Hi-Grouse Forest Management

Project

Goosenest Ranger District

Kiamath National Forest

Prepared by:

Marynell Oechsner

Wildlife BiologistTEAMS Enterprise

Marynell Oechsner2010.03.2317:06:41 -0600 f(arth 1S 2010

Date

Reviewed by:

isi ‘.?AA-S ~

Christy Cheyne(Goosenest District Wildlife BiologistEastside Le ‘ 1 One Re resentative

Is!

Laura lenGoosenest District RangernnS%~iew ~

3//y~

DateDaie

/&

Date

Hi-Grouse Biological Assessment Alternative 4 

i 

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 1

Species Listed .......................................................................................................................... 1

Species Dropped from Further Analysis ................................................................................. 1

II. Current Management Direction .............................................................................................. 2

III. Recovery Plans and Critical Habitat ..................................................................................... 2

IV. Consultation to Date ............................................................................................................. 3

V. Location of the Project Area .................................................................................................. 4

VI. Physical Description of the Project Area .............................................................................. 5

A. White Fir/Ponderosa Pine ................................................................................................... 5

B. Red Fir ................................................................................................................................ 5

C. Lodgepole Pine ................................................................................................................... 6

D. Snags and Down-Woody Material...................................................................................... 6

VII. Description of the Preferred Alternative 4 ........................................................................... 8

Silvicultural Prescriptions and Objectives ............................................................................... 9

Landings ................................................................................................................................ 11

Road Maintenance and Temporary Roads ............................................................................. 11

Wildlife Project Design Features ........................................................................................... 11

VIII. Northern Spotted Owl Assessment .................................................................................. 13

Methodology ......................................................................................................................... 14

Environmental Baseline/Existing Condition ......................................................................... 14

Environmental Consequences ............................................................................................... 18

References (Literature Cited) .................................................................................................... 32

Appendix A: Hi-Grouse Project Prescriptions .............................................................................. 34

Hi-Grouse Project Maps ................................................................................................................ 44

List of Tables 

Table 1. Management areas ............................................................................................................. 2

Table 2. Average number of snags per stratum in stands in the project area .................................. 7

Table 3. Existing coarse woody debris amounts, decomposition class and distribution within 

selected treatment units ........................................................................................................... 8

Table 4. Summary of silvicultural and fuels activities in alternative 4 ........................................... 9

Table 5. Acres of silvicultural and fuels prescriptions for alternative 4 ........................................ 10

Table 6. Summary of roads activities in alternative 4 ................................................................... 11

Table 7. Wildlife project design features for alternative 4 ............................................................ 12

Table 8. Acres/percent of available late successional/old growth habitat (LSOG) in the 5th-field 

watershed ............................................................................................................................... 15

Table 9. Number of acres and percent of acres providing dispersal (connectivity) habitat by 

quarter township all ownerships. ........................................................................................... 16

Table 10. Type and amount of NSO habitat within the project area ............................................. 16

Table 11. Suitable habitat that exists within the core of activity center KL-3201 ........................ 17

Table 12. Suitable habitat that exists within the KL-3201 home range (excluding the 503-acre 

core area) ............................................................................................................................... 17

Table 13. Total combined suitable habitat that exists within the 1.3 mile (3,398 acre) home range 

of KL-3201 ............................................................................................................................ 17

Table 14. Existing northern spotted owl habitat in Critical Habitat Sub-unit 67 within the HiGrouse Project Area .............................................................................................................. 18

Table 15. Changes to dispersal (connectivity) habitat as a result of alternative 4 ......................... 19
Hi-Grouse Biological Assessment Alternative 4 

ii 

Table 16. Effects of alternative 4 to nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat within the project area

 ............................................................................................................................................... 21

Table 17. Approximate amounts of pre- and post NSO habitat across the project area ................ 23

Table 18. Nesting/roosting and foraging habitat within KL-3201 core area proposed for treatment 

in alternative 4 ....................................................................................................................... 24

Table 19. Nesting/roosting habitat within home range (outside core area) proposed for treatment 

in alternative 4 ....................................................................................................................... 24

Table 20. Foraging habitat effects within home range (outside core area) proposed for treatment 

in alternative 4 ....................................................................................................................... 25

Table 21. Acres of foraging habitat that would be underburned within KL-3201 home range by 

unit ......................................................................................................................................... 25

Table 22. Effects of alternative 4 on NSO habitat within KL-3201 activity center ...................... 26

Table 23. Acres of nesting/roosting and foraging habitat degraded in alternative 4 within Critical 

Habitat Sub-unit 67. .............................................................................................................. 28

Table A-1. Summary of treatment groupings ................................................................................ 35

List of Maps 

Map 1. Project area location .......................................................................................................... 44

Map 2. Sub-unit 67 location .......................................................................................................... 45

Map 3. Activity centers within dispersal distance of project area ................................................. 46

Map 4. NSO connectivity habitat within project area quarter townships ...................................... 47

Map 5. Current northern spotted owl habitat ................................................................................. 48

Map 6. Northern spotted owl habitat, alternative 4–post treatment .............................................. 49

Map 7. Hi-Grouse Project NSO connectivity habitat: alternative 4 within project area quarter 

townships ............................................................................................................................... 50
Hi-Grouse Biological Assessment Alternative 4 

1 

I. Introduction 

The purpose of this biological assessment (BA) is to address the potential effects of alternative 4 

proposed in the Hi-Grouse Forest Management Project on all threatened, endangered, or proposed 

species known or assumed to occur within the project area. 

Threatened, endangered, and proposed species are managed under the Federal Endangered 

Species Act (ESA). Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies to ensure that all actions 

which they “authorize, fund, or carry out” are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of 

any threatened, endangered, or proposed species or likely to destroy or adversely modify critical 

habitat. 

This document is prepared in accordance with legal requirements set forth under section 7 of the 

ESA and follows the standards established in Forest Service Manual direction (FSM 2672.42). 

Species Listed 

The list of threatened, endangered and proposed species by quad for the area affected by the HiGrouse Project was obtained via internet from the Arcata Field Office of the U. S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (USFWS) on November 24, 2009. The species considered in this document are: 

Endangered Fish: 

 Shortnose sucker (Chasmistes brevirostris) 

 Lost River sucker (Deltistes luxatus) 

 Delta smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus) 

Threated Invertebrate: 

 Vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi) 

Threatened Bird: 

 Northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) 

The Hi-Grouse Project area (or project area) occurs within the Shasta/McCloud Northern Spotted 

Owl Critical Habitat Unit No. 29 which was designated on August 13, 2008. 

Species Dropped from Further Analysis 

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

and Tamarack Flat. The project area contains two riparian reserves (300 feet) identified prior to 

the project with remote sensing. However, field verification revealed that there is no defined 

channel and inter-annual scour in these drainages, and that they likely flow only directly in 

response to very large flows, and therefore are ephemeral. As a result, the designated riparian 

reserves lack the characteristics necessary for classifying them as such (McNamara 2009). There 

is no mapped surface hydrologic connectivity between the project units and downstream waters 

(McNamara 2009); therefore, the shortnose sucker, Lost River sucker, and the Delta smelt are not 

evaluated any further in this biological assessment. 

There are no vernal pools or critical habitat for vernal pool fairy shrimp within the project area; 

therefore vernal pool fairy shrimp are not evaluated any further in this biological assessment. 
Hi-Grouse Biological Assessment Alternative 4 

2 

II. Current Management Direction 

Programmatic management direction for the Forest is provided by the Klamath Land and 

Resource Management Plan (LRMP) (USDA-FS 1994), which incorporates the Northwest Forest 

Plan Record of Decision (ROD) for Amendments to the Forest Service and Bureau of Land 

Management Planning Documents within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl (USDA and 

USDI 1994), as amended by the ROD January 2001(USDA and USDI 2001). The LRMP was 

developed utilizing the guidelines provided by the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resource 

Planning Act of 1974, as amended by the National Forest Management Act of 1976, and the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1976. 

On July 24, 2007, the Forest Service signed a ROD adopting a proposed action to eliminate the 

“Survey and Manage” standards and guidelines. 

The Klamath National Forest is divided into 17 management areas (MAs or land allocations), 

each with distinct management direction. Table 1 lists the acres and MAs. There are no riparian 

reserves in the project area. 

Table 1. Management areas 

Management Area Acres 

General Forest–MA 17 4,653 

Partial Retention Visual Quality Objective–MA 15 2,574 

Special Habitat Late Successional Reserve–MA 5 152 

Special Interest Area–MA 7 71 

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

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

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

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

acres of Federal land within the AMA. The project area is entirely within the Goosenest AMA 

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

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

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

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

production. The California Cascades Province, which includes the AMA, has been recognized as 

an important link between the Oregon Cascades and the Sierra Nevada. This province connects 

the range of the northern spotted owl and the California spotted owl (USDA FS 1996). 

III. Recovery Plans and Critical Habitat 

In May 2008, USFWS released the recovery plan for the northern spotted owl. Although the 

project area lies within the California Cascades Province, the Klamath National Forest, in 

consultation with the USFWS, has determined that implementation of recovery actions 6 and 7 in 

project planning and analyses of potential effects is not appropriate for this project at this time; 

this is because: 

1) Before recovery actions 6 and 7 can be implemented at the project scale, landscape-level 

planning of NSO habitat and treatments must be conducted. Furthermore, there is 

substantial uncertainty as to whether the Shasta Red Fir plant association is considered a 

‘dry’ or ‘moist’ forest type under the NSO Recovery Plan. 
Hi-Grouse Biological Assessment Alternative 4 

3 

2) Because NWFP late-successional reserves and 2008 NSO Critical Habitat units remain in 

effect within the California Cascades Province, the Klamath National Forest is unable to 

conduct landscape-level planning and designation of NSO habitat percentages until its 

LRMP is revised. 

Critical habitat for the northern spotted owl was designated January 15, 1992, and revised on 

September 12, 2008. The September 2008 Final Rule (USDI-USFWS 2008) distributed critical 

habitat units at appropriate dispersal distances throughout the range of the northern spotted owl in 

order to conserve and maintain the historical geographical and ecological variation to the extent 

possible. All critical habitat units designated in this Final Rule (USDI-USFWS 2008) provide at 

least one of the biological and physical features or primary constituent elements (PCEs) essential 

to the conservation of the northern spotted owl. These physical and biological features that 

provide the essential life history requirements of the species include, but are not limited to: (1) 

space for individual and population growth and for normal behavior; (2) food, water, air, light, 

minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements; (3) cover or shelter; (4) sites for 

breeding, reproduction, and rearing (or development) of offspring; and (5) habitats that are 

protected from disturbance or are representative of the historic geographical and ecological 

distributions of a species. 

