest 

Percent Habitat 

Removed from 

Forest 

Alt. 3 Alt. 4 

Snag Associated Species 

Black-backed Woodpecker 6,001 837 (14%) 1,139 (19%) 609,4454 0.14% 0.19% 

Mature Ponderosa Pine 

Species 

 

Flammulated owls 2,452 55 (2%) 55 (2%) 164,1942 0.03% 0.03% 

White-headed woodpecker 2,452 55 (2%) 55 (2%) 164,1942 0.03% 0.03% 

* habitat as determined by stand exam data and field reconnaissance. 

 1 Mature mixed conifer and mature fir acres from knfeveg99 206 MIS habitat layer 

 2 Mature fir and mature ponderosa pine from knfeveg99 206 MIS habitat layer 

3 Mature fir, mature mixed conifer and mature ponderosa pine from knfeveg99 206 MIS habitat layer 

4 Mature mixed conifer, mature fir, lodgepole pine and mature ponderosa pine from knfeveg99 206 MIS habitat layer 

The amount of black-backed woodpecker and mature ponderosa pine habitat would be reduced in 

alternative 3 or alternative across the Klamath National Forest by less than one half of one percent. There 

should be no change to the population trend of management indicator species discussed in table 12 with 

the implementation of either alternative 3 or alternative 4. 
Hi-Grouse MIS Report Part II 

21 

7. Citations 

Alexander, J. D., R. I. Frey, and K. W. Larson. 2009. Klamath Bird Observatory, Redwood Sciences 

Laboratory and Klamath National Forest Bird Monitoring Efforts at Antelope Creek, 1994-2007. 

Rep. No. KBO-2009-0011. Klamath Bird Observatory, Ashland, Oregon. 

Audubon. 2002. Audubon WatchList. White-headed Woodpecker (Picoides albolarvatus). Available: 

http://audubon2.org/webapp/watchlist/viewSpecies.jsp?id=211. Accessed April 6, 2005.

Bon, Joanne, Beverly Dixon, Elizabeth Kennedy and Denise Pengeroth. Black-backed Woodpecker 

Working Group. 2007. Draft. Black-backed Woodpecker. Northern Region Overview. Key 

Findings and Project Considerations. 41 pp. 

Bull, Evelyn. 1996. Nest Site Fidelity, Breeding Age, and Adult Longevity in the Vaux’s Swift. North 

American Bird Bander, Volume 21, Pp. 49-51. 

Bull, Evelyn L. and Richard S. Holthausen. 1993. Habitat Use and Management of Pileated 

Woodpeckers in Northeastern Oregon. J. Wildl. Manage 57(2):1993. pp. 335-345. 

Bull, Evelyn L. and E. Charles Meslow. 1977. Habitat Requirements of the Pileated Woodpecker in 

Northeastern Oregon. Journal of forestry, Volue 75, No. 6, June, 1977. pp. 335-337. 

California Department of Fish and Game. April 1990. California’s wildlife, Volume III, Birds. California 

Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California. 407 pp. 

Cheyne, C. 2010. Personal communication. Wildlife Biologist, USDA-Forest Service, Pacific 

Southwest Region, Klamath National Forest [Communication 1/29/2010]. 

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

Southwest Region, Klamath National Forest [Communication 09/07/2009]. 

Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology. 2001. White-headed Woodpecker (Picoides albolarvatus). 

Available: http://www.birds.corne...edu/BOW/WHHWOO. Accessed April 6, 2005. 

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

Mountain Research Station, Missoula Fire Sciences Lab, MT. [Communication 9/14/2009]. 

McCallum, D. A. 1994. Review of technical knowledge: flammulated owls. Pages 14-46 in 

Flammulated, boreal, and great gray owls in the United States: a technical conservation 

assessment. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-253, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA. 

McNamara, Michael. Hydrologist, Soil Scientist. USDA Forest Service, TEAMS Enterprise Unit. 2009. 

Watershed Report. Hi Grouse Project. 88 pp. 

NatureServe. 2009. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1 

(2 February 2009. Chaetura vauxi Vaux’s Swift. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available: 

http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Accessed: July 17, 2009. 
Hi-Grouse MIS Report Part II 

22 

NatureServe. 2009. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1 

(2 February 2009. Dryocopus pileatus. Pileated Woodpecker. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. 

Available: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Accessed: July 17, 2009. 

NatureServe. 2009. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1 

(2 February 2009. Otus flammeolus. Flammulated Owl. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. 

Available: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Accessed: July 17, 2009. 

NatureServe. 2009. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1 

(2 February 2009. Picoides albolarvatus. White-headed Woodpecker NatureServe, Arlington, 

Virginia. Available: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Accessed: July 17, 2009. 

NatureServe. 2009. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1 

(2 February 2009. Picoides arcticus. Black-backed Woodpecker. NatureServe, Arlington, 

Virginia. Available: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Accessed: July 17, 2009. 

NatureServe. 2009. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1 

(2 February 2009. Sphyrapicus ruber Red-breasted Sapsucker. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. 

Available: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Accessed: July 17, 2009. 

Pilliod, David S.; Bull, Evelyn L.; Hayes, Jane L.; Wales, Barbara 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. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 34 p. 

Ridgely, R. S, T. F. Allnutt, T. Brooks, D. K. McNicol, D. W. Mehlman, B. E. Young, and J. R. Zook. 

2003. Digital Distribution Maps of the Birds of the Western hemishphere, version 1.0. 

NatureServe, Alrington, Virgnia, USA. 

Samson, Samson, F. B. 2005. A Conservation assessment of the northern goshawk, blacked-backed 

woodpecker, flammulated owl, and pileated woodpecker in the Northern Region, USDA Forest 

Service. Unpublished report on file, Northern Region, Missoula, Montana, USA. 125 pp. 

Sauer, J.R., J.E. Hines, and J.Fallon. 2005. The North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS), Results 

and Analysis 1966-2004. Version 2005.2. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, 

MD. http://www.mbr-pwrcx.usgs.gov/bbs. 

Schantz, Rob. Silviculturist. USDA Forest Service. TEAMS Enterprise Unit. Personal Communication 

5/7/09. 

Smith, Jane Kapler, ed. 2000. Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of fire on fauna. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 1. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station. 83 p. 

Sterling, J. and P. Paton. 1996. Breeding Distribution of Vaux’s Swift in California. Western Birds 27: 30-

40 in Sterling, John. 2000. California Partners in Flight Coniferous Forest Bird Conservation Plan 

Species Account; SPECIES: Vaux’s Swift (Chaetura vauxi). Jones and Stokes. 

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

1994. Klamath National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. 
Hi-Grouse MIS Report Part II 

23 

USDA Forest Service. Pacific Southwest Region. Klamath National Forest. Goosenest Ranger District. 

2010. Hi-Grouse Forest Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement. 

Hi