IV. Consultation to Date 

Elizabeth Willy (wildlife biologist for USFWS, Yreka, California) and Christy Cheyne (wildlife 

biologist for Goosenest Ranger District, Klamath National Forest) conferred and evaluated NSO 

habitat in the project area on several occasions between June 13, 2007, and June 24, 2008. The 

interdisciplinary NEPA team, including Willy, Cheyne, and the author, visited the project area and 

reviewed stands and proposed actions in October 2007 and again in June 2008. Willy and 

Cheyne were instrumental in cataloging the northern goshawk and NSO existing habitat, and also 

provided input for the desired condition of the stands and assisted with the development of the 

prescriptions for the initial proposed action. 

On December 4, 2008, a Level 1 meeting was held at the USFWS Ecological Services Office in 

Yreka, California. The existing habitat condition of the project area, northern spotted owl activity 

center and survey information, along with the proposed action and purpose and need of the HiGrouse Project were reviewed. 

The Level 1 team reached the conclusion that the Davis northern spotted owl activity center (KL3201) is abandoned and should be dropped from the KNF NSO network. The conclusion was 

based on: (1) the highest status of the site is “pair”; (2) no reproduction has been recorded; (3) 

habitat was harvested from the activity center in approximately 1989 which may have rendered 

the home range unsuitable for nesting; (4) a lack of NSO responses during intermittent and 

variable survey effort over the past 14 years indicate that the site is not likely occupied; and (5) 

there is probably not enough nesting/roosting habitat to support nesting currently (Level 1 

meeting notes, December 4, 2008). 

Recommendations were made to modify proposed action prescriptions within nesting/roosting 

habitat in order to maintain/retain this important habitat in the project area. A recommendation 

was also made to include a project design feature to leave 10 to 15 percent of each treatment unit 

untreated. There was considerable discussion about what the determination should be for northern 

spotted owls for the proposed action. The Level 1 team did not reach consensus on the 

determination; but agreed that additional information/analysis was needed to display the effects 

and come to a final determination. Direction was given that the analysis in the BA should provide 
Hi-Grouse Biological Assessment Alternative 4 

4 

the following information: (1) unit-by-unit display of the amount of foraging habitat being 

removed to determine how it is distributed across the area, and (2) a map showing a broader area 

with the nearest NSO activity centers to evaluate connectivity across the area. 

Within days after the Level 1 meeting, it was discovered that approximately 23 percent of the 

project area contained all of sub-unit 67 of the Shasta/McCloud Critical Habitat Unit #29. 

On February 3, 2009, the interdisciplinary NEPA team, including Willy, Cheyne, and the author, 

held a conference call to discuss public scoping comments on the project, identify issues, develop 

alternative themes, and identify project design features. 

On February 5, 2009, the interdisciplinary NEPA team, including Willy, Cheyne, and the author, 

held a second conference call to discuss critical habitat and further develop components and 

prescriptions for three alternatives. 

Discussions occurred between the author, Cheyne and Willy regarding the habitat typed as NSO 

foraging habitat in the north portion of the project area. The majority of foraging habitat in the 

northeastern portion of the project area is dominated by eastside ponderosa pine vegetation type 

with an element of white fir in the understory. Scattered large white fir trees do exist but overall 

species composition and canopy closure is not considered high quality habitat. Additionally, the 

northern portion of the project area is directly adjacent to the range line for the northern spotted 

owl due to vegetation transitioning into eastside ponderosa pine due north of the project 

boundary. Habitat declines rapidly as you move north from KL-3201 core. 

On Monday June 15, 2009, a Level 1 consultation meeting was held to review the draft BA for 

the project. Members of the Level 1 team retracted a previous decision made at the first Level 1 

meeting held on December 4, 2008, for the project. It was determined that spotted owl activity 

center KL-3201 should be retained in the KNF NSO network. Although no northern spotted owls 

have been detected in the activity center, Christy Cheyne, Goosenest District Biologist, thought 

the presence of barred owls may have inhibited spotted owl responses during surveys conducted 

over the past few years. Because some of the surveys did not extend out 1.3 miles from the 

project boundary (not meeting protocol) and barred owls may be inhibiting responses by northern 

spotted owls, neither presence nor absence of northern spotted owls can be ascertained in KL3201 activity center. Retention of KL-3201 activity center necessitated the revision of the BA to 

include analysis of the core and home range. It was also decided that the core and home range for 

KL-3201 be redrawn to include those areas most likely to be used by NSOs based on vegetation 

characteristics (e.g., exclusion of pine dominated stands). 

In October 2009, USFWS representative Elizabeth Willy was replaced by Karen West. 

On January 4, 2010, Karen West was notified that modifications were made to alternative 4. 

These changes were incorporated into the analysis discussed in this document in late February 

2010. 

On March 18, 2010, Karen West reviewed and agreed with analysis completed and the 

determinations reached in this document. 

V. Location of the Project Area 

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

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

description for the project area is all or portions of: T44N, R2E, Sections 23, 25–28, 32–36; 
Hi-Grouse Biological Assessment Alternative 4 

5 

T43N, R2E, Sections 1–4, 9–13; T44N, R3E, 

Section 31; T43N, R3E, Sections 6, 7, and 18; 

Mt. Diablo Meridian, Siskiyou County, 

California (see map 1, end of document).VI. 

Physical Description of the Project Area 

The project area is part of the fire-prone east 

side of the California Cascades Physiographic 

Province. Elevations in the project area range 

from 5,400 to 6,500 feet. Four forest 

communities, White Fir/Pine, White Fir/Mixed 

Conifer, Lodgepole Pine, and Red Fir/Mixed 

Conifer occur within the project area. Greater 

than 85 percent of conifers are less than 24 inches in diameter and even-aged between 60 to 90 

years old (mid-seral stage). 

A. White Fir/Ponderosa Pine 

White fir is the primary species found regenerating in the understory and most stands are now 

almost exclusively white fir in the overstory (see photo at right). This series generally occurs 

from lowest elevations (about 5,400 feet) to 6,000 feet. Currently the stands are 9 to 24 inches 

diameter and dominated by 50 to 80-year-old white fir with ponderosa pine comprising from 5 to 

60 percent. Sugar pine is a minor species that historically occupied the same niche as ponderosa 

pine. Patches of predominant white fir and/or ponderosa pine are found scattered throughout the 

area (Schantz 2009). Plant associations reflect the drier range of the white fir series. Common 

shrubs and herbaceous plants found in this forest type are: bitterbrush, fescue, greanleaf 

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

currant, sedge, and penstemon (USDA 1996). 

B. Red Fir 

Shasta red fir becomes dominant on sites lying 

generally above 6,000 feet elevation, and red 

fir is the primary species regenerating in the 

understory (see photo at right). Stands are 

typically a multi-aged mix of red fir, white fir, 

lodgepole pine, and ponderosa pine, with minor 

amounts of sugar or white pine (Schantz 2009). 

Shrubs and herbaceous plants are sparse under 

the typically dense growth of a red fir forest. 

Plants typically found in forest openings 

include pinemat manzanita, snowbrush, 

greenleaf manzanita, Scou-lers willow, 

snowberry, bush chinquapin, western 

needlegrass, mountain brome, squirreltail, dry 

land sedges, coyote mint, penstemon, princes’ 

pine, strawberry and wintergreen (USDA 

1996). 

White Fir/Ponderosa Pine stand 

Red Fir 
Hi-Grouse Biological Assessment Alternative 4 

6 

C. Lodgepole Pine 

Lodgepole pine occupies the colder sites within both the red fir and white fir series, where it is 

often the dominant species found regenerating in the understory or on disturbed areas (Schantz 

2009) (see photo at right). In dense stands and on pumice flats, the understory is relatively 

sparse. Found in more open stands are Bloomer’s goldenbush, bush chinquapin, greenleaf 

Manzanita, along with mountain brome, western needlegrass and forbs such as coyote mint and 

strawberry (USDA 1996). 

D. Snags and Down-Woody 

Material 

The amount of standing dead trees in the 

project area is quite high due to the amount of 

mortality occurring because of high tree 

density, insects, and disease. Most of the 

standing dead snags are in the 10 to 19 inches 

dbh range. Table 2 presents an estimated 

average number of snags by stand type derived 

from plot data taken within the project area 

(Schantz 2009). In actuality, there are more 

large dead trees present in the stands than the 

data shows because live trees were the focus of 

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

The amount of large (greater than 20 inches 

dbh) 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 (see photo at left). Currently coarse 

woody debris greater than 20 inches diameter 

varies from 0 to 11 logs per acre and averages 

4 logs per acre. Table 3 displays the amount 

and distribution of coarse 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). 

Lodgepole Pine stand with substantial amounts of 

down woody debris in the project area

Large down woody material present in white fir 

stands
Hi-Grouse Biological Assessment Alternative 4 

7 

Table 2. Average number of snags per stratum in stands in the project area 

Stand-type 

Vegetation 

Community Acres 

Percent 

of 

Project 

Area 

Average 

Number of 

Snags 

10-19” 

DBH 

Average 

Number of 

Snags 

20” DBH or 

greater 

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

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

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

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

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

Mid-seral MC 5-24” dbh White fir/Mixed 

Conifer, Red Fir 

/Mixed Conifer 

772 10 14.6 1.8 

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

Conifer, Red 

Fir/Mixed Conifer 

494 7 2.8 1.1 

Early-seral MC 5-16” dbh1 

Old over-story removal 

White Fir/Mixed 

Conifer, Red 

Fir/Mixed Conifer 

132 2 0 0 

Early-seral MC 5-16” dbh1 

Old partial over-story removal 

White Fir/Mixed 

Conifer, Red 

Fir/Mixed Conifer 

105 1 3.1 2.5 

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

Conifer, Red 

Fire/Mixed 

Conifer 

35 <1 54.3 0 

Late-seral >24’ dbh RF dominated Red Fir/Mixed 

Conifer 

347 5 5.6 2.9 

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

Mid-seral LP-Mature, heavy mortality Lodgepole/Mixed 

Conifer 

1,072 15 10.6 0.3 

Early/Mid-seral LP-Immature Lodgepole/Mixed 

Conifer 

583 8 8.4 0 

Plantations/regen. harvest-poles N/A 80 1 0 0 

Plantations/regen. harvestseedling/sapling N/A 132 2 5.8 0 

1

 With root disease. 
Hi-Grouse Biological Assessment Alternative 4 

8 

Table 3. Existing coarse woody debris amounts, decomposition class and distribution within 

selected treatment units 

Harvest Unit No. 

Existing CWD (>20 

in. dia) 

Logs/Acre 

CWD Decomposition Class (%) 

1 2 3 4 5 

2 0 

3 4 -- 18 18 55 9 

4 3 -- -- 67 33 -- 

7 4 -- -- 33 67 -- 

9 9.1 -- 50 25 25 -- 

12 1.2 -- -- 100 -- -- 

14 1.8 -- -- 33 67 -- 

15 4.8 -- 17 33 33 17 

16 2.0 34 -- 66 -- -- 

19 1.7 -- 25 25 25 25 

21 4.4 -- 80 -- 20 34 

22 1.3 -- -- 50 50 -- 

23 1.7 -- 25 25 25 25 

25 9.8 -- 31 44 19 6 

28 1.2 -- -- 100 -- -- 

30 2.2 -- 33 33 -- 34 

32 10.8 -- 13 45 39 4 

37 3.2 -- -- 100 -- -- 

41 5.3 -- -- 100 -- -- 

43 4.7 -- -- 43 43 14 

44 4.7 -- -- 43 43 14 

45 4.8 -- 17 33 33 -- 

54 4.7 43 43 14 

58 4.7 -- -- 43 43 14 

59 4.7 -- -- 43 43 14 

61 10.8 -- 13 44 39 4 

65 5.0 -- -- 40 60 -- 

VII. Description of the Preferred Alternative 4 

On January 4, 2010, modifications were made to alternative 4 due to an inadequate amount of 

northern goshawk habitat within five territories that occurred in whole or in part of the project 

area. . Approximately 108 acres were dropped in units, 11, 12a, 13 and 18. The description of 

alternative 4 and the analysis that follows incorporates these changes 

The project has several components proposed, including thinning from below, fuels reduction, 

underburning, plantation thinning, and development of a fuel management zone and temporary 

roads and landings (reference Hi-Grouse Project Draft EIS for a complete description). 
Hi-Grouse Biological Assessment Alternative 4 

9 

Alternative 4 proposes to treat approximately 52 percent of the 7,450 acre project area. When 

compared with the proposed action, this alternative treats less of the project area for ponderosa 

pine, sugar pine, and white pine re-establishment. The alternative maintains untreated mid/latesuccessional habitat for wildlife while treating areas experiencing increased mortality from insect 

and diseases and increasing fuel loads. Table 4 summarizes silvicultural and fuels activities 

proposed in alternative 4. 

Table 4. Summary of silvicultural and fuels activities in alternative 4 

Treatments1 Acres(ac)/Miles(mi) 

Thinning from below 2,429 ac 

Overall fuels abatement2 2,429 ac 

Mowing 346 ac 

Underburning 1,495 ac 

Post-treatment evaluation of planting 644 ac 

Lodgepole pine thinning/fuels reduction 970 ac 

Overall fuels abatement 970 ac 

Mowing 728 ac 

Plantation thinning 99 ac 

Overall fuels abatement 99 ac 

Underburning only 42 ac 

Fuel management zones3

Acres outside other treatments 

13 mi (480 ac) 

300 ac 

Total approximate project area acres proposed for treatment 3,847 ac 

1

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

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

2

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

treatment options. 

3 Mileage is approximate, proposed FMZs are along Forest System Roads 15, 77, 44N84, 44N77, 44N75 and 44N75D. 

Silvicultural Prescriptions and Objectives 

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

upper canopy. 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, insects, 

and disease. 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. Refer to appendix A for a detailed description of 

silviculture and fuels prescriptions and fuel abatement treatment definitions. Table 5 displays the 

acres of silvicultural and fuels prescriptions for alternative 4. 
Hi-Grouse Biological Assessment Alternative 4 

10 

Table 5. Acres of silvicultural and fuels prescriptions for alternative 4 

Silviculture Prescription Fuels Prescription Total Acres 

HTH-LP LTA/PCT2/MP/M 714 

HTH-LP Total 7144

HTH-MC-Hvy LTA/PCT2/MP/UB 222 

HTH-MC-Hvy Total 222

HTH-PP LTA/M/UB 217 

LTA/MP/UB 253 

LTA/PCT2/M/UB 92 

LTA/PCT2/MP/UB 58 

HTH-PP Total 621

HTH-PP-Hvy LTA/MP/UB 220 

LTA/PCT2/MP/UB 109 

HTH-PP-Hvy Total 324

HTH-RF-lite LTA 86 

HTH-RF-lite Total 86

HTH-WF-PP LTA/SMR/MP 365 

LTA/SMR/MP/UB 188 

HTH-WF-PP Total 553

HTH-WF-PP-lite-NGH LTA/SMR/MP 94 

HTH-WF-PP-lite-NGH Total 94

HTH-WF-PP-lite-NSO LTA/SMR/MP 72 

HTH-WF-PP-lite-NSO Total 72

LPFR LTA/PCT2/MP 256 

LPFR Total 256

PCT Bundle/LS 99 

PCT Total 99

PCT2 HP 16 

HP/MP 29 

HP/UB 6 

LTA/MP 44 

LTA/MP/UB 37 

PCT2 Total 132

PCT2-MC LTA/MP 55 

LTA/MP/M 37 

PCT2-MC Total 91

PCT2-NGH LTA/MP 56 

PCT2-NGH Total 56

PCT2-OG-RF HP 180 

PCT2-OG-RF Total 180

UB UB 42 

UB Total 42

Grand Total 3,542231

1

 Total acres are approximate and does not include fuel management zone acres that are separate from treatment units. 
Hi-Grouse Biological Assessment Alternative 4 

11 

Landings 

Alternative 4 is anticipated to need about 109 landings with each being about a half an acre in 

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

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

Road Maintenance and Temporary Roads 

Road Maintenance 

Access into the project area will be by a series of county and National Forest System (NFS) roads 

near the community of Macdoel, California. The main 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 2007 and 2008. Roads needed for the project will be reassessed prior to 

and during activities to determine if maintenance is needed, and may require light maintenance to 

meet project requirements—mostly spot rocking, grading, and re-establishing drainage structures. 

There will be no new NFS roads constructed or added for this project. All aggregate rock and 

water source requirements for this project can be met from existing sources on NFS lands. No 

new sources will be developed. 

Temporary Roads 

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

approximately 1.9 miles will be on non-system roads from previous harvest entries. All temporary 

roads, including those existing from previous entries, would be closed upon project completion. 

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

mound barriers to prevent vehicle traffic; (2) subsoiling and outsloping the road surface; (3) 

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

(logging slash) or certified weed free straw. 

New temporary roads will be located and constructed to design standards that minimize ground 

disturbance, protect resources, and provide safe transportation at the least possible cost. Existing 

non-system roads are generally old jeep roads or temporary roads constructed for past harvest 

activities. Road reconstruction, as defined by Forest Service Manual 7700, will not be required. 

Table 6. Summary of roads activities in alternative 4 

Activity Alternative 4 

Road Maintenance on existing system & non-system roads As needed during operations 

Construction of temporary roads 1.3 miles 

Temporary use of non-system roads 1.9 miles 

Road closure of 44N80a and 44N62a 1.5 miles 

Wildlife Project Design Features 

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

proposed alternatives to natural resources. Table 7 displays those project design features that 

would be implemented with alternative 4 to reduce or avoid adverse environmental effects to 

wildlife, including northern spotted owls and their habitat. 
Hi-Grouse Biological Assessment Alternative 4 

12 

Table 7. Wildlife project design features for alternative 4 

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 

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 
Hi-Grouse Biological Assessment Alternative 4 

13 

Project 

Design 

Feature Description 

Units Where it 

Applies 

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

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

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

district biologist will contact USFWS. 

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

utilizing habitat affected by the project.

All units 

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

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

owl habitat. 

Purpose: To ensure protection of any northern spotted owls utilizing 

previously un-surveyed habitat. 

Units 1, 2, 3, 4, 

12A, 13, 37 and 

53A 

WL-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 

VIII. Northern Spotted Owl Assessment 

For life history information, range, distribution and definitions of suitable habitat for northern 

spotted owls, 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 
Hi-Grouse Biological Assessment Alternative 4 

14 

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 northern spotted owl 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 definition of northern spotted owl 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 

northern spotted owl 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 northern spotted owl in California includes three physiographic provinces: the 

California Coast, California Klamath, and the California Cascade. The California Cascade 

Province connects the range of the northern spotted owl and the California spotted owl (USDAFS 1996). The Goosenest Ranger District is the eastern most district of the Klamath National 

Forest and the project area is the eastern extent of the northern spotted owl (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 3 (at end of document) displays 

the northern spotted owl activity centers that occur within 16 miles of the KL-3201 activity 

center. 
Hi-Grouse Biological Assessment Alternative 4 

15 

In 1989, a pair of northern spotted owls was found within the project area, and as a result, activity 

center KL-3201 was established. Surveys for northern spotted owls were conducted in and 

around KL-3201 off and on 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 northern 

spotted owls have not been detected there since 1994. The presence of barred owls has been 

known to interfere or inhibit responses from northern spotted owls that occur in the same vicinity. 

Thus, survey results are inconclusive as to whether or not activity center KL-3201 is occupied by 

northern spotted owls 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 northern spotted owl 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). 

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 Badger Basin/Willow Creek Watershed is well below the 15 percent retention of latesuccessional/old-growth forest (LSOG) guideline in the Klamath National Forest LRMP (page 4-

22). Table 8 displays the acres and percent of late successional/old growth habitat in the Badger 

Basin-Willow Creek 5th-Field Watershed (Stresser 2009). 

Table 8. 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 4 (at end of document) and table 9 displays the location, 
Hi-Grouse Biological Assessment Alternative 4 

16 

number of acres, and percent of land that is providing dispersal habitat (connectivity) by quarter 

township all ownerships. 

Table 9. 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). Portions of 444N2E SE and 

SW are outside of the range of the northern spotted owl (Thomas et al. 1990). 

Project Area 

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

foraging habitats for northern spotted owls. See map 5 (end of document) for the location and 

distribution of NSO habitat within the project area. Table 10 displays the type and amount of 

NSO habitat in the project area. 

Table 10. 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 11, 12, and 13 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. Forty acres of non-capable 

habitat also exists in the core area. A sufficient amount and type of habitat for northern spotted 

owls currently exists within KL-3201 activity center. 
Hi-Grouse Biological Assessment Alternative 4 

17 

Table 11. 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 

northern spotted owls within the home range. There are 638 acres in the home range not 

considered northern spotted owl habitat. Table 12 displays the acres of suitable NSO habitat that 

currently exists within KL-3201 home range. 

Table 12. Suitable habitat that exists 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 13. Total combined suitable habitat that exists 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, sub-unit 67 as designated in 2008. 

Northern spotted owl 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 
Hi-Grouse Biological Assessment Alternative 4 

18 

high canopy closures; multi-layered, 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, sub-unit 

67 occur within the 7,604-acre Hi-Grouse Project area (see map 2, end of document). High 

quality habitat within Critical Habitat sub-unit 67 is limited. Map 5 and table 14 display the 

location and acres, respectively, of the existing northern spotted owl nesting, roosting, and 

foraging habitat within Critical Habitat Sub-unit 67. 

Table 14. Existing northern spotted owl habitat in Critical Habitat Sub-unit 67 within the Hi-Grouse 

Project Area 

Habitat Type 

Acres of Critical Habitat 

Sub-unit 67 in Project 

Area 

Percent of Suitable 

Critical Habitat in Subunit 67 in Project Area 

Percent of Critical 

Habitat in Sub-unit 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 on page 4-27, and the northern spotted owl on page 4-28, project design 

features displayed in this document on pages 12-14 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 Sub-unit 67spatial scales. Cumulative effects were evaluated up to 1.3 miles 

from northern spotted owl habitat affected by the project. 

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. 
Hi-Grouse Biological Assessment Alternative 4 

19 

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 4 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Northern spotted owl presence within the project area, LSR 5297, the historical KL-3201 Activity 

Center, and Critical Habitat Sub-unit 67 has not been documented during surveys conducted in 

2007, 2008, and 2009. One historic owl activity center (KL-3201) occurs within 1.3 miles of 

habitat proposed for treatment in alternative 4 (see map 3, end of document). 

Survey efforts throughout the life of the project will continue. Should a pair of breeding northern 

spotted owls 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 northern spotted owls and their 

habitat. 

Barred owls have been documented utilizing northern spotted owl habitat within the project area, 

and competition between the species may be occurring. Barred owls negatively affect site 

occupancy, reproduction, and survival of northern spotted owls (Livezey et al. 2007). It is 

possible that these same negative effects may be occurring to spotted owls if they are currently 

occupying 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 4. 

Quarter Townships. Table 15 and Map 7 (end of this document) displays the changes to the 

amount of dispersal (connectivity habitat) by quarter township as a result of alternative 4. 

Table 15. Changes to dispersal (connectivity) habitat as a result of alternative 4 

Quarter 

Township 

Acres 

Dispersal 

Habitat Post 

Treatment 

Acres of 

Dispersal 

Habitat 

Reduced 

Percent Change in 

Dispersal Habitat 

Percent Dispersal 

Habitat Post 

Treatment 

43N2E NE 3,619 35 -1% 82% 

43N2E NW 3,587 0 0 78% 

43N3E NW 3,810 0 0 78% 

44N2E SE 3,368 1,222 -23% 62% 

44N2E SW 2,862 395 -8% 53% 

44N3E SW 4,558 30 0 84% 
Hi-Grouse Biological Assessment Alternative 4 

20 

Approximately 1,682 acres of connectivity (dispersal habitat) would be removed with the 

implementation of alternative 4. Adequate dispersal habitat would be maintained above 50 

percent in all six of the quarter townships. Again, portions of 44N2E SW and SE are outside the 

range of the northern spotted owl. Connectivity between other activity centers within 16 miles of 

KL-3201 activity center (reference Map 3 at end of document) would remain adequate following 

implementation of alternative 4. There are no known NSOs 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 NSOs. 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 are likely support dispersal of NSOs between the project area and 

adjacent suitable habitats. Adequate connectivity would be maintained all of the six quarter 

townships. There may be a reduction in the ability 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 3, 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). Areas south of the geological areas on the Shasta-Trinity 

National Forest provide both foraging and dispersal habitat for northern spotted owls (Derby 

2009). Movement of a northern spotted owl between the Goosenest District and the ShastaTrinity National Forest has been demonstrated with a colorbanded adult moving from the Haight 

Mtn (KL-0372) 16 miles southwest to the Six Shooter Butte area. The owl from KL-0372 moved 

southeast and is currently reproducing successfully on the Shasta/Modoc boundary represented by 

two red dots on Map 3 (Derby 2009). The amount and distribution of dispersal habitat south and 

southwest of the Hi-Grouse 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 northern spotted owls to and from the project area and Critical Habitat Sub-unit 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 fir. 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. 

Project Area. Treatments are proposed across 52 percent or 3,847 acres (includes fuel 

management zone acres) of the project area. Map 6 (end of document) displays the location of 

the treatments proposed in alternative 4 as well as the location of owl habitat following treatments 

in the Hi-Grouse Project Area, KL-3201 Activity Center, and Critical Habitat Sub-unit 67. Table 

16 displays the effects of Alternative 4 to nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat within the project 

area. No dispersal habitat within units would be treated in alternative 4. 
Hi-Grouse Biological Assessment Alternative 4 

21 

Table 16. Effects of alternative 4 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 

Rem

N/R F N/R F N/R 

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

10 10 HTH-PP-Hvy LTA/MP/UB WF-PP 37/42 0 37 0 0 0 11 11 HTH-PP-Hvy LTA/MP/UB WF-PP 116/116 0 116 0 0 0 12 12a HTH-LP LTA/PCT2/MP/M LP-WF-PP 2/531 - 2 - - - 12 12b LPFR LTA/PCT2/MP LP 256 - - - - - 13 13 HTH-LP LTA/PCT2/MP/M LP-WF-RF 3/183 - 3 - - - 17 17 PCT2 HP/MP LP-WF-PP 29 - - - - - 18 18 HTH-MC-Hvy LTA/PCT2/MP/UB PP-WF-LP 187/187 0 187 0 0 0 19 19 HTH-WF-PP LTA/SMR/MP WF-PP 154/154 0 154 0 0 0 20 20 HTH-PP-Hvy LTA/PCT2/MP/UB WF-PP 107/109 0 107 0 0 0 21 21a HTH-WF-PP LTA/SMR/MP/UB WF-PP 188/188 0 188 0 0 0 21 21b PCT2 LTA/MP WF-PP 44/44 0 44 0 44 0 22 22 HTH-WF-PP LTA/SMR/MP WF-PP 211/211 0 211 0 0 0 23 23 HTH-WF-PP-liteNGH LTA/SMR/MP WF-PP 32/32 0 32 0 32 0 
Hi-Grouse Biological Assessment Alternative 4 

22 

Unit 

No. 

Unit Subdivision Silvicultural RX Fuels RX Species Composition Acres** 

Acres 

Suitable PreHarvest 

Acres 

Suitable 

Post Harvest 

Acres 

Rem

N/R F N/R F N/R 

24 24 HTH-WF-PP-liteNSO LTA/SMR/MP WF-PP 72/72 0 72 0 72 0 25 25b HTH-WF-PP-liteNGH LTA/SMR/MP WF-PP 25/25 0 25 0 25 0 28 28 HTH-MC-Hvy LTA/PCT2/MP/UB WF-PP 35/35 0 35 0 0 0 29 29 HTH-WF-PP-liteNGH LTA/SMR/MP WF-PP 37/37 0 37 0 37 0 30 30 PCT2-NGH LTA/MP WF-RF-LP-PP 45/56 10 35 10 35 0 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 37 37 PCT2-OG-RF HP RF-WF-LP 96/116 0 96 0 96 0 41 41 PCT2-OG-RF HP RF-PP-SP 64/64 55 9 55 9 0 44 44 PCT2-MC LTA/MP RF-WF 2/45 0 2 0 2 0 45 45a HTH-PP-Hvy LTA/MP/UB WF-PP-RF 58/61 0 58 0 0 0 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 53 53b PCT2 LTA/MP/UB WF-PP 37/37 0 37 0 37 0 55 55 PCT2-MC LTA/MP/M RF-WF-LP-PP 1/37 0 1 0 1 0 58 58 PCT2-MC LTA/MP RF-LP-PP 10 - - - - - 59 59 PCT2 HP/UB PP-WF 6 - - - - - 

Total 2,257/3,546 65 2,192 65 505 0 

** Acres of NSO habitat treated in alternative 4 in bold/Total acres of habitat in unit treated (acres are approximate). - = Not applicable; non- habitat. 
Hi-Grouse Biological Assessment Alternative 4 

23 

Across the project area within treatment units, 2,257 acres of northern spotted owl habitat would 

be treated. Sixty-five acres of nesting/roosting habitat would be degraded by treatments but 

would remain nesting/roosting habitat post-treatment. No nesting/roosting habitat would be 

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. About 23 percent (505 acres) of the treated foraging 

habitat within units would be degraded but will remain foraging habitat post-treatment. About 77 

percent (1,687 acres) of the treated foraging habitat within units would be removed . 

About 8 acres of dispersal habitat within units would be removed. 

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 a half an acre of foraging habitat would be removed during construction of 0.3 

miles of temporary road within the project area. Thirty-eight 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 a half an acre of dispersal habitat would be affected by 

one landing. Thirty-five new landings would remove 17 acres of foraging habitat within the 

project area. Table 17 displays the approximate amount of nesting/roosting, foraging, and 

dispersal habitat across the project area before and after all activities proposed in alternative 4. 

Table 17. Approximate amounts of pre- and post NSO habitat across the project area 

Habitat Existing Acres (%) Post-Treatment Acres (%) 

Nesting/Roosting 546 (7.4 %) 546 (7%) 

Foraging 4,378 (59%) 2,674 (36%) 

Dispersal 51 (0.7%) 43 (0.6%) 

Non-Habitat 2,475 (33%) 4,188 (56%) 

Total 7,451 7,451 

Late Successional Reserve #5297. Alternative 4 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 the 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 northern spotted owls and their habitat for 

approximately 10 to 20 years following treatments (Helmbrecht 2009). 

KL-3201 Activity Center. Table 18 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 Alternative 4 

24 

Table 18. Nesting/roosting and foraging habitat within KL-3201 core area proposed for treatment in 

alternative 4 

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 

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

Total Nesting/Roosting Degraded 2 Nesting/Roosting 

Treatments proposed in alternative 4 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 one acre of foraging habitat within the fuel management zone (outside unit) within 

the core would be degraded. Temporary road building and underburning are not proposed within 

the core area and would not affect NSO habitat. 

Sixty-one acres (28 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 4. Table 19 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 19. Nesting/roosting habitat within home range (outside core area) proposed for treatment in 

alternative 4 

Unit Stand No. Rx Treatment Effect Acres 

Habitat Post 

Treatment 

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

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

Total Acres Nesting/Roosting Degraded 61 N/R 

Alternative 4 would degrade 61 acres of nesting/roosting habitat outside of the core, but within 

the home range. Approximately a half-acre of nesting/roosting habitat would be removed 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. Degraded nesting 

and roosting habitat would remain nesting and roosting habitat. 

Of the 2,005 acres of foraging habitat within the home range, but outside the core area, 446 acres 

(22 percent) are proposed for treatment. Table 20 displays the effects to foraging habitat by 

treatment type in alternative 4. Alternative 4 would remove 123 acres of foraging habitat within 

the home range. 
Hi-Grouse Biological Assessment Alternative 4 

25 

Table 20. Foraging habitat effects within home range (outside core area) proposed for treatment in 

alternative 4 

Unit Stand No. Rx Treatment Effect Acres 

Habitat Post 

Treatment 

18 746-97 HTH-MC-Hvy Remove 22 Non 

19 746-914 HTH-WF-PP Remove 12 Non 

19 746-103 HTH-WF-PP Remove 35 Non 

19 746-911 HTH-WF-PP Remove 7 Non 

22 746-104 HTH-WF-PP Remove 11 Non 

28 747-52 HTH-MC-Hvy Remove 34 Non 

 HTH-MC-Hvy Remove 1 Non 

45a 745-905 HTH-PP-Hvy Remove 1 Non 

Total Acres Foraging Removed 123 Non 

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 

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

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

 PCT2-OG-RF Degrade 1 Foraging 

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

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

44 746-48 PCT2-MC Degrade 2 Foraging 

Total Acres Foraging Degraded 323 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 twelve new, half-acre landings 

would remove approximately 6 acres of foraging habitat. No temporary roads would be 

developed within KL-3201 home range. Fifty-eight acres of foraging habitat within the home 

range would be underburned. Table 21 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 19 above. 

Table 21. Acres of foraging habitat that would be underburned within KL-3201 home range by unit 

Unit Stand No. Rx Treatment Acres 

18 746-97 LTA/PCT2/MP/UB 22 

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

LTA/PCT2/MP/UB 1 

45a 746-905 LTA/MP/UB 1 

Total Acres Burned 58 

The amount of foraging habitat would decrease and the amount of non-habitat within the home 

range would increase following treatments. Table 22 summarizes the effects of alternative 4 on 

the amount of nesting, roosting foraging and dispersal habitat within KL-3201 activity center. 
Hi-Grouse Biological Assessment Alternative 4 

26 

Table 22. Effects of alternative 4 on NSO habitat within KL-3201 activity center 

Habitat 

Existing 

Acres Habitat 

Acres Habitat 

Degraded 

Acres of 

Habitat 

Removed 

Post Treatment 

Acres Habitat 

0.5 1.3 0.5 1.3 0.5 1.3 0.5 1.3 

Nesting/

Roosting 

297 223 2 74 

(13 

FMZ)

0.5 

(1 

landing)

0.5 

(1 

landing)

296.5 222.5 

Foraging 166 2005 46 416 (93 

FMZ) 

0 129 

(12 

landings)

166 1876 

Dispersal 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 

Qualitative Changes to Habitat At Spatial Scales Identified Above

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

very well known (Pilliod et al. 2006). In addition to the quantity of habitat affected by treatments 

proposed in alternative 4, the quality of the available nesting/roosting and foraging habitat 

available to northern spotted owls would also be altered. Several different thin-from-below 

prescriptions would be utilized in alternative 4, and the effects to NSO habitat and primary 

constituent elements would vary. 

Moderate to heavy variable thinning from below white fir, ponderosa pine, and mixed conifer 

stands would downgrade and remove NSO foraging habitat to dispersal habitat. The density of 

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

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

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

largest and healthiest trees would remain in a patchy clumpy variable pattern with small gaps and 

some openings ranging in size from 0.25 to 1 acre. A reduction in canopy cover and tree density 

would be expected to cause a shift in prey species home ranges. The reduction in canopy would 

be expected to increase botanical biodiversity in the understory and at ground level. With the 

increase in amount of herbaceous and shrub growth, there should also be an increase in number 

and type of prey species available to northern spotted owls. Reduction of canopy cover may 

increase the risk of predation to northern spotted owls. These effects would diminish over time as 

the canopy gradually closed. 

Light thinning from below in white fir, ponderosa pine, and red fir stands would degrade nesting, 

roosting, and foraging habitat of northern spotted owls. Some vertical and horizontal structure 

would be reduced when less than 20 inch DBH understory trees are removed. By stand average, 

basal area would range between 160 and 200. Between 106 and 163 trees per acre would remain 

with a 15- to 25-foot spacing where they exist. Canopy cover would be at 60 percent where that 

amount or more currently exists. A reduction in the number of smaller trees in the understory 

would reduce competition for nutrients, light, and water, and increase the growth and size of the 

largest remaining healthy trees contributing to the development of late-successional stand 

conditions over time. Light thinning from below would maintain northern spotted owl habitat in 

the project area in the short and long term. 

Light plantation thinning in white fir, ponderosa pine, and red fir stands would remove smaller 

trees generally less than 12 inches DBH. Tree spacing would range between 20 and 40 feet. On 

stand average, basal area would range between 69 and 176. Trees per acre would range between 
Hi-Grouse Biological Assessment Alternative 4 

27 

72 and 163. Light plantation thinning would maintain northern spotted owl habitat in the project 

area in the short and long term. 

Underburning following thinning conducted in the fall of the year would result in some amount of 

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

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

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

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

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

material may affect the prey base of northern spotted owls in the short term. Underburning would 

be expected to increase understory structural complexity and habitat heterogeneity by stimulating 

shrub and plant (re)growth which would be beneficial to foraging northern spotted owls and their 

prey species. 

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 that are 

important stand attributes of healthy forests and critical components of wildlife and invertebrate 

habitat (Pilliod et al. 2006). Within treated areas, a few snags would be felled for safety reasons 

and a few would be knocked over during thinning processes. A few snags would be removed 

during temporary road building, and within fuel management zones. Some of the largest standing 

trees would not be affected by treatments and would provide future snag and large woody debris. 

Treatments that affect the number of snags and amount of down woody material may affect prey 

species and foraging opportunities of northern spotted owls. 

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, KNF LRMP snag and down woody material standards and 

guides would be met across the project area. Existing numbers of snags and amounts of down 

woody debris would remain across 47 percent of the project area. Snag numbers and down 

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

and down woody material project design features would also ensure that this important primary 

constituent element is well distributed and maintained across northern spotted owl habitat within 

the project area. Gradually, as insects and diseases continue to kill trees in untreated areas, the 

number of snags and amount of down woody material would be expected to increase. 

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

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

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

underburning treatments proposed with alternative 4 should benefit spotted owls 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 KL-3201 home range. 

Fuel Management Zones. Small tree thinning and/or removal, pruning, mastication of brush and 

hand or machine piling and burning of fuel concentrations up to 150 feet along both sides of 
Hi-Grouse Biological Assessment Alternative 4 

28 

major road corridors may temporarily disturb or displace owls from the habitat. 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 northern spotted owl using habitat within the vicinity of the equipment/operation. 

Machine mowing and piling may remove components of NSO prey species habitat causing shift 

in prey species home ranges and reduce their abundance in treatment units during the short term. 

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

cause noise and potential temporary disturbance to a northern spotted owl using habitat within the 

vicinity of the road(s). 

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

small down woody debris would temporarily shift habitat for prey species of northern spotted 

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

temporarily disturb or displace a northern spotted owl from the vicinity. Underburning or pile 

burning would eventually be conducted and eliminate lopped and scattered material and hand 

piles. 

Landings. Northern spotted owls utilizing habitat adjacent to landings could be disturbed or 

displaced during the development and/or use of existing and new landings. 

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

adverse effects on wildlife or surrounding plants, invertebrates, or microorganisms (Dost et al. 

1996). 

Effects of Alternative 4 to Critical Habitat. 

Table 23 shows the acres of nesting/roosting and foraging habitats in units that would be 

degraded following treatments proposed in alternative 4. Degraded nesting, roosting or foraging 

habitat would remain nesting, roosting or foraging habitat. 

Table 23. Acres of nesting/roosting and foraging habitat degraded in alternative 4 within Critical 

Habitat Sub-unit 67. 

Habitat Unit Number Prescription Type Acres 

Nesting/Roosting 30 PCT2-NGH 10 

41 PCT2-OG-RF 4 

Total Nesting/Roosting Degraded 14 

Foraging 24 HTH-WF-PP-lite-NSO 37 

25b HTH-WF-PP-lite-NGH 22 

29 HTH-WF-PP-lite-NGH 36 

30 PCT2-NGH 35 

35b HTH-RF-lite 52 

37 PCT2-OG-RF 96 

Total Foraging Degraded 278 

The following is a discussion of the effects of the proposed action on NSO critical habitat by 

treatment type. 
Hi-Grouse Biological Assessment Alternative 4 

29 

Thinning From Below. The removal of conifers within critical habitat will remove trees that 

currently contribute to the structural elements of nesting/roosting and foraging habitat; however, 

the effects to habitat as a result of thinning are expected to maintain habitat as classified pretreatment. Thinning treatments would degrade a total of 292 acres (reference table 23) which is 

22 percent of the suitable NSO habitat in the Critical Habitat Sub-unit. 

Primary constituent elements associated with NSO critical habitat are located within treatments 

units. Hazard trees may be removed where they present a concern for safety. KNF Hazard Tree 

Guidelines will be followed for this project. Any large diameter snags deemed a hazard will be 

felled and left on site as need to meet the objects for down woody debris standards and guides. 

The removal of large diameter snags is expected to be minimal and therefore will not result in a 

significant reduction of PCEs associated with NSO critical habitat. 

Lodgepole Pine Thinning/Fuels Reduction. This treatment type is not proposed within NSO 

critical habitat and therefore, will not affect NSO critical habitat. 

Plantation Thinning. The 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. 

Mowing and Piling of Fuels. Mowing and piling of fuels may occur in units post-thinning where 

shrubs, seedlings, and saplings add to fire threats. Mowing and piling, with subsequent pile 

burning, may remove components of NSO prey species habitat causing shift in prey species home 

ranges and reduce their abundance in treatment units during the short term. Shifting of prey 

species home ranges and reduced abundance for a short period of time following treatment, may 

affect the ability of NSOs to forage within treatment units. Because of retention clumps within 

units and no treatments areas between units, the effect of mowing and piling on the ability of 

NSOs to forage is expected to be minimal. 

Underburning and Pile Burning. Underburning is not proposed within NSO critical habitat and 

will therefore have no effect to NSO critical habitat. Pile burning may occur within NSO critical 

habitat; disturbance to NSOs from smoke will be managed through the use of seasonal restrictions 

such that nesting NSOs and unsurveyed suitable are not affected. 

Fuel Management Zone. Fuel Management Zone (FMZ) treatments are associated with roads 

within the project area and are linear in nature; FMZs will limited to the area within 150’ of either 

side of roads. Treatments within the FMZ will remove components of NSO prey habitat. The 

removal of down woody debris and understory vegetation may result in short term shifts to prey 

species home ranges. FMZ treatments will degrade 13 acres of nesting and /roosting habitat and 

62 acres of foraging habitat (outside units). The characteristics of NSO nesting, roosting and 

foraging habitat will be retained post-treatment. Due to the number of acres and spatial 

arrangement of the treatments the effects of this treatment would not be expected to significantly 

impact primary constituent elements associated with NSO critical habitat. 

Roads. Within NSO critical habitat only KNF systems are proposed for use. There are no new 

temporary roads or non-system proposed for use within NSO critical habitat; therefore, no effects 

to NSO critical habitat are expected. 

Landings. There are seven existing landings within Critical Habitat. Four additional half-acre 

landings would be developed. A half an acre of nesting/roosting habitat and 1.5 acres of foraging 

habitat would be removed during the development of these landings within Critical Habitat Sub-
Hi-Grouse Biological Assessment Alternative 4 

30 

unit 67. The creation of new landings is not expected to significantly affect the PCEs associated 

with NSO critical habitat. 

Cumulative Effects 

No State or private lands or other Critical habitat subunits occur within 1.3 miles of NSO habitat 

proposed for treatment in alternative 4 of the Hi-Grouse Project (see map 3, end of document). 

Therefore, there would be no cumulative effects. 

Determination of Effects and Rationale 

Northern Spotted Owl 

Alternative 4 would have a short term negative effect on the quantity and quality of northern 

spotted owl habitat across less than 2,500 acres of the 7,451acre project area. 

Alternative 4 would not alter existing late successional old growth habitat conditions in the 

Badger Basin-Willow Creek 5th field watershed. 

Alternative 4 would maintain dispersal/connectivity habitat at or above 50 percent across all of 

the six quarter townships. 

Actions proposed in alternative 4 across the project area would: 

 Degrade 78 acres of nesting and roosting habitat and remove 0.5 acre of nesting/roosting 

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

the same. 

 Degrade 703 acres of foraging habitat and remove about 1,704.5 acres of foraging habitat. 

The amount of foraging habitat available to NSO would decrease. 

 Remove 8.5 acres of dispersal habitat. 

 The amount of non-habitat would increase by about 1,713 acres due to the removal of 

foraging and dispersal habitat.. 

Alternative 4 would not alter habitat conditions in LSR#5297. 

Actions proposed in alternative 4 in the KL-3201 Activity Center Core would: 

 Degrade 2 acres of nesting and roosting habitat and remove 0.5 acres of nesting and roosting 

habitat. 

 Degrade 46 acres of foraging habitat. 

Alternative 4 actions proposed in KL-3201 Home Range would: 

 Degrade 74 acres of nesting and roosting and remove 0.5 acres of nesting and roosting. 

 Degrade 416 acres of foraging habitat and remove 129 acres of foraging habitat. 

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

retention values. 

Therefore: Alternative 4 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 
Hi-Grouse Biological Assessment Alternative 4 

31 

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 Unit 29, Sub-unit 67 

High quality habitat within Critical Habitat Unit 29, sub-unit 67, is limited. Alternative 4 would 

negatively affect the primary constituent elements available to northern spotted owls within 

Critical Habitat sub-unit 67 in the short term. 

Alternative 4 would degrade 27 acres of nesting and roosting habitat and remove a half an acre of 

nesting and roosting habitat within Critical Habitat sub-unit 67. The amount of nesting and 

roosting habitat available to NSO within Critical Habitat sub-unit 67 would remain essentially the 

same. 

Alternative 4 would degrade 340 acres of foraging habitat and would remove 1.5 acres of 

foraging habitat. 

There will be no cumulative effects to northern spotted owl Critical Habitat as a result of 

alternative 4. 

Therefore: Actions proposed in alternative 4 may affect, and is not likely to adversely affect

NSO critical habitat.

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

and Plans 

Alternative 4 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 Alternative 4 

32 

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

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

USDA Forest Service Regions 5 and 6. 

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. 

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

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

General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-173, USDA-Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station, Fort Collins, CO. 34 p. 

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 Alternative 4 

33 

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 (USDA)-Forest Service. 2009. Hi-Grouse Project draft 

environmental impact statement. Pacific Southwest Region 5, Klamath National Forest, 

Goosenest Ranger District, Siskiyou County California. 

USDA-Forest Service. 1994. Klamath National Forest land and resource management plan. 

Pacific Southwest Region 5, Klamath National Forest. 

USDA-Forest Service. 1996. Goosenest Adaptive Management Area ecosystem analysis. Pacific 

Southwest Region, Klamath National Forest, Goosenest Ranger District. 

USDA-Forest Service. 2002. Wildlife and federally listed plants, threatened, endangered, and 

sensitive species reference document. 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. 

USDA-Forest Service and U.S. Department of Interior (USDI)-Bureau of Land Management. 

1994. Record of decision for amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land 

Management planning documents within the range of the northern spotted owl (known as 

the Northwest Forest Plan.) 

USDI-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. 

USDI-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 Alternative 4 

34 

Appendix A: Hi-Grouse Project Prescriptions 

These prescriptions are for development of the proposed action and other alternatives, and are 

assigned to the GIS layer of potential units. The interdisciplinary team, district staff, and district 

ranger determined acres and spatial location of final units, and specific modifications to these 

prescriptions, which were developed with the purpose and need and preliminary district 

prescriptions in mind. 

Stand exams and field reconnaissance were the basis of the diagnosis of the stand and how it 

could be treated to meet the desired condition. Treatment options have been field verified. A field 

trip to the site with forest health staff from Reddi ng confirmed the presence of suspected insect 

and disease agents, most notably annosus root disease, dwarf mistletoes, and mountain pine 

beetle. In many stands, an intermediate treatment is not an option due to the almost exclusive 

dominance of white fir on what were historically pine-dominated sites—the removal of the pine 

and larger white fir has left diseased stands in these cases that would not meet the desired future 

condition in the long term. In relation to late-successional habitat, the absence or scarcity of large 

ponderosa pine and large white fir with large limbs and long full crowns, which provide nesting 

structure, is a consideration in all of these prescriptions, since one of the reasons for establishing 

this AMA was to allow development of methods to foster the replacement of this type of historic 

forest structure. In all treatments, the largest ponderosa pine and white fir will be left. In 

prescriptions that involve removing substantial amounts of true fir, the following elements will be 

retained: essentially all ponderosa pine/sugar pine/white pine, individuals, and clumps of predominant true fir, widely spaced true fir, and no-treatment clumps. 

Unit numbers refer to the proposed action, alternative 2. Some prescriptions are specific to 

alternative 3, and some prescriptions are not found in alternatives 3 and 4. 

Silvicultural Prescriptions—Terms 

HTH ~ thinning for sawlogs and fiber; in most cases expected to cover costs of product removal 

and provide net timber receipts. 

PPR, PRE, MCR ~ heavy thinning to promote re-establishment of ponderosa pine and mixed 

conifer species composition and structure. In most cases expected to cover costs of product 

removal and provide net timber receipts. 

PCT2 ~ thinning of trees generally less than 12 inches dbh in natural stands; could yield biomass 

or other products and minor amounts of sawlogs; 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. 
Hi-Grouse Biological Assessment Alternative 4 

35 

NSO ~ NSO. 

Annosus root disease (Heterbasidion assosum) ~ S-type of disease affects WF but not PP. 

Biodiversity Elements 

1. No-Treatment Clumps: areas ranging from 1⁄4 to several acres in size left un-thinned to 

provide biodiversity. 

2. Openings/Gaps: areas ranging from 1⁄4 to an acre in size where most trees are removed to 

provide biodiversity. Predominant trees, ponderosa/sugar/white pine, snags, and down 

logs will be left within gaps. If the previous elements do not exist, then one or two 

dominant true firs will be left- they will not be clearcuts. In pine/mixed conifer 

restoration-re-establishment treatments these openings will be planted along with the rest 

of the unit, while in thinnings they will not be planted. 

3. Predominant ponderosa/sugar/white pines and predominant true firs will be left to 

provide nesting structure and biodiversity. 

Table A-1. Summary of treatment groupings 

Treatments Prescriptions Terms 

Thinning from Below HTH, PCT2 

Ponderosa Pine/Mixed Conifer Restoration and Re-establishment PPR, PRE, MCR, PRE2 

Lodgepole Pine Thinning/Fuels Reduction HTH-LP, LPFR 

Plantation Thinning PCT 

Overall Fuels Abatement LTA, SMR, HP, MP, M, 

Bundle/LS 

Underburning Only UB 

HTH-PP: Units 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 

This prescription will be applied to stands in the white fir/pine type that have a significant 

component of ponderosa pine, i.e., current stocking averages at least 80 square feet of basal area 

per acre (BA). The target stand would have a residual basal area in the ponderosa pine aggregates 

of 80 BA (square feet basal area per acre), ranging from 40 to 100 BA, and would be dominated 

by the largest, healthiest ponderosa, with older white fir where they provide decadent-tree habitat. 

More open areas of pine will be thinned to 40 to 60 BA, while denser areas will be thinned to 80 

to 100 BA, which would keep the residual stand from becoming “homogenized” at all the same 

density and re-create structural patchiness that has been lost after early logging. White fir 

aggregates outside of clumps that are disease-free will be thinned to 100 to 140 BA to create 

spatial heterogeneity, and all white fir and ponderosa pine predominant trees will be left. The 

emphasis is on leaving the largest pines regardless of spacing, including leaving clumps of larger 

trees while removing smaller trees within 40 feet. 

The addition of no-treatment clumps and small gaps would also add to the diversity. No-treatment 

clumps will be left in up to 10 percent of the unit, with emphasis on areas dominated by white fir. 

Openings of 1⁄4 to 1 acres could be created in white fir disease centers and uniform pine 

aggregates in up to 10 percent of the unit area. Planting of pine will not occur in the gaps created 

by this prescription in order to mimic the open “clumpy” structure of the historic pine-dominated 

forest. Sporax® will be applied to ponderosa cut pine stumps in accordance with regional 

guidelines. Underburning will occur after fuels treatments are completed. 
Hi-Grouse Biological Assessment Alternative 4 

36 

HTH-PP-lite 

This prescription modifies the HTH-PP prescription for alternative 3 to leave approximately 130 

BA (120 to 140 BA) and 40 percent canopy cover where that amount or more currently exists. 

There will be a 20 inch dbh limit on trees cut, and understory trees will be thinned to a 15 to 25 

foot spacing where they exist. 

HTH-WF-PP: Units 19, 21a, 22 

These stands are dominated by dense 8 to 20 inch dbh relatively healthy white fir with a fairly 

consistent component of ponderosa pine that is experiencing substantial mortality from the 

mountain pine beetle. The objectives are to reduce density, promote the remaining pine, and 

increase spatial variability. White fir aggregates will be thinned to 120 to 140 BA; white fir will 

be spaced 30 to 40 feet from pine clumps or individual dominant and co-dominant trees, to allow 

for these trees to increase resistance to beetle attack. 

The addition of no-treatment clumps and small gaps would also add to the diversity. No-treatment 

clumps will be left in up to 10 percent of the unit, with emphasis on areas dominated by white fir. 

Openings of 1⁄4 to 1 acres could be created in white fir disease centers in up to 10 percent of the 

unit area. Planting of pine will not occur in the gaps created by this prescription in order to mimic 

the open “clumpy” structure of the historic pine forest. 

Due to the dominance of white fir in the residual stand, underburning will not take place after 

mechanical fuels treatments are completed, except in Unit 21a. The fuels emphasis will be on 

whole-tree yarding (removing tops) in all units, and piling and burning of natural fuels 

accumulations where necessary. Sporax® will be applied to cut white fir and ponderosa pine 

stumps in accordance with regional guidelines. 

HTH-WF-PP-lite 

This prescription modifies the HTH-WF-PP prescription for alternative 3 to leave approximately 

180 BA (160 to 200 BA) and 60 percent canopy cover where that amount or more currently 

exists. There will be a 20 inch dbh limit on trees cut, and understory trees will be thinned to a 15 

to 25 foot spacing where they exist. There will be no created openings. 

HTH-WF-PP-lite-NGH: Units 23, 25b, 29 

This prescription modifies the HTH-WF-PP prescription to leave approximately 180 BA (160 to 

200 BA) and 60 percent canopy cover where that amount or more currently exists. There will be a 

20 inch dbh limit on trees cut. Understory trees will be reduced to healthy ponderosa pine and 

white fir where they exist, focusing on future replacement trees to the overstory. There will be no 

created openings. 

This treatment will use thinning from below in NGH habitat designed to maintain and promote 

habitat for nesting. Trees removed will generally be 12 inch dbh and smaller. The primary 

objectives of this treatment would be to reduce stand density in order to help maintain the 

ponderosa pine component, reduce ladder fuels, and provide future habitat structure in the stand. 

Due to the dominance of white fir in the residual stand, underburning will not take place after 

mechanical fuels treatments are completed. The fuels emphasis will be on removing tops and 

piling and burning of natural fuels accumulations where needed. Sporax® will be applied to cut 

white fir and ponderosa pine stumps in accordance with regional guidelines. 
Hi-Grouse Biological Assessment Alternative 4 

37 

HTH-WF-PP-lite-NSO: Units 16, 24 

This prescription modifies the HTH-WF-PP prescription to leave approximately 180 BA (160 to 

200 BA) and 60 percent canopy cover where that amount or more currently exists. There will be a 

20 inch dbh limit on trees cut, and understory trees will be thinned to a 15 to 25 foot spacing 

where they exist. There will be no created openings. 

Same stand type as HTH-WF-PP, but objective for spotted owl habitat would lead to cutting trees 

generally 12 inches dbh and smaller. The primary objectives of this treatment would be to reduce 

stand density in order to help maintain the ponderosa pine component, reduce ladder fuels, and 

maintain habitat structure in the stand. 

Due to the dominance of white fir in the residual stand, underburning will not take place after 

mechanical fuels treatments are completed. The fuels emphasis will be on whole-tree yarding 

(removing tops) and piling and burning of natural fuels accumulations where needed. Sporax® 

will be applied to cut white fir and ponderosa pine stumps in accordance with regional guidelines. 

HTH-PP-Hvy: Units 3, 10, 11, 20, 45a 

This prescription will be applied to stands in the white fir/pine type that are heavily diseased and 

that have a modest component of ponderosa pine, i.e., current stocking averages at least 50 BA. 

White fir in these stands is heavily infected with annosus root disease, and dwarf mistletoe in 

association with cytospora canker. Essentially all ponderosa pine will be left, except in areas of 

dense pine where trees would be thinned down to 80 BA. The target stand will have a residual 

basal area in the ponderosa pine aggregates of 40 to 80 BA (square feet basal area per acre) and 

would be dominated by the largest, healthiest ponderosa, and with older white fir where they 

provide characteristics that mimic old-growth habitat. 

In areas devoid of pine, clumps of white fir will be left to retain a high short-term canopy cover 

and coarse woody debris (up to 15 percent of unit where amount exists). Outside the clumps, 

other patches of white fir will be thinned to 40 to 60 BA to allow pine regeneration to become 

established. Where ponderosa pine is present, the emphasis will be on leaving the largest pines 

regardless of spacing, including leaving clumps of dominant/co-dominant trees while removing 

smaller trees within 40 feet. Openings of 1⁄4 to 1 acre could be created in white fir disease centers 

in up to 15 percent of the unit area. Pine generally would not be planted in the gaps created by 

this prescription in order to mimic the open “clumpy” structure of the historic pine forest, but 

units will be evaluated post-treatment for planting. After mechanical fuels treatments are 

completed, the stand will be underurned. Sporax® will be applied to cut ponderosa pine stumps 

in accordance with regional guidelines. 

PPR-Ponderosa Pine Restoration: Units 15, 21c, 25a, 45b 

The stands in the white fir/pine type with this prescription are heavily dominated by diseased 

white fir without a consistent and common ponderosa pine component. The ponderosa pine 

typically averages less than 40 BA in various size classes, from large diameter, orange-bark trees 

within the fir, to scattered or clumpy saplings and poles. Annosus root disease and dwarf mistletoe 

infection/cytospora canker in white fir would prevent these stands from persisting to a late seral 

condition. Therefore, in order to perpetuate and develop the potential large-tree ponderosa pine 

component, this prescription will thin heavily through white fir (40-60 BA), while leaving larger 

trees with characteristics that mimic old-growth habitat (predominants) and clumps of white fir 

which are generally devoid of pine (up to 15 percent of unit). Openings of 1⁄4 to 1 acres could be 
Hi-Grouse Biological Assessment Alternative 4 

38 

created in white fir disease centers in up to 15 percent of the unit area. Spacing of the white fir 

from annosus-resistant species will be 60 feet. Thinning from below will occur in areas with pine 

stocking greater than 80 BA. 

Underburning will take after fuels treatments are completed. Depending on site conditions, 

ponderosa pine, or mixtures of ponderosa pine, rust-resistant sugar pine could be planted in the 

openings between residual overstory and under the heavily thinned white fir after the site is 

under-burned. Sporax® will be applied to cut ponderosa pine stumps in accordance with regional 

guidelines. 

PRE- Ponderosa Pine Re-establishment: Units 8, 14, 49, 51, 54 

These stands contain white fir heavily infected with annosus root disease and dwarf mistletoe 

infection/cytospora canker and have only minor amounts of ponderosa pine. The main objective 

is to re-establish pine on these sites (unaffected by annosus root disease in WF) while retaining 

some short-term canopy cover. Thinning would leave the largest white fir and all ponderosa pine, 

while reducing the basal area to 40 to 60 BA in an irregular fashion. Clumps of untreated white fir 

will be left in up to 15 percent of the unit area. Openings of 1⁄4 to 1 acres could be created in white 

fir disease centers in up to 15 percent of the unit area. 

Due to the dominance of white fir in the residual stand, use of underburning will be evaluated 

after mechanical fuels treatments are completed. The emphasis would be on whole-tree yarding 

(removing tops) and piling and burning of natural fuels accumulations where necessary. Planting 

of widely-spaced ponderosa pine and rust-resistant sugar pine will occur outside of no-treatment 

clumps after fuels treatments are completed. Sporax® will not be applied in these units. 

PRE2-Ponderosa Pine Re-establishment 2: Units 26, 40, 50, 61, 62, 63, 66 

These stands are old overstory removal units that are mainly composed of heavily diseased white 

fir in dense clumps. The objectives are the same as for PRE above, but residual trees would be 

generally smaller due to the smaller average tree diameter. Ponderosa pine, red fir and lodgepole 

would be the preferred species to leave on a 20- to 40-foot spacing, depending on the amount of 

white fir in the stand. Up to 10 percent of the unit will be left in untreated clumps. These will 

mostly be biomass removal treatments. 

Underburning will not take place due to the dominance of white fir in the post-treatment stand 

and smaller diameters of leave trees. Widely-spaced ponderosa pine and rust-resistant sugar pine 

could be planted outside of no-treatment clumps after fuels treatments are completed. Sporax® 

will not be applied in these units. 

HTH-RF: Unit 35b 

Stands dominated by Shasta red fir will be thinned by retaining 100 BA of red fir, ponderosa pine, 

and younger age classes of lodgepole pine. All trees (except pine) will be removed within 30 feet 

of dominant and co-dominant ponderosa pine to promote large tree development and spatial 

diversity. Areas with a modest component of Shasta red fir and ponderosa pine will be thinned by 

retaining 60 to 100 BA of red fir, ponderosa pine, and younger age classes of lodgepole pine. Notreatment clumps will be left in up to 10 percent of the unit, with emphasis on areas dominated by 

true fir. Openings of 1⁄4 to 1 acres could be created in true fir/lodgepole disease centers in up to 10 

percent of the unit area. Underburning will not take place due to the high incidence of true fir. 

Sporax® will be applied to cut true fir stumps in accordance with regional guidelines. 
Hi-Grouse Biological Assessment Alternative 4 

39 

HTH-RF-lite 

This prescription modifies the HTH-RF prescription in alternatives 3 and 4 to leave 

approximately 180 BA (160 to 200 BA) and 60 percent canopy cover where that amount or more 

currently exists. There will be a 20 inch dbh limit on trees cut, and understory trees will be 

thinned to a 15- to 25-foot spacing where they exist, favoring ponderosa pine, red fir, and 

lodgepole. There will be no created openings. 

HTH-MC-Hvy: Units 18, 28, 35a 

Species composition in these stands consists of white fir-red fir, ponderosa pine, and lodgepole 

pine. The true fir is showing the signs of the common diseases in this area. Stands with this 

prescription have varying amounts of live ponderosa pine to leave in the residual stand in 

thinning from below. Target basal area will be 80 BA, but may be as low as 50 BA and 

occasionally lower in areas with less pine stocking and disease occurrence. As in all thinning 

treatments, non-uniformity of the residual stand would be encouraged by focusing on leaving the 

largest, healthiest pine, including leaving clumps of larger trees and removing all trees within 40 

feet of the clump. Smaller diameter lodgepole would be the second choice for a leave tree. 

In areas devoid of pine, clumps of true fir will be left to retain a high short-term canopy cover and 

coarse wood (up to 15 percent of unit where amount exists). Outside the clumps, other patches of 

true fir will be thinned to 40 to 60 BA to allow pine regeneration. Where ponderosa pine is 

present, the emphasis would be on leaving the largest pines regardless of spacing. Openings of 1⁄4 

to 1 acres could be created in true fir/lodgepole disease centers in up to 15 percent of the unit 

area. Pine would not be planted in the gaps created by this prescription in order to create an open 

“clumpy” structure. However, areas of thinned true fir without residual pine will be evaluated 

post-treatment for planting. Underburning will take place after mechanical fuels treatments are 

completed. Sporax® will be applied to cut true fir stumps in accordance with regional guidelines. 

HTH-MC-lite: Units 34, 65a, 65b, 65c 

This prescription modifies the HTH-MC-HVY prescription to leave approximately 140 BA (120 

to 160 BA) and 40 percent canopy cover where that amount or more currently exists. There will 

be a 20 inch dbh limit on trees cut, and understory trees will be thinned to a 15- to 25-foot 

spacing where they exist, favoring ponderosa pine, red fir, and lodgepole. 

MCR- Mixed-Conifer Re-establishment: Units 43, 56 

Stands with this prescription have had various partial cuts in the past that removed most of the 

historic ponderosa pine and left mostly true fir and varying amounts of lodgepole. Regeneration 

after these entries has been heavy to lodgepole and true fir. Due to the creation of large stumps in 

the fir, annosus root disease is now prevalent. 

The objective is to restore a mixed species composition and allow the root disease to return to 

endemic levels over time. The healthiest and largest trees will be left in thinning to 60 BA, with 

true fir, essentially all ponderosa pine, and healthy pole-sized lodgepole being left. No-treatment 

clumps will be left in up to 15 percent of the unit, and openings of 1⁄4 to 1 acre could be created 

over 15 percent of the area. 

Planting of widely-spaced ponderosa pine and rust-resistant sugar pine and western white pine 

will occur outside of no-treatment clumps after fuels treatments are completed, in order to 

increase their numbers in the future stand. Underburning will not be done due to the high 
Hi-Grouse Biological Assessment Alternative 4 

40 

percentage of true fir/lodgepole residuals. Sporax® will be applied to cut true fir stumps in 

accordance with regional guidelines. 

PCT2-MC 

The treatment involves thinning/removal of trees generally 12 inches dbh and less, thinning to a 

20- to 40-foot spacing and emphasizing retention of pines where possible (designation by 

spacing, leave all pines). No openings or planting will occur. No-treatment clumps will be left in 

up to 15 percent of the unit. Underburning will not take place due to post-treatment stand being 

dominated by small diameter true fir. Sporax® will be applied to cut true fir stumps in accordance 

with regional guidelines. 

PCT2-NGH: Unit 30 

The objective here is to thin the understory to maintain and promote NGH nesting/foraging 

habitat over time. Understory thinning involves mainly thinning/removal of true firs 12 inches 

dbh and smaller by thinning to a 20- to 30-foot spacing (designation by spacing, leave all pines). 

No-treatment clumps will be left in up to 15 percent of the unit. Underburning will not take place 

due to post-treatment stand being dominated by small diameter true fir. Sporax® will be applied 

to cut true fir stumps in accordance with regional guidelines. 

PCT2: Units 9, 17, 21b, 53b, 59 

This treatment will consist of thinning in old overstory removal units and other natural stands. 

Objectives are to reduce fire hazard, manage stand density, reduce dwarf mistletoes, and promote 

pines and red fir in the species composition. Tree spacing will average 20 to 25 feet, but would be 

variable. No-treatment clumps will be left in up to 15 percent of the unit. Underburning will not 

take place due to small residual tree diameters. Sporax® will not be applied due to the small cut 

tree diameters. 

PCT2-OGRF- Old-growth Red Fir: Units 37, 41 

This treatment consists of small tree thinning in the understory of old-growth red fir-sugar pineponderosa pine stands with a dense red fir understory. Objectives are to reduce fire hazard and 

stress on overstory trees to maintain these legacy stands. The treatment will consist of hand piling 

of cut trees which will be generally less than 8 inches dbh. Tree spacing will be based on 

proximity to overstory old-growth trees and need for replacement trees. No-treatment clumps will 

be left in up to 15 percent of the unit. In alternative 2 and 3, underburning to re-introduce fire into 

a mixed-severity fire regime will occur after hand-piling and burning treatments. Sporax® will 

not be applied due to the small cut tree diameters. 

HTH-LP: Units 12a, 13 

This prescription is for mature lodgepole pine that is mostly dead from the effects of mountain 

pine beetle over the last 10 years. A large portion of this mortality is now on the ground, creating 

jack-straw fuel beds intermixed with brush and regenerating lodgepole pine, white fir, and some 

ponderosa pine. The lodgepole understory is generally not manageable due to the extremely high 

incidence of dwarf mistletoe and western gall rust. The small amount of surviving overstory 

lodgepole would probably not represent a commercial entry, but some sawlog and biomass 

recovery is possible. Removal of utilizable dead and diseased green trees, grapple piling of heavy 

down fuels, and mastication of lodgepole understory in conjunction with release of suitable white 

fir and ponderosa pine will occur. End result would be an open pole-sized stand with a few 
Hi-Grouse Biological Assessment Alternative 4 

41 

remaining overstory trees (mistletoe-free) which would develop over time into a mixed species 

stand still dominated by lodgepole, but with other longer-lived species also occupying the site. 

No-treatment clumps will be left in up to 10 percent of the unit. Sporax® will not be applied due 

to the small cut tree diameters, and cutting primarily of lodgepole. 

LPFR-Lodgepole Fuel Reduction: Unit 12b 

This treatment re-enters the old fuel break in lodgepole pine along Road 15. Residual mistletoeinfested lodgepole and snags will be removed, and the sapling-pole stand thinned to a wide 

spacing to reduce the amount of mistletoe in the stand. Mastication of brush and machine piling 

will be done as needed. 

PCT 

Small tree thinning in old regeneration harvest units; residual tree spacing will be 15 to 20 feet. 

Fuels Prescriptions 

Fuels prescriptions were developed with the purpose and need in mind of restoring the historical 

role of fire in this area. Mechanical treatments will often be necessary during this first entry to 

remove fuel buildups from the missing of several fire cycles and the generation of slash from past 

overstory removal treatments and pre-commercial thinning. In the historic pine-dominated types, 

species composition is also currently very disadvantageous to re-introduction of fire, while in the 

lodgepole type fuel loadings are approaching maximum potential levels due to mountain pine 

beetle activity. 

To allow the most flexibility during implementation, all appropriate options have been identified; 

but not every option would be required in every case. For example, during post-thinning fuels 

surveys it may become obvious that grapple or machine piling is not necessary because natural 

fuels have become crushed and no longer represent as great a hazard. 

Fuel Management Zones 

This treatment was identified along major road corridors and certain access roads for fire control. 

Treatments will consist of small tree thinning and/or removal, pruning, mastication of brush, and 

hand or machine piling and burning of fuels concentrations. Treatments will generally extend up 

to 150 feet either side of the road. 

Fuel Abatement Treatments Defined 

Biomass Removal. Trees (generally less than 12 inch dbh) will be removed in thinning 

operations to reduce the potential of crown fire, improve species composition, and reduce 

competition. Small diameter tree boles may be processed into bundles and removed. 

HP-Hand Piling. Piling and burning of slash and tree stems generated by the thinning or slashing 

of small diameter trees, generally less than 8 inches dbh, by hand crews. Burning of piles will 

take place under appropriate meteorological conditions. 

LTA-Leave Tops Attached to Last Log (whole-tree yarding, yarding tops). In all commercial 

treatments (including chip/saw or biomass), tops will be required to be yarded to landings for 

disposal by burning or removal as biomass. Normally this would be done with whole-tree yarding 

where a feller-buncher/grapple skidder logging system is employed. If a cut-to-length system is 
Hi-Grouse Biological Assessment Alternative 4 

42 

employed, trees would be processed on processor trails, with subsequent machine piling along 

trails. This treatment would be financed through the timber sale or stewardship contract.

Lopping and Scattering. This method will be used primarily to treat slash generated in thinning 

of plantations. Objective will be to reduce height and continuity of fuels and promote faster 

decomposition. It is not anticipated that this method will be used often since mechanical removal 

of thinned trees by bundling and skidding to landings for use as biomass would be the preferred 

method. In areas that are inaccessible or unsafe for mechanized equipment, this treatment is an 

alternative.

MP-Grapple Piling/Machine Piling. Piling of small trees, treatment slash, and natural fuels 

accumulations using a track-mounted excavator-type of machine with a boom-mounted grapple 

arm, or a small machine (example ASV) with a brush-type (toothed) blade. This applies in units 

with heavy accumulations of either natural or past treatment-generated fuels where hand piling 

would be cost-prohibitive. Piling will be done from existing skid trails wherever possible, and the 

machine picks up the slash and places it into piles, or makes only one pass off-trail. Due to the 

types of machines used and the lack of multiple machine passes over the same ground, little or no 

detrimental soil disturbance is expected to result from these treatments if they are conducted 

during proper site conditions. It is expected that this treatment would be needed on approximately 

25 percent of the area of units where it is prescribed. Piles will be burned under appropriate 

meteorological conditions. Funding would be outside of the timber sale contract. 

M-Mowing. Shrubs, seedlings and saplings will be mowed where they are major determinant to 

fire behavior. Lodgepole stands that are now dominated by small trees will also be mowed. 

Objectives will be to reduce shrub density and height and density of small trees to modify fire 

behavior. 

Piling and Burning. Following thinning, piling and burning by hand or mechanical methods 

would be used in fuels treatment corridors or where post-treatment fuels present a fire hazard or 

may lead to difficulty carrying out prescribed underburning. This method will not often be 

needed, since whole-tree yarding will minimize treatment-generated fuels. Hand piling and 

burning of slash and tree stems generated by the thinning or slashing of small diameter trees, 

generally less than 8 inches dbh, would be done by hand crews. Machine methods will involve 

piling of small trees, treatment slash, and natural fuels accumulations using a track-mounted 

excavator-type of machine with a boom-mounted grapple arm, or a small machine (example 

ASV) with a brush-type (toothed) blade. This will only apply in units with heavy accumulations 

of either natural or past treatment-generated fuels where hand piling would be cost-prohibitive. 

Piling will be done from existing skid trails wherever possible, and the machine would pick up 

the slash and place it into piles, or make only one pass off-trail. Due to the types of machines 

used and the lack of multiple machine passes over the same ground, little or no detrimental soil 

disturbance is expected from these treatments (if conducted during proper site conditions). It is 

expected that this treatment will be needed on approximately 25 percent or less of the area of 

units where it is prescribed. Piles would be burned under appropriate meteorological conditions. 

SMR-Sub-merchantable Tree Removal. Removal of non-sawlog size true firs and lodgepole 

will occur in thinning and pine/mixed-conifer restoration treatments to reduce ladder fuels and 

overall stem density using common “designation by description” clauses. Slashing of trees less 

than 4 inches dbh will occur as needed, most often in thinnings where a follow-up under-burn is 

not prescribed. Smaller trees could be bundled using a bundler machine and skidded to landings. 
Hi-Grouse Biological Assessment Alternative 4 

43 

Underburning. Prescribed fire will be used in varying intensities either as a stand alone or 

following thinning in pine-dominated stands. Prescribed fire will be used under controlled 

situations and favorable weather conditions to reduce surface and ladder fuels. The objectives of 

underburning are to reduce natural fuel loads, past activity slash, shrubs and white fir understory 

trees, while increasing herbaceous species and encouraging pine regeneration. Due to feasibility 

considerations, prescribed underburning treatments will not occur all at once, but incrementally 

throughout the life of the project. Detailed burn plans are prepared for all prescribed fire 

activities. 

Whole-tree Yarding. Tree tops will be moved to the landing for treatment (reoffer as forest byproducts or burning). This treatment will likely involve whole-tree yarding, and would reduce 

fuels levels resulting from operations. 
Hi-Grouse Draft Biological Assessment Alternative 4 

44 

Hi-Grouse Project Maps 

Map 1. Project area location 
Hi-Grouse Draft Biological Assessment Alternative 4 

45 

Map 2. Sub-unit 67 location 
Hi-Grouse Draft Biological Assessment Alternative 4 

47 

Map 4. NSO connectivity habitat within project area quarter townships 
Hi-Grouse Draft Biological Assessment Alternative 4 

48 

Map 5. Current northern spotted owl habitat 
Hi-Grouse Draft Biological Assessment Alternative 4 

49 

Map 6. Northern spotted owl habitat, alternative 4–post treatment 
Hi-Grouse Draft Biological Assessment Alternative 4 

50 

Map 7. Hi-Grouse Project NSO connectivity habitat: alternative 4 within project area quarter townships